The Structure of Challenging Parenting Behavior in Norwegian Parents to Children in Middle Childhood (7

Abstract

Challenging parenting behavior (CPB), which emphasizes playful encouragement to push the child’s limits and controlled exposure to risk, represents a novel approach to parenting. This study aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the Challenging Parenting Behavior Questionnaire 7-12 (CPBQ7-12) in a Norwegian sample, examining relations to parents’ sex and age. Participants were recruited from four elementary schools in Norway through a convenience strategy. The CPBQ7-12 assesses parents’ encouragement of physical and socio-emotional challenges and modeling behavior. We collected and analyzed responses from 344 parents (114 fathers and 230 mothers) of 7 to 10-year-olds. Regression analyses were used to investigate the relation between the total CPB score and the parents’ age and sex. To evaluate the internal consistency and factor structure of the previously proposed theoretical model, Cronbach’s alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were applied. Last, multiple-group CFA invariance evaluation was used to examine the influence of parent sex and age on the model’s factor structures. The results showed that the CPBQ7-12 serves as a reliable tool for assessing CPB in a Norwegian context, with some adjustments. Discrepancies in responses related to respondents’ age and between mothers and fathers suggest actual differences in self-reported CPB. Our model worked differently depending on both the parent’s sex and age, and these factors should be considered when using the CPBQ7-12. Further research should examine the cultural aspects of CPB and its influence on various child outcomes.

Keywords

Challenging parenting behavior middle childhood factor analysis measurement invariance parents’ sex parents’ age

Introduction

Parenting is essential for children’s development and wellbeing, yet a complex phenomenon to scientifically observe and measure. Parents play crucial roles in many aspects of their children’s life, and in this study, we focus on parents’ role in children’s development of exploration and risk taking in middle childhood through the construct of challenging parenting behavior, where parents in playful ways support their children to push her limits (Majdandžić et al., 2016). Studies indicate that children acquire skills and develop risk-coping abilities through engaging in play and activities that involve taking risks, and that such experiences have long-lasting positive effects (Lavrysen et al., 2015; Poulton & Menzies, 2002). Sandseter and Kennair (2011) suggest that the capacity to handle risk is an advantageous evolutionary trait, and research indeed associates outdoor risky play with various positive outcomes for children, including resilience, social skills, physical activity, well-being, and engagement (Brussoni et al., 2015; Sando et al., 2021). In contrast, lack of opportunities to experience autonomy, challenging situations and risk, may increase the likelihood of anxiety and/or lack of coping skills, both in childhood (Affrunti & Ginsburg, 2012; Dodd & Lester, 2021) and in adolescence and adulthood (Gere et al., 2012; Perry et al., 2018). The primary school age is an important period where children in many aspects increase their independence (Marzi & Reimers, 2018).

Despite the growing acknowledgment of the importance of experiencing challenges and risk taking in childhood, there are signs that opportunities for such experiences have been gradually diminishing for children during the past decades (Brussoni et al., 2012; Gundersen et al., 2016; Sandseter & Sando, 2016). Parents limit children’s autonomy out of concern for traffic accidents (Gielen et al., 2004), the possibility of injuries, kidnapping, or minor unpleasantries such as rain or cold conditions (Sandseter et al., 2020).

The Norwegian Context

Children’s upbringing has various cultural or societal dimensions, and typical aspects of any given society might influence how parents relate and behave toward risk and children (Lansford, 2022). Norway is a country in Northern Europe, and Norwegian society and parenting are characterized by several features relevant for children’s play. First, research has indicated that there is a relatively high tolerance toward children’s risk taking and exploration in Norway (Brewer, 2012; Little et al., 2012). There is also a cultural affinity toward encouraging outdoor activities and play (Borge et al., 2003; Nilsen, 2008), even if this is potentially less practiced among parents than expected (Gundersen et al., 2016). Further, Norway is an egalitarian society, both from a general social perspective and in terms of gender. Norway ranks highly on the Global Gender Gap Index (WEF, 2023) which might impact parental roles, attitudes and/or behavior, and parental leave policies probably contribute to a more equitable division of child-rearing responsibilities between men and women (Stewart & Janta, 2018). Social equality, presumed to be embedded in Norwegian society (Skarpenes & Sakslind, 2010), promotes positive aspects such as social cohesion, fairness and cooperation, but can also have negative societal consequences described as the “Law of Jante” (Cappelen & Dahlberg, 2018), where individualism and personal success are frowned upon. Next, Norwegian education and child rearing are child-centered, focusing on well-being, democracy and autonomy (OECD, 2019), and children’s rights have a strong position (Gromada et al., 2020). In combination with high levels of societal trust and low crime rates (Gromada et al., 2020), these elements probably affect Norwegian parents in how they allow children to explore, take risks and develop independence.

Research on Challenging Parenting Behavior

The concept of challenging parenting behavior (CPB) is considered a form of activation parenting (Feldman & Shaw, 2021) and focuses on encouraging and exciting parental behaviors that support children’s development and/or serve as protection against anxiety or maladaptive behavior. Activation parenting stems largely from research on fathers, originally with a focus on how fathers add a unique but crucial component to parenting. According to this view, while mothers’ parenting is (traditionally) characterized by close care and sensitivity, fathers’ parenting is thought to be characterized more by opening up the world to their children and providing physical and socio-emotional challenges (Paquette, 2004; Tamis-LeMonda, 2004). Feldman and Shaw (2021) emphasize that both non-biological and non-paternal parents can also take on this role. In the vein of activation parenting, Majdandžić et al. (2016) define CPB as to how parents excite, surprise, and momentarily destabilize the child. In a playful manner, parents encourage the child to exhibit risky behavior, or behavior that causes them to go outside their comfort zone. This can be performed both physically and socio-emotionally. Examples of CPB are rough-and-tumble play, tickling, chasing the child, giving them a fright, teasing, competing, defeating them in a game, and encouraging them to push their limits either physically (e.g., climbing higher than they normally dare), or socio-emotionally (e.g., performing for an audience, being assertive). CPB as a comprehensively observable (measurable) construct is relatively new (Majdandžić et al., 2016).

The measures consist of both age-specific questionnaires (CPBQs) and observational tasks (Deneault et al., 2022; Lazarus et al., 2016; Majdandžić et al., 2016; Majdandžić, de Vente, et al., 2018; Majdandžić, Lazarus, et al., 2018). So far, the aims of studies on CPB have mainly been to investigate the construct’s possible predictive power in relation to child anxiety, internalizing problems and social competence from infancy to preschool-age. Also, differences between fathers and mothers have been investigated and to some extent differences between cultural (country) backgrounds.

Majdandžić et al. (2016) studied CPB in early and late infancy and in toddlerhood, applying both self-reporting and observations. They found that Dutch fathers and mothers did not differ in levels of observed CPB, but fathers rated themselves higher than mothers on CPB in toddlerhood (but not infancy). In general, they found a modest but significant convergence between the CPB questionnaires and CBP observations in infancy and toddlerhood. Also, they found negative correlations of CPB with overprotection which suggests divergent validity. Further, they found moderate to high stability of CPB from early infancy to toddlerhood, and interparental correspondence in CPB. Overall, they found similarities rather than differences in CPB between fathers and mothers.

In another study on Dutch parents in infants, Möller et al. (2014) found that fathers and mothers did not differ in levels of self-reported CPB, and that fathers’, but not mothers’, CPB correlated with less infant anxiety. In another Dutch study, Majdandžić et al. (2014) found that fathers and mothers showed no difference in observed CPB toward their 2-years-old child, but that fathers showed more CPB than mothers toward the 4-years-old sibling. In addition, fathers’ CPB predicted less social anxiety in the 4-years-old, whereas mothers’ higher CPB predicted more social anxiety in this child, while parents’ CPB was unrelated to their 2-years-old child’s social anxiety. Majdandžić, de Vente, et al. (2018) found that Dutch fathers’ and mothers’ observed CPB toward their infant predicted less subsequent anxiety in early childhood, where fathers’ effect was stronger than mothers. They also found evidence indicating that parents can compensate for the other parent’s low CPB. Also, fathers’ CPB was especially beneficial for children with a fearful temperament. Deneault et al. (2022) did not find differences in levels of observed CPB between ethnically diverse poor US mothers’ and fathers’ CPB with their infants, and no relations between parents’ CPB and the infants’ social competence or behavior problems.

Two studies have used the CPBQ4-6 self-report questionnaire (i.e., for parents with children of approximately 4 to 6 years), which contributes further to the applicability of the construct of CPB. Lazarus et al. (2016) found that Australian fathers engaged in more self-rated CPB than mothers, and that both fathers’ and mothers’ CPB were associated with lower child anxiety symptoms. However, only mothers’ CPB predicted child anxiety diagnosis. In a cross-cultural study, Majdandžić, Lazarus et al. (2018) compared Dutch and Australian fathers’ and mothers’ in self-reported CPB. Structural equation models showed that CPB predicted fewer child anxiety symptoms and anxiety disorders for all groups (i.e., fathers and mothers of both countries). To examine equivalence of the CPBQ4-6 across mothers and fathers and countries, the factor structure of the full scale and the subscales were examined. The model fit was found to be acceptable. Further invariance testing, on subscale level, indicated that the groups differed on some subscales, that is, a group could score higher or lower on a subscale relative to their total CPB. Comparing means, the Australian mothers scored lower on the CPB factor than both Australian fathers and Dutch parents. Such variations are to be expected and likely indicate actual differences related to parent’s sex or cultural background that researchers need to take into consideration while applying the questionnaire. The internal reliability of the full scale was high, ranging from α = .90 to α = .92 in the Dutch and Australian mothers and fathers. Reliability of the subscales (Teasing, Rough-and-tumble play, Encouragement of risk taking, Social daring, Competition and Modeling) was adequate, ranging from α = .63 to α = .84 in these samples.

There are also some studies on CPB and relations to anxiety in early adulthood. When asked to recall their parents’ CPB, results on young adults show the same pattern as in the studies on younger children, that is, higher levels of self-reported exposure to CPB relate to lower levels of reported anxiety in adulthood (Chan et al., 2023; Lazarus et al., 2018; Smout et al., 2020). Smout et al. (2020) found relations with fathers’, but not mothers’, CPB, while Chan et al. (2023) only found relations with mothers’. Lazarus et al. (2018) identified contributing factors to lower adult anxiety from both mothers’ and fathers’ CPB. In conclusion, CPB has been identified as an important, relatively new parenting construct that may have potential beneficial effects on children’s development (e.g., predicting lower anxiety). Several age-appropriate observational and questionnaire measures of CPB have been developed and found to show promising reliability and validity. Both maternal and paternal CPB seem to play a role, but especially fathers’ CPB appears to have a protective effect on children’s anxiety. However, previous studies on CPB included parents of children aged from infancy to pre-school age or in early adulthood, but no studies have investigated CPB in fathers and mothers of children in middle childhood. Therefore, there are no published psychometric evaluations or other types of validation studies applying the questionnaire CPBQ7-12 (Majdandžić et al., 2008) for parents of children aged 7–12 years old, which are suitable for our study.

Parents’ Age and Parenting Behavior

Although not investigated specifically in earlier CPB-studies, there are indications that parents’ age affects their parenting behavior. Parents age might be relevant for CPB since it involves, among other aspects, both high intensity physical activity and risk taking. Regarding physical activity, several studies show that fathers express concerns that their aging might keep them from coping with the activity levels of their young children (Mac Dougall et al., 2012; Shirani, 2013). However, even if physical aspects of CPB might be more favorable to younger parents, CPB also entails aspects such as teasing and supporting social daring, that do not prerequisite any physical activity. In regard to risk taking, Breivik et al. (2020) found that younger adults generally were more willing to take risks in all aspects than older adults. It is not unlikely that this translates to parents and their support of their children’s exploration and risk taking. Zuckerman (1994) substantiates this by suggesting that men exhibit higher levels of sensation seeking compared to women, and that sensations seeking tends to increase between the ages of 9 and 14, reaching its peak in late adolescence or early 20s, and subsequently decreases steadily with age. Thus, there might be a growing discrepancy between children and older parents. In sum, several lines of research suggest that parents’ age may influence CPB, with older parents showing lower CPB. Therefore, although inevitably complex since parents and children age in parallel (Feldman & Shaw, 2021), age is a factor that should be considered in studying behavior like CPB.

The Current Study

Multiple studies have yielded strong indications that challenging parenting behavior has a protective effect against child anxiety. The role of fathers appears to be of particular importance. Additionally, fathers might rate themselves higher on CPB or can be observed to engage more in CPB in toddlerhood and preschool age. One study (Deneault et al., 2022) examined the relations of CPB to other child outcomes than anxiety (i.e., social competence and behavior problems) but did not find any, so it should be of interest to investigate alternative child outcomes. The CPB construct has been tested in American (US), Australian and Dutch population samples, indicating a certain cultural robustness, despite presumed cultural similarities between these countries (i.e., Western values). However, comparisons with other contexts, such as the Norwegian, with its potential inclination toward outdoor activities and granting children autonomy, is important. Despite this presumed inclination, research on challenging parenting behavior is currently lacking in a Norwegian context. Additionally, previous studies have so far involved children from infancy to pre-school age, and there are no published evaluations or validations of the CPBQ7-12. Since the primary school age is a period were children typically increase their mobility and independence (Marzi & Reimers, 2018), and sensation seeking increases at this age, especially in boys (Zuckerman, 1994), CPB might be of particular relevance in middle childhood. Similarly, parents’ age has not been examined in previous studies on CPB, while there are indications that parents’ age could influence aspects of CPB.

In this study we aimed to investigate the parenting construct of Challenging Parenting Behavior in a new cultural context and with a new age group of children, that is, a sample of mothers and fathers of 7 to 10 years old children in Norway. More specifically we aimed to (1) evaluate the psychometric properties of the Challenging Parenting Behavior Questionnaire for parents with children between 7 and 12 years (CPBQ7-12), (2) evaluate the measurement invariance of the CPBQ7-12 across mothers and fathers and across parents’ age, (3) examine differences in levels of CPB across mothers and fathers, and (4) examine differences in levels of CPB across parents’ age. We hypothesized that fathers would show higher levels of CPB than mothers, and that older parents would show lower levels of CPB than younger parents.

Method

The data analyzed in the present study were collected as a part of the ViRMa project (Virtual Risk Management) conducted among Norwegian 7 to 10-year-olds and their parents (Sandseter et al., 2023). The ViRMa project aimed to examine children’s development of risk management skills through experience with everyday risk and risky play. To accomplish this, the project aimed to use and validate newly developed and ethically appropriate data collection tools such as virtual reality, eye tracking, and motion capturing, and to provide insight into how children assess and handle risk situations and how children’s past risky play experiences are associated with their risk management. To include parenting behavior for the relevant age group, the Challenging Parenting Behavior Questionnaire 7–12 (Majdandžić et al., 2008) was included in the data collection. Examining and evaluating the psychometric properties of the CPBQ7-12 was thus both a study on its own and part of the ViRMA project. A psychometric evaluation was necessary to apply the CPBQ7-12 in further analysis in relation to other data collected in the ViRMa project. Additionally, the parental data collection included the Tolerance for Risk in Play Scale (TRiPS) and a questionnaire on children’s previous experience and family demographics (Sandseter et al., 2023). The ViRMa project was approved by the Norwegian Data Protection Services for research (SIKT), no. 784782. The study design, as described here, limited the risk of harm to the study participants since all data are anonymized and it is impossible for anyone to trace information back to identified individuals.

Recruitment and Data Collection

We recruited a convenience sample of participants from four elementary schools in Norway, two city schools and two village schools. We then sent invitations and informed consent forms to the parents or guardians of children in the second (born in 2015), third (born in 2014), and fourth (born in 2013) grades at each school. Because of limited financial resources and time constraints, we needed to limit the number of participants and, even if the scale covers children aged 7 to 12 years, we prioritized recruiting for the younger spectrum of the questionnaire, that is, 7 to 10 years. We contacted parents through the school’s web-based information system, providing project details and the option to provide electronic consent, and all participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time and have their data removed from the study.

In total, 661 children were eligible for participation in the ViRMa project from all four schools combined. We received informed consent to participate in the parental questionnaire from the guardians of 398 children. Parents were invited to complete an online survey using the SurveyXact software. Invitations were sent electronically to one parent, and both mothers and fathers were encouraged to respond. We reminded parents electronically up to two times. We preferred a response from both parents, but we did not remind parents after receiving one response to lessen the e-mail burden. For 55 children, we received responses from two parents, and for 256 children, one parent responded. Unfortunately, we lacked parental data for 87 children who participated in the project and whose parents had initially agreed to participate.

Participants

Not all parents completed the survey, and after excluding parents with missing data necessary for this paper (N = 28), the sample consisted of 344 parents, 114 fathers and 230 mothers. The average age of the parents was 41.3 years (SD = 5.2), with a range between 25 years and 57 years. Fathers’ mean age was 42.8 years (SD = 5.0) and mothers’ mean age was 40.6 years (SD = 5.1). Most mothers had a college or university degree of 4 years or more (64 %), with 22 % holding a degree of less than 4 years and 14 % having vocational or secondary school education. Similarly, most fathers held a college or university degree of 4 years or more (57%), 28 % had a degree of less than 4 years, and 15% had vocational or secondary school education.

Measure

The CPBQ7-12 (Majdandžić et al., 2008) was used to assess the extent to which parents encourage children to push their physical, social and mental limits. The instrument includes five subscales: (1) Teasing, (2) Rough-and-tumble play, (3) Encouragement of risk-taking, (4) Social daring, and (5) Competition. Parents were presented with 33 statements, such as “I play boisterously with my child” and “I encourage my child to do exciting things, such as jumping off high objects or climbing higher than he/she dares,” which were answered on a scale from 1 (not applicable) to 5 (completely applicable). The original CPBQ7-12 was written in Dutch and translated to English using standard rigorous translation methods by the Dutch developers (Majdandžić et al., 2016). For this study, the CPBQ7-12 was first translated from English to Norwegian by the first author. Then, all primary researchers in the project group discussed the translation to revise unclear wordings and adapt words and phrases to fit the Norwegian context. Next, the Norwegian version of the scale was translated back to English by a professional translator. The project team reviewed the back translation version in comparison with the original English version. The back translation to English was then discussed with the third author, who developed the original Dutch version, to ensure that the Norwegian translation covered the meaning of the original scale while still being relevant and understandable for Norwegian parents. After slight adjustments, the translation was approved. The CPBQ7-12 was administered to the parents and guardians of the children via the web-based survey tool SurveyXact^® (Rambøll, 2003).

Data Analysis

We conducted descriptive analysis to report the mean and standard deviation for mothers and fathers on each item, each subscale, and on the total score. To investigate the relation between the CPB total or subscale scores and the parents’ age and sex, we performed regression analysis (Mehmetoglu & Jakobsen, 2017). The total score and the subscale scores were regressed on the parents’ age and sex.

To evaluate the internal consistency and factor structure of the previously proposed theoretical model with five subscales underlying the CPB total score (Majdandžić, Lazarus, et al., 2018), we used Cronbach’s alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Brown, 2014). The evaluation of the models involves the utilization of several fit indices, including the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). We evaluated the proposed models based on the following criteria: RMSEA < 0.1, SRMR < 0.1, CFI > 0.9 and TLI > 0.9 (Mehmetoglu & Jakobsen, 2017). To examine the factor loadings, we considered R² estimates (item > 0.25) and standardized factor loadings (item > 0.40) (Brown, 2014).

We examined the influence of sex and age on the model’s factor structures by multiple-group CFA invariance evaluation (Brown, 2014) to determine whether the factor structure remained consistent across different groups. This analysis assessed whether the relationships between the observed indicators and the latent factors were comparable and invariant across mothers and fathers and older and younger parents. Groups for parents’ age were split at the median (42 years). In this study, we performed the following analysis of measurement invariance: (1) equal form, (2) equal factor loadings, (3) equal intercepts, and (4) equal indicator residual variances (Brown, 2014). We used STATA MP version 18 (StataCorp) for all statistical analyses.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

First, descriptive analyses were conducted on the original 33-item CPB questionnaire. Descriptive statistics on the CPB total scores and subscales for fathers and mothers are presented in Table 1. The average total score for CPB (mean of the 33 items) was 3.3 (SD = 0.4), ranging from 2.1 to 4.6. Regression analysis with total CPB as the dependent variable demonstrates that mothers score lower on the CPB total score than fathers (B = –0.13, p = .014). There was no statistically significant association between age and the total CPB score. The average sum score for Teasing was 2.5 (SD = 0.8), Rough-and-tumble play was 2.6 (SD = 0.8), Encouragement of risk taking 3.8 (SD=0.5), Social daring 3.9 (SD = 0.4), and Competition 3.2 (SD = 0.6). Mothers scored significantly lower than fathers on the subscales of Teasing (B = –0.29, p < .001) and Rough-and-tumble play (B = –0.49, p < .001) and significantly higher on Social daring (B = 0.18, p < .001). Encouragement of risk taking and Competition was not statistically related to being a mother or father. The parent’s age was not statistically associated with any of the subscales.

Table 1.

Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for Each Item for the Full Sample (n = 344) and Mothers (n = 230) and Fathers (n = 114).

Teasing	2.5 (0.8)	2.4 (0.8)	2.7 (0.7)
Tease my child for fun	2.3 (1.1)	2.2 (1.1)	2.4 (1.2)
Pretend to eat my child’s sweets	2.5 (1.1)	2.4 (1.2)	2.7 (1.0)
Never pull my child’s leg (R)	3.2 (1.2)	3.1 (1.2)	3.4 (1.1)
Play little tricks on my child	2.4 (1.1)	2.3 (1.1)	2.7 (1.0)
Give my child a real scare	1.8 (0.9)	1.7 (0.9)	1.9 (0.9)
Give my child a hard time	2.8 (1.0)	2.7 (1.1)	3.0 (1.0)
Rough-and-tumble play	2.6 (0.8)	2.5 (0.7)	2.9 (0.8)
Play boisterously with my child	2.9 (1.1)	2.6 (1.0)	3.3 (1.0)
Almost never rough and rowdy games (R)	3.4 (1.1)	3.2 (1.3)	4.0 (1.1)
Pillow-fights with my child	2.5 (1.1)	2.4 (1.0)	2.8 (1.1)
Sometimes push my child into the water	1.4 (0.8)	1.3 (0.7)	1.6 (0.9)
Play-fight with my child for fun	2.4 (1.1)	2.2 (1.1)	2.6 (1.1)
Challenge my child to physical contests	3.0 (1.0)	3.0 (1.1)	3.2 (1.0)
Encouragement of risk taking	3.8 (0.5)	3.8 (0.5)	3.8 (0.6)
If scary, I encourage carrying on	3.6 (0.9)	3.5 (0.9)
New or exciting things	4.2 (0.7)	4.2 (0.7)	4.1 (0.6)
Trying difficult things again	4.6 (0.6)	4.6 (0.6)	4.5 (0.5)
Exciting things, like diving	3.0 (1.2)	2.9 (1.2)	3.2 (1.2)
New and exciting experiences	3.8 (0.9)	3.9 (0.9)	3.8 (0.8)
Challenging things	3.7 (0.9)	3.6 (0.9)	3.9 (0.8)
Social daring	3.9 (0.4)	4.0 (0.4)	3.8 (0.4)
Approach unfamiliar people	2.9 (1.1)	3.0 (1.1)	2.7 (1.1)
Perform for an audience	3.6 (1.1)	3.6 (1.0)	3.4 (1.1)
Say no if does not want something	4.2 (0.8)	4.2 (0.8)	4.1 (0.8)
Stand up for him/herself	4.6 (0.6)	4.6 (0.5)	4.5 (0.6)
Sort out minor quarrels	3.4 (0.8)	3.4 (0.8)	3.2 (0.9)
Stand up for opinion	4.4 (0.6)	4.5 (0.6)	4.3 (0.6)
New activities and new people	3.8 (0.9)	3.9 (0.9)	3.7 (0.8)
Ask other children for things to play with	4.3 (0.7)	4.3 (0.7)	4.2 (0.7)
Stick up for himself/herself	4.3 (0.7)	4.4 (0.7)	4.2 (0.8)
Competition	3.2 (0.6)	3.1 (0.6)	3.3 (0.6)
Hard to catch when playing tag	3.4 (0.9)	3.4 (1.0)	3.5 (0.8)
Be the best	2.5 (1.1)	2.4 (1.1)	2.6 (1.1)
Challenge to contests	3.1 (1.1)	3.1 (1.1)	3.3 (1.0)
Make the most of himself/herself	4.2 (0.8)	4.2 (0.8)	4.2 (0.7)
Take part in competitions	3.6 (1.1)	3.6 (1.1)	3.6 (1.0)
Challenge my child smartest	2.3 (1.1)	2.2 (1.1)	2.4 (0.9)___

Note. R = items that have been reversed.

We used Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of the five sub-scales within the proposed theoretical model. The obtained Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for teasing (α = .79), Rough-and-tumble play (α=0.81), and Social daring (α = .71) were above the commonly accepted threshold of 0.7. The subscales Encouragement of risk taking (α = .68) and Competition (α = .68) were slightly below this threshold. Average inter-item correlations were conducted to evaluate internal consistency and homogeneity further. The average inter-item correlation was 0.26 for Encouragement of risk taking, 0.42 for Rough-and-tumble play, 0.22 for Social daring, and 0.27 for Competition. The average inter-item correlations demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency and homogeneity for the sub-scales, with values within the recommended range.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Across All Participants

Next, we evaluated the proposed model across all participants with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The model fit measures (Table 3) for the initial model suggested a questionable fit to the data. The RMSEA and SRMR values exceeded the commonly recommended threshold for acceptable fit, indicating that the model might not accurately represent the underlying data structure. The CFI and TLI were both notably below the conventional threshold of 0.90. This indicates that the proposed model does not sufficiently capture the patterns and relationships in the observed data, suggesting that the model may need further refinement or adjustment to better align with the observed data patterns.

To improve model fit, we examined standardized factor loadings and R² estimates to obtain R² estimates above 0.25 and standardized factor loadings above 0.40. On the basis of these parameters, we removed the following items from the model: one item of the Teasing subscale (“Never pull my child’s leg”); one item of the Rough-and-tumble play subscale (“Sometimes push my child into the water”); one item of the Competition subscale (“Hard to catch when playing tag”), and two items of the Encouragement of risk taking scale (“If scary, I encourage carrying on” and “Exciting things, like diving”). While the scales above originally had six items each, the Social daring scale had nine items. As many as six items in the Social daring scale fell below the set threshold for standardized factor loadings and R² estimates and were removed: “Approach unfamiliar people”, “Perform for an audience”, “Say no if does not want something”, “Sort out minor quarrels”, “New activities and new people”, and “Ask other children for things to play with”. These adjustments resulted in five items in the Teasing scale, five items in the Rough-and-tumble play scale, four in the Encouragement of risk taking scale, three in the Social daring scale and five in the Competition scale. Standardized factor loadings and R² estimates for the adjusted model are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Standardized factor loadings (λ) and R² estimates from the adjusted 5-Factor Solution of the CPBQ using CFA (n = 344).

Subscales and Items	λ	R ²
Teasing
Tease my child for fun	.74	.54
Pretend to eat my child’s sweets	.60	.36
Play little tricks on my child	.83	.69
Give my child a real scare	.66	.43
Give my child a hard time	.61	.38
Rough-and-Tumble Play
Play boisterously with my child	.87	.76
Almost never rough and rowdy games (R)	.77	.59
Pillow-fights with my child	.56	.31
Play-fight with my child for fun	.78	.60
Challenge my child to physical contests	.57	.32
Encouragement of risk taking
New or exciting things	.52	0.27
Trying difficult things again	.50	0.25
New and exciting experiences	.68	0.46
Challenging things	.53	0.28
Social Daring
Stand up for him/herself	.73	.53
Stand up for opinion	.87	.75
Stick up for himself/herself	.67	.45
Competition
Be the best	.50	.25
Challenge to contests	.67	.45
Make the most of himself/herself	.51	.26
Take part in competitions	.54	.29
Challenge my child smartest	.56	.31

Note. R = Reversed items that have been reversed.

The adjusted five-factor model demonstrated an improved model fit (see Table 3). Although the chi-square test indicated a significant deviation between the observed and expected values based on the specified model, the CFI and TLI values indicated an acceptable fit. Moreover, the RMSEA and SRMR values supported the model’s goodness of fit.

Table 3.

The Goodness-of-Fit Indexes of the CFA Models for the CPBQ.

Model	N	χ2 (df)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Initial Theoretical model	344	1386 (485)	0.75	0.73	0.074	0.088
Adjusted model	344	572 (199)	0.86	0.84	0.074	0.082
Adjusted model mothers	230	459 (199)	0.85	0.83	0.076	0.084
Adjusted model fathers	114	364 (199)	0.82	0.79	0.089	0.097
Adjusted model younger	168	456 (199)	0.81	0.78	0.088	0.098
Adjusted model older	170	327 (199)	0.91	0.89	0.062	0.079

Note.χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean residual; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.

Relations of CPB with Parental Sex and Age

The adjusted factors of the subscales showed similar relations with parental sex and age as the subscales of the initial model. Adding sex and age as structural components in the adjusted model, mothers scored lower than fathers on Teasing (β = –.18, p = .002) and Rough-and-tumble play (β = –.33, p < .001) and higher on the Social daring factor (β = .14, p = .017). Competition and Encouragement of risk taking were not statistically associated with being a mother and father in the adjusted model. While age was statistically unrelated to the subscales of the initial model, in the adjusted model parents’ age was negatively associated with Rough-and-tumble play (β = –.11, p = .045). The adjusted five-factor model was selected for invariance testing following the improved model fit, to further explore the influence of sex and age on the measurement model.

To assess measurement invariance across parents’ sex and age, we employed a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the adjusted five-factor model. Initially, separate models were fitted for each group (fathers, mothers, older and younger parents), as presented in Table 3. Examination of fit indices revealed a difference based on sex: mothers exhibited a better fit than fathers (see Table 3). Furthermore, the tests identified statistically significant differences in the factor intercepts (x²diff = 49.6 (17), p < .001). Given this difference, we did not proceed to subsequent tests following the hierarchical nature of these tests. These findings suggest that even though the five-factor model captures similar overall constructs for both mothers and fathers, the specific interpretation of scores on each factor (i.e., subscale) might need to be adjusted depending on whether the responses come from mothers or fathers.

When examining the data across two age groups, there was notable difference in fit indices, where older parents’ fit was better compared to younger parents (see Table 3). However, no statistically significant differences were found in factor loadings, intercepts, or error variances. This implies that the underlying relationships between observed variables and latent factors remain consistent across age groups, while the model fit was better for older parents. In conclusion, our results show discrepancies in the adjusted model’s measurement properties based on parents’ sex and age, reinforcing the need to consider these factors when using the CPBQ7-12.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the construct of challenging parenting behavior (CPB) (Majdandžić et al., 2016) in a new age group (middle childhood), using the CPBQ7-12 questionnaire, in a new cultural context—Norway. There are currently no other published studies evaluating the psychometric properties or any other type of validation of the CPBQ7-12. Therefore, the potential for comparisons and discussions of, for example, convergent or divergent validity is limited. Nevertheless, our study provides insight into the characteristics of CPB expressed by Norwegian fathers and mothers toward their 7-to 10-years-old children and yields evidence on the psychometric properties and underlying structure of the CPBQ for this age group. The results provide evidence for the usability of the construct of CBP and, specifically, of the questionnaire assessing it in middle childhood.

When examining Norwegian parents’ CPB toward their children in middle childhood, their levels of total CPB were moderate and above the midpoint of the scale. The average score across all parents on total CPB was 3.3 (SD = 0.40), on the 5-point scale (1–5). For comparison, although with younger children (3–4 years) and in a separate study, Australian parents scored 3.2 (SD = 0.57) and Dutch parents scored 3.5 (SD = 0.47) (Majdandžić, Lazarus, et al., 2018). Based on our particular research interest in risky play and support for risk-taking (as described by for example Brussoni et al., 2015; Sando et al., 2021), we note that the Norwegian parents also scored quite similar (although not statistically tested) to Dutch and Australian parents (moderately high) on encouragement of risk-taking (M = 3.8, SD = 0.50; M = 3.9, SD = 0.60; and M = 3.8 SD = 0.66, respectively; Majdandžić, Lazarus et al., 2018). Previous studies have indicated that there is a relatively high tolerance toward preschool children’s risk taking in Norway (Brewer, 2012; Little et al., 2012; Nilsen, 2008), but our results show that Norwegian parents are quite similar to other western cultures, both in CPB overall, and in encouragement of risk taking specifically. However, our sample consisted of parents of primary school children, an age at which children typically increase their mobility and independence (Marzi & Reimers, 2018), and sensation seeking increases, especially in boys (Zuckerman, 1994). As such, CPB is of particular relevance, but the lack of comparable studies on CPB in this age group makes the results harder to interpret. Further studies on CPB in middle childhood would be enlightening, including research in different cultural contexts, addressing various parental approaches to challenges and risk, and examining associations with child outcomes

In the non-adapted original questionnaire, the internal consistency of the subscales was generally satisfactory, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding or slightly below the commonly accepted threshold of .7. The average inter-item correlations further supported the internal consistency and homogeneity of the scales. However, the proposed theoretical model’s fit to the data was deemed questionable based on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), indicating that the model might not accurately represent the underlying data structure. To improve the model fit, several adjustments were made by removing items with low factor loadings and R² estimates. In total we removed eleven items. We removed one or two items from four of the subscales, while from the social daring subscale, we removed six items. The remaining three items all pertained to encouraging the child to stand up for themselves. This suggests that the total set of social daring items represent different aspects of social daring to the parents in our Norwegian sample. For example, the items about standing up for yourself/opinions may have been perceived differently from items about performing in front of an audience and doing new activities and meeting new people. As such, the construct of social daring may encompass several distinct aspects of social behavior that do not converge when analyzed in a CFA.

It is also possible that the construct of social daring is particularly sensitive to cultural variations. Scandinavian countries, including Norway, are known to have strong egalitarian values (Skarpenes & Sakslind, 2010; Stewart & Janta, 2018). Individuality and personal success may be discouraged rather than promoted, as reflected in the satirical concept of the “Law of Jante” (Cappelen & Dahlberg, 2018). A child’s individuality may be respected (e.g., standing up for yourself), but not necessarily in the form of seeking attention (e.g., performing or initiating contact with new people). This aspect of Norwegian culture may have influenced how parents interpreted questions about encouraging their children “to stand out” when responding to the questionnaire. In any case, the social daring scale in our sample emerged as a narrower construct than originally intended. The full construct of social daring was not supported by the data, but a three-item construct was supported as an expression of what could be termed supporting assertiveness. The adjusted five-factor model demonstrated an improved fit, with acceptable CFI and TLI values.

The invariance testing across sex showed that the model of mothers displayed a slightly better fit than that of fathers and revealed differences in factor intercepts. Mothers also scored higher on the social daring scale, indicating that they were more likely to encourage their children’s social assertiveness. This indicates that researchers should consider relevant group differences, including parent sex, when investigating CPB. Results from the CPBQ4-6 support this as well (Majdandžić, Lazarus, et al. (2018). In their study, Dutch and Australian mothers and fathers differed in their scores on some subscales (of the CPBQ4-6). For example, Dutch mothers scored lower than expected on competition and Australian mothers scored higher than expected on risk taking. In our study, the adjusted model also confirmed that fathers scored higher than mothers on teasing and on rough-and-tumble play. This sex difference aligns with findings by Majdandžić et al. (2016) who found that fathers reported higher engagement in rough-and-tumble play than mothers in late infancy and in toddlerhood. It also aligns with reviews highlighting that teasing and rough-and-tumble play are key components of activation parenting (Feldman & Shaw, 2021), a style more commonly associated with fathers (Freeman & Robinson, 2022; Paquette, 2004; Stgeorge & Freeman, 2017). Thus, although the basic model captures a similar CPB structure for both fathers and mothers, our analysis highlights that interpretations of parenting scores may differ depending on whether the respondent is the mother or father. It may also vary by cultural background. Despite Norway’s high levels of gender equality (WEF, 2023), the country exemplifies the “gender equality paradox” (Sørensen, 2019), wherein men and women, in societies with a greater freedom of choice tend to select traditionally gendered occupations more often than in less egalitarian societies. Our results may reflect a similar paradox, indicating that men and women still exhibit different parenting behaviors, even in highly gender-equal societies.

Age-based invariance analyses revealed a better model fit for older parents. The adjusted model also showed that older parents scored lower on the rough-and-tumble play factor compared to younger parents. This was in line with our hypothesis and previous studies indicating that parents’ aging entails gradually less ability to keep up with their young children’s activity levels (Mac Dougall et al., 2012; Shirani, 2013). Thus, the results indicated that our model functioned differently depending on both the parent’s sex and age. This suggests we need to carefully assess these factors when using the CPBQ7-12. It’s not a one-size-fits-all, and we should consider both parental sex and age when investigating how parents playfully support their children. That said, previous studies have been quite consistent in establishing a negative relationship between CBP and unfavorable child outcomes such as child anxiety. This underscores the importance of studying new and diverse parenting behaviors such as CBP.

Our study had several limitations. First, we relied on a convenience sample recruited from four primary schools in Norway. Although the schools varied in size and geographical location which added some heterogeneity to the sample, the sampling approach might not have fully capture the diversity within the population of Norwegian parents. Also, even though the scale is intended to cover children aged 7 to 12 years, our study included only children aged 7 to 10 years. Out of the full sample (n = 344 parents), we had 114 fathers and 230 mothers. Ideally, we would have had more fathers participate, particularly given that fathers are assumed to have an important role in activating and challenging their children (Feldman & Shaw, 2021). Furthermore, some mothers and fathers that lived within the same households reported on their behavior toward the same child. This introduced a nested data structure and responses may have been influenced by shared family-level factors. Although we employed separate models for mothers and fathers, the full models did not adequately control for this structure, which was a limitation of our analysis. Next, we did not include comparative measures, such as other parenting measures, or child outcomes, thus limiting our ability to assess the concurrent, divergent or predictive validity of the CPBQ7-12, and the Norwegian version specifically. Additionally, the study design was cross-sectional, which limited our ability to explore the consistency of the measure across time. Lastly, there are commonly known challenges with the stability of measuring parental behaviors through self-report questionnaires (Lucas, 2018; Paulhus & Vazire, 2007). Although more resource demanding, further comparisons with observations, as tested by Majdandžić et al. (2016); Majdandžić et al. (2014), or other comparative measures of parenting could strengthen the validity of the CPB construct in middle childhood.

Our findings have several possible implications for future research applying the concept of CPB. First, context matters. Parenting behaviors such as CPB might differ in interpretation based on whether they come from a certain country (Lansford, 2022), whether they are shown by mothers or fathers, or by older versus younger parents. This highlights the need to examine context-specific interpretations of CPB. Researchers should focus on how social, cultural, or contextual factors shape the way these parenting behaviors are expressed and perceived, ensuring that parental influences on child development are understood in a more holistic and context-sensitive manner. Additionally, we propose two main ways to strengthen future applications of the CPB questionnaire: Further refinement of the construct, and further investigations of relations between CPB and child outcomes, preferably using longitudinal designs. We regard the differences in model fit for mothers versus fathers, as well as the differences in factor intercepts, as substantive findings of our analysis. Researchers should be aware that the CPBQ7-12 is sensitive to, and captures, such differences.

Future research could focus on developing or validating instruments that capture the nuanced ways mothers and fathers engage in parenting. Next, research should investigate how CPB affects child outcomes in various domains. Previous research has found robust evidence for a protective role of CPB against adverse outcomes, such as child anxiety. This research should be expanded to explore relations of CPB with positive outcomes such as risk-taking, emotional regulation, social capacities, etc. The best way to capture development is through longitudinal research designs. Longitudinal studies would provide insights into how (possible) differences evolve over time and their potential long-term effects on children’s development through risk-taking in various forms.

In conclusion, this study aimed to examine the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the CBPQ7-12, and relations of CPB with parent sex and age in a sample of Norwegian fathers and mothers. The study contributes to our understanding of CPB among parents of children aged 7 to 10 years in a Norwegian context, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive measures. Differences in mothers’ and fathers’ responses indicate potential variations according to parent’s sex in self-reported CPB. Similarly, age-related discrepancies may reflect generational shifts–for example that humans generally become more risk aversive as they grow older (Breivik et al., 2020), or that it is more physically demanding to keep up high intensity physical play at a higher age (Mac Dougall et al., 2012; Shirani, 2013). The findings suggest that the questionnaire is a reliable measure of CPB for parents of children aged 7-10 years in the Norwegian context, with some subscales requiring refinement. The adjustments are necessary for further applications of the scale in the same sample. That is, to be able to relate CPB to child outcomes in future studies, we need a factor structure that is supported by the data. However, since this is the first evaluation study of the CPBQ7-12, we recommend that other researchers employ the complete questionnaire and conduct similar tests in their studies to evaluate its validity and reliability.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Rasmus Kleppe

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Service (SIKT), no. 784782. We sent invitations and informed consent forms to the parents or guardians of children in the second (born in 2015), third (born in 2014), and fourth (born in 2013) grades at four schools. We contacted parents through the school’s web-based information system, providing project details and the option to provide electronic consent, and all participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time and have their data removed from the study. The study design limits the risk of harm to the study participants since all data are anonymized, and it is impossible for anyone to trace information back to identified individuals. The potential benefits of the research to society and to the study participants outweigh the risk of harm to the study participants, since this research represents practically no risk to the participants.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is funded by the Research Council of Norway (grant 324155). Additionally, EBHS and OJS are supported by salary from Queen Maud University College, MM is supported by salary from the Research Institute Child Development and Education and RK is supported by salary from the Kanvas Foundation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data sets generated or analyzed from this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Affrunti

N. W.

Ginsburg

G. S.

(2012). Maternal overcontrol and child anxiety: The mediating role of perceived competence. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-011-0248-z

Borge

A. I. H.

Nordhagen

Lie

K. K.

(2003). Children in the environment: Forest day-care centers. Modern day care with historical antecedents. The History of the Family, 8(4), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hisfam.2003.04.001

Breivik

Sand

T. S.

Sookermany

A. M.

(2020). Risk-taking attitudes and behaviors in the Norwegian population: The influence of personality and background factors. Journal of Risk Research, 23(11), 1504–1523. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1750455

Brewer

T. J.

(2012). Rousseau plays outside in Norway: A personal reflection on how Norwegian outdoor kindergartens employ Rousseauian pedagogical methods of play. International Journal of Play, 1(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2012.740224

Brown

T. A.

(2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.

Brussoni

Gibbons

Gray

Ishikawa

Sandseter

Bienenstock

Chabot

Fuselli

Herrington

Janssen

Pickett

Power

Stanger

Sampson

Tremblay

(2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423–6454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606423

Brussoni

Olsen

L. L.

Pike

Sleet

D. A.

(2012). Risky play and children’s safety: Balancing priorities for optimal child development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(9), 3134–3148.

Cappelen

Dahlberg

(2018). The Law of Jante and generalized trust. Acta Sociologica, 61(4), 419–440.

Chan

E. W. T.

Wong

K. T. C.

Clark

L. H.

(2023). Challenging parenting behaviour and anxiety disorders in emerging adulthood. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(3), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02434-7

10.

Deneault

A.-A.

Cabrera

Ghosh

R. A.

Tölle

A.-S.

Seethaler

Majdandžić

Reich

S. M.

(2022). Challenging parenting behavior in ethnically diverse two-parent families in the United States: Association with infants’ social competence and behavior problems. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 58, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.08.006

11.

Dodd

Lester

K. J.

(2021). Adventurous play as a mechanism for reducing risk for childhood anxiety: a conceptual model. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 24, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/78upg

12.

Feldman

J. S.

Shaw

D. S.

(2021). The premise and promise of activation parenting for fathers: A review and integration of extant literature. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 24(3), 414–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-021-00351-7

13.

Freeman

E. E.

Robinson

E. L.

(2022). The relationship between father-child rough-and-tumble play and children’s working memory. Children (Basel), 9(7), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9070962

14.

Gere

M. K.

Villabø

M. A.

Torgersen

Kendall

P. C.

(2012). Overprotective parenting and child anxiety: The role of co-occurring child behavior problems. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(6), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.04.003

15.

Gielen

A. C.

Defrancesco

Bishai

Mahoney

Guyer

(2004). Child pedestrians: the role of parental beliefs and practices in promoting safe walking in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Health, 81(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jth139

16.

Gromada

Rees

Chzhen

(2020). Worlds of influence: Understanding what shapes child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti report card 16. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/worlds-of-influence

17.

Gundersen

Skår

O’Brien

Wold

L. C.

Follo

(2016). Children and nearby nature: A nationwide parental survey from Norway. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 17, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.04.002

18.

Lansford

J. E.

(2022). Annual research review: cross-cultural similarities and differences in parenting. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(4), 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13539

19.

Lavrysen

Bertrands

Leyssen

Smets

Vanderspikken

De Graef

(2015). Risky-play at school. Facilitating risk perception and competence in young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1102412

20.

Lazarus

R. S.

Dodd

H. F.

Majdandžić

de Vente

Morris

Byrow

Bögels

S. M.

Hudson

J. L.

(2016). The relationship between challenging parenting behaviour and childhood anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 190, 784–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.032

21.

Lazarus

R. S.

McLellan

L. F.

Hudson

J. L.

(2018). Recalled challenging parenting behavior and anxiety in adulthood: an exploratory retrospective cohort study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(4), 1216–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0919-x

22.

Little

Sandseter

E. B. H.

Wyver

(2012). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about children’s risky play in Australia and Norway. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(4), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.4.300

23.

Lucas

R. E

. (2018). Reevaluating the strengths and weaknesses of self-report measures of subjective well-being. In Diener

Oishi

Tay

(Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 45–55). DEF Publishers.

24.

Mac Dougall

Beyene

Nachtigall

R. D

. (2012). “Inconvenient biology:” advantages and disadvantages of first-time parenting after age 40 using in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod, 27(4), 1058–1065. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des007

25.

Majdandžić

de Vente

Bögels

S. M.

(2008). Challenging Parenting Behavior Questionnaire 7-12 years (CPBQ7-12). University of Amsterdam.

26.

Majdandžić

de Vente

Bögels

S. M.

(2016). Challenging parenting behavior from infancy to toddlerhood: Etiology, measurement, and differences between fathers and mothers. Infancy, 21(4), 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12125

27.

Majdandžić

de Vente

Colonnesi

Bögels

S. M.

(2018). Fathers’ challenging parenting behavior predicts less subsequent anxiety symptoms in early childhood. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 109, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.07.007

28.

Majdandžić

Lazarus

R. S.

Oort

F. J.

van der Sluis

Dodd

H. F.

Morris

T. M.

de Vente

Byrow

Hudson

J. L.

Bögels

S. M.

(2018). The structure of challenging parenting behavior and associations with anxiety in Dutch and Australian children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2017.1381915

29.

Majdandžić

Möller

E. L.

de Vente

Bögels

S. M.

van den Boom

D. C.

(2014). Fathers’ challenging parenting behavior prevents social anxiety development in their 4-year-old children: A longitudinal observational study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9774-4

30.

Marzi

Reimers

A. K.

(2018). Children’s independent mobility: Current knowledge, future directions, and public health implications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112441

31.

Mehmetoglu

Jakobsen

T. G.

(2017). Applied statistics using Stata. A guide for the social sciences. Sage.

32.

Möller

E. L.

Majdandžić

Bögels

S. M.

(2014). Parental anxiety, parenting behavior, and infant anxiety: differential associations for fathers and mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(9), 2626–2637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0065-7

33.

Nilsen

R. D.

(2008). Children in nature: Cultural ideas and social practices in Norway. In James

James

A. L.

(Eds.), European childhoods: cultures, politics and childhoods in Europe (pp. 38–60). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582095_3

34.

OECD. (2019). Norway. In Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/d9d83321-en

35.

Paquette

(2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47(4), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078723

36.

Paulhus

D. L.

Vazire

(2007). The self-report method. Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology, 1(2007), 224–239.

37.

Perry

N. B.

Dollar

J. M.

Calkins

S. D.

Keane

S. P.

Shanahan

(2018). Childhood self-regulation as a mechanism through which early overcontrolling parenting is associated with adjustment in preadolescence. Developmental Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000536

38.

Poulton

Menzies

R. G.

(2002). Non-associative fear acquisition: A review of the evidence from retrospective and longitudinal research. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00045-6

39.

Rambøll (2003). SurveyXact. Rambøll Management Consulting. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www.surveyxact.com/

40.

Sando

O. J.

Kleppe

Sandseter

E. B. H.

(2021). Risky play and children’s well-being, involvement and physical activity. Child Indicators Research, 14(4), 1435–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-021-09804-5

41.

Sandseter

E. B. H.

Cordovil

Hagen

T. L.

Lopes

(2020). Barriers for outdoor play in early childhood education and care (ECEC) institutions: Perception of risk in children’s play among european parents and ECEC practitioners. Child Care in Practice, 26(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2019.1685461

42.

Sandseter

E. B. H.

Kennair

L. E. O.

(2011). Children’s risky play from an evolutionary perspective: The anti-phobic effects of thrilling experiences. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(2), 257–284.

43.

Sandseter

E. B. H.

Sando

O. J.

(2016). “We don’t allow children to climb trees”: How a focus on safety affects Norwegian children’s play in early-childhood education and care settings. American Journal of Play, 8(2), 178–200.

44.

Sandseter

E. B. H.

Sando

O. J.

Lorås

Kleppe

Storli

Brussoni

Bundy

Schwebel

D. C.

Ball

D. J.

Haga

Little

(2023). Virtual risk management—exploring effects of childhood risk experiences through innovative methods (ViRMa) for primary school children in Norway: Study protocol for the ViRMa project. JMIR Research Protocols, 12, e45857. https://doi.org/10.2196/45857

45.

Shirani

(2013). The spectre of the wheezy dad: masculinity, fatherhood and ageing. Sociology, 47(6), 1104–1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512469063

46.

Skarpenes

Sakslind

(2010). Education and Egalitarianism: The culture of the Norwegian Middle Class. The Sociological Review, 58(2), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01901.x

47.

Smout

Lazarus

R. S.

Hudson

J. L.

(2020). The relationship between parenting and anxiety in emerging adulthood. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 44(1), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-019-10037-8

48.

Stewart

Janta

(2018). Paternity and parental leave policies across the European Union—Assessment of Current Provision. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/51284

49.

Stgeorge

Freeman

(2017). Measurement of father–child rough-and-tumble play and its relations to child behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 38(6), 709–725.

50.

Sørensen

A. E.

(2019). Gender segregation in the Nordic labour market. In nordics.info: Aarhus University.

51.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

(2004). Conceptualizing fathers’ roles: Playmates and more. Human Development, 47(4), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078724

52.

WEF. (2023). Global Gender Gap Report 2023. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2023/in-full/

53.

Zuckerman

(1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press.

The Structure of Challenging Parenting Behavior in Norwegian Parents to Children in Middle Childhood (7–10 years)

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The Norwegian Context

Research on Challenging Parenting Behavior

Parents’ Age and Parenting Behavior

The Current Study

Method

Recruitment and Data Collection

Participants

Measure

Data Analysis

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Across All Participants

Relations of CPB with Parental Sex and Age

Discussion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References