Journal of Family Psychology 2000. Vol. 14. No. 1,27-41
Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. O893-32O0/O0/$5.O0 DOI: 10.1037//0893-3200.14.1.27
Stressful Life Events, Psychological Distress, Coping, and Parenting of Divorced Mothers: A Longitudinal Study Jenn-Yun Tein, Irwin N. Sandier, and Alex J. Zautra Arizona State University This was a prospective longitudinal study of the relationships among life stress, psychological distress, coping, and parenting behaviors in a sample of divorced custodial mothers. First, the differential effects of major events and daily stressors on psychological distress and parenting were explored. Second, the mediational links among stress, distress, and 3 dimensions of parenting behaviors were studied. Third, 3 coping strategies were studied as moderators of the relationship between distress and parenting. The results showed that both major and small events had significant effects on parental distress, with the effects of daily negative events being greater than those of major events. Parental distress mediated the relationships between stressful life events and parental acceptance of their children's behaviors. Parental coping strategies moderated the relationship between mothers' psychological distress and mothers' discipline practice.
A number of researchers have found evidence to suggest that divorce disturbs parenting behaviors. Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1979) found that divorced parents made fewer demands on their children, showed less affection toward them, and were notably inconsistent in their discipline. They also frequently failed to notice whether or not the children had complied with their demands. In addition, Forehand, Thomas, Wierson, and Brody (1990) found significant differences between divorced and nondivorced families on parental skills, with divorced mothers being more irritable and less positive in parent-adolescent interactions than
nondivorced mothers. Wallerstein and Kelly (1976) have called these postdivorce differences diminished parenting. This study examined the roles of stress and parental distress after divorce on parenting. We proposed a model in which stressful events lead to psychological stress, which, in turn, leads to diminished parenting. Although event stressors and psychological distress can adversely affect parental functioning, several factors may temper these adverse effects. This study examined one such buffering factor, the use of differential coping strategies. A model that examines how parental coping styles moderate the relationship of psychological distress with parenting was proposed and tested.
Jenn-Yun Tein and Irwin N. Sandier, Program for Prevention Research, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University; Alex J. Zautra, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University. This research was funded in part by Grant P30-MH39246-12 from the National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Health and Human Services, to support a Preventive Intervention Research Center at Arizona State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jenn-Yun Tein, Program for Prevention Research, Arizona State University, Box 876005, Tempe, Arizona 85287-6005. Electronic mail may be sent to
[email protected].
The Effect of Stress on Parenting as Mediated by Psychological Distress Considerable research has linked parenting behaviors to life events. Gersten, Langner, Eisenberg, and Simcha-Fagan (1977) found that the occurrence of undesirable life events correlated positively with affectively distant, restrictive, and punitive parenting. Webster-Stratton (1990) found that mothers who reported high levels of stress from major life events were more controlling, abusive, and punitive than those 27
28
TEIN, SANDLER, AND ZAUTRA
who had low levels of stress. Similarly, Patterson (1988) found that daily fluctuations in mothers' tendencies to initiate and continue an aversive change with their children were systematically related to the frequency of stresses that the mother experienced on those days. Divorce is a source of both major stress and everyday stressors for many families. Major life stressors (such as divorce, bereavement, and job loss) require a significant life readjustment, involving a number of behavioral and psychological processes. They also require the individual to pass from one identity to another (e.g., married to divorced; see Pillow, Zautra, & Sandier, 1996). The beginning and end points may span a significant period of time that may vary considerably from person to person. On the other hand, everyday stressors occur over relatively short periods of time and have a discrete beginning and end. However, the accumulation of small, undesirable events within any given day, week, or month may represent a strain on the adjustment process, imply an underlying disequilibrium in the person's ongoing relationship with the environment, or serve as provocative reminders of long-standing problems that interfere with the person's ability to meet basic needs (Reich & Zautra, 1983; Zautra, Guarnaccia, & Dohrenwend, 1986). Daily negative events for divorced mothers can be related to financial hardship, social isolation, or continuing conflicts with the ex-spouse. Substantial changes in parent-child interactions have been observed in divorced families and have been related to the level of stress experienced by the parent. For example, Weintraub and Wolf (1983) found that single mothers who experienced more stressful life events were less nurturant toward their children, less at ease, less spontaneous, and less responsive to their children's communication than were married mothers. Increased psychological distress induced by stressful events may explain changes in parenting following divorce. A great deal of research has demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between major life changes and higher levels of physical and mental disorders (e.g., B. S. Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974). In addition, a number of studies have found that small life events increase psychological distress (e.g., Grant, Sweetwood, Yager, & Gerst, 1978; Zautra et al., 1986; Zautra, Guarnaccia, & Reich, 1989). For ex-
ample, in a study of high-risk families, Pillow et al. (1996) found that psychological distress was elevated for parents who experienced more small, undesirable events. This finding held for parents who were recently divorced or conjugally bereaved, who had alcoholic spouses, who had asthmatic children, and who were in the matched control sample that had not experienced major stressors. In sum, rewarding, explaining, consulting, and negotiating with a child require patience and concentration; these qualities typically are in short supply when parents feel overburdened and distressed by life experiences (McLoyd, 1990). Maccoby (1980) concluded that feeling tired, worried, ill, or unable to control the events that affect their lives makes parents less patient and understanding with their children and less willing to take the time to reason with them than they would be at other times. The present study first examined a mediation model in which the relationships between major or small events and parenting by divorced mothers is mediated by psychological distress. This study advanced the understanding of these processes over previous studies (McLoyd, 1990; Webster-Stratton, 1990) by investigating the unique effects of major and small everyday events on parental distress and parenting behaviors.
Coping as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Psychological Distress and Parenting Although divorce and psychological distress can adversely affect parental functioning, several factors may attenuate or temper these adverse effects. One of the factors that may buffer the negative effects of stressful situations is parental coping strategies. Studies have found that coping by avoidance is generally not an effective strategy (Holahan & Moos, 1985, 1987), whereas active coping is often found to relate to more effective adaptation in many situations (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1984; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Ineffective coping strategies may exacerbate stress. For example, Holahan and Moos (1987) speculated that an interim period of cognitive avoidance may be helpful in providing time to garner personal resources in the initial phases of coping with an overwhelming and unexpected life crisis. However, when an individual continues to rely on avoidant
STRESSFUL EVENTS, PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS, COPING, AND PARENTING coping strategies, the crisis or its consequences cannot be confronted directly and psychological dysfunction is likely to result. In contrast, those who are coping more effectively develop meaningful and acceptable actions or interpretations for stressful events. These individuals may integrate thoughts or actions into a coherent, stable, and adaptive conceptual framework that consequently provides a source for predictability and control and lowers distress. The present study examined how both avoidant and active coping strategies moderate the relationship between psychological distress and parenting. Only a small number of studies have examined the effects of active and avoidant coping strategies on parenting. Meichelbaum and Fitzpatrick (1993) postulated that feelings of control regarding child rearing and authoritative behaviors toward children are associated with active problem solving. Mondell and Taylor (1981) found that parenting competence, which includes active coping, self-efficacy, and trust, is related to high levels of parental warmth, helpfulness, and positive feeling toward children. The relationship between social-support seeking and parenting in divorced mothers has received some research attention (Holloway & Machida, 1991; Quittner, Glueckauf, & Jackson, 1990). Compared with married mothers, divorced custodial mothers take on the primary responsibilities and demands of child rearing with little or no relief. Without marital support, social-support networks become more critical (Belsky & Vondra, 1989; Bowen, 1982). Better adjustment to divorce was found in women whose needs for information, aid, and companionship were met (Daniels-Mohring & Berger, 1984). The availability of social support also affects divorced mothers' parenting behavior. Bowen found that mothers* sense of competence in negotiating with children and satisfaction with mother-child relationships were positively related to their satisfaction with their relationships with family members and friends. It may be that mothers' requests for support as a coping strategy are particularly important for reducing the effects of postdivorce distress on parenting. The present study examined how parental use of active coping, support seeking, and avoidant coping strategies moderate the relationship between psychological distress and parenting. We proposed that active coping and supportseeking strategies buffer the relationship be-
29
tween psychological distress and parenting. We also proposed that avoidant coping exacerbates the relationship between psychological distress and parenting problems.
Hypothesized Model Prior research has considered stressful events, psychological distress, parenting behavior, and mothers* coping strategies in correlational models that assessed only univariate relationships among these variables. Only a handful of studies have explored the mediational role of psychological distress on the relationship between stressful events and parenting skills (Conger et al., 1992, 1993; Rodgers, 1993). Moreover, although the effects of major life events and minor stressors on both psychological distress and parenting have been examined in previous research, the joint effects of these variables have not been studied extensively (see Pillow et al., 1996) and these studies that investigated the simultaneous effects have yielded inconsistent findings. Most of the studies that have examined both major life events and minor stressors have found that major life events fail to add significant prediction over the contribution of minor stressors in accounting for psychological distress (Monroe, 1983; Wagner, Compas, & Howell, 1988). In contrast, Zautra, Reich, and Guarnaccia (1990) found that everyday small life events alone failed to explain the elevated distress among conjugally bereaved adults. No prior studies have linked parenting with the unique effects of major life events and minor stressors when studied simultaneously. The present study added to former studies by investigating three previously unexplained aspects of the relationships among life stress, psychological distress, coping styles, and parenting in a sample of divorced custodial mothers. First, we examined the direct effects of both major and daily stressors on psychological distress and parenting behaviors. Second, we examined the link between stress and three dimensions of parenting mediated by psychological distress. Third, we examined coping strategies as moderators of the relationship between distress and parenting. Furthermore, we used a prospective longitudinal design to strengthen the plausibility of inferences that coping and psychological distress influence parenting behaviors rather than the reverse. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model guiding this research.
30
TEIN, SANDLER, AND ZAUTRA Acceptance T1
Major Events T1 Acceptance T2
Small Events T1
Rejection T1 i .
Rejection T2
Consistency T1 *-'
Consistency T2
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationships among negative life events, psychological distress, coping, and parenting of divorced mothers. Tl = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. *p < .05
Method Participants The present study was part of a larger longitudinal project on children of divorce. The original sample consisted of 256 mothers (mean age = 35.37 years, SD = 5.52) who were divorced within 2 years prior to the initial interview and who had children between 8 and 12 years of age (Sandier, Tein, & West, 1994). The mean length of time between divorce and initial interview for these mothers was 14.09 months (SD = 11.43). The majority of the sample was Caucasian (86%), with Hispanic Americans accounting for 9%, African Americans for 2%, and American Indians or other ethnic groups composing 3% of the sample. The median family income was between $20,000 and $25,000 per year. The mean number of children at home was approximately 2 (M = 2.30, SD = 0.98). Second interviews were obtained with 222 (86%) of these families 5.5 months after the initial interview. Only mothers who participated in both Time 1 interviews (i.e., initial interviews) and Time 2 interviews (i.e., second interviews) were selected for
the present study. Included in the present study were 178 mothers after a list wise deletion of mothers who had missing data on any of the variables of interest and elimination of 4 outliers.' Potentially eligible families were identified through court records of divorce decrees. Each family's participation in the study was solicited by an initial mailing and a follow-up phone call. Eligibility criteria for this study included the requirements mat the child was in the appropriate age range (8 to 12 years), his or her mother had divorced within the past 2 years, the mother was not remarried, and the mother had at least 50% custody of the child. Both the mother and an eligible child (randomly selected if there was more than 1 eligible child in the family) had to agree to 1
Based on an examination of the data, these participants had endorsed almost all of the 19 major events (i.e., 17 to 19). The rest of the sample reported at most five major events in the last 3 months. Data coding or input errors are assumed to account for these scores. These cases were dropped to eliminate undue spurious influence from the outliers.
STRESSFUL EVENTS, PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS, COPING, AND PARENTING participate in the study and had to be fluent in English. Of the 4,583 court files reviewed, 27% (1,236) of families were identified as qualified for the study; however, only 609 (49%) could be located. For those that were located, 189 (31%) refused or were unavailable for interviews and 164 (27%) were ineligible. The remaining 256 families were recruited into the original study. The primary reasons for ineligibility were that the mother had remarried (44%), the father had more than 50% custody (9%), or the family had moved out of the county (44%). For families who were eligible and agreed to participate in the study, parents completed an informed consent form after the study was explained and children signed an informed assent form. Overall, 58% (256) of the eligible families consented to be involved. Families were paid $50 for their participation in each of the interviews. Interviews were conducted in the home using computer-assisted personal interviewing. In addition, a few scales of mothers' reports, including those that measured major life events and minor stressors, were collected through a mail-in survey.
Measures Stressors. Stressful events included both major and daily life stressors. Major life stressors were assessed with an abbreviated form of the Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Interview (PERI) Life Experience Survey (B. S. Dohrenwend, Krasnoff, Askenasy, & Dohrenwend, 1978). Mothers were asked to indicate which of 20 events (e.g., losing a job, experiencing a death, or serious illness) had occurred to them in the previous 3 months. One event that might be confounded with the psychological distress (e.g., serious mental or emotion illness) was excluded from the measure in this study. A total count of the rest of the 19 events that occurred was used as an indicator of major life stress (M — 1.17, SD — 1.24, range — 0-5 for Time 1). Time 1 measure of major life stressors was used in the present study. An abridged version of the Inventory of Small Life Events (Zautra et al., 1986) was used to assess everyday life stressors. For the 44 non-health-related small events (e.g., car problems, work frustration, or legal hassles), mothers indicated whether or not the events occurred within the previous 3 months on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3 (0 = not occurred, 1 = happened once, 2 = happened between 2 to 9 times,3 = happened more than 10 times). A weighted mean score was used as an indicator of the frequency of small stressors (M = 12.88, SD = 7.59, range = 0-39). Time 1 measure of everyday life stressors was used in the present study. Psychological distress. Psychological distress was assessed using the PERI Demoralization Scale (B. P. Dohrenwend, Shrout, Egri, & Mendelsohn, 1980; Robert & Vernon, 1981), a measure of nonspecific
31
psychological distress. Mothers indicated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often) how often they had experienced various psychiatric symptoms (e.g., feeling of helplessness, poor appetite, or anxiety) over the past 3 months. The Time 1 measure of psychological distress was used in the present study. The internal consistency reliability coefficient at Time 1 was .90 for this scale. Mothers' coping effort. Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub's (1989) Coping Inventory was used to assess mothers' coping responses to typical stressful life events in the previous 3 months. Eleven coping subscaies form this inventory: Active Coping, Planning, Restraint, Instrumental Support Seeking, Emotional Support Seeking, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, Acceptance, Denial, Mental Disengagement, Alcohol and Drug Use, and Humor. Three or four items were used as indicators for each of the subscaies. Zautra, Sheets, and Sandier (1996) conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to study the coping dimensions assessed by this scale on the data used in the current study. A three-factor coping model was found to provide the best fit for the data (Sender's comparative fit index [CFI] = .95; Bentler, 1990, 1993). The three coping factors identified include Active Coping (Active Coping, Restraint, Planning, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, Acceptance, and Humor), Avoidant Coping (Denial, Use of Drugs or Alcohol, and Mental Disengagement), and Seeking Social Support (Instrumental and Emotional Support Seeking). Scores for the three coping dimensions in the present study were created by summing the weighted standardized scores of their indicators using weights of indicators developed by Zautra et al. Tune 1 measures of coping variables were used in the Present study. Parenting behaviors. The parent version of the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965a; 1965b; see also Teleki, Powell, & Dodder, 1982) was used to assess parenting behaviors. The mothers rated each item as like, somewhat like, or not like their behaviors toward their children in the past 3 months. Three subscaies from the CRPBI were included: Acceptance (10 items; e.g., "You enjoy doing things with your child"), Rejection (10 items; e.g., "You almost always complained to the child about what he/she did"), and Consistency of Discipline (8 items; e.g., "You punished the child for doing something one day but you ignored it the next day"). Both Time 1 and Tune 2 measures of parenting behaviors were used in the present study. The internal consistency reliability coefficients for these scales were .75, .73, and .80, respectively, at Time 1 and .74, .74, and .85, respectively, at Time 2.
Results Sample representativeness was assessed by comparing Time 1 data for those participants
32
TEEM, SANDLER, AND ZAUTRA
who completed all of the measures in this study (n = 178) with those who did not. Compared with those who were not included in this study, those who were included in the study reported more occurrences of small events (for completers, M = 12.89; for noncompleters, M = 9.93, r(234) = 2.55, p < .01) and higher rejection scores (for completers, M = 22.37; for noncompleters, M = 21.13, r(252) - 2.36, p < .05). There were no differences between the two groups on the other measures used in this study. However, using the Box-M procedure (Winer, 1971) to test for differences of the variances and covariances of the studied variables between the two groups, we did not find any difference between the two groups on the variables of interest at Time 1. Table 1 contains the zero-order correlations of Time 1 and Time 2 parenting variables with Time 1 stressful events, psychological distress, and coping variables. Time 1 psychological distress and avoidant coping were negatively related to both Time 1 and Time 2 acceptance and consistency of discipline and positively related to rejection. Time 1 active coping, on the other hand, was positively related to both Time 1 and Time 2 acceptance and consistency of discipline and negatively related to rejection. Time 1 small events were positively related to rejection at Times 1 and 2 and negatively related to consistency of discipline at Times 1 and 2. Time 1 major events correlated positively with Time 1 and Time 2 rejection. The major research questions were tested using structural equation modeling to examine prospective longitudinal models of the relations between Time 1 stressful events, psychological distress, and mothers' coping strategies and Time 2 parenting behaviors while controlling for temporal stability (i.e., Time 1 scores) of parenting variables. Specifically, major and small events, mothers' psychological distress, and coping were directly related to parenting (see Figure 1). Major and small events also had direct effects on mothers* psychological distress. In addition, a Coping X Psychological Distress interaction term was specified. A significant Coping X Psychological Distress interaction would indicate a potential moderational effect of coping on the relationship between psychological distress and symptoms. To avoid potential multicollinearity, we centered measures of psychological distress and coping (Aiken &
West, 1991). To have adequate cases for parameter estimates (i.e., five cases per parameter; Bentler & Chou, 1987) and to obtain a clear picture of how coping had direct and moderational effects on different parenting styles, the model estimated the effect of one coping variable at a time. Both maximum likelihood estimation and the Satorra-Bentler scaled chisquare test (see Bentler, 1993) were used to test the mediational effect of psychological distress on the relationship between stressful events and parenting and the moderational effect of mothers* coping strategies on the relationship between psychological distress and parenting.2 Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the results of the prospective longitudinal models with active coping, avoidant coping, and support seeking, respectively. These models fit the data adequately using the maximum likelihood estimation, with active coping in the model, X2(25, N = 178) = 72.83, CFI = .92; with support seeking in the model, x2(25, N = 178) = 56.85, 2 The maximum likelihood estimation procedure for structural equation modeling assumes a multivariate normal distribution of the variables. The distribution of the product term of Distress X Coping was not normal, even though each variable in the product term approached a normal distribution. As Bollen (1989) has suggested, if the disturbances of the dependent variables (i.e., the variance of parenting variables that were not accounted for with the model statement) have means of zero and are normally distributed and the independent variables that relate to the parenting variables (i.e., distress, coping, and Distress X Coping) are independent of the disturbances, it is feasible to proceed with testing of the model using the maximum likelihood procedure. Furthermore, several simulations and theoretical studies have shown that the maximum likelihood procedure is robust against nonnormality (Boomsma, 1983; Browne, 1987; see also Bentler, 1993; Joreskog & S6rbom, 1989). According to Bentler and Chou (1987), normal theory maximum likelihood estimators are almost always acceptable even with data that are nonnormally distributed; however, the chi-square and standard errors may not be trustworthy under violation of distribution assumptions. As a precaution, we also tested the models with the Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistics (see Bentler, 1993), which is a modification of standard goodness-of-fit chi-square test. Bentler and Hu, Bender, and Kano (1992) have claimed that the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square test should behave more closely to the expected chi-square distribution when the assumption of multivariate normality is violated.
STRESSFUL EVENTS, PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS, COPING, AND PARENTING
33
Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations of Negative Events, Psychological Distress, Coping, and Parenting Subscale 1. 2. 3. 4, 5, 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Major Events Small Events Distress Active Coping Avoidant Coping Support Coping Acceptance Rejection Consistency Acceptance Rejection Consistency
1 2 — .41 —
3
4
.37 .56 —
-.01 -.04 -.21 —
7
8
9
10
11
12
-.11 -.13
-.24
.45
.28
.19 .27 .23 -.20 .39 -.07 -.59 —
-.05 -.32 -.28 .17 -.27 .02 .32 -.50 —
-.01 -.01 -.16 .25 -.19 .10 .56 -.40 .23 —
.18 .17
.32
.06 .01 .01
-.06 -.21 -.23 .30 -.32 .12 .32 -.44 .70 .33 -.49
5
6
.08 .21
—
-.03
—
-.16
-.18 .09 —
.20 -.20 .30 -.11 -.52 .63 -.40 -.57 —
—
Note, r S .16 for p < .05, two-tailed test; r > .20 for p < .01, two-tailed test. Subscales 1-9 are Time 1 variables; Subscales 10-12 are Time 2 variables.
CFI = .95; and with avoidant coping in the model, x2(25, N = 178) = 87.88, CFI = .90. The results of standard error estimates and model fits using the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square test were similar to those from the maximum likelihood estimation.3
significance of the mediational effects. The results indicated that psychological distress mediated the effects of Time 1 major events and small events on Time 2 acceptance, z = -1.66, p < .05, and z = —1.98, p < .01, respectively.
Mediational Model
Moderational Model
The estimates of the paths from Time 1 major events, small events, and psychological distress to Time 2 parenting variables varied somewhat with the different coping measures in the models. The differences were not noticeable, however. Figure 2 is used as an example for a discussion of the mediational relations among these variables. Major events and small events were moderately correlated (r = .41, p < .01), and each had a significant effect on psychological distress (standardized path coefficient [[J] = 0.16, p < .05, and (3 = 0.49, p < .01, respectively). Time 1 major events and small events did not have significant direct effects on Time 2 parenting after controlling for Time 1 parenting variables. Time 1 psychological distress had a negative direct effect on Time 2 acceptance (p = < .01. Tl = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. tp < .10. *p < .05. **p< .01.
acceptance or rejection. Two of the three coping strategies were significantly related to Time 2 consistency of discipline, however. Time 1 active coping was positively related to Time 2 consistency of discipline (p = 0.20, p < .05) and Time 1 avoidant coping was negatively related to Time 2 consistency of discipline (3 = 0.12, p < .05). In addition, Time 2 consistency of discipline was also related to Time 1 Psychological Distress X Coping interactive effects. The interaction of Time 1 psychological distress and avoidant coping had a significant negative effect on Time 2 consistency of discipline (p = -0.12,/> < .05). With an alpha level of .05, the results indicated trends only for the main effect of Time 1 support seeking and for the interaction effect of Time 1 psychological distress and support seeking in relating to Time 2 consistency of discipline (p = 0.10, p = .06, for both effects).
The findings above indicate that avoidant coping moderated the relationship between Time 1 psychological distress and Time 2 parenting behaviors. Coping strategies can moderate the effect of psychological distress on parenting behaviors in two ways, depending on the direction of the interaction between psychological distress and coping strategies. With a negative interaction, the relationship between psychological distress and consistency of discipline becomes increasingly negative as the use of coping strategies (presumably ineffective coping strategies) increases. In contrast, with a positive interaction, the effect of psychological distress on consistency of discipline should attenuate as the use of the coping strategies (presumably effective coping strategies) increases. The results above show some evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis: Avoidant coping seemed to aggravate the negative effect
STRESSFUL EVENTS, PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS, COPING, AND PARENTING
35
Acceptance T1 Major Events T1 Acceptance T2 Small Events T1
I1 Rejection T1
f'
56
I" " --49"
.31"
\
•
i.
-.39"
Rejection T2
Consistency T1 £•**' .i28**
1 •"" Consistency T2
/ • = 87.90, p < .01, comparative fit index = .90; Satorra-Bentlerscaled X2(25, N = 178) = 69.28,p < .01. Tl = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. tp < .10. *p < .05. **p
