Understanding and Improving the Validity of Self-Report of Parenting

Although researchers using parental self-report data have questioned its validity (Holden, 2001) and called for more work in this area (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Locke & Prinz, 2002), methodological concerns regarding self-report about parenting practices have not been addressed adequately. The susceptibility of parental report to systematic distortions suggests a need for research on ways to improve self-report. This paper attempts to synthesize research findings from other fields (e.g., survey methodology) about ways to improve the validity of self-report, and to discuss the implications for self-report of parenting behaviors. Methods for improving self-report are presented for each of the 5 major tasks in responding to a question: (1) understanding the question, (2) recalling relevant behavior, (3) inference and estimation, (4) mapping the answer onto the response format, and (5) “editing” the answer for reasons of social desirability. Self-administered interviewing, audio-computer-assisted interviewing, pretesting, conversational interviewing, and the decompositional item may be among the best candidates for use in parental self-report. Recommendations are offered with respect to strategies that might prove useful in improving parental assessment of parenting, and to research efforts to evaluate the utility and potential costs of these strategies.     

Is the Chinese number-naming system transparent? Evidence from Chinese-English bilingual children.

Chinese-speaking children have been shown to have an advantage over English-speaking children in a variety of mathematical areas, including counting. One possible explanation for the advantage in counting is that the Chinese number-naming system is relatively transparent, compared to English, in that number names typically are directly indicative of base-10 structure (e.g., 12 is named "ten-two" rather than "twelve"). To determine whether the transparency of the Chinese number-naming system influences counting in bilingual children, we tested 25 Chinese-English bilingual children between the ages of 3 and 5 years, both in English and in Chinese. Children were asked to count as high as they could (abstract counting) and also to count objects in small, medium, and large arrays (object counting). No evidence was found for transparency or for transfer from one language to the other. Instead, relative proficiency in the two languages influenced counting skill. These results are discussed in terms of linguistic and cultural variables that might account for cross-linguistic differences in counting.