Latent Classes of Adverse and Benevolent Childhood Experiences in a Multinational Sample of Parents and Their Relation to Parent, Child, and Family Functioning during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are known to contribute to later mental health. Conversely, Benevolent Childhood Experiences (BCEs) may buffer against mental health difficulties. The importance of ACEs and BCEs for mental health of both parents and children may be most obvious during periods of stress, with potential consequences for functioning of the family. Subgroups of ACEs and BCEs in parents during the COVID-19 pandemic were investigated and validated in relation to indices of parent, child, and family well-being. In May 2020, ACEs/BCEs were assessed in 547 parents of 5-18-year-old children from the U.K., U.S., Canada, and Australia. Subgroups of parents with varying levels of ACEs and BCEs were identified via latent class analysis. The subgroups were validated by examining associations between class membership and indices of parent and child mental health and family well-being. Four latent classes were identified: low-ACEs/high-BCEs, moderate-ACEs/high-BCEs, moderate-ACEs/low-BCEs, and high-ACEs/moderate-BCEs. Regardless of the extent of BCEs, there was an increased risk of parent and child mental health difficulties and family dysfunction among those reporting moderate-to-high levels of ACEs. Parents' history of adversity may influence the mental health of their family. These findings highlight the importance of public health interventions for preventing early-life adversity.

Assessing positive adaptation during a global crisis: The development and validation of the family positive adaptation during COVID-19 scale

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the psychosocial functioning of children and families. It is important to consider adversity in relation to processes of positive adaptation. To date, there are no empirically validated multi-item scales measuring COVID-related positive adaptation within families. The aim of the current study was to develop and validate a new measure: the Family Positive Adaptation during COVID-19 Scale (Family PACS). The sample included 372 female and 158 male caregivers (73% White-European/North American;median 2019 income = $50,000 to $74,999 USD) of children ages 5–18 years old from the United Kingdom (76%), the United States (19%), Canada (4%), and Australia (1%), who completed measures in May 2020. Participants responded to a 14-item survey indexing a range of perceived coping and adaptation behaviors at the beginning of the pandemic. An exploratory factor analysis yielded an optimal one-factor solution comprised of seven items related to family cohesion, flexibility, routines, and meaning-making (loadings from 0.44 to 0.67). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated measurement invariance across female and male caregivers, demonstrating that the factor structure, loadings, and thresholds did not vary by caregiver sex. There was evidence for concurrent validity with significant bivariate correlations between the Family PACS scores and measures of caregiver positive coping, parenting practices, couple satisfaction, and family functioning (correlations from 0.10 to 0.23), but not negatively-valenced constructs. Findings inform our conceptualization of how families have adapted to adverse pandemic-related conditions. Further, we provide preliminary support for the Family PACS as a practical tool for evaluating positive family adaptation during this global crisis, with implications for future widespread crises.

COVID-19 disruption gets inside the family: A two-month multilevel study of family stress during the pandemic.

Developmental research during COVID-19 suggests that pandemic-related disruptions in family relationships are associated with children's mental health. Most of this research has focused on 1 child per family, thereby obfuscating patterns that are differentially operative at the family-wide (i.e., between-family) versus child-specific (i.e., within-family) levels of analysis. Thus, the current study evaluates multilevel, longitudinal associations between COVID-19 disruption, family relationships, and caregiver/child mental health using a sibling comparison methodology. Caregivers (N = 549 families with 1098 children between 5 and 18 years old) were recruited from the Prolific research panel (73% White-European; 68% female; 76% United Kingdom, 19% U.S.A.; median 2019 income $50,000-$74,999). Caregiver reports of COVID-19 disruption, psychological distress, family functioning, parenting, and child mental health (for 2 children per family) were provided during May (time 1) and July (time 2) 2020. A Bayesian multilevel path analysis with random effects revealed: (a) families were experiencing difficulties across domains when COVID-19 disruption was high; (b) COVID-19 disruption corresponded to greater sibling differences in mental health; and (c) the sibling with poorer mental health received lower quality parenting over time, especially in families who reported higher levels of differential parenting. Findings suggest that understanding children's mental health difficulties during COVID-19 requires a family system lens due to the multiple ways these consequences permeate across the family unit. Comprehensive interventions for children's mental health during this time will likely require an examination of caregiver, sibling, and whole-family dynamics in the context of evidence-based telehealth practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale: Validation and Measurement Invariance in Female and Male Caregivers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised significant concerns regarding the effect of social disruptions on parental mental health, family well-being, and children's adjustment. Due to the pace of the pandemic, measures of pandemic-related disruption have not been subject to rigorous empirical validation. To address this gap, a multi-national sample (United Kingdom, 76%; United States, 19%; Canada, 4%, and Australia, 1%) of 372 female caregivers and 158 male caregivers of 5-18-year-old children was recruited online. Participants completed a survey including a 25-item scale indexing disruption in finances, basic needs, personal and family welfare, career/education, household responsibilities, and family relationships related to the pandemic. An exploratory factor analysis yielded an optimal three-factor solution: factors included Income Stress (five items related to income, debt, and job loss; loadings ranged from 0.57 to 0.91), Family Stress (seven items related to family altercations and child management; loadings from 0.57 to 0.87), and Chaos Stress (four items related to access to supplies, crowded shopping areas, news coverage; loadings from 0.53 to 0.70). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated measurement invariance of each factor across female and male caregivers, indicating that factor structure, loadings, and thresholds were equivalent across groups. Composites reflective of each factor were computed, and Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that female caregivers consistently scored higher than male caregivers on COVID-19 stressors related to income, family, and chaos. Finally, concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant bivariate correlations between each scale and caregiver, family, and child outcomes, respectively. This demonstrates the validity of the COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale for use with female and male caregivers in family-based research. The current sample was predominantly White-European, married/common-law, and had at least some post-secondary education. Additional sampling and validation efforts are required across diverse ethnic/racial and socioeconomic groups.

The disparate impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of female and male caregivers.

Caregiver mental health is crucial to the wellbeing of children. This is most apparent when caregivers face high levels of stress or life adversity. To study this phenomenon in the current global context, this study examined the relation between stress/disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic and the mental health of female and male caregivers. Pre-pandemic childhood adversity was considered as a moderator of this association. A multi-national sample (United Kingdom, 76%; United States, 19%; Canada, 4%, and Australia, 1%) was recruited in May 2020, of whom 348 female and 143 male caregivers of 5-18 year-old children provided data on the constructs of interest. At this time, caregivers reported on their history of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and COVID stress/disruption. About two months later (July 2020) caregiver mental health was evaluated. We examined differences between female and male caregivers on ACEs, COVID stress/disruption, and mental health (distress, anxiety, substance use, and posttraumatic stress). Main and interactive effects of ACEs and COVID stress/disruption on each mental health outcome were examined. Female caregivers reported higher COVID stress/disruption, more ACEs, and greater distress, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms compared to male caregivers. Among female caregivers, higher COVID stress/disruption and more adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) independently predicted all mental health outcomes, consistent with a stress accumulation model. Among male caregivers, a pattern of interactions between COVID stress/disruption and ACEs suggested that the effects of COVID stress/disruption on mental health was stronger for those with higher ACEs, especially for substance use, consistent with a stress sensitization model. Higher levels of stress and mental health difficulties among female caregivers suggests a disproportionate burden due to pandemic-related disruption compared to male caregivers. Findings speak to the disparate effects of COVID-19 on the mental health of female compared to male caregivers, and the role of pre-existing vulnerabilities in shaping current adaptation.

Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic poses an acute threat to the well-being of children and families due to challenges related to social disruption such as financial insecurity, caregiving burden, and confinement-related stress (e.g., crowding, changes to structure, and routine). The consequences of these difficulties are likely to be longstanding, in part because of the ways in which contextual risk permeates the structures and processes of family systems. The current article draws from pertinent literature across topic areas of acute crises and long-term, cumulative risk to illustrate the multitude of ways in which the well-being of children and families may be at risk during COVID-19. The presented conceptual framework is based on systemic models of human development and family functioning and links social disruption due to COVID-19 to child adjustment through a cascading process involving caregiver well-being and family processes (i.e., organization, communication, and beliefs). An illustration of the centrality of family processes in buffering against risk in the context of COVID-19, as well as promoting resilience through shared family beliefs and close relationships, is provided. Finally, clinical and research implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).