Parental Factors Moderate the Association Between COVID-19 Disruption and Adolescent Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

Abstract

Past work shows that COVID-19 impacted adolescent mental health, but the moderating role of parental factors remains unclear. Ninety-one parent-adolescent dyads (ages 12–15) completed online surveys. Parents reported on COVID-19 disruption within their household, their mental health, parental reflective functioning (i.e., ability to consider the mental state of their child), and their adolescent’s emotional and behavioural difficulties. Adolescents rated their own emotional and behavioural difficulties and perception of parental support. Positive associations between household COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties emerged, regardless of informant. However, parental factors linked to adolescent difficulties varied by informant. Parental reflective functioning moderated the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties (parent-report). COVID-19 disruption showed some stronger associations with adolescent difficulties than other parental stress measures, but not consistently. Findings replicate and extend prior work, emphasizing the negative association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent mental health, while highlighting parental reflective functioning’s potential for mitigating adolescent difficulties.

Keywords

adolescence emotional and behavioural difficulties parental reflective functioning parental support COVID-19 parental stress

Introduction

As the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic emerge, studies have documented the negative impact on the mental health of parents and children, noting symptoms of depression, anxiety, and loneliness beyond pre-pandemic trajectories (De France et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2021; Westrupp et al., 2021). The magnitude of the effect of COVID-19 on well-being has been shown to vary across different age groups, with higher rates of mental health problems associated with adolescents as compared to pre-school children and older age groups (Cost et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2021; Varma et al., 2021). However, there was much variability in adolescents’ responses to the pandemic (Cost et al., 2022; Coulombe & Yates, 2022; Waite et al., 2021), emphasizing a need to understand the factors that contribute to adolescent outcomes during times of societal disruption, such as COVID-19. One factor that may be important to consider is the role of parents, who act as a relational influence throughout this developmental period.

The primary aim of the present work was to explore how parental factors may be associated with adolescent emotional and behavioural difficulties (hereon referred to as adolescent difficulties for brevity) within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (with the majority of data reflecting the experiences of Canadian families). Specifically, we examined how parents’ experience of COVID-19 disruption within the household was associated with adolescents’ difficulties and whether parental factors moderated the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties. Understanding the role of parents in supporting adolescents may be especially important, as previous research suggests that parents play a significant role in promoting adolescents’ resilience through times of stress (Cheraghian et al., 2023; Gagné, 2003; Masten, 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011). However, environmental and societal disruptions impact all members of a family and may present unique barriers to parental support. Further, while some of the underlying mechanisms of parental stress and adolescent functioning may be similar across different types of stressors, COVID-19 disruptions introduced unique challenges (e.g., widespread and unpredictable disruptions to daily life). Thus, a secondary aim of the present work was to examine whether patterns of association with COVID-19 disruption to a household are distinct from other parental stress measures.

Understanding the role parental factors play for adolescent functioning during COVID-19 provides key insight into how best to support youth and families as they navigate unpredictable circumstances, which is particularly important as we continue to see a rise in wide-reaching societal disruptions (e.g., increased likelihood of future pandemics, rising incidences of natural disasters that may require evacuation or disrupt schooling, war/civil unrest).

COVID-19 Disruption and Adolescent Well-Being

Adolescence is a critical period of social-emotional vulnerability characterized by changes associated with puberty, cognitive development, and evolving relationship roles, all of which can negatively affect mental health and increase problem behaviours (Casey et al., 2008; Gutman & Eccles, 2007; Paus et al., 2008). Further, adolescence is marked by an increasing interest in developing independent identity, fostering autonomy, and developing peer relationships (e.g., Brown & Larson, 2009; Greenberg et al., 1983; Oudekerk et al., 2015; Scholte & Van Aken, 2007; Zimmer-Gembeck & Collins, 2006), all of which were highly impacted by COVID-19 restrictions (e.g., Nadeem & Van Meter, 2023). With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, adolescents’ routines were disrupted with public health measures mandating the closure of businesses, schools, and recreation activities during the stay-at-home period. These public health measures restricted adolescents’ ability to engage in social activities and led to the implementation of remote learning. During the onset of the pandemic in Canada, adolescents reported being concerned about family finances, infection, schooling, friendships, and their reputations (Ellis et al., 2020). Trend analysis of child and adolescent samples showed evidence of an increase in anxiety and depression symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-pandemic estimates, especially among female individuals (Madigan et al., 2023). Systematic reviews reiterate the findings of increased levels of anxiety, depression, worry, loneliness, sedentary behaviours, social media use, and behavioural problems among adolescents during the pandemic (Elharake et al., 2023; Kauhanen et al., 2023; Mucci et al., 2024; Scapaticci et al., 2022). A longitudinal study conducted in Iceland with adolescents found that the increase in depressive symptoms and the decrease in mental health well-being among 13–18-year-olds persisted 1–2 years into the pandemic (Thorisdottir et al., 2023). Though, person fixed-effects models assessing changes in adolescents’ mental health during the pandemic found that the pandemic’s impact on youth mental health varied based on their pre-pandemic mental health (Hu & Qian, 2021). Given these significant disruptions, it is important to understand how other factors can mitigate potential negative mental health effects for adolescents during disruption.

Within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, one way in which the social and environmental changes may particularly impact adolescent well-being is by influencing the family context (Araújo et al., 2020). With the restrictions on adolescents’ peer relationship and increased time at home during this time, the influence of parents on adolescent well-being (Greenberg et al., 1983; Helsen et al., 2000; Youniss & Smollar, 1985) may be especially significant. Moreover, lockdowns increased work-family conflict, parenting stress and irritability, and couple conflict (Chung et al., 2020; Low & Mounts, 2022; Operto et al., 2022; Prime et al., 2021; Roos et al., 2021). These factors lead to lower-quality parenting and more negative interactions between parents and adolescents, which in turn predicted poorer child mental health problems (Donker et al., 2021; Low & Mounts, 2022; McArthur et al., 2023; Operto et al., 2022; Peltz et al., 2023; Romero et al., 2020; Shelleby et al., 2022; Westrupp et al., 2021). Notably, researchers have identified both positive and negative effects of COVID-19 disruption on family functioning. For instance, a longitudinal study by Wang et al. (2021) demonstrated that parental employment status during the COVID-19 pandemic had varying effects on adolescent emotional well-being: parents working from home were more likely to display parental warmth – positively predicting adolescent emotional well-being; parents who reported job loss were more likely to report parent-adolescent conflict – negatively impacting adolescent emotional well-being.

Potential Moderating Parental Factors

Theoretical models posit that adolescents are affected by parental factors, including during periods of disruption (Masarik & Conger, 2017). Parental behaviours influence the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship, which in turn predicts adolescent outcomes. A longitudinal study with more than 8000 participants established a significant link between specific modifiable aspects of parent-adolescent relationships, such as parental warmth, communication, and time spent together during adolescence, and favorable health behaviors and outcomes in young adulthood across various domains, including general health, mental health, sexual health, and substance use (Ford et al., 2023). Parent factors may be especially important for understanding adolescent outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic given the limited interaction adolescents had with peers and other adults/mentors during this time, resulting in potentially higher influence of parents on their adolescent children. In the current study, we examine whether the parental factors of parental reflective functioning ability, parental depression, and adolescent’s perception of parental support impact the degree to which COVID-19 disruption is associated with adolescent’s well-being. These specific factors were chosen as past work demonstrates their association with adolescent difficulties (Benbassat & Priel, 2012; Sheeber et al., 1997; Thapar et al., 2012), as well as possible susceptibility to stressors (Donker et al., 2021; Nelson et al., 2020). For instance, adults who are under greater stress engage in more self-focused (vs. other-focused) mentalizing. Thus, it is possible that elevated COVID-19 disruption may place demands on parents’ abilities to reflect upon the mental states of their adolescent and provide supportive behaviours.

Parental Reflective Functioning

Parental reflective functioning (PRF) is defined as a parent (or caregiver’s) ability to consider themselves and their child as separate agents with their own beliefs, feelings, goals, and desires that guide behaviour (Fonagy et al., 1991; Fonagy & Target, 2002). PRF encompasses both a parent’s ability to think of their child as having their own mental states and a parent’s ability to reflect on how their behaviour may affect their child. Examples of strong PRF include accurately recognizing and validating adolescents’ emotions, expressing curiosity about the underlying intentions and feelings behind their child’s behaviour, accurately inferring their child’s intentions and goals, and demonstrating this attunement to their child through empathetic listening and/or responding to needs (e.g., offering reassurance during stressful times). Luyten et al. (2017a) conceptualized one form of ineffective PRF as pre-mentalizing, or parents’ repudiation of their child’s mental experience and/or maladaptive attributions about their child’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. Examples of ineffective PRF, or pre-mentalizing, include parents dismissing their child’s feeling, difficulties recognizing one’s child as having complex or nuanced internal states, misattributing their child’s intentions (e.g., accusing the adolescent of being lazy when they are actually overwhelmed or anxious), focusing on external behaviours without considering mental states, and non-responsiveness to needs (e.g., being emotionally unavailable, possibly due to an inability to recognize the child as a fully independent agent). Strong PRF has been associated with positive parental behaviours (Smaling et al., 2016), whereas weaker PRF is associated with negative parenting behaviours (e.g., difficulty tolerating or regulating their children’s negative emotions and lower distress tolerance; Kelly et al., 2005; Rutherford et al., 2015). Strong PRF also relates to child outcomes, with better parent reflective functioning being associated with children’s own regulation skills, including better child affect regulation, more secure emotional attachment, and better emotional understanding (Fonagy et al., 1991; Steele et al., 1999). However, markedly less research has examined the role of PRF within adolescence, despite the ongoing cognitive, emotional, and social changes that occur in this developmental period. For instance, adolescents continue to develop perspective-taking and mentalizing skills (Benbassat & Priel, 2012; Gabriel et al., 2021) and their overall development may be especially sensitive to social influences. These developmental changes that occur during adolescence may mean that the observed associations with PRF in childhood look different in adolescence. For example, Benbassat and Priel (2012) found that better PRF was associated with more internalizing problems amongst adolescents (14- to 18-years old), unlike findings from prior research with younger children (7- to 11-years old), where maternal RF was associated with less child psychopathology symptoms (Sharp et al., 2006). That said, Benbassat and Priel’s (2012) findings with adolescents is consistent with findings from postsecondary students wherein better mentalizing (albeit within the same individual) was associated with negative emotional states, such as greater self-criticism and anxiety (Farber, 1989), as well as depression (Gara et al., 2002). Benbassat and Priel theorize that being more adept at understanding mental states, including those of one’s child, may also lead to greater awareness of negative states, which could increase the risk for internalizing behaviours (though, it is important to note that the levels of internalizing remained within the normal (i.e., non-clinical) range). Benbassat and Priel (2012) also found that adolescents’ own reflective functioning moderated relationships between parent behaviours and adolescent adjustment, suggesting that there may be nuanced relationships between parenting skills, parental behaviours, and adolescent well-being.

A number of studies (Stob et al., 2020; Zayde et al., 2023) have found that through interventions directed at improving PRF, child and parent outcomes were improved – including some preliminary evidence in the context of COVID-19 (Zayde et al., 2023). Moreover, during COVID-19, the indirect effect of mother’s anxiety symptoms and preschool-age children’s externalizing behaviours was weaker among mothers who displayed better mentalization skills (Dollberg et al., 2021). Given the importance of PRF in buffering the indirect effect of parent anxiety on behavioural outcomes of younger children during the COVID-19 pandemic, PRF could play an important role in offsetting the impact of parent-experienced disruption on adolescents. Here we examine parental experience of COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties to understand how PRF may relate to these variables. It may be that associations observed between better PRF and child outcomes (Slade, 2005; Smaling et al., 2016; Steele et al., 1999) carry into adolescence, namely, negative association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties would be attenuated amongst parents with stronger PRF skills. However, as associations between PRF and adolescent outcomes have been demonstrated to deviate from patterns with children (see Benbassat & Priel, 2012), it is also plausible that we may find a stronger association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties amongst parents with stronger PRF skills.

Parental Depression

Parental mental health is an important factor that influences the parent-child relationship and may have downstream effects on adolescents’ own mental health through a variety of pathways. For example, adolescents whose family members have a history of depression are at a high risk of developing mental health difficulties such as depression (Natsuaki et al., 2014; Silberg et al., 2010; Thapar et al., 2012). Wilson and Durbin (2010) proposed that parental depression affects the parent-child relationship via a lack of positive parenting practices and overuse of negative parenting practices (although see Shafer et al., 2017). During the pandemic researchers documented an increase in adult reports of depressive symptoms (Nelson et al., 2020; Olagoke et al., 2020; Pinchoff et al., 2021). The dysregulated prefrontal cortical functionality observed with depression may impair the ability of parents with depression to understand and respond appropriately to adolescents’ needs (Arnsten et al., 2021; Fischer-Kern et al., 2008; Hare & Duman, 2020). Thus, parental depression may undermine coping efforts during COVID-19 and thus relate to greater adolescent difficulties. Given that parental depression is posited to negatively affect the parent-adolescent relationship we predicted that parental depression would strengthen the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties.

Parental Support

Parent-child relationships are a main source of support during childhood and into adolescence. Positive and reliable engagement within the parent-child relationship empowers children to seek parental support when in need (Thompson et al., 2008). Parental support such as praising that indicates acceptance (Barnes et al., 2000) is a key factor facilitating adolescent’s transition to adulthood. Furthermore, adolescents’ perceptions of higher parental support have been linked to less internalizing and externalizing problems (Barnes et al., 2006; Gorostiaga et al., 2019; Sheeber et al., 1997; Wang et al., 2013). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a longitudinal study by Donker and colleagues (2021) found a decrease in adolescent’s perceptions of parental support. Given the previous work identifying parental support as a protective factor for adolescent emotional and behavioural outcomes, we predicted that parental support would weaken the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties.

Current Investigation

The current study examines the degree to which parental experience of household disruptions, caused by COVID-19, were associated with adolescents’ difficulties. As indicated in the sections above, our particular focus was how parental factors, namely, PRF, parental depression, and adolescent’s perception of parental support moderate such associations. Understanding the role of parental factors during this developmental stage provides key insights into how best to support adolescents and families as they navigate unpredictable circumstances. These insights extend beyond the context of the pandemic, offering a broader understanding of how parental factors can affect adolescent outcomes during periods of significant stress and transition.

Importantly, to minimize shared method variance, and account for the fact that adolescents and their caregivers may have different insights, both adolescents and parents reported on adolescents’ difficulties. Indeed, developmental researchers often use a multi-informant approach to measurement, as behaviour is known to vary significantly across situations, and informants hold unique perspectives that contribute to informant discrepancies (Booth et al., 2023). Studies demonstrate low to moderate parent-child agreement on reports of child behavioural and emotional problems, with greater discrepancies with reports from adolescents aged 12- to 19- years old as compared to children aged 6- to 11- years old, and for internalizing as opposed to externalizing problems (Booth et al., 2023; De Los Reyes et al., 2015; Sawyer et al., 1992; Sourander et al., 1999). Parents tend to report reduced youth emotional and behavioural problems as compared to adolescents themselves (Booth et al., 2023; Sawyer et al., 1992; Sourander et al., 1999), with the nature of discrepancies differing by adolescent sex and parental factors (Booth et al., 2023). Discrepancies arise from differences in what/how parents and adolescents use information to form their judgements reflecting the subjective perspective of that informant’s observations and situational experiences (e.g., observability of behaviours; Karver, 2006). Moreover, points of divergence in multi-informant reports have the potential to reflect situational specificity, namely differences in how adolescent’s emotional and behavioural difficulties manifest in distinct settings (e.g., home vs. school; De Los Reyes et al., 2022). Given the inherent situational specificity of the experience and expression of adolescent difficulties, discrepancies between parent and adolescent reports are common and provide unique, context-specific insights that capture a more holistic view of adolescent emotional and behavioural functioning. Thus, research using both self- and parent-report is needed to clarify how, or with what parental factors, disruption might relate to adolescent emotional and behavioural functioning.

In the immediate years following the onset of COVID-19 there has been a significant body of research examining the effects of COVID-19 disruption on families and a key challenge moving forward is understanding whether the findings with COVID-19 disruption are novel or if they can be generalized to other stressors. Given that very little work has examined whether patterns of association with COVID-19 disruption are distinct from other parental stress, we also investigated whether associations between COVID-19 disruption with adolescent difficulties would differ with non-COVID-specific measures of stress, including major life stressors and perceived stress. COVID-19 was a novel situation and as such, parents may have been ill-equipped to manage this type of disruption as opposed to other life stressors. If this was the case, then we may observe a greater association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties as compared to major life stressors or perceived stress. Understanding whether COVID-19 disruption showed similar patterns of association affords a unique opportunity to examine the extent to which insights drawn from studying parents’ responses to COVID-19 disruption can be extended generally to how they respond to other types of stress.

Method

Participants

Parent-child dyads were recruited through a through a lab database at the University of Waterloo, advertising with local high schools and community organizations, and the online research platform Children Helping Science. In total, 98 adolescents aged 12- to 15-years-old and 109 caregivers participated, but only data from complete dyads (N = 91) were included in analyses. Participants were predominantly from Canada (86.81%), with a few from the United States (7.69 %) and other countries (e.g., Australia, 5.49%). Data was collected between April 2021 and March 2022.

Parents

Of the 91 parents, 77 (85%) reported they were female and 14 (15%) male. Parents ranged in age from 37- to 63- years old with a mean age of 45.80 years old (SD = 4.80). The majority of parents (90%) reported being very comfortable understanding written English and reported White/Caucasian as their ethnicity (79%). The second- and third- most reported ethnicity was East Asian (10%) and South Asian (9%), respectively. The remaining ethnicities reported were 2% Indigenous, 1% Latinx, 1% Middle Eastern, 1% Guyanese Indian, and 3% Biracial. The majority of participants reported that they held an undergraduate degree or higher (86%), as did the adolescent’s other parent (90%), with 97% reporting at least some post-secondary education. Most parents reported a household income of above $75,000 (82%), which is roughly the median income for Ontario, Canada (Statistics Canada, 2022) - the province from which the majority of our participants were recruited.

Adolescents

Of the 91 adolescents, 46 (51%) reported they were female, 44 (48%) male, and 1 genderfluid (1%). Adolescents ranged in age from 12- to 15- years old with a mean age of 13.37 years old (SD = 1.15). The majority of adolescents reported White/Caucasian as their ethnicity (78%). The second- and third- most reported ethnicity was East Asian (13%) and South Asian (10%), respectively, with remaining ethnicities as 2% Black, 1% Indigenous, 3% Middle Eastern, and 8% Biracial. Reflecting expected variability within a community sample, parents reported pre-existing mental health diagnoses for 17 adolescents: neurodevelopmental diagnoses (ADHD, ASD, LD) and/or mood and anxiety disorders.

Procedure

Interested parents/adolescents were each emailed a Qualtrics link along with a unique code (if the adolescent did not have an email address, the parent was emailed both links) that allowed them to access the parent and adolescent questionnaire set, respectively, and complete forms. Data from this study were taken from a larger project examining parent and adolescent mentalizing, with parent and adolescent questionnaires each taking approximately 40 minutes. Only measures used for this study are reported here. Data storage adhered to institutional research ethics board requirements. As a token of appreciation, participants were entered into a draw to win one of three $50 gift cards. Additionally, if eligible, adolescents could put their participation hours towards high-school volunteer credits.

Measures

Adolescent Difficulties

Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire

Adolescent difficulties were measured using the adolescent self-report Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (adolescent-report SDQ) and parent-report SDQ. Both the adolescent-report and parent-report SDQ has been widely validated for measuring psychological adjustment and detecting emotional and behavioural problems (Bentley et al., 2019; Hill & Hughes, 2007; Van Roy et al., 2008; Wolpert et al., 2015). Adolescent internalizing symptoms were measured using the Emotional Problems subscale, and adolescent externalizing problems were measured using the Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity-Inattention subscales. Each subscale contains 5-items rated on a 3-point self-report scale from 0 (not true) to 2 (certainly true) for the period of the last six months. The adolescent-self report SDQ is framed in first person whereas the parent-report SDQ covers the same items but is framed in third person consideration of the adolescent. A score of adolescent difficulties was obtained by summing the items in each of these three subscales with a possible range from 0 to 30 (higher score reflecting greater difficulties). For this sample, the difficulty scores used for analyses had good internal consistency (adolescent-report, α = .76; parent-report, α = .81).

Household COVID-19 Disruption

COVID-19 disruption was assessed using the COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale (CoFaSS; Prime et al., 2021), a 16-item questionnaire filled out by the parent that assessed COVID-19 disruption within a household (i.e., “Since the start of the COVID-19 disruption, have any of the following changes occurred in your household?”) across three areas: Income Stress, Chaos, and Family Stress (Prime et al., 2021). The Income Stress subscale (5-items) measures parents’ experience of economic stress during the pandemic (e.g., “Applied for employment insurance or government assistance”), the Chaos subscale (4-items) measures experiences of chaotic states induced in response to the pandemic (e.g., crowded shopping areas, restricted supplies) and the Family Stress subscale (7-items) measures stressors stemming from family altercations and child management during the pandemic (e.g., “Inability to access educational materials for children”, “Felt crowded in my living space”). Parents rated the applicability of items since the onset of COVID-19 on a 3-point self-report scale from 1 (not true) to 3 (very true). The Total COVID-19 disruption scale, comprised of all items, measures the total level of COVID-19 disruption that parents experienced and has been demonstrated to have strong psychometric properties (Prime et al., 2021). Given our interest in parent-child dyads, we specifically examined the familial context using the Family-specific COVID-19 disruption subscale to measure disruptions within the family context. Within our sample, the internal consistency was strong for the Total score (α = .86) and the Family-specific subscale (α = .78).

Potential Moderating Parental Factors

Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire – Adolescent Version

PRF was assessed using parent reports on the Pre-mentalizing subscale of the Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire – Adolescent Version (PRFQ-A; Luyten et al., 2017b)¹. While validation studies on the PRFQ-A are limited, use of the PRFQ-A with parents of adolescents has suggested good factor structure and reliability (e.g., Carlone et al., 2023; Szabó et al., 2022; Zayde et al., 2023). Further, the items are similar to the child-report version, which has strong psychometric properties and concurrent validity regardless of caregiver gender (Charpentier Mora et al., 2022; De Roo et al., 2019; Luyten et al., 2017a; Pazzagli et al., 2018; Rutherford et al., 2013). The pre-mentalizing subscale (6-items) measures an inability to understand underlying mental states that guide their child’s actions, feelings, and behaviours (e.g., pre-mentalizing subscale item “When my child is being difficult, he or she does that just to annoy me.”, Luyten et al., 2017b). Items are rated using a seven-point self-report scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Pre-mentalizing subscale score is the mean score of all scale items, with a possible range of 1–7. To aid in interpretation, the Pre-mentalizing subscale was reverse coded such that high scores indicate strong reflective functioning, and low scores indicate weak reflective functioning. For this sample, the internal consistency of the Pre-mentalizing subscale was .63 and was increased to .72 by removing one item (“I find it hard to actively participate in make believe play or imaginary activities with my child”), which was deemed to be age-inappropriate for the sample.

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales

Parental mental health was operationalized using the Depression subscale from the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Specifically, the 21-item short form (DASS-21) adapted from the original 42-item DASS. The Depression subscale (7-items) measures experience of dysphoric mood over the past week on a 4-point self-report scale from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much, or most of the time). The Depression subscale score is summed and multiplied by two with a possible range from 0 (no symptomology) to 42 (extremely severe symptomology). The Depression subscale has demonstrated good psychometric properties and reliability in non-clinical samples (Asghari et al., 2008; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; Sinclair et al., 2012). For this sample, the internal consistency of the Depression subscale was strong (a = .90).

Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale

Adolescents’ perception of parental support was measured with the Frequency portion of the parents subscale from the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 1999). The Frequency subscale (12-items) measures how often adolescents received different types of support from their parents using a 6-point self-report scale from 1 (never) to 6 (always). The Frequency subscale score is summed from all items with a possible range from 12 (no experiences of support) to 72 (recurrent experiences of support). The Frequency subscale has demonstrated good psychometric properties with gender invariance (Demaray & Malecki, 2003; K. Malecki & Demaray, 2002; Rueger et al., 2008; Shinkawa et al., 2023). For this sample the internal consistency of the Frequency subscale was strong (a = .89).

General Parental Stress Measures

Schedule of Recent Experiences

Parents’ experience of stressful events was operationalized using the Schedule of Recent Experiences (SRE; Holmes & Rahe, 1967). The SRE is a 43-item checklist of positive and negative life events, that coincide with experience of psychological stress, over the last year. The item count score has a possible range between 0 and 43 (Pearson & Long, 1985) wherein high SRE scores indicate that an individual has experienced a large amount of stressful life events. The SRE has demonstrated good psychometric properties including predictive validity (Cleghorn & Streiner, 1979; Mendels & Weinstein, 1972).

Perceived Stress Scale

A general measure of parental stress was operationalized using Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, 1994). The PSS (10-items) measures the perceived experience of stressful feelings or thoughts in the last month on a 5-point self-report scale 0 (never) to 4 (very often). A total score, representing the sum of items has a possible range between 0 and 40, with higher reflecting more unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded participants feel their life has been in the past month (Cohen, 1994). The PSS has demonstrated good psychometric properties (Cohen, 1988; Mitchell et al., 2008; Taylor, 2015). Within our sample, the internal consistency of the PSS was strong (a = .88).

Analysis Plan

Data were analyzed using SPSS 27.0 software and SPSS PROCESS macro program (Hayes, 2022). After addressing missing data, descriptive statistics were computed, and correlations were conducted to explore the associations among the key variables: PRF, parental depression, adolescents’ perception of parental support, COVID-19 disruption (parents’ report of Total COVID-19 disruption and parents’ report of Family-specific COVID-19 disruption), and adolescent difficulties (adolescent-reported difficulties and parent-reported adolescent difficulties)². Second, regression models were utilized to explore whether the association between COVID-19 disruptions and adolescent-reported difficulties depends on the parental factors of interest. All predictor variables, including control variables (adolescent age and gender), the impact of COVID-19 disruptions, potential parental moderators (PRF, adolescents’ perception of parental support, and parents’ depressive symptoms) and their interactions with COVID-19 disruption, were mean-centered before analysis. Interaction terms were specifically included to explore how the combination of COVID-19 disruption and other moderators might affect adolescent outcomes. Initially, the regression incorporated total COVID-19 disruption as a predictor and used adolescent-reported difficulties as the dependent variable. Subsequently, to examine the effect of family-specific COVID-19 disruption, the model was rerun, replacing total COVID-19 disruption with Family-specific COVID-19 disruption. Third, the regression analyses were run again with parent-reported adolescent difficulties to explore whether similar patterns were found across informants. Lastly, a back-transformed average Fisher Z procedure was used to compare the strength of correlations between COVID-19 disruptions and adolescent difficulties with the correlations between other parental stress measures, such as major life events and perceived stress, and adolescent difficulties (these comparisons were done for both adolescent-reported difficulties and parent-reported adolescent difficulties). Data may be supplied on request of authors.

Results

Missing data were analyzed separately for parent and youth data. Note, the measures obtained from adolescents directly were adolescents’ demographic data (i.e., age and gender), adolescent self-reported difficulties (YSDQ), and adolescents’ perception of parental support (CASSS); all other measures reported were completed by the parent. Three participants had incomplete datasets: One parent missed 2/25 items on the CoFASS total scale, while another parent missed 1/25 items on the CoFASSS scale (total missing parent data = .049%). One youth missed 12/24 responses on the CASSS scale (total missing youth data = 0.36%). Given the very small degree of missing data, missing data was handled using listwise deletion. Given the small number of participants with incomplete datasets (n = 1 youth, n = 2 parents), correlates of missingness were related to demographic characteristics, not reported in detail to protect participant anonymity.

At the subscale level, the data was inspected for outliers (i.e., +3SD), which were then winsorized to be within acceptable limits: adolescent-reported conduct problems (n = 1), parent-reported conduct problems (n = 1), total COVID-19 disruption (n = 1), PRF (n = 2), and life stressors total (n = 2). Prior to analyses, the distribution of variables were inspected with all falling within absolute values of skew <2 and kurtosis <7 (Ryu, 2011). The standardized residuals of all regressions were found to be within the Ryu (2011) criteria.

Associations Between COVID-19 Disruption and Adolescent-Reported Difficulties

Correlation analyses (Table 1) revealed anticipated positive associations between the parents’ report of COVID-19 disruption (Total and Family-specific COVID-19 disruption) and the adolescents’ emotional and behavioural difficulties (adolescent-reported and parent-reported).³

Table 1.

Pearson Correlations Among Variables of Interest.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Adolescent Emotional and behavioural difficulties
1. YSDQ	9.95	4.66
2. PSDQ	7.10	4.98	.47***
COVID-19 disruption measures
3. CoFaSS total	23.87	6.05	.18	.32**
4. CoFaSS family	10.54	3.11	.26**	.35***	.86***
Potential parental moderating factors
5. PRF	6.44	0.73	−.18	−.38***	−.02	−.15
6. CASSS	40.46	10.06	−.40***	−.12	.03	−.06	.34**
7. DASS	7.61	7.85	.08	.28**	.42***	.49***	−.15	.08
Other parental stress measures
8. SRE	6.45	4.06	.06	.08	.65***	.47***	.20	.19	.27**
9. PSS	17.60	7.05	.07	.38***	.62***	.61***	−.06	.08	.57***	.41***
Adolescent covariates
10. Age	13.37	1.15	.13	.12	−.04	−.03	−.12	−.17	.00	−.06	−.11
11. Gender	0.51	0.50	−.22*	−.10	−.02	−.02	.04	.01	−.06	−.03	−.13	−.01

Note. YSDQ and PSDQ refer to adolescent difficulties reported by the adolescent’s self-report (YSDQ) and parent’s report (PSDQ) of adolescent difficulties as reported on the SDQ. CoFaSS Total refers to parents’ report of total COVID-19 disruption as measured on the CoFaSS. CoFaSS Family refers to parents’ report of family-specific COVID-19 disruption, as measured on the CoFaSS Family subscale. PRF refers to reflective functioning as measured on the PRFQ-A Pre-mentalizing subscale (reverse scored). CASSS refers to adolescents’ perception of parental support as measured on the CASSS Frequency subscale. DASS refers to parental depression symptoms as measured on the DASS Depression subscale. SRE and PSS refer to life stressors and perceived stressors respectively, as reported by the parent. For gender, males were coded as 0 and females were coded as 1. For all continuous variables higher values reflect a greater endorsement of that construct.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Moderating Role of Parental Factors

Results of the regression analyses are provided in Table 2. The results are organized by the informant of adolescent difficulties and the specific COVID-19 disruption measure.

Table 2.

Summary of Regression Models Predicting Adolescent Difficulties.

	Total disruption		Family disruption
	Youth	Parent	Youth	Parent
Predictors	B(SE)/β	B(SE)/β	B(SE)/β	B(SE)/β
Adolescent age	0.34 (0.42)/0.08	0.61 (0.44)/0.14	0.30 (0.41)/0.07	0.69 (0.43)/0.16
Adolescent gender	−1.90* (0.90)/−0.20	−0.37 (0.95)/−0.04	−1.94* (0.90)/−0.21	−0.26 (0.95)/−0.03
CoFaSS	0.15 (0.09)/0.19	0.33** (0.10)/0.39	0.40* (0.17)/0.26	0.45* (0.18)/0.28
PRF	0.06 (0.67)/0.01	−2.43** (0.70)/−0.36	0.12 (0.67)/0.02	−1.78* (0.71)/−0.26
CASSS	−0.21*** (0.05)/−0.44	0.03 (0.05)/0.05	0.01 (0.05)/0.02	−0.19*** (0.05)/−0.41
DASS	0.01 (0.07)/0.02	0.07 (0.07)/0.10	−0.01 (0.07)/−0.01	0.09 (0.07)/0.13
CoFaSS X PRF	0.12 (0.15)	−0.38* (0.16)	0.20 (0.25)	−0.67* (0.27)
CoFaSS X CASSS	0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.02)	−0.00 (0.02)
CoFaSS X DASS	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.02 (0.02)	−0.01 (0.02)

Note. CoFaSS refers to parent’s report of COVID-19 disruption as measured on the CoFaSS with the specific subscale reported in the column headers. PRF refers to pre-mentalizing as measured on the PRFQ-A Pre-mentalizing subscale (reverse scored). CASSS refers to adolescents’ perception of parental support as measured on the CASSS Frequency subscale. DASS refers to parental depression symptoms as measured on the DASS Depression subscale. For gender, males were coded as 0 and females were coded as 1. For all continuous variables higher values reflect a greater endorsement of that construct. Parent indicates PSDQ and Youth indicates YSDQ.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Adolescent Report of Adolescent Difficulties

Total COVID-19 Disruption

The model including Total COVID-19 disruption was significant, R² = .21, F (9, 78) = 3.64, p < .001. There was a main effect of adolescent gender and adolescents’ report of perceived parental support for adolescent-reported difficulties. Specifically, adolescents reported more difficulties when they were male and if they perceived less support from parents.

Family COVID-19 Disruption

The model that included family-specific COVID-19 disruption was significant, R² = .22, F (9, 79) = 3.75, p < .001. Adolescent gender, family-specific COVID-19 disruption, and adolescents’ report of perceived parental support accounted for a significant amount of variance in adolescent-reported difficulties. Adolescents reported more difficulties when they were male as well as if they perceived their parents to provide less support. Moreover, adolescents reported more difficulties when their parents reported more family-specific COVID-19 disruption.

Parent Report of Adolescent Difficulties

To determine whether patterns of associations differed when the report of adolescent difficulties came from a parent (vs. the adolescents themselves), we conducted the same regressions noted above with the parents’ report of adolescent’s difficulties as the dependent measure (see Table 2). While there was a positive correlation between the informant reports (see Table 1), parents reported lower levels of adolescent difficulties as compared to adolescents, t (90) = 5.46, p < .001, with this effect found for each difficulty subscale, ps < .02.

Total COVID-19 Disruption

The model that included total COVID-19 disruption was significant, R² = .25, F (9, 78) = 4.16, p < .001. Total COVID-19 disruption and PRF accounted for a significant amount of variance in parent-reported adolescent difficulties. Moreover, the interaction between total COVID-19 disruption and PRF was significant. The significant interaction suggests that the effect of total COVID-19 disruption on parent-reported adolescent difficulties depends on the parent’s level of PRF (see Figure 1(A)). Simple slopes for the association between total COVID-19 disruption and parent-reported adolescent difficulties were run at high and low levels of PRF, with low levels yielding a significant relation (b = 0.61, p < .001) and high levels yielding a nonsignificant relation (b = 0.05, p = .68). Thus, COVID-19 disruption is associated with more parent-reported adolescent difficulties when parents report weak reflective functioning skills, but not when parents report strong reflective functioning skills. In other words, strong PRF weakens the association between COVID-19 disruption and parent-reported adolescent difficulties.

Figure 1.

Parent-reported adolescent difficulties as a function of COVID-19 disruption and parental reflective functioning.

Family COVID-19 Disruption

The model that included family-specific COVID-19 disruption was significant, R² = .24, F (9, 79) = 4.08, p < .001. Family-specific COVID-19 disruption and PRF accounted for a significant variance in parent-reported adolescent difficulties. Moreover, the interaction between family-specific COVID-19 disruption and PRF was significant, suggesting that during the pandemic the association between disrupted family functioning and parent-reported adolescent difficulties depends on the parent’s level of PRF (see Figure 1(B)). Simple slopes for the association between family-specific COVID-19 disruption and parent-reported adolescent difficulties were run at high and low levels of PRF, with low levels yielding a significant relation (b = 0.95, p < .001) and high levels yielding a nonsignificant relation (b = −0.04, p = .87). Thus, family-specific disruptions during the pandemic are associated with more parent-reported adolescent difficulties when parents reported weak reflective functioning skills, but not when parents reported strong reflective functioning skills.

Associations Between General Parental Stress Measures and Adolescent Difficulties

To examine the relationships between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties compared to other measures of parental stress, we analyzed correlations among life events, perceived stress, and adolescent difficulties (both adolescent and parent reports; see Table 1). We then compared the strength of these correlations to those with COVID-19 disruption using a back transformed average Fisher Z procedure for comparing overlapping correlations (Hittner et al., 2003). Of the eight comparisons, three were significant, and one marginally significant (all other comparisons, ps > .14), and majority reflected stronger associations between COVID-19 disruption with adolescent difficulties than other stress measures⁴. The comparisons revealed stronger associations between family-specific COVID-19 disruption with adolescent-reported difficulties as compared to perceived stress, z = 2.05, p = .04 and life stressors, z = 1.90, p = .06, as well as with parent-reported adolescent difficulties as compared to life stressors, z = 2.53, p = .01. Furthermore, the comparisons revealed stronger associations between total COVID-19 disruption with parent-reported adolescent difficulties compared to life stressors, z = 2.87, p = .004. Thus, there is some evidence that COVID-19 disruption more strongly relates to adolescent difficulties than other measures of parental stress; however, this was not consistently found.

Discussion

Numerous studies have documented the negative impacts of COVID-19-related disruptions on youth mental health (De France et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2021; Westrupp et al., 2021). This study aimed to explore whether specific parental factors moderated the strength of the association between COVID-19 disruption (for a household) and adolescent difficulties. We found that adolescents’ report of perceived parental support and PRF were key factors relating to adolescent difficulties: perceived parental support uniquely related to adolescent-reported difficulties; PRF moderated the association between COVID-19 disruption (total and family-specific) and adolescent difficulties (albeit only for parent-report). The findings have implications for supporting families experiencing unpredictable circumstances. Moreover, as adolescents reported greater difficulties than the parent reports, findings highlight the value of considering both adolescent and parent perspectives.

The Association Between COVID-19 Disruption and Adolescent Difficulties

Building off previous research (Donker et al., 2021; Low & Mounts, 2022; Operto et al., 2022; Peltz et al., 2023; Romero et al., 2020; Shelleby et al., 2022; Westrupp et al., 2021) documenting the negative effects of COVID-19 disruption on adolescent mental health, we hypothesized there would be a positive association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties. Our results are aligned with this previous research: At the bivariate level, household COVID-19 disruption was weakly positively related with both adolescent-reported and parent-reported adolescent difficulties. In general, this pattern of results held when controlling for adolescent gender, adolescent age, and parental factors (PRF, parental depression, and adolescent-reported parental support). Total COVID-19 disruption and family-specific COVID-19 disruption were positively associated with both adolescent-reported and parent-reported adolescent difficulties with one exception: Total COVID-19 disruption was not associated with adolescent-reported difficulties when parental factors were included (though family-specific disruption was still significant). As we cannot determine the direction of association in this study, it may be that COVID-19 disruptions had a negative impact on adolescents, manifesting in more emotional and behavioural difficulties in both adolescent and parent reports (De France et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2021; Westrupp et al., 2021). Alternatively, it may be that for those families whose adolescents have more difficulties (as reported by both the adolescent and the parent), COVID-19 disruptions within a household are experienced more greatly. The heightened disruptions experienced by these families may be due to reduced access to mental health services during the pandemic, making it difficult for adolescents with significant needs to access necessary care. Indeed, the pandemic disrupted the continuity of care, led to an increased demand for mental health services, and worsened care inequalities, which could have posed significant barriers for adolescents seeking help (Stepanova et al., 2024).

Parental Factors

Central to our aim, we examined whether specific parental factors (PRF, parental depression, and perceived parental support) moderated the strength of this association or operate as a unique predictor of adolescent difficulties.

Parental Reflective Functioning

We hypothesized that associations between PRF and adolescent mental health would replicate those observed with children (Slade, 2005; Smaling et al., 2016; Steele et al., 1999) in that PRF would be associated with fewer adolescent difficulties (through the occurrence of more positive parent-adolescent interactions among parents with better PRF). When controlling for adolescent gender, adolescent age, COVID-19 disruption, and other parental factors (i.e., parental depression and adolescent-reported parental support), PRF was not significantly associated with adolescent-reported difficulties but was weakly negatively associated with parent-reported adolescent difficulties. Moreover, we expected stronger PRF would weaken the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties. Support for this hypothesis was found: COVID-19 disruption was associated with more parent-reported adolescent difficulties when parents reported weak reflective functioning skills (i.e., high pre-mentalizing), but not when parents reported strong reflective functioning skills (i.e., low pre-mentalizing). Thus, as predicted, strong reflective functioning skills appear to weaken the association between COVID-19 disruption and parent-reported adolescent difficulties. These findings are consistent with previous research that found that maternal mentalizing moderated the association between mothers’ anxiety – which was increased during COVID-19 – and children’s (3- to 6- years old) externalizing problems (Dollberg et al., 2021).

One potential explanation for our findings is that during times of high COVID-19 disruption, parents with strong PRF skills are more attuned and responsive to the needs of their adolescent, who may too be experiencing the disruptions; while parents with weak PRF skills may be less able to address their adolescent’s needs, with this lowered sensitivity elevating parent-reported adolescent difficulties. This explanation would be in line with research demonstrating a significant association between weak PRF, specifically parent pre-mentalizing, and reduced communication and involvement with the child, as reported by the parent (Rostad & Whitaker, 2016). It may also be that parents with strong reflective functioning skills are better able to recognize their own internal state and behaviour in relation to their child, and thereby manage their own reactions to COVID-19 disruptions in a way that reduces potential negative impacts on their adolescents leading to more stable parent-reported adolescent difficulties, as compared to parents with weak reflective functioning skills. Liu and Doan (2020) describe a “spillover effect” to occur when “the exposure or experience of stress in one domain influences one’s ability to function optimally in another domain” (Liu & Doan, 2020, p. 850). As weaker reflective functioning is associated with lower distress tolerance (Rutherford et al., 2015), parents with weak reflective functioning skills may be less able to tolerate high levels of household COVID-19 disruption, which reduces their ability to attend to their adolescent’s needs.

It is important to note that PRF did not moderate the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties when examining adolescents’ report. Situational specificity may contribute to the divergence between the effects we observed with parent-reported and adolescent-reported difficulties. Parents’ reports of adolescent difficulties may be based on what they can observe in their adolescent’s behaviour during parent-child interactions or contexts where they are present (e.g., within the home). Since parents are aware of the difficulties their adolescents experience in these contexts, their ability to interpret and respond to their adolescent’s needs, facilitated by PRF, may play a more significant role. In contrast, adolescents’ self-reports likely capture experiences within a broad range of contexts, including those outside the parents’ awareness or involvement, such as school or peer relationships. Thus, PRF may play less of a role. Regardless of interpretation, the differential patterns underscore the importance of considering situational specificity in understanding discrepancies between parent and adolescent reports.

Parental Depression

Parental depression was positively correlated with parent-reported adolescent difficulties, though this did not hold when adolescent age/gender and other parental factors were included within a regression model. Moreover, we did not find support for our hypothesis that parental depression would strengthen the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties for either adolescent reported or parent-reported adolescent difficulties (as per past work showing parental depression to negatively affect the parent-child relationship resulting in increased reports of adolescent difficulties; Shafer et al., 2017). While our results suggest that parental depression does not play a moderating role in the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties (both adolescent-reported and parent-reported), it is important to note possible methodological considerations for our findings. In particular, in our sample, levels of parental depression were low, with the majority (81%) of parents scoring within the normal and mild range (0–13) indicting that any symptoms present are generally not severe enough to interfere significantly with daily functioning; only a small subset (10%) of parents scoring within the severe range (21 or greater) indicating that their symptoms negatively affect their ability to function in various areas of life. This limited variance in parental depression could have constrained the sensitivity needed to detect moderating effects of depression on associations between COVID-19 and adolescent difficulties.

Perceived Parental Support

Parental support has been identified as a protective factor for adolescent emotional and behavioural outcomes (Barnes et al., 2006; Gorostiaga et al., 2019; Sheeber et al., 1997; Wang et al., 2013). Consistent with this past work, as adolescent-reported parental support increased, there was a decrease in adolescent-reported difficulties – even when controlling for the influence of COVID-19 disruption, PRF, and parental depression. This finding is consistent with findings from McArthur and colleagues (2023) who, using a pre-post pandemic design, found that children’s report of a sense of connectedness to caregivers was associated with lower COVID-19 anxiety and depression symptoms in children aged 9- to 11- years old (McArthur et al., 2023). Interestingly, while greater perceived parental support was correlated with PRF (suggesting some consistency with how adolescents and parents view parenting styles), we did not find associations between adolescents’ report of perceived parental support and parents’ report of adolescent difficulties. As well, contrary to predictions, adolescent perceptions of parent support did not modulate the association between COVID-19 disruption (neither total COVID-19 disruption or family-specific COVID-19 disruption) and adolescent difficulties, regardless of the source of the report. Thus, while increased parental support (or adolescents’ perceptions thereof) may reduce adolescent-reported difficulties (or adolescents with fewer difficulties are more likely to perceive parental support), it seems to operate independently from (vs. interacting with) external stressors like COVID-19 disruption. Nonetheless, with PRF, these findings offer support for the importance of parenting behaviour for adolescent well-being.

Comparisons with Other Parental Stress Measures

As there are few studies investigating how COVID-19 disruption (reflecting a global, shared environmental context) is similar/distinct from other parental stress, we investigated whether associations between COVID-19 disruption with adolescent difficulties would differ with non-covid-specific measures of stress, including major life stressors and perceived stress. By doing so, we hoped to be able to provide information as to how the proliferation of work on COVID-19 disruption may provide insight into other stressful contexts. However, we acknowledge that within our study, the other stress measures were completed by parents during COVID-19, meaning they are not independent from the pandemic context.

As COVID-19 was a novel stressor for which the world was not prepared, we anticipated that the disruption felt by parents would show greater associations with adolescent well-being than other measures of parental stress. Supporting this notion, we observed several instances where the correlations with COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties (across both adolescent and parent-report) were stronger than those for life stressors or perceived stress. These findings suggest that there are instances when COVID-19 disruption is associated with more variance in adolescent difficulties (both adolescent-reported and parent-reported) than does a parent’s perception of stress or a parent’s experience of general life stressors. That said, the directionality underlying this association cannot be assumed, it may be that if adolescent difficulties are higher (as reported by either the adolescent or the parent), a parent’s experience of COVID-19 household disruption, relative to their experience of other stress, is greater. Despite our measurement confounds, these findings are consistent with previous work showing that the associations between pandemic-related stress and greater child emotional and behavioural problems are unique as they could not be explained by parent’s general stress levels (Whittle et al., 2020). One potential explanation for our findings is that parents’ report of COVID-19 disruption is not unique to them as parents, but reflects the general impact on the household (thus capturing disruption for adolescent themselves as well). COVID-19 provided an example of how a wide-reaching disruption may affect parents, families, and adolescents; these nuanced relationships may also be important for understanding and anticipating the effects of other forms of environmental and societal disruption families may encounter in the future (e.g., endemics/pandemics, natural disasters, conflict).

It is also important to note that we did not consistently find differences in the strength of associations. As mentioned, the measurement confound of collecting the general stress measures during the pandemic context meant that our general stress measures are not independent from the pandemic context. Specifically, greater levels of pandemic disruption likely confounded how respondents perceived unrelated stressors, and increased likelihood of stress events (e.g., loss of job). Future work could examine whether similar patterns emerge during non-pandemic times.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study has several limitations that may impact the generalizability of our findings. Most critically, it should be reiterated that our cross-sectional study provides a snapshot of the disruption experienced by families due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and how it related to parental factors (PRF and parental depression), adolescents perception of support, and adolescent difficulties. This does not allow us to infer causal direction and longitudinal work is required to investigate mechanistic and potential sleeper effects. Expanding on the aspect of time, data collection begun in April 2021 and ended in March 2022 capturing the third wave of rising COVID-19 cases in Canada and corresponding restrictive public health measures. As such, the panic and novelty associated to the COVID-19 pandemic was likely reduced in our sample as individuals adapted. While our findings represent parent’s experience during the pandemic, they may not be representative of early onset (and potentially more acute) experiences.

Another important consideration is that the majority of our significant effects were found within-informant models, where both the independent and dependent variables were reported by the same individual. While differential patterns may reflect situational specificity, it also raises the possibility of shared method variance influencing our findings. As such, it is important for future research to replicate findings with further use of cross-informant models.

Our findings should be considered in the context of our sample and replicated before firm conclusions can be made. Future research should seek to confirm the observed findings in a larger, more diverse sample. In particular, with a larger sample it would be useful to examine further moderation effects, for example whether the interaction between household disruption and PRF differs by adolescent gender. As conceptualizations and value of PRF may differ cross-culturally (Lee et al., 2023; Stuhrmann et al., 2022; Sümer et al., 2024), the findings need to be considered within the sample used, namely, majority White with higher education. As well, the majority of parents were mothers, which is a noted limitation in the PRF literature, generally (e.g., Camoirano, 2017; Dinzinger et al., 2023). Finally, restricted range in these measures (i.e., generally strong PRF, normal to mild severity of parental depression) may have attenuated the strength of our findings.

Conclusion

While the COVID-19 pandemic is (mostly) behind us, understanding the association between the disruption it caused and adolescent emotional and behavioural difficulties, and the role parental factors may have on this association is crucial in informing how best to support families as they navigate unpredictable circumstances. The association between the level of COVID-19 disruption experienced within a household and adolescent difficulties (regardless of the source of report) may reflect that for families whose adolescents had pre-existing mental health challenges the experience of COVID-19 disruptions within a household was heightened. The increase of COVID-19 disruptions experienced by families with adolescents facing more difficulties may be facilitated by reduced access to necessary services during the pandemic. As such, it is important to recognize that during societal disruptions, such as the pandemic, negative experiences may be exacerbated for families already facing challenges. Thus, during times of disruption, it is essential to prioritize continuity of care and ensure that access to mental health services remains available. Our findings highlight that while the level of COVID-19 disruption within a household related to adolescent difficulties (both adolescent-reported and parent-reported), this relationship varied based on parental factors (specifically PRF on parent-reported difficulties). In addition to theoretical implications (e.g., family systems theory, role of PRF within adolescence), findings have practical implications. For parent reports, we found that PRF may serve as a protective factor, wherein the association between COVID-19 disruption and adolescent difficulties was attenuated when parents reported better abilities in detecting and understanding their children’s internal mental states. Thus, during times of disruption (or within populations where household disruption is high), it may be advantageous to implement programming to increase parents’ sensitivity to the mental states of their children. For adolescent reports, perception of parental support was generally associated with fewer adolescent difficulties, rather than affecting COVID-19 disruption associations with difficulties. Thus, the promotion of universal parenting programs and/or general policies to enable parents with increased flexibility to provide support (e.g., flexible hours or remote work options) may provide benefit for adolescents’ well-being. Moreover, findings have methodological implications with discrepancies in the results indicating that adolescents and parents may use different cues to assess difficulties, with these varying perspectives offering different insights into possible ways to support adolescents during stressful contexts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant awarded to E.N. Thank you to our participants— adolescents and their parents, who participated in this study during a time of upheaval.

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.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Insight Grant).

ORCID iD

Elizabeth S. Nilsen

Notes

Author Biographies

Kate Van Kessel, BA, graduated with honours from the University of Waterloo and currently works as a researcher with numerous research teams in the Department of Psychology. She is involved in multiple projects, with the general theme of socio-cognitive processes.

Charlotte Aitken, MA, is a graduate student within the Clinical Psychology Program at the University of Waterloo. Charlotte’s research focuses on the interplay between adolescents’ temperament, cognitive skills, and social functioning, and her clinical activities involve the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents.

Elizabeth S. Nilsen, PhD, is a professor within the Department of Psychology, and a clinical faculty member within the Centre of Mental Health Research and Treatment, at the University of Waterloo. Her research focuses on the socio-cognitive skills that enable children and adolescents to successfully navigate communicative interactions with others.

References

Anis

Perez

Benzies

K. M.

Ewashen

Hart

Letourneau

(2020). Convergent validity of three measures of reflective function: Parent development interview, parental reflective function questionnaire, and reflective function questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 574719. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574719

Araújo

L. A. de.

Veloso

C. F.

Souza

M. de

C. Azevedo

J. M. C. de.

Tarro

(2020). The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child growth and development: A systematic review. Journal De Pediatria, 97(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.08.008

Arnsten

A. F. T.

Condon

E. M.

Dettmer

A. M.

Gee

D. G.

Lee

K. S.

Mayes

L. C.

Stover

C. S.

Tseng

W.-L.

(2021). The prefrontal cortex in a pandemic: Restoring functions with system-family-and individual-focused interventions. American Psychologist, 76(5), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000823

Asghari

M. M. A.

Saed

Dibajnia

Zangeneh

(2008). A preliminary validation of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS) in non-clinical sample. Clinical Psychology and Personality, 6(2), 23–38.

Barnes

G. M.

Hoffman

J. H.

Welte

J. W.

Farrell

M. P.

Dintcheff

B. A.

(2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance on substance use and delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1084–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00315.x

Barnes

G. M.

Reifman

A. S.

Farrell

M. P.

Dintcheff

B. A.

(2000). The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: A six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00175.x

Benbassat

Priel

(2012). Parenting and adolescent adjustment: The role of parental reflective function. Journal of Adolescence, 35(1), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.004

Bentley

Hartley

Bucci

(2019). Systematic review of self-report measures of general mental health and wellbeing in adolescent mental health. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22(2), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-00273-x

Booth

Moreno-Agostino

Fitzsimons

(2023). Parent-adolescent informant discrepancy on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in the UK millennium cohort study. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 17(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-023-00605-y

10.

Brown

B. B.

Larson

(2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 74–103). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004

11.

Camoirano

(2017). Mentalizing makes parenting work: A review about parental reflective functioning and clinical interventions to improve it. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00014

12.

Carlone

Milan

Decoste

Borelli

J. L.

McMahon

T. J.

Suchman

N. E.

(2023). Self-report measure of parental reflective functioning: A study of reliability and validity across three samples of varying clinical risk. Infant Mental Health Journal, 44(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.22046

13.

Casey

B. J.

Getz

Galvan

(2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003

14.

Charpentier Mora

Bastianoni

Koren-Karie

Cavanna

Tironi

Bizzi

(2022). Parental mentalizing during middle childhood: How is the adoption of a reflective stance associated with child’s psychological outcomes? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 6205. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106205

15.

Cheraghian

Moradian

Nouri

(2023). Structural model of resilience based on parental support: The mediating role of hope and active coping. BMC Psychiatry, 23(1), 260. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04678-z

16.

Chung

Chan

X. W.

Lanier

P. W. Y.

(2020). Associations between work-family balance, parenting stress, and marital conflicts during COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(1), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nz9s8

17.

Cleghorn

J. M.

Streiner

B. J.

(1979). Prediction of symptoms and illness behaviour from measures of life change and verbalized depressive themes. Journal of Human Stress, 5(4), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0097840X.1979.10545990

18.

Cohen

(1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Sage Publications, Inc.

19.

Cohen

(1994). Percieved stress scale. Mind Garden.

20.

Cost

K. T.

Crosbie

Anagnostou

Birken

C. S.

Charach

Monga

Kelley

Nicolson

Maguire

J. L.

Burton

C. L.

Schachar

R. J.

Arnold

P. D.

Korczak

D. J.

(2022). Mostly worse, occasionally better: Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of Canadian children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(4), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01744-3

21.

Coulombe

B. R.

Yates

T. M.

(2022). Attachment security predicts adolescents’ prosocial and health protective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Child Development, 93(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13639

22.

De France

Hancock

G. R.

Stack

D. M.

Serbin

L. A.

Hollenstein

(2022). The mental health implications of COVID-19 for adolescents: Follow-up of a four-wave longitudinal study during the pandemic. American Psychologist, 77(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000838

23.

De Los Reyes

Augenstein

T. M.

Wang

Thomas

S. A.

Drabick

D. A. G.

Burgers

D. E.

Rabinowitz

(2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 858–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038498

24.

De Los Reyes

Tyrell

F. A.

Watts

A. L.

Asmundson

G. J. G.

(2022). Conceptual, methodological, and measurement factors that disqualify use of measurement invariance techniques to detect informant discrepancies in youth mental health assessments. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 931296. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931296

25.

Demaray

M. K.

Malecki

C. K.

(2003). Importance ratings of socially supportive behaviors by children and adolescents. School Psychology Review, 32(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086186

26.

De Roo

Wong

Rempel

G. R.

Fraser

S. N.

(2019). Advancing optimal development in children: Examining the construct validity of a parent reflective functioning questionnaire. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 2(1), Article e11561. https://doi.org/10.2196/11561

27.

Dinzinger

Ismair

Brisch

K. H.

Sperl

Deneault

A.-A.

Nolte

Hitzl

Priewasser

(2023). Mentalizing in first-time fathers: Reflective functioning as a mediator between attachment representation and sensitivity. Attachment & Human Development, 25(5), 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2023.2258354

28.

Dollberg

D. G.

Hanetz-Gamliel

Levy

(2021). COVID-19, child’s behavior problems, and mother’s anxiety and mentalization: A mediated moderation model. Current Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02476-y

29.

Donker

M. H.

Mastrotheodoros

Branje

(2021). Development of parent-adolescent relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of stress and coping. Developmental Psychology, 57(10), 1611–1622. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001212

30.

Elharake

J. A.

Akbar

Malik

A. A.

Gilliam

Omer

S. B.

(2023). Mental health impact of COVID-19 among children and college students: A systematic review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 54(3), 913–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01297-1

31.

Ellis

Dumas

Forbes

(2020). Physically isolated but socially connected: Psychological adjustment and stress among adolescents during the initial COVID-19 crisis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 52(3), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000215

32.

Farber

(1989). Psychological-mindedness: Can there be too much of a good thing? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 26(2), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085421

33.

Fischer-Kern

Tmej

Kapusta

N. D.

Naderer

Leithner-Dziubas

Löffler-Stastka

Springer-Kremser

(2008). The capacity for mentalization in depressive patients: A pilot study. Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie, 54(4), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2008.54.4.368

34.

Fonagy

Steele

Moran

G. S.

Higgitt

A. C.

(1991). The capacity for understanding mental states: The reflective self in parent and child and its significance for security of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0355(199123)12:3<201::AID-IMHJ2280120307>3.0.CO;2-7

35.

Fonagy

Target

(2002). Early intervention and the development of self-regulation. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 22(3), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351692209348990

36.

Ford

C. A.

Pool

A. C.

Kahn

N. F.

Jaccard

Halpern

C. T.

(2023). Associations between mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationships and young adult health. JAMA Network Open, 6(3), Article e233944. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3944

37.

Gabriel

E. T.

Oberger

Schmoeger

Deckert

Vockh

Auff

Willinger

(2021). Cognitive and affective theory of mind in adolescence: Developmental aspects and associated neuropsychological variables. Psychological Research, 85(2), 533–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01263-6

38.

Gagné

(2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869

39.

Gara

M. A.

Woolfolk

R. L.

Allen

L. A.

(2002). Social cognitive complexity and depression: Cognitive complexity moderates the correlation between depression self-ratings and global self-evaluation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190(10), 670–676. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-200210000-00003

40.

Gorostiaga

Aliri

Balluerka

Lameirinhas

(2019). Parenting styles and internalizing symptoms in adolescence: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(17), 3192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173192

41.

Greenberg

M. T.

Siegel

J. M.

Leitch

C. J.

(1983). The nature and importance of attachment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12(5), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02088721

42.

Gutman

L. M.

Eccles

J. S.

(2007). Stage-environment fit during adolescence: Trajectories of family relations and adolescent outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.522

43.

Hare

B. D.

Duman

R. S.

(2020). Prefrontal cortex circuits in depression and anxiety: Contribution of discrete neuronal populations and target regions. Molecular Psychiatry, 25(11), 2742–2758. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-0685-9

44.

Hayes

A. F.

(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd Ed.). The Guilford Press.

45.

Helsen

Vollebergh

Meeus

(2000). Social support from parents and friends and emotional problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005147708827

46.

Hill

C. R.

Hughes

J. N.

(2007). An examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 22(3), 380–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.380

47.

Hittner

J. B.

May

Silver

N. C.

(2003). A Monte Carlo evaluation of tests for comparing dependent correlations. The Journal of General Psychology, 130(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300309601282

48.

Holmes

T. H.

Rahe

R. H.

(1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4

49.

Qian

(2021). COVID-19 and adolescent mental health in the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescent Health, 69(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.04.005

50.

Karver

M. S.

(2006). Determinants of multiple informant agreement on child and adolescent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(2), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-9015-6

51.

Kauhanen

Wan Mohd Yunus

W. M. A.

Lempinen

Peltonen

Gyllenberg

Mishina

Gilbert

Bastola

Brown

J. S. L.

Sourander

(2023). A systematic review of the mental health changes of children and young people before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(6), 995–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-02060-0

52.

Kelly

Slade

Grienenberger

J. F.

(2005). Maternal reflective functioning, mother–infant affective communication, and infant attachment: Exploring the link between mental states and observed caregiving behavior in the intergenerational transmission of attachment. Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500245963

53.

Lee

Meins

Larkin

(2023). Parental mentalization across cultures: Mind-mindedness and parental reflective functioning in British and South Korean mothers. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qx9mh

54.

Liu

C. H.

Doan

S. N.

(2020). Psychosocial stress contagion in children and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical Pediatrics, 59(9–10), 853–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922820927044

55.

Lovibond

P. F.

Lovibond

S. H.

(1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U

56.

Low

Mounts

N. S.

(2022). Economic stress, parenting, and adolescents’ adjustment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Family Relations, 71(1), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12623

57.

Luyten

Mayes

L. C.

Nijssens

Fonagy

(2017b). The parental reflective functioning questionnaire – adolescent version. University of Leuven.

58.

Luyten

Mayes

L. C.

Nijssens

Fonagy

(2017a). The parental reflective functioning questionnaire: Development and preliminary validation. Plos One, 12(5), Article e0176218. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176218

59.

Mazidi

Chen

Kirwan

Zhou

Yan

Rahman

Wang

(2021). Prevalence of mental health problems among children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 293, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.021

60.

Madigan

Racine

Vaillancourt

Korczak

D. J.

Hewitt

J. M. A.

Pador

Park

J. L.

McArthur

B. A.

Holy

Neville

R. D.

(2023). Changes in depression and anxiety among children and adolescents from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(6), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.0846

61.

Malecki

C. K.

Demaray

M. K.

Elliott

S. N.

Nolten

P. W.

(1999). Child and adolescent social support scale. https://doi.org/10.1037/t57891-000

62.

Malecki

Demaray

(2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the child and adolescent social support scale. Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10004

63.

Masarik

A. S.

Conger

R. D.

(2017). Stress and child development: A review of the family stress model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008

64.

Masten

A. S.

(2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development, 85(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12205

65.

McArthur

B. A.

Racine

McDonald

Tough

Madigan

(2023). Child and family factors associated with child mental health and well-being during COVID-19. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01849-9

66.

Mendels

Weinstein

(1972). The Schedule of recent experiences. A reliability study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 34(6), 527–531. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-197211000-00005

67.

Mitchell

A. M.

Crane

P. A.

Kim

(2008). Perceived stress in survivors of suicide: Psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 31(6), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20284

68.

Mucci

G. A.

Collins

Pearce

Avina

Hao

Onungwa

Bunac

Hunte

Coopersmith

Yewell

(2024). The lost years: An integrative review of the mental health, educational, and social impact of the pandemic on children and adolescents from 2019 to 2022. Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 10(1), 49–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40817-024-00160-0

69.

Nadeem

Van Meter

R. A.

(2023). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents: An opportunity to build resilient systems. American Journal of Health Promotion, 37(2), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171221140641d

70.

Natsuaki

M. N.

Shaw

D. S.

Neiderhiser

J. M.

Ganiban

J. M.

Harold

G. T.

Reiss

Leve

L. D.

(2014). Raised by depressed parents: Is it an environmental risk? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-014-0169-z

71.

Nelson

B. W.

Pettitt

Flannery

J. E.

Allen

N. B.

(2020). Rapid assessment of psychological and epidemiological correlates of COVID-19 concern, financial strain, and health-related behavior change in a large online sample. PLoS One, 15(11), Article e0241990. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241990

72.

Olagoke

A. A.

Olagoke

O. O.

Hughes

A. M.

(2020). Exposure to coronavirus news on mainstream media: The role of risk perceptions and depression. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 865–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12427

73.

Operto

F. F.

Coppola

Vivenzio

Scuoppo

Padovano

de Simone

Rinaldi

Belfiore

Sica

Morcaldi

D’Onofrio

Olivieri

Donadio

Roccella

Carotenuto

Viggiano

Pastorino

G. M. G.

(2022). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents with neuropsychiatric disorders: Emotional/behavioral symptoms and parental stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 3795. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073795

74.

Oudekerk

B. A.

Allen

J. P.

Hessel

E. T.

Molloy

L. E.

(2015). The cascading development of autonomy and relatedness from adolescence to adulthood. Child Development, 86(2), 472–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12313

75.

Pajulo

Tolvanen

Pyykkönen

Karlsson

Mayes

Karlsson

(2018). Exploring parental mentalization in postnatal phase with a self-report questionnaire (PRFQ): Factor structure, gender differences and association with sociodemographic factors. The Finn Brain Birth Cohort Study. Psychiatry Research, 262, 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.09.020

76.

Paus

Keshavan

Giedd

J. N.

(2008). Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 947–957. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2513

77.

Pazzagli

Delvecchio

Raspa

Mazzeschi

Luyten

(2018). The Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire in mothers and fathers of school-aged children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0856-8

78.

Pearson

J. E.

Long

T. J.

(1985). Life change measurement: Scoring, reliability, and subjective estimates of adjustment. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18(2), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.1985.12022793

79.

Peltz

J. S.

Daks

J. S.

Rogge

R. D.

(2023). COVID-related stressors and their impact on parental sleep, parenting behaviors, and child functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 37(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001061

80.

Pinchoff

Friesen

E. L.

Kangwana

Mbushi

Muluve

Ngo

T. D.

Austrian

(2021). How has COVID-19-related income loss and household stress affected adolescent mental health in Kenya? Journal of Adolescent Health, 69(5), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.023

81.

Prime

Wade

May

S. S.

Jenkins

J. M.

Browne

D. T.

(2021). The COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale: Validation and measurement invariance in female and male caregivers. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 669106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.669106

82.

Romero

López-Romero

Domínguez-Álvarez

Villar

Gómez-Fraguela

J. A.

(2020). Testing the effects of COVID-19 confinement in Spanish children: The role of parents’ distress, emotional problems and specific parenting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 6975. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196975

83.

Roos

L. E.

Salisbury

Penner-Goeke

Cameron

E. E.

Protudjer

J. L. P.

Giuliano

Afifi

T. O.

Reynolds

(2021). Supporting families to protect child health: Parenting quality and household needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One, 16(5), Article e0251720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251720

84.

Rostad

W. L.

Whitaker

D. J.

(2016). The association between reflective functioning and parent–child relationship quality. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2164–2177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0388-7

85.

Rueger

Malecki

Demaray

(2008). Gender differences in the relationship between perceived social support and student adjustment during early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.496

86.

Rutherford

Booth

Luyten

Bridgett

Mayes

(2015). Investigating the association between parental reflective functioning and distress tolerance in motherhood. Infant Behavior and Development, 40, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2015.04.005

87.

Rutherford

Goldberg

Luyten

Bridgett

Mayes

(2013). Parental reflective functioning is associated with tolerance of infant distress but not general distress: Evidence for a specific relationship using a simulated baby paradigm. Infant Behavior and Development, 36(4), 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.06.008

88.

Ryu

(2011). Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 1066–1074. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0115-7

89.

Sawyer

M. G.

Baghurst

Mathias

(1992). Differences between informants’ reports describing emotional and behavioural problems in community and clinic-referred children: A research note. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 33(2), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00878.x

90.

Scapaticci

Neri

C. R.

Marseglia

G. L.

Staiano

Chiarelli

Verduci

(2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lifestyle behaviors in children and adolescents: An international overview. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 48(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-022-01211-y

91.

Scholte

R. H. J.

Van Aken

M. A. G.

(2007). Peer relations in adolescence. In Jackson

Goossens

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent development (1st ed., pp. 175–199). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969861

92.

Shafer

Fielding

Wendt

(2017). Similarities and differences in the influence of paternal and maternal depression on adolescent well-being. Social Work Research, 41(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svx006

93.

Sharp

Fonagy

Goodyer

I. M.

(2006). Imagining your child’s mind: Psychosocial adjustment and mothers’ ability to predict their children’s attributional response styles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X82569

94.

Sheeber

Hops

Alpert

Davis

Andrews

(1997). Family support and conflict: Prospective relations to adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025768504415

95.

Shelleby

E. C.

Pittman

L. D.

Bridgett

D. J.

Keane

Zolinski

Caradec

(2022). Associations between local COVID-19 case rates, pandemic-related financial stress and parent and child functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(6), 932–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000996

96.

Shinkawa

Takahashi

Adachi

Murayama

Yasuda

Malecki

C. K.

Nakamura

(2023). Psychometric validation of the Japanese version of the child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS) in early adolescents. Japanese Psychological Research, 65(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12375

97.

Silberg

J. L.

Maes

Eaves

L. J.

(2010). Genetic and environmental influences on the transmission of parental depression to children’s depression and conduct disturbance: An extended Children of Twins study. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 51(6), 734–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02205.x

98.

Sinclair

S. J.

Siefert

C. J.

Slavin-Mulford

J. M.

Stein

M. B.

Renna

Blais

M. A.

(2012). Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. adults. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 35(3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278711424282

99.

Slade

(2005). Parental reflective functioning: An introduction. Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500245906

100.

Smaling

H. J. A.

Huijbregts

S. C. J.

Suurland

van der Heijden

K. B.

Mesman

van Goozen

S. H. M.

Swaab

(2016). Prenatal reflective functioning and accumulated risk as predictors of maternal interactive behavior during free play, the still-face paradigm, and two teaching tasks. Infancy, 21(6), 766–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12137

101.

Sourander

Helstelä

Helenius

(1999). Parent-adolescent agreement on emotional and behavioral problems. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 34(12), 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050189

102.

Statistics

Canada.

(2022). Canadian Income Survey, 2022 [Record 5200]. Retrieved from: https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=5200

103.

Steele

Croft

Fonagy

(1999). Infant-mother attachment at one year predicts children’s understanding of mixed emotions at six years. Social Development, 8(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00089

104.

Stepanova

Thompson

(2024). Changes in mental health services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in high-income countries: A rapid review. BMC Psychiatry, 24(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05497-6

105.

Stob

Slade

Adnopoz

Woolston

(2020). The family cycle: Breaking the intergenerational transmission of trauma through mentalizing. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 19(3), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/15289168.2020.1786762

106.

Stuhrmann

L. Y.

Göbel

Bindt

Mudra

(2022). Parental reflective functioning and its association with parenting behaviors in infancy and early childhood: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 765312. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.765312

107.

Sümer

Lubiewska

Aran

Ö.

Głogowska

Żegleń

(2024). Maternal reflective functioning and intergenerational transmission of attachment orientations in Poland, The Netherlands, and Turkey. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 33(1), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-023-02753-3

108.

Szabó

Miklósi

Boda

Futó

(2022). The adaptation of the parental reflective functioning questionnaire adolescent version to the Hungarian language and presentation of its psychometric characteristics. European Psychiatry, 65(S1), S207–S208. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.543

109.

Taylor

J. M.

(2015). Psychometric analysis of the ten-item perceived stress scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038100

110.

Thapar

Collishaw

Pine

D. S.

Thapar

A. K.

(2012). Depression in adolescence. The Lancet, 379(9820), 1056–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60871-4

111.

Thompson

R. A.

Meyer

Jochem

(2008). Emotion regulation. In Haith

M. M.

Benson

J. B.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of infant and early childhood development (pp. 431–441). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012370877-9.00055-4

112.

Thorisdottir

I. E.

Agustsson

Oskarsdottir

S. Y.

Kristjansson

A. L.

Asgeirsdottir

B. B.

Sigfusdottir

I. D.

Valdimarsdottir

H. B.

Allegrante

J. P.

Halldorsdottir

(2023). Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescent mental health and substance use up to March, 2022, in Iceland: a repeated, cross-sectional, population-based study. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 7(5), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(23)00022-6

113.

Van Roy

Veenstra

Clench-Aas

(2008). Construct validity of the five-factor Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in pre-early, and late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(12), 1304–1312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01942.x

114.

Varma

Junge

Meaklim

Jackson

M. L.

(2021). Younger people are more vulnerable to stress, anxiety and depression during COVID-19 pandemic: A global cross-sectional survey. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 109, Article 110236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110236

115.

Waite

Pearcey

Shum

Raw

J. A. L.

Patalay

Creswell

(2021). How did the mental health symptoms of children and adolescents change over early lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK? JCPP Advances, 1(1), Article e12009. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcv2.12009

116.

Wang

M.-T.

Henry

D. A.

Del Toro

Scanlon

C. L.

Schall

J. D.

(2021). Covid-19 employment status, dyadic family relationships, and child psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Health, 69(5), 705–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.016

117.

Wang

P.-W.

Yang

P.-C.

Yeh

Y.-C.

Lin

H.-C.

C.-H.

Liu

T.-L.

Yen

C.-F.

(2013). Self-esteem in adolescent aggression perpetrators, victims and perpetrator-victims, and the moderating effects of depression and family support. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 29(4), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2012.08.035

118.

Westrupp

E. M.

Bennett

Berkowitz

Youssef

G. J.

Toumbourou

J. W.

Tucker

Andrews

F. J.

Evans

Teague

S. J.

Karantzas

G. C.

Melvin

G. M.

Olsson

Macdonald

J. A.

Greenwood

C. J.

Mikocka-Walus

Hutchinson

Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

Stokes

M. A.

Olive

Sciberras

(2021). Child, parent, and family mental health and functioning in Australia during COVID-19: Comparison to pre-pandemic data. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(2), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01861-z

119.

Whittle

Bray

K. O.

Lin

Schwartz

(2020). Parenting and child and adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ag2r7

120.

Wilson

Durbin

C. E.

(2010). Effects of paternal depression on fathers’ parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.007

121.

Wolpert

Cheng

Deighton

(2015). Measurement issues: Review of four patient reported outcome measures: SDQ, RCADS, C/ORS and GBO – their strengths and limitations for clinical use and service evaluation. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12065

122.

Youniss

Smollar

(1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers and friends. University of Chicago Press.

123.

Zayde

Derella

O. J.

Kilbride

(2023). Safe haven in adolescence: Improving parental reflective functioning and youth attachment and mental health with the Connecting and Reflecting Experience. Infant Mental Health Journal, 44(2), 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.22042

124.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Collins

W. A.

(2006). Autonomy development during adolescence. In Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 174–204). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756607.ch9

125.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Skinner

E. A.

(2011). Review: The development of coping across childhood and adolescence: An integrative review and critique of research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410384923