Measures of Father Engagement for Nonresident Fathers
| Author | Natasha Cabrera,Rebecca Kauffman,Jay Fagan,Jessica Pearson,W. Justin Dyer |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12317 |
| Date | 01 July 2018 |
| Published date | 01 July 2018 |
W. J D Brigham Young University
R K J F Temple University
J P Center for Policy Research
N C University of Maryland
Measures of Father Engagement for Nonresident
Fathers
Objective: To develop reliable and valid mea-
sures of nonresident father engagement.
Background: Although engagement measures
exist for resident fathers, theyhave not been val-
idated for nonresident fathers. Withoutvalid and
reliable measures, research on and programs for
these fathers are limited in their ability to cap-
ture this salient dimension of fathering.
Method: From a focus group of 71 nonresi-
dent biological fathers, father–child engagement
scales were created. Separate scales were cre-
ated for fathers of children aged0 to 1 years, 1 to
5 years, 6 to 11 years, and 12 to 18 years. Scales
were administered to 542 nonresident(primarily
low income) fathers to test reliability and con-
vergent and predictive validity.
Results: Analyses identied a “caregiving
play” domain of engagement across all age
groups. For fathers of children 0 to 1years, a
“cognitive stimulation” domain emerged. For
all age groups, a “support” domain emerged.
All measures had acceptable reliability and
(except in 1 instance) were related to at least 1
validity construct. Measures werenonequivalent
across groups except for support in 2 groups.
Brigham YoungUniversity, 270N JFB Brigham Young Uni-
versity, Provo,UT 84602 (wjd@byu.edu).
Key Words: fatherhood, measurement, nonresident fathers.
Conclusion: Measures of nonresident father
engagement had good reliability and validity.
Further, with a minimal number of items, the
scales are relatively easy and cost-effective to
administer.
Implications: With reliable and valid measures
of engagement, those researchingor intervening
with nonresident fathers can more accurately
capture this highly relevant construct.
Efforts to assist children living in high-poverty
areas often focus on encouraging the father to
be more involved in the child’s life (Mincy,
Pouncy, Reichert, & Richardson, 2004). How-
ever, despite some efforts to understand men’s
involvement with their children (see Cabrera,
Ryan, Mitchell, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda,
2008), there are currently no measures of
engagement created for and validated with
low-income fathers who do not reside with
their children. The vast majority of validated
involvement scales have been developed with
samples of middle-class, residential fathers
(e.g., Hawkins et al., 2002), and yet non-
resident, low-income fathers face unique
challenges to their involvement, necessitat-
ing measures sensitive to their situation (Edin
& Nelson, 2013). Without such measures,
research and intervention efforts are ham-
pered by limited understanding of the levels,
Family Relations 67 (July 2018): 381–398 381
DOI:10.1111/fare.12317
382 Family Relations
sources, and consequences of these men’s
involvement.
This study reports on the development
and initial validation of a new measure of
one component of involvement with children:
father engagement. Here, engagement refers
to the extent of a father’s direct contact and
shared activities with his child (e.g., Pleck,
2010). Analyses further examined whether the
engagement construct was unidimensional or
multidimensional. This measure was devel-
oped based on focus groups of low-income,
nonresident, biological fathers with validity
and reliability examined with 542 fathers who
were also low-income, nonresident, biological
fathers. We anticipate this measure, along with
other fathering measures recently developed
by the authors (i.e., measures of coparenting,
decision making, responsibility, and closeness;
Dyer, Fagan, Kaufman, Pearson, & Cabrera
2017; Dyer, Kaufmann, & Fagan, 2017; Fagan,
Dyer, Kaufman, & Pearson, 2018), will be
particularly useful for programs supporting
nonresident fathers’ involvement with their
children, including responsible fatherhood,
healthy marriage, child support, child welfare,
and prison programs.
B
Father involvement is widely considered a
reciprocal, dynamic, and multidimensional
concept (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Rog-
gman, 2014; Hawkins et al., 2002; Lamb, Pleck,
Charnov, & Levine, 1985, 1987; McWayne,
Campos, & Owsianik, 2008; Palkovitz, 2007;
Schoppe-Sullivan, McBride, & Moon-Ho
Ringo, 2004). Lamb et al. (1985, 1987) out-
lined three domains of father involvement:
accessibility, responsibility, and engagement.
Accessibility refers to presence with the child
“characterized by less intense degrees of inter-
action” (Lamb, 2008, p. 31), responsibility
refers to organizing and planning activities in
relation to a child and providing resources to
the child (Lamb et al., 1987), and engagement
refers to direct interaction with the child. Pleck
(2010) subsequently updated the model by
indicating engagement should be referred to
as positive engagement and also added three
additional domains of father involvement:
indirect care, warmth and responsiveness, and
control.
The Lamb and Pleck formulation is arguably
the most widely used categorization of father
involvement, with engagement receiving the
most focus (Pleck, 2010). Father engagement
across developmental periods and in different
contexts forms the basis for developing dynamic
and reciprocal quality father–child relation-
ships that are central for children’s well-being.
Cabrera et al.’s (2014) model of the ecology
of father–child relationships includes spending
time with children engaged in growth-promoting
activities.
A substantial portion of early research on
father engagement was initially limited to White,
middle-class men who resided with their chil-
dren (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000).
Moreover, father engagement was assessed
in different ways, making it difcult to draw
comparisons across studies. A newer body of
research examining father engagement among
a low-income, nonresident population suggests
that these fathers also play an important role
in their children’s development. These stud-
ies indicate that father engagement inuences
various dimensions of child well-being, such
as educational outcomes and positive behav-
ioral adjustment, including fewer externalizing
and internalizing behavior problems (Cabrera,
Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; Flouri &
Buchanan, 2003; Pruett, 2001; Tamis-Lemonda,
Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004). However,
although research has shown positive effects
of engagement on resident and nonresident
children, it is reasonable to expect that resident
and nonresident fathers will engage in different
fathering activities (or that the underlying struc-
ture of involvement differs)because nonresident
fathers often do not have daily contact with their
children (Cabrera et al., 2008). Thus, certain
types of engagement activities, such physical
care activities (e.g., putting the child to sleep)
may be less likely to occur with nonresidential
fathers. It may also be that the meaning or
importance of particular activities may differ
between resident and nonresident fathers (i.e.,
different underlying structures of involvement).
Furthermore, nonresident, low-income fathers
face unique challenges (Arditti, 1992; Edin
& Nelson, 2013) that may predispose them
to experiencing a multitude of risk factors
associated with less competency in parenting
(Cabrera, Fagan, Wight, & Schadler, 2011;
Harper & Fine, 2006); they may also experience
difculties enacting a parenting role (Fagan &
To continue reading
Request your trial