ArticleScandinavian journal of psychology2025
Interpretability and clinical utility of the strength and stressors in parenting questionnaire.
Article in Scandinavian journal of psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to enhance the interpretability and clinical utility of the strength and stressors in parenting (SSF) questionnaire, a parent-reported questionnaire designed to assess strength, stress and associated risks of mental ill-health in parents of children with developmental disabilities. Responses to the SSF and a demographic questionnaire were collected from 576 parents of children with (n = 203) and without (n = 373) developmental disabilities. To enhance the interpretability of the SSF, a subset of 129 parents were invited to complete an additional questionnaire consisting of three free-text questions regarding recent help-seeking behavior, experiences of mental ill-health and experiences of parenthood. Parents' responses to the free-text questions were then categorized as indicative of higher or lower degrees of stress and compared to their SSF score distribution to derive empirical cut-offs for strength, stress and risk of mental ill-health as measured by the SSF. The credibility of these cut-offs was evaluated by comparing the cut-offs with SSF scores collected from the other 447 parents. Finally, SSF scores from parents of children without developmental disabilities (n = 373) were used to generate percentile values for the SSF to enable a standardized interpretation of SSF scores. To increase the utility of the SSF, we examined a recurring pattern of missing answers to items 23 and 33-38, noted in previous studies of the SSF and repeated in the present study. These items were excluded from further analysis since our examination revealed that they were not missing at random but rather constituted real differences in parental experiences, such as receiving a healthcare allowance, or caring for more than one child. The proposed empirical cut-offs performed well in discriminating between the two groups and yielded a specificity of 77-89% and a sensitivity of 68-76% for the strength, stress and risk of mental ill-health subscales of the SSF. This study also presents a conversion chart associating each SSF score with a corresponding percentile value. We propose modifications to the SSF, whereby items 23 and 33-38 are excluded, which will enable a more reliable assessment of parental experiences. This will, together with the empirical cut-offs and percentile values, enhance the interpretability and clinical utility of the SSF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.