Chapter 6 180 validity, the 100-day average of daily psychological control was strongly correlated (r = .53, p < .001) with the established Psychological Control-Disrespect Scale (Barber et al., 2012) that was measured once during the study. Strictness Parental strictness and rule setting are aimed at controlling the behavior of their adolescent children (Kerr et al., 2012). The current study measured this with one item: “My parent was strict.” This item was adapted from a previous work (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). The 1-item measures of daily strictness and monitoring correlated weakly across days within persons (r = .10, p < .001), which indicates that the items might indeed have measured different parenting practices. Hence, although strictness and monitoring are both components of the parenting dimension ‘behavioral control’ (Smetana, 2017), the low correlation suggests the necessity of distinguishing these practices in daily life. Monitoring In addition to strictness, parents can actively monitor their adolescents’ whereabouts and activities to control their behavior (Kerr et al., 2012). To measure parental monitoring, adolescents responded to the following item: “I had to tell my parent what I did, with whom, and where.” This item was adapted from a parental monitoring questionnaire (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). The 100-day average of the single-item monitoring scale correlated moderately (r = .39, p < .001) with the behavioral control scale of a commonly used questionnaire (Stattin & Kerr, 2000) that was measured once. Adolescent Affective Well-Being Affective well-being can be defined as high levels of positive affect (i.e., pleasant and desirable feelings) and low levels of negative affect (i.e., unpleasant and undesirable feelings) (Diener et al., 2018). To measure daily affective well-being, five items from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children were used (PANAS-C) (Ebesutani et al., 2012), which were chosen based on the psychometric properties of the Dutch scale in an adolescent sample in a previous study (Bülow, Van Roekel, et al., 2022). That is, positive affect was measured with two items (“joyful” and “happy”), and negative affect with three items (“mad”, “afraid”, and “sad”). Internal consistency of the 2-item positive affect scale was good at the within-family level (r = .75, p < .001) and excellent at the between-family level (r = .95, p < .001). Similarly, the internal consistency of the 3-item negative affect scale was good at the within-family level (ω = .71) and excellent at the between-family level (ω = .92).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw