The role of co-parenting alliance as a mediator between trait anxiety, family system maladjustment, and parenting stress in a sample of non-clinical Italian parents

Abstract

This study investigated the role of co-parenting alliance in mediating the influence of parents’ trait anxiety on family system maladjustment and parenting stress. A sample of 1606 Italian parents (803 mothers and 803 fathers) of children aged one to 13 years completed measures of trait anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory—Y), co-parenting alliance (Parenting Alliance Measure), family system maladjustment (Family Assessment Measure—III), and parenting stress (Parenting Stress Inventory—Short Form). These variables were investigated together comparing two structural equations model-fitting including both partners. A model for both mothers and fathers was empirically devised as a series of associations between parent trait anxiety (independent variable), family system maladjustment and parenting stress (dependent variables), mediated by co-parenting alliance, with the insertion of cross predictions between mothers and fathers and correlations between dependent variables for both parents. Results indicated that the relation between mothers and fathers’ trait anxiety, family system maladjustment and parenting stress was mediated by the level of co-parenting alliance. Understanding the role of couples’ co-parenting alliance could be useful during the family assessment and/or treatment, since it is an efficient and effective tool to improve the family system maladjustment and stress.

Full text

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 19 August 2015
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01177
Edited by:
Omar C. G. Gelo,
Università del Salento, Italy and
Sigmund Freud University, Austria
Reviewed by:
Jason A. DeCaro,
University of Alabama, USA
Pratibha N. Reebye,
British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital
and University of British Columbia,
Canada
Shervin Assari,
University of Michigan, USA
*Correspondence:
Elisa Delvecchio,
Department of Developmental
Psychology and Socialization,
University of Padua, Via Venezia, 12,
Padova 35100, Italy
elisa_delvecchio@libero.it
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Psychology for Clinical Settings,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 26 May 2015
Accepted: 27 July 2015
Published: 19 August 2015
Citation:
Delvecchio E, Sciandra A, Finos L,
Mazzeschi C and Di Riso D (2015)
The role of co-parenting alliance as a
mediator between trait anxiety, family
system maladjustment, and parenting
stress in a sample of non-clinical
Italian parents.
Front. Psychol. 6:1177.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01177
The role of co-parenting alliance as a
mediator between trait anxiety, family
system maladjustment, and
parenting stress in a sample of
non-clinical Italian parents
Elisa Delvecchio 1*, Andrea Sciandra 2, Livio Finos 1, Claudia Mazzeschi 3and
Daniela Di Riso 1
1Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padua, Padua, Italy, 2StarLab, Socio Territorial
Analysis and Research, University of Padua, Padua, Italy, 3Department of Philosophy, Social and Human Sciences and
Education, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
This study investigated the role of co-parenting alliance in mediating the influence of
parents’ trait anxiety on family system maladjustment and parenting stress. A sample
of 1606 Italian parents (803 mothers and 803 fathers) of children aged one to 13 years
completed measures of trait anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory—Y), co-parenting
alliance (Parenting Alliance Measure), family system maladjustment (Family Assessment
Measure—III), and parenting stress (Parenting Stress Inventory—Short Form). These
variables were investigated together comparing two structural equations model-fitting
including both partners. A model for both mothers and fathers was empirically devised
as a series of associations between parent trait anxiety (independent variable), family
system maladjustment and parenting stress (dependent variables), mediated by co-
parenting alliance, with the insertion of cross predictions between mothers and fathers
and correlations between dependent variables for both parents. Results indicated that
the relation between mothers and fathers’ trait anxiety, family system maladjustment
and parenting stress was mediated by the level of co-parenting alliance. Understanding
the role of couples’ co-parenting alliance could be useful during the family assessment
and/or treatment, since it is an efficient and effective tool to improve the family system
maladjustment and stress.
Keywords: co-parenting alliance, trait anxiety, parental stress, family maladjustment, structural equation
modeling
Introduction
Parenting is a challenging process that involves complex variables not limited to caregiving activities
(Bornstein, 2002). According to Belsky (1984) parenting behaviors are associated with three
principal factors: child’s characteristics, family dimensions, and parent’s individual differences such
as personality features and psychological resources. Personal differences would influence parenting
competence more strongly than the other factors because they influence how people experience
and respond to a wide variety of tasks (see, e.g., Caspi et al., 2005; Caspi and Shiner, 2006; Roberts
et al., 2007). Furthermore, individual differences affect feelings and emotions toward parenting, and
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11771

Delvecchio et al. Co-parenting alliance and family adjustment
parent’s attributions to child behavior (Kochanska et al., 2004;
Caspi et al., 2005; Belsky and Jaffee, 2006).
Co-parenting can be seen as a further indicator of parenting
adjustment (Feinberg, 2003). Co-parenting (McHale, 1995;
Feinberg, 2003) has been defined as a unique component of
the marital relationship in which parents work together, or
alternatively, struggle against each other when it comes to child
rearing (McHale, 2007). Weissman and Cohen (1985) listed the
following four characteristics for a good co-parenting alliance,
which is one of the most important components of co-parenting:
(1) both parents’ investment in the child, (2) evaluating reciprocal
involvement with the child, (3) respect for each other’s judgment
about child rearing, and (4) desire to communicate child-related
information. Studies have shown how co-parenting alliance
is positively associated with perceptions of parental support,
marital relationship, as well as decreased stress, and, on the other
hand, it has negative implications for parenting practices, and
arguments about parenting practices (Abidin and Brunner, 1995;
Sheras et al., 1998a,b; Stright and Bales, 2003; Schoppe-Sullivan
et al., 2004; Askari et al., 2012; Kwan et al., 2015). A scarce level
of co-parenting alliance influences family system adjustment
and increases parenting stress (Morrill et al., 2010), defined as a
feeling of poor parenting skills, a lack of freedom or restriction
in certain aspects of the parent’s life, and a lack of social support
(Abidin, 1995; Deater-Deckard and Scarr, 1996; Margolin et al.,
2001). Several studies have demonstrated the mediating role of
co-parenting in family functioning (Bonds and Gondoli, 2007;
Feinberg et al., 2007a; Kwan et al., 2015), and how co-parenting
has the potential to enhance family functioning and parent
adjustment (Feinberg and Kan, 2008). Although some variables
may serve either a moderating or mediating function, mediators
are conceptually difference from moderators (Baron and Kenny,
1986). Whereas moderators are features that belong to individual
prior to stressors, mediators become individual’s characteristics
in response to stressors (Grant and McMahon, 2005).
Anxiety, besides being considered as a trait-stable indicator
of parents’ personality (Majdandžić et al., 2012), is seen as an
indicator of parenting and co-parenting adjustment. Anxiety
might undermine parents’ ability to initiate and maintain positive
affective interaction with other family members (i.e., the child,
the partner); moreover, a disposition to experience anxiety might
lead to intrusive and overprotective parenting. Studies have shown
that anxious parents tend to report higher levels of parental
distress and display higher levels of dysfunctional interactions
(Dadds and Barrett, 1996; Hudson and Rapee, 2002). However,
the extent to which specific parenting factors, and in particular
trait anxiety, may affect family system have not been yet well
assessed (Konold and Abidin, 2001; Majdandžić et al., 2012).
Trait anxiety was also detected as an individual characteristic
which impairs parenting alliance (Caldera et al., 2002). The
links between parents’ characteristics, co-parenting relations,
family maladjustment and parenting stress have been traditionally
examined separately for fathers and mothers. Little is known
about the relative contributions of these variables in the context
of broader family models (Morrill et al., 2010). As an example,
Kwan and colleagues, (2015) showed that parenting correlates
impact differently in mothers and fathers. Although theorists
argue the need to give space to both parents views, previousstudies
have emphasized the lack of data from fathers in family research
(Bornstein, 2002; Bonds and Gondoli, 2007; Feinberg et al.,
2007b; Kolak and Volling, 2007). For these reasons, in the current
study, mothers as well as fathers’ contributions were taken into
account.
Regarding possible clinical implication of the interplay between
the dimensions discussed above, existing literature posited that
articulation of adaptive family structure was determined by
parents mental health and cohesiveness and it is strictly connected
with the well-being of their children (Olson and Gorall, 2003).
Disconnection and the lack of coordination between parents are
some of the most important reasons for dysfunctional outcome in
children since their first years of life (McHale et al., 2002).
The main purpose of our study was to empirically test the role of
parental trait anxiety, mediated by co-parenting alliance on family
system maladjustment and parenting stress, considering mothers
and fathers simultaneously. To address this issue, structural
equation modeling (SEM) was used to (a) test whether there
exists a correlation between level of trait anxiety, co-parenting
alliance, family maladjustment and parenting stress in fathers
and mothers, (b) test whether mothers and fathers trait anxiety
contributes to higher maladjustment and parenting stress as rated
respectively by mothers and fathers, and (c) examine whether
these hypothesized relationships were mediated by maternal and
paternal co-parenting alliance. More specifically, the direct effect
hypotheses supported that mothers and fathers’ trait anxiety and
co-parenting alliance would predict greater family maladjustment
and parenting stress as rated by mothers and fathers (Bonds and
Gondoli, 2007). Measures of the same variables in fathers and
mothers were expected to be related. An indirect relationship
between trait anxiety and family maladjustment via co-parenting
alliance was expected. A model is proposed to represent the
hypothesized direct and indirect relationships of each parent’s trait
anxiety and co-parenting alliance on parenting stress and family
system maladjustment (Figure 1).
A parallel SEM was devised for both mothers and fathers and
the contributions of both parents were simultaneously considered,
being aware that empirical studies including members of the same
parental couple are faced with the difficulty of studying data from
non-independent members (Kenny et al., 2006).
Materials and Methods
Participants
The original sample included 956 parent couples. Statistical
analyses, however, were carried out on the participants who
filled the whole questionnaires. Self-reports of 153 participants
showed one or more missing values, thus they were excluded.
Missing data were especially due to slight parents’ inattention
in filling the questionnaires. The final sample included 1,606
parents, 803 mothers and 803 fathers. They were married
heterosexual couples of children from infancy to early adolescence
(1–13 years old). Due to the large life-span included, parents
were assessed considering their child developmental stage: (a)
preschool children (1–5 years old) and (b) school aged children
(6–13 years old).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11772

Delvecchio et al. Co-parenting alliance and family adjustment
FIGURE 1 | Hypothetical model.
Families were primarily recruited through day-cares, nurseries
and schools, and met the following criteria: (a) both mothers and
fathers agreed to participate, (b) all participants completed the
entire assessment phase (c) parents and children did not meet
criteria for psychiatric diagnosis and were not under psychological
treatment. The mean age of mothers and fathers in this sample
was 38.6 (SD =5.74) and 40.92 (SD =6.32) respectively. All
subjects were Caucasian and lived in different regions of North
and Central Italy. Parents’ socio-economic level, measured by SES
(Hollingshead, 1975), was middle to upper for 91% of families, 7%
had a medium to low socio-economic status and only 1% reported
a very high level.
Procedures
This study was conducted in compliance with the ethical
standards for research outlined in the Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological
Association, 2010). Approval by the Ethical Committee for
Psychological Research was obtained from the University of
Padova. Participation in the study was solicited via leaflets.
Questionnaires were then distributed to 30 nursery school, 16
kindergartens, 12 elementary schools and four high schools
in urban and suburban, located in North and Central Italy.
Parents written signed informed consent to participate in the
study were obtained before data collection. They completed
the questionnaires at home and returned them to the research
team through their children in a close envelope. Confidentiality
was assured by replacing participant’s personal information with
a numeric code. No incentives were awarded and voluntary
participation was emphasized.
Measures
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form Y (STAI-Y; Spielberger et al.,
1970). This measure is the gold standard for assessing anxiety
in adults. It measures state and trait anxiety trough 40 items
(20 each one) on a 4-point Likert scale. The scale showed
good psychometric properties (Barnes et al., 2002). The Italian
normative data comes from a large sample of 2304 subjects aged
16 to 60 years (Pedrabissi and Santinello, 1989). The subscale for
trait anxiety evaluation (STAI-t) was used in this study.
Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM; Abidin, 1999; Abidin and
Konold, 1999; Konold and Abidin, 2001) was used to measure co-
parenting alliance. This 20-item self-report instrument assesses
the strength of the perceived alliance of parents of children
aged from 1 to 19 years. It assesses the parenting aspects of
a couple’s relationship (e.g., how cooperative, communicative,
and mutually respectful they are with regard to caring for their
children). Parents responded to the items using a 5-points Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree),
with higher scores reflecting stronger co-parenting alliance and
reciprocity in the parental role. PAM showed good psychometric
characteristics and has been found to be stable for both mothers
and fathers (Konold and Abidin, 2001; Delvecchio et al., 2014).
The Italian validation was carried out by Delvecchio et al. (2014).
Family Assessment Measure—III (FAM-III General Scale;
Skinner et al., 1983) is a 50-item self-report measure of family
system maladjustment. It provides a multi-rater assessment
of family functioning across universal clinical parameters.
Participants are asked to answer on a 4-point Likert scale from
3 (strong agree) to 0 (completely disagree). High total scores
revealed a maladaptive family functioning. The current study took
into account only FAM-III Total score, which assesses family
system shared values, norms and goals. The questionnaire showed
good internal consistency for the total score (Van Riper, 2000).
Discriminant validity studies reported an adequate sensitivity of
the scale for detecting high-risk families (Jacob, 1991; Alderfer
et al., 2008). Laghezza et al. (2014) carried out the Italian
validation.
Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) is
a 36-item measure designed to assess the overall level of stress
experienced by parents. Core assumption of PSI-SF suggests that
the level of stress in the parent–child dyad is the result of child,
parent, and situational characteristics. The scores are based on
a 5-point ordinal Likert scale from 1 (it does not fit for me)
to 5 (it corresponds well for me). All 36 items are summed to
yield a total score for parenting stress, a measure of parental state
of helplessness. The measure was validated in several countries
showing good psychometric characteristics (Reitman et al., 2002;
Deater-Deckard, 2004; Haskett et al., 2006; McKelvey et al., 2009).
Guarino et al. (2008) carried out the Italian validation.
Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 21.0) was
used to compute descriptive statistics, correlations, and to
carry out analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on the overall score
of trait anxiety (STAI-t), co-parental alliance (PAM), family
system maladjustment (FAM-III) and parenting stress total scores
(PSI-SF). SEM approach for observed variables was used to
test the mediational effect of PAM on PSI-SF and FAM-III.
LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996) was used to estimate
relations among the variables and assess model fit (Muthén and
Muthén, 1998–2004). We also allowed for non-null correlations
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11773

Delvecchio et al. Co-parenting alliance and family adjustment
TABLE 1 | Means and Standard deviations for STAI-t, PAM, FAM-III, and PSI-SF according to parental role, child’s gender and age group (N=1606).
Parental Role Gender Age group
Mother Father Boys Girls (1–5 years) (6–13 years)
(n=803) (n=803) (n=396) (n=407) (n=422) (n=381)
MSD MSD MSD MSD MSD MSD
STAI-t 40.55 7.20 38.16 6.96 39.33 7.01 39.38 7.35 39.27 6.97 39.45 7.41
PAM 85.48 10.13 85.85 9.75 86.01 9.58 85.32 10.30 85.80 8.95 85.92 10.46
FAM-III 32.79 10.57 33.00 11.10 33.13 10.89 32.67 10.78 31.90 10.48 34.00 11.13
PSI-SF 69.94 18.03 67.03 17.43 67.49 17.56 68.48 17.95 68.04 15.85 67.91 19.66
STAY-t, trait anxiety; PAM, co-parenting alliance; FAM-III, family system maladjustment; PSI-SF, parenting stress.
of errors among the same measures (i.e., mother and father) and
within the same subject. Multiple criteria must be considered
when evaluating model fit on the basis of various measures
simultaneously, first, chi-square (χ2). A solution fits the data well
when χ2is not significant (p≥0.05). This statistic, however,
is sensitive to sample size; it can lead to rejection of a model
differing very slightly from data for large samples, and, conversely,
it can result in the acceptance of a model with salient differences
from data for small samples. Therefore, Schermelleh-Engel et al.’s
(2003) suggestions were followed which consider adequate a Chi-
Square/df ratio lower than 3. The fit of the model was also assessed
with the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Non-Normed Fit Index
(NNFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
Kline, 2005). A CFI of 0.95 or above indicates a good fit, and below
0.90 indicates a poor fit. Also NNFI values greater than, or equal
to, 0.95 indicate a good fit. If the RMSEA index is less than or equal
to 0.05, the model is considered a good fit; values between 0.05 and
0.08 suggest reasonable error of approximation and if the index
is greater than or equal to 0.10, the model is considered a poor
fit. Finally, the choice of the best model was based on parsimony
index, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). The significance of
the standardized path coefficients was determined by comparing
the (absolute) t ratio to a critical t of 2.58 (p≤0.01). Therefore the
overall fit of the models was determined by using a combination
of the results from the fit indexes, the significance of standardized
path coefficients, and the significance of the indirect effect.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Internal consistency for STAI-t, PAM, FAM-III and PSI-SF total
scores were indexed by means of Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s
alpha for the STAI-T was adequate for Mothers α=0.69 and
for Fathers α=0.70. Cronbach’s alpha for PAM were excellent
(Mothers α=0.93 and Fathers α=0.92). FAM-III showed
reasonable values (Mothers α=0.75; Fathers α=0.76). PSI-
SF reported also high level of reliability (Mothers α=0.93 and
Fathers α=0.94). Bivariate Pearsons’ correlations revealed that
all scores were not significantly associated with the length of the
spouses’ marriage, their income level, or either spouse’s education
level. Therefore, these demographic variables were excluded from
the analyses. As a first step, possible significant influences due
to parental role (fathers versus mothers), child’s sex, and child
TABLE 2 | ANOVAs for STAI-t, PAM, FAM-III, and PSI-SF with parental role,
child’s gender and age group as between subjects’ variables (N=1606).
Parental role Child’s gender Child’s age group
F(1,1605) Pη2
pF(1,1605) Pη2
pF(1, 1605) Pη2
p
STAI-t 30.01 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.63 0.00 0.27 0.61 0.00
PAM 1.84 0.18 0.00 1.59 0.21 0.00 0.25 0.62 0.00
FAM-III 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.49 0.48 0.00 15.44 0.00 0.01
PSI-SF 6.15 0.01 0.00 1.49 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.86 0.00
STAY-t, trait anxiety; PAM, co-parenting alliance; FAM-III, family system maladjustment;
PSI-SF, parenting stress.
age-group (preschool—1 to 5 years old-, versus school age—6 to
13 years old-) were assessed. Table 1 shows the means for STAI-t,
PAM, FAM-III, and PSI-SF total scores in the whole sample, for
fathers and mothers, and according to child gender and age group
(preschool versus school children).
Four analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on the
total scores with parental role, children gender and age-group
as between subject variables in order to verify if mothers and
fathers showed similar levels of STAI-t, PAM, FAM-III and PSI-
SF. According to Cohen’s suggestions (Cohen, 1992), partial eta-
square estimates were considered to be substantially significant
only within 1–5% effect sizes. Results of the ANOVAs are reported
in Table 2. No significant differences were found according to
children’s gender and age group for the considered variables.
Focusing on parental role, the only significant result was found for
STAI-t showing mothers reporting higher levels of anxiety than
fathers, although their mean levels of trait anxiety were within the
range of normative samples (Guarino et al., 2008). Furthermore,
mothers reported higher levels of PSI-SF than fathers. However η2
p
effect size of ANOVA was not within the 1–5% range, suggesting
trivial results.
The Pearson product-moment correlations between STAI-t,
PAM, FAM-III, and PSI-SF were computed separately for mothers
and fathers to study the associations among these variables. The
correlations were all significant (p<0.001). Correlation effect
size was classified (Table 3) according to Cohen (1988): low effect
size, if the Pearson’s rwas lower than 0.30; medium effect size if r
ranged between 0.31 and 0.50; and large effect size if rwas higher
than 0.50.
Medium effect size correlations were found for both parents
between STAI-t and PSI-SF, suggesting that anxious parents tend
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11774

Delvecchio et al. Co-parenting alliance and family adjustment
TABLE 3 | Correlations of STAI-t, PAM, FAM-III, and PSI-SF total scores for
mothers (N=803) and fathers (N=803).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. STAI-t Mother 1
2. STAI-t Father 0.32** 1
3. PAM Mother −0.34** −0.27** 1
4. PAM Father −0.28** −0.32** 0.51** 1
5. FAM-III Mother 0.45** 0.25** −0.44** −0.28** 1
6. FAM-III Father 0.31** 0.40** −0.37** −0.42** 0.51** 1
7. PSI-SF Mother 0.44** 0.19** −0.30** −0.23** 0.48** 0.23** 1
8. PSI-SF Father 0.32** 0.47** −0.35** −0.45** 0.32** 0.46** 0.50** 1
STAY-t, trait anxiety; PAM, co-parenting alliance; FAM-III, family system maladjustment;
PSI-SF, parenting stress. ** p <.01.
to report higher levels of parental distress. As expected, PAM was
negatively correlated with STAI-t, FAM-III, and PSI-SF.
SEM with Observed Variables
In the present study two structural equation models were carried
out. Both parents’ variables were inserted simultaneously within
the two SEM tested. The first structural equation model (Model
1) was carried out to test the direct and indirect STAI-t effects
as independent variable on FAM-III and PSI-SF path, with the
insertion of PAM as a mediator factor. Correlations between
dependent variables within the same parents were allowed. All
standardized effects were significant. The CFI equal to 1.00 and
the NNFI equal to 0.98 suggested a good fit. However, RMSEA
equal to 0.123 and a ratio Chi-Square/df =107.47/8 =13.434
indicate a not adequate overall fit. Moreover, the presence of
some not significant path coefficients underlined the need of a
more adequate modified model with new paths of interactions
between variables. Modification indices were taken into account
in order to insert these new paths. These modifications led
to Model 2. Model 2 was carried out starting from Model 1
structure with STAI-t as independent variable, PAM as mediator,
FAM-III, and PSI-SF as predicted variables. However, in this
model, mothers’ and fathers’ STAI-t was inserted as predictor of
both mothers’ and fathers’ PAM. Direct and indirect predictions
through PAM mediation of STAI-t were also considered. Not
only mediational effects were considered for PAM but also its
correlations with dependent variables of the same parent were
taken into account. Correlations between FAM-III and PSI-SF
were allowed within and between parents. The final model (Model
2) has been reached balancing among statistical requirements
(e.g., modification indices) and interpretability of the resulting
complex family system hypothesized and tested. Figure 2 showed
standardized indirect and direct coefficients. Model 2 fits the data
reasonably well as indicated by multiple indicators of fit: ratio Chi-
Square/df =18.16/6 =3.026, RMSEA =0.050, CFI =1.00, and
NNFI =0.98. To evaluate the improvement of the fit from Model
1 and Model 2 AIC values were also compared (lower indicates
a better fit, Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). The index strongly
decreases from 160.65 to 78.21 for Model 2.
All the path coefficients demonstrated statistical significance
(p≤0.001). The results also showed that all the indirect effects
between STAI-t, PAM, FAM-III, and PSI-SF were statistically
significant both for mothers and fathers. Taken together, the
results indicated that the relation between mothers’ trait anxiety,
as well as fathers’ one, and family system maladjustment and
parenting stress was mediated by co-parenting alliance level.
The model accounted for 13, 21, and 27% of the variance
for mothers PAM, PSI-SF, and FAM-III, respectively. Among the
fathers, the explained variance was 13, 25, and 15% for PAM,
PSI-SF and FAM-III, respectively.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study investigated the complex interplay between parental
individual trait anxiety, mediated by co-parenting alliance on
family system maladjustment and parenting stress, in a large
sample of non-clinical Italian parents. Both parents were invited
to take part in the study.
Results highlighted the good psychometric characteristics of
the measures, showing adequate reliability for each selected tool.
Moreover mothers and fathers appeared to be quite similar in
terms of parental role, and according to their children’s age and
gender.
Previous studies supported the idea that individual
characteristics, such as trait anxiety, undermine family system,
and that a scarce level of co-parenting alliance increase the
risk of family maladjustment and parenting stress (Morrill
et al., 2010). Starting from these theoretical-empirical bases, a
structural equation model (Model 1) was hypothesized with the
simultaneous insertion of both mothers and fathers variables.
Because goodness of fit indices was not always satisfactory,
a second model (Model 2) was carried out according to
modification indices. In this model data fit was considered
good and significantly higher than Model 1. Although, in an
exploratory way, this model supported the ecologically complex
interplay between trait anxiety, co-parenting alliance, family
system maladjustment and parenting stress. Model 2 supported
that trait anxiety—in mothers as well in fathers—was significantly
predictive of the co-parenting alliance, for both partners. This
result pointed out how each parent should account of the shared
behaviors and practices of the couple that built the sense of
co-parenting alliance.
Results of the current study have several important practical
implications. Often family clinicians treat parent couples that
are distressed in their co-parental relationship, which is often
reinforced by powerful family dynamics. After assessing the
family’s strengths and weaknesses, knowledge of this model could
provide useful indications about which subsystem to target. For
example, if the couple is primarily struggling with parenting stress,
it may be effective to focus on their co-parental cohesion (in
addition to parenting training), but it may also be effective to
assess if parental stress was also undermined by parent personal
anxiety. Furthermore, the viability of the model suggests that
targeting couples’ co-parenting alliance could be an efficient
and effective tool to influence family system maladjustment and
stress. In other words, co-parenting interventions could have
the power to contribute in diminishing their anxiety and stress.
Prior research has demonstrated that co-parenting alliance is
indeed a malleable construct, making such interventions feasible
and practical (Cummings and Wittenberg, 2008; Feinberg and
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11775

Delvecchio et al. Co-parenting alliance and family adjustment
FIGURE 2 | Co-parenting alliance as a mediator of the effect of parental trait anxiety on family system maladjustment and parenting stress.
Kan, 2008). On the other hand, this amplified influence of co-
parenting underscores the risks of leaving ineffective co-parenting
unaddressed, because co-parenting dynamics have been shown to
remain remarkably stable over time without intervention (McHale
and Kuersten-Hogan, 2004). Given the systems focus on the field
of family psychology, future family interventions, such as co-
parenting treatments, may increasingly be developed to address
multiple subsystems simultaneously.
Although the present study was carried out on a large sample of
Italian parents, some limitations of this study must be considered
in interpreting findings and proposing future lines of inquiry. The
sample was quite homogeneous racially and socioeconomically,
and reported being fairly satisfied in each of the family domains.
For this reason, the generalizability of results is limited. It is
important to investigate these effects in parents from more diverse
and more highly distressed populations. Future studies should be
carried out also with low-income, psychologically disadvantaged
or high risk families in order to test the stability of the model
tested, since characteristics like poverty, poor social milieu,
psychological distress were found to affect the quality of parenting
(Russel et al., 2008; Ciciolla et al., 2014).
The current design can only speak for the relationships between
key variables, rather than comment on causal pathways. This
conservative approach is appropriate given the exploratory nature
of the project. The present study did not test the direction of
causality among the variables of interest. These relationships
should be examined in the context of a longitudinal study, which
could provide stronger evidence of directionality or causality.
Furthermore, it is of note that husbands and wives reported
anxiety, co-parenting, and family system maladjustment and
parenting stress quite differently, therefore, we were unable
to constrain the parameter paths to equal each other in the
models. Although a family-systems approach benefits from
analytical methods such as those that incorporate both partners
simultaneously, it is undoubtedly important to investigate gender
differences as well. For instance, our finding that fathers’
family subsystems are more highly correlated, and accounted
for more of the variance in their other subsystems than
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11776

Delvecchio et al. Co-parenting alliance and family adjustment
mothers’ ones, implies that gender differences are relevant
in these processes. Further research may provide additional
information about these gender differences. Additionally, this
study used self-report measures only, making it difficult to
separate true associations from common method variance. Data
should be gathered using various methodologies in order to
elucidate patterns accounting for the associations among these
individual—and marital—level variables. This study examined
only parenting variables. No attention was given to marital
variables or to the “third part,” the child. Further explorations
on the relationship between maternal and paternal measures
involved in this study are necessary, mother and father measures
of the parents’ involvement with the child, and measures
such as child’s anxiety. The results may provide valuable
contributions to the growing field of co-parenting research
and the complex model empirically tested raises important
practical implications for family system clinicians. This is one
of the first studies according to our knowledge that investigates
a path model of the interrelationships between anxiety, co-
parenting alliance, family system maladjustment and parenting
stress side-by-side. The model demonstrates the need for
new conceptualizations of the co-parenting subsystem role to
continue expanding our understanding of families. Researching
the many roles of the co-parenting process for fathers and
mothers has a theoretical and clinical importance that could
contribute to this progress. Although preliminarily, this study
empirically tested the variables simultaneously in a well-fitting
model for mothers and fathers. The fitness of the model
added empirical data, which supports the flexible and multiple
roles that co-parenting can play in overall family systems. In
conclusion, this exploratory study on Italian families provided
new evidence to empirically support a developmental ecological
model of mother’s and father’s views of themselves and their
families.
Clinicians working with families need to recognize that
parental interactions, which include the parents’ coparental
capacities, reveal unique and important dimensions about the
family’s functioning and health. Clinical evidence indicated
that the presence of severe disengagement in the parental
relationships has a great impact on psychosocial well-being of
parents themselves and children. For these reasons, prevention
and intervention programs tailored on children psychology health
need to take into account also family assessment in terms of family
functioning and alliance. Existing literature suggest that those data
show an incremental value in understanding child maladaptive
behaviors.
References
Abidin, R. R. (1999). Parenting Alliance Measure. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Abidin, R. R. (1995). The Parenting Stress Index Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Abidin, R. R., and Brunner, J. F. (1995). Development of a parenting alliance
inventory. J. Clinic Child Psychol. 24, 31–40.
Abidin, R. R., and Konold, T. R. (1999). Parenting Alliance Measure Professional
Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Alderfer, M. A., Fiese, B. H., Gold, J. I., Cutuli, J. J., Holmbeck, G. N., et al.
(2008). Evidence-based assessment in pediatric psychology: measures of family
functioning. J. Ped. Psychol. 33, 1046–1061. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsm083
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Askari, M., Nohd Noah, S. B., Hassan, S. A., and Baba, M. (2012). Comparison
the effects of communication and conflict resolution skills training on marital
satisfaction. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 4, 182–191. doi: 10.5539/ijps.v4n1p182
Barnes, L. L. B., Harp, D., and Jung, W. S. (2002). Reliability generalization of
scores on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 62,
603–618. doi: 10.1177/0013164402062004005
Baron, R., and Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research. Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Belsky, J., and Jaffee, S. R. (2006). “The multiple determinants of parenting,” in
Developmental Psychology, Vol. 3, Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation, 2nd Edn, eds
D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons), 38–85.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child Dev. 55,
83–96. doi: 10.2307/1129836
Bonds, D. D., and Gondoli, D. M. (2007). Examining the process by which
marital adjustment affects maternal warmth: the role of co-parenting support
as a mediator. J. Fam. Psychol. 21, 288–296. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.
2.288
Bornstein, M. H. (2002). “Parenting infants,” in Handbook of Parenting, Vol. 1,
Children and Parenting, 2nd Edn, ed. M. H. Bornstein (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum),
3–43.
Caldera, Y. M., Fitzpatrick, J., and Wampler, K. S. (2002). “Coparenting in intact
Mexican American families: mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions,” in Latino
Children and Families in the United States, eds J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, and
A. M. Neal-Barnett (Westport, CT: Praeger), 107–132.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., and Shiner, R. (2005). Personality development.
Ann. Rev. Psychol. 56, 453–84. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.
141913
Caspi, A., and Shiner, R. L. (2006). “Personality development,” in Handbook of
Child Psychology, Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 6th
Edn, eds W. Damon, R. Lerner, and N. Eisenberg (New York, NY: Wiley),
300–365.
Ciciolla, L., Gerstein, E. D., and Crnic, K. A. (2014). Reciprocity among
maternal distress, child behavior, and parenting: transactional processes
and early childhood risk. J. Clin. Child Adol. Psychol. 43, 751–764. doi:
10.1080/15374416.2013.812038
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edn.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159.
Cummings, J. G., and Wittenberg, J. V. (2008). Supportive expressive
therapy—Parent child version: an exploratory study. Psychoth. Theory Res.
Pract. Train. 45, 148–164. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.45.2.148
Dadds, M. R., and Barrett, P. M. (1996). Family processes in child and adolescent
anxiety and depression. Behav Chan. 13, 231–239.
Deater-Deckard, K. (2004). Parenting Stress. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Deater-Deckard, K., and Scarr, S. (1996). Parenting stress among dual earner
mothers and fathers: are there gender differences? J. Fam. Psychol. 10, 45–59.
doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.10.1.45
Delvecchio, E., Chessa, D.,Di Riso, D., Mabilia, D., Lis, A., and Mazzeschi,C. (2014).
Construct validity of the Parental Alliance Measure in a sample of 1444 Italian
parents. Boll. Psicol. Appl. 271, 54–64.
Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological contextof coparenting:
a framework for research and intervention. Parent Sci. Pract. 3, 95–131. doi:
10.1207/s15327922par0302_01
Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Osgood, D. W., Sartorius, J., and Bontempo,
D. (2007a). Effects of the Communities That Care model in Pennsylvania on
youth risk and problem behaviors. Prev. Sci. 8, 261–270. doi: 10.1007/s11121-
007-0073-6
Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., and Hetherington, E. M. (2007b). The
longitudinal influence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity
and adolescent maladjustment. J. Mar. Fam. 69, 687–702. doi: 10.1111/j.
1741-3737.2007.00400.x
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11777

Delvecchio et al. Co-parenting alliance and family adjustment
Feinberg, M. E., and Kan, M. L. (2008). Establishing Family Foundations:
impact of a transition to parenting program on coparenting, depression,
parent–child relationship, and infant regulation. J. Fam. Psychol. 22, 253–263.
doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.253
Grant, K. E., and McMahon, S. D. (2005). “Conceptualizing the role of stressors
in the development of psychopathology,” in Development of Psychopathology. A
Vulnerability-stressPerspective, eds B. L. Hankin and J.R. Abela (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications), 3–31.
Guarino, A., Di Blasio, P., D’Alessio, M., Camisasca, E., and Serantoni, G. (2008).
Parenting Stress Index Short Form. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Haskett, M. E., Ahern, L. S., Ward, C. S., and Allaire, J. C. (2006). Factor structure
and validity of the parenting stress index-Short form. J. Clin. Child Adol. Psychol.
35, 302–312. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_14
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four Factors Index of Social Status. New Haven, CT:
Yale-University.
Hudson, J. L., and Rapee, R. M. (2002). Parent–child interactions in clinically
anxious children and their siblings. J. Clin. Child Adol. Psychol. 31,548–555. doi:
10.1207/153744202320802214
Jacob, R. J. K. (1991). The use of eye movements in human-computer interaction
techniques: what you look at is what you get. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 9,
152–169. doi: 10.1145/123078.128728
Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling
with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., and Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Kochanska, G., Friesenborg, A. E., Lange, L. A., and Martel, M. M. (2004).
Parents’ personality and infants’ temperament as contributors to their
emerging relationship. J. Person Soc. Psychol. 86, 744–759. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.86.5.744
Kolak, A. M., and Volling, B. L. (2007). Parental expressiveness as a moderator
of coparenting and marital relationship quality. Fam. Rel. 56, 467–478. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00474.x
Konold, T. R., and Abidin, R. R. (2001). Parentingalli ance:a multifactor perspective.
Assess 8, 47–65. doi: 10.1177/107319110100800105
Kwan, W. H., Kwok, S. Y., and Ling, C. C. (2015). The moderating roles of parenting
self-efficacy and co-parenting alliance on marital satisfaction among chinese
fathers and mothers. J. Child Fam. Stud. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0152-4
Laghezza, L., Delvecchio, E., Pazzagli, C., and Mazzeschi, C. (2014). The family
assessment measure III (FAM III) in an Italian sample. An exploratory study.
Boll. Psicol. Appl. 269, 18–35. doi: 10.2466/07.10.21.28.PMS.112.2.382-392
Majdandžić, M., de Vente, W., Feinberg, M. E., Aktar, E., and Bögels, S. M. (2012).
Bidirectional associations between coparenting relations and family member
anxiety: a review and conceptual model. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev.15, 28–42.
doi: 10.1007/s10567-011-0103-6
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., and John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: a link between
marital conflict and parenting in two parent families. J. Fam. Psychol. 15, 3–21.
doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.3
McHale, J. P. (2007). When infants grow up in multiperson relationship systems.
Inf. Ment. Health J. 28, 370–392. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20142
McHale, J., Khazan, I., Erera, P., Rotman, T., DeCourcey, W., and McConnell, M.
(2002). “Coparenting in diverse family systems,” in Handbook of Parenting, 2nd
Edn, ed. M. Bornstein (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 75–107.
McHale, J. P., and Kuersten-Hogan, R. (2004). Introduction: the dynamics
of raising children together. J Adult Dev. 11:3, 163–164. doi: 10.1023/
b:jade.0000035798.74058.ef
McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions in infancy: the roles of
marital distress and child gender. Dev. Psychol. 31, 985–996. doi: 10.1037//0012-
1649.31.6.985
McKelvey, L. M., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Falsowskum, R. A., Shears, J., Ayoub, C.,
and Hart, A. D. (2009). Validity of the short form of the parenting stress index
for fathers of toddlers. J. Child Fam. Stud. 18, 102–111. doi: 10.1007/s10826-008-
9211-4
Morrill, M. I., Hines, D. A., Mahmood, S., and Córdova, J. V. (2010).
Pathways between marriage and parenting for wives and husbands: the
role of coparenting. Fam. Proc. 49, 59–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.
01308.x
Muthén, B., and Muthén, L. (1998–2004). MPlus Manual, 3rd Edn. Los Angeles:
Muthén & Muthén.
Olson, D. H., and Gorall, D. M. (2003). “Circumplex model of marital and family
systems,” in Normal Family Processes: Growing Diversity and Complexity, 3rd
Edn, ed. F. Walsh (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 514–548.
Pedrabissi, L., and Santinello, M. (1989). Inventario per l’ansia di stato e di tratto
(forma y). Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., and Stickle, T. R. (2002). A critical evaluation of the
Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) in a head start population.
J. Clin. Child Adol. Psychol. 31, 384–392. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp
3103_10
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., and Goldberg, L. R. (2007).
The power of personality: a comparative analysis of the predictive validity
of personality traits, SES, and IQ. Persp Psychol. Sci. 2, 313–345. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
Russel, M., Harris, B., and Gockel, A. (2008). Parenting in poverty: perspectives of
high-risk parents. J. Child. Pov. 14, 83–98. doi: 10.1080/10796120701871322
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Muller, H. (2003). Evaluatingthe fit of
structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Meth. Psychol. Res. 8, 23–74.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., McBride, B. A., and Ringo Ho, M.-H. (2004).
Unidimensional versus multidimensional perspectives on father involvement.
Father 2, 147–163. doi: 10.3149/fth.0202.147
Sheras, P. L., Abidin, R. R., and Konold, T. (1998a). Stress Index for Parents of
Adolescents. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Sheras, P. L., Koch-Sheras, P., and Phyllis, R. (1998b). “New frontiers in treating
couples,” in Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book, Vol. 16, eds L.
VandeCreek, S. Knapp, and T. L. Jackson (Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource
Exchange, Inc.), 399–417.
Skinner, H. A., Steinhauer, P. D., and Santa-Barbara, J. (1983). The family
assessment measure. Can. J. Ment. Health. 2, 91–105. doi: 10.7870/cjcmh-1983-
0018
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., and Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stright, A., and Bales, S. (2003). Coparenting quality: contributions of child
and parent characteristics. Fam. Relat. 52, 232–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2003.00232.x
Van Riper, M. (2000). Family variables associated with sibling well-being in
families of children with Down syndrome. J. Fam. Nurs. 6, 267–286. doi:
10.1177/107484070000600305
Weissman, S., and Cohen, R. S. (1985). The parenting alliance and adolescence.
Adol. Psychiat. 12, 24–45.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2015 Delvecchio, Sciandra, Finos, Mazzeschi and Di Riso.This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org August 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 11778