Article in Fathering a journal of Theory Research and Practice about Men as Fathers · October 003 doi: 10. 3149/fth. 0103. 191 Citations 29 reads 3,681 authors

Communication
. Communication was measured by three survey items concerning
parent-child conversation, praise of children, and non-verbal communication (hug-
ging child). The indicator variable for conversations was measured by the question,
“How often do you spend time with the children having private talks?” on a scale
from 1 to 6 (1 = 
never
or 
rarely
to 6 = 
almost every day
). The items measuring
praise of children and non-verbal communication were measured by asking how
often the primary respondent (fathers) behaved in a particular way with the child,
these being “praise child” and “hug child.” These two items were scaled 1 to 4 (1 =
never
to 4 = 
very often
). Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .60. Structural equa-
tion modeling allows separating measurement error variance from the structural
model, and this will mitigate the relatively low reliability of this set of items. It is
recognized that hugging a child may decrease with age of the child, so that fathers of
17-year-olds may report hugging them less often than fathers of 12-year-olds. We
included this item, however, because it has face validity as an indicator of tactile
communication. Additionally, positive non-verbal touch is one of the most powerful
forms of parent-child communication, and hugging is a clear marker of this type of
communication (Noller & Callan, 1990). The giving of praise has face validity as a
verbal communication method. Gottmann (1998) suggests that praise from fathers
plays an important role in children’s emotional development. Talking with the child
has face validity as verbal interaction. Ideally we would have more indicators of
communication, but these three are appropriate indicators.
Connection
. Connection concerns time spent with the adolescent child. Connection
could be measured in many ways. In this study it was measured by three survey items
concerning father-child interaction in the context of leisure activities, work or play
activities, and educational activities. Each indicator variable was measured by the
question, “How often do you spend time with the children … (1) in leisure activities
away from home (picnics, movies, sports, etc.); (2) at home working on a project or
C
ONNECTION AND
C
OMMUNICATION
197

---

playing together; (3) helping with reading or homework.” The three items were coded
“leisure activity,” “work or play activity,” and “educational activity,” and all were
measured on a scale from 1 to 6 (1 = 
never
or 
rarely
to 6 =
almost every day
). Cron-
bach’s alpha for these items was .65. As with our measure of communication, struc-
tural equation modeling allows separating measurement error variance from the struc-
tural model, and this will mitigate the relatively low reliability of this set of items.
Father-Adolescent Child Relationship Quality
. Father-adolescent child relationship
quality was measured by one item concerning quality of parent-child interaction.
This indicator variable was measured by the question “During the past 30 days, how
often did you have an especially enjoyable time with (child)?” and was scaled from
1 to 6 (1 = 
never
or 
rarely
to 6 = 
almost every day
).
Adolescent Child Well-Being
. Adolescent child well-being was measured by two
survey items, one the father’s evaluation of child global well-being and the other the
father’s evaluation of the child’s well-being in six specific areas, that were com-
bined into a single scale. The global indicator of well-being was measured by ask-
ing, “All things considered, is (child’s) life going …?” and rating this on a 1 to 4
scale (1 =