Table 2.

Measures by construct

Construct/measure	Description
Parent empathy
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983)	Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking subscales, each with 7 items on 5-point scale (1 = does not describe me well, 5 = describes me very well) (e.g., “When I’m upset with someone, I usually try to ‘put myself in his shoes’ for a while”); summed across items, total hi subscale scores = higher empathy. Both Empathic Concern (α = .68–.76) and Perspective Taking (α = .73–.78) subscales administered T1–T4
Parental Empathy Quotient-Short (P-EQS; Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 2020)	Modified EQS (Wakabayashi et al., 2006) with items rephrased to reflect parents’ empathic abilities with their children (e.g., “I am good at predicting how my child will feel”); 19 items, 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree); items summed for total score, hi scores = greater parental empathy. Administered T4 only (α = .83)
Parental Empathy Measure (PEM; Stern et al., 2015)	25-item measure of parents’ empathy directed toward their child (e.g., “I try to imagine what it must be like to be my child”); items rated on 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = very true); items summed for total score; hi scores = greater parental empathy. Administered at T4 only (α = .81)
Empathy Measure for Parents Analog Task, Emotion Audio (EMPAT-EA; Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 2021)	Analog task with eight 20-s audio clips of children expressing four target emotions (happy, sad, mad, scared). Participants respond on 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 4 = extremely) how much they believed the child in each clip felt each of ten emotion responses (e.g., happy, sad, mad, scared, angry, afraid, cheerful, irritated, worried, and blue). Total score from average of accurate emotion identification items; hi scores = greater emotion identification abilities. Administered T4 only (α = .92)
Empathy Measure for Parents Analog Task, Emotion Scripts (EMPAT-ES; Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 2021)	Analog task with eight brief emotionally evocative scripts depicting four target emotions (happy, sad, mad, scared). After each script, parent indicates on 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 4 = extremely) how much they believed the child in each clip felt each of ten possible emotion responses (e.g., happy, sad, mad, scared, angry, afraid, cheerful, irritated, worried, and blue). Responses averaged across items for total score; hi scores = greater emotion identification abilities. Administered T4 only (α = .96)
Parent resources
Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES; Chesney et al., 2006)	Competence in using problem-focused coping, 12 items (e.g., “Think about one part of the problem at a time”) rated on 11-point scale (0 = cannot do at all, 10 = certain I can do); summed across items, total hi scores = greater coping. Administered T1–T4 (α = .91-.94)
Negative Mood Regulation Scale (NMRS; Cantanzaro & Mearns, 1990)	Self-report of ability to regulate emotions and recover from emotional distress (e.g., “When I’m upset, I believe that I can do something to feel better”). 30 items rated on 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree); summed across items, total hi scores = poorer emotion regulation. Administered T1–T4 (α = .90–.92)
Social Support Resources Index (SSRI; Vaux & Harrison, 1985)	For two closest supporters, 5 items on emotional support, socializing, practical assistance, financial assistance, and advice/guidance, each rated on 5-point scale (1 = not satisfied, 5 = very satisfied); summed across items, hi scores = greater social satisfaction. Administered T1–T4 (α = .91–.94)
Child abuse risk
Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI; Milner, 1986)	Screens for physical child abuse risk, 160 agree/disagree items (e.g., “Children should never disobey”) with 77 items variably weighted for Abuse Scale: hi scores = greater abuse risk
Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2; Bavolek & Keene, 2001) Form B	40 items on parenting beliefs/behaviors considered to characterize abusive parenting (e.g., “Spanking children when they misbehave teaches them how to behave”), each rated on 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree); summed across items, total hi scores = greater abuse risk. Administered T1–T4 (α = .88–.90)
Positive parenting
Response Analog to Child Compliance Task (ReACCT; Rodriguez, 2016), Compliance Scale	Computerized analog task with 12 successive scenes portraying child compliance or noncompliance; parent selects from 16 options how they would respond to child in scene; options variably weighted for adaptive v. maladaptive responses; 8-item Compliance Scale selected for adaptive reactions to child compliance; summed across items, low scores = more adaptive reactions. Administered T1–T4 (α = .81–.85)
Expected Parental Authority Questionnaire (Expected PAQ; Boppana & Rodriguez, 2017) and Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ; Reitman et al., 2002)	PAQ: 30 items, 10 items each for authoritative, authoritarian, permissive styles, rated on 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree); Authoritative subscale used in this study, summed across 10 items (e.g., “I tell my children what they should do, but I explain why I want them to do it”), total hi scores = more authoritative parenting style. PAQ administered at T4 when developmentally appropriate Authoritative subscale of Expected PAQ. Modified PAQ items rephrased in future tense to indicate how participants expected to parent as expectant parent or new parent (administered T1–T3) (α = .78–.88)
Parenting Young Children Scale (PARYC; McEachern et al., 2012)	21-item parenting behavior scale consisting of three subscales, each item rated on 7-point scale (1 = never, 7 = most of the time); Supporting Positive Behavior subscale selected for positive parenting (e.g., “Notice and praise your child’s good behavior”). Hi scores = more supportive parenting. Administered T4 only (α = .91)
Parental Acceptance and Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ; Rohner, 2005)	Self-report of parenting behaviors with 8-item Parental Warmth subscale (e.g., “I let my child know I love him/her”) selected to assess frequency of warm, nurturing parenting behavior; each item rated on 4-point scale (1 = almost always true to 4 = almost never true). Subscale items were summed, hi scores = greater frequency of warm, accepting parenting. Administered T4 only (α = .92)