Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Apr 17;64(2):e70036. doi: 10.1111/famp.70036

The Dyadic Influence of Relationship Hope on Family Functioning

Nicole Silverio 1,✉, Ruiqin Gao 1, Annette Ibarra Skeen 1, Violet Hodge 1, Ryan G Carlson 1, Sejal M Barden 2, Dalena Dillman‐Taylor 3
PMCID: PMC12004348  PMID: 40243005

ABSTRACT

There is a continued need to understand family factors that can promote child well‐being and reduce their risks for mental health problems. Drawing from research on family dynamics and using a cross‐sectional design, this study examined the association between relationship hope, couple satisfaction, and family functioning using the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) on dyadic data collected from 537 opposi‐gender, ethnically diverse, low‐income couples. Results indicated that, while accounting for couple satisfaction as a covariate, women's relationship hope was positively associated with their own perceptions of parental teamwork and family relationship. Men's relationship hope was positively linked with their own perceptions of parental teamwork and parent–child relationships. Additionally, men's level of relationship hope positively influenced women's perceptions of family relationships. Findings highlight the systemic nature of relationship hope and its relationship to enhanced family functioning. Implications for clinical practice focus on the importance of fostering relationship hope within couples to promote positive parenting practices and family stability.

Keywords: family functioning, parenting, relationship hope

1. Introduction

The family is an important influential system for supporting the well‐being of children and adolescents (Berger and Font 2015; Chen and Harris 2019; van Eickels et al. 2022). Since the COVID‐19 pandemic, growing rates of mental health diagnoses among children (National Institute of Health [NIH], 2022; Hawes et al. 2022) have highlighted the continued need to examine family functioning factors (i.e., family characteristics and processes; Dai and Wang 2015) that promote child well‐being and reduce their risk for mental health problems. This is because family functioning factors, such as communication patterns or family conflict, have been previously connected to a myriad of child psychological outcomes (Oltean et al. 2020; Scully et al. 2020). While family functioning is thought to be influenced by a variety of components, including family structure, social and economic stressors, and family stage of life (Dai and Wang 2015), the quality of the relationships between family members (e.g., parent–child and couple relationships) is a meaningful predictor of family health (Chen et al. 2017; Dai and Wang 2015).

Positive parental and family relationships are associated with better outcomes across various domains for children and adolescents (Chen and Harris 2019; Goldberg and Carlson 2014; van Eickels et al. 2022). Strong and secure parent–child relationships, for instance, are tied to improved social and emotional competencies, reduced rates of mental health disorders (Ranson and Urichuk 2008), better interpersonal relationships, and global character strengths in children (e.g., cognitive, interpersonal strengths; Liu et al. 2022; Obeldobel and Kerns 2020). Moreover, the quality of a parent's relationship with their child may have long‐lasting implications, with poor parent–child relationships being predictive of psychological problems in adulthood (Steele and McKinney 2019, 2020).

Partly because of its influence on parent–child relationships (Gerard et al. 2006), the health of the couple subsystem may play an important role in child well‐being (Cowan et al. 2022; Goldberg and Carlson 2014). Parents who report strong relationships with their partners are more likely to have better parent–child relationships, and their children are less likely to exhibit behavioral issues (Gerard et al. 2006; Linville et al. 2010). High marital satisfaction between parents is also linked to improved academic development and performance in children (Lui et al. 2020). High levels of parental conflict, on the other hand, are tied to a myriad of harmful effects for children, including increased stress, as well as behavioral, mental health, and interpersonal difficulties (Azam and Hanif 2011; Liu et al. 2022). These findings suggest that relationship dynamics between parents may have significant implications for child and adolescent well‐being.

The connection between couple functioning and child outcomes may be explained by the spillover hypothesis, which posits that the quality of the couple relationship can spill over to influence parent–child relationships (Engfer 1988; Erel and Burman 1995; Liu et al. 2022). Conflict between the couple, for instance, may leave parents feeling drained and less responsive to their children's needs, possibly leading to negative impacts on the parent–child relationship and ultimately on child well‐being outcomes. In testing this theory, Liu et al. (2022) found that interparental conflict predicts parental attachment, which is associated with the minimization or dismissal of children's character strengths (e.g., creativity, love of learning, self‐regulation) and depressive symptoms among adolescents. Similarly, Azam and Hanif (2011) determined that perceived marital conflicts were tied to low parental attachment and low levels of social competence among children. Conversely, within the framework of the spillover hypothesis, better relationship quality between parents is associated with improved parent–child relationships (Erel and Burman 1995). The spillover hypothesis, then, emphasizes the health of the couple subsystem as a catalyst for the functioning of other family subsystems (e.g., parent–child) and parenting practices (Erel and Burman 1995). The spillover hypothesis can also be seen in the Family Stress Model, which demonstrates the systemic influence of chronic stress on individual parents, the interparental relationship, and ultimately children (Masarik and Conger 2017).

Thus, the promotion of positive couple relationship traits and processes may be a viable strategy to support improved mental health outcomes for children and adolescents. Sterrett‐Hong et al. (2018) investigated the effects of a couple relationship education (RE) program on children's psychosocial wellness and found that decreases in parental conflict were linked to a decrease in children's mental health difficulties. Similarly, Adler‐Baeder et al. (2025) found that couple participation in an RE program predicted improved parenting efficacy for mothers and a reduction in punitive parenting practices (e.g., spanking, yelling, shouting) for both mothers and fathers. According to Goldberg and Carlson (2014), positive characteristics of the parents' couple relationship—such as empathy, support, trust, and communication—have a negative relationship with children's externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Moreover, teamwork between parents can also positively influence children's developmental outcomes (Rempel et al. 2020). Overall, existing research highlights the importance of considering how various components of the couple subsystem may influence parenting dynamics, parent–child relationships, and family conflict. Relationship hope represents an emerging relational component with possible associations with family functioning.

1.1. Relationship Hope

While there is an abundance of research documenting the importance of hope for individual wellbeing (e.g., Alarcon et al. 2013; Pleeging et al. 2021), relationship hope and its effects on family functioning remain a largely underexplored topic (Allan et al. 2019). In their widely used intrapsychic conceptualization of hope, Snyder et al. (1991, 287) defined the construct as a “positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal‐directed energy), and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals).” Therefore, hope entails a person's ability to formulate strategies to actualize a desired future, paired with the sense that they can implement those strategies (Snyder 2002). Thus, relationship hope can be defined as partners' beliefs in the potential future of their relationship and their sense of efficacy about achieving that future regardless of current challenges being faced (Erickson 2015; Hawkins et al. 2017). Unlike other dimensions of relationship quality (e.g., relationship satisfaction), relationship hope is future oriented (Hawkins et al. 2017). Moreover, relationship hope is believed to influence relationship motivation and commitment (Erickson 2015; Vriend Fluit and Gall 2020). In alignment with Snyder's Hope Theory (Snyder 2002), high levels of relationship hope can be expected to promote an improved capacity to manage stressors, such as those related to parenting, and to energize each partners' efforts in achieving their desired relational goals. Thus, relationship hope may have meaningful implications for couples' relationship health and the resulting parenting practices. The family stress model, noted above, depicts protective factors that mitigate the negative influence of chronic stressors on family functioning. Such protective factors include social support and positive coping strategies (Masarik and Conger 2017). It is possible that hope represents an additional protective factor.

In the common factors literature, hope, sometimes referred to as expectancy, has been identified as one of four major change agents in therapy (Asay and Lambert 1999), accounting for approximately 15% of the positive outcomes experienced by clients (Lambert and Barley 2001; Lambert 2003). Although it remains largely theoretical (Davis et al. 2012), hope has also been identified as a common factor in couples' therapy (Davis 2023), with many clinicians intuitively recognizing the promotion of hope as integral to their work (Blow and Sprenkle 2001; Ward and Wampler 2010). Because couples' therapy goals tend to be relational in nature, couple therapists' efforts at instilling hope are likely aimed at increasing their clients' hopes about their relationship (e.g., each partner's hope about possible improvements in their communication patterns), as opposed to focusing on developing a general state of intrapsychic hope. However, it is unclear how increasing relationship hope might impact other relational outcomes.

The importance of increasing relationship hope has also been noted by several couple researchers. Worthington et al. (1997), for example, developed a brief couple therapy and enrichment approach that centralizes hope as a primary component for healthy and committed relationships. In the RE field, Hawkins et al. (2017) highlighted relationship hope as a positive intervention outcome for couples attending RE programs. Other researchers have heeded the importance of hope, albeit not relationship hope, by demonstrating its positive associations to relationship support, relationship satisfaction, and constructive conflict management (Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi 2022; Merolla 2014).

Despite these promising findings and the wide theoretical recognition of hope as an important component for effecting positive change in couple relationships (Sprenkle et al. 2009), there is a limited body of literature dedicated to learning more about relationship hope, as a specific and systemically oriented type of hope, as well as a paucity of research exploring the association between relationship hope, parenting, and overall family functioning. Given the role that parental and family relationships play in supporting positive mental health outcomes for children (Chen and Harris 2019; Liu et al. 2022; Sterrett‐Hong et al. 2018), an exploration of relationship hope in this context is warranted. Gaining insight on relationship hope may not only inform the work of couples, marriage, and family therapists but also pave the way for research clarifying the mechanics of hope from a systemic perspective.

1.2. About This Study

Guided by the spillover hypothesis as our theoretical framework, the aim of this study was to understand the influence of self and partners' levels of relationship hope on various dimensions of parenting and family functioning. To this end, we collected dyadic data, which facilitated the use of an actor–partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny and Cook 1999) analysis to examine the within (i.e., actor) and between (i.e., partner) effects of relationship hope on parent–child relationships, family relationships, and parental teamwork. Because prior research has shown relationship quality factors can influence parenting, we included a measure of couple relationship satisfaction as a covariate in our analysis. We hypothesized that, while accounting for couple relationship satisfaction, higher relationship hope for each partner would have a positive association with their own and their partner's perceptions of the three dimensions of family functioning. Our hypotheses are based on the spillover hypothesis, which centralizes the quality of the couple subsystem as a predictor for family subsystem functioning (Erel and Burman 1995). We also based our hypotheses on the theoretical conceptualizations of relationship hope (Hawkins et al. 2017), which is thought to be a driver for motivation to make changes and put effort into the couple relationship (Erickson 2015; Vriend Fluit and Gall 2020), thereby having implications for couples' parenting efforts.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and Procedures

The study sample included 537 mixed‐gender couples who completed a baseline assessment as part of their participation in a larger study being implemented in the southeastern United States and funded by the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. The larger study, which received Institutional Review Board approval from the University of Central Florida, is a randomized trial that assigns couples to receive either an online (i.e., OurRelationship) or in‐person (i.e., PREP) RE intervention to investigate how differences in modality (i.e., in person or online) impact relationship quality outcomes. The inclusion criteria for the larger study required that partners be 18 years of age or older, volunteer, and participate together. Couples were recruited using a combination of active (e.g., study staff going into a community setting to tell people about the study) and passive (e.g., marketing materials, word‐of‐mouth, and social media) methods (Carlson et al. 2014). Upon recruitment, study staff provided participants with a unique identifier and a Qualtrics survey link. Enrollment occurred once both partners completed the study consent and baseline assessment.

For this study, we utilized baseline data—collected between the years 2021 and 2024—from participants who reported having children under the age of 18. A total of 550 couples completed the baseline assessments on relationship hope and family functioning needed for this study. Among these couples, 13 were same‐gender couples. Due to the small sample size, these same‐gender couples were excluded from the present analysis. We included select demographic information for our final sample in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Demographic characteristics of dyad partners (N = 537 partners).

Variables Woman (n/%) Man (n/%)
Age
21–24 13 (2.4%) 1 (1.3%)
25–34 159 (29.6%) 127 (23.6%)
35–44 278 (51.0%) 259 (48.2%)
45–54 86 (16.0%) 118 (22.0%)
55–64 1 (0.2%) 25 (4.7%)
65+ 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 337 (62.8%) 292 (54.4%)
Not Hispanic or Latino 200 (37.2%) 245 (45.6%)
Race
American Indian or Alaska native 5 (0.9%) 5 (0.9%)
Asian 9 (1.7%) 8 (1.5%)
African American 128 (23.8%) 142 (26.4%)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)
White 305 (56.8%) 263 (49.0%)
Multiracial 16 (3.0%) 25 (4.7%)
Other 72 (13.4%) 93 (17.3%)
Highest degree
No degree or diploma earned 7 (1.3%) 18 (3.4%)
High school general education development (GED) 11 (2.1%) 39 (7.3%)
High school diploma 31 (5.8%) 73 (13.6%)
Vocational/technical certification 44 (8.2%) 55 (10.3%)
Some college but no degree completion 72 (13.55) 86 (26.1%)
Associate's degree 85 (15.9%) 67 (12.5%)
Bachelor's degree 146 (27.3%) 120 (22.4%)
Master/Advanced degree 139 (26.0%) 77 (14.4%)
Income in the past 30 days
No earnings 122 (22.8%) 26 (4.9%)
Less than $500 40 (7.5%) 17 (3.2%)
$500–$1000 54 (10.1%) 36 (6.7%)
$1001–$2000 94 (17.6%) 90 (16.8%)
$2001–$3000 84 (15.7%) 107 (20.0%)
$3001–$4000 61 (11.4%) 87 (16.3%)
$4001–$5000 25 (4.7%) 65 (12.1%)
More than $5000 55 (10.3%) 107 (20.0%)
Open in a new tab

2.2. Measures

All demographic information was obtained from the Applicant Characteristics form, which was created by the funder. Each member of the couple completed the form and provided individual (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, income) as well as couple/family‐related information (e.g., relationship status, number of children).

The Parenting and Family Adjustment Scale (PAFAS; Morawska and Sanders 2010) measures various family functioning domains that have been identified as risk factors for emotional and behavioral difficulties in children (Sanders et al. 2014). The current study used the Family Adjustment Subscale (FAS) from the PAFAS to measure three dimensions of family adjustment, including parent–child relationships, family relationships, and parental teamwork (Sanders et al. 2014). The FAS utilizes a 4‐point Likert scale with anchors of not at all (0), a little (1), quite a lot (2), and very much (3). Three negatively worded items were reverse coded. A higher sum score on the FAS indicates greater levels of family adjustment (see Table 2 for items). In the original development of the PAFAS, Sanders et al. (2014) provided evidence of adequate convergent and discriminant validity for the instrument. Additionally, each domain of the FAS subscale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with coefficients H of 0.85, 0.84, and 0.85 for parent–child relationship, family relationships, and parental teamwork, respectively (Sanders et al. 2014). The internal consistency of the FAS scores for the current sample was α = 0.81 for men and α = 0.82 for women.

TABLE 2.

Scale items.

Scale Subscale Items
Family Adjustment Scale (FAS) Parent–child relationship Q1. I chat/talk to my child.
Q2. I enjoy giving my child hugs, kisses and cuddles.
Q3. I am proud of my child.
Q4. I enjoy spending time with my child.
Q5. I have a good relationship with my child.
Family relationship Q6. Our family members help or support each other.
Q7. Our family members get on well with each other.
Q8. Our family members fight or argue.
Q9. Our family members criticize or put each other down.
Parental teamwork Q10. I work as a team with my partner in parenting.
Q11. I disagree with my partner about parenting.
Q12. I have a good relationship with my partner.
Relationship Hope Scale (RHS) Q1. You believe you and your partner can handle whatever conflicts will arise in the future.
Q2. You are hopeful that you and your partner can make your relationship work.
Q3. You believe that you and your partner possess the tools you need to fix problems in your relationship now and in the future.
Q4. You feel like your relationship can survive what life throws at you.
Couple Satisfaction Inventory (CSI) Q1. I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my partner.
Q2. How rewarding is your relationship with your partner?
Q3. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?
Open in a new tab

The Relationship Hope Scale (RHS; Hawkins et al. 2017) is a brief measure assessing partners' sense of hope for the future of their relationship. The RHS is a 4‐item scale with items rated on a 4‐point scale ranging from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (3). Higher scores indicate greater relationship hope (see Table 2 for items). In a nationally representative sample of married couples in the United States, the RHS showed good construct validity and high internal consistency (α = 0.94; Erickson 2015). The internal consistency of the RHS for the current sample was α = 0.83 for men and α = 0.86 for women.

The Couple Satisfaction Inventory (CSI, Funk and Rogge 2007) assesses partners' satisfaction with the couple's relationship across three items. The CSI is a 6‐point scale ranging from not at all (0) to completely ([5]; see Table 2 for items). A sum of the three items ranged from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating a stronger relationship satisfaction. The internal consistency of the CSI for the current sample was α = 0.95 for men and α = 0.94 for women.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted with Mplus 8.4 software (Muthen and Muthen 2003). Given the Likert scale nature of the scales used in this study, the weighted least square with mean and variance correlation (WLSMV) estimator was utilized, as it is suitable for modeling categorical or ordered data without assuming a normal distribution (Brown 2015). Because we used baseline data (with forced response surveys), there was no attrition and there was no item nonresponse, resulting in no missing data. Wolf et al. (2013) recommended a sample size ranging from 300 to 460 when considering the number of indicators and factors, the magnitude of factor loadings, path coefficients, and the amount of missing data. Therefore, our sample size of 537 couples is adequate. We treated dyadic partners as the unit of analysis.

2.3.1. Dyadic Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA is a measurement model that is conducive for testing theories about the relationship between observed variables and unobserved concepts, as well as the proposed factor structure of a scale (Claxton et al. 2015). Dyadic CFA accounts for the nonindependent nature of the data by allowing the covariance between common factors for partner members (i.e., latent variable intraclass correlation) and the correlated error terms between common indicators for partner members (i.e., residual intraclass correlation; Olsen and Kenny 2006). As we collected data from dyadic partners, we conducted a dyadic CFA to examine whether the previously identified three‐factor structure of the FAS, the one‐factor structure of the RHS, and the one‐factor structure of the CSI would apply to female and male partners in one model.

2.3.2. Actor–Partner Independence Model

APIM posits that individuals and their partners mutually influence the outcome of interest (Kenny 1996). Actor and partner effects were simultaneously estimated in one model, with actor effects referring to the extent to which the predictor of an individual affects their own scores on the outcome variables and partner effects indicating the impact of an individual's predictor on his or her partners' outcome scores (Kenny et al. 2020). APIM also estimates the correlation between predictors and the correlation of residuals for each outcome (Kashy and Kenny 2000). In the current study, the latent variables identified from the dyadic CFA of the FAS (i.e., predictors) and the latent variable identified from the dyadic CFA of the CSI (i.e., covariate) and RHS (i.e., outcome) were employed in the APIM analysis. Unstandardized coefficients were reported to identify the actor and partner effects (Kenny et al. 2020).

Following the approach by Kenny and Ledermann (2010), we conducted a distinguishability test by comparing two APIM models: a distinguishable model, where actor and partner effects for male and female partners are freely estimated, and an indistinguishable model, where actor and partner effects were constrained to be equal across male and female partners. The two models were compared using a chi‐square difference test, with a significant result at an alpha level of 0.20, indicating that dyad members are distinguishable (Kenny and Ledermann 2010). Given the differences in the scales of WLSMV‐based chi‐square statistics across models, we used the DIFFTEST option in Mplus to assess the significance of the model comparisons.

Model fit for all the dyadic CFA models and APIM was assessed using the p‐value associated with the WLSMV‐based chi‐square (χ 2) fit statistic, in conjunction with comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Acceptable model fit was indicated by CFI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, and SRMR ≤ 0.10, while good model fit was indicated by CFI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.05, and SRMR ≤ 0.08 (Hu and Bentler 1999). As item number and the magnitude of the item factor loadings might affect the global model fit (McNeish et al. 2018), local model fit indices, such as factor loadings (> 0.30; Costello and Osborne 2005) and the absolute values of standardized residuals (< 3.0; Raykov and Marcoulides 2012), were also examined. Model modification indices were consulted in case of model misfit to identify mis‐specified parameters.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

As presented in Table 3, the means for the total scores of men's and women's relationship hope (measured by the RHS), family functioning (measured by the FAS subscales of the PAFAS), and couple relationship satisfaction (measured by CSI) exhibited slight differences. Women reported lower levels of relationship hope and couple relationship satisfaction, but more positive perceptions of family functioning than men. Significant correlations were found among the partner's relationship hope, their perceptions of family adjustment, and their satisfaction with the couple's relationship. Based on these findings, it appears that both relationship hope and couple relationship satisfaction are associated with partners' own and their partner's perceptions of family adjustment.

TABLE 3.

Correlation matrix.

RHM RHF FAM FAF CSM CSF Mean SD
RHM 1.00 9.37 2.64
RHF 0.35** 1.00 8.50 2.82
FAM 0.39** 0.25** 1.00 7.10 4.96
FAF 0.20** 0.44** 0.45** 1.00 7.42 4.77
CSM 0.64** 0.45** 0.42** 0.34** 1.00 9.97 3.64
CSF 0.41** 0.66** 0.29** 0.52** 0.59** 1.00 8.76 3.84
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CSF, couple satisfaction (female); CSM, couple satisfaction (male); FAF, family adjustment (female); FAM, family adjustment (male); RHF, relationship hope (female); RHM, relationship hope (male); SD, standard deviation.

**

p < 0.01.

3.2. Dyadic CFA

We conducted a dyadic CFA for the FAS, the RHS, and the CSI separately. As illustrated in Table 3, the three‐factor structure of FAS exhibited a good model fit. The one‐factor structure of RHS did not show a good model fit, with the RMSEA falling outside the recommended cutoff value. We then consulted the modification indices, which suggested adding the correlation of the error terms of a specific item pair (i.e., Item 3 and Item 4 rated by male partners) to the one‐factor model. This adjustment resulted in an acceptable model fit. The one‐factor structure of CSI did not exhibit a good model fit, with both RMSEA and SRMR values falling outside the recommended cutoff value. The modification indices suggested that the error terms of an item pair (i.e., Item 2 and Item 3 rated by male partners) should be correlated. The adjusted model showed an excellent model fit.

Additionally, we examined the local model fit of the optimal factor structure of the FAS, the RHS, and the CSI. Regarding the factor structure of the FAS, the standardized factor loadings revealed significant associations between items and latent factors, ranging from 0.52 to 0.94. The results indicated that the FAS measured three dimensions of family adjustment (i.e., parent–child relationship, family relationship, and parental teamwork), and the same factor structure applied to both men and women (Figure 1). The standardized factor loadings of the RHS ranged from 0.72 to 0.92, supporting the one‐factor structure of the RHS across male and female partners (Figure 2). The CSI measured one underlying latent factor (i.e., couple relationship satisfaction) for both men and women. The standardized factor loading of the items ranged from 0.89 to 0.98 (Figure 3).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Dyadic three‐factor structure of the Family Adjustment Scale (FAS). F, female; FR(F), family relationship (female); FR(M), family relationship (male); M, male; PCR(F), parent–child relationship (female); PCR(M), parent–child relationship (male); PT(F), parental teamwork (female); PT(M), parental teamwork (male).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Dyadic one‐factor structure of the Relationship Hope Scale (RHS). F, female; M, male; RH(F), relationship hope (female); RH(M), relationship hope (male).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Dyadic one‐factor structure of the Couple Satisfaction Inventory (CSI). CS(F), couple satisfaction (female); CS(M), couple satisfaction (male); F, female; M, male.

3.3. APIM Analysis

Distinguishability tests between distinguishable and indistinguishable models indicated that men and women were distinguishable by gender (Δχ 2 (Δdf) = 15.633* (12), p = 0.20). Therefore, we proceeded with the baseline APIM while treating partners as distinguishable. As shown in Table 4, the baseline APIM showed a good model fit. Figure 4 presents the APIM structure, which examined 12 actor effects between latent variables and 12 partner effects between latent variables.

TABLE 4.

Model fit statistics.

Model χ 2(df) CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR
Three‐factor model of FAS 815.761* (225) 0.923 0.906 0.070 [0.065–0.075] 0.067
One‐factor model of RHS 70.283* (15) 0.991 0.982 0.083 [0.064–0.103] 0.035
One‐factor model of RHS (correlated error terms between male partner rated Item 3 and Item 4) 52.106* (14) 0.993 0.987 0.071 [0.051–0.092] 0.031
One‐factor model of CSI 23.924* (5) 0.999 0.998 0.084 [0.052–0.119] 0.011
One‐factor model of CSI (correlated error terms between male partner rated Item 2 and Item 3) 2.484* (4) 1.000 1.000 0.000 [0.000–0.052] 0.003
APIM 1389.977* (599) 0.981 0.978 0.050 [0.046–0.053] 0.059
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: APIM, Actor–Partner Independence Model; CFI, comparative fit index; CI, confidence interval; CSI, Couple Satisfaction Inventory; df, degree of freedom; FAS, Family Adjustment Scale; RHS, Relationship Hope Scale; RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis Index; χ 2, chi‐square test statistic.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Actor–partner independence model (APIM) structure. CS(F), couple satisfaction (female); CS(M), couple satisfaction (male); F, female; FR(F), family relationship (female); FR(M), family relationship (male); M, male; PCR(F), parent–child relationship (female); PCR(M), parent–child relationship (male); PT(F), parental teamwork (female); PT(M), parental teamwork (male); RH(F), relationship hope (female); RH(M), relationship hope (male).

As detailed in Table 5, nine significant actor effects were identified. While controlling for both men's and women's satisfaction with their couple relationships, men's perceptions of relationship hope had a statistically significant positive influence on their own perceptions of parent–child relationships (β = 0.376, p < 0.001) and parental teamwork (β = 0.114, p < 0.01), but no significant effect on family relationships (β = 0.014, p = 0.893). Similarly, women's relationship hope had a statistically significant positive influence on their own family adjustment skills within family relationships (β = 0.211, p < 0.01) and parental teamwork (β = 0.111, p < 0.01), but it did not have a significant effect on parent–child relationships (β = 0.058, p = 0.509). A Wald test revealed that while both partners' perceptions of relationship hope significantly influenced their own perceptions of parental teamwork, the effect size did not differ significantly across partners.

TABLE 5.

Actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) results.

APIM parameters Estimates (SE)
Actor effects
RHM → PCRM 0.376 (0.092)***
RHM → FRM 0.014 (0.100)
RHM → PTM 0.114 (0.043)**
RHF → PCRF 0.058 (0.088)
RHF → FRF 0.211 (0.080)**
RHF → PTF 0.111 (0.041)**
CSM → PCRM 0.196 (0.096)*
CSM → FRM 0.357 (0.107)**
CSM → PTM 0.520 (0.046)***
CSF → PCRF 0.145 (0.089)
CSF → FRF 0.218 (0.077)**
CSF → PTF 0.506 (0.041)***
Partner effects
RHM → PCRF 0.062 (0.085)
RHM → FRF 0.210 (0.104)*
RHM → PTF 0.031 (0.055)
RHF → PCRM 0.074 (0.082)
RHF → FRM 0.066 (0.088)
RHF → PTM 0.042 (0.049)
CSM → PCRF 0.015 (0.094)
CSM → FRF 0.131 (0.106)
CSM → PTF 0.093 (0.057)
CSF → PCRM 0.005 (0.080)
CSF → FRM 0.066 (0.088)
CSF → PTM 0.028 (0.054)
Pairwise Wald test results
Actor effects comparison across partners
RHM → PCRM&RHF → PCRF −0.318* (0.123)
RHM → FRM&RHF → FRF 0.224 (0.129)
RHM → PTM& RHF → PTF −0.003 (0.060)
CSM → PCRM&CSF → PCRF 0.341** (0.129)
CSM → FRM&CSF → FRF −0.139 (0.137)
CSM → PTM& CSF → PTF −0.014 (0.064)
Partner effects comparison across partners
RHM → PCRF&RHF → PCRM 0.136 (0.113)
RHM → FRF& RHF → FRM 0.276* (0.136)
RHM → PTF&RHF → PTM 0.073 (0.073)
CSM → PCRF&CSF → PCRM −0.010 (0.123)
CSM → FRF& CSF → FRM −0.182 (0.148)
CSM → PTF&CSF → PTM −0.121 (0.076)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CSF, couple satisfaction (female); CSM, couple satisfaction (male); FRF, family relationship (female); FRM, family relationship (male); PCRF, parent–child relationship (female); PCRM, parent–child relationship (male); PTF, parental teamwork (female); PTM, parental teamwork (male); RHF, relationship hope (female); RHM, relationship hope (male).

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Additionally, while controlling for relationship hope, men's satisfaction with their couple relationship had a statistically significant positive influence on their own perceptions of parent–child relationships (β = 0.196, p < 0.05), family relationships (β = 0.357, p < 0.01), and parental teamwork (β = 0.520, p < 0.001). Women's satisfaction with the couple relationship also had a statistically significant positive influence on their own family adjustment skills in family relationships (β = 0.218, p < 0.01) and parental teamwork (β = 0.506, p < 0.001), but did not significantly influence parent–child relationships (β = 0.145, p = 0.102).

One significant partner effect was identified: men's relationship hope positively influenced their partner's perceptions of family relationships (β = 0.210, p < 0.05). This suggests that women tended to view relationships more positively when their male partners exhibited stronger relationship hope.

4. Discussion

In this study, we sought to learn more about the association between relationship hope and various family functioning factors by examining both actor and partner effects using dyadic data. In partial confirmation of our hypotheses, we found that when accounting for the influence of couple satisfaction, men's level of relationship hope was positively associated with their own (actor) perceptions of parent–child relationships and parenting teamwork, but not their perceptions of family relationships. We also found that women's level of relationship hope was positively associated with their own (actor) perceptions of family relationships and parenting teamwork, but not with parent–child relationships. Additionally, highlighting the systemic nature of relationship hope as a construct, our findings included one significant partner effect: When accounting for the influence of couple satisfaction, men's relationship hope significantly predicted women's perceptions of family relationships.

While research in this area is still nascent, the various significant actor effects, as well as the found partner effect, align with existing theories of hope and family systems (e.g., spillover hypothesis [Engfer 1988], family stress model [Masarik and Conger 2017]). In the predominant theoretical conceptualization of hope, pathway and agency thinking join to facilitate goal‐directed actions (Snyder 2002). In couple relationships, this may suggest that high levels of hope indicate partners can envision a desired joint future and create viable strategies to actualize that future regardless of current challenges (Hawkins et al. 2017). Thus, high relationship hope should energize goal‐directed relationship efforts and support relational resilience. This is consistent with Vriend Fluit and Gall's (2020) qualitative findings on the shared experiences of hope in couples and their therapists; participants in this study noted that hope engendered the motivation and commitment necessary to heal from past hurts and move toward their desired relationship goals. Thus, it is possible that the positive ties between relationship hope, parenting, and family functioning in our findings are partially explained by other relational processes that go beyond relationship satisfaction, such as increases in co‐parental cooperation or decreases in conflict that emerge from partners' hope‐fueled efforts towards relationship improvements. It is also feasible that relationship hope, which definitionally requires the capacity to envision success strategies (i.e., pathways), primes partners to notice existing efforts and successes within their family dynamics, thereby improving their perceptions of parenting and family adjustment. Behavioral and attitudinal changes within the couple, then, may be playing a role in both the actor and partner effects included in our findings.

Our results also indicated that when accounting for relationship hope, couple relationship satisfaction was significantly associated with both men's and women's perceptions of family relationships and parenting teamwork, as well as men's perceptions of parent–child relationships. These findings are largely in alignment with our conceptual understanding of the spillover hypothesis (Engfer 1988) and with prior research connecting the couple subsystem to parenting and family functioning. High relationship satisfaction, for instance, has been positively linked to increased coparenting cooperation (Ece et al. 2024), decreased coparenting conflict (Peltz et al. 2018), improved parental involvement (Chen et al. 2022; Lui et al. 2020), and positive parent–child relationships (Peltz et al. 2018; Skinner et al. 2021).

An added nuance of our findings is that, when accounting for relationship hope, women's relationship satisfaction was not associated with their perceptions of their own parent–child relationships. While contrary to our original hypothesis, this finding may not be surprising given some prior research results documenting that in mixed‐gender relationships, women's parenting behaviors are less susceptible to the state of their intimate partner relationship (Chen et al. 2022; Davies et al. 2009), perhaps because of their socialized role as primary caregivers. In our study, the parent–child relationship items of FAS are aimed at measuring each parent's reciprocal warmth and parental satisfaction with a child (Sanders et al. 2014), which mothers may view as separate from their couple relationship. This may explain why relationship hope was also not a predictor of women's perceptions of their own parent–child relationships.

4.1. Implications

The present study is the first to explore the association between relationship hope and family and parental functioning for ethnically diverse dyads recruited in a community setting in the United States. Our findings have important implications for clinical practice as they suggest the possibility that relationship hope may be a helpful resource to support parental teamwork and strengthen family and parent–child relationships. Although hope has already been theoretically established as a common factor in couple therapy (Davis 2023), with many clinicians being attentive to it (Blow and Sprenkle 2001), a connection between relationship hope and overall family functioning had yet to be established. Results from this study not only reinforce the importance of couple therapists' efforts to foster relationship hope but also shed light on a new potential benefit to this therapeutic process, given that relationship hope may also be playing a role in promoting clients' parenting and family stability goals. Results also highlight the dyadic, interactional nature of this construct by showing that high relationship hope in men positively influenced women's perceptions of family relationships. This underscores the importance of systemic approaches to support couple and family well‐being.

4.2. Study Limitations and Future Research

This study contains a few noteworthy limitations. Firstly, all collected data are based on participants' self‐reports and therefore rely on their subjective perceptions of their family adjustment and relationship hope, which may contain bias (Rosenman et al. 2011). Secondly, the demographic makeup of our sample may pose some limitations to the generalizability of our findings. Although the racial diversity of our sample is in line with the general US population, the ethnic distribution is not, with Latino couples being overrepresented due to the geographic location of the study's implementation. This overrepresentation presents the possibility that unexamined cultural values or practices are playing a role in our findings. Lastly, this study relied on a cross‐sectional research design, which inherently restricts establishing any causal relationship between relationship hope and the explored parenting and family functioning dimensions. Despite these limitations, our findings make a meaningful contribution to the scant body of research on relationship hope and its potential impact on family well‐being. Future research should focus on replicating our findings with other populations, as well as on clarifying the pathways through which relationship hope influences family functioning (e.g., exploring mediating variables, such as parental involvement or relationship satisfaction). Lastly, research studies that develop and test clinical interventions that promote relationship hope may also prove to be valuable for therapists working with couples and families.

5. Conclusion

Relationship hope is an emergent area of inquiry with implications for couple and family functioning. Findings from this study provide initial evidence that couples' levels of hope about their relationship may facilitate parenting and family adjustment by strengthening parent–child relationships, family relationships, and parental teamwork. While additional research is still needed, these promising results suggest that fostering relationship hope among couples may be a viable strategy for supporting various elements of family functioning and therefore for attaining improved emotional, behavioral, and social outcomes for children and adolescents.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (grant number 90ZB0009). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of US DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.

Funding: This research was supported by a grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (grant number 90ZB0009).

References

  1. Adler‐Baeder, F. , McGill J., Frosch C. A., Wei M., and Coskun M.. 2025. “The Impact of Couple Relationship Education (CRE) on Parents of Young Children's Couple Functioning, Family Harmony, Parenting and Their Children's Aggressive Behaviour.” Early Child Development and Care 195, no. 1‐2: 1–16. 10.1080/03004430.2025.2452578. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alarcon, G. M. , Bowling N. A., and Khazon S.. 2013. “Great Expectations: A Meta‐Analytic Examination of Optimism and Hope.” Personality and Individual Differences 54, no. 7: 821–827. 10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allan, R. , Klarenbeek‐McKenna M., and Day D.. 2019. “‘Somebody Watching You’: Impact of Reflecting Teams on Hope in Couple Relationships.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 40, no. 4: 383–399. 10.1002/anzf.1388. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Asay, T. P. , and Lambert M. J.. 1999. “The Empirical Case for the Common Factors in Therapy: Quantitative Findings.” In The Heart and Soul of Change: What Works in Therapy, edited by Hubble M. A., Duncan B. L., and Miller S. D., 33–56. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  5. Azam, A. , and Hanif R.. 2011. “Impact of Parents' Marital Conflicts on Parental Attachment and Social Competence of Adolescents.” European Journal of Developmental Psychology 8, no. 2: 157–170. 10.1080/17405620903332039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berger, L. M. , and Font S. A.. 2015. “The Role of the Family and Family‐Centered Programs and Policies.” Future of Children 25, no. 1: 155–176. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Blow, A. J. , and Sprenkle D. H.. 2001. “Common Factors Across Theories of Marriage and Family Therapy: A Modified Delphi Study.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 27, no. 3: 385–401. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb00333.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, T. A. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson, R. G. , Fripp J., Munyon M. D., Daire A. P., Johnson J. M., and DeLorenzi L.. 2014. “Examining Passive and Active Recruitment for Low‐Income Couples in Relationship Education.” Marriage & Family Review 50, no. 1: 76–91. 10.1080/01494929.2013.851055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, E. , Brody G. H., and Miller G. E.. 2017. “Childhood Close Family Relationships and Health.” American Psychologist 72, no. 6: 555–566. 10.1037/amp0000067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, M.‐T. , Lin G.‐X., Lu C., and Chang Y.‐P.. 2022. “Good Partners, Good Parents: Parent Relationship Satisfaction Predicts Parenting Efficacy for Young Children.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 17, no. 4: 2405–2422. 10.1007/s11482-022-10043-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, P. , and Harris K. M.. 2019. “Association of Positive Family Relationships With Mental Health Trajectories From Adolescence to Midlife.” JAMA Pediatrics 173, no. 12: e193336. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Claxton, S. E. , Deluca H. K., and Van Dulmen M. H.. 2015. “Testing Psychometric Properties in Dyadic Data Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Current Practices and Recommendations.” Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 22, no. 2: 181–198. [Google Scholar]
  14. Costello, A. B. , and Osborne J.. 2005. “Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10, no. 1: 1–9. 10.7275/jyj1-4868. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cowan, P. A. , Cowan C. P., and Gillette P. F.. 2022. “TRUE Dads: The Impact of a Couples‐Based Fatherhood Intervention on Family Relationships, Child Outcomes, and Economic Self‐Sufficiency.” Family Process 61, no. 3: 1021–1044. 10.1111/famp.12748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dai, L. , and Wang L.. 2015. “Review of Family Functioning.” Open Journal of Social Sciences 3, no. 12: 134–141. [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies, P. T. , Sturge‐Apple M. L., Woitach M. J., Cummings E. M., and García Coll C.. 2009. “A Process Analysis of the Transmission of Distress From Interparental Conflict to Parenting: Adult Relationship Security as an Explanatory Mechanism.” Developmental Psychology 45, no. 6: 1761–1773. 10.1037/a0016426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davis, S. 2023. “Common Factors in Couple Therapy.” In Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy, edited by Lebow J. L. and Snyder D. K., 6th ed., 295–317. Guildford Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis, S. D. , Lebow J. L., and Sprenkle D. H.. 2012. “Common Factors of Change in Couple Therapy.” Behavior Therapy 43, no. 1: 36–48. 10.1016/j.beth.2011.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ece, C. , Gürmen M. S., Acar İ. H., and Buyukcan‐Tetik A.. 2024. “Examining the Dyadic Association Between Marital Satisfaction and Coparenting of Parents With Young Children.” Current Psychology 43, no. 2: 1473–1482. 10.1007/s12144-023-04363-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Engfer, A. 1988. “The Interrelatedness of Marriage and the Mother‐Child Relationship.” In Relationships Within Families: Mutual Influences, 104–118. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Erel, O. , and Burman B.. 1995. “Interrelatedness of Marital Relations and Parent‐Child Relations: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin 118, no. 1: 108–132. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Erickson, S. E. 2015. Got Hope?: Measuring the Construct of Relationship Hope With a Nationally Representative Sample of Married Individuals. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  24. Funk, J. L. , and Rogge R. D.. 2007. “Testing the Ruler With Item Response Theory: Increasing Precision Measurement for Relationship Satisfaction With the Couples Satisfaction Index.” Journal of Family Psychology 21: 572–583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gerard, J. M. , Krishnakumar A., and Buehler C.. 2006. “Marital Conflict, Parent‐Child Relations, and Youth Maladjustment: A Longitudinal Investigation of Spillover Effects.” Journal of Family Issues 27, no. 7: 951–975. 10.1177/0192513X05286020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, J. S. , and Carlson M. J.. 2014. “Parents' Relationship Quality and Children's Behavior in Stable Married and Cohabiting Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 76, no. 4: 762–777. 10.1111/jomf.12120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawes, M. T. , Szenczy A. K., Klein D. N., Hajcak G., and Nelson B. D.. 2022. “Increases in Depression and Anxiety Symptoms in Adolescents and Young Adults During the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” Psychological Medicine 52, no. 14: 3222–3230. 10.1017/S0033291720005358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hawkins, A. J. , Allen S. E., and Yang C.. 2017. “How Does Couple and Relationship Education Affect Relationship Hope? An Intervention‐Process Study With Lower Income Couples.” Family Relations 66, no. 3: 441–452. 10.1111/fare.12268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hu, L. T. , and Bentler P. M.. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1: 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kashy, D. A. , and Kenny D. A.. 2000. “The Analysis of Data From Dyads and Groups.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, edited by Reis H. T. and Judd C. M., 451–477. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kenny, D. A. 1996. “Models of Non‐Independence in Dyadic Research.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 13, no. 2: 279–294. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kenny, D. A. , and Cook W.. 1999. “Partner Effects in Relationship Research: Conceptual Issues, Analytic Difficulties, and Illustrations.” Personal Relationships 6, no. 4: 433–448. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kenny, D. A. , Kashy D. A., and Cook W. L.. 2020. Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kenny, D. A. , and Ledermann T.. 2010. “Detecting, Measuring, and Testing Dyadic Patterns in the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model.” Journal of Family Psychology 24, no. 3: 359–366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lambert, M. J. 2003. “Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Implications for Integrative and Eclectic Therapists.” In Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration, edited by Norcross J. C. and Goldfried M. R., 94–129. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lambert, M. J. , and Barley D. E.. 2001. “Research Summary on the Therapeutic Relationship and Psychotherapy Outcome.” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 38, no. 4: 357–361. 10.1037/0033-3204.38.4.357. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Laslo‐Roth, R. , and George‐Levi S.. 2022. “Hopeful Woman, Happy Couple: A Dyadic Model of Hope, Partner Support, and Relationship Satisfaction.” Journal of Happiness Studies 23: 2201–2216. 10.1007/s10902-021-00494-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Linville, D. , Chronister K., Dishion T., et al. 2010. “A Longitudinal Analysis of Parenting Practices, Couple Satisfaction, and Child Behavior Problems.” Journal of Marital a Stress and Child Development 36, no. 2: 244–255. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00168.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Liu, Q. , Wang N., and Wang Z.. 2022. “Character Strengths as a Link Between Family Psychosocial Environment and Depression Symptoms Among Chinese Adolescents.” Children & Society 36, no. 6: 1319–1335. 10.1111/chso.12578. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lui, M. , Lau G. K., Tam V. C., Chiu H.‐M., Li S. S., and Sin K.‐F.. 2020. “Parents' Impact on Children's School Performance: Marital Satisfaction, Parental Involvement, and Mental Health.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 29, no. 6: 1548–1560. 10.1007/s10826-019-01655-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Masarik, A. S. , and Conger R. D.. 2017. “Stress and Child Development: A Review of the Family Stress Model.” Current Opinion in Psychology 13: 85–90. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McNeish, D. , An J., and Hancock G. R.. 2018. “The Thorny Relation Between Measurement Quality and Fit Index Cutoffs in Latent Variable Models.” Journal of Personality Assessment 100, no. 1: 43–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Merolla, A. J. 2014. “The Role of Hope in Conflict Management and Relational Maintenance.” Personal Relationships 21, no. 3: 365–386. 10.1111/pere.12037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Morawska, A. , and Sanders M. R.. 2010. The Child Adjustment and Parent Efficacy Scale (CAPES). Parenting and Family Support Centre. [Google Scholar]
  45. Muthen, L. K. , and Muthen B. O.. 2003. The Comprehensive Modelling Program for Applied Researchers: User's Guide. Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  46. National Institute of Health . 2022. “National Healthcare and Disparities Report: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.” In Child and Adolescent Mental Health. National Institute of Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK587174/. [Google Scholar]
  47. Obeldobel, C. A. , and Kerns K. A.. 2020. “Attachment Security Is Associated With the Experience of Specific Positive Emotions in Middle Childhood.” Attachment & Human Development 22, no. 5: 555–567. 10.1080/14616734.2019.1604775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Olsen, J. A. , and Kenny D. A.. 2006. “Structural Equation Modeling With Interchangeable Dyads.” Psychological Methods 11, no. 2: 127–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Oltean, I. I. , Perlman C., Meyer S., and Ferro M. A.. 2020. “Child Mental Illness and Mental Health Service Use: Role of Family Functioning.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 29, no. 9: 2602–2613. 10.1007/s10826-020-01784-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Peltz, J. S. , Rogge R. D., and Sturge‐Apple M. L.. 2018. “Transactions Within the Family: Coparenting Mediates Associations Between Parents' Relationship Satisfaction and the Parent–Child Relationship.” Journal of Family Psychology 32, no. 5: 553–564. 10.1037/fam0000413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pleeging, E. , Burger M., and van Exel J.. 2021. “The Relations Between Hope and Subjective Well‐Being: A Literature Overview and Empirical Analysis.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 16, no. 3: 1019–1041. 10.1007/s11482-019-09802-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ranson, K. E. , and Urichuk L. J.. 2008. “The Effect of Parent‐Child Attachment Relationships on Child Biopsychosocial Outcomes: A Review.” Early Child Development and Care 178, no. 2: 129–152. 10.1080/03004430600685282. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Raykov, T. , and Marcoulides G. A.. 2012. A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203930687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rempel, J. K. , Rempel L. A., Hoa D. T., Vui L. T., and Long T. K.. 2020. “Parenting Teamwork: The Impact of a Fathering Intervention on Mothers and Infants in Vietnam.” Child Development 91, no. 2: e345–e364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosenman, R. , Tennekoon V., and Hill L. G.. 2011. “Measuring Bias in Self‐Report Data.” International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research 2, no. 4: 320–332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Sanders, M. R. , Morawska A., Haslam D. M., Filus A., and Fletcher R.. 2014. “Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS): Validation of a Brief Parent‐Report Measure for Use in Assessment of Parenting Skills and Family Relationships.” Child Psychiatry & Human Development 45: 255–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Scully, C. , McLaughlin J., and Fitzgerald A.. 2020. “The Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experiences, Family Functioning, and Mental Health Problems Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Family Therapy 42, no. 2: 291–316. 10.1111/1467-6427.12263. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Skinner, O. D. , Sun X., and McHale S. M.. 2021. “Links Between Marital and Parent–Child Relationship in African American Families: A Dyadic Approach.” Journal of Family Psychology 35, no. 8: 1086–1096. 10.1037/fam0000844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Snyder, C. R. 2002. “Hope Theory: Rainbows in the Mind.” Psychological Inquiry 13, no. 4: 249–275. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Snyder, C. R. , Irving L. M., and Anderson J. R.. 1991. “Hope and Health.” In Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology: The Health Perspective, edited by Snyder C. R. and Forsyth D. R., 285–305. Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sprenkle, D. H. , Davis S. D., and Lebow J.. 2009. Common Factors in Couple and Family Therapy the Overlooked Foundation for Effective Practice. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  62. Steele, E. H. , and McKinney C.. 2019. “Emerging Adult Psychological Problems and Parenting Style: Moderation by Parent‐Child Relationship Quality.” Personality and Individual Differences 146: 201–208. [Google Scholar]
  63. Steele, E. H. , and McKinney C.. 2020. “Relationships Among Emerging Adult Psychological Problems, Maltreatment, and Parental Psychopathology: Moderation by Parent–Child Relationship Quality.” Family Process 59, no. 1: 257–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Sterrett‐Hong, E. , Antle B., Nalley B., and Adams M.. 2018. “Changes in Couple Relationship Dynamics Among Low‐Income Parents in a Relationship Education Program Are Associated With Decreases in Their Children's Mental Health Symptoms.” Children 5, no. 7: 90. 10.3390/children5070090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. van Eickels, R. L. , Tsarpalis‐Fragkoulidis A., and Zemp M.. 2022. “Family Cohesion, Shame‐Proneness, Expressive Suppression, and Adolescent Mental Health—A Path Model Approach.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 921250. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Vriend Fluit, D. , and Gall T. L.. 2020. “Knowing and Growing Hope in Couple Therapy: Perspectives of Couples and Their Therapists.” Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 54, no. 3: 520–540. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ward, D. B. , and Wampler K. S.. 2010. “Moving Up the Continuum of Hope: Developing a Theory of Hope and Understanding Its Influence in Couples Therapy.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 36, no. 2: 212–228. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00173.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wolf, E. J. , Harrington K. M., Clark S. L., and Miller M. W.. 2013. “Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 73, no. 6: 913–934. 10.1177/0013164413495237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Worthington, E. L. , Hight T. L., Ripley J. S., Perrone K. M., Kurusu T. A., and Jones D. R.. 1997. “Strategic Hope‐Focused Relationship‐Enrichment Counseling With Individual Couples.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 44, no. 4: 381–389. 10.1037/0022-0167.44.4.381. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Family Process are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES