Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2012 Oct 6;38(3):1699–1703. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.09.017

Parents' and Students' Reports of Parenting: Which are more Reliably Associated with College Student Drinking?

Lindsey Varvil-Weld 1, Rob Turrisi 1,2, Nichole Scaglione 1, Kimberly A Mallett 2, Anne E Ray 3
PMCID: PMC3558596  NIHMSID: NIHMS413233  PMID: 23254221

Abstract

Recent efforts to reduce college student heavy episodic drinking have examined parental influences, with the goal of continually refining parent-based interventions (PBIs). This research has primarily relied on student-reported data, which is often cited as a methodological limitation although the degree to which parent- and student-reported data on parenting behaviors correspond is unknown. The goals of the present study were to assess the level of consistency between parent- and student-reported data for commonly examined parenting constructs and compare their associations with college student drinking. Data were collected from a sample of 145 parent-student dyads using a longitudinal design. At baseline, parents and students reported on parental monitoring, approval of light and moderate/heavy drinking, and permissiveness. At a 10-month follow up, students reported on their typical weekly drinking and consequences. Parents' and students' reports of parenting behavior at baseline were compared and their associations with student drinking and consequences at follow up were assessed. Agreement between parents' and students' reports of parenting was fair to moderate, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from .34 to .61. Student-reported data were more reliably associated with student drinking at follow up. Studies examining parent influences on college student drinking, including research on PBIs, do not appear to be limited by using student-reported data. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords: college drinking, parent influences, data collection

1 Introduction

College student heavy episodic drinking is a high-risk health behavior associated with short- and long-term consequences and harm to the larger campus community (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler, 2005; Nelson, Xuan, Lee, Weitzman, & Wechsler, 2009; Read, Beattie, Chamberlain, & Merrill, 2008; Wechsler et al., 2002). Studies have shown that student-reported parental behavior, such as monitoring, is negatively related to college student drinking, whereas other student-reported parenting behavior, such as permissiveness and approval of alcohol use, is positively related to college student drinking (e.g., Abar, 2012; Borsari, Murphy, & Barnett, 2007; Cail & LaBrie, 2010; LaBrie & Sessoms, 2012; Livingston, Testa, Hoffman, & Windle, 2010; Patock-Peckham, King, Morgan-Lopez, Ulloa, & Filson-Moses, 2011; Turrisi & Ray, 2010; Wood, Read, Mitchell, & Brand, 2004; Varvil-Weld, Mallett, Turrisi, & Abar, 2012). In turn, parent-based interventions are increasingly becoming a widespread intervention strategy used to combat high-risk drinking by providing parents with communication tips and information that can be used in conversations with their college-bound teens (e.g., Cleveland, Lanza, Ray, Turrisi, & Mallett, 2011; Ichiyama et al., 2009; Mallett et al., 2010; Turrisi, Jaccard, Taki, Dunham, & Grimes, 2001; Turrisi et al., 2009; Testa, Hoffman, Livingston, & Turrisi, 2010). The content of PBIs is based on empirical work documenting associations between student-reported protective parenting behaviors and lower levels of college drinking (e.g., Borsari et al., 2007; Fairlie, Wood, & Laird, 2012; LaBrie & Sessoms, 2012; Patock-Peckham et al., 2011; Turrisi & Ray, 2010; Wood et al., 2004), and between student-reported risky parenting behaviors and heavier drinking (Abar & Turrisi, 2008; Livingston et al., 2010; Varvil-Weld et al., 2012).

Reliance on students' reports of their parents' behavior, rather than parents' own reports, is commonly noted as a methodological limitation of research in this domain (see Abar, 2012; Fairlie et al., 2012; Varvil-Weld et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2004). Although it is often assumed that collecting parents' reports might provide unique information beyond students' reports, to date there has been a reliance on students primarily due to the ease of data collection. In fact, research with adolescents suggests students' perceptions of their parents' behavior may be more important than their parents' actual behavior. For example, research with middle school students showed parents' reports of parenting were not significantly predictive of student alcohol use while students' reports were (Cohen & Rice, 1997; Holmbeck, Verrill Schurman, Friedman, & Millstein Coakley, 2002; Jacob & Windle, 1999). This suggests students' perceptions have a stronger influence on their behavior than parents' perceptions. This research has not yet been extended to families with college-age students, despite the increasing quantity of parent-focused etiological and intervention research with emerging adult populations. Of greater relevance for prevention, it remains unknown whether the correspondence between parents' reports and student drinking changes for older individuals and whether parents' reports potentially provide additional unique predictive variance for improving behavior change efforts.

The present study had two goals in order to identify the optimal method for studying parental influences on college student drinking. The first was to assess the degree of consistency between parents' and students' reports of parenting behaviors. Based on the work conducted by Holmbeck and colleagues (2002), we hypothesize that parent- and student-reported data will have a low concordance rate. However, it is also possible that since college students tend to be more mature than younger adolescents, they will have more insightful perceptions of their parents' behaviors due to more open communication as they age. Therefore an alternative hypothesis is there will be greater correspondence between parental reports and student drinking behaviors in our college sample than has been observed in the literature examining earlier adolescence. The second aim of the study was to compare the extent to which parents' and students' reports of parenting were associated with college student drinking and consequences. Drawing on the research summarized above, we hypothesize that students' perceptions of their parents' behavior will be more reliably associated with drinking and consequences than parents' perceptions of their own behavior.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Participants were 145 parent-student dyads at a large, public northeastern university. Parents in the sample reported a mean age of 50.0 years (SD = 5.6) at baseline and identified as mostly Caucasian/white (91.7%) and female (80.7%). A majority of parents were married (89.0%), and approximately two-thirds of parents completed a Bachelor's degree (52.1%) or a more advanced degree (16.7%).

The mean age for the student sample was 18.6 years (SD = .5) at baseline, and the sample was 57.9% female. The racial background of the student sample was as follows: 91.0% Caucasian, 4.8% Asian, 2.8% Hispanic, 2.1% African American, and 1.4% multi-racial or other.

2.2 Recruitment & Procedures

Participants were recruited in the summer prior to college matriculation using a two-step process. First, students were randomly selected from the university registrar's database of incoming freshmen. Invitation letters listing study procedures, compensation, the URL for the online survey, and a personal identification number (PIN) were first mailed on university letterhead and then emailed (for convenience) to all potential participants. There was a 66% response rate for students at the time of recruitment. Students provided informed consent at the time of enrollment in the study, and students under the age of 18 were required to provide parental consent along with their own assent. Data from the time of enrollment were not used in the present study. Instead, baseline student data was collected in spring of the first year to correspond to parent data. Follow up data were collected in the fall of the second year and were similar to baseline (e.g., measures of parenting, drinking, consequences, etc.). There was an 80% retention rate for students at follow up. Students received $20 for completion of each survey, and they received a $5 bonus if they responded within 48 hours of recruitment.

Parent data were collected at the time point corresponding to students' baseline only. Parents were sent a package containing a letter explaining the study, a consent form for participation, and a brief survey assessing parent-teen communication (items are described below), which was returned in a stamped, addressed envelope. The response rate for parents was 63%, and parents received $30 for their participation. All procedures and measures were reviewed and approved by the study university's Institutional Review Board.

Only students whose parents completed the parent assessment and who provided both baseline and follow up data were included in the present study (N=145). There were no significant differences in drinking behaviors or demographic factors between students whose parents responded and students of non-responding parents.

2.3 Measures

Both parents and students reported on parents' monitoring, levels of drinking approval, and appropriate limits regarding alcohol consumption at baseline. Parents were asked to report on their own behaviors, while students were asked to report on their perceptions of their parents' behaviors. Items were phrased so that the parent and student versions of each item closely corresponded and referred to parenting during the first year of college. At follow up, students reported on their own drinking and alcohol-related consequences over the first year of college. These measures are described in more detail below.

2.3.1 Parenting Behaviors: Parent- and Student-Reported

Monitoring: Parent-Reported

Parental monitoring was measured using two items asking parents, “to what extent [they] try to know:” 1) about their son's/daughter's activities in their free time, and 2) about their son's/daughter's drinking. Response options ranged from '1' (I don't try) to '3' (I try a lot). Items were summed to create a composite monitoring score, where higher scores indicated more monitoring (α = .68).

Monitoring: Student-Reported

Students indicated the extent to which their parents try to know about what they do in their free time and about their drinking. Response options ranged from '1' (they don't try) to '3' (they try a lot). Items were summed to create a single composite score of monitoring and higher scores indicated more perceived monitoring (α = .70).

Parental Approval of Light and Moderate/Heavy Drinking: Parent-Reported

Three items were used to measure parental approval of drinking. Principal components factor analyses revealed two factors (factor loadings > .70). The first factor was composed of a single item, “I would approve of my son/daughter drinking 1 or 2 drinks on one occasion,” and was labeled approval of light drinking. The second factor consisted of two items that asked whether parents would approve of 1) their son/daughter drinking 3 or 4 drinks on one occasion, or 2) 5 or more drinks on one occasion. These items were combined to assess parents' approval of moderate/heavy drinking (α = .77). Response options ranged from '−2' (strongly disagree) to '2' (strongly agree).

Parental Approval of Light and Moderate/Heavy Drinking: Student-Reported

Students reported using the similar 5-point scales ranging from '−2' (strongly disagree) to '2' (strongly agree) on whether their parents would approve of them drinking 1 or 2 drinks (light drinking) and drinking 3 or 4 drinks and 5 or more drinks on one occasion. The latter two items were summed to form a measure of approval of moderate/heavy drinking (α = .88).

Permissiveness: Parent-Reported

Parents' upper limits of acceptable alcohol consumption were used to assess permissiveness. Parents were asked, “During your son or daughter's first year of college, how many drinks would you consider to be an upper limit for your son or daughter to consume on any given occasion?” Response options ranged from '0' (no amount would be okay), '1' (one drink), up to '6' (six to twelve drinks), and '7' (there is no upper limit).

Permissiveness: Student-Reported

Similarly, students were asked, “Now that you are in college, how many drinks would your parents consider to be an upper limit for you to consume on any given occasion?” and responded using the same scale as above in the parent measure.

2.3.2 Drinking and Consequences: Student-Reported

Student Alcohol Use

College student alcohol use was measured at follow-up (the fall of the second year of college) using a modified version of the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985). Typical weekly drinking was assessed by summing the number of drinks (defined as 12 oz. beer, 10 oz. wine cooler, 4 oz. wine, 1 oz. 100 proof [1 ¼ oz. 80 proof] liquor) students indicated drinking on each day of a typical week during the past month.

Student Consequences

Alcohol-related consequences were also measured at the final follow-up assessment, using the 33-item Young Adult Alcohol Problem Screening Test (YAAPST; Hurlbut & Sher, 1992). Participants were asked to indicate whether they had experienced a range of alcohol-related consequences in the past year (e.g., vomiting, having a hangover, etc.) Responses were coded dichotomously so that a `1' indicated that the participant had experienced the consequence in the past year, and these items were summed to indicate the total number of consequences experienced in the past year.

2.4 Analytic approach

To assess the degree of concordance between parents' and students' reports of the parenting behaviors described above, means were examined, as well as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) using a one-way random effects model for monitoring, approval of light and moderate/heavy drinking, and permissiveness.

To achieve the second aim, correlations between each of the four student-reported parenting constructs, each of the four parent-reported parenting constructs, and student drinking and consequences were assessed. Fisher's r-to-z transformation was used to determine whether pairs of correlation coefficients (parent- and student-reported) for each of the parenting constructs and drinking and consequences, respectively, were significantly different.

3 Results

3.1 Mean Differences

Table 1 lists the means and standard deviations, mean differences, and t-values for the comparisons of each of the parenting constructs. Parents reported significantly greater monitoring and lower permissiveness than students reported. Parents also reported lower approval of moderate/heavy drinking than students. No differences were observed for light drinking. These findings suggest that parents' reports on average reflected more engagement and less tolerance with respect to alcohol relative to students' perceptions.

Table 1.

Means (standard deviations) of parents' and students' perceptions of parenting behaviors

Parent Student t Mean Difference
Monitoring range 2 – 6 5.05 (1.07) 4.51 (1.10) 4.78** .56 (1.40)
Approval of light drinking range -2 – 2 −.30 (.97) −.36 (.98) −.72 .06 (.94)
Approval of moderate/heavy drinking range -4 – 4 −3.06 (1.43) −2.26 (1.62) 5.82** −.80 (1.64)
Permissiveness range 0 – 7 2.29 (1.88) 2.57 (2.02) 1.96* −.28 (1.70)
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p=.05,

**

p<.01.

3.2 Intraclass correlations

Table 2 lists the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals for each of the four parenting constructs based on the student- and parent-reported data. All but one of the constructs (monitoring) had ICCs that were significant, ranging from .34 for approval of moderate/heavy drinking to .61 for permissiveness, suggesting levels of consistency between students' and parents' perceptions were fair to moderate.

Table 2.

Intraclass correlation coefficients for parenting constructs, comparing student- and parent-reported data

ICC 95% CI p
Monitoring .09 [−.08, .25] .15
Approval of light drinking .53 [.40, .64] <.01
Approval of moderate/heavy drinking .34 [.18, .47] <.01
Permissiveness .61 [.50, .71] <.01
Open in a new tab

3.3 Correlations between students' and parents' reports of parenting and student drinking and consequences

Table 3 lists the correlation coefficients for the associations between each of the parenting variables and student drinking and consequences. With respect to the parent-reported data, permissiveness was the only parent-reported variable that was significantly associated with student drinking or consequences. For the student-reported data, permissiveness and approval of moderate/heavy drinking were significantly associated with student drinking, and approval of light drinking was significantly associated with both student drinking and consequences. These findings seem to suggest that student perceptions of parenting were more reliably related to student drinking and consequences. However, when comparisons of the magnitude of the correlation coefficients were made between parents and students using Fisher's r to z transformations, only the approval of moderate/heavy drinking was observed to be significantly different. Thus, although student reports were more consistently related to student drinking, the difference in magnitude of the associations was generally not found to be different between parents and students across the constructs.

Table 3.

Correlation coefficients for the associations between each of the parenting variables and student drinking and consequences

Parent Reports (r) Student Reports (r) z
Student drinking
Monitoring −.02 .06 −.67
Approval of light drinking .13 .26* −1.14
Approval of moderate/heavy drinking .08 .43* −3.2**
Permissiveness 44** .49* −.54
Consequences
Monitoring .03 −.11 1.18
Approval of light drinking .09 .18* −.77
Approval of moderate/heavy drinking .05 .17 −1.02
Permissiveness 24** .16 .70
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p<.05,

**

p<.01.

4 Discussion

The present study assessed the degree of consistency between parents' and students' reports of parenting behaviors and compared the extent to which parents' and students' reports of parenting were associated with college student drinking and consequences. With respect to consistency, parents reported having more engaged and conservative perceptions about monitoring and alcohol than their students perceived, but there was a consistent moderate association between parents' and students' reports. The exception was that parent and student reports were not related for monitoring. One possible explanation for this finding is that students may be less likely to notice the behaviors that parents would consider “monitoring.” For example, research suggests parents are less likely to monitor their students by actively tracking them and more likely to monitor by paying attention to students' self-disclosure (Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Turrisi, Ray, & Abar, 2010). Therefore, students may be less aware of the extent of their parents' monitoring if parents do not ask overt questions pertaining to drinking. It is also important to note that the present sample was drawn from a university at which the majority of the students live on campus rather than with their parents. Perceptions of monitoring may vary depending on whether students live on campus or at home. In addition, the internal consistency for the scales used to measure monitoring was somewhat low, although still within the acceptable range (close to .70). Future work should explore whether there are more consistent associations between monitoring and college student drinking when additional measures of monitoring are used.

With respect to examining associations with student drinking, student-reports of parenting were more consistently associated with student drinking than parent-reports, albeit the magnitude of the associations was not consistently different. This suggests student-reported data on parenting are a reliable correlate of drinking and consequences.

Although previous studies with adolescents have observed low rates of concordance between parents' and adolescents' reports (Holmbeck et al., 2002), the results of the present study suggest there is more consistency by the time students reach emerging adulthood. Based on our findings, a reasonable argument can be made that when including parenting constructs in the examination of the etiology of college student drinking and the efficacy of PBIs, researchers can assume that students' perceptions of their parents' behavior are a methodological strength rather than a limitation. Further, these findings make parenting variables more accessible to researchers who are interested in examining familial and normative predictors of college drinking but who may not be able to collect parent data directly. Parent data are informative in terms of understanding college drinking, however these data are often costly or difficult to collect. Collecting student perceptions of parenting variables related to alcohol use is a viable option to collect reliable and valid information.

4.1 Limitations and future directions

The present study is not without limitations. First, only a select range of parenting constructs were assessed. It is possible that including a broader range of parenting constructs could yield different results. However, the parenting constructs were chosen because they have been consistently identified as significant predictors of college student drinking (e.g., Livingston et al., 2010; Patock-Peckham et al., 2011; Turrisi & Ray, 2010; Wood et al., 2004). Second, the parent-reported data was collected from only one parent (in most cases, the mother), while the student-reported data was measured at the level of both parents. Therefore, it is possible that a different degree of consistency could be observed if the student-reported data were exactly matched to the parent providing the parent-reported data, and future work should explore this possibility.

Future research should also explore: 1) the processes through which discrepancies between parents' and students' perceptions develop, 2) how these discrepancies influence drinking and consequences, and 3) how discrepancies change over time. To speculate on how differences between parents' and students' perceptions develop, we can suggest several factors including: 1) differences in life experiences that come with differences in chronological age and shape differences in perceptions, 2) the actor-observer bias (Jones & Nisbett, 1971), where both parents and students have access to different information about themselves, and 3) situational context (i.e., parents typically interact with their sons and daughters at home rather than when they are out with socializing with their friends at college). This is not an exhaustive list and future work should explore underlying causes that contribute to parent-student discrepancies in perceptions. With regard to the mechanisms through which discrepancies influence drinking and consequences, higher levels of parent-student agreement may reflect more parent-student communication about alcohol and overall closer relationships. In contrast, students may perceive their parents to be more permissive when parent-student communication about alcohol is low and not stated explicitly. Therefore, PBIs designed to increase parent-student communication about specific alcohol related topics such as approval of teen alcohol use may decrease inaccurate perceptions of permissiveness. Last, future research should explore whether consistency between parents' and students' perceptions of parental behavior changes over time. The present study examined parents' and students' perceptions during the end of the first year of college. Consistency may be higher at certain times (e.g., in the fall immediately after students have left home) and lower at others (during later years of college).

4.2 Conclusion

While previous using student-reported data has documented the importance of parental influences on college student drinking, the present study was one of the first to compare parent- and student-reported data on these influences. The findings suggested that despite a less than perfect consistency rate between students' perceptions and parent reported behaviors, student-reported data is more consistently associated with college student drinking than parent-reported data, and therefore should continue to be utilized in this area of research. Prevention methodology related to parental influences on college student drinking does not appear to be limited by the use of student-reported data.

Highlights

  • Compared parents' and college students' reports of parenting for consistency.

  • Assessed which source of data was more reliably associated with college drinking.

  • Consistency between parents' and students' reports was moderate.

  • Student-reported data were more reliably associated with longitudinal drinking outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Caitlin Abar, Ph.D., for her role in data collection, Michael Cleveland, Ph.D., for his comments on our revision of this manuscript and Carly Comer, for assistance with preparing the manuscript. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback on this manuscript.

Role of Funding Sources Funding for this study was provided by NIAAA Grant R01-AA015737 awarded to Rob Turrisi, Ph.D. NIAAA had no role in the analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributors Lindsey Varvil-Weld planned the data analyses, conducted the literature review, and wrote the introduction and discussion section. Rob Turrisi contributed to the conceptualization of the paper and revised the manuscript. Nichole Scaglione conducted the analyses, wrote the methods and results section, and provided feedback on the manuscript. Kimberly Mallett contributed to the conceptualization of the paper and revised the manuscript. Anne Ray provided feedback on the study design and the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abar CC. Examining the relationship between parenting types and patterns of student alcohol-related behavior during the transition to college. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2012;26(1):20–29. doi: 10.1037/a0025108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abar C, Turrisi R. How important are parents during the college years? A longitudinal perspective of indirect influences parents yield on their college teens' alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors. 2008;33(10):1360–1368. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.06.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Borsari B, Murphy JG, Barnett NP. Predictors of alcohol use during the first year of college: Implications for prevention. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32(10):2062–2086. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cail J, LaBrie JW. Disparity between the perceived alcohol-related attitudes of parents and peers increases alcohol risk in college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2010;35(2):135–139. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.09.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cleveland MJ, Lanza ST, Ray AE, Turrisi R, Mallett KA. Transitions in first-year college student drinking behaviors: Does pre-college drinking moderate the effects of parent- and peer-based intervention components? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2011 doi: 10.1037/a0026130. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0026130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen DA, Rice J. Parenting styles, adolescent substance use, and academic achievement. Journal of Drug Education. 1997;27(2):199–211. doi: 10.2190/QPQQ-6Q1G-UF7D-5UTJ. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1985;53:189–200. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.53.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fairlie AM, Wood MD, Laird RD. Prospective protective effect of parents on peer influence and college alcohol involvement. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2012;26(1):31–41. doi: 10.1037/a0023879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hingson R, Heeren T, Winter M, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24. Annual Review of Public Health. 2005;26:259–279. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Holmbeck GN, Li ST, Verrill Schurman J, Friedman D, Millstein Coakley R. Collecting and managing multisource and multimethod data in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2002;27(1):5–18. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hurlbut SC, Sher KJ. Assessing alcohol problems in college students. Journal of American College Health. 1992;41(2):49–58. doi: 10.1080/07448481.1992.10392818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ichiyama M, Fairlie AM, Wood MD, Turrisi R, Francis D, Ray A, Stanger L. A randomized trial of a parent-based intervention with incoming college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2009;S16:67–76. doi: 10.15288/jsads.2009.s16.67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jacob T, Windle M. Family assessment: Instrument dimensionality and correspondence across family reporters. Journal of Family Psychology. 1999;13:339–354. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jones EE, Nisbett RE. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. General Learning Press; New York, NY: 1971. [Google Scholar]
  15. LaBrie JW, Sessoms AE. Parents still matter: The role of parental attachment in risky drinking among college students. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 2012;21(1):91–104. [Google Scholar]
  16. Livingston JA, Testa M, Hoffman JH, Windle M. Can parents prevent heavy episodic drinking by allowing teens to drink at home? Addictive Behaviors. 2010;35(12):1105–1112. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.08.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mallett KA, Ray AE, Turrisi R, Belden C, Bachrach RL, Larimer ME. Age of drinking onset as a moderator of the efficacy of a combined intervention approach to reduce peak drinking among college students. Alcoholism: Clinical & Environmental Research. 2010;34:1154–1161. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01192.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nelson TF, Xuan Z, Lee H, Weitzman ER, Wechsler H. Persistence of heavy drinking and ensuing consequences at heavy drinking colleges. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2009;70(5):726–734. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Patock-Peckham JA, King KM, Morgan-Lopez AA, Ulloa EC, Filson-Moses JM. Gender-specific meditational links between parenting styles, parental monitoring, impulsiveness, drinking control, and alcohol-related problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2011;72(2):247–258. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Read JP, Beattie M, Chamberlain R, Merrill JE. Beyond the “Binge” threshold: heavy drinking patterns and their association with alcohol involvement indices in college students. Addictive Behaviors. 2008;33(2):225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development. 2000;71:1072–1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Testa M, Hoffman J, Livingston J, Turrisi R. Preventing women's sexual victimization by reducing heavy episodic drinking: Test of a randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science. 2010;11:308–318. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0168-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Turrisi R, Jaccard J, Taki R, Dunham H, Grimes J. Examination of the short-term efficacy of a parent intervention to reduce college student drinking tendencies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2001;15(4):366–372. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.15.4.366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Turrisi R, Larimer ME, Mallett KA, Kilmer JR, Ray AE, Mastroelo NR, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2009;70(4):555–567. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Turrisi R, Ray AE. Sustained parenting and college drinking in first-year students. Developmental Psychobiology. 2010;52(3):286–294. doi: 10.1002/dev.20434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Turrisi R, Ray A, Abar C. When is parenting over? Examining parental monitoring and high-risk alcohol consumption in young adult college students. In: Jaccard J, Dittus P, Guilamo-Ramos V, editors. Parental monitoring of adolescents. Columbia University Press; NY: 2010. [Google Scholar]
  27. Varvil-Weld L, Mallett KA, Turrisi R, Abar C. Using parent profiles to predict membership in a subset of college students experiencing excessive alcohol consequences: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2012;73:434–443. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wechsler H, Lee JE, Kuo M, Seibring M, Nelson TF, Lee HP. Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from four Harvard School of Public Health study surveys, 1993–2001. Journal of American College Health. 2002;50(5):203–217. doi: 10.1080/07448480209595713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wood MD, Read JP, Mitchell RE, Brand NH. Do parents still matter? Parent and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school graduates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2004;18(1):19–30. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.1.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES