Table 2b.
Non-significant differences in perceived relationship quality by mothers and fathers at the second measurement wave
| Relationship quality | Harmonious | Authoritative | Uninvolved-discordant | Turbulent | Total | Wald value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 140) | (n = 57) | (n = 49) | (n = 62) | (N = 308) | ||
| M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | ||
| Mother report on adolescent | ||||||
| Support | 3.36 (0.40)a | 3.46 (0.42)a | 3.31 (0.37)a | 3.32 (0.43)a | 3.36 (0.41) | 6.03 |
| Power | 1.54 (0.33)a | 1.57 (0.40)a | 1.54 (0.39)a | 1.62 (0.44)a | 1.56 (0.38) | 1.63 |
| Father report on adolescent | ||||||
| Support | 3.23 (0.45)a | 3.23 (0.40)a | 3.15 (0.43)ab | 3.08 (0.48)bc | 3.19 (0.45) | 6.79 |
| Power | 1.67 (0.39)a | 1.71 (0.39)a | 1.67 (0.35)a | 1.72 (0.38)a | 1.69 (0.38) | 1.21 |
Note. Different superscripts represents significant mean-levels differences between samples. Samples with different superscripts across rows differ from one another with regard to relationship quality. Post-hoc tests were Bonferroni corrected with α = 0.004, in which we divided the usual critical p-value of .05 in a two-tailed test by six (i.e., the total number of profile comparisons). Comparisons of classes on relationship quality were controlled for gender and age. Please note that there was only limited data on paternal and maternal reports of the relationship quality with their children. That is, such data was only available for 23% of our total sample, on one measurement occasion, and on two out of three relational components.