CHILD MALTREATMENT
10.1177/1077559504273684
Knutson et al. / NEGLECT /AND
MAYHARSH
2005 PARENTING A REPLICATION
Care Neglect, Supervisory Neglect, and Harsh
Parenting in the Development of Children’s
Aggression: A Replication and Extension
John F. Knutson
University of Iowa
David DeGarmo
Oregon Social Learning Center
Gina Koeppl
University of Iowa
John B. Reid
Oregon Social Learning Center
To understand the effects of neglectful parenting, poor super-
vision, and punitive parenting in the development of chil-
dren’s aggression, 218 children ages 4 to 8 years who were
disadvantaged and their mothers were recruited from two
states to develop a sample that was diverse with respect to de-
gree of urbanization and ethnicity. Multimethod and
multisource indices of the predictive constructs (Social Disad-
vantage, Denial of Care Neglect, Supervisory Neglect, and
Punitive Discipline) and the criterion construct (Aggression)
were used in a test of a theoretical model using structural
equation modeling. The results established the role of care ne-
glect, supervisory neglect, and punitive parenting as media-
tors of the role of social disadvantage in the development of
children’s aggression, the importance of distinguishing be-
tween two subtypes of neglect, and the need to consider the role
of discipline in concert with neglect when attempting to
understand the parenting in the development of aggression.
Keywords: children’s aggression; care neglect; supervisory
neglect; punitive discipline
Although there is little question that child maltreat-
ment can occasion an immediate adverse effect on
CHILD MALTREATMENT, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 2005 92-107
DOI: 10.1177/1077559504273684
© 2005 Sage Publications
92
the health and well-being of children, possible distal
consequences of maltreatment, such as problems in
the child’s social adjustment, have become an impor-
tant focus of research. Because there is unequivocal
evidence from three National Incidence Studies
(NIS; Office of Human Development Services
[OHDS], 1981, 1988; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996) and
the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and
Authors’ Note: Supported, in part, by funding by National Institute
of Mental Health (NIMH) and Administration on Children, Youth,
and Families (ACYF; Research Grant MH61731), John F. Knutson,
principal investigator; in part by funding by National Institute on
Child Health and Development (Research Grant HD 42115), Da-
vid S. DeGarmo, principal investigator; and funding by National In-
stitute on Drug Abuse and NIMH (Grants P20 DA 017592 and P30
46690), respectively, John B. Reid, principal investigator. The facili-
tation of the research by Paul Spencer (Oneida County Depart-
ment of Social Services), Barry Bennett, Cheryl Whitney, Marc
Batey, Mark Schmidt, and Wayne McCracken (Iowa Department of
Human Services) is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance of
Angela Anderson, Beth Boyer, Minka Dawson, Becky Fetrow,
Deanna Heckenberg, Martha Early, Aubra Hoffman, Esther
Hoffman, Kathy Jordan, Robert Latzman, Theresa Mayne, Mary
McCarren, Donna Palmer, Nicole Shay, and Nizete-ly Valles is
greatly appreciated. Correspondence regarding this article should
be sent to John F. Knutson, Department of Psychology, E-11 Sea-
shore Hall, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52240; e-mail:
john-knutson@uiowa.edu
 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
Families [USDHHS, ACYF], 2001, 2002) that neglect
is the most common form of maltreatment experi-
enced by children in the United States, it would
seem that the outcomes of neglect would be well-
established from a research literature. Comprehen-
sive literature reviews (e.g., Knutson & Schartz, 1997)
have noted, however, that there is little evidence of a
specific link between neglect and identified child out-
comes. This state of affairs is attributable, in part, to
the wide range of parenting practices that are sub-
sumed under the rubric of neglect (Flango, 1988;
Giovannoni, 1985; Hegar & Yungman, 1989; Knutson
& Schartz, 1997; National Research Council, 1993;
Trocmé, 1996; Zuravin, 1999), the fact that neglect is
often associated with other forms of child maltreat-
ment (Sullivan & Knutson, 1998, 2000; USDHHS,
ACYF, 2001), and the fact that neglect is importantly
related to socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g., OHDS,
1981, 1988; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996) that occa-
sions considerable risk to children (e.g., Duncan &
Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, &
Klebanov, 1994; McLoyd, 1998). Thus, to understand
how neglect might be related to the social adjustment
of children, research needs to either control for or in-
clude a consideration of the co-occurrence of other
forms of maltreatment and social disadvantage as well
as provide well-specified operational definitions of
neglect.
Knutson, DeGarmo, and Reid (2004) provided an
empirical test of a theoretical model that was
designed to understand how deficient parenting,
reflected in neglect and harsh discipline, could
account for the well-established link between social-
economic disadvantage and the development of child
and adolescent behavior problems (cf. Duncan et al.,
1994; Hanson, McLanahan, & Thomson, 1997;
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; McLoyd, 1998;
Patterson & Yoerger, 1999). Because of the research
literature that linked neglect to delinquency (e.g.,
Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch,
1994), diagnosed behavior problems (Manly,
Cicchetti, & Barnett, 1994), school disciplinary diffi-
culties (e.g., Eckenrode, Laird, & Doris, 1993;
Kendall-Tackett & Eckenrode, 1996) and later crimi-
nal behavior (e.g., Henry, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva,
1996; Viermö, 1996; Widom, 1998); Knutson et al.
(2004) reasoned that neglectful parenting could be
an important mediator between disadvantage and
adverse child outcomes in the form of antisocial and
aggressive behavior.
A major advance in the Knutson et al. (2004)
model was the attempt to distinguish the role of
supervisory neglect from other forms of neglect in
understanding deficient parenting in the develop-
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
93
ment of antisocial behavior. For example, several
studies have previously implicated poor supervision
and monitoring in the development of aggression,
antisocial behavior, as well as affiliations with deviant
peers (e.g., Bank & Burraston, 2001; Dishion,
Patterson, & Greisler, 1994; Dishion, Spracklen,
Andrews, & Patterson, 1996; Pettit, Bates, Dodge, &
Meece, 1999); however, the supervisory neglect
included in several taxonomies of neglectful
parenting (cf. Giovannoni, 1985; Hegar & Yungman,
1989; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996; Trocmé, 1996) has
yet to be included or distinguished in studies of
neglect and child outcomes.
The Knutson et al. (2004) model specified how
care neglect could also play a functional role in the
development of children’s aggression via several
developmental pathways. Care neglect that is mani-
fested in such child attributes as poor hygiene and
inadequate clothing could result in poor peer rela-
tions and rejection (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt,
1998) and the compromised social participation
(e.g., solitary play) that can be associated with the
development of emotional dysregulation (e.g.,
Spinrad et al., 2004), aggression (e.g., Shields &
Cicchetti, 2001), and the hostile attributional biases
underlying some childhood aggression (e.g., Dodge,
Laird, Lochman, & Zelli, 2002).
After specifying unique roles of supervisory and
care neglect, the model advanced by Knutson et al.
(2004) also included harsh discipline as an important
construct. Harsh punitive discipline is the key compo-
nent of coercive parenting behaviors that reinforce
child aggression. Harsh discipline practices include a
continuum of coercive punishment involving yelling,
scolding, and spanking all the way to abusive physical
punishment. Prior studies have shown a strong associ-
ation between physical abuse and the development of
children’s aggression (e.g., Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, &
Taylor, 2004).
In an initial evaluation, Knutson et al. (2004) used
structural modeling to specify supervisory neglect,
care neglect (i.e., inadequate food, clothing, hygiene,
etc.), and harsh parenting constructs to predict anti-
social behavior and long-term change in antisocial
behavior of two age-based cohorts of children
enrolled in a community-based universal prevention
project. For the younger cohort of children, whose
families were enrolled when the children were in first
grade, the model established that care neglect and
punitive discipline contributed uniquely to children’s
antisocial behavior; that is, care neglect was associated
with initial antisocial status as well as increases in anti-
social behaviors from first grade to fifth grade. Puni-
tive discipline was marginally associated with antiso-
94 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION

cial behavior at enrollment but significantly

predicted increases in antisocial behavior on follow- Punitive
Supervisory
up 5 years later. From the standpoint of the theoreti- Neglect
Discipline
cal model that was advanced, supervisory neglect was
not shown to be important in the development of anti-
social behavior in the younger cohort. For the older
(Mediated Influence) Child
cohort, whose families were enrolled when the chil- Social Aggression
Disadvantage
dren were in fifth grade a somewhat different, but the-
oretically consistent, pattern emerged. Although the
care neglect construct was associated with higher lev- Care
els of initial antisocial behaviors and marginally Neglect
associated with increases in antisocial behavior over
time in the older cohort, the most notable difference FIGURE 1: Hypothesized Relationships for Parent Deficiency
between the two cohorts was the finding that the Model of Supervisory and Care Neglect
supervisory neglect construct was related to care
levels of neglectful parenting nor high levels of
neglect and punitive discipline in predicting child
severely punitive discipline. Second, and perhaps
antisocial behavior. A second notable difference
more important, the study was imbedded in a univer-
between the cohorts was the significant link between
sal prevention program that was not designed to fully
care neglect and punitive discipline. Finally, and
assess abusive and neglecting parenting. Thus, the
importantly, for the older cohort, punitive discipline
supervisory neglect construct and the care neglect
at enrollment was important in predicting antisocial
construct were developed using proxy variables and
status at enrollment, but less important as a predictor
derivative approximations of the target indicators. In
of change in antisocial behavior 5 years later when
particular, although the supervisory neglect construct
compared to the test of the model with the younger
was developed using indicators that worked well for
cohort. When the model tests were considered in con-
an older cohort developing into preadolescence, the
cert, two important findings emerged. First, the
indicators might not have been suitable for taping the
importance of punitive discipline in predicting anti-
essential features of supervision in the younger years.
social behavior was apparent, a finding that is consis-
Thus, it seems probable that the Knutson et al. (2004)
tent with the work by Jaffee et al. (2004). Second,
model would fit data in which a more disadvantaged
there was strong evidence of the importance of care
sample was tested and better indices of care neglect,
neglect in the development of children’s aggression
supervisory neglect, and harsh discipline were avail-
and some evidence of the possible importance of
able. Thus, the current research is designed to repli-
supervisory neglect in the development of children’s
cate the theoretical model that specifies a causal role
aggression.
for care neglect, supervisory neglect, and harsh puni-
Although the Knutson et al. (2004) study provided
tive discipline in the development of children’s anti-
some empirical support for a theoretical model in
social behavior advanced by Knutson et al. (2004) by
which three components of deficient parenting (care
using a more neglecting, abusive, and disadvantaged
neglect, punitive discipline, and supervisory neglect)
sample of families and stronger multimethod and
contributed uniquely to the development of chil-
multisource indicators of the core constructs. Based
dren’s aggression and antisocial behavior, the fact
on the model advanced by Knutson et al. (2004) and
that supervision only played a role in the older cohort
their findings, a figure depicting the hypothesized
compromised reaching unequivocal conclusions
paths in a structural model are shown in Figure 1.
about the viability of the model. A number of limita-
tions of the Knutson et al. (2004) study, however, sug-
gested that a systematic replication would be useful. METHOD
First, although the sample used in that research was
Participants
drawn from a community with elevated risk for child
antisocial behavior (high juvenile arrest rates and Two hundred and eighteen mothers and their
community indices of delinquency), the recruited child who had been consecutively recruited at
sample represented a relatively broad range of socio- research sites in southeastern Iowa and north central
economic strata and a relatively low base rate of fami- Wisconsin during the first 28-month period of an
lies who had been identified by child protective ser- ongoing study of neglectful parenting and children’s
vices (CPS) agencies as being either physically abusive aggression participated in the current study.
or neglectful. Thus, the sample did not reflect high Although some single-parent fathers and fathers in

CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005

 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
two-parent households had been recruited, the num-
ber of fathers was too small to include in the analyses
for this article. Each recruited mother-child dyad had
to meet a number of eligibility criteria. First, the fam-
ily had to have a child between ages 4 and 8 years resid-
ing in the home at the time of recruitment. Second,
the family had to have been a recipient of social or
economic services at the time of recruitment. Services
could have been occasioned by the family being iden-
tified as physically abusive or neglecting, or because
of economic disadvantage. Families with children
known to have been sexually abused were not
included in the pool of potential participants. In addi-
tion, because the focus of the research was on parent-
child relational function, children who had been in
an out-of-home placement (i.e., foster care) or were
recipients of intensive in-home services were not
identified as eligible for participation.
The recruitment area of Iowa included two coun-
ties that encompassed two metropolitan areas classi-
fied as small urban and suburban, as well as rural agri-
cultural areas and several small towns. The
recruitment area of Wisconsin included two rural
counties characterized by several small towns, rural
development, as well as isolated rural living. In total,
the sample represented a broad range of degree of
urbanization; however, living arrangements
prototypical of inner-city environments (i.e., high-rise
apartments) were not represented. Many of the
recruited families, however, had recently relocated
from large urban areas of the Midwest (e.g., Chicago,
Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Gary-Hammond, Indiana;
Milwaukee, Wisconsin), and many of the children had
considerable exposure to inner-city life. The children
were slightly more racially diverse than the mothers;
64% of the mothers identified themselves as White,
23% African American, 5% Latino/a, 2% Native
American, 1% Asian, and 4% as multiracial. Children
were identified by their mothers as 56% White, 23%
African American, 5% Latino/a, 3% Native Ameri-
can, 1% Asian, and 12% as multiracial.1
At both of the recruitment sites, sentinel agencies
were used to identify potential research participants.
Because of the different structure of the provision of
social and economic services in the two states, slightly
different procedures were followed in Iowa and Wis-
consin. Basically, the appropriate state or county
agency produced a list of potential research partici-
pants at approximately quarterly intervals. Those
agencies identified families who had recently been
identified as having had a substantiated physical
abuse or neglect allegation, or who were receiving
state or county support (i.e., Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF); Title XIX). Families in
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
95
this target population are notoriously difficult to con-
tact and enroll in research. Focus groups with
members of the target population were conducted in
the community to identify factors that could compro-
mise or facilitate recruitment. Frequent address
changes, phone disconnection or number changes,
use of cell phones, unlisted numbers, caller ID, as well
as an acknowledged reluctance to open mail that
seems official or is from an unknown source were
noted by focus group participants. As a result, the
recruitment strategy that was adopted reflected some
of the recommendations of those focus groups.
Eligible families from the lists first received a letter
from an administrator of the social service agency
who was not in a service delivery role. The letter
informed potential participants of their eligibility to
participate in research on parenting and children’s
social development for which they would be compen-
sated at a rate of $50 per session, plus out-of-pocket
(i.e., transportation and babysitting) expenses. Par-
ents who did not respond to the initial letter received
a follow-up letter and, later, telephone contact by a
clerk employed by the project. In the letters, and in all
of the direct contacts, potential participants were
informed that participation was voluntary, and enroll-
ment or nonenrollment in the project would have no
influence on their receipt of any services from rele-
vant state or county agencies. When the eligible par-
ent indicated an interest in participation, an initial
appointment was scheduled in his or her home; dur-
ing that initial session the research protocol was
explained to the participant, and informed consent
was obtained. If the parent chose to participate in the
research, an initial structured interview was con-
ducted in the home immediately following the
informed consent procedure. For families in which
more than one child was eligible to participate, a
single child was randomly selected to be the research
participant.
Of the families on the eligibility lists, approxi-
mately 50% were known to have been actually con-
tacted by mail or phone. Of those, approximately 55%
scheduled an in-person, in-home appointment to
learn about the project. Of those who scheduled an
in-home interview and participated in the informed
consent process, all but one agreed to participate in
the project. The mother who declined to enroll was
the mother of twins, and she would not agree to enroll
if only one of the children could participate in the
study. A few potential participants repeatedly sched-
uled in-home sessions but were not home when the
research assistant arrived at the scheduled time. After
one third missed scheduled appointment, no further
efforts to recruit were made. Participant recruitment
96 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
and all of the procedures were conducted under the
aegis of The University of Iowa IRB-02.
Procedures
In developing indicators of the core constructs of
care neglect, supervisory neglect, and harsh punitive
discipline, a number of factors were considered. Most
important, it was deemed appropriate that all of the
indices of parenting be based on directly obtained
information rather than the use of administrative
data or agency records. In addition, for all of the con-
structs, a multimethod and multisource approach was
adopted. With the exception of the initial structured
interview and in-home assessment, all of the measures
were obtained in three laboratory sessions requiring
approximately 90 minutes each. Because of the longi-
tudinal nature of the project in which the current
study was embedded, additional measures that are
not the focus of this research were obtained but not
described in full. Only procedures and derived mea-
sures relevant to the scope of the current analyses are
described below.
In-home interview and environmental assessment.
When a parent agreed to participate in the research, a
structured interview designed to obtain background
and demographic information, as well as information
pertinent to the parenting constructs, was immedi-
ately conducted by a research assistant. In most in-
stances, one research assistant conducted the
interview and recorded participant responses while a
second research assistant recorded the participant’s
responses on a parallel form. This structured inter-
view was based, in part, on a modification of the
Home Observation for Measurement of the Environ-
ment (Caldwell & Bradley, 1978) recently developed
for use in the Project on Human Development in Chi-
cago Neighborhoods (PHDCN; Leventhal, Selner-
O’Hagan, Brooks-Gunn, Bingenheimer, & Earls,
2004) and, in part, on the information framework
that emerged from the recommendations of the Re-
search Subcommittee of the Interagency Task Force
on Child Abuse and Neglect (see Sternberg et al.,
2004). The interview also included questions regard-
ing supervision related to injury prevention, which
were derived from research by Peterson, Ewigman,
and Kivlahan (1993) and a home safety inventory
(Tymchuk, Lang, Dolyniuk, Berney-Ficklin, & Spitz,
1999). Because this interview was conducted in the
home of the child, it was also possible to obtain direct
information regarding evidence of neglect manifest
in the condition of the home, following the strategy
developed by PHDCN; that is, sleeping arrangements,
cleanliness, plumbing, personal hygiene of family
members, amount of space available to the number of
residents of the household, and any health or safety
hazards threatening children of the household could
be identified by the interviewer in a direct examina-
tion of the household. Following the interview, the re-
search assistants completed an objective checklist
while conducting a visual survey of the physical envi-
ronment in the vicinity of the participant’s home to
identify environmental hazards and the general con-
dition of the immediate community in which the
child resides (e.g., broken glass, drug paraphernalia,
houses in disrepair, boarded windows, trash). For par-
ticipants residing in a municipal area, an area within a
1-block radius was examined. For rural participants,
the area was generally comparable; however, the ar-
rangement of rural roads and sparse population
sometimes required a greater distance to evaluate the
status of nearby houses to complete the rating of the
community condition and accessible hazards.
Laboratory Assessments
Within a median of 26 days of the home visit, the
first of a series of laboratory sessions was completed.
Subsequent sessions were arranged as soon as possi-
ble; however, scheduling difficulties and missed
appointments occasionally resulted in protocol com-
pletion more than 60 days after enrollment. During
the first session, the parent was administered the
Reading and Spelling subtests of the Wide Range
Achievement Test (WRAT; Jastak Associates, 1993) to
establish literacy. For mothers who were not suffi-
ciently literate to complete the paper-and-pencil self-
report instruments of the protocol, those instruments
were administered in an interview format by a
research assistant.
Parent-child interaction task. Microsocial indices of
parent-child interaction were coded from videotaped
interactions between the mother and child while they
participated in a structured laboratory task during the
first session. This 45-minute parent-child laboratory
task was conducted in a room outfitted to approxi-
mate a living room setting, with comfortable stuffed
furniture, an end table, a coffee table, and appropri-
ate appointments. So coders are uninformed with re-
spect to the source of the families; the laboratory
rooms at the Wisconsin laboratory and the Iowa labo-
ratory are identical with respect to size, furnishings,
carpeting, and other appointments. The task begins
with a communication test in which the child first
plays an unfamiliar (i.e., commercially unpopular)
age-appropriate board game with an experimenter.
At that time, the parent completes a questionnaire on
child behavior issues in an adjacent room. After 5
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
minutes playing the game, the parent is brought to
the room and left alone with the child with the in-
struction to learn from the child what had just tran-
spired. The parent’s task is to learn as much as
possible about what the child did with the experi-
menter and the details of the game. After 5 minutes,
the child is removed from the room, and the experi-
menter interviews the parent to determine how suc-
cessfully she was able to obtain information from her
child. The second component of the laboratory task is
a social problem-solving task involving role-playing
and pretend activities by the parent and child based
on instructions given to the parent (e.g., preparing
for the visit of another family with a child who is dis-
liked by the participant child). The third component
involves the parent leading a discussion regarding the
most important of the child issues identified in the
questionnaire completed while the child played the
game with the experimenter. Fourth, the parent and
child engage in free play for 10 minutes. Finally, the
parent is to induce the child to straighten the room
and put the toys away. All of the parent-child interac-
tions are recorded using a remote control dome
camera.
Coding of parent-child interactions. The videotapes of
the structured parent-child interactions were coded
by a professional team of four behavior coders at Ore-
gon Social Learning Center (OSLC) using the Inter-
personal Process Code (IPC; Rusby, Estes, & Dishion,
1991). The IPC provides a real-time assessment of vir-
tually all verbal and nonverbal interactions among
family members by recording the Activity (the global
context or setting in which the interactions occur),
Content (a description of each verbal, nonverbal, and
physical behavior), and Affect (the emotional tone ac-
companying each content code) of the mother-child
interactions. The IPC was used to index the frequency
of maternal aversive and physically negative behaviors
(e.g., contempt, anger, hitting with hand, hitting with
an object, pinching, ear flicking, kicking, grabbing,
restraining, spitting, shoving) as well as those of the
child. To enhance reliability of the coding, the family
interaction tapes were aggregated and coded in a ran-
dom order. Of the sessions, 15% were randomly se-
lected for reliability checks throughout the time of
coding. Contrasts are made between coders who had
been most recently established as reliable and those
for whom the longest time had elapsed since the last
reliability assessment. This procedure permits the de-
tection of the potential problem of so-called observer
drift, a phenomenon in which coders have acceptable
levels of agreement across time but are simulta-
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
97
neously shifting steadily away from an established
standard (DeMaster, Reid, & Twentyman, 1976). The
effective agreement for occurrence was .89 for Con-
tent codes with a kappa coefficient of .80. The
effective agreement score for Affect codes was .93,
with a kappa of .76. The Activity code agreement was
.93.
Confidentiality and Child Safety
The entire project was conducted under a Certifi-
cate of Confidentiality issued by the office of the
National Institutes of Mental Health. The Certificate
was obtained with the provision in the informed con-
sent documents that the investigators would report to
relevant CPS agencies any circumstances that were
deemed to occasion risk to the child. Such circum-
stances could be identified from child interviews, par-
ent interviews, or direct observations. It should be
noted that the submission of such reports to CPS
agencies did not result in any loss of participants in
the protocol described in this article.
OPERATIONAL INDICATORS OF
THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS
Social Status
Four indicators constituted the social status con-
struct. Two scales were from the Home Environment
Questionnaire (HEQ; Laing & Sines 1982; Sines,
Clarke, & Lauer, 1984). The HEQ is a true-false ques-
tionnaire that uses objectively phrased items to obtain
information about the child’s environment from the
child’s parent. Developed using the rational-statistical
approach (Loevinger, 1956), the HEQ has eight
empirically derived scales measuring specific dimen-
sions of a child’s psychosocial environment, with each
of the scales assessing the presence of environmental
attributes and events that are theoretically important
for the expression of deviant and nondeviant child
behaviors (Murray & Sines, 1996). For the purpose of
the current research, two scales were selected as indi-
cators of the Social Status construct. The Achieve-
ment scale measures family conditions that model or
provide support for achievement on the part of the
child, and the Socioeconomic Status scale comprises
items that refer to activities and attitudes related to
academic and intellectual pursuits, as well as partici-
pation in community affairs. Two additional indica-
tors were mothers’ education and occupation. Educa-
tion ranged from 1 (never reached high school) to 8
(graduate or professional degree). Occupation ranged
from 1 (unskilled laborer) to 7 (professional). Students,
98 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
homemakers, and unemployed working status were
recoded to 1 to reflect economic contribution to the
social status indicator of occupational status.
Supervision and Tracking
As noted by Dishion and McMahon (1998), aware-
ness of child activities is a critical component of
parental monitoring. Thus, for the young children of
the current study, it was hypothesized that parental
awareness measured by congruence between parent
report and child report would serve as the optimal
index of supervision. Two congruence or concor-
dance scores were derived to measure effective super-
vision and tracking skills of the parent. As one mea-
sure, the parent and the child independently
completed the Children’s Experience and Excite-
ment Scale (CEES: Selner, 1992; Selner & Knutson,
1990) during the first laboratory session. The CEES
consists of 44 slides depicting children engaging in a
range of activities. To minimize sex-role responding,
there is one form for boys, with male actors, and
another form for girls, with female actors. In an inter-
view format, child participants are asked whether they
have ever engaged in the depicted activity. If they had
not engaged in the activity, they were asked whether
they have had the opportunity to do so. Without hav-
ing any knowledge of their child’s response to the
CEES slides, parents complete the CEES in a self-
report format by indicating whether their child has
ever engaged in the pictured activity. If they indicate
their child has not engaged in the activity, they indi-
cate whether the child ever had the opportunity to do
so. Concordance between child and parent reports of
experiences and opportunity provide an index of
supervision by adding mother-child affirmative
matched pairs and mother-child negative pairs across
all slides. The index ranged from 12 to 39 agreements
(M = 30.94, SD = 4.75).
The second index of supervision was the corre-
spondence between child report and parent report
on the Children’s Reinforcement Survey Schedule
(RSS; Clement & Richard, 1976). The RSS, adminis-
tered by interview, asks the children to identify the
people with whom they spend the most time, their
favorite foods, the toys they use most often, and the
places they spend the most time. They are also asked
to identify toys they do not have but would like, places
they would like to spend more time, and people with
whom they would like to spend more time. The par-
ent completes a paper-and-pencil RSS form. Based on
the work of Hall (1986), the effective agreement for
occurrence statistic between the child report and the
parent report is used an index of supervision (M = .35,
SD = .09).
Harsh Punitive Discipline
The punitive discipline construct was measured
with five indicators from multiple sources of data
involving direct observation, analog procedures, and
self-report. The self-report measures included a scale
of inconsistent discipline consisting of 11 items used
in Knutson et al. (2004) indicating a pattern of incon-
sistent or erratic discipline. Sample items included
“get angry when punishing child, how often parent
does not follow through on punishment, threaten
punishment to get child to do something, and so on.”
Cronbach’s alpha was .98. The second reported scale
was an index of abusive discipline resulting in injuries
to the child as a result of discipline. Ten items from
the home interview were scored as 0 (did not occur)
or 1 (has occurred) and then summed. Sample items
include “red marks that lasted more than 24 hours
from being spanked, bruises after being disciplined,
broken bones from being disciplined, child required
stitches after discipline, child spanked with object
other than a hand (e.g., belt, paddle, tree branch, hair
brush, other), unusual punishment (e.g., child tied
up, lock in closet, physically restrained, push ups,
etc.). The observed score ranged from 0 to 6 (M =
1.56, SD = 1.18).
The third indicator was a factor score of physical
responses and escalation in angry discipline in
response to Analog Parenting Task (APT) first
described by Zaidi, Knutson, and Mehm (1989). The
APT, consists of 28 slides, each depicting a child
engaging in a developmentally appropriate or devel-
opmentally inappropriate activity that could be irri-
tating or concerning to a child’s caretaker. Seven
scenes depict a child engaged in destructive acts (e.g.,
stepping on a calculator, tearing pages from a book),
seven scenes depict dangerous activities (e.g., loading
a revolver, hanging out the window of a moving car,
sitting on the edge of a roof), and seven depict rule-
violating behaviors (e.g., theft, drinking an alcoholic
beverage, smoking). The remaining scenes include
age-appropriate acts (e.g., spilling a jar of salsa, messy
play with toys). In response to each scene, the mother
is asked to imagine that she is charged with the
responsibility of caring for the depicted child, to indi-
cate her emotional reaction to the depicted child
(e.g., anger, worry, annoyance, amusement), and to
classify the depicted behavior (e.g., sloppy, destruc-
tive, dangerous, fine). After rating and classifying the
depicted behavior the participant is asked to select, in
a closed-set format, the disciplinary response she
would use if she were attempting to alter the child’s
behavior. Disciplinary choices included such acts as
ignoring, verbal reprimands, restricting of privileges,
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
spanking, striking other than spanking, and striking
with objects. Although the more severe acts were
potentially injurious, the possible injurious conse-
quences of the acts were not specified in the response
choices. After selecting a disciplinary strategy, the par-
ticipant was asked to indicate how many times she
would permit the child to engage in the depicted
behavior before changing her disciplinary response.
If the participant indicated that she would change her
disciplinary tactic, she was asked to indicate what that
next disciplinary alternative would be.
There are three primary dependent measures
obtained from the APT. The first was the frequency
with which the participant’s initial disciplinary choice
involved the use of physical discipline. The second
dependent measure was the use of escalated disci-
pline as described by Knutson and Bower (1994).
Escalated discipline is a circumstance where the par-
ticipant shifts from a nonphysical form of discipline to
physical discipline if the depicted child were to persist
in the displayed behavior. Escalated discipline can
also occur when the participant shifts from minor
physical discipline (e.g., spanking) to potentially inju-
rious discipline (e.g., striking with an object) within a
scene. The computed analog discipline indicator was
a factor score of total physical responses ranging from
0 to 15 (M = .48, SD = 1.46) and total escalated
responses ranging from 0 to 13 (M = 1.42, SD = 2.70),
because of the skewed distributions before combin-
ing, each score was log transformed (plus a constant
of 0.5 for zero values).
Based on the work of Greenwald, Bank, Reid, and
Knutson (1997), a third measure from the APT con-
tributed to the anger indicator in the punitive disci-
pline construct. This APT anger score was the number
of scenes that evoke an anger response from the par-
ent. Using the framework of Averill’s (1982) work on
normative and nonnormative anger experiences,
mothers completing the APT were asked to indicate
their emotional reaction to the depicted child scene,
with anger being among the possible responses. The
number of scenes evoking an anger response ranged
from 1.0 to 3.83 (M = 1.98, SD = .58, α = .91). The sec-
ond anger indicator was the State-Trait Anger Scale
(STAS: Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983)
that was administered during the second or third lab-
oratory session. The STAS score ranged from 19 to 65
(M = 29, SD = 6.15). The final anger composite indica-
tor was a factor score of the APT pictorial anger
response and the STAS.
The final indicator was from the IPC observational
coding system described above. Two scores consti-
tuted the indicator, the log-transformed frequency
count of total aversive behaviors (contempt, anger,
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
99
etc.), and the log-transformed count of total negative
physicals (e.g., hit, pinch, slap, etc.) of the mother
directed to the child.
Care Neglect and Environmental Neglect Index
In the Knutson et al. (2004) study, the assessment
of parental care neglect was relatively limited and
comprised a summative index using six items from a
home visitor and from teacher observations (e.g.,
child’s hygiene). One focus of the current study was to
develop a multisource measure of care neglect. Thus,
the assessment battery was expanded to include par-
ent report and objective observer ratings of care
neglect (e.g., child does not have a toothbrush), and
household environmental conditions that would
occasion social (household is overly crowded, inade-
quate illumination) and physical risks to a child
(unsafe stairs, inadequate plumbing, animal feces
present, accessible pharmaceuticals). Items were all
scored in a direction to indicate neglect and then
summed. Items were chosen based on their inclusion
in the research literature or recommendations from
the Interagency Task Force on Defining Child Mal-
treatment (see Sternberg et al., 2004) and were
obtained from parent interviews and also from
observer ratings of the home environment. Proximal
circumstances outside the home that could occasion
risk to the child that were observed during the home
visit (e.g., broken glass, drug paraphernalia) were also
included in the index. In selecting this summative risk
index, we considered item relevance or face validity,
avoided operational confounding with other con-
structs, and considered the importance of compre-
hensiveness as suggested by Turner and Wheaton
(1995). The obtained total neglect index scores
ranged from 1 to 20 (M = 9.56, SD = 3.67).
Child Aggression
Five indicators comprised the child aggression
construct. The first was the Child Behavior Checklist
long form (CBCL; Achenbach, 1992) completed by
the mothers during the first or second laboratory ses-
sion. The 1992 CBCL T scores were converted to 2001
norms using the Achenbach System of Educational
Based Assessment (ASEBA; Achenbach & Rescorla,
2000, 2001). Similarly, teachers directly working with
each child completed the Teacher Report Form
(TRF; Achenbach, 1991) behavior rating scales dur-
ing the spring semester following participant enroll-
ment, at time when they should be most familiar with
the child’s behavior. The 1991 TRF was also converted
to 2001 ASEBA norms.
As a third indicator, the child vignette was a mea-
sure of the child’s aggressive responses to four social
100 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
e1 Mother
Education .44
Social Status .80*
e2
HEQSS
**
Mothers' -.22*
*** Social
Achievement .73 Status
e3
HEQACH
***
.36
8*
.08
e4
Mother
Occupation -.2
Age Sex
of Child of Child
FIGURE 2: Child Aggression Factor Predicted by Mothers’ Social Status
NOTE: HEQ SS = Home Environment Questionnaire - Social Status scale; HEQ ACH = Home Environment Questionnaire - Achievement
scale; CBCL-T = Child Behavior Checklist Aggression Scale T-Score; IPC = Interpersonal Process Code; TRF T = Teacher Report Form Ag-
gression Scale T-Score.
χ2 = 43.30(46), p = .59, χ2/df = .94, CFI = 1.00.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
situational vignettes. For example, in one vignette a
child is hit in the head with a ball during play. The
index score summed the child’s endorsement of
either behavioral retaliation or hostile intent of the
child in the scenario, or both, thus the score could
range from 0 to 8 (M = 1.68, SD = 1.76). As a fourth
indicator, the interviewer rating of aggression was a
summative index of dichotomous items rated by the
interviewer in the home and at each laboratory visit.
Seven items constituted the checklist of items
rescored to indicate aggression: child struck parent,
positive to interviewer, cooperative, angry-irritable,
screamed or yelled, noncompliant, friendly to par-
ents. The final aggression indicator was from the IPC
observational coding system. The indicator was the
factor score of log-transformed negative physical
behaviors directed to the parent and the log-
transformed measure of aversive behaviors directed
to the parent.
Analytic Strategy
We employed structural equation path modeling
(SEM) to test a replication of the hypothesized associ-
ations in the theoretical model. SEM is a latent vari-
able regression technique that simultaneously com-
bines factor analyses with path analyses under the
assumptions of multivariate normality. SEM is partic-
ularly suited for multimethod multisource covariance
matrices used in the current study because of its abil-
ity to partial measurement error of constructs and,
more specifically, to specify error between same-
source indicators, thus controlling for certain types of
mono-method, mono-agent biases. Two control vari-
ables were used in the analyses. Age of the child mea-
CBC-L T e5
4
Child
** Scenarios
.5
D1 e6
0
.4
.39* Interviewer
Child Rating
e7
.31*
Aggression
log IPC
.4
8* Child to e8
r 2 .13 * Parent
TRF T e9
sured in numerical years and sex of the child coded 1
for female and 2 for male.
We estimated the SEM path models using Full
Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML). FIML uti-
lizes all portions of data in a covariance matrix to esti-
mate parameters in the model. SEM parameters are
typically estimated with list-wise deletion or mean-
substitution matrices. However, under assumptions
of random missing data, FIML produces optimally
efficient estimates of standard errors (Arbuckle,
1996; Wothke, 2000). Therefore, in the first step, we
conducted a missing value analysis of the variables
modeled in the SEM covariance matrix, including
controls. Little’s test of missingness uses the EM algo-
rithm to compare estimated mean and variance val-
ues of partial data cases with complete data cases. The
analysis indicated that the data were missing com-
pletely at random (MCAR), χ2 = 237.94(261), p = .84,
and that FIML was the optimal estimation procedure
for SEM.
RESULTS
Results of the first model specifying the association
of mothers’ social status affecting levels of child
aggression is presented in Figure 2. Standardized
coefficients are presented for the regression paths of
the latent variable factor loadings and regression
paths for prediction between the theoretical latent
constructs. The model obtained excellent fit to the
data with no significant difference between the speci-
fied theoretical model and the observed covariance
matrix, χ2 = 43.30(46), p = .59, χ2/df = .94, CFI = 1.00.
For estimation, the first indicator of social status (i.e.,
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION 101

e5 e6

log Abusive e8
CEES CRSS Index
Congruence Congruence

***
Analog

.2 .46
Physicals -

.38
.71
e9
Escalation

*
D3

9*
D1
r 2 .16 r 2.29
Supervision- * Anger
Tracking
-.53* .63** STAS - APT
e10
Punitive
Discipline .36
Mother *

.46
e1
Education .4 Inconsistent

.03
4 e11

**
Discipline

.2
5
-.0
Social Status .80

.33
*
*** †
-.21
e2

**
HEQSS log IPC
Social

-.29*
Mother to e12
.73*** Status -.06

.46*
Achieve- Child
e3
***
HEQACH

.01
.36
-.1

Mother

.22
CBCL T
2

e4 e13
Occupation D4 0

*
.7
** Child
.33 Scenarios e14
Care & .24* Child
Environmental Aggression .32*
2
r .12 Neglect .2 Interviewer e15
1* Rating
0
1.0

r 2.43
D2

.48
log IPC
Neglect Child to e16

**
e7 Index Parent

TRF T e17

FIGURE 3: Child Aggression Predicted by Mediating Parenting Constructs Controlling for Age and Sex of the Child
NOTE: CEES = Children’s Experience and Excitement Scale; CRSS = Concordance Scores from the Reinforcement Survey Schedule; HEQ
SS = Home Environment Questionnaire - Social Status scale; HEQ ACH = Home Environment Questionnaire - Achievement scale; STAS -
APT = Spielberger State-Trait Anger Scale Analog Parenting Task; IPC = Interpersonal Process Code; CBCL-T = Child Behavior Checklist Ag-
gression Scale T-Score; TRF T = Teacher Report Form Aggression Scale T-Score.
χ2 = 166.64(138), p = .05, χ2/df = 1.21, CFI = .90.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

education) and child aggression (i.e., CBCL-T) were
fixed at 1.0 in the unstandardized parameters to scale
the rest of the factor loadings. The remaining freely
estimated factor loadings for each construct were sig-
nificant and ranged from 0.31 to 0.80; meaning each
indicator significantly contributed to the common
variance underlying the theoretical construct.
Although this sample is rather homogeneous in
terms of being from lower socioeconomic strata, the
indicators operationalizing the social status construct
obtained factor variance that was significantly differ-
ent from zero (VAR = .44, SE = .07, p < .001); meaning
that although a relatively homogeneous sample was
recruited by design, there was a range in the mothers’
achieved and ascribed social status variables. Like-
wise, the factor measuring child aggression using five
independent sources of data (i.e., observer, teacher,
parent, child, and interviewer), obtained good con-
vergence and significant factor variance (VAR = 2.42,
SE = .79, p < .01). Regarding the effect of social status
on child aggression, the findings supported the theo-
retical model; higher levels of maternal social status
was associated with predicted lower levels of child
aggression (β = –.22, p < .05). Among the control vari-
ables, older children were estimated to be lower on
the multimethod construct of aggression compared
to younger children (β = –.28, p < .05). Overall, 13% of
the variance in child aggression was explained by
social status, and the findings in Figure 2 were consis-
tent with prior developmental research on harsh con-
textual factors of social disadvantage and protective
environmental factors of socioeconomic status and
consistent with the theoretical model that was used to
structure the current analyses (Knutson et al., 2004).
We next modeled the behavioral parenting mecha-
nism hypothesized to link social status to child aggres-
sion. These factors included multimethod indicators
of care neglect, supervision tracking, and harsh puni-
tive discipline. To evaluate generalizability of the the-
oretical model, paths among the constructs were
specified in accordance to the associations modeled
in Knutson et al. (2004) using the longitudinal pre-
ventive intervention sample from Oregon. Results for
the effects of parenting mechanisms in the current
sample are displayed in Figure 3 using standardized
path coefficients. For visual clarity, the paths for the
control variables were suppressed in the final figure.

CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005

102 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
The fully specified path model obtained adequate
fit to the data, χ2 = 166.64(138), p = .05, χ2/df = 1.21,
CFI = .90, the χ2 minimization coefficient comparing
the theoretical model and the observed covariance
was not significantly different, the comparative fit was
.90 or higher and the χ2 ratio χ2/df was below the con-
servative value of 2.00 (Byrne, 1989). Each of the
respective factor loadings obtained significant contri-
butions to the communality of factor variance.
The theoretical model was supported by the data.
Starting from left to right with social status, the direct
path from social status to aggression was rendered
nonsignificant on entering the intervening mecha-
nisms. Further, social status was marginally associated
with lower levels of punitive discipline (β = –.21, p <
.10), meaning that punitive discipline, in combina-
tion with supervision and neglect, mediated or
accounted for the effect that social status had on child
aggression.
Among the parenting constructs, supervision
tracking measured by the congruence indicators pre-
dicted lower levels of neglect (β = –.29, p < = .05) and
lower levels of punitive discipline (β= –.53, p < .05).
Harsh and angry punitive discipline, in turn, pre-
dicted higher levels of child aggression (β = .46, p <
.05). In addition, care and environmental neglect sig-
nificantly predicted child aggression (β = .24, p < .05).
The addition of the intervening parenting mecha-
nisms accounted for a 30% increase in explained vari-
ance of child aggression (r 2 = .43). Among the control
variables (paths not shown), boys were associated with
lower supervision (β = –.34, p < .01), and older chil-
dren were associated with greater supervision (β = .20,
p < .05). All other paths were not significantly differ-
ent from zero, including the direct effect of age on
aggression shown in Figure 2 (p = .11 in Figure 3).
Three correlation paths were estimated among resid-
ual error terms in the final model to control for
method or agent bias contributing to shared variance
in the factor regression paths; these included the
covariance between the IPC observational scores
(re12,e16 = .22, p < .05) and the covariance among the
parent reported scales rated on Likert-type scales
(re10,e13 = .46 and re11,e13 = .33, p < .01). Thus, any poten-
tial coder bias or response-set bias by the parents was
controlled in the model test. Substantively identical
results are obtained constraining all residual
covariances or freeing those shown.
DISCUSSION
When theoretical models are replicated with inde-
pendent samples that are significantly different on
important dimensions, and when the test uses vari-
a b l e s that ar e the o r e ti c a l l y c o nsi s te nt b u t
methodologically different, the theoretical model is
submitted to a more demanding test (see Meehl,
1978). When the obtained results are similar, we gain
greater confidence in our ability to generalize about
the underlying theoretical mechanisms (Conger,
Patterson, & Ge, 1995; DeGarmo & Forgatch, 2004;
Dishion, Patterson, & Kavanagh, 1992), particularly
when results replicate across samples with appreciably
different characteristics. With those considerations in
mind, the most significant finding of the current
study was the systematic replication of the earlier test
of the theoretical model advanced by Knutson et al.
(2004). In the earlier test of the model, care neglect,
supervisory neglect, and harsh discipline were shown
to play distinguishable roles in determining the
impact of social and economic disadvantage on the
development of children’s antisocial behavior.
Although the current findings replicated the pattern
of the fifth-grade cohort more closely than the first-
grade cohort in that supervision and tracking pre-
dicted neglect, and neglect was directly associated
with child aggression in the current study, it is impor-
tant to note that Knutson et al. (2004) had hypothe-
sized a significant role for supervisory neglect in both
samples in the earlier research. In view of the fact that
the current sample is more suitable for identifying the
circumstances of care neglect, supervisory neglect,
and harsh punitive parenting than the high risk, but
appreciably more normative, sample of the Knutson
et al. (2004) study, the parallels between the two
studies argue even more for the viability of the
theoretical model.
The difference between the earlier sample and the
current sample is, perhaps, most telling in the differ-
ence in the parental aversives coded from the parent-
child interactions in the two samples. The mean num-
ber of aversive behaviors per minute of interaction
(i.e., rate per minute) was significantly higher for the
current sample compared to the sample from Oregon
used in the Knutson et al. (2004) study (M = 1.00 and
.47, p < .001, respectively, for aversives and M = .14 and
.09, p = .06, respectively, for negative physicals). Thus,
using a much more at-risk and socially disadvantaged
sample the theoretical model advanced by Knutson
et al. (2004) was closely replicated in distinguishing
dimensions of maltreatment.
Another factor that underscores the viability of the
theoretical model is the fact that the indicators of the
constructs were obtained with theoretically consistent
but operationally different approaches in the two
studies. In the current study, the indices of deficient
parenting are based on much more direct
multimethod indicators than was possible in the
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
Knutson et al. (2004) study. In many ways, it is the rep-
lication of the model using these more specific and
direct indicators that provides the strongest support
for the theoretical model. Thus with significantly dif-
ferent samples and different indicators of the core
constructs, Knutson et al. (2004) and the current
study indicate that the three distinguishable attrib-
utes of deficient parenting play a role in the develop-
ment of children’s aggression and antisocial behav-
ior. Even with the truncated range that comes with a
sample that is recruited entirely from a disadvantaged
population, the current study replicated the well-
established link between socioeconomic disadvan-
tage and poor child outcome (e.g., Bornstein &
Bradley, 2003; Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Maritato,
1997). More important, however, was the finding that
the link between socioeconomic disadvantage and
the development of children’s aggression was medi-
ated by the parenting variables of care neglect, poor
supervision, and harsh punitive discipline. Evans
(2004) called for an assessment of the cumulative
risks that confront children reared in poverty and the
need to directly study the myriad of suboptimal physi-
cal and social conditions that are associated with pov-
erty and how those variables play important process
roles in the development of children. When the cur-
rent findings are considered in concert with other
studies that involve observations of parent-child inter-
actions in disadvantaged groups (e.g., Conger, Con-
ger, & Elder, 1997; DeGarmo, Forgatch, & Martinez,
1999), an argument can be advanced that multi-
method investigations of parenting include assess-
ments of the unique contributions of care neglect,
ineffective supervision, and punitive discipline as
essential components in studies of disadvantageous
social and physical environments and the develop-
ment of children’s aggression. Moreover, the findings
underscore the view that research on the outcomes of
child maltreatment, and clinicians working with
families, need to examine the multiple forms of
maltreatment in concert rather than focusing on a
single form of maltreatment (Dong et al., 2004)
It is impressive that social disadvantage operated
the same with respect to supervisory neglect in three
samples across two studies, and that supervision, mea-
sured in very different ways, operated the same in the
fifth-grade cohort in the Knutson et al. (2004) study
and in the current sample. In much research with
young children, supervisory neglect is inferred when
apparently preventable tragic events occur, such as
house fires (playing with a cigarette lighter) or drown-
ing (not wearing a personal flotation device [PFD]).
Inadequate monitoring has played a central role in
social learning models of the development of antiso-
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
103
cial and aggressive behavior in adolescents (e.g.,
Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992);
and, at present, inadequate monitoring could be seen
as a developmental extension of supervisory neglect.
However, deficient monitoring generally has not
been extended to children as young as those enrolled
in the current study because of the developmental
appropriateness of self-reported measures of chil-
dren’s activities outside of the home (e.g., time spent
at friend’s home, time arriving home, reports of
unobserved activities with peers, etc.). In most
respects, the measure of supervision and tracking in
the current study is an index of awareness of child
activity regardless of developmental independence of
the child. In adolescence, such an awareness can be
seen as either a component of effective monitoring
(Dishion & McMahon, 1998) or as a reflection of
child-to-parent disclosure (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000;
Kerr, Stattin, & Trost, 1999). It is interesting to note,
whether parental awareness of adolescent behavior is
a prerequisite for effective monitoring or even
whether parental solicitation of information from an
adolescent could have adverse effects has occasioned
considerable debate in analyses of adolescent con-
duct problems (see Brody, 2003; Capaldi, 2003;
Hayes, Hudson, & Matthews, 2003, 2004; Kerr &
Stattin, 2003). Although the methodology of the cur-
rent study does not offer definitive information as to
whether the parental awareness is attributable to the
child’s willingness to disclose or the parent’s willing-
ness to solicit information, it does suggest that the
awareness is an important factor in determining
childhood aggression long before adolescence, when
monitoring is most often studied.
More important, in social learning models of chil-
dren’s conduct problems, poor monitoring has been
conceptualized as a consequence of the coercive pro-
cess, with parent-adolescent conflict seen as compro-
mising the monitoring process. In the current study,
as well as in the Knutson et al. (2004) study, it would
seem that poor supervision (inadequate awareness) is
a precursor to harsh discipline in the ontogeny of
child and, perhaps, adolescent aggression. The cur-
rent replication of supervisory neglect, predicting
care neglect independent of social status, suggests
that awareness and tracking of basic needs and aware-
ness of the child’s wants and desires are important
prerequisites of skillful parenting and providing care.
Somewhat related developmental studies have exam-
ined how maternal responsiveness, attention, and
rejection of irritable infants can predict growth in
externalizing behavior (cf., Owens, Shaw, & Vondra,
1998; Shaw et al., 1998). In relation to other aspects of
parenting, the current data also suggest that aware-
104 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
ness and tracking could be an important skill set for
identifying and applying appropriate discipline.
Unequivocal support for that hypothesis would
require cross-lagged evaluations within a prospective
longitudinal design employing measures of tracking,
neglect, and discipline that are developmentally
appropriate across early and late childhood.
In addition to the improved understanding of the
specific role of parenting in the development of chil-
dren’s aggression, the current study also makes a
methodological contribution to the measurement of
neglectful parenting and harsh punitive discipline.
One of the chronic problems in maltreatment
research has been the reliance on administrative data
to establish the critical independent variables. The
use of such administrative data has occasioned criti-
cism by the National Research Council (1993) and
spawned a number of efforts by federal agencies to
consider strategies for operationally defining mal-
treatment (see Sternberg et al., 2004). The current
findings document that it is possible to establish
investigator-based multimethod and multisource
indicators of the core constructs of care neglect,
supervisory neglect, and harsh punitive discipline,
and to link those constructs in a meaningful theoreti-
cal framework. In addition to providing a flexible and
robust tool for evaluating a theoretical model, the
SEM analyses provide a means for assessing the utility
and the validity of multimethod and multisource
strategies for measuring conditions of child maltreat-
ment. Rather than treating either care neglect, super-
visory neglect, or harsh punitive discipline as a cate-
gorical variable, the SEM approach makes it possible
to develop indices of deficient parenting that are dis-
tributed continuously, thus offering analytic advan-
tage as well as being consistent with theoretical frame-
works that treat child maltreatment as a continuous
variable rather than a categorical one (e.g., Green-
wald et al., 1997; Knutson & Bower, 1994). In short,
the current findings establish the feasibility of
studying circumstances of child maltreatment with-
out relying on administrative data to operationally
define the critical variables.
Although the current findings provide consider-
able support for a model that integrates the putative
effects of supervisory neglect, care neglect, and puni-
tive discipline in the development of children’s
aggressive behavior, the findings do not necessarily
provide a complete picture. As suggested above, it is
critical to examine the role of these parenting factors
in the context of a prospective longitudinal design;
that is, it is important to show how these parental fac-
tors influence the developmental course of children’s
antisocial and aggressive behavior. In addition, the
model does not include a consideration of possible
temperamental factors operating within the children
or at a family level, with parents and children sharing
a biological substrate (see Rutter, Pickles, Murray, &
Eaves, 2001, for a critical discussion of such designs).
In short, these replicated data suggest the addition of
supervisory and care neglect are important independ-
ent effects within developmental models; however,
much more work on neglectful parenting, harsh
discipline, and social disadvantage in the develop-
ment of aggression is required.
NOTE
1. Although this was a diverse sample, racial or ethnic
variation was not a theoretical focus of the study design. In-
sufficient power at this point is available to conduct a mean-
ingful examination of between- or within-group variation in
the theoretical process. At a reviewer’s request, tests of
mean differences were conducted on the latent variable fac-
tor scores; no statistically significant differences were found
between minority and nonminority participants.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and
1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Revised Child Behavior Checklist.
Burlington: University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA
preschool forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Ver-
mont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA
school-age forms & profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont,
Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence
of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumaker
(Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques
(pp. 243-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Bank, L., & Burraston, B. (2001). Abusive home environments as
predictors of poor adjustment during adolescence and early
adulthood. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 195-217.
Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer rela-
tionships and self-esteem among children who have been mal-
treated. Child Development, 69, 1171-1197.
Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Socioeconomic status,
parenting, and child development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Brody, G. H. (2003). Parental monitoring: Action and reaction. In
A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family
dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 163-169).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Maritato, N. (1997). Poor fami-
lies, poor outcomes: The well-being of children and youth. In
G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up
poor (pp. 1-17). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer for LISREL: Basic applications and pro-
gramming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1978). Home observation and mea-
surement of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas
Press.
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
Capaldi, D. M. (2003). Parental monitoring: Action and reaction.
In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family
dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 171-179).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clement, P., & Richard, R. (1976). Identifying reinforcers for chil-
dren: A children’s reinforcement survey. In E. Mash & R. Terdal
(Eds.), Behavior therapy assessment: Diagnosis, design and evaluation
(pp. 207-216). New York: Springer.
Conger, R., Patterson, G. R., & Ge, X. (1995). It takes two to repli-
cate: A mediational model for the impact of parents’ stress on
adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 66, 80-97.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Elder, G. H. J. (1997). Family eco-
nomic hardship and adolescent adjustment: Mediating and
moderating processes. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.),
Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 288-310). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
DeGarmo, D. S., & Forgatch, M. S. (2004). Putting problem solving
to the test: Replicating experimental interventions for prevent-
ing youngsters’ problem behaviors. In R. D. Conger, F. O.
Lorenz, & K. A. S. Wickrama (Eds.), Continuity and change in fam-
ily relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings (pp. 267-290).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DeGarmo, D. S., Forgatch, M. S., & Martinez, C. R. J. (1999).
Parenting of divorced mothers as a link between social status
and boys’ academic outcomes: Unpacking the effects of SES.
Child Development, 70(5), 1231-1245.
DeMaster, B. R., Reid, J. B., & Twentyman, C. (1976). The effects of
different amounts of feedback on observers’ reliability. Behavior
Therapy, 8, 317-329.
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and
the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A
conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 1, 61-75.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Greisler, P. C. (1994). Peer adap-
tation in the development of antisocial behavior. In. L. R.
Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 61-
95). New York: Plenum.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Kavanagh, K. A. (1992). An exper-
imental test of the coercion model: Linking theory, measure-
ment, and intervention. In J. McCord & R. Tremblay (Eds.), The
interaction of theory and practice: Experimental studies of interventions
(pp. 253-282). New York: Guilford.
Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R.
(1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships.
Behavior Therapy, 27, 373-390.
Dodge, K. A., Laird, R., Lochman, J. E., & Zelli, A. (2002). Multidi-
mensional latent-construct analysis of children’s social informa-
tion processing patterns: Correlations with aggressive behavior
problems. Psychological Assessment, 14, 60-73.
Dong, M., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Dube, S. R., Williamson, D. F.,
Thompson, T. J., et al. (2004). The interrelatedness of multiple
forms of childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 771-784.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare
reform, and child development. Child Development, 71, 188-196.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Eco-
nomic deprivation and early childhood development. Child
Development, 65, 296-319.
Eckenrode, J., Laird, M., & Doris, J. (1993). School performance
and disciplinary problems among abused and neglected chil-
dren. Developmental Psychology, 29, 53-62.
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 59, 77-92.
Flango, C. R. (1988). State courts’ jurisdiction and terminology for child
abuse and neglect cases. Williamsburg, VA, National Center for
State Courts.
Giovannoni, J. (1985, November 10). Overview of issues on child
neglect. In Child Neglect Monograph: Proceedings from a symposium
(pp. 1-6). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human
Services, Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
Information.
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
105
Greenwald, R. L., Bank, L., Reid, J. B., & Knutson, J. F. (1997). A
discipline-mediated model of excessively punitive parenting.
Aggressive Behavior, 23, 259-280.
Hall, L. (1986). Parent awareness of children’s activities and preferences.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa
City.
Hanson, T. L., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E. (1997). Economic
resources, parental practices, and children’s well-being. In G. J.
Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor
(pp. 190-238). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hayes, L., Hudson, A., & Matthews, J. (2003). Parental monitoring:
A process model of the parent-adolescent interaction. Behavior
Change, 20, 13-24.
Hayes, L., Hudson, A., & Matthews, J. (2004). Parental monitoring
behaviors: A model of rules, supervision, and conflict. Behavior
Therapy, 35, 587-604.
Hegar, R. L., & Yungman, J. J. (1989). Toward a causal typology of
child neglect. Child and Youth Services Review, 11, 203-220.
Henry, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1996). Tempera-
mental and familial predictors of violent and nonviolent crimi-
nal convictions: Age 3 to age 18. Developmental Psychology, 32,
614-623.
Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Taylor, A. (2004). Physical
maltreatment victim to antisocial child: Evidence of an environ-
mentally mediated process. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113,
44-55.
Jastak Associates. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington,
DE: Wide Range.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Eckenrode, J. (1996). The effects of
neglect on academic achievement and disciplinary problems: A
developmental perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 161-169.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know
it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support
for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology,
36, 366-380.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or
reaction? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence
on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121-
151) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you is to trust you:
Parents’ trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Jour-
nal of Adolescence, 22, 737-752.
Knutson, J. F., & Bower, M. E. (1994). Physically abusive parenting
as an escalated aggressive response. In M. Potegal & J. F.
Knutson (Eds.), The escalation of aggression in dyads and groups:
Biological and social processes (pp. 195-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Knutson, J. F., DeGarmo, D. S., & Reid, J. B. (2004). Social disadvan-
tage and neglectful parenting as precursors to the development
of antisocial and aggressive child behavior: Testing a theoretical
model. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 187-205.
Knutson, J. F., & Schartz, H. A. (1997). Physical abuse and neglect
of children. In T. A. Widiger, A. J. Frances, H. A. Pincus, R. Ross,
M. B. First, & W. Davis (Eds.), DSM-IV sourcebook (Vol. 3, pp. 713-
804) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Press.
Laing, J. A., & Sines, J. O. (1982). The Home Environment Ques-
tionnaire: An instrument for assessing several behavioral rele-
vant dimensions of children’s environments. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 7, 424-449.
Leventhal, T., Selner-O’Hagan, M. B., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Bingenheimer, J. B., & Earls, F. J. (2004). The homelife inter-
view from the project on human development in Chicago
neighborhoods: Assessment of parenting and home environ-
ment for 3- to 15-year-olds. Parenting: Science & Practice, 4, 211-
241.
Loevinger, J. (1956). Objective tests as instruments of psychological
theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1994). The impact of sub-
type, frequency, chronicity, and severity of child maltreatment
on social competence and behavior problems. Development and
Psychopathology, 6, 121-143.
106 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl,
Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806-834.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single
parent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child devel-
opment. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
Murray, K. T., & Sines, J. O. (1996). Parsing the genetic and
nongenetic variance in children’s depressive behavior. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 38, 23-34.
National Research Council. (1993). Understanding child abuse and
neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Office of Human Development Services. (1981). National Study of
the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Office of Human Development Services. (1988). Study findings:
Study of national incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect:
1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Owens, E. B., Shaw, D. S., & Vondra, J. I. (1998). Relations between
infant irritability and maternal responsiveness in low-income
families. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(4), 761-777.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys.
Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (1999). Intraindividual growth in
covert antisocial behavior: A necessary precursor to chronic and
adult arrests? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 9, 24-38.
Peterson, L., Ewigman, B., & Kivlahan, C. (1993). Judgments
regarding appropriate child supervision to prevent injury: The
role of environmental risk and child age. Child Development, 64,
934-950.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The
impact of after-school peer contact on early adolescent
externalizing problems is moderated by parental monitoring,
perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment. Child
Development, 70, 768-778.
Rusby, J. C., Estes, A., & Dishion, T. (1991). The Interpersonal Process
Code (IPC). Eugene: Oregon Social Learning Center.
Rutter, M., Pickles, A., Murray, R., & Eaves, L. (2001). Testing
hypotheses on specific environmental causal effects on behav-
ior. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 291-324.
Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Third national incidence
study of child abuse and neglect: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth, and
Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Selner, M. E. (1992). The role of childhood sensation seeking and parental
supervision in the emergence of childhood psychopathology. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Selner, M. E., & Knutson, J. F. (1990, May 3). The development of the
Children’s Experience and Excitement Scale. Paper presented at the
Midwestern Psychological Association Meeting, Chicago.
Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E. B., Owens, E. B., Vondra, J. I., Cohn, J. F., &
Bell, R. Q. (1998). The development of early externalizing
problems among children from low-income families: A
transformational perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
ogy, 26(2), 95-107.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emo-
tional dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization
in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349-
363.
Sines, J. O., Clarke, W. M., & Lauer, R. M. (1984). Home Environ-
ment Questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12,
519-529.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G. A., Russell, S., & Crane, R. (1983).
Assessment of anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N.
Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assess-
ment (Vol. 2, pp. 52-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Harris, E., Hanish, L., Fabes, R. A.,
Kupanoff, K., et al. (2004). The relation of children’s everyday
nonsocial peer play behavior to their emotionality, regulation,
and social functioning. Developmental Psychology¸ 40, 67-80.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., &
Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and
competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritar-
ian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65,
754-770.
Sternberg, K. J., Knutson, J. F., Lamb, M. E., Bradaran, L. P., Nolan,
C., & Flanzer, S. (2004). The Child Maltreatment Log: A PC-
based program for describing research samples. Child Maltreat-
ment, 9, 30-48.
Sullivan, P. M., & Knutson, J. F. (1998). The association between
child maltreatment and disabilities in a hospital-based pediatric
sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 271-288.
Sullivan, P. M., & Knutson, J. F. (2000). Maltreatment and disabili-
ties: A population-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 24, 1257-1274.
Trocmé, N. (1996). Development and preliminary evaluation of
the Ontario Child Neglect Index. Child Maltreatment, 1, 145-155.
Turner, R. J., & Wheaton, B. (1995). Checklist measurement of
stressful life events. In S. Cohen, R. C. Kessler, & L. U. Gordon
(Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists
(pp. 29-57). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tymchuk, A. J., Lang, C. M., Dolyniuk, C. A., Berney-Ficklin, K., &
Spitz, R. (1999). The Home Inventory of Dangers and Safety
Precautions-2: Addressing critical needs for prescriptive assess-
ment devices in child maltreatment and in healthcare. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 23, 1-14.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
on Children Youth, and Families. (2001). Child maltreatment
1999. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
on Children Youth, and Families. (2002). Child maltreatment
2000. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Viermö, V. (1996). Factors in childhood that predict later criminal
behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 87-97.
Widom, C. S. (1998). Child victims: Searching for opportunities to
break the cycle of violence. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7,
225-234.
Wothke, W. (2000). Longitudinal and multi-group modeling with
missing data. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert
(Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multiple group data: Practical
issues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 269-281).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zaidi, L. Y., Knutson, J. F., & Mehm, J. G. (1989). Transgenerational
patterns of abusive parenting: Analog and clinical tests. Aggres-
sive Behavior, 15, 137-152.
Zuravin, S. J. (1999). Child neglect: A review of definitions and
measurement research. In H. Dubowitz (Ed.), Neglected children:
Research, practice, and policy (pp. 24-46). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
John F. Knutson received his Ph.D. in psychology from Washing-
ton State University. After a postdoctoral fellowship in medical psy-
chology at the University of Oregon Medical School, he joined the
faculty at The University of Iowa, where he has remained for 35
years. His current research focuses on the relational aspects of
neglectful parenting and punitive discipline, exposure to domestic
violence, the impact of maltreatment on children’s social competence
and antisocial behavior, as well as the association between
maltreatment and disabilities.
David DeGarmo earned a doctorate in sociology from the Univer-
sity of Akron in 1993 and was a postdoctoral fellow of the National
Institute of Mental Health Family Research Consortium. His
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
 Knutson et al. / NEGLECT AND HARSH PARENTING A REPLICATION
theoretical focus is on integrating social learning models and social
structure/social causation models to understand longitudinal fam-
ily adjustment within social class, family structure, support net-
works, and ethnic contexts. Currently, he is conducting a 4-year
study of divorced father families focusing on the social and behav-
ioral adjustment of divorced fathers, their children, and the impact
of supportive confidants.
Gina Koeppl earned her Ph.D. in psychology from Duke Univer-
sity in 1983 and then completed a postdoctoral fellowship in pediat-
ric psychology at the University of Iowa. Since 2000, she has been an
associate research scientist in the Department of Psychology associ-
ated with the Rhinelander, Wisconsin, parenting laboratory, where
she is also the clinical director of outpatient behavioral services for
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2005
107
Ministry Behavioral Health–Northern Region. Her areas of exper-
tise include parenting interventions, child abuse and neglect, and
forensic psychology for children’s issues.
John B. Reid received a doctorate in psychology (University of
Oregon, 1967) and held positions at the University of Wisconsin
(1967 to 1971) and the Oregon Research Institute (1971 to 1978).
With Gerald Patterson, he helped found the Oregon Social Learning
Center in 1978, where he has worked on the development of life
course models of externalizing behavior, positive and coercive
parenting, and using those models to inform the development of pre-
ventive and intervention trials. Currently, he is working on develop-
mental intervention models for children in the child welfare system.