Análisis de los datos de calidad de las aguas

H1: Family Eating a Meal together Rationale

The importance of family socialisation practices, including routines such as the family sitting down to eat a meal together, is underscored by research which shows that children (Skinner, Carruth, Moran et al, 1998) and adolescents (Neumark-Sztainer, Hannan, Story et al, 2003) who eat meals with other family members tend to have superior nutritional profiles than those who do not. It has also been suggested that eating together at family mealtimes, and the ensuing intra-familial interactions, can contribute to the psychosocial development of children (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2003).

Measure

A simple one item measure recorded the number of times in the past week that the family had sat down to eat an evening meal together.

H2 – H3: Parenting style (LSAC Parenting Measure) Rationale and measure

Parenting styles differ from parenting practices in that parenting styles set the tone for interactions, rather than being goal-directed attempts at socializing a child. Although parenting styles are to some extent culture-bound, research in westernised societies indicates that an authoritative parenting style is associated with optimal outcomes for the child. Parenting styles characterised by high warmth and high control have been widely associated with positive child outcomes in emotional, social, and behavioural development (e.g. Avenevoli, Sessa & Steinberg, 1999; Steinberg, Elmen & Mounts, 1989), with more recent research indicating that parenting style may be a mediator in the relationship between poverty and children’s wellbeing. Scott (2008) also points to harsh and inconsistent parenting as a major risk factor for child behaviour problems, while it is believed that some of the factors that feed into this directly and indirectly include domestic violence, parental drug abuse, maternal depression, family poverty, parents with low education, stressed families and single parent status (Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2008; Bloomquist & Schnell, 2005).

Although there is considerable continuity in parents’ child-rearing orientations, parents modify their behaviours in response to their children’s developing abilities and needs (Gralinski and Kopp, 1993). With the current wave of data, it will be possible to look at whether parenting styles have changed since age 3.

Measure

Questions H2 and H3 (on parenting style) were taken from LSAC. They yield scores for each of three important parenting dimensions: warmth (6 items), hostility (6 items) and consistency (5 items) that have been shown to mediate child outcomes. As the measure performed well in both the Australian study and in Wave 2 of the Infant Cohort in Growing Up in Ireland, it was repeated with the cohort at five years of age.

H4: Parental Work-life Balance Rationale

The issue of work-life balance is of increasing interest to researchers given the greater work demands placed on individuals and a larger number of women participating in the labour market. More recent focus has turned to the actual quality of the work experience for parents, and the bi-directional influence between this and family life, including the division of household and care-giving duties. Rather than focus on the fact that parents work, researchers have begun to focus instead on how they work (Galinsky, 1999). Some research indicates that, even when job characteristics and other factors were controlled, work-family tension was higher among those with young children and among women (O’Connell & Russell, 2005). Considering other factors such as family context and work patterns, for example, researchers will be able to compare the findings from the Irish study with those from Australia. It is also likely that any discernible impact on child outcomes will have potentially important implications for employment policies.

Measure

Parental satisfaction with their current work-life balance was assessed using 4 questions adapted from LSAC and which had previously been used with the infant and middle childhood cohort at Wave 1. These questions tap not only the impact of work on family life, but also the impact of family on working life, and will offer an opportunity to explore work-life balance in the context of the child’s age. This question has been used in all previous waves of the study.

H5: Parental Social Support Rationale

A sizeable body of literature indicates that social support has powerful mediating influences on personal and familial wellbeing (Dunst, Trivette & Cross, 1986; Armstrong, Birnie- Lefcovitch and Ungar, 2005). Moreover, previous studies have shown that the quality and quantity of social supports are positively associated with physical and psychological wellbeing (Dolbier & Steinhardt, 2000). Social support has been highlighted in a number of studies as impacting on mother-child interactions. For example, Cochran (1993) summarised a number of studies that reported more positive mother-child interactions for those mothers enjoying

strong social support. Hashima and Amato (1994) also found that perceived social support was negatively related to parent’s reports of punitive behaviour, particularly when income was low. Good social support from friends and family has also been associated with good social and educational outcomes among children and adolescents living with adversity (Wyman et al., 1999; Masten et al., 1999). Mathiesen and Prior also found a link between children’s social competence and parental social support (2006).

Measure

A simple one item question derived from LSAC which asks the respondent the extent to which they feel they get enough help or support from family or friends living outside the home, with responses rated on a four-point scale ranging from I get enough help through to I don’t need any help, was included. Questions were also asked about grandparental involvement and support and are discussed in the next section.

H6 – H8: Grandparental involvement Rationale

Researchers have found that the relationship between adult children and their parents is an important one as they can often play a strategic role in helping the individual over the life course (Eggebeen & Hogan 1990; Rossi and Rossi 1990). Furthermore, Kanaiaupuni and collaborators (2005) found important implications for child well-being, in that extended family networks are associated with better child health outcomes. Additionally, perceptions of available support have positive relationships with economic wellbeing (Henly, Danziger & Shira, 2005).

Measure

Questions H6 – H8 were a series of questions derived from the Growing Up in Scotland which were designed to ascertain the degree and extent of grandparental involvement in the Study Child’s life. Respondents were asked whether the Study Child was in regular contact with his/her grandparents (H6), how many grandparents were still alive (H7), and the number of grandparents the Study Child had a close or very close relationship with (H8).

H9: Child deprivation Rationale

Recent research on childhood deprivation in Ireland has shown that even when resources are limited, the level of child-specific deprivation is lower than the overall level of basic deprivation in the household. In the 5 year pilot, a small group of children was identified as being exposed to child-specific deprivation (see Thornton and Williams, 2016). This pattern was associated with the household having lower income, mother’s age and education, and with the number of parents in the household.

Measure

This measure looks specifically at goods and services which children lack because the household cannot afford them, such as properly fitting shoes, having books at home, having indoor games, affording to go on school trips, and having a suitable place to study or do homework.

H10: Stressful life events Rationale

The nature and number of stressful life events experienced by the Study Child may have implications for current and future wellbeing. For example, experience of parental separation has been associated with increases in behavioural/emotional problems (e.g. Cheng, Dunn, O'Connor, & Golding, 2006). Previous and current research has also shown that the number of adverse life events experienced by a child tends to be socially driven with those in lower social classes tending to experience a higher number of life events.

Measure

This question has previously been asked at both waves of the child cohort and provides a list of potentially disturbing and/or traumatic events, including moving house, experience of parental conflict, mental disorder in immediate family, drug taking/ alcoholism in immediate family, and death of a parent. The respondent also had the opportunity to describe a disturbing event not covered in the list. This is the first time the question has been used with the infant cohort.