Background Parental attitudes regarding child safety and risk engagement play important roles in child injury prevention and health promotion efforts. Few studies have compared mothers’ and fathers’ attitudes on these topics. This study used the risk engagement and protection survey (REPS) previously validated with fathers to compare with data collected from mothers.
Methods Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used with a sample of 234 mothers and 282 fathers. Eligible parents had a child 6–12 years attending a paediatric hospital for an injury-related or other reason. We tested the factor structure of the survey by examining configural, metric and scalar invariance. Following this, mothers’ and fathers’ mean scores on the two identified factors of child injury protection and risk engagement were compared.
Results Comparing mothers’ and fathers’ data showed the two-factor structure of the REPS held for the mothers’ data. Comparing mean scores for the two factors suggested that fathers and mothers held equivalent attitudes. For the combined sample, parent injury protection attitude scores were significantly higher for daughters versus sons. In addition, attitude scores were significantly lower for injury protection and higher for risk engagement among parents born in Canada compared with those who were not.
Conclusions The REPS allows for valid assessment of injury protection and risk engagement factors for fathers and mothers. Mothers conceptualised the two factors as distinct concepts, similar to fathers. The REPS can be used to inform parenting programme development, implementation and evaluation.
- psychometric properties
- scale development
- risk perception
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors LLO, MB and TI developed the concept of the study with assistance from LCM. Survey questions were developed and revised by TI with contributions from LLO and MB. Data analysis was carried out by YL and LLO. LLO, YL and LCM drafted the first version of the paper. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data. All authors have reviewed the paper and approved this final version for publication.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Research Ethics Board, approval #H13-01186.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.