Children`s Emotional and Behavioral Problems in the Foster Family

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
DOI 10.1007/s10826-014-9944-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Children’s Emotional and Behavioral Problems in the Foster
Family Context
Marı́a D. Salas • Miguel Á. Garcı́a-Martı́n
Marı́a J. Fuentes • Isabel M. Bernedo
•
Published online: 13 March 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract The main aim of this study was to identify the
factors which are related to the greatest emotional and
behavioral problems among children in the context of a
foster family. Participants were 104 non-relative foster
children and their respective foster families. A structural
equation model was designed and tested in order to identify
an explanatory model among the most relevant of the
studied variables. The results showed that the model
obtained offers a satisfactory structural fit and provides
good explanatory power for children’s problems. More
specifically, the data reveal the important role played by
affective relationships and parental discipline style in
relation to children’s problems within the foster family.
Other factors involved were also analyzed. These results
indicate that both parenting style and the kind of affect
shown by foster parents towards the child are important
predictors of the latter’s problems. Criticism/rejection on
the part of foster parents increases problems through its
influence on both the foster carer’s burden and the child’s
self-esteem. These results are useful in order to prepare and
support foster carers.
Keywords Foster care Foster children Affective
relationships Parenting style Foster carer burden
M. D. Salas (&) M. J. Fuentes I. M. Bernedo
Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology,
Faculty of Psychology, University of Malaga, Campus of
Teatinos S/N, 29071 Málaga, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Á. Garcı́a-Martı́n
Department of Social Psychology, Social Anthropology, Social
Work and Social Services, Faculty of Psychology, University of
Malaga, Campus of Teatinos S/N, 29071 Málaga, Spain
Introduction
Research has consistently shown that children’s emotional
and behavioral problems are an important predictor of
unsuccessful fostering outcomes. Indeed, behavior problems
among foster children have been widely studied in relation to
their adaptation to foster care and to the success or failure of
the placement, since such problems significantly increase the
risk of a breakdown in the fostering relationship (Berridge
1997; Chamberlain et al. 2006; James 2004; Proctor et al.
2010; Sinclair et al. 2007). Studies comparing the rate of
behavior problems among foster children with those found in
the general population have generally concluded that such
problems are more frequent and intense among the former
group (Jiménez and Palacios 2009; Keller et al. 2001; Shore
et al. 2002; Tarren-Sweeney 2008).
Difficulties in regulating temperament, especially in
terms of impulsivity and attention deficit, have also been
considered as indicators of a child’s adaptation to foster
care. Various studies have analyzed the prevalence of
hyperactivity and attention deficit among foster children,
with the results generally showing these problems to be
more common than is the case in the general population
(Burge 2007; McMillen et al. 2005; Oswald et al. 2010;
Pecora et al. 2009; Shin 2005).
Some of the variables that have been linked to foster
children’s emotional and behavioral problems in the context of their foster family are the profile of the foster child
(e.g., age, age upon entering foster care, maltreatment), the
characteristics of the foster carers (e.g., the preparation
and/or support received, and potential burden due to the
foster placement), and the relationships established
between the foster family and the child.
The characteristics of foster children that have been
shown to be closely related to children’s emotional and
123
1374
behavioral problems within the foster family include their
current age (Berridge 1997; Fernandez 2009; Moffatt and
Thoburn 2001), their age at the time of being fostered
(Fernandez 2009; Oosterman et al. 2007), and the reason
for out-of-home placement (history of neglect, abuse,
abandonment) (Barber et al. 2001; Webster et al. 2000).
However, the meta-analysis carried out by Oosterman et al.
(2007) identified older age at the start of fostering as the
factor most strongly related to subsequent breakdown of
the placement. In this context, Fernandez (2009) showed
that the child’s age upon entering foster care is associated
with the degree of integration achieved within the family,
with children who were younger at the start of the placement becoming better integrated. Accordingly, TarrenSweeney (2008) showed that one of the main predictors of
behavior problems was the child’s age when entering foster
care.
Research has also examined the development of selfesteem among foster children, as this is a fundamental
aspect related to the emergence of problems in childhood
and adolescence. When children are able to gain a sense of
protection and security within the family environment, they
develop a more positive self-esteem than do those children
who have experienced insecurity, neglect, and rejection
(Bolger et al. 1998; Kim and Cicchetti 2006). In this
regard, Ackerman and Dozier (2005) found that foster
children are more likely to develop a positive self-esteem
when their foster parents are more affectionate and
tolerant.
Various studies have related the characteristics of the
foster family (e.g., age of foster parents, their educational
level, biological children in the home) to the child’s
emotional and behavioral problems, although the findings
are inconsistent. However, a strong relationship has been
observed between the levels of burden experienced by
foster parents and children’s difficulties within the foster
family (Oosterman et al. 2007). For instance, Farmer et al.
(2005) found that foster placements were less beneficial to
the children involved when the foster parents reported
stress. This research also revealed that foster parents
reported higher levels of stress when foster children
showed behavioral problems, as well as when the carers
had difficulties contacting social workers for assistance.
More recently, research has found that externalizing
behavior problems among foster children are related to
higher levels of parental stress and the use of more negative discipline practices (Vanderfaeillie et al. 2012;
Vanderfaeillie et al. 2013).
Numerous studies have highlighted how foster placements are more problematic when there is inadequate
preparation and support on the part of social workers, and
also that better outcomes are achieved when these aspects
are properly addressed (Buehler et al. 2006; Price et al.
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
2008; Sinclair et al. 2004; Triseliotis et al. 2000; Whenan
et al. 2009). For instance, foster families felt supported and
considered the work of social workers positively when the
latter visited regularly, and when they gave the impression
that they valued the foster parents’ work, listened attentively to them, and responded adequately to any requests
and doubts they may have (Sinclair et al. 2004).
Research on family relationships has examined affective
relationships and parental discipline style, which together
are referred to as parenting style. Jiménez and Palacios
(2009) found that the foster child’s progress was associated
positively with an authoritative parenting style and negatively with authoritarian and permissive ones. Furthermore,
children’s self-esteem was also positively associated with
an authoritative parenting style. Finally, parenting styles
were associated with the stress scores of foster parents,
with stress levels being higher when the foster parents were
more permissive or authoritarian, and less authoritative.
It has also shown that children are more likely to present
impulsivity and lack of attention when, after being separated from their biological family, they are cared for by
adults with an inappropriate parenting style (Lewis et al.
2007; Simmel et al. 2001). The study by Fernandez (2009)
showed that an authoritarian and harsh parenting style on
the part of foster parents was significantly associated with
children obtaining scores within the clinical range for total
problems on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Similarly, it has been found that fostering outcomes are better
when the foster parents show greater warmth, are more
attentive to the child’s needs, and when there is a more
positive interaction between parents and child (Sinclair and
Wilson 2003). Accordingly, children present more
problems when their foster parents are more rejecting and
show less warmth, with an additional important finding
being that the child’s behavioral problems only lead to
placement breakdown if the carers are rejecting (Sinclair
et al. 2005). These authors also found that 52 % of the
variability in behavior problems was explained by the
child’s difficulties in establishing affective ties. In this
context, Schofield and Beek (2005, 2009) argue that children
make the most progress when they have secure attachment
bonds with their foster family, and when the foster parents are
more sensitive (empathic, understanding, communicative, etc.).
On the basis of this literature review the main aim of the
present study was to identify the factors which are related
to the greatest emotional and behavioral problems among
children in the foster family context (i.e., behavior
problems and impulsivity/inattention). It was expected that:
(1) children who were older at the start of the foster
placement would present more problems; (2) greater selfesteem would help children to reduce these problems; (3)
burden among foster parents could increase the child’s
problems; (4) the provision by social workers of preparation
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
and support to foster parents could reduce not only their
burden but also the foster child’s problems; and (5) an
authoritarian parenting style, characterized by criticism/
rejection and authoritarian rules, could lead to greater
emotional and behavioral problems among children within
the foster family.
Method
Participants
The study considered all foster placements that were
registered in three Spanish provinces (Malaga, Granada, and
Jaen), and which met the following criteria: (a) the foster child
was over 5 years old, and (b) the child did not suffer from any
severe physical, psychological, or sensory disability.
Participants were the foster children and their respective
foster families. The sample comprised 104 non-relative
foster children in long-term foster care (56 boys and 48
girls), whose mean age at the time of data collection was
11 years (SD = 3.2, range 5–17.8). The mean age of the
foster children when taken into care was 7.29 years
(SD = 3.39, range .5–14.8). Seventy of the children were
of the same ethnicity as their foster parents (White European), while 34 were either Gypsy European or African.
Most of the children had experienced at least one form of
abuse and/or maltreatment prior to entering care. Specifically, 53.8 % had experienced neglect, 32.7 % had experienced physical and/or emotional abuse, and 11.5 % had
experienced sexual abuse. Almost all the children (92.3 %)
had been in residential care before starting the current
foster placement, and 16.3 % had previous experience of
fostering.
These children were being fostered in 86 families,
corresponding to 71 foster fathers and 86 foster mothers.
The mean age of the foster fathers and mothers was,
respectively, 47.9 years (SD = 6.8, range 29.9–66.3) and
46.6 years (SD = 6.5, range 31.4–65.1). Of the 86 foster
families in the sample, 80.2 % were heterosexual couples,
4.7 % were homosexual couples, and 15.1 % were single
parents. All the single parent caregivers were female. As
for biological children, 40.7 % of foster families had no
children of their own, 16.3 % had one child, 31.4 % had
two, and 11.6 % had three or more. The majority of foster
families (68.6 %) had one foster child, 27.9 % had two
foster children, and 3.5 % had three foster children.
Twenty-four foster fathers and 28 foster mothers had a
higher educational degree, 20 foster fathers and 27 foster
mothers had completed secondary education, and 24 foster
fathers and 26 foster mothers had only primary education.
The remaining foster parents (three foster fathers and five
foster mothers) had not received formal schooling.
1375
Procedure
Access to foster families and information about the foster
placements was authorized and provided by the Child
Protection Agency in each of the three provinces (Malaga,
Granada, and Jaen). Data confidentiality was ensured by
assigning a code number to each case. The first step
involved completing the Data Collection Sheet (see below),
which was done in collaboration with the child protection
agencies. The families were then visited at home so that
foster parents and children could respond to the respective
questionnaires.
Measures
Data Collection Sheet (Bernedo et al. 2008a). This instrument was used to record the descriptive characteristics of the
foster children and their respective foster families.
Questionnaire About the Preparation and Support
Received (Bernedo et al. 2008b). This was administered to
foster parents. It comprises 15 items that are scored on a
five-point Likert scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot). Four of these
items refer to preparation (e.g., ‘‘Training and preparation
received from the case worker prior to fostering the
child’’), while the remainder evaluate the support given
during the foster placement (e.g., ‘‘Advice from the case
worker on bringing up the child’’). Analysis of the questionnaire’s internal consistency yielded a Cronbach’s alpha
of .90 for this sample.
Affect Scale (Bersabé et al. 2001). This was administered to foster parents. It comprises 20 items distributed
across two factors (10 items each), which are scored on a
Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Factor I (Warmth/
Communication) evaluates the warmth, interest, and communication expressed by foster parents in relation to the
foster child (e.g., ‘‘If he/she has a problem, he/she can tell
me about it’’). Factor II (Criticism/Rejection) assesses the
degree of criticism or rejection shown by foster parents
towards the child (e.g., ‘‘I wish he/she was different’’). For
the present sample the internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha) was .87 for warmth/communication and .78 for
criticism/rejection.
Rules-Demands Scale (Bersabé et al. 2001). This was
also administered to the foster parents. It comprises 30
items distributed across three factors (10 items each), all of
which are scored on a five-point Likert scale and refer to
the disciplinary strategies used by parents. The three factors are as follows: (a) Factor I (Authoritative Rules):
establishment of rules and an explanation of why they must
be respected (e.g., ‘‘I make it very clear what he/she should
or shouldn’t do’’; (b) Factor II (Authoritarian Rules):
imposition of rule compliance coupled with strong
demands (e.g., ‘‘I punish him/her severely so that he/she
123
1376
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
doesn’t disobey again’’); and (c) Factor III (Permissive
Rules): absence of rules or weak demands that they be
complied with (e.g., ‘‘If he/she gets angry, then he/she
always gets what he/she wants’’). In the present sample the
Cronbach alpha values for the internal consistency of these
three factors were, respectively, .77, .63, and .75.
Zarit Burden Interview (Zarit and Zarit 1983). The
present study used a Spanish version of this instrument that
has been adapted and validated for use with foster carers
(Del Valle et al. 2008). This scale assess the degree of
subjective burden experienced by foster parents by means
of 22 items, each of which has five possible response
categories (scored 1–5) (e.g., ‘‘Do you feel stressed by
trying to combine caring for your child with your other
responsibilities?’’). The reliability of the Zarit Burden
Interview (Cronbach’s alpha) was .74 in the current study.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/6-18; Achenbach and
Rescorla 2001). This test forms part of the Achenbach
System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA,
Achenbach 1991). It assesses behavioral problems in
children and was completed by foster parents. Each item on
the checklist has three response options: (0) not true; (1)
somewhat or sometimes true; and (2) very true or often
true. Both CBCL subscales (Internalizing problems and
Externalizing problems) were used in the present study,
yielding a total score for behavioral problems (internalizing ? externalizing). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha) was .97 in the current sample.
Conners’ Parent Rating Scale-Revised (Conners 1997).
This scale was adapted so that foster parents could assess
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There are
two scale forms (short and long) available, and the short
form includes the 12-item ADHD Index, which can be used
to identify those children or adolescents who are most
likely to fulfill the diagnostic criteria for ADHD (e.g.,
‘‘Inattentive, easily distracted’’). This is the index that was
employed in the present study. Items are scored on a fourpoint Likert scale (from 0 to 3). The internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) was .92 for the current sample.
Self-Esteem Questionnaire (Garcı́a-Torres 2001). This
evaluates the child’s self-esteem. It comprises 48 items divided into six subscales (dimensions): physical, social, family,
intellectual, personal, and perceived control. The present
study only considered the dimension concerning personal selfesteem, which constitutes a global appraisal of oneself (e.g., ‘‘I
like the way I am’’). Each item has five response options
(never, not very often, sometimes, a lot of the time, and
always). Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was .87.
shared variation between pairs of variables. A structural
equation model (SEM) was designed and tested in order to
examine children’s emotional and behavioral problems in
the foster family context. The statistical package AMOS 18
was used to calculate the variance/covariance matrix from
which the model would be estimated. Model parameters
were estimated by means of the maximum likelihood (ML)
method. The fit of the model was evaluated on three levels:
the overall model, the measurement model, and the structural model (Byrne 2001; Lévy-Mangin and Varela 2006).
The overall fit of the model was assessed using three kinds
of measures: indices of absolute fit (v2, RMSEA, and GFI),
of incremental fit (NFI, TLI, and CFI), and of parsimonious
fit (AIC and PGFI).
Design and Statistical Analysis
The design of the theoretical model was based on previous
research regarding foster children’s problems, as well as on
the associations found between study variables. The design
of the model to be estimated is represented by the path
SPSS 18 was used to carry out a descriptive analysis and to
compute bivariate correlations so as to determine the
123
Results
The variables considered in order to study children’s
emotional and behavioral problems within the foster family
were ‘‘Internalizing ? Externalizing problems’’ and
‘‘impulsivity/inattention’’. The analysis also took into
account several characteristics of the foster children (age at
the start of the foster placement and personal self-esteem)
and their respective foster families (burden due to fostering
and their rating of the preparation and support received
from social workers). The parenting style of foster parents
was studied by means of the factors established in the
Affect Scale (Warmth/Communication and Criticism/
Rejection) and the Rules-Demands Scale (Authoritative,
Authoritarian, and Permissive rules). The descriptive statistics for these variables are shown in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the matrix of correlations between all the
variables. It can be seen that the strongest associations
were those between ‘‘Internalizing ? Externalizing problems’’ and the other study variables, as well as between the
criticism/rejection factor and the other variables.
As per the conventions of SEM, modeling stages were
performed until achieving the final model specification.
When constructing the structural model, checks were carried
out to ensure that the basic assumptions required for the
correct application of this statistical analysis were fulfilled
(Batista and Coenders 2000; Byrne 2001; Hancock and
Mueller 2006; Lévy-Mangin and Varela 2006).
Design of the Theoretical Model and Model
Specification
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
1377
normality are present (Batista and Coenders 2000; Kline
2005; Lévy-Mangin and Varela 2006). At all events, the
robustness of the results was tested by means of a bootstrap
procedure with 500 replications, which confirmed that the
estimates were sufficiently robust and, therefore, not
affected by the slight lack of normality (Byrne 2001). The
p value of the Chi squared test was also readjusted using
the bootstrap procedure of Bollen and Stine (1992), and as
the value obtained was greater than .05 the model was
acceptable. Finally, the data were examined for the presence of any atypical values by means of the Mahalanobis
distance, there being no case in which the p value was less
than .0001 (which would require the value to be
eliminated).
The data were then checked to ensure that there were no
offending estimates (negative error variance, standardized
coefficients above 1, or very high standard errors) and that
all the direct effects proposed by the model were significant. This was the case in all the relationships between the
variables analyzed except for that between the variables
‘‘preparation and support’’’ and ‘‘foster carer burden’’; this
was expected given the lack of a linear relationship
between the two variables. The conceptual model was
therefore modified slightly due to the elimination of this
relationship.
Having carried out the above checks, the next step was
to assess the goodness of fit. The values of the global fit
indices indicated that the model showed an adequate fit
(Table 3). The only sub-optimum indicator was the NFI,
whose value (.86) was slightly lower than the recommended cut-off (.90). However, the values of the TLI and
CFI show that the model fit is adequate.
Table 1 Mean, standard deviation (SD), and minimum and maximum values of the study variables (N = 104)
Variables
M
SD
Min.
Max.
Internalizing and externalizing
problems
19.16
12.23
0
50
Impulsivity/inattention
15.43
9.16
0
36
Age upon entering foster care (years)
Personal self-esteem
7.29
33.17
3.39
4.21
0
17
14.8
40
Foster carer burden
36.13
7.85
23
61
Preparation and support for foster
parents
50.94
13.54
19
75
Warmth/communication
45.33
4.71
29
50
Criticism/rejection
18.54
4.61
10
33
Authoritative rules
44.78
4.33
28
50
Authoritarian rules
24.68
5.85
12
45
Permissive rules
15.44
4.26
10
28
diagram in Fig. 1, which shows the relationships between
the different variables.
Estimation of the Model and Evaluation of Goodnessof-Fit Criteria
Firstly, the AMOS program was used to check whether the
data showed univariate and multivariate normality, the
latter being assessed by means of the test of multivariate
kurtosis (Mardia 1970, 1974) incorporated within the program. Some of the variables introduced showed a mild
deviation from univariate and multivariate normality. It
was therefore decided to use the ML method, as this is a
robust procedure when only small deviations from
Table 2 Pearson correlations between the study variables
Correlations
Variables included in the model
1
1. Internalizing and Externalizing
problems
–
2. Impulsivity/inattention
3. Age upon entering foster care
4. Personal self-esteem
5. Foster carer burden
6. Preparation/support foster parents
7. Warmth/communication
8. Criticism/rejection
9. Authoritative rules
10. Authoritarian rules
11. Permissive rules
2
.55***
.01
-.33**
.49***
3
4
5
6
.30**
–
-.06
-.07
.02
.10
-.08
-.15
-.20*
.28**
-.22*
.24*
-.33**
.01
.16
.30**
-.05
-.06
.08
-.14
.01
-.04
10
11
–
-.07
.42**
9
–
.17
.04
-.11
8
–
-.01
-.24*
-.30**
.46***
7
.35***
-.23*
.37**
-.11
.27**
-.09
–
.25**
–
-.24*
-.67***
.21*
.50***
–
-.42***
–
-.01
-.17
.32**
-.18
-.17
-.03
.03
-.19*
–
.20*
–
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
123
1378
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
Fig. 1 Path diagram of the
theoretical model proposed to
explain children’s emotional
and behavioral problems in the
foster family context
Criticism /
rejection
Child’s selfesteem
Authoritarian rules
-
Age upon
entering foster
care
+
-
+
+
+
+
Authoritarian
parenting style
Preparation
and support
received
Internalizing +
Externalizing
problems
Impulsivity/
Inattention
Children’s Emotional
and Behavioral
problems
+
+
-
+
Foster carer
burden
Table 3 Fit indices for the structural equation model used to explain emotional and behavioral problems among foster children (N = 104)
Goodness-of-fit indices
v2
Values obtained
22.38 (p = .13; pb–s = .22)
Recommended values
p C .05
RMSEA
GFI
NFI
TLI
CFI
.06
.95
.86
.92
.95
B.08
[.90
[.90
[.90
[.90
v2/df
AIC
PGFI
1.39 (v = 22.38 df = 16)
62.38
.42
[1; \2
–
–
2
2
v : Chi squared; pb–s: Bollen–Stine correction; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; NFI: normed fit
index; TLI: Tucker Lewis (non-normed) fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; df: degrees of freedom; AIC: Akaike information criterion; PGFI:
parsimony goodness-of-fit index
In order to test the fit of the measurement model it was
then necessary (a) to check that the factor loadings
obtained between the indicators and their latent variables
were statistically significant and high (above .6), and (b) to
check the reliability of each one of the latent variable
indicators by means of its associated coefficient of determination. These two criteria were fulfilled in the case of the
latent variable ‘‘children’s emotional and behavioral
problems’’ but not for ‘‘authoritarian parenting style’’,
where the factor loading obtained between the indicator
‘‘authoritarian rules’’ and the latent variable was significant
but low (.34). Furthermore, this latent variable included a
value of explained variance associated with the indicator
‘‘authoritarian rules’’ which was also low (.11). These
problems could indicate that despite the theoretical
coherence of the concept ‘‘parenting style’’, whereby it is
based on both affective relationships and the type of rules
established by parents, the affective factor may have more
weight than the type of discipline used. Therefore, the
initial theoretical model was re-specified, separating the
two factors and analyzing, once again, the theoretical
proposals and the relationships observed between the
variables.
Modification and Re-specification of the Model
The new proposal was similar to that of the first model, but
with the following modifications: (a) both the child’s age at
the start of the foster placement and the preparation and
support received by foster parents will only exert an influence on affective relationships (the criticism/rejection
123
factor), as in the correlational analyses these two variables
are not linked to the factors of the Rules-Demands Scale;
(b) for the same reason, the child’s self-esteem will only be
affected by the criticism/rejection factor, and not by
authoritarian rules; (c) criticism/rejection will increase the
burden experienced by foster parents, which in turn will
influence their chosen parenting style, leading to an increase
in the use of authoritarian rules; and (d) both criticism/
rejection and the use of authoritarian rules will increase
children’s emotional and behavioral problems (Fig. 2).
Having made these modifications the model was then
estimated again. The univariate normality of the data was
the same as in the previous model, since the variables
introduced were also the same. The multivariate normality
improved slightly, although there remained a mild deviation from normality. A bootstrap procedure with 500 replications was again applied and indicated that the estimates
were robust and, therefore, not affected by this slight lack
of normality. As the bootstrap procedure also yielded a
p value [.05 for the Chi squared test, the model could be
accepted.
Having checked that there were no offending estimates,
or estimated coefficients in the measurement model that
exceeded acceptable limits, the next step was to assess the
overall model, the measurement model, and the structural
model. As regards the former, Table 4 shows the fit indices
for the modified model.
The values of these indices are substantially better than
those of the first model. With respect to the indicators of
parsimony (AIC and PGFI), it can be seen that the value of
the AIC (57.14) is now lower than that of the first model
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
Fig. 2 Path diagram for the
modified standardized solution
model used to explain children’s
emotional and behavioral
problems in the foster family
context
1379
Child’s selfesteem
Impulsivity/
Inattention
-.27
-.33
Age upon
entering foster
care
.61
.89
.24
Children’s Emotional
and Behavioral
problems
.21
Criticism /
rejection
.30
Preparation
and support
received
Internalizing +
Externalizing
problems
-.24
Authoritarian rules
.37
.37
.27
Foster carer
burden
Table 4 Fit indices for the modified model used to explain emotional and behavioral problems among foster children (N = 104)
Goodness-of-fit indices
v2
Values obtained
22.38 (p = .42; pb–s = .54)
Recommended values
p C .05
RMSEA
GFI
NFI
TLI
CFI
.02
.96
.89
.99
.99
B.08
[.90
[.90
[.90
[.90
v2/df
AIC
PGFI
1.03 (v = 22.38 df = 16)
57.14
.45
[1; \2
–
–
2
v2: Chi squared; pb–s: Bollen–Stine correction; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; NFI: normed fit
index; TLI: Tucker Lewis (non-normed) fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; df: degrees of freedom; AIC: Akaike information criterion; PGFI:
parsimony goodness-of-fit index
(62.38), indicating that the modified model is the most
parsimonious of the two. Similarly, the PGFI has risen
from .42 in the first model to .45 in the modified model,
which again indicates greater parsimony in the latter.
As regards the fit of the measurement model, examination of the factor loadings obtained among the indicators of
the only latent variable in the model (‘‘children’s emotional
and behavioral problems’’) showed them to be significant
and high (above .60), as in the previous model. The reliability of these indicators was also very similar, with values of .79 for the indicator ‘‘Internalizing ? Externalizing
problems’’ and .37 for ‘‘impulsivity/inattention’’.
Finally, taking into account the fit indexes of the modified model, the coefficients were statistically significant.
The coefficient of determination (R2) for the modified
model in relation to the explained quotient variance of the
dependent variable (i.e., children’s emotional and behavioral problems) was fairly high (.53), indicating that the
modified model shows a satisfactory structural fit and
provides good explanatory power for children’s emotional
and behavioral problems.
The path diagram for the modified model (Fig. 2) shows
the variance in ‘‘children’s emotional and behavioral
problems’’ (R2 = .53) that is explained by the variables
included in this model. The effect size corresponding to the
coefficient of determination is high (f2 = 1.13), and it can
be seen that the direct predictors of children’s problems
within the foster family are foster carer burden (c = .37,
p \ .001), the use of authoritarian rules by foster parents
(c = .30, p \ .01), the child’s self-esteem (c = -.27,
p \ .01), and criticism/rejection by the foster parents
(c = .21, p \ .05).
Finally, the statistical significance of the indirect effects
between variables was calculated by means of a bootstrap
procedure with 500 iterations and a 90 % confidence
interval, the analysis showing that all the indirect effects
were significant.
Discussion
This study has analyzed children’s emotional and behavioral problems in the context of their foster families,
mainly in relation to internalizing and externalizing problems and impulsivity and lack of attention. This was done
by examining the relationships between these problems and
a number of variables related both to the children themselves (age at the start of the foster placement and selfesteem) and their respective foster parents (parenting style,
burden, and preparation and support received).
Structural equation modeling was conducted to determine the variables that influenced problems among foster
children. On the basis of previous research (e.g., Fernandez
2009; Oosterman et al. 2007) it was expected that older age
at the start of the foster placement would be associated with
more behavior problems. Although the correlational analyses showed no significant relationship between the child’s
age at this point and the indicators of children’s emotional
123
1380
and behavioral problems, this relationship was confirmed
by the results obtained with the adjusted model. In this
model, the child’s age at the start of the foster placement
was found to exert a positive and significant indirect effect
through other mediating variables. Specifically, the model
estimation showed that children’s age influences their
problems through the criticism/rejection shown towards
them by their foster parents (i.e., older age at the start of the
foster placement implies more criticism/rejection, which
leads to greater problems). These results are consistent with
those of previous studies, which showed that children who
are younger when entering foster care adapt better than their
older counterparts (Jiménez and Palacios 2009; Oosterman
et al. 2007). However, in the present study the child’s age at
the start of the foster placement was only indirectly related
to the children’s problems, it being mediated by the affective relationships established with the foster parents. This
association was not considered in the literature reviewed
here, and the present finding suggests that it is ultimately the
criticism/rejection of foster parents that influences the
child’s emotional and behavioral problems.
The results obtained in the definitive model also confirmed the direct negative association between foster children’s self-esteem and the problems they experience. This
suggests, in line with the ideas of Schofield and Beek
(2005, 2009), that the development of greater self-esteem
would be a factor of resilience in relation to the child’s
integration within the foster family. It should be noted,
however, that none of the studies reviewed here reported
that greater self-esteem among foster children would
reduce their problems, although Ackerman and Dozier
(2005) did find that more affectionate relationships
between foster parents and children were associated with a
better self-image in the child. The present results are
consistent with this statement, since criticism/rejection on
the part of foster parents was found to have a negative
influence on the child’s self-esteem. Thus, affective relationships within the foster family appear to be an important
variable as regards the child’s ability to develop adequate
self-esteem.
According to the hypothesized model, foster carer burden
could increase the child’s problems. This was confirmed by
the results of the model estimation, which showed a direct
relationship between these two aspects. Foster carer burden
was also found to have an indirect influence on children’s
emotional and behavioral problems through the application
of authoritarian rules by foster parents. Specifically, greater
burden increased the likelihood of authoritarian parenting,
which in turn led to more problems. The studies by Farmer
et al. (2005) and Fernandez (1999) also found important
relationships between foster carer burden and children’s
behavioral problems. The present results therefore confirm
the need to reduce the stress and burden experienced by
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
foster families so as to enable foster children to adapt better
to their new environment.
It was also proposed that both foster carer burden and
the emotional and behavioral problems of children could be
reduced if the carers received better preparation and
support. The results of the model show that preparation and
support had an indirect influence on these aspects through
mediating variables (e.g., criticism/rejection). These findings are also consistent with previous studies on the
influence of preparation and support on both the problems
of foster children (e.g., Buehler et al. 2006; Price et al.
2008) and the burden experienced by their carers (e.g.,
Sinclair et al. 2004). However, in contrast to some previous
research (e.g., Murray et al. 2011; Sinclair et al. 2004) the
results did not reveal a direct influence of preparation and
support on foster carer burden. This may suggest that not
all types of preparation and support have the same effect on
the burden felt by foster parents.
Finally, it was expected that an authoritarian parenting
style, characterized by criticism and rejection and the
application of authoritarian rules, could predict more
emotional and behavior problems and greater impulsivity/
inattention. This was also confirmed by the results derived
from the definitive model, which suggest that the more
authoritarian the foster parents are, and the more criticism/
rejection they show towards the child, the greater the
child’s problems will be. Criticism/rejection on the part of
foster parents could also increase emotional and behavioral
problems through its influence on both foster carer burden
and the child’s self-esteem. These results indicate that both
parenting style and the kind of affect shown by foster
parents towards the child are important predictors of the
latter’s problems. However, in terms of predicting these
problems, the criticism/rejection shown by foster parents
appears to be more important than the style of discipline
used. Thus, the warmth component not only exerts an
important direct influence on the child’s problems, but also
has indirect influence through all the variables to which
children’s problems are related. These findings are consistent with those obtained by Sinclair and Wilson (2003)
and Sinclair et al. (2005), who found that the amount of
warmth shown by carers towards foster children was the
variable with the greatest predictive power as regards the
outcome of foster placements. Schofield and Beek (2005)
also showed that children adapted better to foster care
when foster parents were more sensitive in their relationships with them.
It is also important to note that the definitive model
revealed a relationship between burden and authoritarian
parenting, such that the greater the burden the more likely
it is that foster parents will resort to authoritarian rules,
which in turn could lead to greater emotional and behavioral problems among children. None of the studies
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
reviewed here reported this specific association, although
they do support the point made earlier about the need for
intervention programs that reduce the burden experienced
by foster families, as this is one of the strongest predictors
(either directly or indirectly through other variables) of
problems in foster children.
The present study does have certain limitations. Firstly,
the overall variance in children’s emotional and behavioral
problems that was explained by the model is quite high,
with the main aim of the study being to identify this.
However, it may be advisable to propose more ambitious
models that include the influence of other variables which
have been considered in previous studies, for example, the
age or educational level of the foster parents (Sinclair et al.
2005), or variables related to the child such as the kind of
maltreatment suffered prior to being fostered (James 2004;
Sinclair et al. 2005).
Another limitation of the study concerns the use of selfreport measures, as the participants’ responses may be
subject to social desirability bias. Nevertheless, the fact
that the present results are highly consistent with the extant
literature suggests that any such bias is of limited importance. Mention should also be made of the fact that the
study sample was drawn from a particular geographical
area, as this could affect the generalizability of results.
Once again, however, previous studies of emotional and
behavioral problems among foster children (Fernandez
2008; Jiménez and Palacios 2009; Sinclair et al. 2005;
Tarren-Sweeney 2008) provide support for the present
findings.
Finally, it would be advisable to test both directions of
the proposed model and compare the results. It would also
be useful to corroborate the results by means of longitudinal designs that could confirm the strength and direction
of the relationships observed here.
Despite these limitations, a strength of the present
study is that it proposed a theoretical model regarding
children’s problems within the foster family context and
then tested this model through the design and fit of a
SEM. The results of recent studies that were taken into
account when developing this model, as well as the
associations between variables that were found here,
provide evidence of the dependent relationships between
fostering outcomes and certain characteristics of foster
parents and children. However, the model obtained here
adds to this knowledge by offering a global explanation of
how these variables are related to one another and how
they affect a child’s problems within his/her foster family.
The data also reveal the important role played by the
expression of affect by foster parents, as this has both a
direct influence on the child’s problems and an indirect
influence through other key factors such as the child’s
self-esteem and the burden experienced by carers. These
1381
results may be useful in terms of identifying those
potential foster parents whose characteristics make them
best suited to the task of fostering, and should also serve
to highlight the importance of promoting good affective
relationships through the preparation and support which
social workers can offer to foster carers.
In terms of specific implications for practice, the results
regarding an authoritarian parenting style suggest that
greater emphasis should be placed on both the selection
and training of foster families. When it comes to assessing
the suitability of potential foster carers, specific instruments should be used to detect the parenting styles of
candidates. This could help to avoid the selection of foster
carers who are more likely to show criticism/rejection and
to take an authoritarian approach to parenting. As for
training, programs could be implemented to help foster
families acquire positive parenting strategies and to avoid
authoritarian parenting.
Regarding the burden experienced by foster carers,
different forms of support could be implemented along the
lines of the proposals made by various authors (Luke and
Sebba 2013). For example, training programs could be used
to help foster carers develop ways of coping with the foster
child’s behavioral problems. Regular training sessions for
foster carers should also include the opportunity for them
to share experiences with other carers and to engage in
joint problem-solving. Another form of support might be to
provide a free 24-h helpline through which foster carers
could request help from social services and receive timely
advice about how to solve parenting dilemmas involving
their foster children (Farmer et al. 2005; Selwyn and
Quinton 2004).
Acknowledgments This study is part of a Project of Excellence
financed by the Government of Andalusia (SEJ-2647). Access to the
families and information about the adolescents’ custody was obtained
in collaboration with Infant Protection Services and Families of the
Provincial Delegation for Social Welfare and the foster care agencies.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18,
YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA
school age form and profile. Burlington, VT: University of
Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth and Families.
Ackerman, J. P., & Dozier, M. (2005). The influence of foster parent
investment on children’s representations of self and attachment
figures. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 507–520.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.06.003.
Barber, J. G., Delfabbro, P. H., & Cooper, L. L. (2001). The
predictors of unsuccessful transition to foster care. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(6), 785–790. doi:10.1111/
1469-7610.00775.
123
1382
Batista, J. M., & Coenders, G. (2000). Modelos de ecuaciones
estructurales [Structural equations model]. Madrid: La MurallaHespérides.
Bernedo, I. M., Fuentes, M. J., & Salas, M. D. (2008a). Data
collection sheet. Unpublished manuscript. Department of developmental and educational psychology, University of Malaga,
Spain.
Bernedo, I. M., Fuentes, M. J., & Salas, M. D. (2008b). Questionnaire
about the preparation and support received. Unpublished
manuscript. Department of developmental and educational
psychology, University of Malaga, Spain.
Berridge, D. (1997). Foster care. A research review. London: The
Stationery Office.
Bersabé, R. Fuentes, M. J., & Motrico, E. (2001). Análisis psicométrico de dos escalas para evaluar estilos educativos parentales
[Psychometric properties of two parental educational style
scales]. Psicothema, 13(4), 678–684. Retrieved from http://
www.psicothema.com/.
Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer
relationships and self-esteem among children who have been
maltreated. Child Development, 69(4), 1171–1197. doi:10.2307/
1132368.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness of fit
measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and
Research, 21(2), 205–229. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002004.
Buehler, C., Rhodes, K. W., Orme, J. G., & Cuddeback, G. (2006). The
potential for successful family foster care: Conceptualizing competency domains for foster parents. Child Welfare, 85(3), 523–558.
Retrieved from http://www.cwla.org/articles/cwjabstracts.htm.
Burge, P. (2007). Prevalence of mental disorders and associated service
variables among Ontario’s children who are permanent wards.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(5), 305–314. Retrieved from
http://publications.cpa-apc.org/browse/documents/3.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chamberlain, P., Price, J. M., Reid, J. B., Landsverk, J., Fisher, P. A.,
& Stoolmiller, M. (2006). Who disrupts from placement in foster
and kinship care? Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(4), 409–424.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.004.
Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners’ Rating Scale-Revised. Toronto:
Multi-Health System.
Del Valle, J. F., López, M., Montserrat, C., & Bravo, A. (2008). El
acogimiento familiar en España. Una evaluación de resultados
[Foster care in Spain: An outcomes assessment]. Madrid:
Ministerio de Educación, Polı́tica Social y Deporte.
Farmer, E., Lipscombe, J., & Moyers, S. (2005). Foster carer strain
and its impact on parenting and placement outcomes for
adolescents. British Journal of Social Work, 3(2), 237–253.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch181.
Fernandez, E. (1999). Pathways in substitute care: Representation of
placement careers of children using event history analysis.
Children and Youth Services Review, 21(3), 177–216. doi:10.
1016/S0190-7409(99)00014-6.
Fernandez, E. (2008). Unravelling emotional, behavioural and
educational outcomes in a longitudinal study of children in
foster care. British Journal of Social Work, 38(7), 1283–1301.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm028.
Fernandez, E. (2009). Children’s wellbeing in care: Evidence from a
longitudinal study of outcomes. Children and Youth Services
Review, 31(10), 1092–1100. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.
010.
Garcı́a-Torres, B. (2001). Cuestionario de autoestima (CAG) [SelfEsteem Questionnaire]. Madrid: EOS.
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2006). Structural equation
modeling: A second course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
123
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
James, S. (2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An
investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care.
Social Service Review, 78(4), 601–627. doi:10.1086/424546.
Jiménez, J., & Palacios, J. (2009). Acogimiento familiar en Andalucı́a.
Procesos familiares, perfiles personales [Foster care in Andalusia. Family processes, personal profiles]. Sevilla: Consejerı́a para
la Igualdad y Bienestar Social. Junta de Andalucı́a.
Keller, T. E., Wetherbee, K., Le Prohn, N. S., Payne, V., Sim, K., &
Lamont, E. R. (2001). Competencies and problems behavior of
children in family foster care: Variations by kinship placement
status and race. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(12),
915–940. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00175-X.
Kim, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of selfsystem and depressive symptoms among maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Development, 77(3), 624–639. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00894.x.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (2a ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Lévy-Mangin, J. P., & Varela, J. (2006). Modelización con estructuras de covarianzas en ciencias sociales [Covariances structural
modeling in social sciences]. La Coruña: Netbiblo.
Lewis, E., Dozier, M., Ackerman, J., & Sepulveda-Kozakowski, S.
(2007). The effect of placement instability on adopted children’s
inhibitory control abilities and oppositional behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1415–1427. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.
43.6.1415.
Luke, N., & Sebba, J. (2013). Supporting each other: An international
literature review on peer contact between foster carers. Oxford: Rees
Centre for Research in Fostering and Education, University of Oxford.
Retrieved from: http://reescentre.education.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/Rees-Centre-peer-support-review.pdf. Last
accessed on June 14, 2013.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewers and kurtosis
with applications. Biometrika, 36, 519–530.
Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate
skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness
studies. Sankhya B, 36(2), 115–128.
McMillen, J. C., Zima, B. T., Scott, L. D., Auslander, W. F., Munson,
M. R., Ollie, M. T., et al. (2005). Prevalence of psychiatric
disorders among older youths in the foster care system. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
44(1), 88–95. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000145806.24274.d2.
Moffatt, P., & Thoburn, J. (2001). Outcomes of permanent family
placement for children of minority ethnic origin. Child and
Family Social Work, 6(1), 13–21. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2206.2001.
00194.x.
Murray, L., Tarren-Sweeney, M., & France, K. (2011). Foster carer
perceptions of support and training in the context of high burden
of care. Child and Family Social Work, 16(2), 149–158. doi:10.
1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00722.x.
Oosterman, M., Schuengel, C., Slot, N. W., Bullens, R. A. R., &
Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2007). Disruptions in foster care: A review
and meta-analysis. Child and Youth Services Review, 29(1),
53–76. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.07.003.
Oswald, S., Heil, K., & Goldbeck, L. (2010). History of maltreatment
and mental health problems in foster children: A review of the
literature. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(5), 462–472.
doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsp114.
Pecora, P. J., White, C. R., Jackson, L. J., & Wiggins, T. (2009).
Mental health of current and former recipients of foster care: A
review of recent studies in the USA. Child & Family Social
Work, 14(2), 132–146. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00618.x.
Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., &
Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a foster parent training intervention
on placement changes of children in foster care. Child Maltreatment, 13(1), 64–75. doi:10.1177/1077559507310612.
J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1373–1383
Proctor, L. J., Skriner, L. C., Roesch, S., & Litrownik, A. J. (2010).
Trajectories of behavioural adjustment following early placement in foster care: Predicting stability and change over 8 years.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 49(5), 464–473. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.01.022.
Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2005). Risk and resilience in long-term
foster care. British Journal of Social Work, 35(8), 1283–1301.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch213.
Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2009). Growing up in foster care: Providing
a secure base through adolescence. Child and Family Social Work,
14(3), 255–266. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00592.x.
Selwyn, J., & Quinton, D. (2004). Stability, permanence, outcomes
and support: Foster care and adoption compared. Adoption &
Fostering, 28(4), 6–15. doi:10.1177/030857590402800403.
Shin, H. S. (2005). Need for and actual use of mental health services
by older foster youth. Children and Youth Service Review,
27(10), 1071–1083. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.12.027.
Shore, N., Sim, K., Le Prohn, N., & Keller, T. (2002). Foster parent
and teacher assessments of youth in kinship and non-kinship
foster care placements: Are behaviors perceived differently
across settings? Children and Youth Services Review, 24(1/2),
15–35. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00170-0.
Simmel, C., Brooks, D., Barth, R. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2001).
Externalizing symptomatology among adoptive youth: Prevalence
and preadoption risk factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(1), 57–69. doi:10.1023/A:1005251513130.
Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Lee, J., & Gibbs, I. (2007). The pursuit of
permanence. A study of the English child care system. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Sinclair, I., Gibbs, I., & Wilson, K. (2004). Foster carers. Why they
stay and why they leave. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Sinclair, I., & Wilson, K. (2003). Matches and mismatches: The
contribution of carers and children to the success of foster
1383
placements. British Journal of Social Work, 33(7), 871–884.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/33.7.871.
Sinclair, I., Wilson, K., & Gibbs, I. (2005). Foster placements: Why
they succeed and why they fail. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Tarren-Sweeney, M. (2008). Retrospective and concurrent predictors
of the mental health of children in care. Children and Youth
Services Review, 30(1), 1–25. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.
014.
Triseliotis, J., Borland, M., & Hill, M. (2000). Delivering foster care.
London: British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
Vanderfaeillie, J., Van Holen, F., Trogh, L., & Andries, C. (2012).
The impact of foster children’s behavioural problems on Flemish
foster mothers’ parenting behaviour. Child and Family Social
Work, 17(1), 34–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00770.x.
Vanderfaeillie, J., Van Holen, F., Vanschoonlandt, F., Robberechts,
M., & Stroobants, T. (2013). Children placed in long-term family
foster care: A longitudinal study into the development of
problem behaviour and associated factors. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(4), 587–593. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.
12.012.
Webster, D., Barth, R., & Needell, B. (2000). Placement stability for
children in out of home care: A longitudinal analysis. Child
Welfare, 79(5), 615–632. Retrieved from http://www.cwla.org/
articles/cwjabstracts.htm.
Whenan, R., Oxlad, M., & Lushington, K. (2009). Factors associated
with foster carer wellbeing, satisfaction and intention to continue
providing out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services
Review, 31(7), 752–760. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.02.001.
Zarit, S. H., & Zarit J. M. (1983). The memory and behavior problem
checklist and the burden interview. Technical Report, Pennsylvania State University.
123