2005, Number 4
The role of family communication and school adjustment on adolescent mental health.
Estévez LE, Musitu OG, Herrero OJ
Full text
Language: Spanish
References: 40
Page: 81-89
PDF size: 94.58 Kb.
ABSTRACT
Family and school contexts play an especially important role on adolescent psychological adjustment. Previous research shows, for example, that a negative family environment characterized by communication problems between parents and adolescents, is a risk factor for the development of children’s mental health problems, such as depressive symptoms, anxiety and stress. On the contrary, family communication based on respect and affection, has a positive effect on adolescent psychological adjustment.Regarding school context, there are also some factors which have been associated with psychological adjustment problems, like academic failure, low school self-esteem, or interpersonal problems with peers (e.g. victimization). In this sense, prior studies have reported that adolescents with low school self-esteem or who have been victimized at school show more depressive symptomatology and psychological stress.
Nevertheless, although the empirical evidence has demonstrated that some family and school factors directly influence adolescent psychological well-being, there are still some questions to answer to better understand relationships between these variables. For example, in relation to family communication, research has traditionally focused on communication with mother, while recent studies suggest that fathers and mothers may separately contribute to the explanation of some mental health problems in children. Along this line, some authors have reported that adolescent psychological adjustment seems to be more closely associated to a father-child relationship based on affect and acceptance.
Taking into account all these findings, the aim of the present study was to analyze the influence of family communication (with father and mother separately) and school adjustment (school self-esteem and victimization problems) on adolescent’s mental health (psychological distress: depressive symptomatology and perceived stress).
Participants: In the study participated 1068 adolescents ranging in age from 11 to 16 years old, of whom 84% lived with both father and mother at the time when the research was taking place. Since in the present study adolescent’s communication with father and mother is separately analyzed, it was considered that the final sample should be composed of adolescents who live with both parents. The final sample consisted of 875 adolescents from four public schools in the Valencian Community (Spain), mean age 13.7 years old, and of whom 47% were male.
Prior to data collection, parents and teachers were informed about the objectives of the study. The adolescents filled out the scales, anonymously, in their schools during a regular class period.
Measures and instruments were the following: Family communication, was measured using the 20-item Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale –PACS- from Barnes and Olson. The original scale shows a two-factor structure referring to degree of openness and extent of problems in family communication. However, we could not replicate this factor structure in our data. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation yielded a three-factor structure for father and mother separately: openness in family communication (10 items), offensive communication with parents (6 items), and avoidant communication with parents (4 items). Cronbach’s reliability coefficients for these subscales were 0.87, 0.76 and 0.75 respectively.
School self-esteem: was assessed using a 6-item School Self-Esteem Scale, adapted from a previous scale –AFA- from Musitu, García and Gutiérrez. This scale informs about the adolescent’s self-perception in relation to school and academic matters. Coefficient alpha in the present study was 0.86.
Victimization: was measured using a 6-item Victimization Scale which evaluates the frequency with which respondents have been victimized at school in the past 12 months. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.82.
Depressive symptomatology: was assessed by the Center of Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale -CESD. The CESD is a 20-item scale which evaluates the presence of depressive symptomatology, including depressed mood, positive affect, somatic and retarded activity, and negative perception of interpersonal relationships. It also provides a global measure of depressive mood, used in this study. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale in the present sample was 0.90.
Perceived stress: was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale –PSS- from Cohen, Kamarck, and Mermelstein. The PSS is a 14-item scale which measures the degree to which respondents appraised situations as stressful within the last month. Coefficient alpha in the current study for this scale was 0.82.
We used EQS 6.0 Structural Equation Program to examine the influence of family communication and school adjustment on adolescent’s mental health (psychological distress). The structural model showed a good fit with the data: S-B c2 (22, N = 875) = 55.56, p < .001; CFI = 0.98; IFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.96; and RMSEA = 0.05; and explained 53.6% of variance in psychological distress.
Latent variables in this model were: Communication with Father (indicators: open communication, offensive communication and avoidant communication), Communication with Mother (indicators: open communication, offensive communication and avoidant communication), School Self-Esteem, Victimization (these two variables consist of only one indicator), and Psychological Distress (indicators: depressive symptomatology and perceived stress).
In the prediction of adolescent’s psychological distress, results showed a direct influence of family communication problems on the degree of distress experienced. In other words, adolescents who informed about communication problems with their mothers and/or fathers, showed more depressive symptoms and stress. Moreover, we found an indirect influence of family communication on psychological distress, through its effect on adolescent’s school adjustment. In this sense, results indicated that open communication with parents was positively associated with school self-esteem which, in turn, was negatively related to psychological distress.
Also, communication with father showed an indirect relationship with adolescent’s distress, through victimization at school: negative father-adolescent communication seems to be related to victimization problems, and these problems, in turn, have a direct influence on the degree of psychological distress. These findings are consistent with those reported in recent studies indicating that the father-child relationship and victimization problems at school are two interrelated factors. It is possible that this negative parent-adolescent interaction results in a “victim scheme” in children, that is to say, in the conception of parents as threatening figures and of oneself as a weak person, which makes these adolescents behave in a way that invites victimization by peers.
As a conclusion, this investigation confirms previous research which points out the important role that family and school contexts play on adolescent mental health. Our results suggest that both family relationships and adjustment problems at school are directly related to the development of some psychological problems, such as the presence of depressive symptoms and stress.
Moreover, results of the present study show that some family and school factors are interrelated and jointly contribute to the explanation of adolescent psychological distress. The findings suggest that communication problems in the family context may result in adjustment problems in the school context which, in turn, have a negative effect on adolescent mental health.
Finally, caution about making causal inference from our results should be maintained, due to the correlational nature of the investigation. Further clarification of the relationships would require a longitudinal study. Nevertheless, from an exploratory point of view, the results of the current study could guide future investigations to obtain more conclusive data for the design of intervention programs.
REFERENCES