Received: 26 June 2018
Revised: 12 May 2021
Accepted: 16 May 2021
DOI: 10.1111/fare.12641
RESEARCH
A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effectiveness of
the TYRO Dads Program
Young-Il Kim1 |
Sung Joon Jang2
1
College of Social Work, George Fox
University, Newberg, Oregon, United States
2
Program on Prosocial Behavior, Institute for
Studies of Religion, Baylor University, Waco,
Texas, United States
Correspondence
Young-Il Kim, College of Social Work,
George Fox University, 414 N. Meridian St.
#6127, Newberg, OR 97132.
Email: ykim@georgefox.edu
Funding information
This study was funded by the Fatherhood
Research & Practice Network (FRPN). The
FRPN is supported by Grant Number
90PR0006 from the Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. The study was
also supported in part by the George Fox
University Grant GFU2018-19L04.
Abstract
Objective: To examine whether fathers who attend TYRO
Dads class report greater satisfaction in their relationship
with their child and increased engagement in activities with
their child than nonparticipants and, if so, whether parenting efficacy, parenting role identity, and coparenting relationship with the child’s mother account for differences in
father involvement between the intervention and control
groups.
Background: Despite the growing number of fatherhood
intervention programs, limited experimental research has
been conducted to evaluate their effectiveness.
Method: A randomized controlled trial was conducted
with a sample of 252 fathers randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Both groups completed a pretest survey and were followed up at the end of intervention
(posttest) and 3 months after the intervention (follow-up).
Latent growth curve models were used to estimate both
intervention and dosage effects.
Results: The intervention group fathers reported significant improvement over time in the level of satisfaction of
the relationship with their child. This finding may be
partly because program participants became more confident in their parenting role, had their parenting role identity enhanced, or felt better about their relationship with
their child’s mother. These results were more pronounced
among those who attended eight out of 10 sessions.
Conclusion: In this study, the TYRO Dads program was
an effective intervention helping low-income fathers boost
their confidence as a father and enhancing fathers’ perception of their relationship with the child’s mother.
Implications: Responsible fatherhood programs should
make an intentional effort to incentivize participation to
increase attendance and the likelihood of completing the
program.
© 2022 National Council on Family Relations.
Family Relations. 2023;72:271–293.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fare
271
KEYWORDS
coparenting, fatherhood, parenting efficacy, parenting role identity,
TYRO Dads
A consensus about the importance of fathers’ caregiving role has been growing over the past
three decades (LaRossa, 1988; Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, 2020). Low-income fathers, however, face significant barriers to meeting the caregiving needs of their children, let alone fulfilling the role of financial provider. Too many low-income fathers may struggle with stable
housing (Western & Smith, 2018), live in multiple households with multiple partners and children (Edin & Nelson, 2013; Guzzo, 2014), and have had experiences with the criminal justice
system (Adams, 2018), all of which are detrimental to effective parenting. As a result, lowincome fathers tend to lack commitment to both their paternal identity and confidence in their
parenting skills. These fathers can also experience difficulty in working together with the
mother of the child, which has been identified as one of the strongest barriers to fathers’
involvement in parenting (Carlson et al., 2011). Despite such obstacles, however, many of these
fathers desire to support their children financially and emotionally (Randles, 2020).
Because of the important consequences for children’s well-being, addressing the needs of
low-income fathers is crucial (McLanahan et al., 2013). For this reason, the federal government
has funded several community-based fatherhood programs as part of the implementation of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Berger &
Carlson, 2020). In the newest round of grants, Administration for Children and Families
(ACF; 2015) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded 91 organizations in 27 states to provide activities to help low-income fathers strengthen their relationships
with their child and the mother of the child. Although myriad fatherhood programs, including
those funded by the ACF, have existed since the implementation of the act, a fundamental question has been neglected: Do fathers improve their relationships with their children and the
mothers of their children as a consequence of the fatherhood program? Answering this causal
question requires an experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to either
an intervention or control group. Previous research, however, was mostly conducted without a
control group, or, when a control group was included in research design, assignment to groups
was not completed by a random assignment procedure, leaving the true effect of the intervention uncertain (Osborne et al., 2014).
Attempts to address these concerns have recently led to several large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies (Avellar et al., 2018; Hayward et al., 2019; Sarfo, 2018). A recent
meta-analysis, which reviewed some of those studies, reported small but statistically significant
positive effects for father involvement, parenting, and coparenting (Holmes et al., 2020). For
example, one study, which evaluated four fatherhood programs in the Midwest, reported a
greater increase in nurturing behavior and involvement in child activities (Avellar et al., 2018).
Another study evaluated a Baltimore fatherhood program and found that intervention group
fathers showed greater involvement in their children’s lives than those in the control group
(Sarfo, 2018).
The present study extends the current fatherhood RCT literature in two ways. First, we
not only examine intervention effects but also seek to identify the underlying mechanisms
responsible for the effects using several mediating factors: parenting efficacy, parenting role
identity, and father–mother coparenting relationship quality. To our knowledge, no RCT
study has identified mediating mechanisms that explain the difference in parenting outcomes
between intervention and control groups. Second, we use a three-wave panel design to track
changes in the outcomes of interest over a 4-month period of study. Again, this is the first
RCT study in this field showing the trajectory of outcome variables using growth curve
modeling.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FAMILY RELATIONS
272
273
INTERVENTION
The TYRO Dads program (TYRO, henceforth) is a 20-hour course delivered in 10 2-hour sessions over a 5-week period. Since 2006, TYRO has been run by The RIDGE Project in Ohio,
which was founded by Ron and Catherine Tijerina in 2000, based on their experience with
Ron’s own 15-year incarceration. The RIDGE Project implements TYRO primarily with incarcerated fathers, with approximately 85% of program completions occurring in prisons, jails,
and community corrections centers in Ohio. Since 2011, TYRO has also been implemented with
nonincarcerated fathers—a group we intend to study.
TYRO is built on the premise that when a father embraces the importance of his fatherhood
role, he is motivated to change and do what is right for his children and family. It is designed
also to increase fathers’ self-awareness and expand fathers’ view of what is possible for themselves and their families. These values are constantly reinforced throughout the workshop as
every workshop begins by reciting the TYRO Declaration that includes several statements
beginning with the words “I AM”: “I AM A TYRO. I AM a father. I AM a man of honor … I
do not embarrass my family nor do I cause them pain and suffering … I AM a man of integrity
… I AM trustworthy … I AM a leader. I AM a man worth following. I AM A TYRO!” (The
RIDGE Project, n.d.). Through these activities, fathers who participate in the program are
likely to learn the importance of various roles they ought to play as father (e.g., meeting emotional as well as physical and financial needs), which would enhance their confidence as a
father. TYRO also stresses the importance of communication and conflict management skills
that should enhance the ability of fathers to work together with the mother of their children as
parents. In addition, participating fathers are expected to be resilient when they face difficulties
in parenting.
TYRO is instructed by facilitators, who are recruited from the community and complete a
16-hour training to learn how to deliver workshops effectively. The facilitators use a detailed
instructional manual to present lessons and activities in each workshop. Participating fathers
complete a workbook with key points and questions to be answered for each workshop. The
workbook has space for notes, workshop exercises, and a list of homework assignments. TYRO
culminates with a completion ceremony in which participating fathers are awarded a certificate
of completion and a TYRO pin. This ceremony reinforces the father’s new identity as TYRO,
“a man of honor and integrity” who embraces his role as father and is committed to doing what
is right for his children and family. TYROs are further encouraged to join the TYRO Alumni
Community for support, encouragement, and accountability. Fathers who attend a minimum
of eight of the 10 classes receive a certificate of completion that ultimately enables them to
access Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding for certain types of training, such as the Commercial Driver’s License. Those who complete TYRO also receive case
management services to connect them to community services (e.g., legal aid, substance abuse
counseling) needed to help them overcome challenges to employment and developing healthy
and stable family relationships.
CURRENT STUDY
Intervention Effects
The current study mainly evaluates the effectiveness of TYRO in improving the quality of the
father’s relationship with his child, and we consider the following variables as our primary
outcomes: fathers’ satisfaction in their relationship with their child and the frequency of
fathers doing things together with their child or, in short, father–child activities. Attachment
theory provides a conceptual basis for our primary outcomes. The theory posits that a father’s
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
sense of closeness to his child and sensitivity to the child’s social and emotional needs increase
father–child interactions (Paquette, 2004). To the extent that the program is successful in
encouraging fathers to develop strong attachments with their child, fathers who participate in
the program are expected to report more satisfaction with their relationship with their child
than those in a control group. In addition, participating fathers are expected to do things
together with their children more often than their nonparticipating counterparts. Hence, we
hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 1a: Fathers who attend TYRO are more likely to show an increase in
their satisfaction with their relationship with the child over time than those who
do not.
Hypothesis 1b: Fathers who attend TYRO are more likely to show an increase in
the frequency of father–child activities over time than those who do not.
Drawing on identity theory and family systems theory, we evaluate the effectiveness of TYRO
in terms of improvement in three secondary outcomes of the program: parenting efficacy
(Freeman et al., 2008), parenting role identity (Rane & McBride, 2000), and the father’s perception of coparenting relationship with the child’s mother (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2011)—all of
which are emphasized in the TYRO curriculum. First, according to identity theory, an individual’s self is a hierarchy of identities in terms of status (e.g., father) and role (e.g., provider), and
more prominent central identities are more likely to affect the individual’s behaviors than are
others (Pasley et al., 2014; Stryker & Serpe, 1994). Therefore, to the extent that the program is
effective in helping fathers strengthen their paternal identity, intervention group fathers are
expected to report greater increase in parenting efficacy and role identity. To test intervention
effects for coparenting relationships, we draw on family systems theory, which emphasizes
interdependence of the family’s subsystems (i.e., father–child, mother–child, and father–mother
relationships). The theory stresses the significance of the father–mother relationship, especially
the coparenting relationship, in improving the father–child relationship (Cox et al., 2001;
Stevenson et al., 2014). Thus, we expect that attending TYRO will improve fathers’ perception
of coparenting. Taken together, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2. Fathers who attend TYRO are more likely to show an increase in
parenting efficacy, parenting role identity, and coparenting relationship with the
child’s mother over time than those who do not attend the program.
Mediation Effects
We examine these secondary outcomes not only because they are important aspects of parenting but also because we believe they help explain why participation in TYRO is likely to
increase fathers’ involvement in parenting. Thus, we test whether the secondary outcomes
account for differences in the primary outcomes between the intervention and control
groups.
Hypothesis 3. Fathers who attend TYRO are more likely to show an improvement in parenting efficacy, parenting role identity, and coparenting relationship, which in turn increases satisfaction with their relationship with the child
and the frequency of father–child activities, than those who do not attend the
program.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FAMILY RELATIONS
274
275
Dosage Effects
In addition to examining program effectiveness by comparing outcomes between the intervention and control groups, we evaluate dosage effects, which is receiving more attention in the
fatherhood research field (for a review, see Fagan & Pearson, 2020). We measured dosage levels
by attendance and compared outcomes for fathers in the intervention group whether they
attended at least eight sessions—the required minimum number of sessions for program completion. We expect the effect of TYRO to be greater among fathers who attend more sessions
than those who attend fewer or none. In doing so, we can determine whether the minimum
attendance required by RIDGE is a key threshold for reaping the full benefit of the program.
METHOD
Study Design
We used an RCT design to evaluate the effectiveness of TYRO in improving the father–child relationship outcomes among low-income fathers in Ohio. TYRO was offered throughout the year,
and the RIDGE allowed us to implement our study to new cohorts of clients at 17 sites across nine
cities (Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Lima, Mansfield, Toledo, and Wooster).
Some cities had multiple sites (e.g., Cleveland), although others had one (e.g., Canton). A total of
six facilitators were involved in this study, and each course was led by a single instructor except at
one site in Dayton. The RIDGE headquarters trained facilitators of all sites for data collection and
research procedures. The study protocol and instrument were approved by Baylor University’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB Reference # 679364) in January 2015, and data were collected
between February 2015 and September 2016 at each site at three time points: baseline (pretest),
immediately after the intervention (posttest), and 3 months after the intervention (follow-up).
Pretest survey
Baseline assessment was administered at an orientation meeting, where randomized participating fathers were invited to complete a pretest survey before the first session of the class. All
fathers eligible for the study were notified via mail of the time and location of the orientation.
Both intervention and control group fathers participated in the baseline assessment after which
they were informed about group assignment.
Posttest survey
Immediate postintervention assessment was administered to intervention group fathers at the
end of the last class session. Fathers in the intervention group were reminded of the time and
location of posttest survey administration in Class Sessions 8 and 9. Facilitators at each location administered the survey following a predetermined protocol. The control group fathers
participated in the posttest survey over the phone by a trained interviewer.
Follow-up survey
Approximately 3 months after the posttest survey, the interviewer called all fathers in both
groups and conducted telephone interview for a follow-up survey.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
FAMILY RELATIONS
Sample Size
To obtain a sample that would enable us to detect a difference between intervention and control
groups, we conducted power analysis that applied a small-to-medium effect size (.30) and expected
attrition rate (20%) based on prior research (Cowan et al., 2009; Rienks et al., 2011) for three correlations of outcomes between time points: low (.25), medium (.50), and high correlation (.75). Our
analysis revealed that we would need 172 per group (a total of 344) at baseline after adjusting for
an attrition rate of 20%. Although our baseline sample (n = 252) was smaller than the target sample size, attrition analysis revealed generally no significant difference in sociodemographic characteristics among fathers who participated in the pretest, posttest, and follow-up surveys with only a
few exceptions (see Appendix S1 for the details of attrition analysis).
Participants
Eligibility criteria for study participants included being a man who was 18 years old or older, a
father of at least one biological child under age 19 years, and having a household income at or
below 200% of the federal poverty level. The study participants were recruited from a variety of
settings, including child support enforcement agencies, job and family services, organizations
serving individuals with mental or behavioral health needs, organizations serving individuals
with drug or alcohol addiction, probation and parole, courts, reentry coalitions, Head Start,
and one-stop employment agencies. At these organizations, flyers and sign-up forms for this
study were posted along with TYRO applications. In addition, the TYRO facilitators actively
recruited at the locations where the classes were held. Individuals interested in participating in
this study sent their completed application and sign-up form to the RIDGE headquarters office.
At the initial screening stage, staff at the RIDGE regional offices screened applicants and
emailed a list of those eligible for this study to the principal investigator for random assignment
of eligible fathers to intervention and control groups before the pretest.
Participation Flow
Figure 1 shows how the number of participants changed throughout the study period. A total
of 525 fathers were recruited and assessed for eligibility, and 469 fathers met the entry criteria
and were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 257) and control (n = 212) groups. However,
217 of them (120 in the intervention group and 97 in the control group) did not show up for the
baseline assessment, which resulted in 252 completion of the baseline assessment (137 in the
intervention group and 115 in the control group). Subsequently, 177 (87 in the intervention
group and 90 in the control group) and 140 fathers (81 in the intervention group and 59 in the
control group) completed the posttest and 3-month follow-up surveys, respectively. Eventually,
a total of 120 fathers (65 in the intervention group and 55 in the control group) completed all
three surveys, whereas the remaining 132 fathers participated in one or two surveys: 55 fathers
who completed only the pretest, 57 who did only the pretest and immediate posttest, and
20 who did only the pretest and 3-month follow-up posttest (not shown in Figure 1).
Randomization
The principal investigator (PI) randomly assigned the participants to experimental and control
groups at a 1:1 allocation ratio using a computer-generated list of random numbers (StataCorp,
College Station, TX). The PI then sent the randomization list to the RIDGE headquarters
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
276
277
Assessed for eligibility (n = 525)
Excluded (n = 56)
ƒ Not meeting inclusion criteria (n =
56)
Randomized (n = 469)
Allocated to intervention (n = 257)
ƒ Did not receive allocated intervention
(n = 0)
Allocated to control (n = 212)
ƒ Did not receive allocated intervention
(n = 0)
Baseline Questionnaire returned (n = 137)
ƒ No show-up (n = 120)
Baseline Questionnaire returned (n = 115)
ƒ No show-up (n = 97)
Immediate follow-up (n = 87)
ƒ Discontinued (n = 50)
Immediate follow-up (n = 90)
ƒ Discontinued (n = 25)
3-month follow-up (n = 81)
ƒ Discontinued (n = 6)
3-month follow-up (n = 59)
ƒ Discontinued (n = 31)
Analyzed (n = 65)
ƒ Excluded from analysis due to
insufficient data (n = 16)
Analyzed (n = 55)
ƒ Excluded from analysis due to
insufficient data (n = 4)
FIGURE 1
Flow Diagram
office in which a study coordinator prepared group assignment letters to study participants. For
those assigned to the control group, a $20 gift card incentive was included in the envelope. The
study coordinator then distributed the sealed envelopes to facilitators at research sites. The
study participants gave informed consent and completed the baseline survey. After that, the
facilitator handed out the sealed envelopes to the participants, and they learned their group
assignment. Both the facilitators and the participants were blinded to the randomization.
Measurement
Satisfaction with one’s relationship with the child
We used four items about how happy and satisfied the father was with his relationship with the
child, how good the relationship was, and how close the father felt with the child. These items
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
FAMILY RELATIONS
were taken from the NRI-Relationship Qualities Version (NRI-RQV; Furman &
Buhrmester, 2009). They were all measured based on a 5-point Likert scale, although the content of response options differed among the items (i.e., 1 = not at all happy, 5 = extremely
happy; 1 = not satisfied, 5 = extremely satisfied; 1 = not good, 5 = great; 1 = not at all close,
5 = extremely close). All items were loaded on a single factor with high loadings, ranging from
.83 to .92 (pretest), from .78 to .89 (posttest), and from .85 to .88 (follow-up). Interitem reliability was excellent across the three waves (α = .92, .92, and .92). We constructed a scale of satisfaction with one’s relationship with the child by averaging the four items. When fathers had
more than one biological child, they were asked to report about the youngest one.
The frequency of father–child activities
To measure fathers’ involvement in activities with their child, we employed multiple developmentally age-appropriate items, which was originally developed by the Fatherhood Research
Practice Network (FRPN; Dyer et al., 2018).
The items varied depending on the age of child: 19 items (12 months or younger), 26 items
(older than 12 months but younger than 12 years old), and 24 items (12 years old or older).
Some items were same across the age groups (e.g., How often have you had meals with the
child?); other items were specific to each age group (e.g., How often have you changed diapers? [12 months or younger]; How often have you made sure that the child’s teeth were
brushed? [older than 12 months but younger than 12 years old]; How often have you played
or assisted the child with sports? [12 years old or older]). Each item was measured using a
5-point Likert scale, where 1 = rarely or never and 5 = almost every day. For each age group,
we constructed a scale of father–child activities by averaging the items at pretest, posttest,
and follow-up. All factor loadings were higher than .50, and interitem reliability was excellent, ranging from .980 to .984 (the child 12 months old or younger), from .984 to .988 (the
child older than 12 months but younger than 12 years old), and from .969 to .978 (the child
12 years old or older).
Parenting efficacy
To measure parenting efficacy, we used a scale developed by the FRPN. The items on this scale
assess father’s perceived sense of control in providing parental care for child, such as “Helping
the child when he/she is upset or distressed” and “Understanding what the child wants or needs”
(1 = definitely not true, 4 = definitely true). Factor loadings ranged from .62 to .88 (pretest),
from .70 to .91 (posttest), and from .84 to .92 (follow-up), and internal reliability was excellent
at all surveys (α = .93, .94, .96). A scale of parenting efficacy was constructed by averaging the
seven items.
Parenting role identity
Seven items were used to measure parenting role identity. Fathers were asked how important
different parental roles were to them, for example, “being a good financial provider for my
child,” “being always available to my child,” and “meeting my child’s physical and emotional
needs” (1 = not at all important, 4 = extremely important). A scale of parenting role identity
was constructed by averaging the seven items. Factor loadings were moderate to high, ranging
from .51 to .80, from .57 to .89, and from .69 to .88, whereas interitem reliability was high to
excellent (α = .87, .91, and .92).
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
278
279
Coparenting relationship with the child’s mother
We used eight of 11 FRPN-validated Coparenting Relationship Scale items that measure the
extent to which parenting partners trust each other and have quality communications between
them (Cohen & Weissman, 1984). They tap the construct’s three dimensions—undermining
(2 items), alliance (4 items), and gatekeeping (2 items; Dyer et al., 2018), using 5-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Exploratory factor analysis generated a twofactor solution, with the negative items of undermining and gatekeeping being loaded on one
factor and the positive items of alliance on the other across all three surveys, and their loadings
were all higher than .40. Because the two-factor solution was likely to be a methodological artifact (i.e., negative and positive items clustered separately) and the items had very high internal
reliability at each survey (α = .90, .92, .89), we averaged all eight items to construct a scale of
coparenting relationship.
Background characteristics
Father’s sociodemographic and criminal characteristics were drawn from fathers’ completed
application form: age, race and ethnicity, education, income, marital status, household size
(i.e., number of people in the household), prior incarceration, parole status, and prior conviction of sex offense.
Analysis Plan
We used latent growth curve modeling (Bollen & Curran, 2006) to evaluate the effectiveness of
TYRO in improving father–child relationships over a 4-month of period. Figure 2 shows our
F I G U R E 2 Latent Growth Curve Model of the Intervention Effect of TYRO on Primary (Fathers’ Satisfaction
With Their Relationship With Their Child and Frequency of Father–Child Activities) and Secondary Outcome
(Parenting Efficacy, Parenting Role Identity, and Coparenting Relationship) With Two Time-Invariant Covariates
(Married and Household Size)
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
FAMILY RELATIONS
latent growth curve model in which the repeated measures of outcome variables are specified
as indicators of the intercept and slope growth factors. For the intercept factor, loadings from
the factor to each of the repeated measures are fixed to values of 1.0, indicating that the factor
equally affects all repeated measures across the surveys. For the slope factor, on the other
hand, loadings are fixed to the values of 0, 1.0, and 4.0 to model a linear function of time,
given that the posttest and 3-month follow-up were conducted 1 and 4 months after the pretest, respectively. The endogenous growth factors of intercept and slope were regressed on the
key exogenous variable of intervention (0 = control group, 1 = intervention group) and the
time-invariant covariates, which were correlated with one another. The model is a “conditional” model because it controls for the two time-invariant covariates in which our attrition
analysis revealed the intervention and control group fathers were different: being married
(vs. not married, whether never married, divorced, separated, cohabiting, or widowed) and
household size.
Although not shown in a figure, we analyzed dosage effects by replacing the dummy variable of group membership (0 = control group, 1 = intervention group) with three dummy variables to operationalize dosage: low (one to four sessions), medium (five to seven sessions), and
high levels of class attendance (eight to 10 sessions), with no attendance (0 sessions) being the
reference category. Control group fathers were coded as having attended 0 sessions. By doing
so, we examined whether intervention group fathers who attended at least eight sessions were
more likely to reap the benefit of the program than those who attended less than eight sessions
as well as the control group fathers.
Because most of this study’s measures are ordered categorical variables, the MLR estimator
(maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors) of Mplus Version 8 was employed
(Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Further, Muthén’s (1983) general structural equation model and its
full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation, incorporated into Mplus, allowed us
to include not only continuous but also dichotomous and ordered polytomous variables in the
model. To treat missing data, we applied FIML, which tends to produce unbiased estimates,
like multiple imputations (Schafer & Graham, 2002).
For data-model fit assessment, we use Hu and Bentler’s (1999) two-index presentation strategy, focusing on three fit indices: comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean squared
residual (SRMR), and root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA). They found that
using a cutoff value of .95 for CFI in combination with that of .08 for SRMR “resulted in the
least sum of Type I and Type II error rates” (p. 28). The same was found when they replaced
CFI with RMSEA using a cutoff value of .06. Thus, two combinational rules were used to evaluate model fit: (CFI ≥ .95 and SRMR ≤ .08) and (SRMR ≤ .08 and RMSEA ≤ .06). For statistical significance, a two-tailed test (α = .05) was conducted with a one-tailed test (α = .05) being
applied as well when coefficients are in the hypothesized direction.
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 summarizes the sociodemographic and criminal characteristics of the total sample
(n = 252) at the pretest, which consists of 115 fathers in the intervention group and 137 in the
control group. On average, study participants were in their mid-30s, and more than two thirds
of them had previously been incarcerated. A large majority of the participants were non-White,
and two thirds or more of fathers were never married. On average, the participants live with
two children in their household all or most of the time. The participants typically lived with two
people in the same household that had an average annual income of approximately $6000 and
had no high school diploma or GED.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
280
TABLE 1
281
Baseline Sociodemographic and Criminal Characteristics of the Fathers (N = 252)
Control group n = 115
Experimental group n = 137
Variables
M
SD
M
SD
p
Age
35.09
10.86
34.44
10.61
.637
Ever incarcerated
0.72
0.45
0.68
0.47
.439
On parole
0.23
0.43
0.30
0.46
.310
Ever convicted of sex offense
0.05
0.22
0.05
0.22
.976
Hispanic
0.06
0.24
0.07
0.26
.782
Black
0.71
0.46
0.63
0.48
.209
White
0.24
0.43
0.32
0.47
.165
Other race
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.09
.852
Non-White
0.77
0.42
0.69
0.46
.183
Never married
0.73
0.45
0.66
0.48
.208
Married
0.08
0.27
0.16
0.37
.042
Divorced
0.19
0.40
0.16
0.37
.524
Widowed
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.15
.083
Cohabitation
0.16
0.36
0.12
0.32
.360
Number of people in the household
1.81
1.65
2.05
1.81
.275
Number of children in the household
1.92
1.35
2.06
1.81
.210
Household income ($1000 s)
5.90
15.78
5.93
10.94
.988
Personal income ($1000 s)
2.76
6.86
3.77
8.19
.326
Education
1.91
0.79
1.89
0.82
.844
Baseline comparisons between the intervention and control groups showed no significant
difference except in marital status: Control group fathers were less likely to be married (7.8%)
than intervention group fathers (16.1%, p = .042). We also found significant difference in the
number of people living in the household between the groups when we analyzed for a subsample of fathers who participated in all three surveys (n = 120). Specifically, fathers in the control
group reported living with a smaller number of people in their household (1.82) than the intervention group fathers (2.49, p = .01; not shown in the table). On the basis of this finding, we
control for these two variables in the subsequent analyses.
Program Dosage
On average, intervention group fathers attended about half of the sessions (5.31) with a standard deviation of 3.80 sessions. Twenty-three (16.8%) of the 137 fathers in the intervention
group did not attend even a single session, and, coincidentally, the same number of fathers
(23, 16.8%) had perfect attendance (i.e., 10 sessions). The number of fathers who attended at
least one session but less than the average was 36 (26.3%), whereas those who attended five to
nine sessions was 55 (40.1%) with 24 (17.5%) of them missing just one session. About four out
of 10 (56, 40.9%) intervention group fathers attended at least eight sessions. The average age of
high-attending fathers (37.54) was older than that of the rest of the fathers (32.31). Using onetailed test (α = .05), the high attendance group was more likely to cohabit (18%) and had higher
education (2.05) compared with the other groups combined (7% and 1.78, respectively). We
found no difference, however, in criminal background, race and ethnicity, marital status (other
than cohabitation), household size, and income.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
FAMILY RELATIONS
Effect Size.
Before testing our hypotheses about the effect of intervention on changes in parenting
outcomes over time, we examined the effect in terms of Cohen’s (1992) d at the posttest
(T2) and follow-up (T3) based on 10 (= 5 parenting outcomes 2 time points) mean comparisons between the intervention and control groups. The effect size was small (i.e., .20 or
smaller) and not significant for fathers’ satisfaction with their relationship with the child at
T2 and T3 (d = .18 and .20, p > .05), frequency of father child activities at T2 and T3
(d = .01 and .02, p > .05), parenting efficacy at T2 (d = .12, p > .05), parenting role identity at T2 and T3 (d = .05 and .16, p > .05), and coparenting relationship at T2 (d = .20,
p > .05). On the other hand, a small (.20) to medium (.50), significant effect size was found
for parenting efficacy at T3 (d = .34, p < .05) and coparenting relationship at T3
(d = .41, p < .05).
H1a and H1b: Improvement in Primary Outcomes in the Intervention Group
To examine whether participation in TYRO increased the fathers’ satisfaction with their
relationship with their child (Hypothesis 1a) and involvement in activities with their child
(Hypothesis 1b) over the 4-month period of evaluation, we estimated the latent growth
model for the total sample (N = 252). Table 2 presents estimated intervention effects,
whereas Table 3 shows results from the analysis of dosage effect. We found that CFIs were
all higher than the cutoff of .95, and SRMRs were smaller than the cutoff of .08. RMSEAs
were smaller than .06 with one exception (i.e., intervention effect for fathers’ satisfaction
with their relationship with their child), whereas the 90% confidence interval of RMSEA
tended to include values larger than the cutoff of .06. In sum, all models were found to
have a good fit to data, meeting one of the two joint criteria—that is, CFI ≥ .95 and
SRMR ≤ .08.
Intervention effects
We found no intervention effect on the primary outcomes (see Table 2), as the effect of intervention on the slope factors of satisfaction with their relationship with their child and the frequency of father–child activities were not significant (B = 0.06, B = 0.04, p > .05).
Dosage effects
When we take dosage levels into account, significant effects were found for fathers’ satisfaction
with their relationship with their child (see Table 3). Specifically, the intervention effect for
fathers’ satisfaction with their relationship with their child was observed for the high-dosage
(B = 0.09, p < .05) but not the low- or medium-dosage groups (B = 0.05 and B = 0.04,
p > .05). No significant effect was observed for the frequency of father–child activities
(B = 0.02, B = 0.04, B = 0.04, p > .05).
In sum, Hypothesis 1a was supported only for dosage effects, and Hypothesis 1b received
no support.
H2: Improvement in Secondary Outcomes in the Intervention Group
Next, we examined the intervention and dosage effects for the secondary outcomes.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
282
.02
SRMR
.02
1.00
.00 [.00, .08]
2.86 [4, .581]
(0.05)
0.23**
(0.25)
0.41
(0.16)
(0.01)
0.02
(0.07)
0.06
(0.05)
0.04
Slope
.01
1.00
.00 [.00, .07]
1.94 [4, .757]
(0.02)
0.05**
(0.10)
0.01
(0.09)
0.02
Intercept
(0.01)
0.01*
(0.05)
0.00
(0.03)
0.06*
Slope
Parenting efficacy
.01
1.00
.00 [.00, .08]
2.55 [4, .635]
(0.07)
0.20**
(0.09)
0.18**
(0.05)
0.02
Intercept
(0.07)
0.06
(0.08)
0.05
(0.02)
0.03
Slope
Parenting role identity
.02
1.00
.00 [.00, .09]
3.29 [4, .510]
(0.03)
0.08**
(0.16)
0.20
(0.09)
0.05
Intercept
(0.01)
0.01
(0.04)
0.04
(0.03)
0.06**
Slope
Coparenting relationship
283
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Note. Unstandardized parameter estimates are presented with their standard errors in parentheses. CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval; FFA = frequency of father–child activities;
RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; SRC = satisfaction with one’s relationship with the child; SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual.
*
p < .05 (one-tailed test).
**
p < .05 (two-tailed test).
.98
.06 [.00, .13]
CFI
7.95 [4, .093]
(0.01)
(0.04)
RMSEA [90% CI]
0.00
0.18**
0.03
(0.06)
0.01
(0.21)
χ2 [df, p value]
Fit indices
Household size
Married
0.06
(0.04)
0.01
(0.15)
Intervention
0.04
Intercept
Intercept
Slope
FFA
SRC
Conditional Linear Latent Curve Models of Intervention Effects and Covariates on Parenting Outcomes (N = 252)
Exogenous
variables
TABLE 2
TYRO DADS
(0.01)
(0.04)
.01
CFI
SRMR
.02
1.00
.00 [.00, .06]
3.69 [6, .719]
(0.05)
0.24**
(0.24)
0.46*
(0.20)
0.11
(0.30)
0.25
(0.24)
0.29
(0.01)
0.02
(0.07)
0.07
(0.06)
0.04
(0.11)
0.04
(0.08)
0.02
Slope
.01
1.00
.00 [.00, .04]
2.56 [6, .862]
(0.02)
0.05**
(0.10)
0.02
(0.10)
0.04
(0.18)
0.14
(0.15)
0.06
Intercept
(0.01)
0.01
(0.05)
0.01
(0.03)
0.07**
(0.04)
0.04
(0.05)
0.05
Slope
Parenting efficacy
.02
1.00
.00 [.00, .07]
4.31 [6, .635]
(0.01)
0.04**
(0.09)
0.19**
(0.07)
0.08
(0.09)
0.01
(0.07)
0.01
Intercept
(0.01)
0.00
(0.03)
0.02
(0.03)
0.05*
(0.04)
0.01
(0.03)
0.02
Slope
Parenting role identity
.02
.99
.04 [.00, .10]
8.73 [6, .189]
(0.03)
0.09**
(0.15)
0.24
(0.12)
0.10
(0.16)
0.23
(0.14)
0.22
Intercept
(0.01)
0.01
(0.04)
0.04
(0.03)
0.08**
(0.04)
0.05
(0.05)
0.10**
Slope
Coparenting relationship
FAMILY RELATIONS
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Note. Unstandardized parameter estimates are presented with their standard errors in parentheses. CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval; FFA = frequency of father–child activities;
RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; SRC = satisfaction with one’s relationship with the child; SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual.
*
p < .05 (one-tailed test).
**
p < .05 (two-tailed test).
.02 [.00, .09]
1.00
RMSEA [90% CI]
6.95 [6, .325]
0.00
(0.06)
(0.21)
0.18**
0.03
0.13
0.09**
(0.04)
0.24
(0.05)
(0.27)
(0.19)
0.04
(0.06)
0.11
(0.22)
χ2 [df, p value]
Fit indices
Household size
Married
8–10 sessions attended
5–7 sessions attended
0.05
0.24
Intercept
Intercept
Slope
FFA
SRC
Conditional Linear Latent Curve Models of Dosage Effects and Covariates on Parenting Outcomes (N = 252)
1–4 sessions attended
Exogenous
variables
TABLE 3
284
285
Intervention effects
Table 2 shows significant improvement among the intervention group fathers in parenting efficacy (B = 0.06, p < .05) and coparenting relationship with their child’s mother (B = 0.06,
p < .05) but not in parenting role identity (B = 0.03, p > .05).
Dosage effects
Table 3 shows that the high-dosage group reported a significant increase not only in parenting
efficacy (B = 0.07, p < .05) and coparenting relationship (B = 0.08, p < .05) but also in parenting role identity (B = 0.05, p < .05).
In sum, Hypothesis 2 received partial support for two of the three secondary outcomes from
the both intervention and dosage effects models.
H3: Improvement in Primary Outcomes Mediated Through Secondary Outcomes
Tables 4 through 7 show results from estimating models where the slope factors of secondary
outcomes mediate the intervention effect of primary outcomes for the total sample minus
12 cases missing on all exogenous variables (N = 240). In each table, the first three columns
indicate the effects of program participation and two control variables on the intercept and
slope factors of mediators (coparenting relationship, parenting efficacy, and parenting role identity), whereas the last column shows the effects of the mediators as well as exogenous variables
on the intercept and slope factors of fathers’ satisfaction with their relationship with their child
(Tables 4 and 6) and the frequency of father–child activities (Tables 5 and 7).
T A B L E 4 Conditional Linear Latent Curve Models of the Effects of Intervention on Mediators (Coparenting
Relationship, Parenting Efficacy, and Parenting Role Identity) and Fathers’ Satisfaction With Their Relationship with
Their Child (N = 240)
Exogenous
variables
Coparenting
relationship
Intercept
Parenting
efficacy
Slope
Parenting role
identity
SRC
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
Slope
Married
0.21
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.18
0.02
0.10
0.02
Household size
0.09**
0.01
0.05**
0.01
0.04**
0.00
0.08**
0.01
Intervention
0.04
0.07**
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.07
Coparenting relationship
Intercept
0.61**
Slope
0.90**
Parenting efficacy
Intercept
1.07**
Slope
0.89**
Parenting role identity
Intercept
Slope
0.27
1.15**
Note. χ (55) = 124.36, p < .05; root mean squared error of approximation = .07; comparative fit index = .93; standardized root mean
squared residual = .05. SRC = Satisfaction with one’s relationship with the child. The sample size is reduced from 252 to 240 due to 12
missing cases.
*
p < .05 (one-tailed test).
**
p < .05 (two-tailed test).
2
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
T A B L E 5 Conditional Linear Latent Curve Models of the Effects of Intervention on Mediators (Coparenting
Relationship, Parenting Efficacy, and Parenting Role Identity) and Frequency of Father–Child Activities (N = 240)
Exogenous
variables
Coparenting
relationship
Intercept
Parenting
efficacy
Slope
Parenting role
identity
FFA
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
0.01
0.18
0.02
0.26
Slope
Married
0.21
0.03
0.02
0.08
Household size
0.09**
0.01
0.05**
0.01
0.04**
0.00
0.18**
0.03
Intervention
0.05
0.06**
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.23**
Coparenting relationship
Intercept
0.15
Slope
0.89*
Parenting efficacy
Intercept
1.25**
Slope
0.99**
Parenting role identity
Intercept
0.40
Slope
2.48**
Note. χ (55) = 101.69, p < .05; root mean squared error of approximation = .06; comparative fit index = .94; standardized root mean
squared residual = .06. FFA = Frequency of father–child activities. The sample size is reduced from 252 to 240 due to 12 missing cases.
*
p < .05 (one-tailed test).
**
p < .05 (two-tailed test).
2
T A B L E 6 Conditional Linear Latent Curve Models of the Effects of Dosage on Mediators (Coparenting
Relationship, Parenting Efficacy, and Parenting Role Identity) and Fathers’ Satisfaction With Their Relationship With
Their Child (N = 240)
Exogenous
variables
Married
Coparenting
relationship
Intercept
0.26*
Parenting
efficacy
Slope
Parenting role
identity
SRC
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.18
0.02
0.11
Slope
0.01
Household size
0.09**
0.01
0.05**
0.01
0.04**
0.00
0.07**
0.02
1
0.26
0.11**
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.09
5–7 sessions attended
0.22
0.05
0.12
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.06
8+ sessions attended
0.11
0.09**
0.04
0.06*
0.07
0.05*
0.16
0.02
4 sessions attended
Coparenting relationship
Intercept
0.61**
Slope
0.62
Parenting efficacy
Intercept
1.13**
Slope
1.69**
Parenting role identity
Intercept
Slope
0.21
0.31
Note. χ (63) = 123.38, p < .05; root mean squared error of approximation = .07; comparative fit index = .94; standardized root mean
squared residual = .04. SRC = satisfaction with one’s relationship with the child. The sample size is reduced from 252 to 240 due to 12
missing cases.
*
p < .05 (one-tailed test).
**
p < .05 (two-tailed test).
2
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FAMILY RELATIONS
286
287
T A B L E 7 Conditional Linear Latent Curve Models of the Effects of Dosage on Mediators (Coparenting
Relationship, Parenting Efficacy, and Parenting Role Identity) and Frequency of Father–Child Activities (N = 240)
Exogenous
variables
Coparenting
relationship
Intercept
Parenting
efficacy
Slope
Parenting role
identity
FFA
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
Slope
Intercept
Slope
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.18
0.02
0.30
0.10
0.02
Married
0.26*
Household size
0.09**
0.01
0.05**
0.01
0.04**
0.00
0.18**
1
4 sessions attended
0.25
0.12**
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.05*
0.17
0.28**
5
7 sessions attended
0.23
0.05
0.11
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.38
0.16
0.10
0.08**
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.05*
0.02
0.31**
≥8 sessions attended
Coparenting relationship
Intercept
0.08
Slope
0.92*
Parenting efficacy
Intercept
1.30**
Slope
1.00**
Parenting role identity
Intercept
Slope
0.43
2.28**
Note. χ (63) = 112.23, p < .05; root mean squared error of approximation = .06; comparative fit index = .94; standardized root mean
squared residual = .06. FFA = frequency of father–child activities. The sample size is reduced from 252 to 240 due to 12 missing cases.
*
p < .05 (one-tailed test).
**
p < .05 (two-tailed test).
2
Intervention effects
In Table 4, the last column shows that the growth factors of mediators had positive effects on
those of fathers’ satisfaction with their relationship with their child (SRC) with one exception
(i.e., the effect of parenting role identity’s intercept factor on SRC’s intercept factor, 0.27).
The associations between slope factors of mediator and SRC are of key interest, and we found
fathers, whose coparenting relationship, parenting efficacy, and role identity improved, tended
to report increasing SRC (0.90, 0.89, and 1.15, respectively). In supplemental analysis, we tested
the statistical significance of mediation effects (results available upon request), which confirmed
that intervention had significant indirect effect on the slope factor of SRC via the slope factor
of coparenting relationship (B = 0.06, p < .05) and parenting role identity (B = 0.04, p < .05)
but not parenting efficacy (B = 0.04, p > .05). Table 5 shows that the intervention also had indirect effect on the frequency of father–child activities via one of the three mediators. Specifically,
coparenting relationship, positively related to frequency of father–child activities (B = 0.89,
p < .05) as well as the intervention (see Table 2), significantly mediated the relationship between
the two variables (B = 0.06, p < .05; not shown in the table).
Dosage effects
Table 6 shows results from estimating the same model with different dosage levels. We see that
only one of the slope factors was found to be positively associated with the slope factor of SRC:
parenting efficacy (B = 1.69, p < .05). This result supports the significance of indirect effect
(B = 0.10, p < .05; not shown), which we found was the only nonsignificant mediator in the
intervention effects model.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
FAMILY RELATIONS
Table 7 shows the slope factor of frequency of father–child activities was positively related
to that of coparenting relationship, parenting efficacy, and parenting role identity (0.92, 1.00,
and 2.28, respectively), although the direct effect of two levels of dosage was negative ( 0.28
and 0.31), and the mediation by parenting role identity in the dosage effect model was significant (B = 0.12, p < .05 for both low and high attendance groups; not shown).
In sum, Hypothesis 3 received partial support. That is, the intervention, particularly high
levels of attendance at TYRO, increased intervention group fathers’ perception of coparenting
quality, parenting efficacy, and parenting role identity, which in turn contributed to an increase
in those fathers’ satisfaction with their relationship with their child and the frequency of
father child activities over time.
DISCUSSION
The objective of the current study was to conduct a rigorous evaluation of an Ohio-based
fatherhood program to determine whether the program achieves its intended goals. We found
some evidence that the program is effective in making a positive difference in the lives of lowincome fathers. Before discussing the results of this study, it is necessary to acknowledge the
limitations regarding high no-show rates for the baseline survey. As presented in Figure 1, we
randomized 469 participants interested in participation, but 53% (217 of 469) of these participants did not show up for the baseline appointment. We believe there are two reasons for this.
First, the study population was highly mobile. We sent out a reminder mail that might have
been delivered to the wrong address. Or even if it was delivered correctly, they might have had
other obligations during the baseline appointment. Future researchers who wish to study similar
populations should make every effort to reduce no-show rates, for example, by sending email or
text reminders as well as regular mail.
Another potential reason for the high no-show rates was because the program completion
came with an opportunity to work as a truck driver at a company. This means that being
assigned to the control group would result in the loss of that opportunity because those assigned
to the control group had to wait until the study was completed. It was very likely that some of
those fathers might have dropped out of the study to enroll in a non–study-related TYRO class.
We had no control over such dropout to decrease no-show rates. Because those 217 dropouts
did not provide baseline data, there may be differences between those dropouts and the fathers
who completed baseline assessment, and those differences may have introduced bias into the
data. Therefore, the subsequent discussions of the findings should be considered in light of that
limitation.
One of the important findings of the current study is that TYRO improved fathers’ satisfaction with their relationship with their child if they participated in the program regularly, attending most sessions—at least 80%. Our estimated growth curve models suggested that fathers
enhanced their satisfaction with their relationship with their child not only during and immediately after the intervention but also 3 months after the intervention ended. Figure 3, which
shows changes in the mean of all outcome variables across the three surveys, illustrates that,
compared with the other two groups of fathers, fathers who attended eight or more sessions
showed a pattern of increase in satisfaction with their relationship with their child over time.
Second, as observed in Figure 3, TYRO helped fathers increase their perception of parenting efficacy over the 4-month period of study. This finding, which was robust to both intervention and dosage effects models, was encouraging because TYRO focuses their curriculum on
self-confidence and positive self-image as fathers. For example, two of the lessons, “The Great I
Ams” and “Family Crest” emphasize helping fathers develop a sense of empowerment, selfesteem, and a positive vision for their family future. As a recent qualitative study reported,
many low-income fathers, who suffer from low self-esteem and instability of their father
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
288
289
Satisfaction with the Relationship with the Child
4.000
Frequency of Father–Child Activities
3.500
3.000
3.800
2.500
3.600
2.000
1.500
3.400
1.000
3.200
.500
.000
3.000
Time 1
Time 2
Time 1
Time 3
Parenting Efficacy
Time 2
Time 3
Parenting Role Identity
3.600
3.800
3.500
3.700
3.400
3.600
3.300
3.500
3.200
3.400
3.100
3.000
3.300
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Coparenting Relationship
3.100
3.000
2.900
2.800
2.700
Control group
2.600
Less than 8 sessions attended
2.500
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
8 or more sessions attended
F I G U R E 3 Group Means of Parenting Outcomes at the Time of Pretest (Time 1), Posttest (Time 2), and FollowUp Survey (Time 3)
identity, appreciate the emotional support that they receive from instructors in the fatherhood
program (Randles, 2020).
Third, fathers’ perception of coparenting quality, along with parenting efficacy, turned
out to be strongest change that TYRO brings about to the study participants. This result is
important because other previous evaluation studies have not confirmed this finding (Avellar
et al., 2018; Sarfo, 2018). We speculate that fathers may have made every effort to improve
their relationship with their child’s mother for the sake of becoming a good father, as they
were encouraged to do so while taking TYRO. Or possibly, the child’s mother may have
observed genuine changes in the father’s character, behavior, and attitude over the study
period. As a result, the child’s mother might have become more willing to “open the gate” and
cooperate with the father, which could boost their perception of the coparenting relationship
(Fagan & Cherson, 2015). Qualitative research may shed light on the process by which fathers
perceive their relationship with the child’s mother positively by collecting data from the child’s mother.
Fourth, we found evidence that TYRO improved fathers’ satisfaction with their relationship
with their child partly because it helped enhance their parenting role identity and perception of
coparenting relationship with the child’s mother. The latter finding corroborates previous findings regarding the importance of parental alliance from evaluation research. For example,
Rienks et al. (2011), who evaluated a 2-week relationship education program, found an increase
in parental alliance to be related to an increase in father involvement at posttest. Because of the
relatively short intervention, however, the authors could not address whether the positive effect
of parental alliance would last months after the intervention ended. Our study showed the effect
of coparenting lasted for 3 months after the intervention.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
FAMILY RELATIONS
We also found that TYRO increased the frequency of father–child activities by enhancing the
father’s perception of coparenting relationship with the child’s mother, but this positive indirect
effect is at odds with the intervention’s negative direct effect on frequency of father–child activities.
That is, controlling for the three hypothesized mediators, the intervention was found to decrease
the frequency of father–child activities. Although this counterintuitive finding is difficult to explain
without additional data, it might have been a methodological artifact due to limited measurement
of father–child activities. For example, if we had asked fathers to list their activities with the child
or to provide a diary instead of having them respond to our provided list of activities, the results
might have been different. Regardless, to the extent that TYRO enhanced secondary outcomes of
parenting, particularly the father’s coparenting relationship with the child’s mother, the intervention was found to help fathers increase the frequency of activities with their child.
Finally, another noteworthy finding is that fathers who attended eight or more sessions
reported an increase in parenting efficacy, which in turn led to improved fathers’ satisfaction
with their relationship with their child and, to a lesser extent, higher frequency of father–child
activities. For example, a previous study found fathers’ enhanced parenting efficacy reduced
barriers to parenting among low-income fathers in rural Midwestern communities, which in
turn increased engagement with their children (Freeman et al., 2008). Our study found the
same: Increased parenting efficacy among fathers enhanced the father–child relationship in
terms of perceived satisfaction with the relationship with the child. This finding suggests that
fatherhood programs should be designed to help fathers develop a sense of self-efficacy in parenting because the results of this study suggest that self-confidence has an important impact on
the quality of father–child relationship. In addition, program staff should be mindful of the
importance of being supportive of participating fathers and addressing their worries about failing to become a “good” father. For the same reason, fatherhood programs need to be designed
to help fathers believe the importance of the father’s role in parenting a child, as we found an
increase in the perception of role identity to be positively associated with an increase in fathers’
satisfaction with their relationship with their child and the frequency of father–child activities.
Limitations
Besides the limitations mentioned earlier, our study has other methodological limitations.
Although the secondary outcomes were hypothesized to mediate the intervention effect on the
primary outcomes, which was the program’s ultimate interest, the causal order between the outcomes could not be empirically established because they were both measured simultaneously.
Readers should keep this in mind when interpreting the results.
Another limitation is that our findings are based on fathers’ self-reports; thus, we cannot rule
out the possibility that fathers’ reports of their perception of their relationship with their child and
their child’s mother may not be congruent with how their child and the mother of their child actually feel about their involvement (Hernandez & Coley, 2007). Previous research has found discrepancy between fathers’ and mothers’ reports of father involvement (Fagan et al., 2007), where
mothers report more accurately about father involvement (Dyer et al., 2014). In anticipation of
this possibility, we planned to survey the mothers of their child, but due to budget constraints, we
were unable to do so. Future research needs to examine father involvement from reports of multiple informants, including the mother of the child and the child.
Implications for Practice
One of the primary implications of the present study is that program dosage is important to the
effectiveness of responsible fatherhood programs. Therefore, organizations implementing such
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
290
291
programs need to optimize fathers’ amount of participation in the program, evaluate program
outcomes in relation to dosage, and identify the optimal levels of attendance for achieving
desired outcomes. Accomplishing this goal would require analysis of not only quantitative but
also of qualitative data such as feedback from program facilitators who have direct experience
interacting with participating fathers. In the case of TYRO Dads, The RIDGE Project had
implemented the program for more than a decade at the time of this study and had previously
determined that participating fathers must attend at least eight of 10 sessions to be considered a
program completer and to receive a TYRO pin, signifying the adoption of a new identity as a
responsible father. Similarly, other fatherhood program providers—especially working for clients at non–halfway-house locations—may want to reach out to those fathers who find it difficult to make it to the workshop. Using aggressive reminder strategies, having face-to-face
contact, and providing transportation and onsite childcare could help facilitate attendance.
Encouraging class attendance and providing some type of recognition to participants who meet
the data-based attendance threshold for program completion is essential for the success of the
program.
Another implication for practitioners is to offer employment benefits to study participants
as they boost enrollment and completion rates in fatherhood classes. Despite modest financial
incentives for their participation in three surveys ($20 for pre- and posttests and $50 for followup surveys), more than half of eligible fathers did not show up for the baseline assessment.
According to the RIDGE Project staff, these fathers did not want to take the risk of being
assigned to the control group. Indeed, they wanted to attend classes right away. Upon completion of eight out of the 10 TYRO classes, fathers were eligible to access WIOA funding for
occupational training. This incentive played an important role in enrolling in TYRO. Although
many enrolled fathers failed to receive a certificate that led to the WIOA benefit, enrolled
fathers attended an average of five out of 10 sessions, which is higher than the dosage rate
observed in many fatherhood programs. The possibility of receiving WIOA funding for employment training was a powerful incentive for fathers to participate in TYRO; other fatherhood
program providers should consider providing similar incentives to their participants.
Finally, fatherhood programs should implement a curriculum to teach how to develop coparenting skills as they play a significant role in facilitating father’s engagement with the child.
Although observational research has consistently shown that fathers’ relationship quality with
the child’s mother is critical in active involvement in their children’s lives (e.g., Carlson
et al., 2008), it is only recently that coparenting relationship has been explored in experimental
research (Pruett et al., 2017). Our study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that
fathers in the intervention group improved their relationship with the child partly because their
relationship with the child’s mother improved. Therefore, programs targeting low-income, nonresidential fathers should integrate coparenting classes and services into their programs for
fathers. From a research point of view, it will be interesting to examine the impact of coparenting classes on fatherhood outcomes. At the same time, practitioners will also benefit from
such research as they consider how the sequence of programs may affect the outcomes of their
clients.
R E FE RE NC E S
Adams, B. L. (2018). Paternal incarceration and the family: Fifteen years in review. Sociology Compass, 12(3), e12567.
Administration for Children and Families. (2015). FY 2015 healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood grantees.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/healthy-marriage-grantees
Avellar, S., Covington, R., Moore, Q., Patnaik, A., & Wu, A. (2018). Parents and Children Together: Effects of four
responsible fatherhood programs for low-income fathers (OPRE Report No. 2018-50). Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Berger, L. M., & Carlson, M. J. (2020). Family policy and complex contemporary families: A decade in review and
implications for the next decade of research and policy practice. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 478–507.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS
FAMILY RELATIONS
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Coparenting and nonresident fathers’ involvement with
young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45(2), 461–488.
Carlson, M. J., Pilkauskas, N. V., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2011). Couples as partners and parents over
children’s early years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(2), 317–334.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Cohen, R. S., & Weissman, S. H. (1984). The parenting alliance. In R. S. Cohen, B. J. Cohler & S. H. Weissman (Eds.),
Parenthood: A psychodynamic perspective (pp. 33–49). Guilford Press.
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., & Wong, J. J. (2009). Promoting fathers’ engagement with children: Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 663–679.
Cox, M. J., Paley, B., & Harter, K. (2001). Interparental conflict and parent–child relationships. In J. H. Grinch &
F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research and applications (pp. 249–
272). Cambridge University Press.
Dyer, W. J., Day, R. D., & Harper, J. M. (2014). Father involvement: Identifying and predicting family members’
shared and unique perceptions. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 516–528.
Dyer, W. J., Kauffman, R., Fagan, J., Pearson, J., & Cabrera, N. (2018). Measures of father engagement for nonresident fathers. Family Relations, 67(3), 381–398.
Edin, K., & Nelson, T. J. (2013). Doing the best I can: Fatherhood in the inner city. University of California Press.
Fagan, J., Bernd, E., & Whiteman, V. (2007). Adolescent fathers’ parenting stress, social support, and involvement with
infants. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(1), 1–22.
Fagan, J., & Cherson, M. (2015). Maternal gatekeeping: The associations among facilitation, encouragement, and lowincome fathers’ engagement with young children. Journal of Family Issues, 38(5), 633–653.
Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2011). Coparenting and relationship quality effects on father engagement: Variations by residence, romance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 637–653.
Fagan, J., & Pearson, J. (2020). Fathers’ dosage in community-based programs for low-income fathers. Family Process,
59(1), 81–93.
Freeman, H., Newland, L. A., & Coyl, D. D. (2008). Father beliefs as a mediator between contextual barriers and father
involvement. Early Child Development and Care, 178(7–8), 803–819.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (2009). Methods and measures: The network of relationships inventory: Behavioral systems version. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 470–478.
Guzzo, K. B. (2014). New partners, more kids: Multiple-partner fertility in the United States. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 66–86.
Hayward, A., McCue. R., Hou, W., McKillop, A., & Lee, S. J. (2019). A randomized controlled trial to examine the
impact of cell phone technology on engagement and retention of fathers in a fatherhood program. https://www.frpn.
org/asset/frpn-grantee-report-randomized-controlled-trial-examine-the-impact-cell-phone-technology
Hernandez, D. C., & Coley, R. L. (2007). Measuring father involvement within low-income families: Who is a reliable
and valid reporter? Parenting: Science and Practice, 7(1), 69–97.
Holmes, E. K., Egginton, B. M., Hawkins, A. J., Robbins, N. L., & Shafer, K. (2020). Do responsible fatherhood programs work? A comprehensive meta-analytic study. Family Relations, 69(5), 967–982.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
LaRossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change. Family Relations, 37(4), 451–457.
McLanahan, S., Tach, L., & Schneider, D. (2013). The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology, 39,
399–427.
Muthén, B. O. (1983). Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data. Journal of Econometrics,
22(1983), 43–65.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Osborne, C., Austin, J., Dion, M. R., Dyer, J., Fagan, J., Harris, K. E., Hayes, M., Mellgren, L., Pearson, J., &
Scott, M. E. (2014). Framing the future of responsible fatherhood evaluation research for the fatherhood research and
practice network. Fatherhood Research & Practice Network.
Pasley, K., Petren, R. E., & Fish, J. N. (2014). Use of identity theory to inform fathering scholarship. Journal of Family
Theory & Review, 6(4), 298–318.
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father–child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47(4), 193–219.
Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2017). Enhancing father involvement in low-income families:
A couples group approach to preventive intervention. Child Development, 88(2), 398–407.
Randles, J. (2020). The means to and meaning of “being there” in responsible fatherhood programming with lowincome fathers. Family Relations, 69, 7–20.
Rane, T. R., & McBride, B. A. (2000). Identity theory as a guide to understanding fathers’ involvement with their children. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 347–366.
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
292
293
Rienks, S. L., Wadsworth, M. E., Markman, H. J., Einhorn, L., & Etter, E. M. (2011). Father involvement in urban
low-income fathers: Baseline associations and changes resulting from preventive intervention. Family Relations,
60(2), 191–204.
Sarfo, B. (2018). The DAD MAP evaluation: A randomized controlled trial of a culturally tailored parenting and responsible fatherhood program. https://www.frpn.org/asset/frpn-grantee-report-the-dad-map-evaluation-randomizedcontrolled-trial-culturally-tailored
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2),
147–177.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Fagan, J. (2020). The evolution of fathering research in the 21st century: Persistent challenges, new directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 175–197.
Stevenson, M. M., Fabricius, W. V., Cookston, J. T., Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Braver, S. L., & Saenz, D. S. (2014).
Marital problems, maternal gatekeeping attitudes, and father–child relationships in adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 50(4), 1208–1218.
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 16–35.
The RIDGE Project. (n.d.). TYRO declaration. Retrieved from https://theridgeproject.com/tyro-pledge/
Western, B., & Smith, N. (2018). Formerly incarcerated parents and their children. Demography, 55(3), 823–847.
SU P PO RT I NG I NF O RM AT IO N
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the publisher’s website.
How to cite this article: Kim, Y.-I., & Jang, S. J. (2023). A Randomized Controlled Trial
of the Effectiveness of the TYRO Dads Program. Family Relations, 72(1), 271–293.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12641
17413729, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12641 by Open University Of Israel, Wiley Online Library on [19/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TYRO DADS