Corrigendum to “A meta-analysis on interparental conflict, parenting, and child adjustment in divorced families: Examining mediation using meta-analytic structural equation models” [Clinical Psychology Review 79 (2020) 101861] (Clinical Psychology Review (2020) 79, (S0272735820300490), (10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101861))

Abstract

The authors regret that the published version of the above article (van Dijk et al., 2020) contained some minor errors in the Results section due to an error in aggregating the correlations of the same study samples for the meta-analytic structural equation models (MASEM). The error mostly concerned very small rounding differences in the third number after the decimal for some of the fit indices, path estimations, and confidence intervals (i.e., in Tables 3 and 4, Fig. 2, and Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.3). These numbers have been adjusted in the corrected document stored at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341207943_A_meta-analysis_on_interparental_conflict_parenting_and_child_adjustment_in_divorced_families_Examining_mediation_using_meta-analytic_structural_equation_models All previously stated conclusions still held, with one exception: For the indirect effect of parent-child relationship quality we reported no significant mediation with a confidence interval just containing zero [95% CI −0.0004, 0.020], but after rectification the interval did not contain zero anymore [95% CI 0.003, 0.022] and, hence, was statistically significant. Therefore, the following corrections need to be made to the texts referring to the mediating role of parent-child relationship quality: 1. In the abstract, the statement: “Second, parental support, hostility, structuring, intrusiveness, and role diffusion indeed served as mediating mechanisms underlying the persistent link between interparental conflict and children's internalizing and externalizing problems. This was not true for dyadic parent-child processes.” should be replaced with: “Second, parental support, hostility, structuring, intrusiveness, parent-child relationship quality, and role diffusion indeed served as mediating mechanisms underlying the persistent link between interparental conflict and children's internalizing and externalizing problems. This was not true for parent-child conflict.”2. In Section 3.3.3, the statement: “Parent-child relationship quality also did not mediate the relation between interparental conflict and internalizing problems (β = 0.010, 95% CI [−0.000, 0.020]), but it did mediate the relation between interparental conflict and externalizing problems (β = 0.022, 95% CI [0.008, 0.039]).” should read: “…, whereas parent-child relationship quality mediated the relation both between interparental conflict and internalizing problems (β = 0.012, 95% CI [0.003, 0.022]), and between interparental conflict and externalizing problems (β = 0.022, 95% CI [0.008, 0.039]).”3. Also in Section 3.3.3, the statement: “In addition, the link between parent-child relationship quality and child internalizing problems was insignificant as well.” should be deleted.4. In Section 4.2, the statement: “More specifically, lower levels of parental support and parental structuring, as well as increased levels of parental hostility, intrusive parenting, and role diffusion processes mediated the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment.” should be replaced with: “More specifically, lower levels of parental support, parental structuring, and parent-child relationship quality as well as increased levels of parental hostility, intrusive parenting, and role diffusion processes, mediated the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment.”5. Also in Section 4.2, the statement: “In contrast, parent-child relationship quality only mediated the association between interparental conflict and internalizing problems, and parent-child conflict did not act as an mediating mechanism for internalizing nor externalizing problems, as there was no direct effect from interparental conflict to parent-child conflict.” should be replaced with: “In contrast, parent-child conflict did not act as an mediating mechanism for internalizing nor externalizing problems, as there was no direct effect from interparental conflict to parent-child conflict.”6. The slightly changed values in some of the textual results, Tables, and Figures, are depicted below.In Section 3.3.1, the numbers should be: “More specifically, parental hostility showed stronger associations with child internalizing (β = 0.235, 95% CI [0.164, 0.306]) and externalizing problems (β = 0.241 95% CI [0.180, 0.302]), when compared to parental support and child internalizing (β = −0.051, 95% CI [−0.091, −0.011]) and externalizing problems (β = −0.074, 95% CI [−0.125, −0.024]). As for the indirect effects, results indicate that the relation between interparental conflict and internalizing problems was partly mediated both by parental support (β = 0.007, 95% CI [0.001, 0.012]) and parental hostility (β = 0.038, 95% CI [0.018, 0.063]). For externalizing problems, the effect of interparental conflict was also partly mediated by both parental support (β = 0.010, 95% CI [0.003, 0.018]) and parental hostility (β = 0.039, 95% CI [0.019, 0.064]).” In Section 3.3.3, the numbers should be: “Based on the Likelihood-ratio difference tests, as well as comparison of the 95% CI's, results showed that parent-child conflict was more strongly related to internalizing problems (β = 0.231, 95% CI [0.162, 0.300]) when compared to parent-child relationship quality (β = −0.078, 95% CI [−0.135, −0.021]).” And: “…, whereas parent-child relationship quality mediated the relation both between interparental conflict and internalizing problems (β = 0.012, 95% CI [0.003, 0.022]), …”.