(PS12-18) Comparing Self- and Proxy-ratings of Adolescents’ and Caregivers’ Expressive Flexibility

Background: As caregivers play a critical role in emotional development of children, their reports are often included in diagnosing and treating emotional issues in youth. While discrepancies in reports are common, higher caregiver-child agreement is typical on observable symptoms, such as behavioral emotion regulation (ER). Expressive flexibility (EF), the ability to flexibly enhance and suppress emotion expression, is known to significantly impact psychological adjustment in both adolescents and adults. However, no previous research has assessed or compared caregiver-adolescent reporting of each other’s EF. This study aims to assess the extent of agreement between self- and proxy-reported ratings on adolescents’ and their caregivers’ EF.

Methods: As part of a larger ongoing study, 68 dyads of adolescents and their caregivers were included in the present analyses. Both completed a self-report EF measure, the Flexible Regulation of Emotional Expression Scale (for Youth), as well as a proxy-measure of the other dyad member’s EF, specifically created for the present study. Three score domains were calculated: emotional expression enhancement and suppression abilities, and overall EF. Paired t-tests, Spearman correlation coefficients, and single measure, two-way mixed effects Intraclass Correlation Coefficients [ICC(3,1)] were calculated to investigate agreement between self-report and proxy measures of dyad member’s EF. Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple testing. 

Results: Adolescents reported greater enhancement, suppression, and flexibility abilities than parents reported for them. They also reported higher abilities for their caregivers than parents reported for themselves. Comparing self- and caregiver-reported adolescents’ EF scores, there was a weak positive correlation in enhancement ability (r(66) = .29, p = .018), yet moderate consistency (ICC(3,1) = .30, p = .006). Caregiver-adolescent agreement was weaker and only trending towards significance for suppression ability (ICC(3,1) = .17, p = .082) and overall EF abilities (ICC(3,1) = .19, p = .061). Similarly, moderate consistency existed for caregivers’ enhancement ability (ICC(3,1) = .26, p = .016), but not for their suppression ability (ICC(3,1) = .12, p = .160). However, caregiver-adolescent agreement was positively correlated and higher for caregiver’ overall EF (r(66) = .29, p = .016; ICC(3,1) = .37, p < .002). 

Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest limited cross-informant consistency on EF. Both showed modest agreement in rating each other’s expressive enhancement but weak consistency in rating suppression ability. These disparities indicate challenges in accurately evaluating other’s EF. However, caregivers and adolescents showed higher consistency in rating caregivers’ overall EF compared to adolescents’. This could indicate caregivers’ increased ability to exhibit their emotional responses and signify a pathway of influence on adolescent ER learning processes. Recent literature has suggested that parent-youth discrepancies may have prognostic value, warranting further research to better understand the implications of caregiver-adolescent discrepancy reports of flexible ER and explore contributing factors.