This section provides the results of the statistical analysis conducted for the study. The results are presented as (1) descriptive information about single teen mothers, and parental efficacy (2) the relationship between the variables, and (3) the comparison of the variables between the different family forms (groups). The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 23 (SPSS) was used in all the statistical calculations.
A Description of Single Teen Mothers
Table 1.2 provides an overview of the demographic variables of single teen mothers in this study (n=160). Table 1.3 illustrates participants’ (N=160) age at time of survey, age at birth of first child and number of children in household. Table 1.4 demonstrates the family form identified by single teen mothers and table 1.5 represents the childcare situation within the home. The demographics below in table 1.2 include information such as living arrangements, marital status of participants, race, home language, employment status and educational level.
Table 1.2: Demographic information of participants
Insert table 1.2 here
Firstly, all participants were females (n=160). The results in Table 1.2 show that majority of the participants were unmarried [137 (85.6%)]. Of the 160 participants 158 (98.8%) identified themselves as Coloured. Afrikaans was the dominant home language spoken [145 (90.6%)]. Majority of the participants indicated their living arrangements as staying with one parent [65 (40.6%)]. The highest level of education shown was Secondary Schooling [113 (70.6%)] with the majority of participants being unemployed [122 (76.3%)].
Table 1.3: An overview of the participants’ (N=160) age at time of survey, age at birth of first child and number of children in household.
Characteristics
SD
|
N
|
%1
|
M
|
Age at time of survey
|
15-20
|
103
|
64
|
19.8
|
21-26
|
54
|
33.7
|
|
27-32
|
2
|
1.3
|
|
33-38
|
1
|
0.6
|
|
Age at birth of first child
|
13-16
|
83
|
51.9
|
16.4
|
17-19
|
77
|
48.1
|
|
Number of children in the household
|
1
|
30
|
18.8
|
2.75
|
2
|
47
|
29.4
|
|
3
|
40
|
25.0
|
|
4
|
27
|
16.9
|
|
5
|
10
|
6.3
|
|
6
|
4
|
2.5
|
|
7
|
2
|
1.3
|
|
1 Percentages do not always equal 100 due to rounding.
The majority of mothers [(n=52) 32.5%] were aged 17 years, when they had their first child. The youngest participant [(n=1) .6%] to have given birth was age 13 and the oldest was 19 years old [(n=2) 1.3%]. Most participants [(n=47) 29.4%] reported on average that 2 children resides within the household.
Table 1.4: The family form identified by single teen mothers
Characteristics
|
N
|
%1
|
Family
|
One parent
|
60
|
37.5
|
Two parent
|
60
|
37.5
|
Extended
|
37
|
23.1
|
Blended
|
1
|
0.6
|
Other
|
2
|
1.3
|
1 Percentages do not always equal 100 due to rounding
Participants described the family form of their families to come from both a one parent and two parent family, both representing n=60 (37.5%) respectively. The remaining 25% of the participants saw their family form as extended [n=37 (23.1%)], blended [n=1 (.6%)] or other [n=2 (1.3%)].
Table 1.5: Childcare situation within the home
Variables
|
n=160
|
%
|
Childcare situation in your home
|
I take care of the child/children full time
|
119
|
74.4%
|
I do not take care of the child/children full time
|
41
|
25.6%
|
If NO, the children are in care (day care):
|
Fewer than 20 hours per week
|
4
|
2.5%
|
20 hours per week or more
|
37
|
23.1%
|
Cared for by another adult in our home
|
Yes
|
112
|
70%
|
No
|
48
|
30%
|
If YES, who cares for them
|
Aunt
|
7
|
4.3%
|
Sister
|
17
|
10.6%
|
Family friend
|
13
|
8.1%
|
Father of the child
|
4
|
2.5%
|
Foster mother
|
2
|
1.3%
|
Child’s grandmother
|
64
|
40%
|
Nanny
|
3
|
1.9%
|
Neighbour
|
2
|
1.3%
|
The results in table 1.5 shows that 119 participants, (74.38%) single teen mothers take care of their child/children on a full time basis full time. The remaining 41 participants (25.6%), child/children are in care (day care). In addition, alternative care was also provided by other adult (s) within the home [n=112 (70%)]. Single teen mothers’ own mothers [64 (40%)] sought to care for the child/children, when she is unable to, a sister [17 (10.6%)], a family friend [13 (8.1%)], an aunt [7 (4.3%), the father of the child [4 (2.5%)], a nanny [3 (1.9%)], a foster mother [2 (1.3%)] and or a neighbour [2 (1.3%)].
Descriptive statistics of the variables
Means (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) for the SS of single teen mothers are presented in Tables 1.6. Table 1.7 will display the means (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the subscales. The subscales are: attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth, reliable alliance, guidance and opportunity for nurturance. Table 1.8 will present the means (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the PE of single teen mothers.
Table 1.6 represents the mean and standard deviation for each of the 24 SS items for the perceived Social Support for the total sample (N=160). A high score indicates a greater degree of perceived support.
Table 1.6: Means and SD of items for Single Teen Mother Social Support (n=160)
Insert table 1.6 here
Responses were on a Likert scale of 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree. A high score indicates a greater degree of perceived support.
Results in Table 1.6 indicate that the majority of the participants (N=160)’ agreed’ (M = 2.81, SD = 0.99) that “there is a trust worthy person they could turn to for advice if they were having problems”. Participants (N=160) similarly indicated that they agree (M = 2.96, SD = 0.84) “…to have a strong emotional bond with at least one other person”, and “… participants (N = 160) further agreed (M = 2.74, SD = 1.03) …there is someone, I could talk to about important decisions in my life”. Majority participants agreed that (M = 2.73, SD = 0.85) … feel responsible for the well-being of another person. However, most participants appeared to disagree (M = 2.32, SD = 0.87) when asked…my competence and skills are recognized.
Table 1.7 represents the mean and standard deviation for the Social Provision Subscale: Attachment (Items 2R, 11, 17, and 21R), Social Integration (Items 5, 8, 14R, and 22R), Reassurance of Worth (Items 6R, 9R, 13, and 20), Reliable Alliance (Items 1, 10R, 18R, and 23), Guidance (Items 3R, 12, 16, and 19R) and Opportunity for Nurturance (4, 7, 15R, and 24R) for the total sample (N=160).
Table 1.7: Total Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) scores for the Social Provision Subscales (N=160)
Variable
|
Min
|
Max
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Attachment
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
2.61
|
0.64
|
Social Integration
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
2.55
|
0.72
|
Reassurance of Worth
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
2.37
|
0.68
|
Reliable Alliance
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
2.53
|
0.81
|
Guidance
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
2.59
|
0.79
|
Opportunity for Nurturance
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
2.57
|
0.76
|
Table 1.7 results suggest that the most perceived support across the total sample (N = 160) as Attachment (M = 2.61, SD = 0.64) as reported by single teen mothers. Conversely, single teen mothers indicated Reliable Alliance (M = 2.53, SD = 0.81) to be least supported.
This section of the study provides descriptive statistics which addresses one of the objectives which is to determine the prevalence of parental efficacy of the total sample. Means (M) and standard Deviations (SD) for PE of the total sample (N=160) parental efficacy, are presented in Tables 1.8 in order to evaluate this objective.
Table 1.8 represents the means and standard deviations of 15 items for the Parental Efficacy for the total sample (N=160).
Table 1.8: Means and SD of items for Single Teen Mother Parental Efficacy (n=160)
Insert table 1.8
Responses were on a Likert scale of 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Somewhat disagree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Agree., 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Strongly Agree. A high score indicates a greater degree of parental efficacy.
The Mean score results in Table 1.8 suggest that majority of the participants (M = 2.86, SD = 1.69) perceived themselves as confident when… taking care of a child, are easy to solve once you know how your actions affect your child, an understanding I have acquired. In addition, participants somewhat disagreed (M = 2.35, SD = 1.59) to…parent is manageable, and my problems are easily solved. Yet, the scores suggest that the majority (M = 4.09, SD = 1.14) …find the answer to what is troubling my child, I am the one.
Comparisons of groups
T-tests were conducted to determine if there were significant perceived differences between (1) parental efficacy and (2) social support received from the different family forms of single teen mothers.
Table 1.9 to Table 1.12 represents a comparison of the means scores for each scale and subscale for PE, SS and SS subscales (attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth, reliable alliance, guidance and opportunity for nurturance) across different family form.
Table 1.9 Differences of Mean Scores for PE, SS and SS subscales within the family form: one parent (n=65).
|
Mean
|
SD
|
SE
|
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
Min
|
Max
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
PE
|
3.04
|
0.76
|
0.09
|
2.85
|
3.23
|
1.94
|
5.71
|
SS
|
2.56
|
0.67
|
0.84
|
2.39
|
2.73
|
1.17
|
3.88
|
GUIDE
|
2.53
|
0.81
|
0.10
|
2.33
|
2.74
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
REASSWORTH
|
2.31
|
0.73
|
0.91
|
2.12
|
2.49
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
SOCINTEGR
|
2.46
|
0.76
|
0.94
|
2.27
|
2.65
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
ATTACH
|
2.52
|
0.65
|
0.81
|
2.36
|
2.69
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
NURTURE
|
2.45
|
0.78
|
0.97
|
2.25
|
2.64
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
RELIABLE
|
2.39
|
0.83
|
0.10
|
2.18
|
2.59
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
Table 1.9 shows that single teen mothers residing with one parent (M = 3.04, SE = 0.09), gained greater levels of parental efficacy. On the subscales of SS, guide (M = 2.53, SE = 0.10), and reliable (M = 2.39, SE = 0.10), reported greater levels in social support for single teen mothers residing with one parent.
Table 1.10 Differences of Mean Scores for PE, SS and SS subscales within the family form: two parent (n=51).
|
Mean
|
SD
|
SE
|
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
Min
|
Max
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
PE
|
3.07
|
0.57
|
0.08
|
2.91
|
3.23
|
2.24
|
4.53
|
SS
|
2.60
|
0.63
|
0.89
|
2.42
|
2.78
|
1.33
|
4.00
|
GUIDE
|
2.45
|
0.78
|
0.10
|
2.23
|
2.67
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
REASSWORTH
|
2.32
|
0.66
|
0.93
|
2.13
|
2.51
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
SOCINTEGR
|
2.50
|
0.68
|
0.95
|
2.31
|
2.70
|
1.00
|
3.75
|
ATTACH
|
2.62
|
0.63
|
0.88
|
2.44
|
2.80
|
1.25
|
4.00
|
NURTURE
|
2.58
|
0.80
|
0.11
|
2.36
|
2.81
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
RELIABLE
|
2.49
|
0.78
|
0.10
|
2.27
|
2.71
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
Table 1.10 suggest that for single teen mothers residing with two parents, (M = 3.07, SE = 0.08), greater levels of parental efficacy was experienced. On the subscales of SS, guide (M = 2.45, SE = 0.10), reliable (M = 2.49, SE = 0.10), and nurture (M = 2.58, SE = 0.11) re-counted high levels in social support for single teen mothers residing with two parents.
Table 1.11 Differences of Mean Scores for PE, SS and SS subscales within the family form: extended family (n=25).
|
Mean
|
SD
|
SE
|
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
Min
|
Max
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
PE
|
3.21
|
0.66
|
0.13
|
2.94
|
3.49
|
2.00
|
5.24
|
SS
|
2.90
|
0.50
|
0.10
|
2.69
|
3.11
|
1.71
|
3.96
|
GUIDE
|
2.91
|
0.67
|
0.13
|
2.62
|
3.19
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
REASSWORTH
|
2.67
|
0.57
|
0.11
|
2.43
|
2.90
|
1.25
|
3.75
|
SOCINTEGR
|
2.79
|
0.57
|
0.11
|
2.55
|
3.02
|
1.50
|
4.00
|
ATTACH
|
2.77
|
0.57
|
0.11
|
2.53
|
3.00
|
1.25
|
4.00
|
NURTURE
|
2.82
|
0.55
|
0.11
|
2.59
|
3.04
|
1.50
|
4.00
|
RELIABLE
|
2.86
|
0.69
|
0.13
|
2.57
|
3.14
|
1.25
|
4.00
|
Table 1.11 was perceived as single teen mothers residing with extended family, (M = 2.90, SE = 0.10), SS informed greater levels of support. And in addition, the subscales of SS, reassworth (M = 2. 67, SE = 0.1), socintegr (M = 2.79, SE = 0.11), attach (M = 2.77, SE = 0.11) and nurture (M = 2.82, SE = 0.11) displayed greater levels in social support for single teen mothers residing with extended family.
Table 1.12 Differences of Mean Scores for PE, SS and SS subscales within the family form: guardian-skip generation family (n=11).
|
Mean
|
SD
|
SE
|
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
Min
|
Max
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
PE
|
3.81
|
0.52
|
0.15
|
2.45
|
3.16
|
1.94
|
3.35
|
SS
|
2.89
|
0.50
|
0.15
|
2.55
|
3.23
|
1.75
|
3.50
|
GUIDE
|
2.93
|
0.71
|
0.21
|
2.45
|
3.41
|
1.25
|
3.75
|
REASSWORTH
|
2.36
|
0.47
|
0.14
|
2.04
|
2.68
|
1.75
|
3.25
|
SOCINTEGR
|
2.79
|
0.63
|
0.19
|
2.37
|
3.21
|
1.50
|
3.50
|
ATTACH
|
2.81
|
0.48
|
0.14
|
2.49
|
3.14
|
1.75
|
3.50
|
NURTURE
|
2.86
|
0.59
|
0.17
|
2.46
|
3.26
|
1.50
|
3.25
|
RELIABLE
|
2.95
|
0.73
|
0.22
|
2.46
|
3.44
|
1.75
|
4.00
|
Table 1.12 suggest that for single teen mothers residing with guardian-skip generation families, are engaged more with reassurance of worth (M = 2.36, SE = 0.14) and attachment (M = 2.81, SE = 0.14) under the subscales of SS.
ANOVA Analysis
Below in Table 1.13 the output of the ANOVA analysis and whether a statistically significant difference between groups means are presented.
Table 1.13: The output of the ANOVA analysis and whether a statistically significant difference between groups
Insert table 1.13 here
One-way ANOVA for parental efficacy (F (4, 154) = .790, p = .534) and social support (F (4, 155) = 1.848, p = .122). The following ANOVA’s represent the subscales of Social Support; guide (F (4, 155) = 2.087, p = .085), reassworth (F (4, 155) = 1.367, p = .248), socintegr (F (4, 155) = 1.391, p = .240), attach (F (4, 155) = .942, p = .441) and nurture (F (4, 155) = 1.611, p = .174). The p values reported are greater than α level .05, thus no statistically significant difference exists. However, ANOVA for subscale reliable (F (4, 155) = 2.572, p = .040), this value is less than 0.05, concluding that a statistically significant difference does exist.
Determining associational aspects of the variables of the study
This section reports on the correlation scores for PE, SS and SS subscales; GUIDE, REASSWORTH, SOCINTEGR, ATTACH, NURTURE and RELIABLE. A Pearson product- moment correlation was computed to assess these differences.
Table 1.14: Correlation scores for PE and SS between different family forms
Insert table 1.14 here
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The results in Table 1.14 show that there is a relationship between parental efficacy and social support (r = .636**) within one parent (n = 64), this correlation coefficient is highly significant from zero (P<0.001). When looking at the variable a bit further, there was also a positive correlation between parental efficacy across all subscales of social support; guide (r = .596**), reassworth (r = .577**), socintegr (r = .610**), attach (r = .596**), nurture (r = .597**) and reliable (r = .485**) within one parent (n = 64).
When computing for two parent (n = 51), a positive correlation was indicated for parental efficacy and social support (r = .598**). Furthermore, the results also show that there is a positive relationship across all subscales of social support; guide (r = .504**), reassworth (r = .571**), socintegr (r = .546**), attach (r = .508**), nurture (r = .576**) and reliable (r = .582**) within two parent (n = 51).
The results for extended family (n = 25) indicates a correlation between parental efficacy and social support (r = .730**), this correlation coefficient is highly significant from zero (P<0.001). Additionally, the results also show that there is a positive relationship across all subscales of social support; guide (r = .539**), reassworth (r = .756**), socintegr (r = .679**), attach (r = .651**), nurture (r = .666**) and reliable (r = .550**) within extended family (n = 25).
When computing for guardian-skip generation (n = 11), results show that there is no relationship between parental efficacy and social support. Furthermore, the results also show no correlation across subscales of social support.