Socioeconomic Status and Child Outcomes: Testing the Family Stress Model across Parental and Nonparental Caregiving Structures

Background and Purpose: The Family Stress Model (FSM) posits socioeconomic conditions shape child well-being through caregiver psychological functioning and parenting. Although widely applied, prior research has focused on variation within parental households, with limited attention to whether these processes operate similarly across parental and nonparental caregiving contexts. This distinction is theoretically important because FSM pathways rely on caregiver functioning and caregiver–child relationships, which may differ when caregivers are not biologically or legally related to children. In the United States, increasing reliance on nonparental caregivers, including kinship and foster arrangements, underscores the need to evaluate whether the FSM generalizes across caregiving structures. This study examines both measurement and structural invariance of the FSM across parental and nonparental caregiving structures using nationally representative data.

Methods: Data were drawn from the 2023 National Survey of Children’s Health, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of children’s health and well-being. The analytic sample included 28,225 caregivers of children ages 6–17 residing in parental (n = 26,391) or nonparental (n = 1,834) caregiving arrangements. Analyses were conducted within a multigroup structural equation modeling framework using weighted least squares mean- and variance-adjusted estimation to accommodate ordinal indicators and complex survey design features. A confirmatory factor analysis was first used to assess measurement properties of caregiver aggravation and child flourishing. Measurement invariance testing proceeded from configural to scalar invariance, with targeted freeing of noninvariant parameters. Structural invariance was then assessed using Wald tests applied to nine focal FSM pathways.

Results: Descriptive findings indicate that children in parental caregiver households had higher socioeconomic status, better grades, and higher caregiver-reported mental health than those in nonparental care. Measurement invariance testing supported a partially invariant model. Although full scalar invariance was not supported, only one indicator of caregiver aggravation varied across groups. The final measurement model demonstrated good fit, χ²(27) = 499.77, p < .001, CFI = .987, TLI = .985, RMSEA = .035, SRMR = .031. Structural invariance testing indicated that eight of nine FSM pathways were equivalent across caregiving structures. Socioeconomic status was positively associated with caregiver mental health, which in turn was linked to both caregiver coping and caregiver aggravation. Caregiver coping and aggravation were each associated with child flourishing, mental health, and academic performance. Only one pathway differed significantly: the association between caregiver aggravation and child grades was stronger among nonparental caregivers. The final partially constrained structural model demonstrated acceptable fit, χ²(142) = 2311.01, p < .001, CFI = .949, TLI = .932, RMSEA = .033, SRMR = .120.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings indicate that the FSM operates largely consistently across caregiving structures, with minimal evidence of moderation. The stronger association between caregiver aggravation and academic performance in nonparental contexts suggests a potentially distinct stress process in these households. These results extend the external validity of the FSM and highlight the importance of testing family process models across diverse caregiving arrangements. Interventions targeting caregiver stress, parenting processes, and child well-being may be broadly applicable but should also account for the unique demands faced by nonparental caregivers.