Investigating the Quality of Family Relationships and Goal Attainment: Analyzing the Mediating Role of Psychological Distress

Article information

Psychiatry Investig. 2025;22(7):775-785
Publication date (electronic) : 2025 July 16
doi : https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0273
1School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
2Department of Psychology, University of Malakand, Chakdara, Pakistan
3Institute of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
4Brian and Psychological Center, School of Psychology, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, China
5Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Mental Health Center, Shanghai, China
Correspondence: Arsalan Haider, MS School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 71000, China E-mail: Arsalanhaiderpk@yahoo.com
Correspondence: Zhang Wei, PhD School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 71000, China E-mail: Zhangwei@scnu.edu.cn
Received 2024 August 29; Revised 2024 December 3; Accepted 2025 May 6.

Abstract

Objective

Late adolescence and young adulthood are crucial periods when individuals rely on family support to navigate challenges like identity formation and career decisions. Supportive families aid in coping during this transition. This study examines the links between family quality of life (FQoL), goal attainment, and psychological distress in the Pakistani cultural context.

Methods

Of the 300 students in this cross-sectional study, 52.0% were men, and 48.0% were women. The study employed the Beach Centre Family Quality of Life Scale to assess students’ well-being within a familial context, the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 to measure psychological distress, and the Goal Achievement Questionnaire (goal achievement mastery [GA-M] and goal achievement performance [GA-P]) to evaluate goal orientation.

Results

GA-M was negatively associated with depression, stress, family interaction, and parenting but positively linked to anxiety. Conversely, GA-P was positively associated with psychological distress. Women students scored higher on GA-P (t(298)=-3.41, p<0.001). In contrast, men scored higher on Physical/Material Well-being (t(298)=2.35, p<0.01). Additionally, FQoL positively predicted GA-P via depression and stress but negatively predicted GA-M via depression and stress.

Conclusion

FQoL is closely linked to students’ GA-M and GA-P, with depression and stress as indirect mediators. These findings underscore the critical role of familial support in shaping goal achievement.

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence and young adulthood are critical emotional, behavioural, and cognitive stages marked by challenges and growth. Environmental factors and individual coping skills heavily influence these phases. Adverse experiences during this period may increase the risk of psychological distress in terms of depression, anxiety, and stress, while positive experiences can promote goal achievement and personal fulfilment [1]. Healthy family relationships contribute to physical and mental health, competence, and mastery, fostering values and mutual respect [2-5]. Supportive parenting practice, characterized by effective dialogue, facilitates social-emotional development and academic accomplishment and is consistently associated with favourable results [4,6,7].

Family quality of life (FQoL) is the perceived well-being within the family context and its capacity to satisfy personal and societal goals [1,8,9]. During these developmental stages, FQoL may influence goal achievement, including goal achievement mastery (GA-M) and performance-oriented goals: goal achievement performance (GA-P) [10]. Determinants like internal motivation, parental acceptance, family climate, and disciplinary rules are crucial in molding individuals’ goal-setting skills [11,12]. FQoL consists of five key areas: family interaction (FiC), parenting (Par), emotional well-being (EWB), physical/material well-being (PMW), and disability-related support (DRS), all crucial for mental health consequences, including depression and anxiety. Constructive family approaches are linked with long-term beneficial implications, while dysfunctional family communication often promotes adverse outcomes that can undermine internal motivation [6,7,13]. The transactional model reveals a negative relationship between self-esteem, favorable parenting, and problem-solving coping skills [14]. Studies indicated that children with supportive parents generally show more robust self-regulation and higher goal achievement than those exposed to less supportive parenting [15]. Within FQoL, supportive parents foster autonomy, which positively correlates with GA-M, while controlling parents promote GA-P [16]. Alternatively, family-based risk factors have been associated with adverse outcomes, such as unstable family ties [17,18] and dysfunctional communication [6]. Although numerous studies have examined the relationship between family dynamics and goal achievement, they remain limited.

Goals are conceptualized as mental depiction of desired consequences that drive motivation [19,20]. They are broadly divided into two orientations: 1) master goal orientation (GA-M) focuses on mastery tasks, competence development and acquiring knowledge and fostering internal motivation and 2) whereas performance goal achievement (GA-P) focuses on gaining recognition, motivation to demonstration competence by external validation. Goal attainment, as outlined by Goal Achievement Theory, involves a complex interplay between individual goal orientation and the motivational environment fostered by social agents, such as parents and peers [21]. This theory differentiates GA-M from GA-P [22]. Studies show that parental support positively correlates with academic achievement, and caring family relationships promote autonomy and goal mastery, equipping young adults to pursue goals, particularly in academic contexts. In contrast, distorted family environments hinder GA-M and increase the probability of depression and stress, especially when educational goals are unachieved [23]. Ambitious family goals are often associated with increased academic stress [24], while a lack of family support contributes to stress, depression, and lower FQoL, highlighting the importance of family-focused interventions.

Depression is a multifaceted condition that adversely affects individuals’ emotional states, frequently resulting in guilt, loss of hope, dysfunctional sleep, trouble concentrating, reduced motivation, and suicidal ideation, all of which can impair work performance [23,25]. Previous studies have demonstrated a positive association between depression and unfavorable family environments [18]. Adverse effects on emotional regulation, work performance, and future-oriented thinking reduce the overall FQoL and difficulties in goal achievement [23,25]. Depression, anxiety, family support, and individual coping approaches are interconnected [18]; in particular, they hinder future-oriented thinking, thereby hindering individuals’ ability to achieve personal goals, causing dissatisfaction, and lower FQoL. Although goal pursuit may support well-being [26], individuals with severe depressive symptoms may struggle to achieve their goals despite recognizing their importance [27]. Depression and stress impair goal pursuit by reducing motivation and cognition [17,18]. External validation and societal demands can substantially heighten stress when family or societal demands exceed the individual’s capabilities, ultimately diminishing FQoL [16]. Prior studies have found no substantial gender differences in these associations [28].

Given the substantial impact of family dynamics and parenting on adolescents’ psychological well-being and academic performance [24,29], more research is needed to understand how these factors influence goal attainment under psychological distress (Figure 1). There is a lack of existing literature on the role of family dynamics in mediating the connection between psychological distress and goal achievement [26]. Further research is necessary to clarify these mechanisms, which could inform interventions to improve family functioning and foster positive outcomes for adolescents and young adults.

Figure 1.

This conceptual model illustrates the relationship between family quality of life (FQoL) and goal achievement, examining the mediating roles of depression, anxiety, and stress.

Figure 1 proposed parallel mediation model of FQoL (latent independent variable), psychological distress, and goal achievement. Model fit indices: ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (χ2/df), comparative fit index (CFI≥0.95), goodness of fit index (GFI≥0.95), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR≤0.05), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA≤0.06), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI≥0.90), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (ABIC) lowest values.

METHODS

Participants

This study employed a systematic recruitment approach to ensure data representativeness and reliability. University students aged 16–23 years from the Malakand region were identified through collaboration with departments at the University of Malakand (Sociology, Education, Urdu, English, Management Sciences, and Economics). Eligibility criteria included: 1) enrollment in a Bachelor’s program in one of these departments, 2) living with family, 3) absence of diagnosed mental health conditions, 4) no significant medical conditions, and 5) provision of oral and written consent. One hundred participants were excluded based on the following criteria: 1) history of head injury, 2) lack of parental consent for those under 18, 3) patterned responses across questionnaire items, 4) recent or current use of psychotropic medications, 5) history of smoking or criminal behaviour, 6) residing in university dormitories, and 7) being teachers or graduates. Although G*Power 3.1 was developed by Franz Faul, Kiel University, it suggested a sample size of 138. However, a total of 300 participants were ultimately included in the study (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

This flowchart outlines the study’s conceptual model and analytic process.

The University of Malakand Ethical Committee approved the study protocol (approval no: UOM/PSY/2456), and the study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Demographic characteristics

A cross-sectional design was used. Expert psychologists collected demographic data—including age, gender, family living status, smoking history, criminal records, and educational level—through a structured questionnaire.

Measurements

FQoL

The Beach Centre Family Quality of Life Scale [30], adapted by [31], assesses well-being and satisfaction within familial contexts. The 25-item scale, measured on a 5-point scale (1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied), spans five domains: FiC, Par, EWB, PMW, and DRS. The total score range is 25–125. FQoL dives into critical aspects of family life, providing a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted nature of family satisfaction and functioning [31]. It demonstrates satisfactory reliability (α=0.73 to 0.85).

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21

The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), developed by Lovibond and Lovibond [32], assesses symptomatology of depression, anxiety, and stress across three domains with seven items each, measured on a 5-point (0=did not apply to me at all to 4=applied to me very much/most of the time). DASS-21 allows researchers and clinicians to gain insight into individuals’ complicated symptoms of all subscales. Subscale scores range from 0–28, with reliabilities of depression α=0.82, anxiety α=0.73, and stress α=0.77.

Goal Achievement Questionnaire

The Goal Achievement Questionnaire (GAQ), adapted by Midgley [33], assesses two goal orientations: mastery (GA-M: assessing individuals’ mastering tasks, competence, and acquiring knowledge) and performance approach (GA-P: motivation to perform and receive recognition). The mastery goal subscale contains eight items, while the performance-approach subscale contains seven, each measured on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Reliability for GA-M and GA-P is 0.74 and 0.84, respectively.

Data analysis

Data were first cleaned to remove outliers. A normality test, the Shapiro-Wilk & Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was conducted, and log transformation was applied where necessary. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic and main study variables (DASS-21, GA-M, GA-P, FiC, Par, EWB, and DRS). Pearson’s correlation analysis was used for symmetrical variables. For gender differences, an independent samples t-test was used with key variables, using SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp.). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted via Mplus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén) to assess the mediating role of psychological distress between the FQoL and goal achievement (GA-M and GA-P) with model fit indices are as follows: Model fit indices: ratio of chi-square to ×2/df, CFI≥0.95, GFI≥0.95, SRMR≤0.05, RMSEA≤0.06, TLI, AIC, BIC, and ABIC lowest values [34].

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics, correlation, and reliability coefficient among study variables

Table 1 presents all study variables’ descriptive statistics, correlation matrix, and reliability coefficients. All variables demonstrated strong psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.73 to 0.85, exceeding the recommended reliability threshold.

Descriptive statistics, demographic information, reliability coefficients, and Pearson correlations among key variables

The correlation matrix revealed that the mastery goal (GA-M) was positively correlated with the performance-approach goal (GA-P; r=0.25, p<0.01) and anxiety (r=0.15, p<0.01). Conversely, GA-M was negatively associated with depression (r=-0.18, p<0.01), stress (r=-0.15, p<0.01), FiC (r=-0.14, p<0.05), and Par (r=-0.12, p<0.05). GA-P showed positive associations with depression (r=0.16, p<0.01), anxiety (r=0.21, p<0.01), and stress (r=0.18, p<0.01). Depression was positively correlated with FiC (r=0.22, p<0.01), Par (r=0.19, p<0.01), and PMW (correlation range: r=0.11, p<0.01). GA-M displayed a negative relationship with FiC and Par, suggesting that students with a mastery orientation may experience lower levels of family engagement and parental support.

Gender differences in goal achievement, psychological distress, and quality of family life

Table 2 indicates that women scored higher in GA-P than men, t(298)=-3.41, p=0.001, suggesting that women are more likely to focus on performance-oriented goals than goal mastery. While women also had a slightly higher mean score in GA-M than men, this difference was insignificant. Conversely, men reported significantly higher PMW than women, t(298)=2.35, p=0.019, indicating a greater sense of material well-being within their families. No significant gender differences were found for other variables, including depression, anxiety, stress, FiC, Par, EWB, and DRS.

Gender differences in goal achievement, depression, anxiety, stress, and family quality of life

Structural equation model

Table 3 presents the results of the SEM, which examined the mediating role of psychological distress—specifically anxiety, depression, and stress—on GA-M and GA-P. The findings indicate that anxiety (Model 1, Figure 3) had a significant direct effect on GA-P (β=-0.181, p<0.05), suggesting that higher psychological distress predicts greater anxiety, which in turn negatively influences mastery-oriented goal achievement. However, anxiety did not mediate this relationship. Depression (Model 2, Figure 4) significantly mediated the relationship between FQoL and GA-M (β=-0.033, p<0.05), as well as between FQoL and GA-P (β=0.032, marginally significant at p=0.055). These findings suggest that harsh and unsupportive family environments may negatively impact children’s goal achievement. In Model 3 (Figure 5), FQoL significantly predicted anxiety, and anxiety directly influenced both GA-M and GA-P. However, anxiety did not serve as a mediator in this relationship. Regarding stress (Model 4, Figure 6) both GA-M and GA-P were significantly mediated. FQoL indirectly influenced GA-M (β=-0.031, p<0.05) and GA-P (β=0.040, p<0.05), suggesting that moderate stress levels play a crucial role in shaping students’ goal achievement behaviors. Notably, no significant indirect effects were observed in the combined model (Model 1, Figure 3).

Mediating pathways of psychological distress in the relationship between family quality of life and goal achievement

Figure 3.

Tests of Model 1 showed parallel mediation effects of anxiety, depression, and stress in the relation between FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent insignificant pathways. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; Fic, family interaction; GA-P, goal achievement performance; GA-M, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; WRMR, Weighted Root Mean Square Residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

Figure 4.

Tests of Model 2 showed the indirect effect of depression in the relation between FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent pathways that are not statistically significant in the model. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; FiC, family interaction; GAP, goal achievement performance; GAM, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

Figure 5.

Tests of Model 3 showed the indirect effect of anxiety in the relation between FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent pathways that are not statistically significant in the model. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; Fic, family interaction; GAP, goal achievement performance; GAM, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

Figure 6.

Tests of Model 4 showed the indirect effect of stress on FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent pathways that are not statistically significant in the model. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; Fic, family interaction; GAP, goal achievement performance; GAM, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the impact of FQoL on academic goal attainment (mastery and performance), focusing on psychological distress as a mediating factor among late adolescents and young adults in the Malakand region. This study fills a crucial gap in the literature, as there is a limited understanding of how family dynamics and psychological distress influence goal attainment in the Pashtun cultural and regional context. Our findings are significant: 1) association of FQoL with goals achievement mastery, 2) GA-M with psychological distress, 3) GA-P positively associated with psychological distress, 4) FQoL (FiC, Par, EWB) linked to depression, 5) woman students more likely to focus on GA-P and then GA-M, while not in the case of man students, and 6) depression and stress played mediating role between FQoL and goal achievement.

Association of FQoL with goal achievement

FQoL was noticeably associated with GA-M, suggesting that family support, constructive family relationships, and EWB contribute positively to students’ internal motivation and goal mastery. Supportive family environments boost autonomy and competence, essential for mastery-focused goals. This finding is consistent with prior studies showing that those parents who establish a secure bond with children foster children’s self-regulation, self-compassion, and long-term goal orientation [4,5,35]. At the same time, unfriendly families lead to psychological distress and difficulty in goal attainment. These results may be associated with culture, which unites families in a joint system, where both parents support their children to achieve goals that they have set for themselves in the present culture and society. However, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), religion has a stronger inspiration; thus, culturally, men have a sophisticated position and more accountability than women [34].

Association of goal achievement and psychological distress

Previous studies revealed that goal mastery achievement is adversely associated with psychological distress, including anxiety and depression. Students who focus on mastery-oriented goals appear to experience less psychological distress, likely due to the self-motivation, competence, and self-confidence fostered by constructive family environments. These findings align with prior research indicating that mastery-oriented goals can buffer against stress and anxiety, as students with mastery goals prioritize learning and personal growth over external validation [16]. In the present study, this effect is evident among man students, which cultural norms may influence. In some cultures, man children are often encouraged with affirmations like “You are strong” or “This is your responsibility,” which nurture resilience and emphasize self-improvement. In contrast, woman students may receive feedback centered on grades or domestic responsibilities, reinforcing a focus on performance goals rather than mastery. As a result, cultural expectations may shape distinct goal orientations, with men emphasizing personal growth while women prioritizing achievement based on external outcomes.

GA-P and psychological distress

The current study found that GA-P was positively associated with psychological distress, including stress and anxiety. This is in agreement with prior findings indicating that performance-oriented goals are often associated with intensified anxiety and stress, especially in competitive or authoritarian family environments [36]. Unachieved performance goals have also been associated with reduced FQoL [6,9], Students emphasizing performance-based goals may experience heightened psychological distress due to an emphasis on external validation and societal demands. The pressure to meet these goals can contribute to a cycle of stress and depressive symptoms, particularly when parental or societal demands exceed the student’s capacities, thereby diminishing FQoL [16]. FQoL encompasses mutual respect between family members, alongside consideration of individual capabilities, and tends to be higher in families with authoritative parenting approaches. Such approaches foster a supportive environment that enhances internal motivation and psychological well-being, thereby improving FQoL [15]. The present findings suggest that promoting a balanced approach to parenting that emphasizes mastery-oriented goals over performance-based pressures may mitigate psychological distress and improve FQoL.

FQoL and psychological distress

Our findings highlighted the significance of the relationship between FQoL components—including FiC, Par, EWB, and PMW—and psychological distress levels among students. Students who perceived low FQoL, especially those from families with controlling or highly demanding dynamics, reported heightened depressive symptoms. This aligns with the hypothesis that limited supportive FiCs increase the risk of psychological distress [18]. Previous research has highlighted the vital role of family emotional support in decreasing depressive symptoms, fostering resilience [11,37], and enhancing goal-attainment abilities [15]. The present study further highlights the importance of a supportive family environment for goal achievement, both in mastery-oriented (GA-M) and performance-oriented goals (GA-P). A supportive family environment empowers young adults to pursue their goals [29,36], and cultivates a sense of certainty [16]. Also, fostering children’s internal motivation within their cultural dynamics contributes to their goal-setting and attainment capabilities. This study emphasizes the role of a nurturing family environment in bolstering both psychological well-being and goal-directed behavior among students.

Mediating role of psychological distress between FQoL and goal achievement

The findings revealed that psychological distress, particularly depression and stress, mediates the relationship between FQoL and goal achievement. Depression and stress negatively impact mastery-oriented goal achievement, suggesting that an unsupportive family environment may impair goal attainment by reducing emotional regulation and future-oriented thinking [4,6,7,23,25]. Additionally, stress positively influences goals-oriented performance (GA-P). Simultaneously, depression has a marginal effect, indicating that moderate stress may enhance performance-driven goals but simultaneously, hinder the development of mastery-oriented goals [16]. These findings can be attributed to the parental raring styles, with less support and high expectations.

A supportive family environment may alleviate stress, fostering students’ ability to achieve mastery goals, whereas families with high expectations, but limited emotional support may elevate stress levels, ultimately impairing goal achievement. These findings are consistent with prior studies highlighting that depression and stress diminish motivation and cognitive functioning, thereby obstructing goal pursuit [17,18,24].

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish a causal relationship between FQoL and student goal achievement, highlighting the need for rigorously planned longitudinal cohort studies. Secondly, the sample consisted exclusively of university students, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Thirdly, while we assessed the FQoL concerning parenting practices, we did not use a standardized measure such as the “Parenting Style Questionnaire.” [38] Future research should explore the influence of parental acceptance and parenting styles on goal achievement and well-being in a larger, more diverse sample. Finally, family practices were defined based on the student’s perceptions, which may have influenced the results; further studies should include assessments from both students and parents to provide a more comprehensive view.

Conclusions

In summary, this study underscores the significant role of FQoL in influencing academic goal attainment through its impact on psychological distress among students in Malakand, KP. The findings highlight the importance of family-centered interventions to enhance EWB and academic achievement in adolescents and young adults. Strengthening FiCs may help alleviate psychological distress and promote academic success.

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

All processed data used in this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Arsalan Haider. Data curation: Arsalan Haider, Kadir Uludag. Formal analysis: Arsalan Haiderm, Kadir Uludag. Funding acquisition: Li Hong. Investigation: Arsalan Haider Methodology: Huixia Zhou. Resources: Li Hong, Zhang Wei. Validation: Huixia Zhou. Writing—original draft: Arsalan Haider. Writing—review & editing: Kadir Uludag, Huixia Zhou, Li Hong, Zhang Wei.

Funding Statement

This study has been funded by the Ministry of Education Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research (Grant Number: 21JZD063).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the School of Psychology at South China Normal University and the University of Malakand in Chadakra Dir (L), KPK, Pakistan and Brian and Psychological Center, School of Psychology, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, Sichuan China, for their direct and indirect assistance with this manuscript. Additionally, the authors extend their appreciation to all the healthy volunteers and patients who participated in the study. However, it is essential to note that this study did not receive any funding.

References

1. Sutton J. Psychological and physiological factors that affect success in ultra-marathoners [Internet]. Available at: https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/76437295/2019SuttonJPhD.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2024.
2. Koçak O, Ak N, Erdem SS, Sinan M, Younis MZ, Erdoğan A. The role of family influence and academic satisfaction on career decision-making self-efficacy and happiness. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:5919.
3. Zhang Y, Miller M, Halgunseth LC. Parenting styles and children’s development: a review of the literature. In : Halpern‑Felsher B, ed. Encyclopedia of child and adolescent health (volume 2) Oxford: Academic Press; 2023. p. 609–619.
4. Linnenbrink EA. The dilemma of performance-approach goals: the use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. J Educ Psychol 2005;97:197–213.
5. Zahed Zahedani Z, Rezaee R, Yazdani Z, Bagheri S, Nabeiei P. The influence of parenting style on academic achievement and career path. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2016;4:130–134.
6. Kuppens S, Ceulemans E. Parenting styles: a closer look at a well-known concept. J Child Fam Stud 2019;28:168–181.
7. Pinquart M, Gerke DC. Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. J Child Fam Stud 2019;28:2017–2035.
8. Andrews FM. Social indicators of perceived life quality. Soc Indic Res 1974;1:279–299.
9. Michalos AC. Quality of life, two-variable theory (2nd ed). In : Maggino F, ed. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research Cham: Springer; 2023. p. 5768–5770.
10. Harding L. Children’s quality of life assessments: a review of generic and health related quality of life measures completed by children and adolescents. Clin Psychol Psychother 2001;8:79–96.
11. Nida A, Haider A, Zhang XY. Psychosocial factors and psychological adjustment among adolescents and young adults: a comparative analysis of occasional drug craving and non-craving. Psychiatry Investig 2024;21:947–957.
12. Smokoska L. An investigation of parental involvement and student academic achievement in middle school [Internet]. Available at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/4786. Accessed May 23, 2024.
13. Baumrind D. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J Early Adolesc 1991;11:56–95.
14. Gao D, Liu J, Bullock A, Li D, Chen X. Transactional models linking maternal authoritative parenting, child self-esteem, and approach coping strategies. J Appl Dev Psychol 2021;73:101262.
15. Hassan M, Malik AS, Sang G, Rizwan M, Mushtaque I, Naveed S. Examine the parenting style effect on the academic achievement orientation of secondary school students: the moderating role of digital literacy. Front Psychol 2022;13:1063682.
16. Weltevreden GM, van Hooft EA, van Vianen AE. Parental behavior and adolescent’s achievement goals in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc 2018;39:122–131.
17. Cutrona CE, Cole V, Colangelo N, Assouline SG, Russell DW. Perceived parental social support and academic achievement: an attachment theory perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994;66:369–378.
18. Liu D, Cui Z, Zhang Q, Liu F, Chen H, Wang J, et al. The mediating role of specific coping styles in the relationship between perceived social support and depressive symptoms in adolescents. J Affect Disord 2023;325:647–655.
19. Austin JT, Vancouver JB. Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process, and content. Psychol Bull 1996;120:338–375.
20. Cochran W, Tesser A. The “what the hell” effect: some effects of goal proximity and goal framing on performance. In : Martin LL, Tesser A, eds. Striving and feeling New York: Psychology Press; 2014. p. 99–120.
21. Harwood CG, Thrower SN. Motivational climate in youth sport groups. [Internet]; Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128163368000093. Accessed November 11, 2024.
22. Elliot AJ, McGregor HA. A 2 X 2 achievement goal framework. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001;80:501–519.
23. Shi J, Tao Y, Yan C, Zhao X, Wu X, Zhang T, et al. A study on the correlation between family dynamic factors and depression in adolescents. Front Psychiatry 2023;13:1025168.
24. Castro M, Expósito-Casas E, López-Martín E, Lizasoain L, Navarro-Asencio E, Gaviria JL. Parental involvement on student academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 2015;14:33–46.
25. VandenBos GR. APA dictionary of clinical psychology [Internet]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/13945-000. Accessed November 18, 2024.
26. Prenda KM, Lachman ME. Planning for the future: a life management strategy for increasing control and life satisfaction in adulthood. Psychol Aging 2001;16:206–216.
27. Danchin CL, MacLeod AK, Tata P. Painful engagement in deliberate self-harm: the role of conditional goal setting. Behav Res Ther 2010;48:915–920.
28. Avenevoli S, Swendsen J, He JP, Burstein M, Merikangas KR. Major depression in the national comorbidity survey-adolescent supplement: prevalence, correlates, and treatment. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2015;54:37–44.e2.
29. Francis A, Pai MS, Badagabettu S. Psychological well-being and perceived parenting style among adolescents. Compr Child Adolesc Nurs 2021;44:134–143.
30. University of Kansas. Beach center on disability - family resources [Internet]. Available at: https://kucd.ku.edu/beach-center-disability-family-resources. Accessed November 18, 2024.
31. Hu X, Summers JA, Turnbull A, Zuna N. The quantitative measurement of family quality of life: a review of available instruments. J Intellect Disabil Res 2011;55:1098–1114.
32. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav Res Ther 1995;33:335–343.
33. Midgley C, Maehr ML, Hruda LZ, Anderman EM, Anderman LH, Freeman KE, et al. Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 2000. p. 734–763.
34. Haider A, Wei Z, Parveen S, Mehmood A. The association between comorbid body dysmorphic disorder and depression: moderation effect of age and mediation effect of body mass index and body image among Pakistani students. Middle East Curr Psychiatry 2023;30:11.
35. Haider A, Zia K, Sultan M, Nida A. Relationship between health consciousness, self-compassion and social connectedness among adolescents and young adults during covid-19 lockdown. Rawal Med J 2023;48:286–288.
36. Koestner R, Powers TA, Holding A, Hope N, Milyavskaya M. The relation of parental support of emerging adults’ goals to well-being over time: the mediating roles of goal progress and autonomy need satisfaction. Motiv Sci 2020;6:374–385.
37. Rackensperger T. Family influences and academic success: the perceptions of individuals using AAC. Augment Altern Commun 2012;28:106–116.
38. Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, Hart CH. The parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire. In : Perlmutter BF, Touliatos J, Holden GW, eds. Handbook of family measurement techniques: vol. 3. Instruments & index Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001. p. 319–321.

Article information Continued

Figure 1.

This conceptual model illustrates the relationship between family quality of life (FQoL) and goal achievement, examining the mediating roles of depression, anxiety, and stress.

Figure 2.

This flowchart outlines the study’s conceptual model and analytic process.

Figure 3.

Tests of Model 1 showed parallel mediation effects of anxiety, depression, and stress in the relation between FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent insignificant pathways. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; Fic, family interaction; GA-P, goal achievement performance; GA-M, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; WRMR, Weighted Root Mean Square Residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

Figure 4.

Tests of Model 2 showed the indirect effect of depression in the relation between FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent pathways that are not statistically significant in the model. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; FiC, family interaction; GAP, goal achievement performance; GAM, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

Figure 5.

Tests of Model 3 showed the indirect effect of anxiety in the relation between FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent pathways that are not statistically significant in the model. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; Fic, family interaction; GAP, goal achievement performance; GAM, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

Figure 6.

Tests of Model 4 showed the indirect effect of stress on FQoL and goal achievement. Bold lines indicate statistically significant pathways, while dotted and dashed lines represent pathways that are not statistically significant in the model. EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; Fic, family interaction; GAP, goal achievement performance; GAM, goal achievement mastery; FQoL, family quality of life; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, demographic information, reliability coefficients, and Pearson correlations among key variables

Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 GA-M 32.61±4.64 (0.74) 0.25** -0.18** 0.15** -0.15** -0.14* -0.13* 0.03 -0.10 0.02
2 GA-P 23.42±6.53 (0.84) 0.16** 0.21** 0.18** 0.01 0.02 0.08 -0.06 0.00
3 Depression 7.06±5.23 (0.82) 0.68** 0.78** 0.22** 0.19** 0.11 0.11* 0.11
4 Anxiety 6.86±4.46 (0.73) 0.70** 0.19** 0.13* 0.12* 0.09 0.06
5 Stress 8.14±4.81 (0.77) 0.27** 0.22** 0.12* 0.07 0.09
6 Family interaction 10.91±4.53 (0.85) 0.72** 0.60** 0.50** 0.53**
7 Parenting 11.50±4.16 (0.82) 0.63** 0.51** 0.50**
8 EWB 8.78±2.98 (0.73) 0.54** 0.62**
9 PMW 9.17±3.42 (0.80) 0.56**
10 DRS 8.10±2.92 (0.79)
Gender
Man 156 (52.0)
Woman 144 (48.0)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

*

p<0.05;

**

p<0.01;

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are shown along the diagonal.

GA-M, goal achievement mastery; GA-P, goal achievement performance; EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support

Table 2.

Gender differences in goal achievement, depression, anxiety, stress, and family quality of life

Variables Men (N=156)
Women (N=144)
t(298) p 95% CI Cohen’s d
M±SD M±SD
GA-M 32.22±5.03 33.10±4.16 -1.79 0.076 -2.01–0.09 0.195
GA-P 22.14±6.36 24.72±6.50 -3.41 0.001** -4.04–-1.00 0.633
Depression 6.58±5.06 7.61±5.39 -1.69 0.091 -2.22–0.16 0.409
Anxiety 6.58±4.24 7.16±4.70 -1.11 0.265 -1.63–0.44 0.363
Stress 7.67±4.51 8.65±5.10 -1.75 0.079 -2.01–0.11 0.437
Family interaction 10.70±4.56 11.02±4.54 -0.58 0.560 -1.32–0.73 0.312
Parenting 11.53±4.34 11.61±4.00 -0.30 0.759 -1.11–0.80 0.039
EWB 8.82±3.12 8.75±2.84 0.21 0.829 -0.60–0.76 0.025
PMW 9.62±3.69 8.69±3.04 2.35 0.019* 0.15–1.70 0.268
DRS 7.91±2.94 8.11±2.93 -0.59 0.552 -0.87–0.46 0.057
*

p<0.05;

**

p<0.01.

GA-M, goal achievement mastery; GA-P, goal achievement performance; EWB, emotional well-being; PMW, physical/material well-being; DRS, disability-related support; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval

Table 3.

Mediating pathways of psychological distress in the relationship between family quality of life and goal achievement

Pathway Standardized coefficient p
Model 1
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-P via Stress 0.012 0.542
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-P via Depression -0.001 0.976
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-P via Anxiety 0.030 0.098
Total indirect effect 0.042 0.057
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-M via Stress -0.002 0.903
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-M via Depression -0.022 0.197
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-M via Anxiety -0.011 0.383
Total indirect effect -0.035 0.038*
Model 2
 Family quality of life Direct effect on GA-P -0.006 0.934
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-P via Depression 0.032 0.055
Total effect 0.026 0.683
 Family quality of life Direct effect on GA-M -0.059 0.348
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-M via Depression -0.033 0.023*
Total effect on Parent -0.092 0.132
Model 3
 Family quality of life Direct effect on GA-P -0.009 0.893
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-P via Anxiety 0.036 0.063
Total effect 0.026 0.682
 Family quality of life Direct effect on GA-M -0.067 0.279
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-M via Anxiety -0.024 0.075
Total effect -0.091 0.134
Model 4
 Family quality of life Direct effect on GA-M -0.062 0.342
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-M via Stress -0.031 0.046*
Total effect -0.093 0.129
 Family quality of life Direct effect on GA-P -0.014 0.847
 Family quality of life Indirect effect on GA-P via Stress 0.040 0.036*
Total effect 0.026 0.684
*

p<0.05;

marginally significant;

significant vales.

GA-M, goal achievement mastery; GA-P, goal achievement performance