A child's parents are the primary source of knowledge and learned behaviors for developing children, and the benefits or repercussions of certain parental practices can be long lasting. Although parenting practices affect behavioral outcomes for children, families tend to be diverse in their circumstances and needs. Research attempting to ascertain cause and effect relationships between parental influences and child behavior can be difficult due to the complex nature of family dynamics and the intricacies of real life. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is an appropriate method for this research as it is able to account for the complicated nature of child-parent relationships. Both Frequentist and Bayesian methods are used to estimate the effect of latent parental behavior variables on child aggression and anxiety in order to allow for comparison and contrast between the two statistical paradigms in the context of structural equation modeling. Estimates produced from both methods prove to be comparable, but subtle differences do exist in those coefficients and in the conclusions to which a researcher would arrive. Although model estimates between the two paradigms generally agree, they diverge in the model selection process. The mother's behaviors are estimated to be the most influential on child aggression, while the influence of the father, socio-economic status, parental involvement, and the relationship quality of the couple also prove to be significant in predicting child aggression.

The context for this research is statistical inference, the process of making predictions or inferences about a population from observation and analyses of a sample. In this context, many researchers want to grasp what inferences can be made that are valid, in the sense of being able to uphold or justify by argument or evidence. Another pressing question among users of statistical methods is: how can spurious relationships be distinguished from genuine ones? Underlying both of these issues is the concept of evidence. In response to these (and similar) questions, two questions I work on in this essay are: (1) what is a genuine principle of evidence? and (2) do error probabilities have more than a long-run role? Concisely, I propose that felicitous genuine principles of evidence should provide concrete guidelines on precisely how to examine error probabilities, with respect to a test's aptitude for unmasking pertinent errors, which leads to establishing sound interpretations of results from statistical techniques. The starting point for my definition of genuine principles of evidence is Allan Birnbaum's confidence concept, an attempt to control misleading interpretations. However, Birnbaum's confidence concept is inadequate for interpreting statistical evidence, because using only pre-data error probabilities would not pick up on a test's ability to detect a discrepancy of interest (e.g., "even if the discrepancy exists" with respect to the actual outcome. Instead, I argue that Deborah Mayo's severity assessment is the most suitable characterization of evidence based on my definition of genuine principles of evidence. / Master of Arts