{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027414330218068536, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00809968847352025, 'mean_word_length': 6.106194690265487, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Grandparent-Adult Grandchild Relationships:Development of a Typology Using Latent Class Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Grandparent-adult grandchild relationships may not be captured in existing grandparenting typologies, which focus on early stages of these relationships. Our study develops a typology for later stages, estimates the prevalence of grandparents in each category, and examines associations between category membership and grandparent and grandchild characteristics.


RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Using a sample of 289 grandparents from the latest wave of the Longitudinal Study of Generations (2005), we employed latent class analysis models to examine underlying categories of grandparent-adult grandchild relationships, based on four dimensions - frequency of contact, relationship quality, grandparents' receipt of support, and geographic distance.


RESULTS
Three latent classes emerged: Geographically Distant/Low Contact (45 percent), Geographically Close/High Contact (42 percent), and Geographically Close/Low Contact (13 percent). While geographic distance and frequency of contact were dimensions distinguishing grandparent-adult grandchild relationships, receipt of support and relationship quality were not. Most grandparents reported close relationships but infrequent support.


DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
By identifying categories of grandparent-adult grandchild relationships and factors influencing membership in them, our study may aid in efforts to strengthen those characterized by weak bonds - namely, those with grandparents who are older, frailer, and poorer.