Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric Properties of the Parental Bonding Instrument in a Sample of Canadian Children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Child Psychiatry & Human Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The parental bonding instrument (PBI) is a self-report questionnaire that was initially designed to retrospectively assess perceived parenting style during childhood in adult respondents. Recent studies have used the PBI to assess current perception of parenting in children. However, few studies have evaluated the psychometric properties of the PBI in children. This study examined the factor structure and reliability of the PBI in a sample of Canadian children aged 7–18 years (n = 257). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted separately for the mother and father form of the PBI and composite reliability was used to determine internal consistency of the PBI. A four-factor model (care, overprotection, autonomy, indifference) showed the best fit to the data. The PBI exhibited good internal consistency but poor convergent validity. Configural invariance was not found for the PBI between two age groups (7–12 and 13–18 years), however these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size in each age group. This study suggests the PBI may be a valid and reliable self-report measure of parental bonding in children but further research is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB (1979) A parental bonding instrument. Br J Med Psychol 52:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wilhelm K, Niven H, Parker G, Hadzi-Pavlovic D (2005) The stability of the parentalbonding instrument over a 20-year period. Psychol Med 35:387–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsaousis I, Mascha K, Giovazolias T (2012) Can parental bonding be assessed in children? Factor structure and factorial invariance of the parental bonding instrument (PBI) between adults and children. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 43:238–253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Parker G (1990) The parental bonding instrument: a decade of research. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 25:281–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stafford M, Kuh DL, Gale CR, Mishra G, Richards M (2016) Parent–child relationships and offspring’s positive mental wellbeing from adolescence to early older age. J Posit Psychol 11:326–337

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fendrich M, Warner V, Weissman MM (1990) Family risk factors, parental depression, and psychopathology in offspring. Dev Psychol 26:40–50

    Google Scholar 

  7. Koszycki D, Bilodeau C, Zwanzger P, Schneider BH, Flament MF, Bradwejn J (2013) Parental bonds of children at high and low familial risk for panic disorder. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 44:278–289

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitsopoulou E, Giovazolias T (2013) The relationship between perceived parental bonding and bullying: the mediating role of empathy. Eur J Counsel Psychol 2:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  9. Li C (2016) Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods 48:936–949

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reuterskiöld L (2009) Fears, anxieties and cognitive behavioral treatment of specific phobias in youth. University of Stockholm, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stein D, Williamson DE, Birmaher B, Brent DA, Kaufman J, Dahl RE et al (2000) Parent–child bonding and family functioning in depressed children and children at high risk and low risk for future depression. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 39:1387–1395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin G, Bergen HA, Roeger L, Allison S (2004) Depression in young adolescents: investigations using 2 and 3 factor versions of the parental bonding instrument. J Nerv Ment Dis 192:650–657

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Canetti L, Bachar E (1997) Parental bonding and mental health in adolescence. Adolescence 32:381–394

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Young R, Lennie S, Minnis H (2011) Children’s perceptions of parental emotional neglect and control and psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 52:889–897

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ong MY, Eilander J, Saw SM, Xie Y, Meaney MJ, Broekman BF (2018) The influence of perceived parenting styles on socio-emotional development from pre-puberty into puberty. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 27:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mannarini S, Balottin L, Palmieri A, Carotenuto F (2018) Emotion regulation and parental bonding in families of adolescents with internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Front Psychol 9:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cubis J, Lewin T, Dawes F (1989) Australian adolescents’ perceptions of their parents. Aust NZ J Psychiat 23:35–47

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sato T, Narita T, Hirano S, Kusunoki K, Sakado K, Uehara T (1999) Confirmatory factor analysis of the parental bonding instrument in a Japanese population. Psychol Med 29:127–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heider D, Matschinger H, Bernert S, Vilagut G, Martınez-Alonso M, Dietrich S et al (2005) Empirical evidence for an invariant three-factor structure of the parental bonding instrument in six European countries. Psychiatry Res 135:237–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Behzadi B, Parker G (2015) A Persian version of the parental bonding instrument: factor structure and psychometric properties. Psychiatry Res 225:580–587

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu J, Li L, Fang F (2011) Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the parental bonding instrument. Int J Nurs Stud 48:582–589

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cappelli L, Verrastro V, Petruccelli I, Diotaiuti P, Petruccelli F, Dentale F et al (2015) Factor structure and criterion validity of an enlarged version of the parental bonding instrument. Int J Psychol Psychologic T 15:219–228

    Google Scholar 

  23. Uji M, Tanaka N, Shono M, Kitamura T (2006) Factorial structure of the parental bonding instrument (PBI) in Japan: a study of cultural, developmental, and gender influences. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 37:115–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Statistics Canada (2015) Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada. Available at https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm

  25. Hein D, Matzner F, First M, Spitzer R, Williams J, Gibbon M (1998) Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV childhood diagnoses, KID-SCID. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical School, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Silverman WK, Albano AM (1996) Anxiety disorders interview schedule for DSM- IV: parent interview schedule. Oxford University Press, San Antonio

    Google Scholar 

  27. Korkmaz S, Goksuluk D, Zararsiz G (2014) MVN: an R package for assessing multivariate normality. R J 6:151–162

    Google Scholar 

  28. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available at https://www.r-project.org

  29. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6:1–55

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kline RB (2015) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th edn. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Raykov T (1997) Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl Psychol Meas 21:173–184

    Google Scholar 

  32. Colwell SR (2016) The composite reliability calculator. Tech Rep https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4298.088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  34. Byrne BM (2004) Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less traveled. Struct Equ Modeling 11:272–300

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chen FF (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 14:464–504

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  37. Revelle WR (2017) psych: Procedure for personality and psychological research. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

  38. Browne MW (1984) Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. Brit J Math Stat Psy 37(1):62–83

    Google Scholar 

  39. Herzberg PY (2006) Means and variance adjusted weighted least squares on the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA, (October 2014). Struct Equ Model. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Choi J, Peters M, Mueller RO (2010) Correlational analysis of ordinal data: from Pearson’s r to Bayesian polychoric correlation. Asia Pacific Educ Rev 11:459–466

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gómez-Beneyto M, Pedrós A, Tomás A, Aguilar K, Leal C (1993) Psychometric properties of the parental bonding instrument in a spanish sample. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 28:252–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kendler KS (1996) Parenting: a genetic-epidemiologic perspective. Am J Psychiatry 153:11–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Qadir F, Stewart R, Khan M, Prince M (2005) The validity of the parental bonding instrument as a measure of maternal bonding among young Pakistani women. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 40:276–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mohr S, Preisig M, Fenton BT, Ferrero F (1999) Validation of the French version of the parental bonding instrument in adults. Pers Individ Differ 26:1065–1074

    Google Scholar 

  45. Murphy E, Brewin CR, Silka L (1997) The assessment of parenting using the parental bonding instrument: two or three factors? Psychol Med 27:333–342

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Huang C-Y, Lamb ME (2014) Acculturation and parenting in first-generation Chinese imigrants in the United Kingdom. J Cross-Cult Psychol 46:150–167

    Google Scholar 

  47. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev 98:224–253

    Google Scholar 

  48. Markus HR, Kitayama S (2010) Cultures and selves: a cycle of mutual constitution. Perspect on Psychol Sci 5:420–430

    Google Scholar 

  49. Australian Bureau of Statics (2016) Cultural Diversity in Australia, 2016. Available at https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Cultural%20Diversity%20Article~60

  50. United States Census Bureau (2019) A more diverse nation. Distribution of race and Hispanic origin by age groups. Available at https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2019/comm/age-race-distribution.html

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Research (MOP 68854 and MOP 86556) awarded to Dr. Koszycki and the Institut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, Ontario. VH received the Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Doctoral Scholarship. We are grateful to Emma Eaton, Nina Hedayati, Alexandra Kirvan, Anne Kirvan, Quynh Pham, and Julie Wallis for research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Vivian Huang

  2. Institut du savoir Montfort, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Julia DiMillo & Diana Koszycki

  3. Faculty of Education and Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Diana Koszycki

  4. University of Ottawa Brain and Mind Research Institute, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Diana Koszycki

Authors
  1. Vivian Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia DiMillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Koszycki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Koszycki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors report any conflict of interest associated with this study.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the child’s legal guardian as well as the child’s assent. Participants 16 years and older provided their own written consent.

Research Involving Human and Animal Participants

The study was approved proved by the institutional review board and was performed in accordance with the standards laid down by the Helsinki Declaration.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, V., DiMillo, J. & Koszycki, D. Psychometric Properties of the Parental Bonding Instrument in a Sample of Canadian Children. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 51, 754–768 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-00999-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-00999-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation