Advertisement

Child Psychiatry & Human Development

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 255–272 | Cite as

Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS): Validation of a Brief Parent-Report Measure for Use in Assessment of Parenting Skills and Family Relationships

  • Matthew R. SandersEmail author
  • Alina Morawska
  • Divna M. Haslam
  • Ania Filus
  • Renee Fletcher
Original Article

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric characteristics of the Parent and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS). The PAFAS was designed as a brief outcome measure for assessing changes in parenting practices and parental adjustment in the evaluation of both public health and individual or group parenting interventions. The inventory consists of the Parenting scale measuring parenting practices and quality of parent–child relationship and of the Family Adjustment scale measuring parental emotional adjustment and partner and family support in parenting. Two studies were conducted to validate the inventory. A sample of 370 parents participated in Study 1 and a sample of 771 parents participated in Study 2. Children’s ages ranged from 2 to 12 years old. In Study 1 confirmatory factor analysis supported an 18-item, four factor model of PAFAS Parenting, and a 12-item, three factor model of PAFAS Family Adjustment. Psychometric evaluation of the PAFAS revealed that the scales had good internal consistency, as well as satisfactory construct and predictive validity. In Study 2 confirmatory factor analysis supported stability of the factor structures of PAFAS Parenting and PAFAS Family Adjustment revealed in Study 1. Potential uses of the measure and implications for future validation studies are discussed.

Keywords

Parenting Family Assessment Validation 

References

  1. 1.
    Biglan A et al (2012) The critical role of nurturing environments for promoting human well-being. Am Psychol 67(4):257–271PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown ER, Khan L, Parsonage M (2012) Delivering effective parenting programmes to transform lives. Centre for Mental Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute of Clinical Excellence and Social Care (2006) Parent-training/education programmes in the management of children with conduct disorders. National Institute of Clinical Excellence and Social Care, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization (2009) Preventing violence through the development of safe, stable and nurturing relationships between children and their parents and caregivers. World Health Organization, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eyberg SM, Pincus DB (1999) Eyberg child behavior inventory and Sutter-Eyberg student behavior inventory-revised: professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FLGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Achenbach TM (2000) Child behavior checklist 1½–5. University of Vermont, Departement of Psychiatry, Burlington, VTGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 38(5):581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morawska A et al (2010) Child adjustement and parent efficacy scale (CAPES). Parenting and Family Support Centre, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Risley TR, Clark HB, Cataldo MF (1976) Behavioral technology for the normal middle class family. In: Maxh EJ, Hamerlynch LA, Handy LC (eds) Behavior modyfication and families. Brunnel, Mazel, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanders MR (1996) New directions in behavioral family intervention with children. In: Ollendick TH, Prinz RJ (eds) Advances in clinical child psychology, vol 18. Plenum Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arnold DS et al (1993) The Parenting Scale: a measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychol Assess 5(2):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Essau CA, Sasagawa S, Frick PJ (2006) Psychometric properties of the Alabama parenting questionnaire. J Child Fam Stud 15(5):595–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanders MR, Woolley ML (2005) The relationship between maternal self-efficacy and parenting practices: implications for parent training. Child Care Health Dev 31(1):65–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanders MR, Morawska A (2010) Family background questionnaire. Parenting and Family Support Centre, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abidin RR, Jenkins L, McGaughey MC (1992) The relationship of early family variables to children’s subsequent behavioral adjustment. J Clin Child Psychol 21(2):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belsky J et al (1996) Trouble in the second year: three questions about family interaction. Child Dev 67(2):556–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olson SL et al (2000) Early developmental precursors of externalizing behavior in middle childhood and adolescence. J Abnorm Child Psychol 28(2):119–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaw DS, Owens EB (2001) Infant and toddler pathways leading to early externalizing disorders. J Am Acad Child Psychiatr 40(1):36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morawska A, Sanders MR (2010) The child adjustement and parent efficacy scale (CAPES). Parenting and Family Support Centre, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Family Characteristics, Australia (2009–10) Accessed: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4442.02009-10?OpenDocument
  21. 21.
    Patterson GR, Reid JB, Dishion TJ (1992) Antisocial boys. Castalia, Eugene, ORGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shaw DS et al (2001) Infant and toddler pathways leading to externalising disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40(1):36–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abidin RR, Jenkins CL, McGaughey MC (1992) The relationship of early family variables to children’s subsequent behavioural adjustment. J Clin Child Psychol 21(1):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanders MR, Markie-Dadds C, Nicholson JM (1997) Concurrent interventions for marital and children’s problems. In: Halford WK, Markman HJ (eds) Clinical handbook of marriage and couples interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anthony LG et al (2005) The relationships between parenting stress, parenting behaviour and preschoolers’ social competence and behaviour problems in the classroom. Infant Child Dev 14(2):133–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goodman R (1999) The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 40(5):791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH (1995) The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Beh Res Ther 33(3):335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eyberg SM, Pincus D (1999) Eyberg child behavior inventory and Sutter-Eyberg student behavior inventory: professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FLGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sanders MR et al (2008) Every family: a population approach to reducing behavioural and emotional problems in children making the transition to school. J Prim Prev 29(3):197–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morawska A, Sanders MR (2006) Self-administered behavioural family intervention for parents of toddlers: Part I—efficacy. J Consult Clin Psychol 74(9):10–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myers N, Ahn S, Jin Y (2011) Sample size and power estimates for a confirmatory factor analytic model in exercise and sport: a Monte Carlo approach. Res Q Exerc Sport 82(3):412–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muthen B, Kaplan D (1992) A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol 45(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beauducel A, Herzberg PY (2006) On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Modeling 13(2):186–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dolan CV (1994) Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and 7 response categories: a comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. Br J Math Stat Psychol 47(2):309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Browne MW, Cudeck R (1989) Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance-structures. Multivar Behav Res 24(2):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Methodology in the social sciences, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Satorra A, Bentler PM (1994) Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Von Eye A, Clogg CC (eds) Latent variables analysis: applications for developmental research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schreiber JB et al (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res 99(6):323–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gerbing DW, Anderson JC (1988) An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J Mark Res 25(2):186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hair JF et al (1998) Multivariate data analysis 5th ediction. Prince-Hall Inc., Engelwoods Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics Applied probability and statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sijtsma K (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74(1):107–120PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yang Y, Green SB (2011) Coefficient alpha: a reliability coefficient for the twenty-first century? J Psychoeduc Assess 29(4):377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cheng Y, Yuan KH, Liu C (2012) Comparison of reliability measures under factor analysis and item response theory. Educ Psychol Meas 72(1):52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hancock GR, Mueller RO (2001) Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In: Cudeck R, Toit SD, Sörbom D (eds) Factor analysis and structural equation modeling: a Festschrift honoring Karl G. Jöreskog. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, ILGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mueller RO, Hancock GR (2001) Factor analysis and latent structure: conformatory factor analysis. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (eds) International encyclopaedia of social and behavioral sciences. Pergamon, Oxford, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Enders CK (2010) Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Enders CK (2001) A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Teacher’s corner. Struct Equ Modeling 8(1):128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Graham JW (2009) Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol 60:549–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bentler PM (2005) EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software, Encino, CAGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Byrne BM (2012) Structural equation modeling with Mplus: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sanders MR (2003) Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a population approach to promoting competent parenting. Adv Mental Health 2(3):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Collins WA et al (2000) Contemporary research on parenting: the case for nature and nurture. Am Psychol 55(2):218–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew R. Sanders
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alina Morawska
    • 1
  • Divna M. Haslam
    • 1
  • Ania Filus
    • 1
  • Renee Fletcher
    • 1
  1. 1.Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of PsychologyUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations