Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

Sai-fu Fung; Annis Lai Chu Fung

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228287

. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0228287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

Sai-fu Fung ^1,^*, Annis Lai Chu Fung ¹

Editor: Thomas M Olino²

PMCID: PMC6988928 PMID: 31995617

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a seven-item brief parenting scale (PS-7) based on the original parenting scale (PS) and various other shortened versions and with a better factor structure for the parents of adolescents. The scale was tested with a sample of 3,777 parents (2,205 mothers and 1,572 fathers). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the dimensionality of the different versions of the PS. Only the PS-7 with a two-factor structure, i.e., laxness (three items) and overreactivity (four items), showed a good model fit based on a representative sample of parents of junior secondary school students. Overall, the results suggest that PS-7 is comparable to the original PS and possesses good psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency, factorial validity, construct validity, criterion validity and discriminant validity. The abbreviated parenting scale also provides a reliable and cost-effective method for assessing parental practices for treatment and assessing treatment outcomes.

Background

Parenting has been shown to have an important influence on the mental well-being of children and adolescents and the prevalence of behavioural problems [1–4]. The literature has also suggested that parenting influences children’s school performance and has linked parenting styles to controversies arising over cultural differences. Asian, and especially Chinese, parenting styles have been categorised as controlling and authoritarian, and are popularly known as ‘tiger’ parenting [5]. However, a longitudinal study of 444 Chinese American families that examined the effects of parenting styles on adolescent adjustment suggested that tiger parenting was not the most typical profile [6]. Going beyond the common perception of Asian parenting as controlling and authoritarian [7–10], recent studies have suggested that close parental control and an authoritative parenting style are fused with ideas of training and presence that help to explain school achievement [11, 12]. Parenting style has now been accepted as a cross-cultural concept that enhances understanding of child behaviour across ages and ethnicities [7, 13, 14]. Hence, developing a convenient cross-cultural measure of parenting styles is highly warranted for epistemological research.

To operationalise parenting style, Arnold, O'Leary [15] developed a parenting scale (PS) based on a sample of 168 mothers of children ranging from 18 to 48 months old (98 boys and 70 girls). Subsequent studies suggested that the scale was applicable not only to mothers of toddlers, but also to parents of both genders with children and young adolescents attending primary and secondary schools [16–21]. The PS has since been widely accepted internationally as a measure of parenting behaviour [16]. The original and adapted versions of the scale have been translated into numerous languages, including Chinese [17], Dutch [18], French [22], German [16, 19], Japanese [23, 24], Persian [19], Spanish [25], Swedish [20] and Vietnamese [21]. The scale has also been used to examine the behaviour of parents in different contexts, such as community-based paediatric practices for routine care in America [26], Australian mothers with preschool-aged children [27], parents of school-aged children with ADHD [28] and clinical populations [29].

Nevertheless, several factors may limit the application of the full version of the PS. The scale originally comprised 30 items with a three-factor structure, comprising laxness (11 items), overreactivity (10 items) and verbosity (7 items; with two multi-factor items, 7 and 9). The scale developers reported that four items (1, 5, 13 and 27) with low factor loading values (below 0.35) were categorised as not loading on a specific factor and were excluded from the scale. Hence, the 26 item PS with a three-factor structure is commonly used. The original scale was derived based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and ambiguous results were obtained for the dimensionality and number of items per factor. In particular, verbosity was found to have a complicated factor structure and coefficients with a questionable alpha value of 0.63 [15]. Moreover, the numerous studies conducted during the early development and application of the scale mainly focused on relatively small samples of mothers with infants and English-speaking populations [18, 30].

To address these issues, many early studies attempted to provide a shortened version of the PS [31]. However, these studies used limited validation tools to evaluate the latent structure of the scale, such as EFA to uncover the underlying structure or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify the factor structure [20]. The following five brief versions are the most significant examples and have been widely used in the field. Salari, Terreros [20] proposed a 21-item scale (PS-21) in which all of the verbosity items were removed and the original two sub-scales, laxness (11 items) and overreactivity (10 items), were included after evaluating the psychometric properties of the scale. However, the CFA failed to fulfil the goodness-of-fit indices, i.e., chi-square divided by less than or equal to three degrees of freedom or a comparative fit index (CFI) higher than 0.950 [32–34]. One of the original PS scale developers, Susan O’Leary, and her colleague proposed a 13-item shortened version of the scale (PS-13) with a three-factor structure comprising laxness (five items), overreactivity (five items) and hostility (three items) [30]. However, their newly proposed factor, hostility, had a problematic Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.52. Irvine, Biglan [35] developed a version of the PS for adolescents (PS-12), based on a sample of 298 parents (94.5% mothers) of school students who identified as being at risk for problem behaviour. The 12 items were derived from the original PS sub-scales for laxness (six items) and overreactivity (six items). Intriguingly, without the support of EFA or CFA, the authors further suggested adding an additional single monitoring item, i.e., item 13, which had been removed from the original PS scale due to low factor loading. Another shortened version was based on the findings of two studies on 187 and 216 American mothers, which suggested using a 10-item PS (PS-10) with a two-factor structure comprising laxness (5 items) and overreactivity (5 items) [31]. Nevertheless, because the studies focused solely on mothers, the results may have limited applicability to fathers. Finally, the latest attempt was the eight-item parenting scale short form (PS-8), which comprised two sub-scales, laxness (four items) and overreactivity (four items), derived from a sample of 539 German parents (312 mothers and 227 fathers) of children aged from 1 to 18 [16]. Although the results were convincing, further tests and evaluations are needed to assess its generalisability to other contexts. The items and factor structure of these PSs are summarised in the S1 Appendix.

This study has two main aims. First, to evaluate the factor structure of the full PS and variants of the shortened versions using CFA and a larger sample comprising the parents (both fathers and mothers) of adolescents. Second, to propose a seven-item brief parenting scale (PS-7) that has a better factor structure and better psychometric properties than the existing versions.

Methods

This study was approved by the ethical committee of the City University of Hong Kong. Its procedure was in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. All of the participants gave informed consent prior to the study.

Participants and measures

In January 2018, 4,007 respondents from 10 secondary schools located in different districts of Hong Kong were recruited to participate in this cross-sectional study. Respondents who were either the father or mother of an adolescent were included in the analysis (N = 3,777). The valid sample consisted of 2,205 mothers and 1,572 fathers (average age 44.83 years; SD = 6.95) of junior secondary school students (i.e., Forms 1 to 3) aged between 12 to 14 [17]. The demographic information of the participants is summarised in Table 1. The unique historical context of Hong Kong, with its mix of Eastern and Western cultures, provides an ideal research setting for investigating parenting styles because it may generate results that are relevant not only to Chinese society, but also to other Anglo-Saxon societies [36–38].

Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics.

Variable	Respondents
Filler’s age mean (SD)	44.83 (6.95)
Partner’s age mean (SD)	45.35 (7.03)
Relationship with the target child n (%)
Mother	2,205 (55%)
Father	1,572 (39.2%)
Others	160 (3.9%)
Missing	70 (1.8%)
Children school year
Form 1 n (%)	1,110 (27.7%)
Form 2 n (%)	1,150 (38.7%)
Form 3 n (%)	1,347 (33.6%)
Number of children (SD)	2.26 (0.98)
Education level n (%)
No formal education	973 (24.3%)
Primary education	1,520 (37.9%)
Secondary education	1,096 (29.0%)
Diploma or college	58 (2.0%)
Tertiary education	116 (2.9%)
Missing	155 (3.9%)
Martial status n (%)
Single	46 (1.1%)
Married	3,295 (82.2%)
Divorce/separated	288 (7.2%)
Cohabit	106 (2.6%)
Widowed	107 (2.7%)
Missing	165 (4.1%)

Open in a new tab

The full PS consists of 26 items with a three-factor structure comprising 11 items related to laxness (7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 30), 10 items for overreactivity (3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 22, 25 and 28) and 7 items for verbosity (2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 23 and 29). There are two multi-factor items: item 7, which is related to both laxness and verbosity, and item 9, which is associated with overreactivity and verbosity. The parents rated the items on a 7-point Likert scale to indicate their tendency to use specific strategies to discipline their children [15]. The scale items were translated into Chinese using the back-translation procedure by two bilingual translators who were familiar with both Chinese and English and were fully aware of the issues and techniques relating to cross-cultural research [39–41].

Item selection process

The process is based on the criteria, the latest practice and recommendations used in the existing PS studies [16, 18] and other scale development and validation literature [42–49]. The selected items have gone through the following two-step procedure. Step one, selecting the items: i) using inductive approach to analyze the correlation matrix of all the items and keeping the items with 0.250 or above. We also cross-checking the Cronbach’s alpha, if deleted and McDonald’s omega values to ensure that the shortened version is above the acceptable range > 0.70; ii) using scree test in factor analysis to identify the factor structure with eigenvalues higher than 1.0 [50]. We also select the items with highest factor loadings, i.e. > 0.50 and avoid items involve correlating the error terms based on the modification indices. When selecting the items, we try to retain the sufficient items (at least three) in each factor to ensure that the validity standard of the shortened version is equivalent to the full version; iii) to verify the abbreviated version with the confirmatory factor analysis to ensure that the scale with good construct validity, i.e. fulfil all the stringent requirements for good model fit. Step two, ensuring that the compatibility between the full scale and shortened version: iv) we adopted the following practice of Kliem, Lohmann [16], ‘short form should also correlate strongly with the original PS on the total score level as well as on the subscale (overreactivity and laxness) level’ (p. 34). As such, there should be significant strong positive correlation (> 0.80) between the full and short scales, including their sub-scales; and v) lastly, the abbreviated version should possessing good criterion validity as reported in the existing PS literature.

Procedure

The sample (N = 3,777) was randomly stratified into three datasets (samples 1, 2 and 3). Each sub-sample consisted of 1,259 cases that reflected the original sex ratio of the participants, i.e., mothers 58.4% and fathers 41.6%, to avoid the problem of overfitting when using EFA and CFA to evaluate the factorial and construct validity of the scale [51, 52].

Various psychometric testing tools and validated instruments were used to examine the newly proposed PS-7. EFA was used to evaluate the factorial validity and the principal axis method with oblique rotation was used to evaluate the factor structure of the scale [18, 34, 53]. In addition, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used to evaluate the model sufficiency. The KMO estimates were over 0.70 and the Bartlett’s test was significant (p < 0.01), thus indicating that the scale had a satisfactory factor structure [54]. According to Hair [34], an item with a factor loading over 0.50 is regarded as having practical significance in studies with over 350 respondents. The internal consistency of the scale was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha [55], McDonald’s omega [56–58] and the corrected item-total correlation between the seven items [34, 59].

CFA was used to replicate and evaluate the construct validity of the scales [42, 60, 61]. Diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) was used as the CFA estimator to examine the factor structure of the PS for two reasons. First, the literature suggests that the PS has high item-level skewness and kurtosis [30]. Second, because scales with latent constructs estimated by Likert scale items consist of ordinal data, DWLS is regarded as the least biased and most optimal fit [62–66]. The model fit and cut-off criteria were evaluated on the basis of the values suggested in the structural equation modelling (SEM) literature. Specifically, over 0.950 for both CFI and the Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI), below 0.08 for the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) and below 0.06 for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are considered to indicate a good fit [32, 34, 67, 68]. In addition, model acceptability was indicated by χ² / df ≤ 3 due to the large sample size [33, 69].

The criterion validity was evaluated using other validation constructs and measurements reported in the literature on parenting. The PS has been reported to be significantly positively related to aggressive and delinquent behaviours [30, 31, 35], authoritative parenting [31], ADHD and cognitive and hyperactivity symptoms [30]. Hence, the following well-established scales were used to evaluate the criterion validity of PS-7. The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire (RPQ) comprises 23 items to measure reactive (11 items) and proactive (12 items) forms of aggression on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 = never to 2 = usually [70–72]. The child behaviour checklist (CBC) consists of 33 items identifying aggressive (20 items) and delinquent (13 items) behaviours on a 3-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 = unsuitable to 2 = very suitable [73–76]. Conners’ parent rating scale (CPRS) comprises 28 items with a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = never; 4 = a lot) for parents to rate their child in four dimensions, namely ADHD, oppositional, cognitive problems and hyperactivity [77, 78]. The parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire (PSDQ) is evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never; 5 = always), with a particular focus on the three dimensions of physical coercion (five items), punitive (three items) and verbal hostility (three items) [13, 79].

In addition, Reitman, Currier [31] found that the original PS was not correlated with the educational level of the parent, and this study attempted to replicate this finding to demonstrate the discriminant validity of PS-7 [80]. The above analyses were all implemented with IBM SPSS 25.0 and the lavaan package version 0.6–3 [81] in R computing environment 3.6.0.

Results

Development of the seven-item brief parenting scale using EFA

The seven-item parenting scale was inspired by PS-12 [35], PS-10 [31] and PS-8 [16]. The selection of items for the brief version adhered to the existing practices recommended in the scale development and validation literature, with a particular focus on the cultural context and the results of inter-item correlations, corrected item-total correlations, Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega and EFA [42, 51]. The detail item selection procedure and criteria have been stated in the methods section. According to the results, the newly proposed PS-7 has a two-factor structure comprising laxness (items 16, 20 and 30) and overreactivity (items 6, 10, 14 and 17) (see the S1 Appendix). The KMO test (0.823) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ² = 2452.585, p < .001) factor analysis results from sample 1 (n = 1,259) indicate that PS-7 has an appropriate scale construction. The EFA results using the oblique rotation method (Table 2) suggest that the two factors extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (3.123 for items related to laxness and 1.172 for items related to overreactivity) from PS-7 account for 62.195% of the total variance. The items related to laxness explain 45.708% of the variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.733 to 0.857. The overreactivity items, which have factor loadings ranging from 0.747 to 0.801, explain 16.487% of the variance. The EFA results replicate the latent structure of the two factors, namely laxness and overreactivity, as suggested in the PS literature [15, 18, 35].

Table 2. Factor loading results from exploratory factor analysis of PS-7.

Item	Laxness	Overreactivity
16. When my child does something I don't like, I often let it go	0.857	0.381
20. When I give a fair threat or warning, I often don't carry it out	0.847	0.380
30. If my child gets upset, I back down and give in.	0.733	0.366
6. When my child misbehaves, I usually get into a long argument with my child.	0.333	0.775
10. When my child misbehaves, I raise my voice or yell.	0.415	0.801
14. After there’s been a problem with my child, I often hold a grudge.	0.340	0.747
17. When there’s a problem with my child, things build up and I do things I don’t mean to do.	0.341	0.747

Open in a new tab

Internal consistency

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and item correlations for all seven items of PS-7 from sample 1. The corrected item-to-total correlations for PS-7 range from 0.470 to 0.599, which is similar to the range of 0.42 to 0.65 reported by Kliem, Lohmann [16]. Cronbach’s alpha for the seven-item PS (0.799) is comparable to that reported by Kliem, Lohmann [16] (0.75) and to the values reported in other related studies. McDonald’s omega (0.83) also suggests that PS-7 has good internal consistency.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and items correlations for the 7-item parenting scale items.

Item	16	20	30	6	10	14	17
16	1.000	0.441^***	0.632^***	0.300^***	0.301^***	0.355^***	0.363^***
20	0.422^***	1.000	0.469^***	0.297^***	0.284^***	0.258^***	0.331^***
30	0.613^***	0.441^***	1.000	0.305^***	0.300^***	0.299^***	0.355^***
6	0.263^***	0.278^***	0.290^***	1.000	0.445^***	0.438^***	0.549^***
10	0.283^***	0.273^***	0.276^***	0.423^***	1.000	0.447^***	0.487^***
14	0.312^***	0.238^***	0.279^***	0.421^***	0.417^***	1.000	0.490^***
17	0.330^***	0.312^***	0.338^***	0.518^***	0.466^***	0.471^***	1.000
Mean	2.50	3.12	2.86	2.83	2.78	1.92	2.74
SD	1.256	1.539	1.397	1.402	1.498	1.217	1.405
Skewness	0.579	0.302	0.284	0.311	0.370	1.260	0.287
Kurtosis	-0.131	-0.579	-0.685	-0.541	-0.747	1.062	-0.707
r_it	0.543	0.470	0.544	0.533	0.516	0.518	0.599
a_iid	0.771	0.785	0.770	0.772	0.776	0.776	0.760

Open in a new tab

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Lower triangle for Spearman correlations; upper triangle for Pearson correlations; r_it = Corrected item-total correlations; a_iid = Cronbach’s alpha, if item deleted.

Factor structure and comparison with other PS constructs

The factor analysis results for sample 2 (n = 1,259) replicate the findings of sample 1. The KMO test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity values are 0.827 and chi-square = 2229.075 (p < .001), respectively. The newly proposed PS-7 records 60.716% of the total variance explained by the EFA with oblique rotation. The overreactivity items (6, 10, 14 and 17) have factor loadings ranging from 0.695 to 0.905 and explain 44.614% of the variance. The laxness items (16, 20 and 30) with λ = 0.750 to 0.827 explain 16.102% of the variance. The coefficient alpha of PS-7 (0.790) in sample 2 is also above the acceptable level.

Table 4 shows the CFA results (sample 2; n = 1,259) for the original PS [15] and various shortened versions suggested in the literature [16, 20, 30, 31, 35]. All of the models evaluated in this study are without correlating measurement errors. The CFA results suggest that none of the above scales meet the minimum criteria for adequate or good model fit. The results for the original PS scale are χ² (4979.560) / 294 = 16.94, SRMR = 0.086 and RMSEA = 0.113. The other four shortened versions [20, 30, 31, 35] also fail to obtain a satisfactory model fit, with either the χ²/df or RMSEA values being too low. The CFA results for the latest PS-8 version proposed by Kliem, Lohmann [16] satisfies all of the cut-off values for good fit other than χ² / df > 3.

Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis of the parenting scale.

Model [No. of factor/item]	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Aronld et al., (1993) [3/26]	4979.560	294	16.94	0.113 [0.110–0.116]	0.958	0.953	0.086
Salari et al., (2012) [2/21]	2277.121	188	12.11	0.094 [0.091–0.098]	0.975	0.972	0.069
Rhoades & O’Leary, (2007) [3/13]	554.963	62	8.95	0.080 [0.074–0.086]	0.987	0.983	0.053
Irvine et al., (1999) [2/12]	254.697	53	4.81	0.055 [0.048–0.062]	0.994	0.992	0.038
Reitman et al., (2001) [2/10]	265.459	34	7.81	0.074 [0.066–0.082]	0.988	0.984	0.047
Kliem et al., (2019) [2/8]	73.870	19	3.89	0.048 [0.037–0.060]	0.995	0.993	0.031
PS-7 [2/7]	21.809	13	1.68	0.023 [0.000–0.040]	0.999	0.998	0.020

Open in a new tab

The CFA results indicate that PS-7 has good model fit, with χ² (21.809) / 13 = 1.68, p = 0.058, SRMR = 0.020, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.998 and RMSEA = 0.023. The standardised factor loadings for the CFA results are high, ranging from 0.64 to 0.77. Overall, the results indicate that PS-7 generally has good fit for a two underlying factor structure without any post hoc modifications.

Construct validity

This section further evaluates the psychometric properties of PS-7 with reference to the construct validity based on the data from samples 2 (n = 1,259) and 3 (n = 1,259). The CFA results in Table 5 (see Fig 1 for estimated model) suggest that all of the models fulfil the criteria for good model fit. In particular, the results for sample 3 (α = 0.79; ω = 0.84) are χ² (16.729) / 13 = 1.29, p = 0.212, SRMR = 0.017, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999 and RMSEA = 0.015. The results support the two-factor structure of PS-7, i.e., laxness (items 16, 20 and 30) and overreactivity (items 6, 10, 14 and 17).

Table 5. Factor loadings and fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis for the PS-7, by sample (see Fig 1 for estimated model).

Factor/question number			Sample 2			Sample 3			Combo
		Mother	Father	All	Mother	Father	All	Mother	Father	All
Laxness (LAX)
16	λ₁	0.653	0.607	0.640	0.655	0.609	0.630	0.654	0.606	0.635
20	λ₂	0.726	0.727	0.737	0.774	0.832	0.726	0.750	0.780	0.732
30	λ₃	0.821	0.760	0.768	0.800	0.805	0.800	0.810	0.785	0.784
Overreactivity (OVE)
6	λ₄	0.706	0.701	0.686	0.684	0.733	0.705	0.694	0.718	0.695
10	λ₅	0.679	0.664	0.695	0.662	0.681	0.672	0.671	0.674	0.683
14	λ₆	0.718	0.764	0.701	0.714	0.767	0.736	0.716	0.765	0.719
17	λ₇	0.754	0.767	0.775	0.792	0.777	0.760	0.773	0.773	0.767
Latent factor covariance
Laxness ~ Overreactivity	ϕ_l,o	0.614	0.623	0.638	0.638	0.612	0.615	0.627	0.618	0.627
Model fit
N		735	524	1,259	735	524	1,259	1,470	1,048	2,518
RMSEA		0.000	0.025	0.023	0.002	0.039	0.015	0.020	0.041	0.024
RMSEA 90% CI		0.000–0.030	0.000–0.053	0.000–0.040	0.000–0.037	0.008–0.064	0.000–0.034	0.000–0.036	0.025–0.057	0.013–0.035
SRMR		0.018	0.025	0.020	0.019	0.039	0.017	0.018	0.026	0.017
χ² (df = 13)		10.331	17.219	21.809	13.048	23.135	16.729	20.593	35.322	31.736
χ²/df		0.79	1.32	1.68	1.00	1.78	1.29	1.58	2.72	2.44
CFI		0.999	0.999	0.999	0.999	0.998	0.999	0.999	0.997	0.999
TLI		0.999	0.998	0.998	0.999	0.996	0.999	0.999	0.996	0.998

Open in a new tab

Combo = sample 2 plus sample 3 (n = 2,518)

Criterion validity and discriminant validity

Table 6 shows that PS-7 is strongly correlated with the original PS-26 in terms of the total score and the subscales, namely overreactivity and laxness, for the entire sample (N = 3,777). PS-7 is very significantly positively correlated (r = 0.916, r_s = 0. 915, p < 0.001) with PS-26 and its sub-scales, i.e., laxness (r = 0.830, r_s = 0.817, p < 0.001) and overreactivity (r = 0.850, r_s = 0.852, p < 0.001).

Table 6. Correlations for the PS-7 and PS-26 sub-scales (N = 3,777).

Scale	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
1. PS-7: total score	1.000	0.814^***	0.885^***	0.916^***	0.830^***	0.850^***
2. PS-7: laxness	0.804^***	1.000	0.450^***	0.714^***	0.878^***	0.462^***
3. PS-7: overreactivity	0.885^***	0.453^***	1.000	0.836^***	0.573^***	0.937^***
4. PS-26: total score	0.915^***	0.700^***	0.844^***	1.000	0.863^***	0.878^***
5. PS-26: laxness	0.817^***	0.877^***	0.566^***	0.844^***	1.000	0.589^***
6. PS-26: overreactivity	0.852^***	0.467^***	0.940^***	0.887^***	0.584^***	1.000

Open in a new tab

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Lower triangle for Spearman correlations; upper triangle for Pearson correlations

The results presented in Table 7 replicate the relationship between PS-7 and the other construct-related scales suggested in the literature [30, 31, 35]. The CBC aggressive and delinquent dimensions are significantly moderately correlated with PS-7 and the laxness and overreactivity subscales. The parents’ reports on reactive and proactive aggression are also positively correlated with PS-7, with r = 0.318 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.249 (p < 0.001), respectively. PS-7 is also significantly correlated with authoritarian parenting styles, such as physical coercion (r = 0.383, p < 0.001), punitive behaviour (r = 0.399, p < 0.001) and verbal hostility (r = 0.495, p < 0.001). The parents reported that their children manifested emotional and behavioural symptoms, including ADHD (r = 0.354, p < 0.001), oppositional behaviour (r = 0.388, p < 0.001), cognitive problems (r = 0.315, p < 0.001) and hyperactivity (r = 0.355, p < 0.001). This also correlates with the shortened version of the PS. The results also replicate the finding that PS-7 is not significantly related to the educational level of the parent [31], with the results showing that r = -0.009 (p = 0.581), PS-7: laxness r = -0.016 (p = 0.333) and PS-7: overreactivity r = 0.001 (p = 0.963). Thus, PS-7 generally has good criterion and divergent validity.

Table 7. Correlations between the PS-7 in relation to other construct-related scales (N = 3, 777).

Scale	PS-7	PS-7: Laxness	PS-7: Overreactivity
Criterion validity
CBC: Aggressive	0.347^***	0.220^***	0.358^***
CBC: Delinquent	0.304^***	0.183^***	0.320^***
RPQ-parent-report: reactive	0.318^***	0.195^***	0.335^***
RPQ-parent-report: proactive	0.249^***	0.154^***	0.259^***
PSDQ: physical coercion	0.383^***	0.163^***	0.456^***
PSDQ: punitive	0.399^***	0.204^***	0.450^***
PSDQ: verbal hostility	0.495^***	0.223^***	0.581^***
Parent rating: ADHD	0.354^***	0.228^***	0.360^***
Parent rating: Oppositional	0.388^***	0.243^***	0.402^***
Parent rating: Cognitive problem	0.315^***	0.196^***	0.327^***
Parent rating: Hyperactivity	0.355^***	0.219^***	0.368^***
Divergent validity
Parent’s educational level	-0.009	-0.016	-0.001

Open in a new tab

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Discussion

The main contribution of this study is to introduce PS-7, a shortened version of the original PS. PS-7 and its sub-scales have very strong significantly positive relationships with the original scale and its sub-scales, which suggests that PS-7 is comparable to the original PS. The proposed scale retains the original two-factor structure, i.e., laxness and overreactivity, as suggested in the PS literature [16, 20, 31, 35]. The shortened scale also demonstrates good psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency and factorial, criterion and discriminant validity. Thus, the proposed PS-7 provides a handy instrument for researchers and practitioners wishing to evaluate parenting practices for fathers and mothers of young adolescents.

PS-7 is preferable to the existing versions for the following reasons. First, the adapted scale has no complicated items and possesses better factorial validity, with the CFA results suggesting an excellent model fit. Second, in some studies, only EFA and Cronbach’s alpha were used to evaluate the metrics of the scales [15, 20]. In this study, the proposed PS-7 was subjected to a series of rigorous tests and comprehensive psychometric tools were used to develop and validate the scale. The results showed that PS-7 has a better factor structure than and is comparable to the original PS. Finally, PS-7 does not rely on correlating the error terms to fulfil the stringent requirements of the goodness-of-fit in CFA. Nonetheless, the proponents of the existing PS versions largely relied on modification indices to improve the model fit [16, 18, 30, 35]. According to Hermida [82], it is inappropriate to allow correlated errors in SEM without strong theoretical justification. Hence, PS-7 is more favourable than the existing PS versions.

Some PS items were not included in PS-7 mainly due to concerns about cultural sensitivity and the contextual rules and regulations. The notion of paternalism is deeply embedded in Asian societies [83, 84]. Therefore, item 12 (When I want my child to stop doing something, I coax or beg my child to stop) and item 21 (If saying “No” doesn’t work, I offer my child something nice so he/she will behave) are less likely to be relevant in an Asian context when parents interact with their children. Similarly, the scenario in item 22 (When my child misbehaves, I get so frustrated or angry that my child can see I’m upset) is unlikely to arise in Chinese society because the notion of face prevents parents from showing any signs of weakness in front of their children [85]. In many societies, including Hong Kong, laws and regulations forbid parents imposing physical punishment and leaving their children unattended at home [86]. Therefore, item 15 (When we’re not at home, I let my child get away with a lot more) and item 18 (When my child misbehaves, I spank, slap, grab, or hit my child) may not be applicable in those societies. Future studies should consider the significance of such cultural differences.

A potential limitation of this study is that only a limited number of construal-related scales were used to evaluate the criterion validity of PS-7. In the PS literature, the scales are normally cross-checked with measures such as depression, anxiety, self-esteem, confidence, parent-child relationship, impulsivity and social support [16, 30, 31, 35]. Due to the availability of Chinese validated scales and to avoid a lengthy questionnaire, this study used other well-developed scales related to children’s aggressive and delinquent behaviour, authoritative parenting, ADHD and oppositional, cognitive and hyperactivity symptoms, which have been extensively discussed and used in the PS literature. The sample used in this study may also limit the generalisability of the findings given that the respondents were recruited from junior secondary schools in Hong Kong and the lack of any evaluation of test-retest reliability. However, these limitations may have been compensated by the large sample size and inclusion of father and mother respondents. Further research is needed to replicate our findings or apply PS-7 in other contexts, preferably with cross-cultural longitudinal research designs in different societies, and ideally involving fathers and mothers of children of different ages.

Conclusions

To sum up, parenting plays a vital role in child development. There is an urgent need for a shorter and more reliable measure to evaluate different parenting styles and the effectiveness of parental intervention programmes. The results of this study suggested that the proposed PS-7 had a better factor structure and psychometric properties than the original and other shortened versions of the PS. PS-7 also possesses good internal consistency and criterion validity, with the results being comparable to those for the full version of the PS. The seven-item version of the PS can provide a cost-effective method for assessing parenting practices and conducting epistemological surveys.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.^{(50.6KB, zip)}

S1 Appendix. Factor structure of parenting scale and different shortened versions.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.1KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Lawrence Gerstein for commenting on an early draft of the work. All errors and mistakes are the responsibility of the authors.

Data Availability

All relevant data that will enable future readers to replicate our findings are uploaded as a Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Research Grant Council, Hong Kong under General Research Fund [number 11611517]. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Belfer ML. Child and adolescent mental disorders: The magnitude of the problem across the globe. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2008;49(3):226–36. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01855.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Belsky J. The Determinants of Parenting: A Process Model. Child Development. 1984;55(1):83–96. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Morawska A, Winter L, Sanders MR. Parenting knowledge and its role in the prediction of dysfunctional parenting and disruptive child behaviour. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2009;35(2):217–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Sanders MR. Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Towards an Empirically Validated Multilevel Parenting and Family Support Strategy for the Prevention of Behavior and Emotional Problems in Children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1999;2(2):71–90. 10.1023/a:1021843613840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Chua A. Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York: New York: Penguin Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
6.Kim SY, Wang YJ, Orozco-Lapray D, Shen YS, Murtuza M. Does "Tiger Parenting" Exist? Parenting Profiles of Chinese Americans and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes. Asian Am J Psychol. 2013;4(1):7–18. 10.1037/a0030612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Kelley ML, Tseng HM. Cultural-Differences in Child Rearing: A Comparison of Immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American Mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1992;23(4):444–55. [Google Scholar]
8.Okagaki L, Frensch PA. Parenting and children's school achievement: A multiethnic perspective. Am Educ Res J. 1998;35(1):123–44. [Google Scholar]
9.Leung K, Lau S, Lam WL. Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Q-J Dev Psychol. 1998;44(2):157–72. [Google Scholar]
10.Chen XY, Dong Q, Zhou H. Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 1997;21(4):855–73. [Google Scholar]
11.Chao RK. Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development. 1994;65(4):1111–9. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00806.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Chao RK. Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development. 2001;72(6):1832–43. 10.1111/1467-8624.00381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Wu P, Robinson CC, Yang C, Hart CH, Olsen SF, Porter CL, et al. Similarities and differences in mothers' parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002;26(6):481–91. [Google Scholar]
14.Rohner RP, Khaleque A, Cournoyer DE. Parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos. 2005;33(3):299–334. [Google Scholar]
15.Arnold DS, O'Leary SG, Wolff LS, Acker MM. The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment. 1993;5(2):137–44. [Google Scholar]
16.Kliem S, Lohmann A, Mößle T, Foran HM, Hahlweg K, Zenger M, et al. Development and Validation of a Parenting Scale Short Form (PS-8) in a Representative Population Sample. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2019;28(1):30–41. [Google Scholar]
17.Zhu AYF. Validating the Scale Measuring Dysfunctional Parenting with Hong Kong Adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2018;35(5):489–98. [Google Scholar]
18.Prinzie P, Onghena P, Hellinckx W. Reexamining the parenting scale—Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity of a scale for assessing the discipline practices of mothers and fathers of elementary-school-aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2007;23(1):24–31. [Google Scholar]
19.Tahmouresi N, Schmitz J, Bender C, Tuschen-Caffier B. The Impact of Culture on Parenting and Psychopathology in Children: A Comparative Study Between Iran and Germany. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2017;11(1):e4178. [Google Scholar]
20.Salari R, Terreros C, Sarkadi A. Parenting Scale: Which Version Should We Use? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2012;34(2):268–81. [Google Scholar]
21.Del Vecchio T, Jerusalmi D, Terjesen MD. Psychometric characteristics of the Parenting Scale in a Vietnamese sample. International Journal of Psychology. 2017;52(6):482–90. 10.1002/ijop.12242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Brodard F, El Ghaziri N, Kounou KB, Zecca G. Validation de la version française d’une échelle évaluant les pratiques disciplinaires de parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire. Journal de Thérapie Comportementale et Cognitive. 2018;28(3):114–22. [Google Scholar]
23.Itani T. The Japanese version of the Parenting Scale: Factor structure and psychometric properties. The Japanese Journal of Psychology. 2010;81(5):446–52. 10.4992/jjpsy.81.446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Suzuki K, Kita Y, Kaga M, Takehara K, Misago C, Inagaki M. The association between children's Behavior and Parenting of caregivers: a longitudinal study in Japan. Front Public Health. 2016;4:6 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Dumas JE, Arriaga X, Begle AM, Longoria Z. “When Will Your Program Be Available in Spanish?” Adapting an Early Parenting Intervention for Latino Families. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 2010;17(2):176–87. 10.1016/j.cbpra.2010.01.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Karazsia BT, van Dulmen MHM, Wildman BG. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Arnold et al.'s Parenting Scale Across Race, Age, and Sex. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2008;17(4):500–16. [Google Scholar]
27.Arney F, Rogers H, Baghurst P, Sawyer M, Prior M. The reliability and validity of the Parenting Scale for Australian mothers of preschool-aged children. Australian Journal of Psychology. 2008;60(1):44–52. [Google Scholar]
28.Harvey E, Danforth JS, Ulaszek WR, Eberhardt TL. Validity of the parenting scale for parents of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2001;39(6):731–43. 10.1016/s0005-7967(00)00052-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Bigras M, LaFreniere PJ, Dumas JE. Discriminant Validity of the Parent and Child Scales of the Parenting Stress Index. Early Education and Development. 1996;7(2):167–78. [Google Scholar]
30.Rhoades KA, O'Leary SG. Factor structure and validity of the parenting scale. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2007;36(2):137–46. 10.1080/15374410701274157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Reitman D, Currier RO, Hupp SDA, Rhode PC, Murphy MA, O'Callaghan PM. Psychometric characteristics of the Parenting Scale in a head start population. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30(4):514–24. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_08 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55. [Google Scholar]
33.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2 ed: New York: Guilford Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
34.Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis. 7 ed: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2010. [Google Scholar]
35.Irvine AB, Biglan A, Smolkowski K, Ary DV. The value of the Parenting Scale for measuring the discipline practices of parents of middle school children. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1999;37(2):127–42. 10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00114-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Ford D, Chui WH. Where east meets west: Fieldwork instruction in Hong Kong and England. Asia Pac J Soc Work. 2001;10(2):19–39. [Google Scholar]
37.Wong YLR. When East meets West—Nation, colony, and Hong Kong women's subjectivities in gender and China development. Mod China. 2004;30(2):259–92. [Google Scholar]
38.Beattie P, Bettache K, Chong KCY. Who is the neoliberal? Exploring neoliberal beliefs across East and West. J Soc Issues. 2019;75(1):20–48. [Google Scholar]
39.Brislin RW. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970;1(3):185–216. [Google Scholar]
40.Cha ES, Kim KH, Erlen JA. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58(4):386–95. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Chang AM, Chau JPC, Holroyd E. Translation of questionnaires and issues of equivalence. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29(2):316–22. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00891.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Loewenthal KM. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. 2 ed: Philadelphia, Pa: Psychology Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
43.Schel SHH, Bouman YHA, Vorstenbosch ECW, Bulten BH. Development of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: short version (FQL-SV). Quality of Life Research. 2017;26(5):1153–61. 10.1007/s11136-016-1461-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.MacKenzie MB, Kocovski NL, Blackie RA, Carrique LC, Fleming JE, Antony MM. Development of a Brief Version of the Social Anxiety—Acceptance and Action Questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2017;39(2):342–54. [Google Scholar]
45.Markos A, Kokkinos CM. Development of a short form of the Greek Big Five Questionnaire for Children (GBFQ-C-SF): Validation among preadolescents. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;112:12–7. [Google Scholar]
46.Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment. 2000;12(1):102–11. 10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Svedholm-Hakkinen AM, Lindeman M. Actively open-minded thinking: development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards knowledge and people. Think Reasoning. 2018;24(1):21–40. [Google Scholar]
48.Chae D, Park Y. Development and Cross-Validation of the Short Form of the Cultural Competence Scale for Nurses. Asian Nurs Res. 2018;12(1):69–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Zhang XT, Wang MC, He LN, Jie L, Deng JX. The development and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory-15. Plos One. 2019;14(8):21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Cattell RB. The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1966;1(2):245–76. 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Fokkema M, Greiff S. How Performing PCA and CFA on the Same Data Equals Trouble Overfitting in the Assessment of Internal Structure and Some Editorial Thoughts on It. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2017;33(6):399–402. [Google Scholar]
52.Babyak MA. What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med. 2004;66(3):411–21. 10.1097/01.psy.0000127692.23278.a9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Jennrich RI, Sampson PF. Rotation for simple loadings. Psychometrika. 1966;31(3):313–23. 10.1007/bf02289465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Field AP. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th edition ed. Field AP, editor: Los Angeles, California: SAGE Publications; 2018. [Google Scholar]
55.Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. [Google Scholar]
56.Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach's alpha, Revelle's beta, and McDonald's (omega H): Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70(1):123–33. [Google Scholar]
57.Revelle W, Zinbarg RE. Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):145–54. [Google Scholar]
58.McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment: London: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1999. [Google Scholar]
59.Tabachnick BG. Using multivariate statistics. 6 ed Fidell LS, editor: Boston: Pearson Education; 2013. [Google Scholar]
60.Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, Second Edition: New York: Guilford Publications; 2014. [Google Scholar]
61.Jöreskog KG. A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1969;34(2):183–202. [Google Scholar]
62.DiStefano C, Morgan GB. A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2014;21(3):425–38. [Google Scholar]
63.Li C-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods. 2016;48(3):936–49. 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Lionetti F, Keijsers L, Dellagiulia A, Pastore M. Evidence of factorial validity of parental knowledge, control and solicitation, and adolescent disclosure scales: When the ordered nature of Likert scales matters. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7, 941 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Fung S. Psychometric Evaluation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) with Chinese University Students. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2019;17:46 10.1186/s12955-019-1113-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Fung S. Cross-cultural validation of the Social Media Disorder scale. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:683–90. 10.2147/PRBM.S216788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models: Newburyk Park: Sage; 1993. p. 136–62. [Google Scholar]
68.Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research. 2006;99(6):323–38. [Google Scholar]
69.Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;88(3):588–606. [Google Scholar]
70.Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, Gatzke-Kopp L, Lynam D, Reynolds C, et al. The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior. 2006;32(2):159–71. 10.1002/ab.20115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Fung AL-C, Raine A, Gao Y. Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ). Journal of Personality Assessment. 2009;91(5):473–9. 10.1080/00223890903088420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Tuvblad C, Dhamija D, Berntsen L, Raine A, Liu J. Cross-Cultural Validation of the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) Using Four Large Samples from the US, Hong Kong, and China. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2016;38(1):48–55. 10.1007/s10862-015-9501-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Achenbach TM. Manual for the child behavior checklist and revised child behavior profile. Edelbrock CS, editor. Burlington, Vt.: Burlington, Vt.: T.M. Achenbach; 1983. [Google Scholar]
74.Achenbach TM, Ruffle TM. The Child Behavior Checklist and Related Forms for Assessing Behavioral/Emotional Problems and Competencies. Pediatrics in Review. 2000;21(8):265–71. 10.1542/pir.21-8-265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Ivanova MY, Achenbach TM, Dumenci L, Rescorla LA, Almqvist F, Weintraub S, et al. Testing the 8-Syndrome Structure of the Child Behavior Checklist in 30 Societies. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2007;36(3):405–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Liu J, Cheng H, Leung PWL. The Application of the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist and the Caregiver–Teacher Report Form to Mainland Chinese Children: Syndrome Structure, Gender Differences, Country Effects, and Inter-Informant Agreement. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2011;39(2):251–64. 10.1007/s10802-010-9452-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JDA, Epstein JN. The Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor Structure, Reliability, and Criterion Validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1998;26(4):257–68. 10.1023/a:1022602400621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Gau SS-F, Soong W-T, Chiu Y-N, Tsai W-C. Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Conners’ Parent and Teacher Rating Scales-Revised: Short Form. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2006;9(4):648–59. 10.1177/1087054705284241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, Hart CH. Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Practices: Development of a New Measure. Psychological Reports. 1995;77(3):819–30. [Google Scholar]
80.Foster SL, Cone JD. Validity issues in clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7(3):248–60. [Google Scholar]
81.Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012;48(2):36. [Google Scholar]
82.Hermida R. The Problem of Allowing Correlated Errors in Structural Equation Modeling: Concerns and Considerations. Computational Methods in Social Sciences. 2015;3(1):5–17. [Google Scholar]
83.Wong KTW, Zheng V. Democratic Support and Cultural Values: An Empirical Study of Hong Kong and East Asian Societies. China. 2018;16(2):111–32. [Google Scholar]
84.Cheng BS, Boer D, Chou LF, Huang MP, Yoneyama S, Shim D, et al. Paternalistic Leadership in Four East Asian Societies: Generalizability and Cultural Differences of the Triad Model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2014;45(1):82–90. [Google Scholar]
85.Hwang KK. Face and favor—the chinese-power game. Am J Sociol. 1987;92(4):944–74. [Google Scholar]
86.Offences against the Person Ordinance. Sect. Cap 212 (2017). [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r001

Decision Letter 0

Thomas M Olino

30 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-17632

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fung,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This manuscript seeks to refine the Parenting Scale into a brief form and examine associations with an additional measure of parenting, parental education, and youth symptoms. I was able to have the input of two experts in the area and I thank them for their constructive, but critical input on the work. I highlight a number of concerns that I shared with the reviewers and note several additional elements of the work that would need to be addressed in a revision.

Both reviewers and I note that the conceptual foundation for the work was fairly modest. As the PS was developed with young children, more needs to be stated about how the measure translates to adolescence.

Most critically, Reviewer 1 and I share the concern that no details are provided about how the short measure was developed. What criteria were employed to select the items? How many iterations of items were tested before arriving at the particular item set? The scientific processes that lead to the items and, ultimately, the measure is paramount. Without pre-registration, it becomes very challenging to identify serendipity in selecting the items, or a clear rational process.

Reviewer 1 also notes that additional statistical information is needed to evaluate the bifactor model.

Reviewer 2 noted that there was additional attention needed to fathers. I concur with the statement and press the issue further. In order to make stronger claims about fathers, additional analyses may be needed to clarify whether mothers and fathers provide similar or dissimilar responses. Moreover, it was not clear whether only one parent per household was included, or if there were some parent dyads who both completed the measures. If the latter, more attention in the analyses may be needed to accommodate non-independence of observations.

This is a fairly extensive set of comments to address. I cannot be sure that your work will ultimately be accepted for publication. However, there is interest in the work and the data come from an impressive sample.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 14 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript focuses on assessing the psychometric properties of a brief, 7-item version of the parenting scale for use with parents of adolescents. Strengths of this paper include the assessment of psychometric properties of a parenting practices measure to be used with adolescents, as well as the utilization of a diverse population. Nevertheless, I do have several concerns.

1. There are several typos and misspellings. Please proofread carefully, as these errors make reading the manuscript difficult. Further, the manuscript appears to jump from topic to topic without transition, which makes reading the manuscript difficult. Please review the manuscript for overall flow.

2. The explaining for why this scale should be used with parents of adolescents is not clearly outlined. Please provide a more thorough explanation, as the original measure was designed for use with parents of young children. The manuscript was presented in a way that suggested the emphasis was on use with parents of adolescents; however, this is not discussed later within the manuscript. Please clarify what the primary goal of the manuscript is and why it is a significant contribution.

3. Additionally, there should be a more substantial focus in the Introduction on the use of the PS with Chinese families, and some of the details provided in the Discussion on cultural differences in parenting should be a focal point of the study rationale.

4. Please include the average age of the children in the study. Additionally, please provide more demographic information.

5. Please explain what a “complex item” is in more detail. As it currently stands, it is unclear precisely what this means or why it is referred to as “complex.”

6. Please provide more detail regarding the procedure for creating the brief scale. How did the authors choose these seven items? They differ from other versions, so it is unclear how these items were selected.

7. In the fourth paragraph of the procedures section, the Discussion regarding the PS and associations with parenting behaviors and child factors appears abruptly and should not be presented in this section. Please move to the rationale to the Introduction and detailed description of each measure in the measures section.

8. At times throughout the manuscript, it is unclear if the authors are referring to the broader parenting scale literature, or the specific parenting scale they are validating. Please clarify.

9. It is unclear why it would be essential to reduce the scale from 21 items to 7. Additionally, it was stated that there is already an 8-item scale; therefore, is it necessary to reduce the scale by one item? Please explain. Further, research using IRT has shown that the 21-item version is superior to briefer versions (see Lorber et al., 2014).

10. Given the sample size, the authors should test for measurement invariance across both parent and child gender.

11. In the EFA there appeared to be high cross-loadings. With the 21-item version, could it be the case that a bifactor structure is more appropriate (e.g., lax, overactivity, and overall behavioral control)?

12. Please report both alpha and omega for reliability as well as 95% CIs for reliability (available in several R packages).

13. Lastly, a significant limitation of the current study is relying on only a single informant and not including test-retest reliably.

Reviewer #2: The submitted manuscript proposed an abbreviated version of the Parenting Scale (PS) for parents of adolescents based on a sample recruited from Hong Kong. This manuscript contributes to the parenting literature and measurement of parenting by indicating a shorter and more accessible form of an already well validated assessment of parenting. The authors used rigorous statistical and research methods and reported their findings clearly and concisely. This manuscript is a welcomed addition to the literature as it is an in-depth analysis of a parenting measure using an Asian sample, which is significant given the noted cultural differences in parenting practices with regard to paternalism as discussed by the authors. Further, I commend the author’s analysis of an existent parenting measure created narrowly for mothers of younger children and expanding these factors with a sample consisting of parents of adolescents including both mothers and fathers.

Along with the strengths of the manuscript discussed above, there were some areas of weakness that might strengthen its contribution to the literature. First, the authors discussed issues of validity as well as the problems with the statistical rigor of previous iterations of the PS in great detail but do not sufficiently state their theoretical basis for their aims and specific hypotheses based on said theory. The authors bring up many important variables that require further investigation in the measurement of parenting, such as lacking attention given to possible differences in parenting styles and behaviors with regard to child age (e.g. adolescents), historical failure to include diverse samples with regard to parent gender, as well as important cultural considerations when applying these measures globally. However, the manuscript would be improved by further discussion of hypotheses of how these items/factors may vary when studying only parents of adolescents. Similarly, consideration of how the inclusion of fathers may influence or improve these analyses and resultant proposed measure (e.g. do fathers parents differently, interaction of parent gender with the examination of adolescence and/or Asian culture). Discussion of differences in parenting in Asian cultures was addressed in the discussion section, but only to substantiate why items were removed from the outset. More thought and analysis of how these results fit into these multicultural concepts is warranted and an important addition to the literature.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Raelyn Loiselle

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0228287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

16 Oct 2019

Comments from Editor:

1. Both reviewers and I note that the conceptual foundation for the work was fairly modest. As the PS was developed with young children, more needs to be stated about how the measure translates to adolescence.

Response: We have addressed this concern in the revised manuscript with additional discussion in the background section on the Parenting Scale to support the scale is applicable to both father and mother of early adolescent (p. 2).

2. Most critically, Reviewer 1 and I share the concern that no details are provided about how the short measure was developed. What criteria were employed to select the items? How many iterations of items were tested before arriving at the particular item set? The scientific processes that lead to the items and, ultimately, the measure is paramount. Without pre-registration, it becomes very challenging to identify serendipity in selecting the items, or a clear rational process.

Response: We have responded it in the Reviewer 1 comment (point number 6). In addition, we also added the limitations and future research direction on p. 14.

3. Reviewer 1 also notes that additional statistical information is needed to evaluate the bifactor model

Response: Additional EFA (with different estimators and rotation methods) was conducted with the 21-item version. The results did not support the bifactor structure.

4. Reviewer 2 noted that there was additional attention needed to fathers. I concur with the statement and press the issue further. In order to make stronger claims about fathers, additional analyses may be needed to clarify whether mothers and fathers provide similar or dissimilar responses. Moreover, it was not clear whether only one parent per household was included, or if there were some parent dyads who both completed the measures. If the latter, more attention in the analyses may be needed to accommodate non-independence of observations.

Response: We also addressed this concern in Reviewer 2 (point number 2). We computed additional CFA on both mother and father samples. The results are identical to the samples consist of both parents (p. 11, Table 5).

There was only one parent per household was included in this study.

5. This is a fairly extensive set of comments to address. I cannot be sure that your work will ultimately be accepted for publication. However, there is interest in the work and the data come from an impressive sample.

Response: Thank you for inviting us to resubmit the manuscript. We have carefully considered all issues raised by the Editor, Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 and have made all edits that have been suggested.

Comments from Reviewer 1:

Response: Many thanks for your comments and feedbacks. We have made substantial edits to the manuscript to address your concerns.

Response: The revised manuscript has been re-organised the structure and proofread carefully.

Response: The Parenting Scale has been validated and used on parents of early adolescent. We have added the relevant literature in the introduction section (p. 2).

Response: Agreed. In the revised manuscript, we added some relevant literature related to the Chinese parenting style (p. 2).

4. Please include the average age of the children in the study. Additionally, please provide more demographic information.

Response: Our study only asked the parent’s age and other demographic information is presented in Table 1 (p. 4-5).

5. Please explain what a “complex item” is in more detail. As it currently stands, it is unclear precisely what this means or why it is referred to as “complex.”

Response: Change to complicated, i.e. the item is related to more than one dimension/factor.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the item selection procedure in p. 7.

In the discussion section (p. 13-14), we further illustrated that the brief scale with better psychometric properties and culturally universal, especially suitable for the Chinese context.

Response: The discussion regarding the PS and associations with parenting behaviours and child factors in the methods section is to explain and justify the scales/variables for evaluating the criterion validity of the Parenting Scale. If move it to the introduction, it may affect the flow of the manuscript. But we do agree to provide detailed description of each measure in this section (p. 6).

8. At times throughout the manuscript, it is unclear if the authors are referring to the broader parenting scale literature, or the specific parenting scale they are validating. Please clarify.

Response: The PS literature reviewed/quoted are all related to the specific parenting scale derived from Arnold et al. (1993).

Response: The original Parenting Scale consist of 26 items with three factor structure. The 21-item version is a shortened version proposed by Salari et al. (2012) and evaluated by Lorber et al. in 2014. However, the existing Parenting Scale literature in recent years suggested that a briefer version is possessing better psychometric properties, such as the latest 8-item version.

This study also evaluated different versions with empirical data. Table 4 (p. 9) summarised the results of original scale (26 items with three factor structure), as well as the 21-item and other shortened versions. The CFA results show that none of them fulfilled the criteria for model fit. Hence, this study attempts to develop and validate a parenting style that can suitable the cultural context of the Chinese society.

Also, in the discussion section, some items are removed from the original scale mainly due to the concerns of the cultural/legal context in the Chinese society (p. 14).

10. Given the sample size, the authors should test for measurement invariance across both parent and child gender.

Response: We computed additional CFA analysis of the PS-7 on both father and mother respondents. The results also suggested that the proposed scale with good model fit (p. 11, Table 5). However, we did not collect the child gender, as this variable is usually not reported in other parenting scale studies.

Response: Additional EFA (with different estimators and rotation methods) was conducted with the 21-item version. The results did not support the bifactor structure.

12. Please report both alpha and omega for reliability as well as 95% CIs for reliability (available in several R packages).

Response: We have computed the alpha and omega for reliability with 95% CIs. Relevant texts are added in the methods and results sections (p. 6, 7 and 8).

13. Lastly, a significant limitation of the current study is relying on only a single informant and not including test-retest reliably.

Response: The sample was randomly stratified into three datasets based on the sex ratio of the respondents to avoid any potential biased of the analysis. We do agree that without test-retest reliability is a limitation of this study, we have added this in the discussion section (p. 14).

Comments from Reviewer 2:

Response: Thanks for the comments and feedbacks.

In the revised manuscript, we have provided additional discussion in the background section on the Parenting Scale to support the scale is applicable to both father and mother of early adolescent. We also took your advice to discuss the Asian parenting style (p. 2).

Response: We shared your concerns about these issues, the following are the changes we made it in the revised manuscript:

In the background section, we highlighted the importance of cultural considerations for the parenting scale (p. 2).

In the results section, we provided additional clarification of the development of the 7-item PS (p. 7).

We computed additional CFA on both mother and father samples. The results are identical to the samples consist of both parents (p. 11, Table 5).

In the discussion section, we proposed future study may consider incorporating diverse samples in different societies ideally with different parent gender and parent with different child age (p. 14).

Comments from Editorial Office:

1. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Response: We have uploaded the data set as Supporting Information file through the online submission system. It can enables the future readers to replicate our findings.

2. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Response: Thank you for the reminder. We have added Figure 1 in the text (p. 9).

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement on the online submission form:

"This study was approved by the ethical committee of the City University of Hong Kong. Its procedure was in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. All of the participants gave informed consent prior to the study.".

To help ensure that the wording of your manuscript is suitable for publication, would you please also add this statement at the beginning of the Methods section of your manuscript file.

Response: We have added the ethics statement at the beginning of the Method section (p. 4).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(24.6KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r003

Decision Letter 1

Thomas M Olino

26 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-17632R1

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fung,

Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain comments from the initial reviewers of the manuscript. However, I read the revision and responses to previous comments carefully. Overall, this manuscript is improved. Though, there continues to be an important limitation in the description of how the short form items were selected. The paper describes administering the full 26 item measure. What analyses were conducted on these data to reduce the items from 26 to 7? Without this information there is no scientific evidence supporting the decision. There are additional description in the text, but there are no details provided about how those recommendations were used in this study.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0228287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

6 Jan 2020

Comments from Editor:

Responses from Authors:

Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have added a section to clarify the item selection process (p. 5 and 6):

The process is based on the criteria, latest practice and recommendations used in the existing PS studies (16, 18) and other scale development and validation literature (42-49). The selected items have gone through the following two-step procedure. Step one, selecting the items: i) using inductive approach to analyze the correlation matrix of all the items and keeping the items with 0.250 or above. We also cross-checking the Cronbach’s alpha, if deleted and McDonald’s omega values to ensure that the shortened version is above the acceptable range > 0.70; ii) using scree test in factor analysis to identify the factor structure with eigenvalues higher than 1.0 (50). We also select the items with highest factor loadings, i.e. > .50 and avoid items involve correlating the error terms based on the modification indices. When selecting the items, we try to retain the sufficient items (at least three) in each factor to ensure that the validity standard of the shortened version is equivalent to the full version; iii) to verify the abbreviated version with the confirmatory factor analysis to ensure that the scale with good construct validity, i.e. fulfil all the stringent requirements for good model fit. Step two, ensuring that the compatibility between the full scale and shortened version: iv) we adopted the following practice of Kliem, Lohmann (16), ‘short form should also correlate strongly with the original PS on the total score level as well as on the subscale (overreactivity and laxness) level’ (p. 34). As such, there should be significant strong positive correlation (> 0.80) between the full and short scales, including their sub-scales; and v) lastly, the abbreviated version should possessing good criterion validity as reported in the existing PS literature.

We also made additional changes in the results (p. 7 and 8) and references sections (p. 19):

42. Loewenthal KM. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. 2 ed: Philadelphia, Pa. : Psychology Press; 2001.

43. Schel SHH, Bouman YHA, Vorstenbosch ECW, Bulten BH. Development of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: short version (FQL-SV). Quality of Life Research. 2017;26(5):1153-61.

44. MacKenzie MB, Kocovski NL, Blackie RA, Carrique LC, Fleming JE, Antony MM. Development of a Brief Version of the Social Anxiety - Acceptance and Action Questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2017;39(2):342-54.

45. Markos A, Kokkinos CM. Development of a short form of the Greek Big Five Questionnaire for Children (GBFQ-C-SF): Validation among preadolescents. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;112:12-7.

46. Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment. 2000;12(1):102-11.

47. Svedholm-Hakkinen AM, Lindeman M. Actively open-minded thinking: development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards knowledge and people. Think Reasoning. 2018;24(1):21-40.

48. Chae D, Park Y. Development and Cross-Validation of the Short Form of the Cultural Competence Scale for Nurses. Asian Nurs Res. 2018;12(1):69-76.

49. Zhang XT, Wang MC, He LN, Jie L, Deng JX. The development and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory-15. Plos One. 2019;14(8):21.

50. Cattell RB. The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1966;1(2):245-76.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(38.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r005

Decision Letter 2

Thomas M Olino

8 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-17632R2

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fung,

Thank you for the additions to the manuscript. In my previous comments, I requested information about the decision making process to lead to the selected 7 items. The steps are described in the revision. However, the specific application of the steps is not detailed. There are two potential remedies. One would be to add the empirical information that led to the elimination of the items into the manuscript. An alternative would be to provide the complete data and step-by-step analytic syntax as supplementary material that would permit a reader to follow the work. I leave the decision to you to take one of the approaches.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0228287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2

9 Jan 2020

Comments from Editor:

Responses from Authors:

Many thanks for your comments and recommendations for the two potential remedies. We would like to use the second way, i.e. to provide the complete data and all the analytic syntax (in both SPSS and R) that we used as supplementary material. We have uploaded those files on the Editorial Manager.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(38.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r007

Decision Letter 3

Thomas M Olino

13 Jan 2020

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

PONE-D-19-17632R3

Dear Dr. Fung,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228287.r008

Acceptance letter

Thomas M Olino

16 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-17632R3

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

Dear Dr. Fung:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thomas M. Olino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Dataset

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.^{(50.6KB, zip)}

S1 Appendix. Factor structure of parenting scale and different shortened versions.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.1KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(24.6KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(38.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(38.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data that will enable future readers to replicate our findings are uploaded as a Supporting Information file.

[pone.0228287.ref001] 1.Belfer ML. Child and adolescent mental disorders: The magnitude of the problem across the globe. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2008;49(3):226–36. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01855.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref002] 2.Belsky J. The Determinants of Parenting: A Process Model. Child Development. 1984;55(1):83–96. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref003] 3.Morawska A, Winter L, Sanders MR. Parenting knowledge and its role in the prediction of dysfunctional parenting and disruptive child behaviour. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2009;35(2):217–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref004] 4.Sanders MR. Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Towards an Empirically Validated Multilevel Parenting and Family Support Strategy for the Prevention of Behavior and Emotional Problems in Children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1999;2(2):71–90. 10.1023/a:1021843613840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref005] 5.Chua A. Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York: New York: Penguin Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref006] 6.Kim SY, Wang YJ, Orozco-Lapray D, Shen YS, Murtuza M. Does "Tiger Parenting" Exist? Parenting Profiles of Chinese Americans and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes. Asian Am J Psychol. 2013;4(1):7–18. 10.1037/a0030612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref007] 7.Kelley ML, Tseng HM. Cultural-Differences in Child Rearing: A Comparison of Immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American Mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1992;23(4):444–55. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref008] 8.Okagaki L, Frensch PA. Parenting and children's school achievement: A multiethnic perspective. Am Educ Res J. 1998;35(1):123–44. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref009] 9.Leung K, Lau S, Lam WL. Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Q-J Dev Psychol. 1998;44(2):157–72. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref010] 10.Chen XY, Dong Q, Zhou H. Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 1997;21(4):855–73. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref011] 11.Chao RK. Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development. 1994;65(4):1111–9. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00806.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref012] 12.Chao RK. Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development. 2001;72(6):1832–43. 10.1111/1467-8624.00381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref013] 13.Wu P, Robinson CC, Yang C, Hart CH, Olsen SF, Porter CL, et al. Similarities and differences in mothers' parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002;26(6):481–91. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref014] 14.Rohner RP, Khaleque A, Cournoyer DE. Parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos. 2005;33(3):299–334. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref015] 15.Arnold DS, O'Leary SG, Wolff LS, Acker MM. The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment. 1993;5(2):137–44. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref016] 16.Kliem S, Lohmann A, Mößle T, Foran HM, Hahlweg K, Zenger M, et al. Development and Validation of a Parenting Scale Short Form (PS-8) in a Representative Population Sample. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2019;28(1):30–41. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref017] 17.Zhu AYF. Validating the Scale Measuring Dysfunctional Parenting with Hong Kong Adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2018;35(5):489–98. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref018] 18.Prinzie P, Onghena P, Hellinckx W. Reexamining the parenting scale—Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity of a scale for assessing the discipline practices of mothers and fathers of elementary-school-aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2007;23(1):24–31. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref019] 19.Tahmouresi N, Schmitz J, Bender C, Tuschen-Caffier B. The Impact of Culture on Parenting and Psychopathology in Children: A Comparative Study Between Iran and Germany. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2017;11(1):e4178. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref020] 20.Salari R, Terreros C, Sarkadi A. Parenting Scale: Which Version Should We Use? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2012;34(2):268–81. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref021] 21.Del Vecchio T, Jerusalmi D, Terjesen MD. Psychometric characteristics of the Parenting Scale in a Vietnamese sample. International Journal of Psychology. 2017;52(6):482–90. 10.1002/ijop.12242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref022] 22.Brodard F, El Ghaziri N, Kounou KB, Zecca G. Validation de la version française d’une échelle évaluant les pratiques disciplinaires de parents d’enfants d’âge scolaire. Journal de Thérapie Comportementale et Cognitive. 2018;28(3):114–22. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref023] 23.Itani T. The Japanese version of the Parenting Scale: Factor structure and psychometric properties. The Japanese Journal of Psychology. 2010;81(5):446–52. 10.4992/jjpsy.81.446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref024] 24.Suzuki K, Kita Y, Kaga M, Takehara K, Misago C, Inagaki M. The association between children's Behavior and Parenting of caregivers: a longitudinal study in Japan. Front Public Health. 2016;4:6 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref025] 25.Dumas JE, Arriaga X, Begle AM, Longoria Z. “When Will Your Program Be Available in Spanish?” Adapting an Early Parenting Intervention for Latino Families. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 2010;17(2):176–87. 10.1016/j.cbpra.2010.01.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref026] 26.Karazsia BT, van Dulmen MHM, Wildman BG. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Arnold et al.'s Parenting Scale Across Race, Age, and Sex. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2008;17(4):500–16. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref027] 27.Arney F, Rogers H, Baghurst P, Sawyer M, Prior M. The reliability and validity of the Parenting Scale for Australian mothers of preschool-aged children. Australian Journal of Psychology. 2008;60(1):44–52. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref028] 28.Harvey E, Danforth JS, Ulaszek WR, Eberhardt TL. Validity of the parenting scale for parents of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2001;39(6):731–43. 10.1016/s0005-7967(00)00052-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref029] 29.Bigras M, LaFreniere PJ, Dumas JE. Discriminant Validity of the Parent and Child Scales of the Parenting Stress Index. Early Education and Development. 1996;7(2):167–78. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref030] 30.Rhoades KA, O'Leary SG. Factor structure and validity of the parenting scale. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2007;36(2):137–46. 10.1080/15374410701274157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref031] 31.Reitman D, Currier RO, Hupp SDA, Rhode PC, Murphy MA, O'Callaghan PM. Psychometric characteristics of the Parenting Scale in a head start population. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30(4):514–24. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_08 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref032] 32.Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref033] 33.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2 ed: New York: Guilford Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref034] 34.Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis. 7 ed: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2010. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref035] 35.Irvine AB, Biglan A, Smolkowski K, Ary DV. The value of the Parenting Scale for measuring the discipline practices of parents of middle school children. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1999;37(2):127–42. 10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00114-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref036] 36.Ford D, Chui WH. Where east meets west: Fieldwork instruction in Hong Kong and England. Asia Pac J Soc Work. 2001;10(2):19–39. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref037] 37.Wong YLR. When East meets West—Nation, colony, and Hong Kong women's subjectivities in gender and China development. Mod China. 2004;30(2):259–92. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref038] 38.Beattie P, Bettache K, Chong KCY. Who is the neoliberal? Exploring neoliberal beliefs across East and West. J Soc Issues. 2019;75(1):20–48. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref039] 39.Brislin RW. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970;1(3):185–216. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref040] 40.Cha ES, Kim KH, Erlen JA. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58(4):386–95. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref041] 41.Chang AM, Chau JPC, Holroyd E. Translation of questionnaires and issues of equivalence. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29(2):316–22. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00891.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref042] 42.Loewenthal KM. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. 2 ed: Philadelphia, Pa: Psychology Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref043] 43.Schel SHH, Bouman YHA, Vorstenbosch ECW, Bulten BH. Development of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: short version (FQL-SV). Quality of Life Research. 2017;26(5):1153–61. 10.1007/s11136-016-1461-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref044] 44.MacKenzie MB, Kocovski NL, Blackie RA, Carrique LC, Fleming JE, Antony MM. Development of a Brief Version of the Social Anxiety—Acceptance and Action Questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2017;39(2):342–54. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref045] 45.Markos A, Kokkinos CM. Development of a short form of the Greek Big Five Questionnaire for Children (GBFQ-C-SF): Validation among preadolescents. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;112:12–7. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref046] 46.Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment. 2000;12(1):102–11. 10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref047] 47.Svedholm-Hakkinen AM, Lindeman M. Actively open-minded thinking: development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards knowledge and people. Think Reasoning. 2018;24(1):21–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref048] 48.Chae D, Park Y. Development and Cross-Validation of the Short Form of the Cultural Competence Scale for Nurses. Asian Nurs Res. 2018;12(1):69–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref049] 49.Zhang XT, Wang MC, He LN, Jie L, Deng JX. The development and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory-15. Plos One. 2019;14(8):21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref050] 50.Cattell RB. The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1966;1(2):245–76. 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref051] 51.Fokkema M, Greiff S. How Performing PCA and CFA on the Same Data Equals Trouble Overfitting in the Assessment of Internal Structure and Some Editorial Thoughts on It. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2017;33(6):399–402. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref052] 52.Babyak MA. What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med. 2004;66(3):411–21. 10.1097/01.psy.0000127692.23278.a9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref053] 53.Jennrich RI, Sampson PF. Rotation for simple loadings. Psychometrika. 1966;31(3):313–23. 10.1007/bf02289465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref054] 54.Field AP. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th edition ed. Field AP, editor: Los Angeles, California: SAGE Publications; 2018. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref055] 55.Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref056] 56.Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach's alpha, Revelle's beta, and McDonald's (omega H): Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70(1):123–33. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref057] 57.Revelle W, Zinbarg RE. Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):145–54. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref058] 58.McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment: London: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1999. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref059] 59.Tabachnick BG. Using multivariate statistics. 6 ed Fidell LS, editor: Boston: Pearson Education; 2013. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref060] 60.Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, Second Edition: New York: Guilford Publications; 2014. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref061] 61.Jöreskog KG. A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1969;34(2):183–202. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref062] 62.DiStefano C, Morgan GB. A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2014;21(3):425–38. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref063] 63.Li C-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods. 2016;48(3):936–49. 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref064] 64.Lionetti F, Keijsers L, Dellagiulia A, Pastore M. Evidence of factorial validity of parental knowledge, control and solicitation, and adolescent disclosure scales: When the ordered nature of Likert scales matters. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7, 941 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref065] 65.Fung S. Psychometric Evaluation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) with Chinese University Students. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2019;17:46 10.1186/s12955-019-1113-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref066] 66.Fung S. Cross-cultural validation of the Social Media Disorder scale. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:683–90. 10.2147/PRBM.S216788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref067] 67.Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models: Newburyk Park: Sage; 1993. p. 136–62. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref068] 68.Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research. 2006;99(6):323–38. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref069] 69.Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;88(3):588–606. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref070] 70.Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, Gatzke-Kopp L, Lynam D, Reynolds C, et al. The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior. 2006;32(2):159–71. 10.1002/ab.20115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref071] 71.Fung AL-C, Raine A, Gao Y. Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ). Journal of Personality Assessment. 2009;91(5):473–9. 10.1080/00223890903088420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref072] 72.Tuvblad C, Dhamija D, Berntsen L, Raine A, Liu J. Cross-Cultural Validation of the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) Using Four Large Samples from the US, Hong Kong, and China. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2016;38(1):48–55. 10.1007/s10862-015-9501-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref073] 73.Achenbach TM. Manual for the child behavior checklist and revised child behavior profile. Edelbrock CS, editor. Burlington, Vt.: Burlington, Vt.: T.M. Achenbach; 1983. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref074] 74.Achenbach TM, Ruffle TM. The Child Behavior Checklist and Related Forms for Assessing Behavioral/Emotional Problems and Competencies. Pediatrics in Review. 2000;21(8):265–71. 10.1542/pir.21-8-265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref075] 75.Ivanova MY, Achenbach TM, Dumenci L, Rescorla LA, Almqvist F, Weintraub S, et al. Testing the 8-Syndrome Structure of the Child Behavior Checklist in 30 Societies. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2007;36(3):405–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref076] 76.Liu J, Cheng H, Leung PWL. The Application of the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist and the Caregiver–Teacher Report Form to Mainland Chinese Children: Syndrome Structure, Gender Differences, Country Effects, and Inter-Informant Agreement. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2011;39(2):251–64. 10.1007/s10802-010-9452-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref077] 77.Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JDA, Epstein JN. The Revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor Structure, Reliability, and Criterion Validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1998;26(4):257–68. 10.1023/a:1022602400621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref078] 78.Gau SS-F, Soong W-T, Chiu Y-N, Tsai W-C. Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Conners’ Parent and Teacher Rating Scales-Revised: Short Form. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2006;9(4):648–59. 10.1177/1087054705284241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref079] 79.Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, Hart CH. Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Practices: Development of a New Measure. Psychological Reports. 1995;77(3):819–30. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref080] 80.Foster SL, Cone JD. Validity issues in clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7(3):248–60. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref081] 81.Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012;48(2):36. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref082] 82.Hermida R. The Problem of Allowing Correlated Errors in Structural Equation Modeling: Concerns and Considerations. Computational Methods in Social Sciences. 2015;3(1):5–17. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref083] 83.Wong KTW, Zheng V. Democratic Support and Cultural Values: An Empirical Study of Hong Kong and East Asian Societies. China. 2018;16(2):111–32. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref084] 84.Cheng BS, Boer D, Chou LF, Huang MP, Yoneyama S, Shim D, et al. Paternalistic Leadership in Four East Asian Societies: Generalizability and Cultural Differences of the Triad Model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2014;45(1):82–90. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref085] 85.Hwang KK. Face and favor—the chinese-power game. Am J Sociol. 1987;92(4):944–74. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0228287.ref086] 86.Offences against the Person Ordinance. Sect. Cap 212 (2017). [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of a brief parenting scale (PS-7) for the parents of adolescents

Sai-fu Fung

Annis Lai Chu Fung

Roles

Abstract

Background

Methods

Participants and measures

Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics.

Item selection process

Procedure

Results

Development of the seven-item brief parenting scale using EFA

Table 2. Factor loading results from exploratory factor analysis of PS-7.

Internal consistency

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and items correlations for the 7-item parenting scale items.

Factor structure and comparison with other PS constructs

Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis of the parenting scale.

Construct validity

Table 5. Factor loadings and fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis for the PS-7, by sample (see Fig 1 for estimated model).

Fig 1. Estimated model of the 7-item parenting scale.

Criterion validity and discriminant validity

Table 6. Correlations for the PS-7 and PS-26 sub-scales (N = 3,777).

Table 7. Correlations between the PS-7 in relation to other construct-related scales (N = 3, 777).

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Thomas M Olino

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Thomas M Olino

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Thomas M Olino

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Thomas M Olino

Roles

Acceptance letter

Thomas M Olino

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases