class="t m0 x0 h10 y56 ff1 fs8 fc0 sc0 ls0 ws2">ordinary middle school and occupation high school in main city
zone of Chongqing during the period of February to June, 2008.
Inclusion standard: mother (or father) whose child was 6 - 16
years old and student accepted education for all the people and
could fully understand the content of scale. Exclusion standard:
mother (or father) who could not participate in the test because
of physical diseases and mental illnesses.
This study was approved by Ethics Committee of Chongqing
Medical University and the parents participated in the survey
after they signed written informed consent.
Methods
Introduction and Translation of the Scale
Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire, with 62
items evaluated using 5 points, was used for father or mother to
evaluate his or her and spouse/partner’s attitude to frequency of
children’s some behaviors, aiming to mainly understand the
parenting styles. 3 parenting styles, authoritative parenting,
authoritarian parenting and permissive parenting were further
divided into 11 factors (dimensions). Authoritative parenting
included 27 items which were divided into 4 factors: passion
and concentration, rationality/guidance, democratic participa-
tion and good nature/kindness. Authoritarian parenting included
20 items which were divided into 4 factors: verbal confronta-
tion, corporal punishment, irrationality/or punitive strategy and
command. Permissive parenting included 15 items (among of
which, 3 items with reverse scoring) which were divided into 3
factors: no persistence, ignorance of inappropriate behaviors
and lack of confidence. The approach of translation and back-
translation procedure were used to compare the Chinese vision
of scale and the original scale. The scale was formally used
until the version of back-transition was basically close to the
original scale.
Formal Test with Chinese Version of Parenting Style and
Dimensions Questionnaire
The method of cluster sampling was used to select 70 parents
from ordinary primary school, key primary school, ordinary
middle school and key middle school respectively and 120
parents from occupation high school as the subjects. The scale
was given out to the students by the teacher in charge of the
class and then brought home by the students. The scale was
filled out by the students’ father or mother (For the parents,
there were written detailed instructions and informed consent as
well as an envelope which could be returned back according to
the parent’s willing). Within two days, the answer sheets were
recycled and the invalid questionnaires were cancelled. 6 weeks
later, 60 subjects were retested and 52 valid questionnaires
were obtained.
Validity and Reliability Assessment of Chinese Version of
Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire
Reliability test included homogeneity reliability: calculating
the Cronbach coefficient of the total scale and subscales;
test-retest reliability: calculating the Spearson correlation coef-
ficient of 52 students’ parents’ scores of each subscale 6 weeks
before and after. Validity test was to calculate the Spearson
correlation coefficient between each subscale and each factor as
well as Spearson correlation coefficient between factors. Con-
firmatory factor analysis was to analyze the content validity and
construct validity of the scale.
Statistical Method
Paired t-test was used to evaluate the test-retest reliability
and Cronbacha coefficient was used to estimate internal con-
sistency. Total validity and content validity were analyzed with
Pearson correlation. All above were analyzed with SPSS 16.0
and confirmatory factor analysis was analyzed with AMOS7.0.
Results
General Description of the Data
443 valid questionnaires were obtained from the students’
parents. The distribution of subjects’ (parents) children’s
schools was as follows: 51 students from key primary school
(11.5%), 65 students from ordinary primary school (14.8%), 56
students from key middle school (12.6%), 57 students from
ordinary middle school (12.7% ), 60 students from key high
school (13.5%), 53 students from ordinary high school (12%),
101 students from occupation high school (23%); the students’
average age was 12.37 + 3.53 years old; among the parents, fa-
thers accounted for 189 (occupation including: administrative
management: 7.5%; business: 13.9%; service industry: 9.7%;
professional technology: 17.5%; worker: 10.1% ) and mothers
accounted for 254 (occupation including: administrative man-
agement: 6.9%; business: 14.3%; service industry: 9.9%; pro-
fessional technology: 11.5%; worker: 15.7%).
Reliability Test of Chinese Version of Parenting Style
and Dimensions Questionnaire
Internal reliability (Cronbach α) of each subscale was be-
tween .634 and .783 (internal reliability of each factor of sub-
scales: .626 - .866) and test-retest reliability were between .537
and .832 (test-retest reliability of each factor of subscales: .537
- .832) (see Table 1).
Validity Test of Chinese Version of Parenting Style
and Dimensions Questionnaire
Because there was no quantified tool for parenting style
measurement based on Baumrind model, criterion-related va-
lidity was not included into reliability indexes in this research
and content validity, construct validity and confirmatory factor
analysis were analyzed as the evaluation indexes of reliability.
Content Validity
In authoritative parenting subscale, authoritarian parenting
subscale and permissive parenting subscale, the correlation
coefficients between each factor and subscale were between .732
and .951, which was found to be relatively high (p < .01) (see
Tables 2-7).
Structure Validity
The correlations between authoritative parenting subscale,
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
536
Y. X. FU ET AL.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 537
Table 1.
Reliability test of authoritative parenting subscale of Chinese version of Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ).
Factors and subscales Cronbachα Test-retest reliability Factors and subscales Cronbachα
coefficient Test-retest reliability
Father’s score of
authoritative parenting .871 .665 Mother’s score of
authoritative parenting .857 .728
Father’s score of
authoritarian parenting .884 .698 Mother’s score of
authoritarian parenting .868 .783
Father’s score of
permissive parenting .805 .634 Mother’s score of
permissive parenting .803 .728
Table 2.
Correlation matrix of father’s authoritative parenting subscale and each factor.
Subscales and factors Father’s passion and
concentration
Father’s rationality and
guidance
Father’s democratic
participation
Father’s good
nature/kindness
Father’s authoritative
parenting subscale
Factor 1: Father’s passion and
concentration 1 .748(**) .793 (**) .764 (**) .951 (**)
Factor 2: Father’s rationality and
guidance .748 (**) 1 .724 (**) .656 (**) .880 (**)
Factor 3: Father’s democratic
participation .793 (**) .724 (**) 1 .679 (**) .885 (**)
Factor 4: Father’s good
nature/kindness .764 (**) .656 (**) .679 (**) 1 .838 (**)
Father’s authoritative
parenting subscale .951 (**) .880 (**) .885 (**) .838 (**) 1
Table 3.
Correlation matrix of mother’s authoritative parenting subscale and each factor.
Mother ’s passion and
concentration
Mother’s rationality
and guidance
Mother’s democratic
participation
Mother’s good
nature/kindness
Mother’s authoritative
parenting subscale
Factor 1: Mother ’s passion
and concentration 1 .718 (**) .745 (**) .750 (**) .943 (**)
Factor 2: Mother ’s rationality
and guidance .718 (**) 1 .674 (**) .640 (**) .866 (**)
Factor 3: Mother ’s democratic
participation .745 (**) .674 (**) 1 .635 (**) .856 (**)
Factor 4: Mother ’s good
nature/kindness .750 (**) .640 (**) .635 (**) 1 .829 (**)
Mother ’s authoritative
parenting subscale .943 (**) .866 (**) .856 (**) .829 (**) 1
Table 4.
Correlation matrix of father’s authoritarian parenting subscale and each factor.
Father’s verbal
confrontation
Father’s corporal
punishment Father’s irrationality Father’s order Father’s authoritarian
parenting subscale
Factor 1: Father’s verbal
confrontation 1 .717 (**) .680 (**) .637 (**) .842 (**)
Factor 2: Father’s
corporal punishment .717 (**) 1 .832 (**) .607 (**) .939 (**)
Factor 3: Father’s irrationality .680 (**) .832 (**) 1 .566 (**) .919 (**)
Factor 4: Father’s order .637 (**) .607 (**) .566 (**) 1 .752 (**)
Father’s authoritarian
parenting subscale .842 (**) .939 (**) .919 (**) .752 (**) 1
Y. X. FU ET AL.
Table 5.
Correlation matrix of mother’s authoritarian parenting subscale and each factor.
Mother’s verbal
confrontation
Mother’s corporal
punishment Mother’s irrationalityMother’s order Mother’s authoritarian
parenting subscale
Factor 1: Mother’s verbal
confrontation 1 .709 (**) .670 (**) .657 (**) .844 (**)
Factor 2: Mother’s corporal
punishment .709 (**) 1 .834 (**) .574 (**) .936 (**)
Factor 3: Mother’s irrationality .670 (**) .834 (**) 1 .544 (**) .917 (**)
Factor 4: Mother’s order .657 (**) .574 (**) .544 (**) 1 .739 (**)
Mother’s authoritarian parenting .844 (**) .936 (**) .917 (**) .739 (**) 1
Table 6.
Correlation matrix of father’s permissive parenting subscale and each factor.
Father’s no
persistence
Father’s ignorance of
inappropriate behaviors Father’s lack of confidenceFather’s permissive
parenting subscale
Factor 1: Father’s no persistence 1 .647 (**) .474 (**) .902 (**)
Factor 2: Father’s ignorance of
inappropriate behaviors .647 (**) 1 .382 (**) .830 (**)
Factor: Father’s lack of confidence .474 (**) .382(**) 1 .709 (**)
Father’s permissive parenting
subscale .902 (**) .830 (**) .709 (**) 1
Table 7.
Correlation matrix of mother’s permissive parenting subscale and each factor.
Mother’s no
persistence
Mother ’s ignorance of
inappropriate behaviors
Mother ’s lack of
confidence
Mother ’s permissive
parenting subscale
Factor 1: Mother’s no persistence 1 .644 (**) .478 (**) .895 (**)
Factor 2: Mother ’s ignorance of
inappropriate behaviors .644 (**) 1 .400 (**) .825 (**)
Factor 3: Mother ’s lack of confidence .478 (**) .400 (**) 1 .732 (**)
Mother ’s permissive parenting subscale.895 (**) .825 (**) .732 (**) 1
authoritarian parenting subscale and permissive parenting sub-
scale and each factor were higher than that between two factors
respectively. The correlation coefficients among each factor
were between .382 and .834, which was found to be relatively
high (p < .01) (see Tables 2-7).
Factor Analysis
The factor analysis is to confirm the theoretical model of
scale if factors exist. Parenting Style and Dimensions Ques-
tionnaire (PSDQ) was proved to have good reliability and va-
lidity in foreign countries, namely, with mature theoretical
framework, so this study only aimed to verify whether the
theoretical framework was suitable for China’s national condi-
tions and cultural background and confirmatory factor analysis
was used to verify the theoretical model of PSDQ. Each index
of model fitting saw Table 8.
Discussions
Children’s personality formation, psychological development
and social development start from the family. Under the par-
ents’ influence and guidance, children obtain the initial experi-
ence, knowledge, norms and habits from the family. Family is
the earliest and basic educator and performer for the children.
Among a lot of family factors, parenting style is the most im-
portant factor to affect the children’s development, which has
long been paid wide attention.
Parenting style refers to a tendency of parenting behaviors
shown in the daily education and child care, which is the com-
prehensive reflection of the parenting concepts and behaviors
and high generation of parents’ various parenting behaveiors
(Nadien, 1993) as well as a stable behavior style. Parenting
style involves how the parents treat the children’s requests and
punish the children, requirement on the children’s achievement
as well as education of children, etc. (Taosa, 1994).
Development psychologist of American University of Cali-
fornia Baumrind (Baumrind, 1991) (1967, 1971, 1977) carried
a study three times. She integrated two parameters: the parents’
requirement and response to the children to propose three kinds
of parenting style with relatively great influence: authoritative
parenting, permissive parenting and authoritarian parenting.
Authoritative parents think the parents should have authority in
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
538
Y. X. FU ET AL.
Table 8.
Confirmatory factor analysis of father’s authoritative parenting subscale of PSDQ.
Default Model CMIN DF P CMIN/DFNF Delta1RFI rho1IFI Delta2 TLI rho2 CFI RMSEA
Father’s authoritative parenting
subscale 705.312 318 .000 2.218 .856 .828 .915 .898 .914 .052
Father’s authoritarian
parenting subscale 459.899 164 .000 2.804 .899 .870 .932 .913 .932 .064
Father’s permissive parenting
subscale 325.773 87 .000 3.745 .770 .872 .820 .870 .870 .079
Mother’s authoritative
parenting subscale 750.372 318 .000 2.360 .829 .797 .894 .872 .892 .055
Mother’s authoritarian
parenting subscale 430.521 164 .000 2.625 .903 .876 .938 .920 .937 .061
Mother ’s permissive
parenting subscale 322.371 87 .000 3.705 .822 .754 .863 .808 .861 .078
their own children’s heart, but this authority comes from their
understanding and respect to the children, frequent communica-
tion with the children, help to the children and right attitude to
the children’s requirements. Permissive parents give the chil-
dren the biggest freedom on behavior and do not restrict the
children’s development. They rarely propose requirements to
the children and think that the respect to the children’s personal
willing is the most important. And even they may leave the
children alone and rarely adopt reward and punishments. Be-
sides, they communicate with children, but the relationship is
indifferent. Authoritarian parents press the children’s personal-
ity and often adopt force as the means to make the children take
the orders from the parents, hope the children to grow accord-
ing to the parents’ ideas and protect and supervise all the chil-
dren’s behaviors, which is a “control” and “controlled” rela-
tionship, so the child has no right to speak. If the children vio-
late the parents’ willing, they shall be punished strictly.
Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ), with
good reliability and validity, was developed based on Baum-
rind’s theory to be widely used in the world.
This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of Chi-
nese version of scale based on the sample of 443 students’ par-
ents in Chongqing. Reliability refers to the degree of repro-
ducibility of test scores of the same measurement or duplicate
in different time or consistency of related measurements in
retest. Homogeneity reliability (Cronbach a coefficient) and
test-retest reliability were used in this study to measure the
stability and reliability of the scale. Generally speaking, the
scale with the reliability coefficient between .7 and 1.0 is rec-
ognized to be acceptable (Gliner, Morgan, & Harmon, 2001).
However, some scholars propose stricter standard that the scale
with reliability coefficient over .8 is only accepted. In this study,
homogeneity reliability test results revealed that Cronbach Al-
pha coefficient of each subscale and factor was between .882
and .972, which showed that the scale had relatively high ho-
mogeneity.
In order to test the time stability of the scale, 52 subjects
were retested 6 weeks after the first test. Some scholars argue
that in order to test test-retest reliability coefficient of single
item, the coefficient is generally over .50 (Gustavsson, Bergan,
Edman, Ekselius, Knorring, & Linder, 2000). The test-retest
correlation coefficient of the scale showed that test-retest reli-
ability coefficient and test-retest reliability of each subscale and
each factor were higher than .50 respectively, which was founded
to be significantly correlated and revealed the scale had rela-
tively good time stability.
Validity refers to the degree to which a scale truly tests the
properties. There are various methods to verify the validity
(Gotay, Blaine, Haynes, Holup, & Pagano, 2002). Three basic
validity forms were selected in this study: content validity,
construct validity and confirmatory factor analysis. The content
validity was measured based on the correlation coefficient be-
tween the core of each factor and the total score of the scale.
Medium to high correlation coefficient between each subscale
and each factor in this study was obtained to reach the signifi-
cant level, which revealed that the content of each factor was
consistent with the content of the questionnaire and the ques-
tionnaire had good content validity.
Construct validity refers to the degree of which a scale tests
certain psychological structure or characteristics from the per-
spective of theory (Clark & Watson, 1995). Correlation coeffi-
cient among factors and discriminant validity were to test the
construct validity of the questionnaire.
Correlation coefficient between the score of each subscale
and the total score exceeding that between subscales is a
method in construct validity test in psychometrics (Huang,
2002). The study firstly investigated the internal consistency of
test structure and correlation matrix between each factor and
each subscale. According to the result, Pearson correlated cor-
relations of subjects’ score in each subscale and each factor
were founded to be significantly related.
Confirmatory factor analysis was to confirm the theoretical
model of the scale. Parenting Style and Dimensions Question-
naire (PSDQ) was approved to have mature theory frame in
foreign countries, therefore, this study was only to demonstrate
whether the theoretical framework was also suitable for China’s
national conditions and cultural background and confirmatory
factor analysis was analyzed to obtain the evaluation of each fit
index of fitting research mode (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Guo,
Wang, Chen, & Han, 2007; Sivo, Fan, Witta, & Willse, 2006).
Both Chi-square of goodness of fit test (CMIN) and degree
of freedom (DF) are used to illustrate the correctness level of
model, close to 2 to be acceptable. The ratios of each subscale
of PSDQ are between 2.218 and 3.745. Tucker-Lewis Index
(TLI): theoretically, the closer to 1, the better the goodness of
fit is, and the value over .8 illustrates the goodness of fit is ac-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 539
Y. X. FU ET AL.
ceptable. TLIs of each subscale of PSDQ are between .808
and .920. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
is used to evaluate the degree of non goodness of fit of the scale,
close to 0 showing good goodness of fit, RMSEA .08 show-
ing reasonable goodness of fit. RMSEAs of each subscale of
PSDQ are between .052 - .079. Generally, proliferation indexes
(CFI: comparative fit index, NFI: non-normed fit index, IFI:
incremental fit index) over .8 are acceptable. The proliferation
indexs of over half of subscales of PSDQ are over .9, vast ma-
jority over .8.
The results of confirmatory factor analysis revealed Parent-
ing Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) had good
construct validity and was also suitable for China’s national
conditions and cultural background.
In conclusion, Chinese version of Parenting Style and Di-
mensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) has relatively good reliability
and validity and provides a relatively effective and reliable
psychometric instrument for the parents to understand parenting
style and dimensions and evaluate family education models.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to show their thanks to Professor Li
Tao’s team of West China Hospital of Sichuan University.
REFERENCES
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent
transition (pp. 115-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, Inc.
Bi, Y, Wang, J. P., Yang, Z. H., & Wang, Y. L. (2007). The effect of
behavioral inhibition and parenting styles on adolescent’s anxiety.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Psy ch ol ogy , 15, 97-100.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Construction validity: Basic issues
in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 3, 309-
319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Harmon, R. J. (2001). Measurement
reliability. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, 486-488. doi:10.1097/00004583-200104000-00019
Gotay, C. C., Blaine, D., Haynes, S. N., Holup, J., & Pagano, I. S.
(2002). Assessment of quality of life in a multicultural cancer patient
population. Psychol o g i c a l Assessment, 14, 439-450.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.4.439
Gustavsson, J. P., Bergan, H., Edman, G., Ekselius, L., Knorring, L. V.,
& Linder, J. (2000). Swedish universities scales of personality (ssp):
Construction, internal consistency and normative data. Acta Psy-
chiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 217-225.
doi:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.102003217.x
Guo, Q., Wang, W., Chen, X., & Han, D. (2007). Judgment of model
fitness in confirmatory factor analysis. Exploration of Psychology, 27,
83-87
Huang, G. (2002). Educational measurement and evaluation (pp. 173-
182). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
analysis: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification.
Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Nadien, M. B. (1993). Children’s psychosocial development—From
birth to early youth. Beijing: People’s Education Press.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., & Olsen, S. F. (2001). The parenting
styles and dimension questionnaire (PSDQ). In B. F. Perlmutter, J.
Touliatos, & G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement
techniques: 3 (pp. 319-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publica-
tions, Inc.
Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for
“optima1” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation
modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 267-288.
doi:10.3200/JEXE.74.3.267-288
Taosa, L. L. (1994). 3 - 6 years old children’s mother’s education style
and the influence factors. Psychological Development and Education,
3, 40-46.
Wang, T., & Yuan, J. (2008). 197 college students’ time management
disposition and parenting styles. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 22,
429-432.
Xia, M., & Liu, W. (2004). New research development on the interac-
tion between children’s temperament and parenting. Journal of Da-
lian University of Technology (Social Science Edition), 25, 65-69.
Yue, D. M., Li, M. L., Jin, K. H., & Ding, B. K. (1993). Parenting style:
Preliminary revision of EMBU and its application in neurosis pa-
tients. Chinese Mental Healt h Jo urn al, 7, 97-100.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
540