10.

1177/0022022103255650
JOURNAL
Rohner, Khaleque
OF CROSS-CULTURAL
/ PARENTAL CONTROL
PSYCHOLOGY
SCALE ARTICLE

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE PARENTAL CONTROL SCALE

A Meta-Analysis of Cross-Cultural and Intracultural Studies

RONALD P. ROHNER
ABDUL KHALEQUE
University of Connecticut

Meta-analytic procedures from 11 cross-cultural and intracultural studies (26 effect sizes) along with factor
analyses of data from five samples were used to assess the reliability and validity of the Parental Control
Scale (PCS). The PCS is a 13-item self-report questionnaire assessing childrens and adults perceptions of
the behavioral control they experience(d) as children (or control administered to children by their parents).
Results of analyses support the conclusion that the PCS is a reliable and valid measure for cross-cultural
research purposes, including among American ethnic groups.

Keywords: parental control; behavioral control; meta-analysis

The history of interest in parental control is strewn with an array of often ill-defined and
poorly operationalized concepts. Relevant concepts often found in the literature include
strict, controlling, authoritarian, dominating, coercive, restrictive, regimenting, intrusive,
interfering, demanding, and power assertion. At the other end of the control dimension lie
terms such as autonomy granting, permissive, indulgent, egalitarian, democratic, and laissez-
faire. Investigators have often defined and measured these terms in inconsistent ways
(Grolnick, 2003). Not surprisingly, research using these concepts has yielded mixed and
sometimes inconsistent results.
Today, however, most socialization researchers appear to agree that behavioral control
refers to the attempts made by parents to regulate, manipulate, or manage their childrens
behavior (Barber, 1996). In effect, behavioral control has to do with the demands, directives,
prescriptions (you shall), and proscriptions (you shall not) that parents place on childrens
behavior. The concept of behavioral control also involves the extent to which parents insist
on compliance with their demands, directives, rules, prescriptions, and proscriptions.
Behavioral control does not, however, imply anything specific about the manner in which
parents attempt to enforce their rules. In this brief article, we focus on evidence regarding the
psychometric characteristics of one promising measure of behavioral control used by par-
ents. This measurethe Parental Control Scale (PCS)is widely used in cross-cultural
research, but until now its reliability and validity have not been assessed.

PCS

The PCS (Rohner, 1989) is a 13-item self-report measure assessing individuals percep-
tions of the behavioral control (i.e., parental permissiveness or strictness) they now experi-
ence as children (child version), experienced earlier in childhood (adult version), or now

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 34 No. 6, November 2003 643-649

DOI: 10.1177/0022022103255650
2003 Western Washington University

643

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on March 7, 2015

644 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

enforce on their children (parent version). All three versions are identical, however, except
for minor differences such as the verb tense used. A fourth version of the PCS contains only
eight items. It is designed to be used by parents when they reflect on their behavior toward
their infants (infant version). This version is not discussed here because it is only newly
developed.
Items in all versions of the PCS are scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 4
(almost always true) to 1 (almost never true). Scores on all but the infant version spread from
a low of 13 (minimum behavioral control, i.e., maximum permissiveness) to a high of 52
(maximum or restrictive behavioral control). The PCS was conceptually designed in such a
way that scores from 13 to 26 indicate low/lax control (permissiveness); 27 to 39, moderate
control; 40 to 45, firm control; and 46 to 52, strict/restrictive control. In effect, scores in the
low/lax control range signify that parents rarely try to control the youths behavior. Rather,
they allow their offspring to regulate their own activities to the greatest extent possible.
Scores in the moderate control range signify that parents sometimes try to control the youths
behavior. That is, parents are flexible in their control, insisting on compliance with parental
wishes in some contexts but allowing youth considerable latitude in regulating their own
activities in other contexts. Scores in the firm control range signify that parents usually try to
control the youths behavior. These parents are very demanding and directivealthough not
unyieldingof their childrens behavior. Finally, scores in the strict/restrictive range signify
that parents almost always try to control the youths behavior. Restrictive parents demand
strict, unyielding obedience, and total compliance with parental directives.
Since the time of its original development, the PCS has been used in dozens of studies
within every major ethnic group in the United Statesincluding among European Ameri-
cansand in many studies internationally. Currently, the scale is available in more than nine
languages. In this article, we focus primarily on a meta-analysis of studies that provide
appropriate data for computing coefficient alpha, a measure of the internal consistency (reli-
ability) of the parental control scale. We place heaviest emphasis on that statistic because it is
the only psychometric measure computed often enough by cross-cultural researchers to pro-
vide the quantity of empirical evidence needed for integrating, synthesizing, and summariz-
ing findings from the broad array of international studies now completed. However, appro-
priate data are also available from five studies included in the meta-analysis to compare
factor structures internationally (in Pakistan and Turkey) and among three American ethnic
groups (African Americans, European Americans, and Korean Americans). Results of fac-
tor analyses revealed virtually identical factor structures across the five culturally distinct
populations. That is, as theoretically expected, two correlated factors emerged in each sam-
ple. The first was a parental strictness factor and the second was a parental permissiveness
factor. Together, the two factors define the poles of the behavioral control dimension.

META-ANALYTIC METHOD

To locate relevant data for the meta-analysis, we conducted a literature search of studies
from 1989 (the year the scale was created) through May 2002. Several sources were used to
locate studies. The principal one was the online bibliography of the Rohner Center for the
Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection at the University of Connecticut (Rohner,
2003). In addition, online searches were conducted on ten other databases.

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on March 7, 2015

 Rohner, Khaleque / PARENTAL CONTROL SCALE 645

SELECTION OF STUDIES

The meta-analysis included empirical studies that measured alpha coefficients of the dif-
ferent versions of the PCS described earlier. Unpublished studies were sought along with
published ones because published studies often appear to be biased in favor of significant
results (Kraemer & Andrews, 1982).

DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES

As shown in Table 1, the meta-analysis was computed on 26 effect sizes of the alpha coef-
ficients reported in 11 studies conducted between 1990 and 2002. Of these 11 studies, 8 were
unpublished and 3 were published. Among the 26 effect sizes, 12 employed the child version
of the PCS (mother, 7; father, 5); 10 employed the adult version (mother, 5; father, 5); and 4
employed the parent version (mother, 3; father, 1). Alpha coefficients in these studies ranged
from a minimum value of .49 to a maximum value of .91. All alphas were positive and statis-
tically significant (p < .001). The studies included an aggregated sample of 4,203 respon-
dents. Respondents to the child version of the PCS ranged in age from 7 through 19 years;
respondents to the adult and parent versions of the PCS ranged in age from 19 to 89 years.
Among these persons, 1,762 were from the United States (African American, 275; Asian
American, 490; European American, 478; mixed ethnicity including African American,
Asian American, and European American, 519). Cross-culturally, the sample included
1,917 respondents from Asia, 216 from Europe, and 308 from the West Indies. Studies
included in the meta-analysis are listed in the appendix.

META-ANALYTIC PROCEDURES

Because the alpha coefficient is based on Pearsons product moment correlation, the com-
putational method appropriate for aggregating the r family effect sizes (Rosenthal, 1994)
was used. To address the problem of skewness of higher values of alpha coefficients (in rela-
tion to lower values), we used Fishers Z-transformation method (Fisher, 1928) as suggested
by Rosenthal (1994). Alpha coefficients were adjusted in proportion to sample size in order
to examine the impact of sample size on the coefficients. Following the recommendation of
Hedges and Olkin (1985), we then computed the weighted means using the Z-transformation
method.
We also computed aggregate means of unweighted and weighted alpha coefficients for all
studies included in the sample. However, because Hedges and Olkin (1985) showed that
effect sizes may be meaningfully aggregated across studies only if the studies are homoge-
neous (i.e., if they share a common population) we performed heterogeneity tests to identify
possible outliers, as recommended by Rosenthal (1994). Moreover, to address the problem
of potential bias favoring results in published versus unpublished research, we computed the
fail-safe N test recommended by Cooper (1979) and Rosenthal (1979). Results of all these
tests are discussed next.

RESULTS

Results of the meta-analysis show that the weighted mean effect size (i.e., the overall
alpha coefficient) aggregated across all versions of the PCS and across all samples was .73.

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on March 7, 2015

 TABLE 1
646

Summary of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis of Alpha Coefficients of the Parental Control Scale

Parental Control
Age Child Adult Parent
Study Year n M Range Geographic Location Ethnic (USA) M F M F M F Effect Size ()

Jordan 1990 (u) 91 24-53 North America Mixed X .62*

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on March 7, 2015

Khaleque 2001 (u) 114 22 19-43 North America Mixed X .88*

Khaleque 2001 (u) 110 22 19-43 North America Mixed X .89*
Kim and Rohner 2002 (p) 245 14 11-18 North America AsA X .81*
Kim and Rohner 2002 (p) 245 14 11-18 North America AsA X .81*
Riaz and Khan 2002 (u) 100 13 10-16 Pakistan X .48*
Riaz and Khan 2002 (u) 100 13 10-16 Pakistan X .60*
Riaz and Khan 2002 (u) 100 49 45-48 Pakistan X .74*
Riaz and Khan 2002 (u) 100 55 50-65 Pakistan X .71*
Rising 1999 (u) 102 44 30-89 North America Mixed X .64*
Rising 1999 (u) 102 44 30-89 North America Mixed X .69*
Rohner 1995 (u) 127 8-19 North America EA X .75*
Rohner 1995 (u) 119 8-19 North America EA X .80*
Rohner 1995 (u) 154 8-18 North America AfA X .68*
Rohner 1995 (u) 121 8-18 North America AfA X .80*
Rohner and Brothers 1999 (p) 35 North America EA X .77*
Rohner and Brothers 1999 (p) 35 North America EA X .91*
Rohner, Kean, and Cournoyer 1991 (p) 308 13 7-18 W. Indies X .66*
Sethi 2002 (u) 108 20 17-28 Ukraine X .50*
Sethi 2002 (u) 108 20 17-28 Ukraine X .58*
Stern 1998 (u) 81 8-13 North America EA X .70*
Stern 1998 (u) 81 8-13 North America EA X .63*
Varan 2002 (u) 356 12 8-17 Turkey X .70*
Varan 2002 (u) 354 12 8-17 Turkey X .71*
Varan 2002 (u) 415 34 18-70 Turkey X .81*
Varan 2002 (u) 392 34 18-70 Turkey X .76*
NOTE: M = mother; F = father; p = published; u = unpublished; Mixed = majority European American, minority African American, Asian American, and/or Hispanic American; AsA =
Asian American; EA = European American; AfA = African American.
 Rohner, Khaleque / PARENTAL CONTROL SCALE 647

Both the unweighted and weighted mean effect sizes exceeded the .70 level often recom-
mended as the criterion for an acceptable reliability estimate for multi-item measures used in
basic research (Cournoyer & Klein, 2000). Because the heterogeneity test revealed no sig-
nificant heterogeneity among studies and no outliers, one may conclude that the studies
included in this sample provide a common or homogeneous estimate of the population effect
size of the PCS. Moreover, fail-safe N test results (Wolf, 1986) showed that an additional
2,359 studiesall with nonsignificant resultswould be needed to accept the conclusion
that the effect sizes (i.e., unweighted and weighted alpha coefficients) shown here were spu-
rious, or that these results were due to sampling bias.
It is also important to point out that meta-analyses of all three versions of the PCS each
aggregated across the full range of sociocultural groups represented in the samples were
acceptably highalthough both the unweighted and weighted mean effect sizes of the par-
ent PCS were marginally below the recommended criterion of .70. Specifically, unweighted
mean effect sizes for the child, adult, and parent versions were .72, .77, and .68, respectively;
weighted mean effect sizes for the three versions were .71, .77, and .69, respectively. None-
theless, heterogeneity tests for the three versions showed no significant heterogeneity or out-
liers. Moreover, between 53 and 496 additional studiesall with nonsignificant results
would be required to accept the conclusion that the effect sizes were spurious or due to sam-
pling bias.
Grouping the effect sizes by American ethnic group and by geographic region of the
world (aggregated across the various versions of the PCS) showed similar results. Spe-
cifically, the unweighted and weighted mean effect sizes for African Americans were both
.81; for European Americans they were .78 and .76, respectively; and for multiethnic group-
ings they were .79 and .78, respectively. Regarding geographic variations, unweighted and
weighted effect sizes for Asia were .70 and .73, respectively; for Europe (Ukraine) they were
both .55; for North America they were .78 and .77, respectively; and for the West Indies they
were both .66. It is unclear why the effect sizes for the Ukraine were so low, except that we
believe there may have been a problem with the translation of the Russian dialect spoken
there. The other set of low alphas comes from the English-speaking West Indies (St. Kitts). It
is not entirely clear why these alphas are marginally below the commonly accepted criterion.
It is possible, however, that the cognitive immaturity of children (i.e., seven- and eight-year-
olds) in the sample tended to skew the alphas slightly downward. Other effect sizes approach
or exceed the .80 criterion sometimes recommended not only for basic research but for stud-
ies in clinical and applied settings where individuals lives may be directly affected by action
taken on test results (Cournoyer & Klein, 2000).
Finally, we should note that the mean effect size for published studies using all versions of
the PCS ( = .80) was only marginally higher than the mean effect size for unpublished stud-
ies ( = .76). Similarly, the mean effect size ( = .77) for studies with sample sizes above the
median of all PCS studies (median N = 109) was not appreciably larger than the mean effect
size ( = .71) of studies with sample sizes below the median.

DISCUSSION

Meta-analyses and factor analyses reported in this article suggest that the PCS is a reliable
and valid measure for purposes of cross-cultural research as well as for use among American
ethnic groups. Effect sizes (alpha coefficients) of individual studies in the meta-analysis
spread from .48 to .91, with an overall weighted mean effect size of .73all with probability

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on March 7, 2015

648 JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

values less than .001. Additionally, there is no statistically significant heterogeneity in effect
sizes across the three versions of the PCS, or across the various geographic regions and eth-
nic groups sampled. Results of these meta-analyses also show that effect sizes are similar for
published versus unpublished studies, as well as for smaller versus larger sample studies. We
should also point out that differences in ethnicity, social class, race, and other such factors do
not appear to exert enough influence to override the tendency for individuals throughout the
United States and cross-culturally to perceive PCS items in similar ways. This inference is
based in part on the fact that the same factor structure emerged in all five ethnically distinct
samples analyzed here. The inference is also supported by the fact that the average
intercorrelation among PCS items (i.e., coefficient alphas) tends to be fairly high within
most of the samples included in the meta-analysis. Having said this, however, we must also
stress that because effect sizes are far from perfect, part of the unexplained variance in these
alphas may indeed result from sociocultural and other exogenous influences, in addition to
attenuation created by possible translation problems, scoring errors, response bias, and other
sources of measurement error. Nonetheless, overall evidence provided here supports the
conclusion that the PCS is a useful measure in multiethnic and cross-cultural research for
assessing variations in parental control.

APPENDIX
Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
Jordan, F. F. (1990). A test of parental acceptance-rejection theory and validation and reliability of related mea-
sures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.
Khaleque, A. (2001). Parental acceptance-rejection, psychological adjustment and intimate adult relationships.
Unpublished masters thesis, University of Connecticut.
Kim, K., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Parental warmth, control, and involvement in schooling: Predicting academic
achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 127-140.
Riaz, M., & Khan, U. (2002). Associations among perceived parental acceptance-rejection, control, and psycholog-
ical adjustment in Pakistani children. Unpublished raw data.
Rising, D. G. (1999). The influence of perceived parental acceptance-rejection, parental control, and psychosocial
adjustment on job instability among men. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University.
Rohner, R. P. (1995). McPAC project. Unpublished raw data.
Rohner, R. P., Bourque, S. L., & Elordi, C. A. (1996). Childrens perceptions of corporal punishment, caretaker
acceptance, and psychological adjustment in a poor biracial Southern community. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 58, 842-852.
Rohner, R. P., & Brothers, S. A. (1999). Perceived parental rejection, psychological maladjustment, and borderline
personality disorder. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 81-95.
Sethi, R. (2002). Parental acceptance-rejection and control in contempory Ukraine. Unpublished raw data.
Stern, B. S. (1998). The parenting styles of mothers and aggression in AD/HD children. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Hofstra University, Hampstead, NY.
Varan, A. (2002). Assessment of parental acceptance-rejection and control in Turkish children. Unpublished raw
data.
Veneziano, R. A. (1996). Perceived parental warmth, parental involvement, and youthspsychological adjustment in
a rural, biracial Southern community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Veneziano, R. A., & Rohner, R. P. (1998). Perceived paternal acceptance, paternal involvement, and youthspsycho-
logical adjustment in a rural, biracial Southern community. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 335-343.

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on March 7, 2015

 Rohner, Khaleque / PARENTAL CONTROL SCALE 649

REFERENCES

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67,
3296-3319.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cooper, H. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in confor-
mity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131-146.
Cournoyer, D. E., & Klein, W. C. (2000). Research methods for social work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fisher, R. A. (1928). Statistical methods for research workers. London: Oliver & Boyd.
Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Kraemer, N. C., & Andrews, G. (1982). A nonparametric technique for meta-analysis effect size calculation. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 91, 404-412.
Rohner, R. P. (1989). Parental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire (PARQ/Control). Available from
Rohner Research, 255 Codfish Falls Road, Storrs, CT, 06268-1425.
Rohner, R. P. (2003). Rohner Center for the Study of Parental Acceptance-Rejection bibliography of writings.
Retrieved from http://vm.uconn.edu/~rohner
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures for effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook for
research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ronald P. Rohner, Ph.D., is director of the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Parental Accep-
tance and Rejection in the School of Family Studies at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. He is also pro-
fessor emeritus of family studies and anthropology at the university. His major research interests deal with
the worldwide antecedents, consequences, and other correlates of perceived interpersonal (especially
parental) acceptance and rejection as well as with associated dimensions of parenting.

Abdul Khaleque, Ph.D., is a senior scientist in the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Parental
Acceptance and Rejection in the School of Family Studies at the University of Connecticut. He was also a
professor of psychology at the University of Dhaka in Bangladesh. His current research interests include
cross-cultural parenting and lifespan development, intimate adult relationships, psychological adjustment,
health, well-being, and quality of life.

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on March 7, 2015