See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262001720

Translation and Psychometric Properties of the Child Parental

Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) – Short Form in Greek

Chapter · July 2012

CITATIONS READS
18 3,947

3 authors:

Ioannis Tsaousis Theodoros Giovazolias

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens University of Crete
74 PUBLICATIONS   5,034 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   860 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Katerina Mascha
University of Crete
4 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

School Bullying and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: The role of parental Bonding View project

Μονάδα Ψυχοκοινωνικής Παρέμβασης Παιδιού και Εφήβου - Ρέθυμνο View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Theodoros Giovazolias on 02 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Translation and Psychometric Properties of the Child Parental
Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) –
Short Form in the Greek Language
Ioannis Tsaousis, Theodoros Giovazolias, & Katerina Mascha

Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Child
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (Child PARQ) – Short Form. Both forms of the Child

y
PARQ (mother and father) were administered to a sample of  individuals. Results from
confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the proposed four-factor model of the Child PARQ –

op
Short Form is valid in the Greek sample used in this study. Additionally, results showed that Child
PARQ measures with consistency the constructs it is supposed to measure. Lastly, Differential Item
Function analyses revealed a minimal age difference, mainly in the father version of the Child PARQ.
Based on the results from this study, we can conclude that Greek version of the Child PARQ – Short

rC
Form has sound psychometric characteristics and can be used to measure Greek youths’ perceived
parental acceptance-rejection.

Parenting has been consistently accepted by theoretical and applied psychologists as a critical
component in children’s growth and development (e.g., Bornstein & Bradley, ; Collins, Maccoby,
to
Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, ; Magnuson & Duncan, ). For example, it has been
suggested that parenting influences distinct child development outcomes such as self-esteem (Collins,
Harris, & Susman, ), emotional and behavioral regulation and cognitive development (Feinberg,
bu

Jones, Kan, & Goslin, ), psychological distress (McGarvey et al., ) as well as externalizing
and internalizing problems (Caspi et al., ).
One of the most popular and well defined theoretical frameworks within which one could
examine and understand parental love-rejection and its consequences on child’s development is
Parental Acceptance-Rejection theory (PARTheory) (Rohner, ; Rohner & Rohner, ).
tri

PARTheory is an evidence-based theory of socialization that aims to predict and explain major causes,
consequences, and correlates of parental acceptance and rejection. In PARTheory, parental
acceptance-rejection refers to a bipolar dimension of parental warmth, with parental acceptance at the
on

positive end of the continuum and parental rejection at the negative end. Parental acceptance refers to
the love, affection, care, comfort, support, or nurturance that parents can feel and express toward
their children. Parental rejection refers to the absence or withdrawal of parents’ warmth, love, or
affection.
One of PARTheory’s major postulates is that rejection by a significant other has the same
C

negative effects on the psychological adjustment, behavioral functioning, and cognitive processing of
children and adults universally— regardless of differences in culture, language, race, socio-economic
status, or gender. This postulate is amplified by the idea that humans have a phylogenetically acquired
need for care, comfort, nurturance, support, and other expressions of positive regard from the people
significant to them. When this need for positive response is not met, humans have the universal
tendency to develop a specific constellation of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dispositions,
described in PARTheory’s personality sub-theory. These dispositions include: (a) hostility, aggression,
passive aggression; (b) dependence or defensive independence; (c) impaired self esteem; (d) impaired
self-adequacy; (e) emotional unresponsiveness; (f) emotional instability; (g) distorted mental


EXPANDING HORIZONS
representations of self, significant others, and the world around them; (h) conduct disorder; (i)
delinquency, and perhaps adult criminality (Khaleque & Rohner, a).
The Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ; Rohner, ) and the Personality
Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ; Rohner, ) were designed to assess these theoretical postulates
internationally. The PARQ is the most widely used measure in PARTheory, and examines the extent
to which an individual’s need for positive response was met in childhood. There are three different
versions of the PARQ available. One is used to assess children’s perceptions of the degree of
acceptance or rejection they receive from their mothers and fathers (Child PARQ). Another version
assesses adults’ recollections of their childhood experiences of maternal or paternal acceptance-
rejection (Adult PARQ). The third asks parents to reflect on their own accepting-rejecting and

y
controlling behaviors towards their children (Parent PARQ). In this study we will focus on the
psychometric properties of the Child version of PARQ, which assesses children’s perceived
acceptance-rejection feelings and behaviors from their mothers and fathers.

op
The Child PARQ is now available in more than  languages and has been used in more than 
studies in approximately  nations and ethnic groups worldwide (e.g., Comunian & Gielen, ;
Kitahara, ; Rohner & Cournoyer, ; Salama, ). Numerous empirical studies have
demonstrated that the Child PARQ global scales and its subscales have high internal consistency

rC
reliability. For example, Rohner () reported coefficients alphas of . (mother version) and .
(father version) for the global scale, with alphas for the four subscales ranging from . to . (mother
version) and . to . (father version). Furthermore, Venezziano () reported that coefficient
alphas for the scales of the Child PARQ (father version) ranged from . to ., with an alpha of .
for the total scale score; while alpha coefficients for the scales on the mother version of the Child
PARQ ranged from . to ., with alpha of . for the total scale score.
to
In another study, Rohner et al. () used the Child PARQ (mother version) in a mixed sample
of Finnish and Pakistani preadolescents and adolescents and reported alphas of . for the total scale
in both samples. Similarly, Erkman and Rohner () using the Child PARQ global scale in a
bu

Turkish youth sample reported alphas of . for the mother version and . for the father version.
Additionally, in a meta-analysis of  studies worldwide in which the reliability of all PARQ scales
(including the Child PARQ) was examined, the mean weighted alpha coefficient for the global Child
PARQ scale was ., while the overall alpha coefficients of the four subscales —aggregated across the
three versions of the PARQ- ranged from . to . (Khaleque & Rohner, b). Furthermore, mean
tri

test-retest reliability across time periods ranging from  weeks through  years, was reported to be ..
With regard to the factor structure of the PARQ, the initial validity study of the scale (Rohner &
Cournoyer, ) yielded  primary factors, which accounted for % of the variance. The first factor
on

–namely, the Rejection factor – was comprised of three sub-factors (hostility/aggression, indifference
neglect and undifferentiated rejection), whereas the second factor – namely the Acceptance factor—
clustered items measuring warmth/affection. According to Rohner and Khaleque (), these two
primary factors are correlated at r = ., indicating that maybe they should not be interpreted
independently, but as opposite ends of a single dimension (i.e., the warmth dimension of parenting).
C

Evidence from studies using factor analysis point to the fact that the Child PARQ is a measure
valid for use in cross-cultural research. For example, Yazdkhasti and Harizuka () using
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a Japanese sample identified two main factors explaining .%
of the total variance. Similarly, Rohner and Chaki-Sircar () and Comunian and Gielen ()
replicated via EFA the original two-factor model in an Indian and an Italian sample, respectively.
Moreover, EFA of the Child PARQ in eight nations worldwide revealed the same two-factor
structure (Rohner & Cournoyer, ). In addition, Varan () using the Child PARQ in a Turkish
sample of  psychologically disturbed youths, found that the two principal factors (parental


 TSAOUSIS, GIOVAZOLIAS, & MASCHA
rejection and parental acceptance) accounted for .% of the variance for the mother version and
.% of the variance for the father version.
It should be noted at this point that all the aforementioned studies employed exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) in order to evaluate the construct validity of the measure and their results seem to
support the higher order two-factor model (i.e., acceptance – rejection). However, none of these
studies could replicate the second order four-factor structure of the Child PARQ (i.e.,
Warmth/Affection, Hostility/Aggression, Indifference/Neglect, and Undifferentiated Rejection).
One possible explanation for such results might be the analytic strategy adopted in these studies. EFA
is mainly used to describe, summarize, or reduce data and make them more easily understood; for that
reason, it is often considered to be more appropriate in the early stages of scale development (Hurley

y
et al., ). On the other hand, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), as an alternative to EFA, is often
considered to be more appropriate in cases where measurement models have a well-developed
underlying theory for hypothesized patterns of loadings, as it happens in cross-cultural test

op
adaptations (Russell, ).
CFA is also associated with a number of advantages, which makes it more appropriate in the
investigation of the factor structure of a measure over EFA. For example, EFA attempts to account
for all of the variance in a correlation matrix (including common, unique, and error variance), while

rC
CFA attempts to capture the variance shared among variables in factors and, as a result, provides a
better estimation of the factor structure of the measure at the individual-item level. Furthermore,
CFA allows the researcher to formulate a specific model and test the invariance of specific parameters
in the factor solution, whereas the researcher has relatively little control over the model to be tested in
EFA. With this in mind, we argue that CFA is more appropriate as a technique for the investigation
of the latent structure of both, maternal and paternal versions of the Child PARQ in a different
to
cultural environment.
To date, no study has examined the factor structure of the Child PARQ using CFA. The only
study testing the factorial structure of a PARQ measure using this statistical technique is a study by
bu

Gomez and Rohner (in press) that tested the factor structure of the Adult PARQ (both mother and
father versions) in two samples from Australia and US.
Previous research has also shown that boys and girls have potentially different relationships with
their parents, especially during adolescence (Steinberg & Silk, ), and that adolescents in general
perceive their parents as more aggressive and less caring than younger children (Cicognani & Zani,
tri

). Similarly, it has been found that parents and adolescents interact less frequently (compared to
preadolescents) and their interactions are characterized by lower perceived acceptance from parents,
and increased conflict (Collins & Russell, ), especially in mother–daughter dyads (Paikoff &
on

Brooks-Gunn, ). Given that research has shown variations in parent-child relationships according
to in gender and age, it is important for the evaluation of the validity of both versions of the Child
PARQ (i.e., maternal and paternal) to establish whether these observed differences reflect true group
differences or are artifacts of measurement problems.
The objective of the present study was threefold. The first objective was to test the dimensionality
C

of both versions (i.e. mother and father) of the Child PARQ in the Greek context. Using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we examined whether the proposed four-factor model (Rohner,
) fits the Greek data adequately. The second objective was to evaluate the internal consistency
and homogeneity of the Greek version of the Child PARQ. To that end, alpha and split-half
reliability coefficients as well as item-to-item correlations for the total Child PARQ scale and
subscales were estimated. The third objective was to examine potential response biases within the
Greek version of the Child PARQ. Analyses within the framework of item response theory (IRT)
provide a statistic called Differential Item Functioning (DIF) which reveals whether “…examinees
from different groups show differing probabilities of success on (or endorsing) the item after


EXPANDING HORIZONS
matching on the underlying construct that the item is intended to measure” (Zumbo, ; p. ).
The current analysis focused on demographic variables previously linked to the scale, including
gender (male vs. female) and age (preadolescents vs. adolescents).

Method

Participants
The sample consisted of  youths (ages  to  years) with a mean age of . years (SD = .).
There were  (.%) males and  (.%) females. The majority of the participants lived in
urban areas. In particular,  (.%) lived in cities with population over ,;  (.%) lived

y
in small towns up to , and  (.%) lived in villages. The educational level of participants’
fathers varied:  (.%) had only elementary school education;  (.%) were high school
graduates; and,  (.%) were university graduates. With regard to participants’ mothers,  (.%)

op
had only elementary school education;  (.%) were high school graduates; and,  (.%) were
university graduates. The sample consisted of  (.%) Greeks and  (.%) people who
originated from other countries.

rC
Measures
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire: Child Version (Child PARQ; Rohner, ). There are two
versions of the measure, one assessing children’s perceptions of their fathers’ acceptance-rejection
and one assessing their perception of their mothers’ acceptance-rejection. Each version consists of 
items that load into four scales: Warmth/Affection, Hostility/Aggression, Indifference/Neglect, and
Undifferentiated/Rejection. Taken together, these four scales compose the total PARQ score. On a -
to
point Likert type scale (from almost always true to almost never true), youths respond to the questionnaire
by making judgments about how well each statement describes their caretakers’ treatment of them.
Examples of scale items on the father version are: “My father makes me feel wanted and needed”
bu

(warmth/affection); “my father goes out of his way to hurt my feelings” (hostility/aggression); “my
father ignores me as long as I do nothing to bother him” (indifference/neglect); “my father does not
really love me” (undifferentiated rejection). The questionnaire is keyed in the direction of perceived
rejection. The higher the score, the more rejection children tend to perceive.
tri

Translation. The Child PARQ was translated into Greek through three consecutive stages. During
the first stage, four bilingual psychologists, experts in family relations, individually translated each
version of the measure (i.e., mother and father) from English into Greek. The purpose of this stage
on

was to develop a linguistically equivalent translation between the original and the Greek versions of
the Child PARQ. In the second stage, a committee comprised of the same four translators examined
the eight translated versions, and any discrepancies, misunderstandings, mistranslations, or
inaccuracies that emerged were discussed and adjustments were made. The purpose of this phase was
to develop a conceptually equivalent translation between the original and the Greek versions of the
C

Child PARQ. Lastly, a pilot study (n = ) was carried out in order to determine whether both, the
original and the translated versions, were equivalent using as criteria, the percent of missing data, floor
and ceiling effects, and alpha reliabilities.

Procedure
The study was conducted in public schools. All participants were asked to complete the Child PARQ
as well as a booklet containing family and other personal demographic data. The administration took
place in students’ classrooms during a typical class period (approx.  minutes). Prior to
administration of the questionnaire, all participants provided signed consent forms from their parents,


 TSAOUSIS, GIOVAZOLIAS, & MASCHA
and they were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time. We also obtained
further permission from teachers and school principals before administering the questionnaires. There
was no payment or other incentive to complete the questionnaires. This research project has been
approved by the ethics committee of the Pedagogic Institute (Ministry of Education) of Greece.

Results
Descriptive statistics and reliability indices for the paternal and maternal versions of the Child PARQ
scale and total scores are presented in Table .

Table . Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients for Mother and Father Versions of the Child PARQ

y
(N = )
Scales M SD SE Split-half
Alpha

op
M
Child PARQ – Mother Version
Warmth/Affection . . . . .
Hostility/Aggression . . . . .
Indifference/Neglect . . . . .

rC
Undifferentiated Rejection . . . . .
Total PARQ Score . . . . .
Child PARQ – Father Version
Warmth/Affection . . . . .
Hostility/Aggression . . . . .
to
Indifference/Neglect . . . . .
Undifferentiated Rejection . . . . .
Total PARQ Score . . . . .
Note. SEM: Standard Error of Measurement
bu

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to study the latent structure of the Child PARQ, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted using AMOS  (Analysis of Moment Structures) software (Arbuckle, ). In CFA an a
tri

priori model is fit to the data. The fit of the model is evaluated by means of a noncentral chi-square
statistical test. The null hypothesis underlying the test statistic is that the model fits the data; therefore,
a statistically significant test indicates misfit of the model (Jöreskog & Sörbom, ). Since the
expected value of the noncentrality parameter is unknown, several other fit indices are typically
on

obtained in order to examine how close the proposed models fit the data. As Griffin () suggests,
it is necessary to use at least four fit indices to build an overall understanding of fit to the
measurement model. Model fit is a multifaceted concept and, therefore, no fit indices should be
considered in isolation.
C

First, we examined whether the assumption of multivariate normality of the data was satisfied.
Using the SPSS macro developed by DeCarlo (), we found that all skewness and the vast majority
of the kurtosis values were significant (p < .). Furthermore, the total Mardia’s coefficients were
. and . for mother and father versions, respectively. Since, these results suggest deviations
from normality, we decided to use the Unweighted Least Square (ULS) method of estimation, which
is less sensitive to data that depart from normality (Hu & Bentler, ). Due to the specific adopted
method of estimation, the following goodness-of-fit indices were used (Arbuckle, ): a) the
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), b) the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), c) the Normed Fit
Index (NFI), and d) the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Generally, for GFI,


EXPANDING HORIZONS
AGFI, NFI a value close to . indicates a good fit. For the SRMR values equal or less than .
indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, ).
The model under examination was a four-factor model which corresponds to the factor structure
of the Child PARQ as was originally proposed by Rohner (). Particularly, this model consists of
 observed variables (i.e., items) which correspond to four distinct latent factors (i.e., Warmth/
Affection, Hostility/Aggression, Indifference/Neglect, and Undifferentiated/Rejection). With regard
to the mother version, the results showed that all goodness-of-fit indices were above the minimum
acceptable criteria (i.e., GFI = ., AGFI = ., NFI = ., and SRMR = .). Almost identical were
obtained for the Child PARQ – father version (GFI = ., AGFI = ., NFI = ., and SRMR =
.).

y
These results suggest that the four-factor structure of the Child PARQ, as proposed by its
developer (Rohner, ), seems to work adequately for the Greek sample. In other words, Greek
children seemed to identify four expressions of perceived acceptance-rejection in their parents’

op
behavior toward them. These results are similar to those found in diverse socio-cultural environments
(i.e., Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and the Caribbean). More importantly,
these results provide further empirical support to the universality of the PARTheory, and draw
attention to the fact that individuals everywhere appear to use a common meaning structure to

rC
determine if they are loved (accepted) or not loved (rejected) by their parents. The four-factor models
for each version (i.e., mother and father) are presented in Figures  and , respectively.

Internal Reliability of the Child PARQ

To evaluate the internal reliability of the Child PARQ, we calculated two different indices of internal
consistency (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha and split-half), and the mean inter-item correlations to estimate
to
item-to-scale homogeneity. A standard of values greater than . (Nunnally & Bernstein, ) was set
for both forms of internal consistency coefficients. For the mother version scale, alpha coefficients
ranged between . and . (. for total scale) and split-half coefficients ranged between . and .
bu

(. for total scale). For the father version scale, alpha coefficients ranged between . and . (. for
total scale) and split-half coefficients ranged between . and . (. for total scale). All reliability
coefficients are presented in Table .

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) Analysis

tri

DIF analysis refers to the observation that persons in different demographic groups (e.g., gender, age,
culture) score differently on an item even though they are at the same level of the underlying trait.
From a psychometric perspective, this means that relative item estimates -- that is item difficulty
on

estimates – remain invariant across different groups (Bond & Fox, ). Using the DIF procedure
as implemented in WINSTEPS .., item difficulty measures di were computed for each class of
subjects (e.g., male vs. female). A two-sided t test was then performed to pairwise compare item
difficulty measures between subject classes (DIF contrast); significance level was set at p < .. DIF
was classified according to magnitude: a) small or absent if the difference was less than . logits; b)
C

minimal and probably inconsequential DIF if the difference was between . and . logits; and, c)
notable DIF if there was a difference greater than . logits. Following Linacre’s ()
recommendations, to interpret these t tests conservatively, in addition to the significant t test, a DIF
contrast |>.| was considered substantial. Tables  and  present the results from DIF analysis.


 TSAOUSIS, GIOVAZOLIAS, & MASCHA

y
op
rC
to
bu
tri
on
C

Figure . Four-factor structure of the Greek version of the Child PARQ – mother version


EXPANDING HORIZONS

y
op
rC
to
bu
tri
on
C

Figure . Four-factor structure of the Greek version of the Child PARQ – father version.


 TSAOUSIS, GIOVAZOLIAS, & MASCHA
Table . Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for Gender for Mother and Father Versions of the Child PARQ
Child PARQ – Mother Version Child PARQ – Father Version
Item DIF Contrast t p DIF Contrast t p
 . . ns -. -. ns
 -. . ns -. -. ns
 . . ns . . .
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 . . ns . . ns

y
 . . ns . . ns
 . . ns . . .

op
 . . ns -. -. ns
 -. -. ns . . ns
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 . . ns . . ns
 -. -. ns . . ns

rC
 . . ns . . ns
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 . . . -. -. ns
 -. -. ns -. -. .
 . . ns . . .
to
 . . ns . . ns
 -. -. ns . . ns
 -. -. ns -. -. .
 -. -. ns . . ns
bu

 -. -. ns -. -. .

Note. DIF CONTRAST is the difference in difficulty of the item between the two groups.
tri

As shown in Table , in the Child PARQ – mother version no items were identified as
containing gender-related DIF. Age-based DIF was detected in two items: item  with logit value of
-. and item  with logit value of .. For Child PARQ- father version only item  with a logit
value of . showed gender-related DIF (see Table ). The analysis of DIF by age revealed that
on

items , , and , with corresponding logit values of ., -., and -., respectively, showed DIF.
It should be noted that, all logit difference values of the flagging DIF items were minimal in
magnitude (Linacre, ).
C


EXPANDING HORIZONS
Table . Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for Age for Mother and Father Versions of the Child PARQ
Child PARQ – Mother Version Child PARQ – Father Version
Item DIF Contrast t p DIF Contrast t p
 -. -. ns . . .
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 . . ns -. -. ns
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
 -. -. . -. -. .

y
 . . ns . . ns
 . . ns . . ns

op
 . . ns . . ns
 . . . -. -. ns
 . . ns . . ns
 . . ns . . .
 . . ns . . ns

rC
 . . ns . . ns
 -. -. . . . ns
 . . ns . . ns
 . . ns . . ns
 . . ns -. -. .
to
 . . ns . . ns
 . . . . . ns
 -. -. ns . . .
 -. -. ns -. -. ns
bu

 -. -. ns -. -. ns

Note. DIF CONTRAST is the difference in difficulty of the item between the two groups.
tri

Discussion
This study was designed to examine the factorial structure and the psychometric properties of the two
versions (i.e., mother and father) of the Child Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ)
in a Greek sample. Particularly, we tested whether the proposed four-factor model (Rohner, ) fit
on

the Greek data adequately. Additionally, we investigated the internal consistency and homogeneity of
both versions of the Child PARQ, and we evaluated the psychometric equivalence of the individual
items across gender and age. Overall, our results strongly support the reliability and factorial structure
of the Greek version of the Child PARQ.
C

In terms of the examination of the factor structure of the Child PARQ–mother version, CFA
results provided empirical support for the validity of the original four-factor structure. The same
results were also obtained for the Child PARQ–father version. CFA showed that the original four-
factor model fits the Greek data adequately. Although previous cross-cultural studies have yielded
factor solutions that confirmed the higher order two-factor model (i.e., acceptance – rejection), none
of them could replicate the second order four-factor structure, probably due to the inappropriate use
of EFA. When the more robust analytic technique of CFA was applied, the four-factor structure was
replicated adequately in both the maternal and paternal versions of the Child PARQ. Therefore, the
results from this study support the robustness of the four-factor model cross-culturally and provide


 TSAOUSIS, GIOVAZOLIAS, & MASCHA
further support to the argument that the Child PARQ measures constructs are phenomenologically
meaningful for children across nations (Rohner & Khaleque, ).
Regarding the internal consistency of the Greek version of the Child PARQ, the corresponding
reliability coefficients (alpha and split-half) showed that almost all sub-scales had values above the
lowest acceptable levels of .. This result is in line with previous research findings from various
socio-cultural environments which demonstrate that the Child PARQ is a reliable measure (Comunian
& Gielen, ; Erkman & Rohner, ; Khaleque & Rohner, b; Venezziano, ). Only
scores for the Undifferentiated Rejection sub-scale showed reliability coefficient values lower than .
(. and ., for the mother and father versions respectively). This finding could question the ability
of items in this sub-scale to measure the same characteristic, since the obtained values are generally

y
considered as moderate. However, we should not forget that alpha coefficient is influenced by the
number of items that compose a scale, and that alpha increases as the number of items in a scale
increases (Nunnally & Bernstein, ). Thus, if we take into consideration the fact that this particular

op
scale is composed by only four items, then the moderate alpha coefficients was a presumable result.
For that reason, a more appropriate statistic was used to test the cohesiveness of each sub-scale – the
mean inter-item coefficient (MIC) – which provides information regarding the homogeneity of each
sub-scale. According to Briggs and Cheek () an optimal level of homogeneity lies between .

rC
and .. The results showed that all sub-scales of the Child PARQ were homogeneous, since MIC
ranged from . to . in the mother version and from . to . in the father version.
The results from DIF analyses in this study indicated that very few items did not work properly
across gender and age groups. With regard to the mother version, no item displayed DIF across
gender, and only two items demonstrated DIF across age groups. Particularly, adolescents are more
likely to endorse a higher score than preadolescents in item  (“Is too busy to answer my questions”),
to
whereas preadolescents are more likely to endorse a higher score than adolescents in item  (“Lets me
know I am not wanted”). In the father version, the analysis indicated that only one item contained
gender–related DIF. More specifically, boys were more likely to endorse a higher score than girls in
bu

item  (“Makes it easy for me to tell him things that are important to me”). When items were examined across
age groups, three items with DIF were identified: item  (“Says nice things about me”) where
preadolescents are more likely to endorse a higher score than adolescents, and items  (“Is too busy to
answer my questions”) and  (“Cares about what I think, and likes me to talk about it”), where adolescents are
more likely to endorse a higher score than preadolescents.
tri

Since no DIF analysis has been conducted so far worldwide on Child PARQ questionnaires, the
results from this study need to be evaluated with caution. Further studies are necessary in order to
ascertain whether these flagged DIF items can be identified across cultures or the results described
on

above are due to methodological issues related to the Greek version of the questionnaire (e.g., errors
in translation). If the same items demonstrate DIF across gender and age in other socio-cultural
environments, their revision or replacement should be considered in order to obtain a more stable
structure, especially for the father version of the Child PARQ.
The empirical support for the reliability and factorial structure of the Greek version of the Child
C

PARQ provides researchers in family therapy and child development with the opportunity to examine
in future studies the way Greek parents express acceptance and rejection towards their children.
Greece represents a rather conservative society where the cultural beliefs about family roles as well as
the existing social policies have yet to catch up on with the reality of everyday living. Increased
unemployment, longer work hours, and reduced salaries have lead to both parents working, and to
grandparents acquiring a prominent role in the care of children. It will be of great interest to
investigate the effect these changes have on the family, and to better understand the correlates of
parental acceptance and rejection in a society undergoing fundamental social changes and a severe


EXPANDING HORIZONS
economic crisis. Such research will hopefully lead to the development of culturally sensitive social
policies and prevention programs regarding children’s adjustment problems in Greece.
A possible limitation of this study could be that the psychometric examinations carried out do not
yet extend to construct or criterion-related validity. Further studies are needed in which the
convergent and discriminant validity of the measure could be examined in relation to other forms of
parenting, such as parental self-efficacy and parental anxiety, as well as children’s internalizing and
externalizing problems. Additionally, more DIF studies with various socio-demographic variables
(e.g., social class, ethnicity, religion) should be conducted to evaluate whether possible scale level
differences are due to actual group differences or potential item bias.
In conclusion, CFA results in the present study replicated the original four-factor model of the

y
Child PARQ in the Greek context. Along with the results from the reliability analysis, which justified
the internal consistency and the homogeneity of the total scale and sub-scales, one could suggest that
the Greek version of the Child PARQ is a reliable and valid measure that can be used in the study of

op
the parental acceptance – rejection construct.

References
Arbuckle, J. L. (). AMOS .. User’s Guide. Spring House (PA): Amos Development Corporation.

rC
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences
(nd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.) (). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of
personality scales. Journal of Personality, , -.
to
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., & Arseneault, L. (). Maternal ex-
pressed emotion predicts children’s antisocial behavior problems: Using monozygotic-twin differ-
ences to identify environmental effects on behavioral development. Developmental Psychology, ,
bu

–.
Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (). An instrument for measuring parents’ perceptions of conflict style
with adolescents: The ‘‘When We Disagree’’ scales. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, (),
–.
Collins, W. A., Harris, M. L., & Susman, A. (). Parenting during middle childhood. In M. H.
tri

Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Volume : Children and parenting. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (). Con-
on

temporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, , –
.
Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood
and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, , –.
Comunian, A. L., & Gielen, U. P. (). An Italian study of parental acceptance-rejection. In R. Roth
C

& S. Neil (Eds.), A matter of life: Psychological theory, research, and practice. (pp. -). Lengerich,
Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
DeCarlo, L. T. (). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, , -.
Erkman, F., & Rohner, R. P. (). Youths’ perceptions of corporal punishment, parental
acceptance, and psychological adjustment in a Turkish metropolis. Cross-Cultural Research, , -
.
Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Kan, M. L., & Goslin, M. C. (). Effects of family foundations on
parents and children:  years after baseline. Journal of Family Psychology, (), –.


 TSAOUSIS, GIOVAZOLIAS, & MASCHA
Gomez, R., & Rohner, R. P. (in press). Tests of factor structure and measurement invariance in the
US and Australia using the Adult Version of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire.
Cross-Cultural Research.
Griffin, P. (). Developing a measure of wealth for primary student families in a developing
country: Comparison of two methods of psychometric calibration. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
, -.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, , -.
Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., &
Williams, L. J. (). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and

y
alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (), -.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (). Lisrel : Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

op
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (a). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological
adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, , -.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (b). Reliability of measures assessing the pancultural association

rC
between perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of
cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, (), -.
Kitahara, M. (). Perception of parental acceptance and rejection among Swedish university stu-
dents. Child Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Linacre, J. M. (). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS. Chicago: Author.
Magnuson, K., & Duncan, G. (). Parent versus child-based intervention strategies for promoting
to
children’s well-being. In A. Kalil & T. DeLeire (Eds.). Family investments in children’s potential. Mah-
wah: Erlbaum.
McGarvey, E., Keller, A., Brown, G. L., DeLonga, K., Miller, A. G., Runge, J. S., & Koopman, C.
bu

(). Parental bonding styles in relation to adolescent males’ runaway behavior. The Family
Journal, , -.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (). Psychometric Theory (rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (). Do parent–child relationships change during puberty? Psy-
chological Bulletin, , –.
tri

Rohner, R. P. (). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rohner, R. P. (). Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection. Storrs, CT: Rohner
on

Research Publications.
Rohner, R. P. (). [McPAC Project]. Unpublished raw data.
Rohner, R. P., & Chaki-Sircar, M. (/). Women and children in a Bengali village. Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England. (Reprinted ; Storrs, CT: Rohner Research).
Rohner, R. P., & Cournoyer, D. E. (). Measurement of the antecedents and consequences of parental ac-
C

ceptance and rejection: Reliability of two research questionnaires. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Connecticut at Storrs.
Rohner, R. P., & Cournoyer, D. E. (). Universals in youths’ perceptions of parental acceptance
and rejection: Evidence from factor analyses within eight sociocultural groups worldwide. Cross-
Cultural Research, , –.
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A (Eds.). (). Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (th
Ed). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.


EXPANDING HORIZONS
Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., Riaz, M. N., Khan, U., Sadeque, S., & Laukkala, H. (). Agreement
between children’s and mothers’ perceptions of maternal acceptance and rejection: A comparative
study in Finland and Pakistan. Ethos, (), -.
Rohner, R. P., & Rohner, E. C. (). Worldwide tests of parental acceptance-rejection theory.
Behavior Science Research, , -.
Russell, D. W. (). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, , -.
Salama, M. M. (). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and personality dispositions among
college students in Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Mental Health, , –.
Steinberg, L. & Silk, J. S. (). Parenting adolescents. In: M. H. Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of

y
parenting: Vol. : Children and parenting. (pp. –). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Varan, A. H. (). Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Child PARQ/C (Mother and Father Forms) and
the Turkish Child PAQ. Unpublished raw data.

op
Venezziano, R. A. (). Perceived paternal and maternal acceptance in rural African American and
European American youths’ psychological adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, , -.
Yazdkhasti, F., & Harizuka, S. (). The effects of temperament and perceived maternal rejection
on childhood anxiety and behaviour problems. School Psychology International, , -.

rC
Zumbo, B. D. (). A handbook on the theory and methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic
regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON:
Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.

Authors’ Note
Part of this paper has been presented at the rd International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance
to
and Rejection, Padua – Italy, July .
bu
tri
on
C



View publication stats