Perkins 2008

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development
ISSN: 0748-1756 (Print) 1947-6302 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uecd20
Merlino-Perkins Father-Daughter Relationship

Inventory (MP-FDI): Construction, Reliability,
Validity, and Implications for Counseling and
Research
Rose J. Merlino Perkins
To cite this article: Rose J. Merlino Perkins (2008) Merlino-Perkins Father-Daughter Relationship
Inventory (MP-FDI): Construction, Reliability, Validity, and Implications for Counseling and
Research, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 41:3, 130-151
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2008.11909826
Published online: 19 Oct 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uecd20
Download by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] Date: 04 November 2017, At: 06:02
Merlino-Perkins Father-Daughter
Relationship Inventory (MP-FDI):
Construction, Reliability, Validity, and
Implications for Counseling and Research
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 06:02 04 November 2017
Rose J. Merlino Perkins
The \{erlino Perkins Father Daughter Relations/up Jm·enton. a self-report instrument. m-

~eues II'Omen'f childhood interactions with wpporth·e. doting, distant. controlling. tyrannical,
phnica/1; abusi~·e, absent, and seducti~·efathers . Item and scale dn·elopment, psychometric
findings drawn from factor ana~rses. reliabilitr a.ue.mnent\, and validation processes are
presented along \l'ith implications for coumeling and re5earch
•!•
T
he father- daughter relationship represents an area of relational theory that has been
largely unexplored. Counselors have long observed the impact childhood parenting
has had on adult development, and relational theorists have connected parent-child
interactions with subsequent adult adjustment. However, the mothenng figure has typically
been the pnmary focus; consideration of the father's role has been inferred in theory and
thinly represented in research (Adler, 1927; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; llor-
ney, 1950; Kohut, 1971; Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975; Sullivan, 1953 ). Despite reports
that suggest supportive fathers predict self-efficacy and social competence among women
(Barnett, Kibria, Baruch, & Pleck, 1991; Finley & Schwartz, 2004), research and clinical
treatment based on father daughter childhood interactions have centered primarily on the
readily defined absent and seductive fathers (Amato, 1991; Hetherington, 1972; Mandara,
Murray, & Joyner, 2005; Seltzer, 1991 ).
Moreover, most published parent child inventories have measured general parent be-
haviors (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fouladi, Moller,
& McCarthy, 2006; Heiss, Berman, & Sperling, 1996). Additionally, the few published
father daughter inventories have reported general father daughter interactions""' ith scales
established through small regional samples (Doherty, Kouneski. & Erickson, 1998; Fmley &
Sch\\artz, 2004). A few noted scholars (Freud, 1988; Goulter & Minninger, 1994; Secunda,
1992) have used interviews and mformal assessments to report specific father daughter
interactions that suggest poss1ble consequences for women's adult development. Although
informal assessments and interviews have contributed interest in the field, by their nature,
the)' have been lim1ted. Interviews have been time consuming and dlfncult to standardize,
and findings have not easily been generalized (Foulad1 et al., 2006).
Accordingly, mental health professionals (Fouladi et al., 2006) have called for an assessment
instrument, preferably a self-report instrument, designed to evaluate the dynamics within
father child relationships. Others (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000) have sought to
Ro.1e J Merlmo Perkmr. Psychology Department, Stonehi/1 College. Cone1pondence concerning thif
article should be addressed to Rose J. .\.fer/ina Perkms. P1ycholog~· Department, Stonehi/1 College, 320
IJashmgton Street, Easton. J!A 02357 (e-mail: rperkimfti Honc:hill.edu).
() 200M Amcncan Counseling A soctatton. All nghts rescl'\ed.
130 Measurement and EV01u01100 In Counlcflng and Oovelopmenl <' October 2008 •:• VoUnG 4 I
specifically examine the interplay of beha\ tors and emotions experienced by fathers and
their daughters Furthermore, father- daughter transactions should be identified to provide
therapeutic insights for adult women facing adjustment issues related to family of origin
(Freud. 1988; Perkms. 200 I; Secunda, 1992).
Through the development of the Merlino Perktns rather Daughter Relaltonship Inventory
(MP-fDI), this research addresses the need to assess a daughter's childhood interactions
with her father. interactions that may affect her adult development. The tnitial questions
for research were spectfied as follows: (a) "Will a literature re\ ie\'. provide sufficient in-
formation to develop an inventory specifically designed to assess interacttons that women
experienced with their fathers tn childhood (5 to 16 years old)'>" and (b) "Wntten as a
self-report instrument. would the test items and scales bridge the gap bet\'veen theoretical
constructs and father daughter anecdotal experiences?"
INITIAL SCALE DEVELOPMENT: LITERATURE REVIEW
Given the often overlooked father-parenttng influence in child development theory and
research. it was necessary to draw mferences regarding lather daughter relationships
from relational theor) based pnmarily on the mothering figure. For example. Adler ( 1927)
emphasized the reciprocal nature of parent chtld rclattonshtps and proposed that children.
for self-protection, arc moved to matntam an unbroken connection with the mothering
figure. He held that although children are acutel)' aware of their own needs and wtshes.
they are attentive to their mother's as well and respond in a manner that fu lfills the expec-
tations for both parent and child. Later. theorists (Homey, 1950; Sullivan. 1953) focused
on negative self-judgments made by chtldren when they are unable to meet the demands
made by thetr caregivers and subsequently fear parental reJeclton. Addttionally. Mahler et
a!. ( 1975) and Kohut ( 1971) expressed concern about parent child symbtosts matntained
beyond the infants' developmental need to an unhealthy bonding that hinders separation
and individuation for caregiver and child
Applymg relational theory tn this study. it was tnferred that a daughter's perceptions of
her father's needs. ambitions, and values influenced her to adapt her behavior accordingly.
furthermore. if she were unable to meet the demands of her father, she would fear reJection
and form negative self-judgments. Finally. a daughter locked in a symbiotic bond with her
father would also find it dtfficult to separate and expenence a sense of individuatiOn. With
theory in mind, the following questions delineated a literature search that established the
father--daughter relationship domain: What dtd the daughter observe her father doing and
lceling during her childhood (approximately 5 to 16 years old)'> What dtd she experience
fcelmg and doing during transactions with her father? What did she conclude about herself
and her father?
Father-Daughter Behavioral Constructs
Although questtons for the literature review were grounded in theory. no domain could
contain the mdividualized experiences of all fathers and daughters. A careful examination
of the literature revealed eight father behavioral constructs: supportive father. controlling
father. doting father, dtstant father, tyrant father, physically abusive father, absent father,
and seductive father.
Supportive fathers . Supportive fathers expect their daughters to do thetr best and to set high
goals for themselves. However, if daughters expenence failure, these fathers are quick to
give support (Doherty et al.. 1998; Secunda, 1992) Supportive fathers tend to have daughters
who are able to live their O\\ n lives Daughters do not have to shape their behaviors or goals
in order to please and protect their fathers . As adults. daughters with supporti\e fathers are
more apt to think\\ ell of themselves. pursue challenging occupations. and predict success.
M easurement a nd EvaluatiOn If\ CoonseWng and Development •> October 2008 .;. Volume 41 131
They are comfortable "'ith their friendships and generally feel accepted by others. Their
problems and dysfunctional behaviors are few (Amato & Rivera, 1999; Barnett et al., 1991;
Doherty et a!., 1998; Ellis, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999; Finley &
Schwartz, 2004, 2006; Marsiglio et a!., 2000; Perkins, 200 I; Secunda, 1992).
Controllingfathers. In contrast, some daughters with supportive fathers also experience control
that they perceive to be restrictive. Although these fathers support their daughters and want them
to become independent mature adults, they set limits on their daughters' independence. At times,
these daughters report feeling loved but infantilizcd (Freud, 1988; Secunda, 1992).
Dotingfathers. Doting fathers have an unusually close attachment to their daughters. Al-
though they know their daughters have to grow up, they hate to sec it happen. They often
treat their daughters as special in an attempt to keep them near. Daughters bask in their
fathers' ob'vious attention and affection; they enjoy being their fathers' favorite (Freud,
1988; Goulter & Minninger, 1994; Perkins, 200 I; Secunda, 1992).

However, some daughters with doting fathers experience family interaction patterns that
tend to triangulate and distance their mothers. Although these daughters are aware their
mothers are feeling isolated, they do not wish to abandon the closeness they experience with
their fathers (Perkins, 200 1). As adult women, they continue their attachment to their fathers
and never quite feel comfortable with their estranged mothers (Freud, 1988). ln contrast,
other daughters with doting fathers also feel restricted by their fathers' preoccupation with
them. Although they love their fathers and wish to please them, they feel controlled by their
fathers' love (Freud, 1988; Goulter & Minninger, 1994; Secunda, 1992).
Di!itant fathers. Distant fathers, unlike absent fathers, are home but they are quiet, con-
servative, and at times deferent. They do not get involved in raising or disciplining their
children. They release all household responsibilities to their wives (Perkins, 200 I; Secunda,
1992). Many daughters eventually perceive their mothers to be the source of their fathers'
passivity and the family's unhappiness. Motivated to protect fathers, whom they perceive to
be victimi7ed, daughters move into an unspoken alliance with their fathers; the alliance ul-
timately distances them from their mothers (Freud, I 988; Perkins, 200 I; Secunda, 1992).
Additional investigation revealed that some daughters perceive their fathers' reserved and
often passive behaviors di fTerently. These daughters do not believe that their fathers are victims
or that their mothers are persecutors. Instead, they simply perceive their fathers to be passive.
Accordingly, they do not feel alienated from their mothers (Perkins, 200 I; Secunda, 1992).
Tyrant fathers. Tyrant fathers interact with their daughters in a controlling, restrictive, and
intensely angry manner (Downs & Rindels, 2004; Goulter & Minninger, 1994; Perkins,
200 I; Secunda, 1992). These fathers do not conceal their anger or their need to control. They
profess a desire to have their daughters grow into mature women; however, they scoff at
any attempt their daughters make to be considered adults. Although they may support the1r
daughters' achievements and attend their athletic and educational events, they are quick
to fault their daughters' participations. Frequently their actions toward the1r daughters are
verbally abusive (Freud, I 988; Goulter & Minninger, 1994; Secunda, 1992).
Physical~\' ahu!iive fathers. Physically abusive fathers are controlling, restrictive, and
angry as well. However, when angry, they physically punish their daughters. They control
through fear. Daughters often respond with anger and resentment (Downs & Rindels, 2004;
Goulter & Minninger, 1994; Perkins, 200 I; Secunda, 1992).
Absent fathers. Absent fathers leave the household because of death, divorce, or job
demands when their daughters are small children (birth to approximately I 0 years of
age; Amato, 1991; Freud, 1988; Hetherington, 1972; Perkins, 200 I; Secunda, 1992). For
some daughters, fathers' absences are treated rationally rather than emotionally. Brothers,
grandparents, and extended family members interact in an atmosphere of support (Amato
& Rivera, 1999; Finley & Schwartz, 2004, 2006; Marsiglio et al., 2000; Seltzer, 1991 ).
Nevertheless, many women may still experience a persistent discomfort around men (Ban-
non & Southern, 1980). Although these women may establish productive relationships"' ith
132 Measurement and Evaluat•an In Counseling and Development ·:· October 2008 ·:· Volume 41
men, they would not ah.,ays belie"e that they knm\ men and would vvonder about men's
sincerity and ability to stay the course (Freud, 1988; lletherington. 1972. Secunda. 1992).
Daughters raised \\ith absent fathers often find security in a woman's ''orld, and many
freely express this 'liC\\ (Perkins. 2001. Secunda. 1992).
In contrast. some daughters '' ith absent fathers ha\e painful memories of their 1athers •
abuse abuse that the) often recall being directed at their mothers. Conscquently, these
daughters retain a respectful and nurturing posture toward their mothers. Sometimes, they
may cope by becoming their mothers' economic and social support system (Freud, 1988:
Secunda. 1992) These daughters conclude that maturity and strength lies in a \\Oman's
v\orld (Perkins. 200 I, Secunda. 1992).
Secluctii'L' fathen. Seductive fathers embody an intensely manipulattve father daughter
relat•onshtp. Daughters experience humtltation and self-degradation through their fathers'
seductiOn. Commonly, daughters with seductive fathers may V\ tsh to reveal their fathers'
seductton but often fear it would result tn personal and family disgrace (Secunda. 1992).
Addittonally, some daughters contend"' ith their fathers' verbal attacks as well. These daughters
f)\!rceive that in their fathers' eyes. they arc never right, by no means respectable. and not at all
capable TI1cse tyranni.1ed daughters experience anger but dare not express tt (Secunda, 1992).
Summation
The comprchcnsi-.:e ltterature rev ievv in this section of the article has suggested that father
control was not an independent construct: instead, it seemed present as a \ariable within the
supportive and doting father daughter constructs. Thus, the controlling father construct was
included as a suhscale V\ ithtn supportive and doting father measures and eliminated as an
independent im en tory measure. Additionally, the tyrannical father construct '"as present in
the Iitcraturc us a variable within constructs for thc physically abusiv c. absent, and seducti\ c
father daughter relationships Consequent!), the tyrannical father construct was included as
a subscalc within the physically abusive, absent, and scducllvc father daughter measures and
was eliminated as an independent inventory measure. Accordmgly, the original eight basic
father daughter constructs were reduced to stx MP-!·01 father daughter relationship total
scales as follows Supportive-Controlltng. Dotmg-Controll ing, Distant-Passive, T)rant-
Physically Abustvc, Absent-Tyrant, Seductive- fyrant The initial inventory contained 60
items. I0 items per scale.
Written in the first person narrative, usmg the voice of a young daughter. each item commu-
nicates a daughter's perception of her father her concerns about him, or feelings about herself:
Women responded to the items accordmg to their perceptions during childhood (5 to 16 years
old). lm cntory ttcms. "'ritten at a 4.7 Flesch Kincaid Grade Lc\d (assessment made by selecting
the Microsofl Word menu options to displa) Rcadabihty Stattstics). refer to the father as "Dad,"
a child's diminutive tor father. For example an MP-fDltcst item forthe Di tant father <;ubscale
A reads as follows : ''Mom was the boss m our home; Dad had to take a back scat. Finally he
sirnpl) -;topped trymg and stayed 111 hts O\\ n \\Orld: he seemed to decline before my eyes."
Thc final MP-1 Dl comprises six total scales. All total scales include t\\O subscales
composed of items drawn from their total scale. The MP-1-01 total scales and rcspectt\C
subscalcs arc as follows:
I. Supporttvc-Controlling Father Total Scale

Supporttve Father Subscale A
C'ontrollmg (Supportive) Father Subscale B
2. Dottng-C'ontrolhng father Total Scale
Doting Father (Mother Estranged) Subscalc A
Controlling (Dotmg) Father Subscale B
3. Distant-Passive Father Total Scale
MOO$Uiemen1 and Evaluation In Counsa!lng and Development .;. Oclot>er 2006 ·:· Volume 4 1 133
Distant Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A
Passive (Distant) Father Subscale B
4. Tyrant-Physically Abusive Father Total Scale
Tyrant Father Subscale A
Physically Abusive Father Subscale B
5. Absent-Tyrant Father Total Scale
Absent Father Subscale A
Tyrant (Absent) Father Subscale B
6. Seductive-Tyrant Father Total Scale
Seductive Father Subscale A
Tyrant (Seductive) Father Subscale B
INITIAL CONTENT VALIDATION
Procedure and Instruments
Members (n 997 women) of the normative sample volunteered participation in a two-

stage MP-FDI content validation procedure. First, the women rated their fathers on Father
Behavioral Rating (FBR) scale definitions that l had written in a way that would reflect
the eight basic father daughter relationship constructs discussed in the literature. To avoid
influencing the participants, FBR definitions were brief and did not incorporate the father
daughter emotional or behavioral interactions cited in literature and included in MP-FDI
items. Participants were simply asked to read each FBR description and rate their fathers
on a 5-point Likert scale ( 1 =never experienced, 2- seldom experienced, 3 occasional~y
experienced, 4 -frequently experienced. 5 always experienced).
FBR descriptions were as follows: Supportive Father expects his daughter to do her
best and to set high goals for herself. However. if she experiences failure. he is quick to
give her support. Controlling Father interacts with his daughter in a restrictive manner;
he has to know and agree with all the "details" in his daughter's life. Doting Father has
an unusually close attachment to his daughter. Although he knows she has to grow up,
he hates to see it happen and often singles her out as his special daughter. Distant Father
is not to be confused with the Absent Father. The distant father is home, but he is quiet
and conservative. He does not get involved in the raising of his children. Tyrant Father
interacts with his daughter in a restrictive and angry manner. Physica/(r Abusive Father
is restrictive and angry. When angry, he physically punishes his daughter. Absent Father
left the house through death. divorce, or job demands when the daughter was a small child
(birth to approximately I 0 years o ld). Seductil'e Father made sexual advances (overt or
covert) toward his daughter.
During the second stage of the validation procedure. the women responded to the MP-
FDI. They rated all MP-FDI items on a 5-point Likert scale similar to that used for the
FBR definitions (I never experienced. 5 - always experienced). The women understood
that the term father did not always represent a biological father; rather, the term father
represented the person they considered their father during their childhood years. According
to the administrative instructions. the women were requested to answer all items based on
their experiences with their fathers; they were not to consider how they wished their fathers
were or bow others perceived them to be.
Results
Scores for the MP-FDI total scales and subscales and scores for FBR definitions were
calculated by totaling the numerical value attributed to each portion of the Likert scale
(I = never experienced, 2 = seldom e.;rperienced. 3 occasional(v experienced, 4 fre-
134 Measurement and EvaluatiOn in Counseling and Development ·:· October 2008 .;. Volume 41
quently experienced, 5 always experienced). Pearson product moment correlations for
the s1x MP-FDI total scale scores and FBR scale scores validated the MP-FDI scales. In
most cases, the Pearson r correlations showed statistically significant (p < .0 I) correla-
tions between the six MP-FDI total scale scores and the FBR scale scores that measured
similar father--daughter constructs. ln contrast. significant (p < .01) negative correlations
emerged between MP-FDI total scale scores and FBR scores that measured contradictory
father -daughter constructs. For example, the MP-FDI Tyrant-Physically Abus1ve Father
Total Scale score showed significant positive correlation with the FBR Controlling Father,
D1stant Father, Tyrant Father, and Abusive Father scale scores. In contrast, the same MP-
FDI total scale scores showed significant negative correlation with the FBR Supportive
Father and Doting Father scale scores.
As expected, MP-FDI subscales designed to measure differences within their total scales
showed significantly different correlation patterns. For example, the Controlling (Sup-
portive) Father Subscale B. wh1ch measured father support and control, showed significant
(p <. .0 I) correlation with FBR scale scores defining Tyrant Father and Abusive Father. In
contrast, Supportive Father Subscale A measured father support without control and showed
sigmficant (p < .0 I) negative correlation with the FBR scale scores defining Tyrant Father
and Abusive Father. Similar significant correlation differences emerged for subscale scores
that measured MP-FDI Doting-Controlling Father. Distant-Passive Father, Tyrant-Physically
Abusive Father, Absent-Tyrant Father, and Seductive-Tyrant Father Total Scales. (A com-
plete table reporting Pearson correlations for MP-FDI scales and FBR definitions may be
obtamed from the author upon request.)
Conclusion and Additional Research Questions
The two initial questions for research were answered positively. A literature review did
pro" 1de sufficient infom1ation to develop an inventory specifically designed to assess in-
teractions that women experienced with their fathers in childhood. Furthermore, an initial
validation procedure supported the ability of test 1tems to bridge the gap between theoreti-
cal constructs and father daughter anecdotal experiences. Consequently, all MP-FDI total
scales and subscales remained titled as planned. During this initial stage, each of the six
scales contained I0 items that created two subscales. Additional research questions were
specified as follows: (a) "Will expert judge content validation procedures support the
MP-FDI test items and scales?" (b) "Will the MP-FDI factor structure establish construct
validity?" (c) "Will Cronbach's a for internal consistency and the test retest Pearson r for
a sample of college women establish ev1dence for MP-FDI reliability?" (d) "Will further
construct validation be achieved through Pearson correlation analyses for MP-FDI scale
tntercorrelations and Pearson correlation used to contrast MP-FDI scales and Adjective
Check List (ACL; Gough, 1952) measures?"
METHOD
Expert Judge Content Validation
Four psychologists with doctoral degrees read 60 MP-FDI items for content validity. All four
judges worked independently and approached their MP-FDI cntiques with varied professional
experiences (a child development professor, a clinical psychologist who works with troubled
families 10 a hospital setting, a counseling psychologist/professor with a private practice in
family counseling, and a counseling psychologist/professor with expertise in scale develop-
ment). Prior to their reading the items, the judges received the research booklet designed for
the normative sample. The booklet contained eight FBR descriptions (received by women
who participated in the initial scale development procedure) and the 60-item MP-FDI.
Measurement ond EvoluotiOn In CounsoUng ond Development ·~ Oclober 2008 ~' Volume 41 135
Each judge evaluated the MP-FDI items for their ability to capture the total father daughter
relationship domain. Additionally, the judges assessed the content of each inventory item for
its capacity to represent the father daughter construct that it was designed to measure. The
judges proposed content and language alterations for items that appeared to be ambtguous
or replications of existing inventory items. Although the judges did not rate each item, they
were in I00% agreement with all alterations and deletions performed. The six MP-FDI
total scales and their subscales were not changed. However, 12 items were eliminated that
reduced the MP-FDI item total to 48, resulting in 8 items per scale.
Factor Analyses and Assessments of Reliability and

Validity Normative Sample
The MP-FDI normative sample (N = I,039) closely mirrored the U.S. population for ethnic identi-
fication, religious affiliation, median household income, and English as a second language. Sample
demographics also included participants' age, marital status, sexual orientation, and level of educa-
tion. All women who were 18 years and older and volunteered participation were accepted.
Of the ethnic identifications reported by participants, 67% (75% in 2000 U.S. Census; Grieco
& Cassidy, 200 I) identified with the Caucasian community, 15% (2% in 2000 U.S. Census,
Grieco & Cassidy, 200 I) tdentified with the African American community, 8% (4% in 2000 U.S.
Census; Grieco & Cassidy, 200 I) identified with the Asian American community, and I 0% {3°/o
in 2000 U.S. Census; Grieco & Cassidy, 200 I) identified with the Hispanic community.
Self-reported religious affiliations among the participants showed 74.2°/o {77°/o; U.S. Census
Bureau, 200 I) of women reported Christian religious affiliations; approximately 4.5% ( 1.4°/o;
U.S. Census Bureau, 200 I) reported Jewish affiliations; approximately 4.3% ( 1.3%; U.S. Census
Bureau, 200 I) reported Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim affiliations; approximately I0% ( 14%; U.S.
Census Bureau, 200 I) reported no religious affiliations; and I0% made no response.
Statistics for household income reported by members of the normative sample showed
that 23% ( 18% in 1999 U.S. Census; Welniak & Posey, 2005) of the household incomes
were equal to the median U.S. income ($41,994), 67% (47% in 1999 U.S. Census; Wel-
niak & Posey, 2005) of household incomes were above the U.S. median, and 10% (35°/o
in 1999 U.S. Census; Welniak & Posey, 2005) of the household incomes were below the
U.S. medtan. Furthermore. 14% (18% in 2000 U.S. Census; Shin, 2003) ofthe participants
reported English as a second language.
Additionally, participant demographics for age, marital status, sexual orientation, and
highest education level showed variability among the women that also supported univer-
sal application for the MP-FDI total scales and subscales. All participants ranged in age
between 18 and 92 years old. Approximately 74.9% (n 778) were 18 25 years old, 16%
(n = 166) were 25-49 years old, 6.8% (n 71) were 50 69 years old, and 2.1% (n 22)
were 70 92 years old. Two (0.2%) participants made no response.
Eighty percent (n = 834) were never married; approximately 19% were married (n ·
144 ), divorced (n = 32), or widowed (n 18); and I% (n II) made no response. Of the
women, 90% (n 943) identified themselves as heterosexual, approximately 7% described
themselves as gay lesbian (n 26) or bisexual (n 44), and 3% (n 26) made no response.
Of these participants, 26% (n = 268) achieved a degree beyond high school, 72% (n 749)
achieved a high school diploma or its equivalency, 1.5% (n 16) reported less than a high
school education, and 0.5% (n 6) made no response.
Procedure
Women (N I,039) volunteered participation in colleges, mental health centers, and church
settings. Data collection occurred over a 3-year period in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast,
and Southwest areas of the United States. Approximately 20 sites were involved, and many
136 Measurement and EvaluatiOn in Counseling and Development .;. October 2008 •> Volume 41
of the sites prm ided the opportunity for multiple data collection visits. Four administra-
tors (two psychology professors. one ps)chology master's student. and one undergraduate
psychology major) partiCipated m data collection. The t\\O students \\ ho participated in
data collection recei\ ed supervisiOn from their on-site psychology professors. I pro\ ided
the data collectors and the two on-site supen isors with administrati\e guidelines to stan-
dardile the procedure.
In all cases, the participants were told they \\ere participating m research that would
contribute to a better understanding about the relationships \\Omen expenenced \\ ith their
fathers in childhood. rhe participants each recei\ed a consl!nt form. an ACL instrument, and
a booklet that contained both the F8R definitions and the 48-item MP-fDI \\omen were
asked to respond to the materials in the foliO\\ ing order· the r 8R ddinit10ns. the M P-FDI
items. and finally the ACL. The women were asked to rate the1r fathers as they experienced
them 111 childhood (5 to 16 years old). All \\ere cautioned to respond according to their
experiences With their fathers, not how the) "" ished the) had been or how others v1ewed
them In order to avoid confusion among the part1c1pants. admimstrators defined the term
}ather to be the adult male each woman cons1dercd to be her father during childhood.
Finally, administrators d1rected the women to remam anonymous by not placing their
names on the forms . They'" ere asked to protect their confidentiality by physically separat-
ing themseh: es from other partiCipants in the group'" hile responding to the instruments.
After the \\Omen completed their participation. they placed the materials in a sealed box
prO\ idcd by the administrator. The \\Omen \\ere assured \erbally and through consent
f'onns that they could .... ithdra"" participation at any time" ithout concern by simply sub-
mitting their incomplete materials in the same scaled box. Participants \\ere also assured
that only statistical information would be reported Women recci\cd debriefing forms at
the close of their participation that contamed admmtstrator names. postal addresses. and
e-mail addresses for participants who wished information and /or counseling resulting
from their research participation. Additionally, the debriding forms contained the name
and e-mail address or an on-site contact that would be available to the participants fol-
lowing their part1c1patton.
Although 1,064 women participated in the research, some women did not complete all
the materials. Only those women (N 1,039) who responded to the MP-FDI composed the
nonnative sample for this research. Within the nonnatl\e sample, the number of\',omen who
responded to the additional assessments varied I BR (11 997) and ACL (11 719) Those
\\omen who chose to share why they had not completed all the materials cited personal
time constraints as their reason.
Instruments
.\IP-FDI. The final "ers1on ofthe MP-FDI, a 48-item imentory. compnses SJ'\ total scales (8
items per scale) upportl\e-Controlllng Father, Doting-Controlltng Father Distant-
Passi\e Father. lyrant-Physically Abus1ve Father, Absent-fyrant father, and Seducti\c-
Tyrant Father. Fach total scale contains t\\0 subscalcs (Subscalc A & Subscale 8); Subscale
A contains 5 items from its total scale, and Subscale 8 contains 3 items from its total scale.
The complete mvcntory prov1des a father daughter rclat10nsh1p profile that cons1sts of 18
scores (I total scale score and 2 subscale scores tor each of the Sl\. scales).
Participants respond to each MP-rDI ttem by marking one of five bubbles along a 5-point
Lil..ert ( 1932) scale. I never e.\ penenced, 2 seldom experienced, 3 occasionalh• 1'\'-
perienced, 4 frequent(\' experienced, and 5 a!ll'a\'\ e\periencl'd Scoring is relatively
straightfom ard and can be calculated manually or through a number or computer software
programs that compute data entries. The number ass1gncd to a bubble along the continuum
is treated as its numerical value. The scores arc calculated by adding the partlctpant's nu-
merical rating for each item within a scale. The sum of the t\\O subscales (i e. Subscales A
Moosurement and Evaluation lr> COunseling and Development ·:· OCtober 2008 ·:· ~ 41 137
& B) equals the total scale score. For example, if a participant happened to mark Bubble 3,
occasionally experienced, for all items in the MP-FDI Absent-Tyrant Father Total Scale, her
scores would appear as follows: Subscale A, raw score equal to 15; Subscale B raw score
equal to 9; Absent-Tyrant Father Total Scale raw score equal to 24. (An MP-FDI scoring
sheet, a profile form, raw score interpretations, percentiles, and standard T scores may be
obtained from the author upon request.)
ACL. Gough and Heilbrun ( 1983) cited Murray's (1938) need theory in their development
of the ACL personality scales. In their use of Murray's need theory, Gough and Heilbrun
inferred that the ACL personality scales indirectly measure environmental influences that
affect personality development. Therefore, the theoretical link between the ACL personality
measures and the MP-FDI total scales and subscales that assessed childhood father daughter
interactions provided the rationale in the current study to contrast the normative sample's
MP-FDI scale scores with the same sample's ACL scale scores. In both instances, the women
responded to the items according to childhood perceptions of their fathers.
Additionally, numerous research studies reported high measures of reliability and validity
for the ACL scales (Galassi, DeLo, Galassi, & Bastien, 1974; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983;
Mitchell, J985; Pedersen, 1969). The ACL comprises 300 adjectives and is scored for 24
personality need scales. The instrument's extensive number of scales, its firm grounding in
theory, and its long-standing statistical validation has made the ACL a useful instrument to
establish construct-related validity for the MP-FDI total scales and subscales.
RESULTS
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
An EFA, using principal component extraction method and varimax rotation with Kaiser
normalization maximized variable space, explored the factor structure for the 48-item MP-
FDI. The analysis was set to include eigenvalues greater than .80. Results produced 9 factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and 5 additional factors with eigenvalues greater than .80.
The 14 factors (see Table I) explained 68.61% of the variance. Factors I through 9 and
Factor II are each derived from distinct MP-FDI subscales and are consequently named for
those subscales. In contrast, Factors I 0 and 12 are both derived from the same subscale, that
is, Doting Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A. Furthermore, Factors 13 and 14 are both
derived from the Controlling (Doting) Father Subscale B. These findings suggest variability
within the Doting-Controlling Father Total Scale Subscales A and B that is not shown in
other MP-FDI subscales. Bartlett's test of sphericity yielded a statistically significant value
(p < .000), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Oikin measure of sampling adequacy was high (.906), an
indication that the data were appropriate for the factor analysis conducted.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the MP-FDI
CFAs were performed, using the computer program AMOS (Version 4.0; Arbuckle, J 999}, to
further explore the internal structure ofthe 48-item MP-FDL In the first-order factor analysis
model, it was assumed that each scale was correlated to every other scale. The total sample
(N - I ,039), including those who had some missing responses, was randomly divided into
two groups. Because there were very few respondents who did not answer every question,
records with missing data were removed yielding two respondent data sets with completed
data: Group I (n = 513) and Group 2 (n = 509). This process enabled the use of modification
indices and standardized residual covariances that AMOS computes only for complete data.
The model was then tested on each sample to explore consistency in goodness of fit.
Several approaches determined the model's goodness of fit. The overall chi-square test did
not support data fit with the hypothesized model for Group I (X2 - 2,423.62, df= I 0 14,p <.
.001) and Group 2 (X2 = 2,708.97, df= 1014,p < .001). However, given the sensitivity of
138 Measurement and Evaluation In Counseling and Development <• October 2008 <• Volume 41
TABLE 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 48-ltem Merlino-Perkins Father- Daughter
Relationship Inventory (MP-FDI) With Varimax Rotated Factor Structure
Total Variance Explained, Eigenvalues, Factors, and Factor Loadings
MP·FDI Scale/Factor/Item Factor Loading
Supportive-Controll1ng Father Total Scale
Factor 1: SupportiVe Father Subscale A (eigenvalue = 8.70, variance explained = 18.1~o)
27. Even though I was a girl, Dad always expected me to learn, to grow and face
challenges. He believed I should become as independent and self-sufficient
as any man. I loved him for his support. .82
39. Dad was the model of strength for me. His strength was ever present in my
life. Whenever I thought I couldn't face a challenge, I could imagine him say·
ing, "Don't back off, you can do it." .80
9. Dad made It known that he was proud of my accomplishments. He wanted
me to do well. He encouraged me to work and set goals for myself. Through
11 all , I was aware of h1s love. .79
7. Sometimes I resented Dad's insistence that I face every challenge. Dad didn't
seem fazed by my anger toward his pushing. He simply said that he believed 1n
my ab11ity and that it was Important for me to become a capable, self-sufficient
adult. In reality, I loved him for his confidence 1n me. In fact, I was proud of it. .75
11 Dad was always there for me at every bend 1n the road . He helped me w1th all
my problems and gave me every1hing I wanted. In his eyes, I was h1s special
daughter. .58
Factor 7: Controll1ng (Supportive) Father Subscale B (eigenvalue = 1.24, variance
expla1ned • 2.58%)
6. Dad's presence was always felt in my family. Whether in or out of the house,
things pretty much went according to Dad's wishes. .79
4. Dad made most of the rules in my house He was strong willed and the family
always knew what he expected. .75
38. I loved my Dad, but I must admit that he always had to have the last word . He
had strong beliefs and pretty much expected the fam1ly to comply. Mom ran
the house the way he expected and, as his children, we did not cross him. .68
Doting-Controlling Father Total Scale
Factors 10 and 12: Doting Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A
36. Mom and I never had much to say to each other. Although we never argued,
I always felt that she resented my closeness to Dad. .85•
48. When I was a child, Dad thought I was perfect. Sometimes I believe he covered for
me, or refused to see my mistakes so that I would always be the best in h1s eyes. .75"
13. I had a way w1th my Dad; I could get him to do anyth1ng, give me money, buy
me clothes. loan me the car . .. even if Mom was against 11 all. Sometimes I
think he wanted to give me the love he d1dn't get when he was a child. .65"
2. When I was a ch1ld, Dad and I were a team.Yes, Mom was there, but Dad and I had
a special relationship. Somebmes I felt guilty because Mom seemed to resent my
closeness to Dad. Most t1mes. I was really happy that Dad and I were so close. .64•
40. My Dad called me "his princess.• He loved me dearly and wanted me always
to be his good and special daughter. .59"
Factors 13 and 14: Controlling (Doting) Father Subscale B
31 . My Dad had a rotten childhood; no one was there for h1m. I guess that IS why I was
happy that he and I were so close; it made up br what he ~n·t have as a child. .sa•
33. Sometimes I wished my father did not "love· me so much because he had a
hard t1me letting me do my own thing . .83d
3. My Dad and I were always very close and this was nice. But, sometimes I wondered
11 I could just have done my own thing, like move to Australia. It would have hurt
my Dad, I know, and I would have probably been plagued w1th guilt. .66d
Distant-Passive Father Total Scale
Factor 4: Distant Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A (eigenvalue = 2.94, variance
explained = 6.12%)
37. Dad let Mom "rave on" 1n her anger. Poor guy, I wanted to help him stand up to her.
Mom was Impossible. Instead, I tried to be nice to Dad and to ease h1s pain. .81
(Continued on next page)
Moosuromont and E1101uot10n In Counseling oncH>eveiOpment ·:· October 2008 .;. ~ 4 1 139
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 48-ltem Merlino-Perkins Father-Daughter
MP-FDI Scale/Factor/Item Factor Loading
Distant-Passive Father Total Scale (Continued)
Factor 4: D1stant Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A (Continued)
22. I felt so nurturing toward my Dad. We d1dn't talk a lot, but I always felt a special
love from him. l felt as if he enjoyed my company and that our relationship was
special to him. Unfortunately, he was in the habit of lett1ng Mom run-the-show.
I knew he was silently miserable about it. 75
8. Mom was the boss in our home; Dad had to take a back seat. Finally, he simply stopped
trying and stayed in his own wor1d; he seemed to decline before my eyes. 70
45. Dad and I always had an understanding. We both knew, without telling each
other, that he was giving in to my mother in order to keep things calm at home.
I loved him for it. .68
5. Dad didn't say much. Mom seemed to do all the talking for the two of them .
I never felt Dad felt free to say what he thought, and I often wondered if he
really was very happy. .62
Factor9: Passive (Distant) FatherSubscale B (eigenvalue= 1.04, variance explained = 2.17'lo)
1. As a child, I remember my Dad as silent most of the t1me. I don't recall feeling
cnllcal about his silence because it seemed to go w1th the way he was. .73
34. Conservative-Reserved-Quiet-Unemotional- Sad . .• Well not all these
adject1ves describe my Dad, but I must admit that qu1te a few of them do. .70
35. Dad was always home. but he had a knack for staying out-of-the-action. So
often I wished that he would say something when Mom or the kids got on my
case. He never d1d. .63
Tyrant-Physically AbusiVe Father Total Scale
Factor 2: Tyrant Father Subscale A (eigenvalue = 5.61 , variance explained = 11.68%)
15. Dad expected us to behave; if we didn't, he let us know through punishment.
He didn't hit me because I was a girl. Still, his verbal shouts were almost as
punishing as physical pain. .81
17. Dad's discipline of me as a child seemed to come uncomfortably close to
physical spanking. He never struck me, but I was never sure he wouldn't. .78
19. When Dad got angry with me as a child, it seemed to me that h1s scolding went
on and on; his scold1ng seemed to be almost like a form of physical punishment. .70
41. Growing up, I was afraid of my father. He became so angry that I often feared
he would hit me. He never did, but I always thought he might. .68
29. Pretty much the fam1ly focused on what kept Dad happy. He left no doubt about
what displeased h1m. Basically, he got his way around the house or we heard
about 11! H1s anger came uncomfortably close to phys1cal punishment. .53
Factor 6: Physically Abusive Father Subscale B (eigenvalue = 1.36, vanance
explained = 2.83%)
24. Dad was volatile; and yes, he did spank us. We feared him and knew that if
he was angry, he was capable of hurling us. .81
42. Dad was tough on me. I couldn't do much to please h1m. He d1d hit me, especially
when I was young. Basically, I had good reason to be afra1d of him. .81
21 . Dad spanked us all when we were children. We were afraid of h1m and tried
to stay out of his way. .80
Absent-Tyrant Father Total Scale

Factor 3: Absent Father Subscale A (eigenvalue =4.27, vanance expla1ned- 8.90%)
25. My folks were separated when I was young. Although I visited routinely with
Dad, we never knew what to say to each other. It never changed. I think we
both would have liked to be close, but we just didn't know how to do 11. .82
20. I really didn't know my Dad; my folks separated when I was young . Mom never
said anything positive about Dad. On the contrary, she was quick to fault him
and all men 1n general. Still, I always wondered about Dad: I was never sure
what I thought. .78
(Continued on next page)
140 Measurement and EvOkJatlon In Coumc"..ng and DevelOpment ·:· October 2008 ·> ~ 41
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 48-ltem Merlino-Perkins Father-Daughter
MP-FDI Scale/Factor/Item Factor Loading
Absent-Tyrant Father Total Scale (Contmued)
Factor 3: Absent Father Subscale A (Continued)
44. 1was little when my parents separated. llearned qu1ckly that the only person
you can really depend on is yourself. .75
18. I grew up in a woman's world . Mom was there for me, and all of that .. . but
Dad was gone. I grew up looking at men as part of another world. It was a
world I couldn't really know. Even now that I am older, with men around me,
1 feel tense and strange. It is as if the men arrived from another galaxy. .56
12. When my father left, I realized that no one would be there for you always.
I learned that 1n minutes your life could totally chango and that the feeling
of be1ng secure doesn't last. .55
a· =
Factor Tyrant (Absent) Father Subscale B (e1genvalue 1.09, vanance explained
= 2.26%)
47. I always believed that guys would "love and leave you .· It was something
that I had always heard and I never found a reason to doubt 11. .72
16. I wanted to have a relationship with a man, but I never seemed to be com-
fortable at 11. I would always tell myself to be careful because men don't
keep their promises. .70
32. Trust IS something you find among women . A woman will not lind a man
she can entirely trust. I learned that lesson firsthand 1n my own family. .66
Seductive-Tyrant Father Total Scale
Factor 5: Seductive Father Subscale A (eigenvalue =2.22, variance explained =
4.63%)
46. One day, when I was a teenager, Dad made what I thought was a sexual move
toward me. I was really uncomfortable; I learned fast to keep my distance. .79
23. Dad was okay until I grew up. After that he seemed too Interested in my
sexuality. I was uncomfortable with his questions. .77
28 I enjoy flirting with men To be honest, I learned to "handle-men" through
my Dad's flirtations with me. .66
43. I'm not sure what I think about my father. When I was a ch1ld , Dad didn't
seem important to my life. When I became a woman, he scared me. It is
odd; the moment I hit puberty I felt uncomfortable around Dad. It was a
sexual thing that I just couldn't address easily. .54
26. lined to please Dad; it was impossible. lf I did someth1ng out of the ordinary,
he always expected more or found a weakness in what I had accomplished.
Then , when I was a teenager, he made me uncomfortable w1th sexual com-
ments that I tned to avo1d .52
Factor 11 : Tyrant (Seductive) Father Subscale B (eigenvalue = 0 .93, variance
=
explamed 1.94%)
10. I stopped asking Dad his opinion about my clothes when I reached my teens.
He always gave me a look that made me feel uncomfortable. II wasn't someth1ng
I could talk about. I just knew I'd be better off not asking him to comment. .78
30. When I was a teenager, I stopped asking Dad 1f he liked how I looked. It was
a sexual thing. I can't really explain it; I just became too uncomfortable. .72
14. After I reached my teens, Dad got strange toward me. I never wanted to talk
about it because he frightened me, and sometimes even disgusted me. .41
Note. Copynght C 2003 by R. J. Merlino Perkins. Reprinted with permission of the author. All rights
reserved . No part of this inventory may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
=
written permission of the author. Factor 10: eigenvalue = 0.98, variance explained 2.04%; Factor 12:
= =
eigenvalue 0.90, variance explained 1.89%; Factor 13: eigenvalue = 0.85, variance explained =
=
1.77°o; Factor 14: e1genvalue 0 .82. variance expla1ned 1.71 °o. =
• Factor 12. t Factor 10. ' Factor 14. •Factor 13.
M remenl and EVO!uollon In Counsollng and Developmenl ~· Oclobol 2006 <• lttllume 41 141
the chi-square test to sample size (e.g., Bollen & Long, 1993; Maruyama, 1997), additional
goodness-of-fit indices were used (see Table 2).
The values for the goodness-of-fit indices, such as chi-square divided by degree offreedom (CMIN),
comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; see Table 2),
support a good or reasonable data fit for both Group I and Group 2. A good data fit is supported when
CMIN < 3 (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985); Group I CMIN (2.39) and Group 2 CMIN (2.67) indicate
a good fit. Similarly, a good data fit is supported when CFI > .90 (e.g., Byrne, 2001), and RMSEA
< .05 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). CFI scores for Group 1 and Group 2 (0.86, 0.85, respectively)
indicate a reasonable fit, and RMSEA scores for Group I and Group 2 (0.05, 0.06, respectively)
indicate a good fit for Group I and a reasonable fit for Group 2. The same holds true with the use of
two additional indices, expected cross-validation index (ECVI) and Akaike's infonnation criterion
(AIC), given that (a) ECVI indicates a good fit when the obtained value is closer to the saturated
model than the independent value and (b) AIC indicates a good fit when the obtained value is closer
to the saturated model value than to the independent value (e.g., Byrne, 2001).
Standardized path coefficients for both groups are summarized in Table 3. For Group I, the
model yielded standardized path coefficients that were all moderate to high (ranging from a low
of .38 to a high of .92) and multiple R 2 values for individual test items ranging from a low of
.22 to a high of .85. The results were similar for Group 2, with standardized path coefficients
ranging from .38 to .91 and multiple R2 values for the test items ranging between .15 and .82.
MP-FDI Scale Reliability

The Cronbach 's alpha coefficient for internal consistency reliability ranged between .74 and .90
for the six MP-FDI total scales, between .69 and .88 for the six MP-FDI Subscale A measures.
and between .62 and .89 for the six MP-FDI Subscale B measures. For the Controlling (Doting)
Father Subscale B, a = .52 was the lowest and considered marginal (see Table 4). Likewise,
test-retest Cronbach's coefficient alpha (not reported in Table 4) ranged between .75 and .94
for the six pretest MP-FDI total scales, between .78 and .97 for the six posttest total scales,
between .75 and .93 for the six pretest MP-FDI Subscale A measures, between .75 and .95 for
the six posttest Subscale A measures, between .57 and .92 for the six pretest MP-FDI Subscale
B measures, and between .71 and .97 for the six posttest Subscale B measures.
MP-FDI Test-Retest Measures of Stability Over a 2-Week Period
A sample composed of college women residing on the East Coast (N = 50) volunteered
participation and responded twice to the MP-FDI over a 2-week period. All women who
volunteered participation were accepted. No exceptions were made. Testing conditions and
directions were similar to those provided for participants in the nonnative sample.
TABLE 2
Fit Indices for First Order Factor Model for the Merlino-Perkins
Father- Daughter Relationship Inventory
Model x• df CMIN CFI RMSEA ECVI AIC

Group 1 (n = 513) 2,423.62 1014 2.39 0.86 0.05
OM 5.55 843.62
SM 4.78 2,448.00
IM 22.52 1,533.38
Group 2 (n = 509) 2,708.97 1014 2.67 0.85 0.06
OM 6.16 128.97
SM 4.82 2,448.00
IM 25.41 1,290.43
Note. CMIN = x.2 divided by df, CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of ap-
proximation; ECVI = expected cross-validation index; AIC = Akaike's information criterion; OM = default
model; SM = saturated model; IM = independent model.
142 Measurement and Evaluation In CounseHng and Development ~· October 2008 ·~ Volume 41
TABLE 3
Standardized Path Coefficients for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Randomly
Established Groups for the Merllno-Perkins Father-Daughter
Relationship Inventory Subscales
Item Number and Subscale
27.
---------------------------- Group
Support1ve Father Subscale A 79
1
--~----------~
Group 2
.79
39. Support1ve Father Subscale A .80 .82
9. Support1ve Father Subscale A .81 .84
7. Supportive Father Subscale A .64 .72
11. Supportive Father Subscale A 74 •n
6. Controlling (Supportive) Father Subscale B 76 .78
4 Controlling (Supportive) Father Subscale B .81 .82
38. Controlling (Supportive) Father Subscale B 74 .74

36. Doting Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A 47 .39
48. Doting Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A .57 .55
13. Doling Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A .52 .54
2. Doling Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A .65 .60
40. Dotmg Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A .66 .64
31 . Controlling (Doling) Father Subscale B .38 .38
33. Controlling (Dot1ng) Father Subscale B .58 .59
3. Controlling (Dot1ng) Father Subscale B .68 .65
37. D1stant Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A .76 .71
45. Distant Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A .62 .60
1. Passive (Distant) Father Subscale B .55 .59
34. Pass1ve (D1stant) Father Subscale B .76 66
35. Passive (Distant) Father Subscale B .52 .63
15. Tyrant Father Subscale A .73 .74
41 . Tyrant Father Subscale A .n .81
29. Tyrant Father Subscale A .72 79
24. Physically Abusive Father Subscale B .92 .90
42. Physically Abusive Father Subscale B .77 .83
21 . Physically Abusive Father Subscale B .82 .91
25 Absent Father Subscale A .65 .74
20. Absent Father Subscale A .71 .80
12. Absent Father Subscale .57 .53
47. Tyrant (Absent) Father Subscale B .78 .n
16. Tyrant (Absent) Father Subscale B .70 .73
32. Tyrant (Absent) Father Subscale B .68 .79
46. Seductive Father Subscale A 67 .64
23. Seduct1ve Father Subscale A .76 .68
28. Seductive Father Subscale A .45 .49
10. Tyrant (Seductive) Father Subscale 8 .51 .49
30. "TYrant (Seduct1ve) Father Subscale B .56 .52
14. Tyrant (Seductive) Father Subscale B .67 .80
Note. The path coefficients are statistically significant at p < .001 .
Pearson product moment correlations m Table 4 shO\\ ed high stability for all MP-FDI total scales
and ubscal~ across a 2-week test retest period. The Pearson rs ranged between .99 and .83 for
all MP-f Dl total scales and subscales with one exception. The MP-fDI Tyrant (Seducti\e) Father
Subscale 8 score showed a Pearson r of .65, which was interpreted as moderate Further analyse:;
Moo:uremont and Evoluoilon In Counselng and Developmonl <> Oclobef 20013 ·~ \.IOkJme 41 143
TABLE 4
Merlino-Perkins Father-Daughter Relationship Inventory (MP-FDI)
Internal Consistency and Test-Retest Measures for Stability Over a
2-Week Period
Normative Sample Test-Retest (N = 50)

(N=1,039) Test 1 Test 2
MP-FOI Scale M SD a M SD SEM M SD SEM r
Supportive-
Controlling• 23.38 7.17 .81 25.11 5.88 2.42 24.90 5.70 2.35 .83
Subscale A:
Supportiveb 16.30 5.82 .88 18.05 4.54 1.70 18.00 4.68 1.75 .86
Subscale 8:
Controlling
(Supportive)" 7.08 3.28 .82 7.06 2.80 1.12 6.90 3.07 1.23 .84
Doting-
Controllingd 15.38 5.53 .74 16.90 5.36 2.08 15.93 5.58 2.16 .85
Subscale A:
Doting• 10.23 4.05 .69 11 .18 3.96 1.63 10.54 3.82 1.58 .83
Subscale B:
Controlling
(Doling)' 5.16 2.27 .52 5.72 2.46 0.89 5.38 2.46 0.89 .87
Distant-Passivev 14.44 5.85 .81 14.54 5.69 1.97 14.58 6.43 2.23 .88
Subscale A:
Distant• 8.85 4.17 .81 8.84 3.46 1.29 898 4.14 1.55 .86
Subscale B.
Passive
(D1stant) 5.59 2.59 .64 5.70 2.91 1.16 5.60 2.96 1.18 .84
Tyrant-
Physical Abuse 12.92 6.55 .90 13.26 7.48 1.30 12.62 7.31 1 .27 97
Subscale A:
Tyrantk 8.60 4.52 .87 8.90 5.04 1 13 8.28 4.84 1.08 .95
Subscale B:
Physically
Abus1ve' 4.32 2.61 .89 4.36 2.80 0.56 4.34 2.82 0.56 .96
Absent-Tyrant'" 12.22 6.02 86 11 .94 7.40 0.74 11 .94 8.04 0.80 .99
Subscale A:
Absent" 7.31 3.96 .82 7.80 4.46 0.63 7.10 4.90 0.69 .98
Subscale B:
Tyrant
(Absent)• 4.91 2.74 .78 4.68 3.30 0.57 4.84 3.35 0.58 .97
Seductive-TyrantP 9.49 3.13 .78 984 4.07 1.00 9.38 4.10 1.00 .94
Subscale A:
Seductiveq 5.67 1.90 .73 5.70 2.69 0.54 5 .80 2.48 0.50 .96
Subscale B:
Tyrant
(Seductive)' 3.84 1.70 .62 4.14 1.87 1.11 3.58 1.83 1.08 .65
•Supportive-Controlling Father Total Scale. bSupportive Father Subscale A Controlling (Supportive)
Father Subscale B. "Doting-Controlling Father Total Scale. •Doling Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale
A. 'Controlling (Doting) Father Subscale B. gDistant-Passive Father Total Scale. hDistant Father (Mother
Estranged) Subscale A. 'Passive (Distant) Father Subscale B. ITyrant-Physically Abusive Father Total
Scale. kTyrant Father Subscale A. 'Physically Abusive Father Subscale B. mAbsent-Tyrant Father Total
Scale. "Absent Father Subscale A. •Tyrant (Absent) Father Subscale B. PSeductive-Tyrant Father Total
Scale. qSeductive Father Subscale A. 'Tyrant (Seductive) Father Subscale B.
showed high stability for all MP-FDI total scales and subscalcs across means and standard deviations.
Over the 2-week test retest period. most standard deviation -.alues were within .27 of one another.
Likewise. over the 2-week test retest period, most means stayed ,., ithin .46 of one another. Also, the
standard error of measurement was relatively stable, with changes less than 0.11 for many scales.
144 Meosu<ement and Evaluation 1n Counseling ond Developmont ·> October 2008 -~ 'l.'oUme 41
MP-FDI Scale lntercorrelations
fherc \\ere statistically s1gn1ficant Pearson mtercorrelat1ons (p 0 I) 111 the comparison of

the MP-fDl subscalcs w1th other MP-FOI total scales. For example, the MP-FDI Control-
ling (Supportive) Father Subscale 8 score, which measures supportive fathers who were
also controlling, sho\\Cd statistically sign1ficant correlations with the MP-FDI scores for
Controlling (Doting) I ather Subscale B. Tyrant-Phys1cally AbuSI\e Father Total calc
and its subscales. and eductlve-Tyrant Father Total cale and 1ts subscalcs. In contrast,
the MP-FOI Support1ve Father Subscalc A score, \\h1ch measures father support without
control, sho\\cd statistically s1gn1ficant negati\c correlations w1th MP-FDI scores for Tyr•U1t-
Physically Abus1ve rather, Absent-Tyrant Father, and Seductive-Tyrant Father total scales
and rcspecti\e subscalcs. Likewise, the MP-FDI Controlling (Doting) rather Subscalc B
score, which measures father doting with control, showed a statistically significant correla
t1on with the MP-f· Dl score for Tyrant (Seductive) Father ubscalc B
The scores on the \.1P-FDI Distant-Pass1ve rather Total calc Subscales A and 8 also
differed in their correlatiOn \\ ith other MP-FDI total scales and subscales. The D1stant
Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A score,\\ hich measures the daughter's perception
or a v1ctimized distant father, showed a statistically s1gmficant correlation \\ith the MP-
£· Dl Doting f·ather (Mother Estranged) Subscale A score. Although the subscales measure
different father daughter relationshtps, the consequence to both relationships, mother
estranged, resulted tn a stattstically significant correlation between the two subscalcs
and suggested that the constructs were valid (p .0 I).
In contrast, the MP-fOI Passtve (Distant) Father ubscale B score, which measures
daughter's percept tOn of a father who chose to dtstance htmself, shO\\ ed a statically signifi-
cant correlation \\ ith the MP-FDI Tyrant-Phystcally Abusi\e Father, Absent-Tyrant rather,
and lieduclt\e-Tyrant Father total scale scores Furthermore, the scores on the MP-1 DI
Subscales B within the upporttYe-Controlltng Father Total Scale, the Doung-Controllmg
I ather Total Scale, and the Distant-Passive f'ather Total Scale were correlated in their
measure of control (Note that this measure of control was correlated" tth some tyranntcnl
and physically abust\e father daughter interactions.) Finally, the statistically significant
correlations bet\\een MP-FDI Tyrant-Physically Abusive Father, Absent-Tyrant !'ather,
and Seducti\ e-T) rant Father total scales and thetr respective Subscales A and B prO\ ided
support to the construct validity or the t)rannical and physicall) abusive father daughter
constructs measured within the scales (A complete table rcportmg Pear ·on intercorrelations
lor MP-FDI scales may be obtained from the author upon request)
ACL and MP-FDI Construct Validity Procedure
Factor analysis For this study, women responded to the ACL in a dtfTercnt \\ ay than is
commonly prescribed. Accordmg to the ACL admintstrati"e directtons, the respondents arc
asked to mark adjecti\cs that describe hO\\ the) feel about themselves. HO\\ever, in this
research, women marked adJCCttves that described their fathers Consequently, additional
psychometric analysis on the ACL scales was performed.
An EFA \\ ith principal components method and van max rotation \\aS used to explore
the factor structure lor 24 ACL personality scales. These scales assess personaltty needs
and transactional analysts ego states, as suggested by Murray ( 1938) and Berne ( 1961 ),
respect!\ ely. The results produced three factors w tth etgenvalues greater than I 0. These
three factors explamed 82.44°/o of the variance. The Bartlett s test of sphencity \\as statis-
tically significant (p < .000) and the Katser-Meyer-Oikin measure or sampling adequacy
\\aS !ugh (.928), thus indicatmg that the data were appropriate for this factor anal) sis rae-
tor I ( elf-Fulfilled Father) accounted for 45.20% of the total variance and contamed 12
ttems. Factor 2 contained 3 ttems \\ ith postttve loadmgs grouped under the title Avo1dant
Self-Deprecating Father and 3 items w1th negattve loadings grouped under the title llurtful
Moosurocnont and EvaluatiOn In Counseling and Devetopmont •:• October 2008 •:• Volume 41 145
Father. Factor 2 accounted for 27.71% of the total variance. Factor 3 (Free-Spirited Father)
accounted for 9 53% of the total variance.
Each ACL scale was given a label that had a basis in personality theol). The 12 ACL
personality measures with high loadings on Factor I replicate the constructs of needs
(Murray, 1938) and ego states (Berne, 1961) that project an mdivtdual who is rational, lo\-
ing, social, and self-acceptmg. Because such an individual would model independence,
self-acceptance, and achievement, Factor I was labeled the Self-Fulfilled Father. The 3
personality measures with high positive loadings for Factor 2 replicate Murray's needs con-
struct and also describe the coping behavior of individuals who find safety by withdrawing,
letting others speak, and keeping their own thoughts carefully guarded (Adler, 1927; Fromm,
1976; Homey, 1950). Therefore, Factor 2 was labeled the Avoidant Self-Deprecating Father The
3 personality measures with high negative loadings on Factor 2 replicate Murray's needs
construct and also describe the behavior of an individual who copes with self-doubt by
moving aggress1vely toward people (Fromm, 1976; llorney, 1950). Factor 3 was therefore
labeled the Hurtful Father. Finally, the 4 personality measures with high loadings on Factor
4 also replicate Murray's needs and Berne's ego states constructs. They are measures that
describe the uninhibited behavior of individuals who are flexible, free to be themselves, and
open to new and di fTerent experiences (Berne, 1961 ). Therefore, Factor 4 was labeled the
Free-Spmted Father. (A complete table reporting ACL factored scales and the1r loadmgs
may be obtained from the author upon request.)
Correlatiom for .A.1P-FDI scales andACLfactored scales. The Pearson correlations between
the MP-FDI and ACL scales provided evidence of strong construct validity for the MP-FDI
scales (sec Table 5). In most cases, there were statistically significant correlations bet\veen
MP-FDI and ACL scale scores that measure similar and contradictol) father behavioral
constructs (p < .0 I). For example, the MP-FDI Tyrant-Physicall)' Abusi\e Father, Absent-
Tyrant Father, and Seductive-T)'rant Father total scale scores were positively correlated
with the ACL Hurtful Father scale scores but negatively correlated with the ACL Self-
Fulfilled Father scale scores. Also, the MP-FDI Distant-Passive Father Total Scale scores
were positively correlated with the ACLAvoidant Self-Deprecating Father scale scores but
negatively correlated with the ACL Free-Spirited Father scale scores.
Additional evidence of construct validity was provided b) correlations between the MP-
FDI Subscales A and Band ACL scale scores. For example, the Controlling (Supportive)
Father Subscale B score, wh1ch measures father daughter support w1th control, was
positively correlated wtth the ACL Hurtful Father scale score and negatively correlated
w1th the ACL Avoidant Self-Deprecating Father scale score. In contrast, the MP-FDI
Supportive Father Subscale A score, which measures father- daughter support w1thout
control. was negatively correlated with the ACL llurtful Father scale score and pos1t1vely
correlated with the ACL Self-Fulfilled and the Free-Sp1rited Father scale scores.
The MP-FDI Doting-Controllmg Father Subscales A and B were Similar in their (statistically
signtficant) correlation with the ACL Self-Fulfilled Father scale score, but these subscales
differed in their correlation with the ACL Free-Sp1rited Father scale score. Specifically,
Subscale A, which measures father doting, was correlated w1th the Free-Spirited Father ACL
scale score, but Subscale B, which measures father doting with control, was not correlated
with the ACL Free-Spirited Father scale score.
The MP-FDI D1stant-Passive Father Subscales A and B were similar in their posit1ve correla-
tion with the ACL Avoidant Self-Deprecating Father scale score and negative correlation with
the ACL Free-Spirited Father scale score. However these subscales differed in their correlation with the
ACLSelf-Fulfilled and Hurtful Father scale scores. Specifically, the MP-FDI SubscaleAscore, which
measun.-s distant father-<laughter interactions m which the daughter perceived her father victimized,
was negatively correlated w1th the ACL Hurtful Father scale score. In contrast, the Subscale B score,
which measures distant father-daughter interactions in which the daughter did not perceive her father
as victimized, was negatively correlated with the ACL Self-Fulfilled Father scale score.
146 Measurement and E\IOUatiOtl In Counsolng and Oovelopment ·> October 2006 ·> ~ 41
TABLE 5
Pearson Correlations Between the Merlin<>-Perklns Father-Daughter Relationship
Inventory (MP-FDI) Scales and Adjective Checklist Factored Scales
Adjective Checklis t Factored Scale

MP-FDI Scale Self-Fulfilled Avoidant Hurtful Free-Spirited
Supportive-Controlling' .53** -.08 03 .22**
Subscale A: Supportiveb .66** .11 -.21** .27**
Subscale B: Controlling
(Supportive)• .00 -.34** .43** - 01
Dotmg-Controlling~ .26** .04 06 .16**
Subscale A: Doting• .25** .07 -.10 .1 6**
Subscale B: Controlling
(Doling)' .20** .02 03 .10
Distant-Passiveg -.15** .33** -.21 ** -.38..
Subscale A· Distant" - .04 .35** -.29** -.26**
Subscale B. Passive
(Distant)· -.29** .19** 02 -.45**
Tyrant-Physically Abusive -.36** -.36** .49** - .09
Subscale A: Tyrant• -.35** -.37** .51** - .10
Subscale B: Physically
Abus1ve -.30** -.25** .35** -.10
Absent-Tyrant·• -.44** -.15** .23** - .05
Subscale A: Absent• -.38** -.09 .14** - .05
Subscale B: Tyrant
(Absent)• -.43** -.19** .28** - .03
Seduct1ve-Tyranto -.27** -.15** .26** - .04
Subscale A: Seduchve1 -.22** -.15** .24** -.00
Subscale B: Tyrant
(Seductive)' - .27** -.12 .23** - .01
Note. Self-Fulfilled = the Self-Fulfilled Father, Avoidant = the Avoidant Self-Deprecating Father: Hurt-
ful = the Hurtful Father; Free-Spirited = the Free-Spirited Father. Boldface is used to highlight the
slgn1f1cant correlations.
•supportive-Controlling Father Total Scale. bSupportive Father Subscale A. <Controlling (Supportive)
Father Subscale B. •Doting-Controlling Father Total Scale. •Doting Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale
A. 'Controlling (Dotmg) Father Subscale B. gDistant· Passive Father Total Scale. "Distant Father (Mother
Estranged) Subscale A. 'Pass1ve (Distant) Father Subscale B. !Tyrant-Physically Abusive Father Total
Scale. 'Tyrant Father Subscale A. Phys1cally Abus1ve Father Subscale B. '"Absent-Tyrant Father Total
Scale. "Absent Father Subscale A. •Tyrant (Absent) Father Subscale B. PSeduct1ve-Tyrant Father Total
Scale. QSeduct1ve Father Subscale A. 'Tyrant (Seduct1ve) Father Subscale B.
··p < 01
DISCUSSION
This study provides evidence that supports the reliability and valid ity of the MP-FDI. The
Cronbach's alpha for internal cons tstency reliabtlity rangtng from a low of .69 to a htgh of
90, with the two exceptions of Controlling (Dottng) Father Subscale B (a 52) and Tyrant
(Seductive) Father Subscale B (a .62). Test retest measures of stabil ity over a 2-week
penod were high the Pearson rs ranging from a low of.83 to a high of.99, with the excep-
tion of the Tyrant (Seducttve) Father Subscale B (r .65). T he Tyrant-Physically Abusive
Father. Absent-Tyrant Father, and Seductive-Tyran t I ·ather total scale scores showed the
highest stabi lity (rs rangtng from a low of .94 to a high of .99). Throughout the test retest
procedures. the standard deviation and standard error of measurement remained stable.
An EFA followed by a CFA provided evtdence of the construct validity for the 48 items
of the six MP-FD I total scales and their subscales. Additional C\'idence in this regard
was provided by t he Pearson tntercorrelations for the MP-FD I total scale and subscale
147
scores and the Pearson correlations between the MP-FDI total scale and subscale scores
w1th ACL scale scores. Finally, the MP-FDI correlatiOnal analys1s mdicated the presence
of correlations that pred1cted problematic adult developmental consequences for women
with MP-FDI specified father daughter childhood relationships.
MP-FDI Controlling (Supportive) and Controlling (Doting) Father Subscales 8
Implications for the research and practice of counseling emerged from the intercorrelations
between the MP-FDI Controlling (Supportive) Father Subscalc B score and the MP-FDI
Tyrant-Phys1cally Abusive Father Total Scale and Seductive-Tyrant Father Total Scale scores.
Th1s finding is additionally supported by the correlation between the MP-FDI Controlling
(Supportive) Father Subscale B score and the ACL llurtful Father scale score. Furthermore,
the Controlling (Doting) Father Subscale B score was correlated with the MP-FDI Control-
ling (Supportive) Father Subscale Band Tyrant (Seductive) Father Subscale B scores.
Most evident in the aforementioned findings is a father's need for control during interac-
tions w 1th his daughter. The results show that fathers who support their daughters Within
an atmosphere of control may be perceived to be tyrannical; that IS, women who described
their fathers as controlling (supportrvc) responded to many of the inventory items in a
manner that correlated their scores with those of women who perceived their fathers to be
tyrannical and abusive. Furthermore. the study's part1c1pants who perceived the1r fathers
as controlling (dotmg) responded to many of the MP-FDI1tems m a manner that correlated
with scores for responses to MP-FDI items of women who experienced tyranmcal and
seductive fathers .
Although these findings are limited to the MP-FDI normative sample, the psychomctnc
analyses performed in this study support the relatiOnal patterns. If fathers arc perceived to be
controlling, whether supportive or doting, they can affect their daughters' adult development
111 a manner similar to fathers who arc tyrannical or abus1ve. These results indicate a need for
fathers and daughters to communicate openly with one another. What the father may perce1vc
to be behaviors that demonstrate concern for his daughter's welfare can be experienced di!Tcr-
ently by his daughter, and it is the daughter's perceptions of their interactions that have been
shown to a!Tect her sense of personal worth and her self-esteem (Gecas & Schwalbe, 1986).
Further research is needed to examine the point at wh1ch a father's control (supportive and
dotmg) is perce1vcd by his daughter to be tyrannical or perhaps abusive.
Theory suggests that daughters may respond to the1r fathers' control in one of three ways:
compliance, rebelhon, or procrastination (Horney, 1950). In compliance, they accept the
unspoken message that they cannot take good care of themseh es. In rebellion, they may
turn away from their fathers' values and ambitiOns to find a false sense of maturity through
noncompliant behaviors and hfestyles. In procrastmation, they may respond by doing very
little: they ne\cr quite find the appropriate time to pursue the1r O\\ n objectives (Downs &
Rindels, 2004: Goulter & Minninger, 199-l; Horney, 1950, Perkins, 200 I: Secunda, 1992).
MP-FDI Distant-Passive Father Subscales A and 8
Additional counseling concerns emerged from correlation findings for the MP-FDI Distant-
Passive rather Subscales A and B. The distant father, who is commonly described as the man
who is present in the fami ly but does not get involved in the raising of his children (Secunda,
1992), has escaped attention in theory and research. Normally, society has valued fathers
for their ability to be family providers; the need for fathers to actively parent their children
has not been a senous consideration for female adult development (Doyle, 1989).
In th1s study, the correlations show that the daughter's experience of a distant father af-
fects not only her relationship with her father but also her relationship with her mother. The
findmgs shov. MP-FDI correlations with the Distant Father (Mother Estranged) Subscalc
148 Measurement and Evoluolion '" Counseling and Oevotopment ·:· October 2008 ·~ IA:llume 4 1
A (a passi\e father perceived by his daughter to be the victim of her demanding mother)
and the Doting Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A (an enmeshed father daughter re-
lationship in ,.,hich the mother IS estranged). Although doting father enmeshment. \\ hich
triangulates the family and distances a daughter from her mother. has been a concern shared
by researchers and counselors (Freud. 1988: Perkins. 200 I. l)ecunda, 1992), few research-
ers have associated mother estrangement with the distant father. a relationship that also
diStances a daughter from her mother and can become an issue m her adult development
(Secunda, 1992).
Women,., 1th doting fathers may rely on their lathers' support to sustam them through develop-
mental crises, a support that also demands a le\ el of father control and can become a counseling
issue in women's adult li\es (Freud. 1988) Women with distant fathers and estranged mothers
must rely on an unspoken. perhaps fantasi.ted (Secunda, 1992). father daughter relationship for
emotional support. Adult development issues for women who arc distanced from their mothers
and who maintain an unspoken, undemonstrated relationship ,., ith their fathers ha\e not been
addressed in research. The MP-FDI scales pro\ ide an opportumty tor researchers and practitioners
in counseling to examine the subtle but potentially hurtful consequences to the father-daughter
rclationo;hip ao;sessed m Distant Father (Mother Estranged) Subscale A.
In contrast. the MP-FDI Passive (Distant) Father Subscale B measures a daughter's percep-
tion that her father's pass1vity is of his own choosing. The Passive (Distant) Father Subseale
B score is correlated ,., ith the MP-I'DI Tyrant-Physically Abus1ve f·ather. Absent-Tyrant
Father. and ~eductive-Tyrant Father total scale scores. Although passi\e and t)fannical
behaviors appear to be incompatible. the correlations found m th1s study sho'' that some
daughters perce1ve their lathers' passI\ ity to be a lbm1 of pass1ve aggression.
If daughters expenence tyrannical fathers. they often grow to expect their fathers· disdain
and cope through compliance, a behavior that leaves them feelmg as if they are never good
enough. In contrast. daughters may choose to respond with anger: that is, they become
verbally abusi\e with or s1lentl) disdainful of their fathers. F'inally, daughters may engage
in rebellious, risk-taking acts that could lead them toward problematic adult relatiOnships
(Brook. Whiteman. Brook, & Gordon, 1988; Downs & Rmdels. 2004; llorncy, 1950; Perkins,
200 I; Petne & Chamberlain, 1983). The finding that daughters with passive fathers may
experience relational consequences similar to those of daughters\\ ho e:xpcrience tyrannical
and abusi\e fathers has gone unnot1ced. thus future research IS needed.
In conclusion. the results 111 this study pro\ ide support to the reliabilit) and 'alidity of the
MP-FDI total scales and subscales. Consequently. the imcntory provides a ust!ful instru-
ment for counselors and scholars who seck to understand father daughter relationships.
MP-1'01 scales and subscales shov. the ability to unco..,er IHdden dynam1cs that take place
bet,.,een a young daughter and her father during her de\elopmental years. dynamics that
ha\e the potential to become troublesome lor her in adulthood.
REFERENCES
Adler, A. ( 1927). The pracllce and theon· oj indll·idual pq·clwlog1 Ne\\ Yorl.:: llarcourt. Brace &
World.
AlnS\\Orth, M 0 S.• Blehar, M. C . Waters. E.. & Wall. S. ( IQ78). PaucnH ofaua chmc/11: A fll_l'clwlogical
Hllc/1 ofthe 1/nmge Hluatum Hillsdale. NJ : I rlbaum .
Amato, P.R. ( 191) I). Parcnlal absence during childhood and dcprcssaon 1n lalcr hfc '\ocioloJ!ical Quar/!'1'(1',
32, 541 556.
Amato, P. R., & Ravera, F. (I 1)99). Parenlal IllHill ement and chaldrcn 's beha1 aor problems. Journal of
\farrlll!i<' am/the Fmmlr 6/ 375 384.
Arbuckle. J. L. ( 1999). AMOS 4 0 [Compulcr sultwarc ]. Chicago Small Waters Corporation.
Am1sdcn, G. C.. & Greenberg. \1, T. (1987). The lmentory of Parenl and Peer Allachmenl: lnda1idual
ditlcrcnccs and lhear relationship 10 psychological wcll-bcang an lldolesccncc. Journal of }mllh ami
Adolelccnce, /6, 427-454.
Meosu"emont and Evaluotlon an Counseling and Development ·:· October 2008 ·:· ~ 41 149
Bannon. J. A.. & Southern, M. L. (1980). Father-absent \vomen's self-concept and modes of relating to
men. Se.\ Role!i, 6. 75- 83.
Barnett, R. C.. Ktbria. ., Baruch, G. K.. & Pleck, J. H. ( 1991). Adult daughter-parent relationships and
thetr assoctallons \\ith daughter..' subjective \\ell-being and ps)chological distress. Journal of Afar-
riage and the Faml~\', 53, :!9-42.
Banholomc\\, K.. & Horo\\ itz. L. ( 1991 ). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category
model. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psycholog1: 6/, 226- :!44
Berne, E. ( 1961 ). Trunsactional analrsis in psychotherap1 'ew York. Grover Press.
Bollen K. A.. & Long, J S (Eds.). (1993). Testing s truclllral equatwn models ewbury Park, CA:
Sage
Brook. J. S., Whtteman, M., Brook, D. W., & Gordan, A S. ( 1988). Depressive mood in female college
students: Father· daughter interactional patterns. Journal ofGem!tic Psychology. 149. 485 504.
Bro\\ne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. ( 1993 ). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J S. Long
(Eds.), Te.\ting slmctural equation models (pp. 136 162). Nc\vbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2001) Structural equation modeling 1dth AMOS Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Doherty, W. J.. Kouneski. E. F., & Erickson, M. F. ( 1998). Responsible fathenng: An overview and con-
ceptual framc\\ork. Journal of Marriage and the Famih: 60, 277- 29:!.
Downs, W. R., & Rindels, B. (2004). Adulthood depression. anxiety, and trauma symptoms: A comparison
of women ''ith nonabusive, abusive, and absent father figures in childhood. ~'iolence and Victim\ , 19.
659 671.
Do~ le, J. A. ( 1989). The male e.rperience (2nd ed.). Dubuque. lA: Bro\\n.
Ellis. B. J.. McFad)en-Ketchum. S., Dodge, K. A., Petttt, G. S.• & Bates, J. E. ( 1999). Quality of early fam-
ily relationships and indiv tdual differences in the timtng of pubertal maturation in girls: A longttudtnal
test of an evolutiOnary model. Journal of Per~onahty and Soc tal P~ycholag1: 77, 387--40 I.
Fmley, G. E.. & Sch\\artz, S. J (2004). The father involvement and nurturant fathering scales: Retrospcc-
ttve measures for adolescent and adult children. Educational and P1rcha/agical Measurement, 64,
143- 164.
Ftnley, G. h .. & Schwartz, S. J. (2006). Parsons and Bales re\ tstted: Young adult children's charactenLatton
of the fathering role. P~ychology of Men and Mascullllll\'. 7. 4:!- 55.
Foulad1 , R. T.. Moller, N. P.. & McCarthy, C. J. (2006) Examination oftnternal consistency and construct
validity of scores on the Parental Attachment Scale. Preliminary psychometric results. Meamrcment
and £1•a/uation in Counseling and Del'l!lopment, 39, ? 30.
Freud, S. ( 19!18). M1 three mothers and other passions New York: University Prl!ss.
Fromm, E. ( 1976). To have or to be. New York: Harper & Row
Galasst, J. P.. DeLo. J S., Galasst, M. D., & Bastien, S. (1974). fhe College Self-Expre~ston Scale; A
measurl! of as~crttveness . Behm·ior Therapy. 5, 165 171 .
Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. ( 1986). Parental behavtor and adolescent self-esteem. Journal of \farriage
ancltht f ami/1·. 48. 37-46.
Gough. II. G. ( 1952). The Adjective Check LISI Palo Alto, CA: Consultmg Psychologtsts Press.
Gough. II. G.. & lletlbrun, A. ( 1983). The Adjecm ·e Check f.ill manual Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press.
Goulter, B., & Mtnninger, J. ( 1994). The father daughter dance Ne\\ York: Avon.
Grieco, E. M•• & Cassidy. R C (:!00 I). Overvie~t· of race and Hispanic origiw 2000 [Table I]. Retrte\ed
March 10,2006, from U.S Census Bureau Web stte: http://w\\w,census.gov prod/2001pubs 1c2kbr01-
1.pdf
I Ieiss, G. 1:.. Berman, W. H.. & Sperling. M. B. ( 1996). Fi\c scales in search of a construct: Exploring con-
tinued attachment to parents tn college students. Joumal of Per.wnality AI.\ enment. 67, 102- 115.
I lethertngton. r:. M. ( 1972). Effects of father absence on personality development in adolescent daughters.
Developmental P.1ycholog)~ 7. 313- 325.
Horney, K. (1950). Neumsis and human gr0111h New York: Norton.
Kohut, II. ( 1971 ). The ana~nis of the self New York: International Universittcs Press.
Mahler, M S.. Pine, 1- , & Bergman, A. ( 1975) The p.1yclwlogical birth of the human infam Symbiosii
and individuation New York: Baste Books.
Mandara, J., Murray, C B, & Joyner, T. N (2005). The impact of fathers' absence on African American
adolescents' gender role development. Sex Roles, 53, 207- 220.
Marsh, II. W., & Hocevar, D. ( 1985). ApplicatiOn of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept:
first- Wld higher-order fuctor models and their invariancc across groups. P\Jrhological Bulletin, 97, 562- 582.
150 Measurement and Ev~ In Couosottng and Development ·~ October 2008 ·:· IA:)Iurno 41
Marstgho, W., Amato, P., Day, R.. & Lamb, M. E. (2000) Scholarshtp on fatherhood in the 1990s and
beyond. Journal of !damage and the Fami~r. 62, 1173 1191
Maruyama.(, M. ( 1997). 8CIIic~ ofstn1ctural cquatum modeling Thousand Oaks, C.<\ Sage
Mttchdl. J \ J (~d . ) ( 1985). The ninth mental memurcment~ yearbook (Vol I). Ltncoln The Buro'
ln,tttute of Mental Measurements. lJmversity of ebraska Press.
Murray. II. A. ( 1938). £.\plorattons in per.sanaluy. Ne\\o York: Q,, ford Unt~ersity Press.
Pedersen, D. M. ( 1969). Evaluation of self and others and some personality correlates. Journal ofP.lydml-
08), 71, 225 244.
Perktns, R. (200 I). The father-daughter relationship: Familial transactions that impact a daughter's style
of hfi:. College Student Journal. 35. 616 626.
Petne, K.. & Chamberlain. K. ( 1983). Hopelessness and social desirability as moderator variables in pre-
dicttng sutctdal beha\ tor. Journal of Consulting and Climcul Jln·chology, 51 485-487.
Secunda, V. ( 1992). Women and their fathers. Nc1~ York: Bantam-Doubleday Dell
Seitter, J. A. ( 1991 ). Relationships between fathers and chtldrcn who live apart: fhe father's role after
sep.tration. Journal of Marriage and the Fami/1: 53. 79- 101.
Shin, II. B. (1~t1h Bruno. R.). (2003). Language lll'l' and EngltiiHpeakingabllitt•. 2000 [Table 2]. Retrieved
Murch I0, 2006, from U C) Census Bureau Web stte: http://w\~w.census.govfprod 2003pubs'c2kbr-
29.pdf
liulhvan, H S ( 1953 ). The intaptrsonaltheory ofpsychiatrv New York: Norton.
l S. Census Bureau. (200 I). Tahle 74 Self-described re/igio111 idt'nti{ication ofadult pop11lation: 1990 and
'001. Retrie1ed July 25. 2008, from http:/ www.census.go~ fcompcndta statab tables 08s0074.pdf
Welntak, 1.., & Po,cy, K. (2005). Household incomt•: 1999 [fable 1]. Retrte\ed March 10, 2006. from US
Cen us Bureau Web sttc: http:/ \HH\.census.gov prodl2005pubs 1c2kbr-J6.pdf
Moosuremenl and EvoUallon In Counseling ond Oevelopmen! .;. Oclobef 2008 ·~ \A:)IUmo 41 151

Perkins 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perkins 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and

ISSN: 0748-1756 (Print) 1947-6302 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uecd20

Merlino-Perkins Father-Daughter Relationship

Rose J. Merlino Perkins

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2008.11909826

Published online: 19 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Rose J. Merlino Perkins

The \{erlino Perkins Father Daughter Relations/up Jm·enton. a self-report instrument. m-

INITIAL SCALE DEVELOPMENT: LITERATURE REVIEW

Father-Daughter Behavioral Constructs

1988; Goulter & Minninger, 1994; Perkins, 200 I; Secunda, 1992).

I. Supporttvc-Controlling Father Total Scale

INITIAL CONTENT VALIDATION

Procedure and Instruments

Members (n 997 women) of the normative sample volunteered participation in a two-

Conclusion and Additional Research Questions

Expert Judge Content Validation

Factor Analyses and Assessments of Reliability and

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the MP-FDI

Absent-Tyrant Father Total Scale

MP-FDI Scale Reliability

Model x• df CMIN CFI RMSEA ECVI AIC

38. Controlling (Supportive) Father Subscale B 74 .74

Note. The path coefficients are statistically significant at p < .001 .

Normative Sample Test-Retest (N = 50)

fherc \\ere statistically s1gn1ficant Pearson mtercorrelat1ons (p 0 I) 111 the comparison of

ACL and MP-FDI Construct Validity Procedure

Adjective Checklis t Factored Scale

MP-FDI Controlling (Supportive) and Controlling (Doting) Father Subscales 8

MP-FDI Distant-Passive Father Subscales A and 8

You might also like