Running Head: PARENT ANGER SCALE

Psychometric Evaluation of the Parent Anger Scale

Tamara Del Vecchio

Olga Jablonka

Raymond DiGiuseppe

Jacqueline Notti

St. John’s University, Queens, New York

Oana David

Babes-Bolyai University, Romania

Corresponding author: T. Del Vecchio, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, 8000 Utopia Parkway,

Queens, NY 11439 USA. E-mail: delvecct@stjohns.edu.

Citation for published version:

Del Vecchio, T., Jablonka, O., DiGiuseppe, R., Notti, J., & Gavita, O. (2017). Psychometric evaluation of the

Parent Anger Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 3013-3025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-

0824-3
PARENT ANGER SCALE 1

ABSTRACT

This study assessed the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Parent Anger Scale in a sample of 326

parents of children ages 2-18 years. Exploratory factor analysis identified a two-factor solution: parent anger

experience and parent anger expression. Subscales based on the items of each factor demonstrated excellent internal

consistency and concurrent validity with measures of other negative affect and parent discipline. The Parent Anger

Scale subscales also evidenced incremental validity, predicting discipline behaviors uniquely above that predicted

by parents’ general anger and general anxiety. Specifically, analyses indicated that the Parent Anger Scale

experience and expression scores were each unique predictors of inconsistent and punitive parental discipline after

controlling for the influences of general anger and anxiety. However, only the Parent Anger Scale expression score

had a significant incremental effect in negatively predicting positive parenting above the effects of parents’ general

anger and anxiety. Results suggest that the Parent Anger Scale is a valid and useful measure for assessing anger

specific to the parent-child context. However, additional research exploring the factor analytic structure and

predictive value of the Parent Anger Scale in a clinical sample is needed.

Keywords: Anger, Discipline, Measurement, Parenting, Emotion

PARENT ANGER SCALE 2

INTRODUCTION

Parents’ anger has been associated with child abuse, dysfunctional discipline strategies, and child

internalizing and externalizing behaviors problems (Baydar, Reid, & Webster‐Stratton, 2003; Denham et al., 2000;

Dix, 1991). Parents’ elevated levels of anger are consistently associated with abusive (Rodriguez & Green, 1997)

and punitive parenting styles that include overreactive, coercive, and hostile discipline (Ateah & Durrant, 2005;

Leung & Slep, 2006), and child behaviors that elicit the most maternal anger result in the most frequent

endorsements of physical discipline (Peterson, Ewigman, & Vandiver, 1994). Parents’ anger is also associated with

self-reported and observed permissively inconsistent discipline, but less consistently so (Del Vecchio & O’Leary,

2008; Leung & Slep, 2006). Regarding positive parent behavior, research indicates that parents’ emotional support

and nurturance behavior decreases as their anger increases (McKay, Fanning, Paleg, & Landis, 1996). Moreover,

parents who present with difficulties in anger regulation are less effective in regulating their child's affect when their

child becomes emotionally upset (Ben-Porath, 2010).

Although there is extensive literature on the negative impact of parents’ anger on children’s developmental

trajectories, the research continues to rely almost exclusively on the use of general measures of anger; thus,

assuming that levels of trait anger are most important in aiding our understanding of the role of this emotion on

parent behavior and in our development of emotion-focused interventions. Eckhardt and Deffenbacher (1995) noted

that most of the research on clinical anger problems has focused on anger as a general trait, or a generalized disorder

representing something like generalized anxiety disorder. They proposed that any consideration of anger as a form

of psychopathology should allow for the possibility that people can experience problematic anger in specific

relationships or in specific environments. Similarly, most clinicians tend to evaluate any anger symptom as an

indicator of a serious pervasive disorder (Lachmund, DiGiuseppe, & Fuller, 2005). However, our clinical experience

suggests that many parents we treat score average on measures of general anger, yet they report experiencing high

levels of child-directed anger. Parent-child context-specific anger could be a better predictor of parent behavior than

a trait measure of general anger. DiGiuseppe, DelVecchio, David, Venezia, and McKiernan (2016) found a similar

phenomenon in studying intimidate partner aggression. They developed a Romantic Partner Anger Scale that

predicted a person’s engaging in domestic aggression better than a generalized measure of anger. Similarly, research

has found that specific measures of test anxiety provide be a better predictor of behavior in testing situations than

does a general anxiety measure (Morrow, Mood Disch, & Kang, 2015; Sarason, 1961).
PARENT ANGER SCALE 3

In our search for measures related to parent anger, we found two measures targeting parents’ anger: Parent

Affect Test (PAT; Linehan, Paul, & Egan, 1983) and Parent Anger Inventory (PAI; Hansen & Sedlar, 1998). The

PAT measures the extent to which parents feel angry or pleased in response to 40 items reflecting positive and

negative child behavior situations. Similar to the PAT, the PAI measures the intensity of parents’ anger in response

to 50 child-related situations. The PAI correlated moderately with and predicted child behavior uniquely after

controlling for a measure of general anger (Sedlar & Hansen, 2001), adding credence to the notion that the value of

context-specific measures of anger might be overlooked. Both scales emphasize anger experienced in response to a

series of child triggers and can aid in our understanding of the types of situations likely to spark parent anger.

However, both these existing scales of parent anger consider only one aspect of parent anger. In their examination of

the ADS, DiGiuseppe and Tafrate (2005; 2007) found that averaging ratings across lists of anger provocations was

not a useful strategy for assessing anger because such trigger oriented items failed to distinguish between clinical

and non-clinical groups. For some of the items they used to assess general anger, the non-clinical groups rated the

items as leading to more intense anger than those in the clinical group. Moreover, in their review, DiGiuseppe and

Tafrate (2007) concluded that assessing intensity of anger across possible provoking situations was the least helpful

means of assessing anger. Although the PAT anger scores have differentiated at-risk mothers (i.e., those attending

parents anonymous) from a control sample of mothers (Linehan, et al, 1983), the structure of the scale and the

reliance on ratings of anger triggers might have limited its usefulness. Findings from DiGiuseppe and Tafrate (2005;

2007) suggest that a more sensitive and informative measure should not rely on this one aspect of anger assessment.

Power and Dalgleish (1997; 2016) theorized that to understand problematic emotions, clinicians should

assess across several domains including the specific eliciting stimuli and the scope of such stimuli, cognitions

associated with the emotion, aspects of the emotional experience such as, duration of emotional episodes and

duration of time the emotion has been maladaptive, the motives generated by the emotion, and behaviors aroused by

the emotion. Affect arousal has usually been assessed by measuring the frequency, intensity, and duration of

emotional episodes (Deffenbacher, et al.,1996). However, they suggested that broadening the approach to emotions,

beyond frequency, intensity, and duration, would aid our understanding of emotion function and dysfunction and

better influence treatment planning. The ADS (DiGiuseppe & Tafrate, 2005), a general measure of anger, was

developed broadly on the model of emotional disorders proposed by Power and Dalgleish (1997). DiGiuseppe and

Tafrate (2005) developed 18 subscales from the existing literature ensuring that there were items within each of the
PARENT ANGER SCALE 4

domains of functioning proposed by Power and Dalgelish. The cognitive domain included scales measuring

resentment, suspiciousness, rumination, and acting without thinking or impulsivity. The emotional experience/

arousal domain consists of scales assessing physiological symptoms of anger, the duration of anger episodes, and the

duration of time that the person had a problem with anger. The motives domain included scales assessing revenge,

tension reduction / experiential avoidance, and coercion. The behavior domain consisted of scales measuring

physical, verbal, relational, and passive aggression, as well as secretive or covert aggression, and anger-in

(DiGiuseppe & Tafrate, 2005). Factor analysis of the ADS supports two broad factors: internalizing anger and

externalizing anger. The internalizing factor had significant loadings from subscales measuring anger triggers, anger

experiences, anger-in expression and the motive of tension reduction. The externalizing factor had significant

loading on subscales measuring, physical, verbal, passive, relational, and secretive aggression and the motives of

revenge and coercion. From the ADS item pool, DiGiuseppe and Tafrate (2005) developed a briefer version, the

Anger Disorder Scale – Short Form (ADS-SF), which consisted of 18 items. One item was selected from each of the

18 subscales of the ADS based on three criteria: the item had the highest correlation with the scale score, best

discriminated between the normative group and a clinical comparison group, and the item, if removed, lowered the

alpha coefficient the most. The ADS-SF total score was strongly correlated with the 75 item ADS (r > .90),

correlated equally with other measures of anger (e.g. STAXI-2), and discriminated between groups of normals, those

seeking help for anger problems, clients referred for treatment by the courts, and prison inmates. An exploratory

factor analysis of the ADS-SF items yielded results that were similar to the ADS long form. That is, the items from

the specific subscales loaded together reflecting internalizing and externalizing anger, as the subscales did on the

ADS.

The Parent Anger Scale was built on the item content of the 18 items of the ADS-SF. Items were reworded

to reflect a parent’s anger at their child and, in addition to this original set of items, items were added which were

salient to parent child relationship. A 30-item Parent Anger Scale was first administered to a sample of more than

300 Romanian parents of children ages 4 to 17 years (Gavita, David, DiGiuseppe, & Del Vecchio, 2011). Though

the authors anticipated that this scale would also yield two factors, as did the ADS and the ADS-SF, exploratory

factor analysis yielded a one-factor solution with high internal consistency, alpha coefficient of .95. The Parent

Anger Scale had small correlations with PAI anger intensity scores and STAXI-2 anger expression index scores (rs

= .20-.22). The Parent Anger Scale correlated moderately (r = .36) with the subscale anger/hostility of the Profile of
PARENT ANGER SCALE 5

Mood States (POMS, Shacham, 1983) and with the other negative emotion sores on the POMS (rs = .30-.38).

Finally, the Parent Anger Scale uniquely predicted parental stress after controlling for general anger as measured by

the POMS anger subscale. Although this initial examination of the Parent Anger Scale supported its internal

consistency, the relation to other anger measures and other measures of negative affect, and its usefulness in

predicting stress scores over and above general anger, it did not offer guidance as to whether the Parent Anger Scale

was useful in predicting parent behavior.

This study built upon the work by Gavita et al. (2011) by re-examining the factor structure and reliability of

the Parent Anger Scale and it’s the relation with self-reported parent behavior. More than any other emotion,

researchers have defined and assessed anger based on its internal experiences and its behavioral expression (Sheff,

2015). The ADS, which served as the item pool for the PAS, had a similar two-factor solution reflecting internal

anger experiences and external anger expression. However, Gavita et al. (2011) identified a one-factor solution as

the best fit for their data. Thus, we examined the PAS for a one-factor solution and, also, for the best factorial model

to fit the data. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency. We further explored the concurrent validity of the

Parent Anger Scale by examining it within the nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) in which parent

anger resides, that is, in respect to related variables as supported by parent anger theory. Conceptually and

empirically, anger is associated with parent discipline and child externalizing behavior. The recalibration theory of

anger proposes that anger evolved to resolve conflicts in favor of the angry individual (Sell, Tooby, & Cosmides,

2009). Thus, parent anger might result in overly punitive discipline in an effort to approach a desired goal, rectify a

perceived injustice, or cease the aversive, anger-eliciting conflict. In addition, parents might engage inconsistent

discipline, in which the escalation of angry, punitive parenting is followed by parents’ capitulation to their children’s

demands, thus negatively reinforcing parents’ escape from anger-eliciting conflict (Patterson, 2002). Parents’ use of

punitive or inconsistent discipline works to resolve the immediate conflict with their children at the cost of

developing more functional parent-child interaction patterns. Thus, we hypothesized that parent anger would

significantly and positively correlate with parent-reported inconsistent and punitive discipline, and child conduct

problems. Relatedly, we expected parent anger to be negatively related to positive parenting. In addition, we

hypothesized that parent anger would be associated with more emotional flooding and parental distress. Both

flooding and parental distress are conceptually related to anger in that they are also negative experiential states.

However, flooding is distinct from anger, instead reflecting the extent to which a parent perceives their child’s
PARENT ANGER SCALE 6

negative affect as unexpected and overwhelming (Del Vecchio, et al., 2016). We predicted that emotional flooding

reported by parents would be associated with the extent to which they feel anger towards their child. Emotional

flooding is associated with parents’ negative emotion in a laboratory discipline situation (Lorber, Mitnick, & Slep,

2015) and with anger in response to videotaped parent-child conflict interactions (Del Vecchio, et al., 2016).

Moreover, consistent with the literature (ex. Rodriguez & Green, 1997), we expected that the more frequently

parents feel anger towards their child, the more distress they will report in their role as a parent (ex. conflict with

child’s other parent, life restrictions due to childrearing demands). High levels anger often leads to impulsive

behavior (DiGiuseppe & Tafrate, 2007) and are associated with aggressive rather than well-planned assertive

behaviors. Also, Calam, Sanders, Miller, Sadhnani, and Carmont (2008) found that an effective parenting program

reduced anger and increased parents’ self-efficacy. Thus, literature suggests that anger and perceived self-

competency may be inversely related. Based on these findings, we predict that parent anger will be associated with

less self-reported sense of parenting competency. We expected anger to be related to, yet distinct from other

experiences of negative affect, namely general anger and general anxiety. We conceptualized parent anger as related

to general anger but reflecting a more context-specific anger. Thus, we expected the Parent Anger Scale to correlate

with general anger and general anxiety, but also evidence incremental value in predicting discipline practices over

these other more general negative affect experiences.

METHOD

Participants

Four hundred and two parents from the US participated in this study. Seventy-six participants were

excluded for failing to provide consent or providing consent but little or no other data. A total of 326 participants

were included in the final analysis. These parents were mostly mothers (71.8%) and married (63.8%), with a mean

age of 41.64 (SD=9.66). Sixty-four percent reported being employed full-time or part-time. In terms of education,

38.0% had some college and 40.8% had a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Their median family income was $55,778.

The ethnicity of the sample was primarily Caucasian (78.5%), followed by Hispanic (7.4%), African-American

(6.4%), and Asian (4.3%). Their child’s mean age was10.67 (SD=4.74).

Procedure

Parents were recruited through community outreach (e.g., direct mailings, online postings) and through two

separate online survey software programs, Amazon Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics Panel. To be eligible for this
PARENT ANGER SCALE 7

study, parents had to be English-speaking and have a child between the ages of 2 and 18. The parents were presented

with IRB approved informed consent and had agreed to participate in this study. Parents with more than one child

were asked to complete the survey based on their interactions with their most challenging child.

Measures

Parent anger. The Parent Anger Scale (PAS, Appendix A) is designed to assess anger arousal (e.g., “I get

so angry with my child that I feel my muscles get tight”), cognitions (e.g., “I resent all the time and energy I put into

parenting”), motives (e.g., “I use my anger to get my child to behave”), and behaviors (e.g., “I get so angry with my

child that I scream or yell at my child.”). The original PAS tested by Gavita et al. (2011) contained a set of items

meant to differentiate between whether one felt like expressing anger physically and whether one reported doing so.

These four items began with the sentence stem, “I get angry with my child and feel like…” The “feel like” items

correlated very strongly with their respective action oriented counterparts that described directly expressing the

anger, therefore these items were considered redundant and excluded. Thus, we examined a modified 26-item

version of the Parent Anger Scale. The first 23 items were rated on 7-point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 6 (several

times a day). Reponses were averaged so that higher scores indicated more frequent anger. The remaining three

items assessed the scope of anger triggers and the duration of anger episodes. Responses were rated on a 6-point

Likert scale with the content of the anchors varying by item. Higher scores on each of these three items indicated

higher levels of parent anger. Parents with more than one child were instructed to complete the survey based on their

interactions with their most challenging child.

Parent behavior. The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Shelton, Frick, & Wooton, 1996) and the

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire – Preschool Revision (APQ-PR; Clerkin, Marks, Policaro, & Halperin, 2007)

were used to assess the frequency of parents’ use of positive, inconsistent, and punitive parenting behaviors on a 5-

point Likert scale that ranges from “never” to “always.” The APQ-PR was administered to parents of children aged

2-5 years, while parents of children aged 6 years and older received the APQ. The APQ-PR has 32-items and

includes only three subscales: positive parenting, inconsistent parenting, and punitive parenting. The 42-item APQ

measures five parenting constructs that have consistently been related to child externalizing behavior. For this study,

three of the five subscales were used: positive parenting, inconsistent discipline, and punitive parenting. The

subscales of the APQ and APQ-PR have similar factor structures, despite the difference in item numbers of the

subscales (6-items on the positive parenting subscale of the APQ versus 13-items on the APQ-PR; 6-items on the
PARENT ANGER SCALE 8

inconsistency in discipline subscale of the APQ versus 7-items on the APQ-P; and 3-items on the punitive parenting

subscale of the APQ versus 5-items on the APQ-P; Clerkin et al., 2007). To create one variable for each parenting

behavior across younger and older children, standard scores were computed from the two APQ instruments

separately and combined to form a single outcome variable. These z-scores were used in all analyses. Reliability

analyses in this sample indicated good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas of .81 and .89 for positive

parenting, .83 and .70 for inconsistent discipline, and .64 and .60 for punitive parenting, for the APQ and APQ-PR

respectively.

Parent distress. The Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) is a 36-item measure of

stress in the parent-child relationship that taps three domains: parental distress, difficult child characteristics, and

dysfunctional parent-child interactions. Only the parental distress subscale was included in this study. This 12-item

parental distress subscale is intended to measure the distress a parent experiences in the parenting role separately

from their perceptions of their child or the quality of their relationship. Respondents are asked to rate statements on

a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” Internal consistency was excellent

in our sample, Cronbach’s  = .92.

Parent emotional flooding. The Parental Flooding Scale (PFS; Del Vecchio, et al., 2016; Slep & Heyman,

1998) is a 15-item measure that reflects the degree to which a parent experiences their children’s negative affect

expressed during parent-child conflicts as unpredictable (e.g., “My child’s distress seems to come out of nowhere”),

overwhelming (e.g., “I can’t think straight when my child is upset with me”), and disorganizing (e.g., “I feel

paralyzed during my child’s outbursts”). The respondents answer using a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from

“Almost Always” to “Never.” In the present sample, the internal consistency was excellent, Cronbach’s  = .93.

Parent competency. The Parent Sense of Competency Scale (PSOC; Johnston & Mash, 1989) is a 17-item

scale designed to measure parents' feelings of satisfaction and efficacy in the parenting role using a 6-point Likert

scale that ranges from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Studies report adequate test-retest reliability and

satisfactory construct validity in large normative samples (Ohan, Leung, & Johnston, 2000; Rogers, & Matthews,

2004). In this study, the Cronbach’s  was .85.

Negative Affect. The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2; Spielberger, 1999) is a measure

of general adult anger, presenting 57 items on a 4-point Likert-type scale. Though the full STAXI-2 was

administered to parents, only the 10-item trait anger subscale scores were used in the analyses. The trait anger
PARENT ANGER SCALE 9

subscale is designed to measure how angry individuals generally feel. The STAXI-2 is a widely used instrument and

has been shown to have high reliability in both normative and clinical populations (Spielberger, 1999). In the current

sample, the Cronbach’s alpha for the trait anger subscale was .79.

The Basic Emotions Scale (BES; Power, 2006) is a 21-item measure of five basic emotions: happiness,

sadness, anger, anxiety, and disgust. Participants rate how much or how often they have experienced each emotion

in the past week on a 1-7 Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “all the time.” For the purpose of this study, only

the 4-item anxiety subscale was used. Power and Tarsia (2007) found that the anxiety subscale discriminated

between clinical and control groups. In this sample, the internal consistency of the anxiety subscale was excellent

(Cronbach’s  =.88).

Data Analyses

First, we examined a one factor model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the first 23 items,

which shared a response set. Model fit was determined using several fit indices. A non-significant Yuan-Bentler χ2

(Y-B χ2) was preferred for adequate CFA model fit. However, Type 1 errors are more likely when χ2 significance

tests are conducted on large rather than small samples; therefore, additional fit indices were examined. For all

analyses, model fit indices were considered acceptable if the comparative fit index (CFI) was greater than .90, the

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was less than or equal to .08 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012) and

the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was less than .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Missing data (<10%)

was handled via the full information maximum likelihood (FIML).

Second, we identified the factorial model that explained the variance using exploratory factor analysis

(EFA) using the principle axis factoring extraction method. Factors were expected to correlate, therefore, we

selected an oblique Promax rotation. The number of factors retained was determined by a combination of the

following: eigenvalues > 1, an examination of the scree plot, a minimum of three scale items loading on the factor,

and interpretability of the solution. Missing data was handled via estimation maximization (EM) for EFA and

correlational analyses.

Lastly, we used structural equation modeling (SEM), with maximum likelihood estimation with robust

standard errors (MLR), to investigate the ability of the PAS factors to predict discipline practices uniquely above

general anger and general anxiety.

RESULTS
PARENT ANGER SCALE 10

Factor Structure

The one-factor structure of the PAS did not fit the data, Y-B χ2 (230) = 932.98, CFI = .81, RMSEA = 1.00,

p-close = 0.00, SRMR = .08. Because the one-factor model failed to explain the data, we conducted an EFA to

identify the factor structure that reflected the best fit to the data.

Initially, we examined the factorability of the PAS items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling

adequacy was .96 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, 2 (253) = 6299.24, p < .05, indicating that this

data was suitable for factor analysis. The EFA identified two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1; an examination

of the scree plot also supported a two-factor model. Thus, we examined the factor loadings of the two-factor model

(Table 1). Item 23 (e.g., “When I get angry with my child, I tell relatives and friends so they will know how bad my

child has behaved”) crossloaded on both factors. To retain a simple structure, this complex variable was removed

from the factor scores. All other items loaded highly on one factor with loadings > .45.

Factor 1, which we labeled parent anger experience, contains 11 items mostly related to physiological

arousal (e.g., “I get so angry with my child that I feel my muscles get tight”), brooding (e.g., “When I feel angry

with my child, I boil inside, don't show it, …”), and rumination (e.g., “I get angry and cannot stop thinking about the

way my child behaved”). On the other hand, factor 2, which we labeled parent anger expression, consists of 11

items reflecting physical and verbal aggression (e.g., “I get angry with my child and I spank, slap or hit my child”),

coercion (e.g., “I use my anger to get my child to behave”), and impulsive anger (e.g., “I get angry and have a

problem controlling my behavior toward my child”). We computed composite scores for each factor by averaging

the items within factor. The mean for parent expression was 0.51, SD = 0.91 (range 0-5.36) and parent experience

was 1.34, SD = 1.09 (range 0-5.45). Although the means were low, the ranges reflected the full range of possible

responses. As expected, both factors were positively skewed. The two factors were highly correlated, r = .73, p

< .001. Cronbach’s alphas were strong, PAS Experience α = .91 and PAS Expression α = .95. The inter-item

correlation matrix is presented in Table S1 of the online supplemental materials.

Validity

Spearman correlations were examined between PAS factor scores and parents’ self-reported discipline

behavior, negative emotions, distress, sense of competency, and frequency of child conduct problems (Table 2).

Spearman correlations were chosen over Pearson correlations because this nonparametric statistic is more robust to

deviations in normality and is thus better suited for our positively skewed data. As expected, each of the factor
PARENT ANGER SCALE 11

scores was significantly positively related to inconsistent and punitive discipline, and levels of conduct problems as

reported by parents. A significant positive relation was obtained between the factor scores and parents’ other

negative emotions (general anger expression and anxiety) and parental distress. Moreover, each factor score was

negatively related to parents’ positive, discipline and sense of competency.

In a series of models, we used SEM with robust standard errors to assess the incremental validity of the

PAS factor scores over other more general negative affect experiences. SEM, with maximum likelihood estimation

with robust standard errors was chosen because it is less sensitive to deviations from normality. In model 1, parent

discipline (positive, inconsistent, and punitive) was simultaneously regressed on PAS factor scores, and parents’

general anger and general anxiety. However, to isolate the additive value of PAS factor scores, the parameter

estimates for each PAS factor to parent discipline were constrained to 0 in this step. In model 2, the paths between

PAS factor scores and parent discipline were freed to be estimated (Table 3). Model 1 did not fit the data, Y-B χ2 (6)

= 123.094, CFI = .51, RMSEA = 0.25, p-close = 0.00, SRMR = .13. In Model 2, PAS expression significantly

negatively predicted positive parenting. Both PAS factor scores predicted self-reported inconsistent parenting and

punitive parenting significantly uniquely after controlling for general anger and anxiety. General anger was

significantly uniquely associated with each discipline behavior, however general anxiety failed to evidence an effect

on self-reported parental discipline. Model 2, with all nonsignificant paths removed, was a good fit with the data, Y-

B χ2 (1) = 2.79, CFI = .99, RMSEA = 0.74, p-close = 0.23, SRMR = .01.

Anger Scope, Intensity, and Duration

Using a single item each, we also assessed the scope of provocations that elicit anger (item 24), the

intensity (item 25), and duration of parent anger episodes (item 26). Each item correlated significantly with the PAS

experience and PAS expression scores. Scope and duration were strongly correlated with PAS experience, rs = .61

& .60, p < .001, and PAS expression scores, rs = .58 & .52, p < .001. Intensity of parent anger was moderately

correlated with each PAS experience, r = .33, p < .001, and PAS expression, r = .32, p < .001. Each item was

significantly correlated, as expected, positively with parent reported general anger, rs = .26 -.39, p < .05, emotional

flooding, rs = .29-.45, p < .05, and distress, rs = .20 -.27, p < .05, and negatively with parents’ sense of competency,

rs = -.25-.41, p < .05. The three items were each significantly correlated with inconsistent and punitive parenting, rs

= .19-.45, p < .05. With respect to positive parenting, only scope and duration of anger negatively correlated with
PARENT ANGER SCALE 12

parenting, rs = -.17 and -.14, p < .05. When added to the previous SEM model predicting parents’ discipline, only

scope of anger provocations was uniquely associated with inconsistent, =0.14, p = .01, and punitive discipline,

=0.16, p < .01. As a result of the addition of this single item, PAS experience no longer predicted discipline and

general anger was no longer associated with inconsistent and punitive discipline, Y-B χ2 (3) = 4.26, CFI = .99,

RMSEA = 0.04, p-close = 0.52, SRMR = .02. This model was compared to Model 2 using the SB scaled difference

test statistic (∆χ2 scaled; Satorra & Bentler, 2001). However, this model was not a significant improvement on

Model 2, ∆χ2scaled (2) = 1.62, ns.

DISCUSSION

Despite the robust support for the association between general anger and dysfunctional parent behavior, the

research on parent anger takes a trait view of anger, ignoring the likelihood of a context-specific anger response.

This study sought to fill the gap and assessed the factor structure and psychometric properties of a self-report

measure of parent anger. The PAS was designed to reflect a broader approach to parent anger by including items

across cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and emotional experience domains of the anger. It differs from existing

measures of parent anger that instead rely solely on assessing anger ratings in response to anger triggers.

Exploratory factor analysis identified a two-factor model that best explained the variance in the data. After

a review of the item content, we labeled the factors: parent anger experience and parent anger expression. In general,

the anger experience factor reflected the physiological experience of anger (ex. “I feel my muscles get tight”) as well

as several cognitive and motivational items (ex. “I get angry and cannot stop thinking about the way my child

behaved”, “I think that my child deserves to be punished for misbehaving”). In contrast, the anger expression factor

reflected behavioral expressions of anger (ex. “I cannot control my behavior”, “I spank, slap or hit my child”). These

factors are consistent with the factor structure identified for the ADS and the ADS-SF, the general anger scale upon

which the PAS was derived. Moreover, these two factors have consistently been identified in other measures of the

general anger (Eckhardt, Norlander, & Deffenbacher, 2004). The Parent Anger Scale factors evidenced strong

internal consistencies and promising convergent and concurrent validity. As hypothesized, each factor correlated

positively with other self-report measures of negative emotion including general anger and anxiety, emotional

flooding, and distress, and negatively with parents’ sense of competency.

The PAS factors also evidenced incremental validity, predicting discipline behaviors uniquely above that
PARENT ANGER SCALE 13

predicted by general anger and anxiety. Specifically, analyses indicated that the Parent Anger Scale experience and

expression factor scores were each unique predictors of inconsistent and punitive parental discipline after controlling

for the influences of general anger and anxiety. Notably, the content of the Parent Anger Scale expression factor is

conceptually similar to the punitive parenting items, with the exception that parents are asked to report the frequency

with which these behaviors occur within the context of parent anger in the former. These similarities likely inflated

the relations of these two scales. However, parents also engage in instrumental punitive discipline (Holden, Miller,

& Harris, 1999) and understanding the extent to which punitive discipline is emotionally precipitated is important

for theory and treatment. Although behavioral parent training programs aim to both increase positive and decrease

negative parent behaviors, less is known about the emotional barriers to engaging in positive parenting behaviors.

Interestingly, only the Parent Anger Scale expression score had a significant incremental effect in

negatively predicting positive parenting after the effects of general anger and general anxiety. Our findings indicate

that parents with greater likelihood of expressing child-directed anger, but not necessarily experiencing more

frequent feelings of child-directed anger, have more troubling engaging in positive parenting behaviors (i.e.

providing praise, support, and encouragement). Thus, parent-child specific anger behavior might be a fruitful target

of intervention for parents engaging in fewer positive behaviors. Moreover, though these parent anger factors

correlate strongly, they were differentially related to positive parenting suggesting a two-factor model may be more

useful than a one-factor solution.

A two-factor model best explained the variance in our data, in contrast to the one-factor model identified by

Gavita et al. (2011). The difference in our results from the original work on the PAS by results Gavita et al. (2011)

could reflect culture-specific factor structures as that study included only a Romanian sample. Though we did not

design the measure to be culture-specific, the distinction between experience and expression factors of anger might

not emerge in all cultures. However, it would be premature to attribute differences to culture and additional cross-

cultural research is needed to identify whether a universal or culture-specific factor structure would be most useful.

We also included, but did not factor analyze, three additional items designed to assess the scope of

provocations, and intensity and duration of the anger experiences. As expected, each item was positively related to

general anger, emotional flooding, and distress, and negatively with parents’ sense of competency. Scope, intensity,

and duration each correlated positively with inconsistent and punitive parenting. However, only scope of anger

provocations was significantly associated with inconsistent and punitive discipline, uniquely above that of the PAS
PARENT ANGER SCALE 14

experience and expression factors. Thus, not only how frequently parents feel anger and express their anger, but also

how easily they are angered predicts their self-reported negative parent practices. Scope and duration of anger

episodes negatively correlated with positive parenting, however, neither item retained its association when added to

the model containing the PAS factor scores. Taken together, these findings provide continued support for a more

nuanced conceptualization of parent anger, rather than reliance only on the use of level or quality of anger

experienced in response to a list child triggers.

Overall, these findings support the Parent Anger Scale as a measure of anger specific to the parent-child

context. Tests of incremental validity suggest that the parent anger is distinct from parents’ general negative

emotional states. In particular, the Parent Anger Scale does not appear to be merely a measure of general anger or

general negative affect. Nonetheless, our findings are somewhat mixed with respect to the value of emotion- versus

context-specificity as predictors of discipline. In our sample, general anger remained significant after parent anger

was entered in to the model, suggesting the role of context is still in need of exploration. We did not measure parent

anxiety, as we are not aware of an anxiety measure specific to the parent-child context. And, thus, we cannot

determine whether results using a parent anxiety measure would be similar to our parent anger findings or that a

measure of parental anxiety might have shared variance with our parent anger measure. Moreover, it is possible that

parental anger and parental anxiety might affect parenting skills differently. Some research suggests the approach

nature of anger and the avoidance nature of anxiety (ex. Carver, 2004) would likely result in differential associations

with specific forms of discipline. That is, parent anger could be more predictive of punitive discipline and parent

anxiety more predictive of permissive discipline. No doubt, the effects of parent emotion on parent behavior is

complex. Continued development of context specific measures of parent negative affect, including shame, guilt, and

anxiety, would help us determine the extent to which the parent-child context and specific emotions impact parental

discipline. Such an advance would be useful for both clinical practice and emotion theory.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study is not without its limitations. Perhaps the most apparent limitation is the lack of behavioral

observations of negative affect or discipline behavior. To fully examine convergent validity, Campbell and Fiske

(1959) recommend measuring constructs by at least two different methods. Use of the same methods across

measures, in this case self-report, might have led to shared method variance, thereby inflating the associations

among the variables. In addition, whether the scale is an accurate reflection of the anger expressed in a parent-child
PARENT ANGER SCALE 15

discipline encounter is less clear, though arguably anger might be expressed inward and, thus, be more difficult to

detect in observations.

Our use of a large community sample is a strength as well as a limitation. Although parents reported a

range of responses to parent anger items, both factors, particularly the anger expression factor, were positively

skewed. This response pattern is likely influenced by the non-clinical nature of our sample. Although skewed in a

non-clinical sample, several items may receive greater endorsements by angry parents. A replication of this study

with a clinical sample would help us determine which items best discriminate parents in clinical and non-clinical

samples because of their differential endorsement patter, and, thus, should remain in the scale. And, though anger

expression factor scores evidenced concurrent validity with parent behaviors, the extent to which these findings

generalize to a clinical sample of parents is to be determined. Moreover, additional research using a clinical sample

would allow us to better ascertain the clinical utility of the Parent Anger Scale; that is, the extent to which Parent

Anger Scale scores discriminate clinical from non-clinical samples.

In addition, in our study, parents with more than one child were asked to complete the survey based on their

interactions with their most challenging child. We provided this instruction to foster consistent reporting throughout

the survey and to elicit a greater degree of parent anger. However, understanding the extent to which anger is

context-specific (parent-child) or person-specific (a particular child) would be valuable. Considering the research on

differential parenting (ex. McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000), we would expect to find

differences, which may then inform treatment. Thus, future research could explore parent’s responses to the PAS

between their different children.

Though our analyses favored a two-factor solution over a one-factor model, the use of more complex

statistical methods, such as higher order or bifactor modeling, could further clarify the factor structure and aid in our

conceptualization of parent anger. Using higher order modeling, we could examine whether one higher order factor,

i.e., parent anger, influences the observed item scores through the parent anger experience and parent anger

expression factors. On the other hand, by examining the factor loadings on both the general and specific factors

simultaneously, bifactor modeling could aid in our understanding of the usefulness of two subscales over one

general factor. Moreover, our sample was not large enough to examine the effect of age or ethnicity on factor

structure or its associations with parent behavior. We examined the Parent Anger Scale across a broad age range,

parents of children ages 2-18 years. Though we created the items to be age nonspecific, it would be valuable to
PARENT ANGER SCALE 16

examine the properties of the Parent Anger Scale for parents of infants and separately by age group. Lastly, future

research investigating measurement invariance across groups by ethnicity is warranted.

Nonetheless, this study has significant implications for research and practice. The self-report Parent Anger

Scale is strong psychometrically and adds to the prediction of parent behavior above existing measures of general

negative emotion. Thus, the Parent Anger Scale might be helpful in identifying risk factors that differentiate more

generally angry parents from those experiencing primarily child-directed anger. Given the success of this scale, it is

possible that other negative emotions experienced by parents are specific to the parent-child context and not readily

assessed by measures of the general emotions. For example, perhaps a parental anxiety scale rather than a general

measure of anxiety might best measure parental anxiety about their children’s safety, development, or performance.

Moreover, the broader approach we used to measure anger, that included items across several domains of cognitions

associated with the emotion, the emotional experience, the motive generated by the emotion, and the behavior

aroused by the emotion, allows us to more precisely describe parents’ anger that could interfere with parenting and

better identify targets for intervention. In addition, its brief format is well suited for use as a progress-monitoring

tool and in treatment outcome research that focuses on targeting parents’ anger.
PARENT ANGER SCALE 17

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving Human Participants: All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the

ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and

its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Contributions

TD: designed and executed the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. OJ: assisted with

data collection, wrote the methods section, and collaborated in revising the manuscript. RD: collaborated in

designing and executing the study and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. JN: contributed to study concept

and design. OD: contributed to study concept and design.

PARENT ANGER SCALE 18

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index (3rd ed.) Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Ateah, C. A., & Durrant, J. E. (2005). Maternal use of physical punishment in response to child misbehavior:

Implications of child abuse prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 169-185.

doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.10.010

Baydar, N., Reid, M. J., & Webster‐Stratton, C. (2003). The role of mental health factors and program engagement

in the effectiveness of a preventive parenting program for Head Start mothers. Child Development, 74,

1433-1453. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00616

Ben-Porath, D. D. (2010). Dialectical behavior therapy applied to parent skills training: Adjunctive treatment for

parents with difficulties in affect regulation. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 17, 458-465.

doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2009.07.005

Calam, R., Sanders, M. R., Miller, C., Sadhnani, V., & Carmont, S. (2008). Can technology and the media help

reduce dysfunctional parenting and increase engagement with preventative parenting interventions? Child

Maltreatment, 13, 347-361. doi:10.1177/1077559508321272

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod

matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi:10.1037/h0046016

Carver, C. S. (2004). Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system. Emotion, 4, 3-22.

doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.3

Clerkin, S. M., Marks, D. J., Policaro, K. L., & Halperin, J. M. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Alabama

Parenting Questionnaire-Preschool revision. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 19-

28. doi:10.1080/15374410709336565

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-

302. doi:10.1037/h0040957

DiGiuseppe, R., DelVecchio, T., David, O. Venezia, R., & McKiernan, K. (2016, October). Assessment of

Situational Anger Problems: Are you mad at your lover, parents, or children. Paper presented as part of the

symposium “Assessment and Treatment of Anger and Aggression in Family and Close Personal

Relationships” at the 50th Annual Convention of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies,

October 2016. New York City.

PARENT ANGER SCALE 19

Deffenbacher, J., Oetting, E., Thwaites, G, Lynch, R., Baker, D., Stark, R., … Eiswerth-Cox, L. (1996). State trait

anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 131-148.

Del Vecchio, T., Lorber, M., Slep, Amy M. S., Malik, J., Heyman, R. E., & Foran, H. M. (2016). Parental flooding

during conflict: A psychometric evaluation of a new scale. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44,

1587-1597. doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0137-9

Del Vecchio, T., & O’Leary, S. G. (2008). Predicting maternal discipline responses to early child aggression: The

role of cognition and affect. Parenting: Science and Practice, 8, 240-256.

doi:10.1080/15295190802204827

Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora, K. T., & Zahn–Waxler, C. (2000). Prediction

of externalizing behavior problems from early to middle childhood: The role of parental socialization and

emotion expression. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 23-45.

DiGiuseppe, R., & Tafrate, R. (2005). The Anger Disorder Scale: Manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MultiHealth

Systems.

DiGiuseppe, R., & Tafrate, R. (2007). Understanding anger disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological

Bulletin, 110, 3-25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.3

Eckhardt, C., & Deffenbacher J. (1995). Diagnosis of anger disorders. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders:

Definitions, diagnosis and treatment (pp. 27-47). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Eckhardt, C., Norlander, B., & Deffenbacher, J. (2004). The assessment of anger and hostility: A critical

review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 17-43. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00116-7

Gavita, O. A., David, D., DiGiuseppe, R., & DelVecchio, T. (2011). The development and initial validation of the

Parent Anger Scale. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 505-511.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.099

Hansen, D. J., & Sedlar, G. (1998). Manual for the PAI: The Parental Anger Inventory. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska, Clinical Psychology Training Program.

Holden, G. W., Miller, P. C., & Harris, S. D. (1999). The instrumental side of corporal punishment: Parents' reported

practices and outcome expectancies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 908-919.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/354012.
PARENT ANGER SCALE 20

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria

versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 18, 167-175. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp1802_8

Leung, D. W., & Slep, A. M. S. (2006). Predicting inept discipline: The role of parental depressive symptoms,

anger, and attributions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 524–534. doi:10.1037/0022-

006X.74.3.524

Linehan, M. M., Paul, E., & Egan, K. J. (1983). The Parent Affect Test: Development, validity, and reliability.

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 12, 161-166. doi:10.1080/15374418309533125

Lachmund, E., DiGiuseppe, R., & Fuller, J. R. (2005). Clinicians' diagnosis of a case with anger problems. Journal

of Psychiatric Research, 39, 439-447. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2004.10.009

Lorber, M. F., Mitnick, D. M., & Slep, A. M. S. (2015). Parents’ experience of flooding in discipline encounters:

Associations with discipline and interplay with related factors. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 470-479.

doi:10.1037/fam0000176.

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson-Newsom, J., Tucker, C. J. and Crouter, A. C. (2000), When does parents’

differential treatment have negative implications for siblings? Social Development, 9, 149–172.

doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00117

McKay, M., Fanning, P., Paleg, K., & Landis, D. (1996). When anger hurts your kids: A parent’s guide. Oakland,

CA: New Harbinger.

Morrow, J. R., Mood, D. P., Disch, J. G., & Kang, M. (2015). Measurement and evaluation in human performance

(5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ohan, J. L., Leung, D. W., & Johnston, C. (2000). The Parenting Sense of Competence scale: Evidence of a stable

factor structure and validity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des sciences du

comportement, 32, 251-261. doi:10.1037/h0087122

Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early developmental of coercive family process. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J.

Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Developmental theories and models for

intervention (pp. 25–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

PARENT ANGER SCALE 21

Peterson, L., Ewigman, B., & Vandiver, T. (1994). Role of parental anger in low-income women: Discipline

strategy, perceptions of behavior problems, and the need for control. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,

23, 435-443. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2304_9

Power, M. J. (2006). The structure of emotion: An empirical comparison of six models. Cognition and Emotion, 20,

694-713. doi:10.1080/02699930500367925

Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. (1997). Cognition and emotion: From order to disorder. New York, NY: Psychology

Press.

Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. (2016). Cognition and emotion: From order to disorder (3rd Edition). New York, NY:

Psychology Press.

Power, M. J., & Tarsia, M. (2007). Basic and complex emotions in depression and anxiety. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 14, 19-31. doi:10.1002/cpp.515

Rodriguez, C. M., & Green, A. J. (1997). Parenting stress and anger expression as predictors of child abuse

potential. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 367-377. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00177-9

Rogers, H., & Matthews, J. (2004). The parenting sense of competence scale: Investigation of the factor structure,

reliability, and validity for an Australian sample. Australian Psychologist, 39, 88-96.

doi:10.1080/00050060410001660380

Sarason, I. G. (1961). Characteristics of three measures of anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17, 196-197.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196104)17:2<196::AID-JCLP2270170231>3.0.CO;2-9

Sedlar, G., & Hansen, D. J. (2001). Anger, child behavior, and family distress: Further evaluation of the parental

anger inventory. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 361-373. doi:10.1023/A:1012220809344

Shacham, N. (1983). A shortened version of the Profile of Mood States. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 305-

306. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4703_14

Scheff, T. (2015). What are emotions? A physical theory. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 458-464.

doi:10.1037/gpr0000058

Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of The

National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, 106(35), 15073-15078.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0904312106

Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary
PARENT ANGER SCALE 22

school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317-329.

doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2503_8

Slep, A. M. S., & Heyman, R. E. (1998). Parental Flooding Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Stony Brook

University, State University of New York.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Scale (STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Spielberger, C. D. (1999). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
PARENT ANGER SCALE 23

Table 1

Rotated factor loadings based on a principle axis factoring analysis for 23 items from the Parent Anger Scale (N =

326)

Experience Expression M SD
Experience Factor 1.34 1.09
1. Even though I hold it in and do not show it, I get angry with my child. 0.76 -0.14 2.31 1.45
3. I get angry and cannot stop thinking about the way my child behaved. 0.68 0.15 1.28 1.35

5. I get angry with my child. 0.91 -0.17 2.24 1.46

10. I get so angry with my child that I feel my blood boil. 0.54 0.38 0.79 1.27
11. I get so angry with my child that I feel my muscles get tight. 0.55 0.33 0.95 1.33
13. I get so angry with my child that I just want to make the tension go 0.58 0.27 0.94 1.40

away.
15. I get so angry with my child that I scream or yell at my child. 0.55 0.31 1.22 1.40
18. I think my anger with my child is justified because of the way my child 0.64 0.12 1.12 1.57

behaves.
19. I think that I have a harder job being a parent than other people. 0.57 0.13 0.85 1.49
20. I think that my child deserves to be punished for misbehaving. 0.87 -0.27 1.92 1.67
22. When I feel angry with my child, I boil inside, don't show it, and keep 0.46 0.05 1.15 1.52

things inside of me.

Expression Factor 0.51 0.91
2. I get angry and break or throw away some of my child's things. -0.15 0.96 0.29 0.93
4. I get angry and have a problem controlling my behavior toward my 0.21 0.64 0.69 1.18

child.
6. I get angry with my child and I spank, slap or hit my child. 0.02 0.77 0.44 1.01
7. I get angry with my child and throw things, slam doors, or bang the -0.04 0.89 0.44 1.04

table.
8. I get so angry with my child that I cannot control my behavior. -0.16 1.03 0.35 1.02
9. I get so angry with my child that I do not do things that I know my 0.22 0.58 0.68 1.23

child wants me to do.

12. I get so angry with my child that I grab or push my child. -0.20 1.00 0.32 0.98
14. I get so angry with my child that I say mean things, use bad language, 0.14 0.73 0.65 1.21

curse or insult my child.

16. I lose control of my anger with my child. 0.01 0.84 0.54 1.09
17. I resent the time and energy I put into parenting. 0.12 0.64 0.57 1.29
21. I use my anger to get my child to behave. 0.09 0.73 0.60 1.11
Excluded items
23. When I get angry with my child, I tell relatives and friends so they will 0.39 0.38 0.68 1.16
PARENT ANGER SCALE 24

know how bad my child has behaved.

PARENT ANGER SCALE 25

Table 2

Concurrent Validity of Parent Anger Scale Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 PAS Experience
2 PAS Expression .73
3 Anger-General .37 .49
4 Anxiety-General .43 .34 .47
5 Flooding .56 .52 .40 .41
6 Parenting Distress .38 .36 .43 .51 .53
7 Parenting Competency -.44 -.46 -.52 -.38 -.61 -.56
8 Positive Parenting -.12 -.25 -.23 -.11 -.20 -.12 .30
9 Inconsistent Parenting .44 .45 .39 .24 .48 .31 -.42 -.18
10 Punitive Parenting .57 .62 .41 .25 .45 .34 -.39 -.09 .41
11 Conduct Problems .53 .41 .19 .27 .54 .36 -.34 -.12 .44 .38
Note. Correlations greater than absolute value .10 are significant at p < .05. Correlations greater than absolute

value .19 are significant at p <. 001.

PARENT ANGER SCALE 26

Table 3

Incremental Validity of PAS Experience and Expression Subscale Scores Predicting Parenting Behavior

Outcome Predictor β SE R2
Model 1 Positive parenting 0.06*
Anger -0.25*** 0.06
Anxiety 0.02 0.07
Inconsistent parenting 0.13**
Anger 0.27*** 0.07
Anxiety 0.14* 0.07
Punitive parenting 0.17***
Anger 0.37** 0.05
Anxiety 0.06 0.06
Model 2 Positive parenting 0.09**
Anger -0.18** 0.07
Anxiety 0.00 0.07
PAS Experience 0.14 0.09
PAS Expression -0.25** 0.08
Inconsistent parenting 0.27***
Anger 0.14* 0.07
Anxiety 0.03 0.06
PAS Experience 0.29*** 0.08
PAS Expression 0.17* 0.08
Punitive parenting 0.43***
Anger 0.16** 0.05
Anxiety -0.08 0.05
PAS Experience 0.25*** 0.06
PAS Expression 0.39*** 0.08
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
 PARENT ANGER SCALE 27

APPENDIX A

Parent Anger Scale

Instructions: At one time or another, most parents feel angry. For each of the following items, circle the response
that best describes you.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
never or not less than once about once a about once a several days a every day several times
at all a month month week week a day

1. Even though I hold it in and do not show it, I get angry with my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I get angry and break or throw away some of my child’s things 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I get angry and cannot stop thinking about the way my child behaved 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I get angry and have a problem controlling my behavior toward my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I get angry with my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I get angry with my child and I spank, slap or hit my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I get angry with my child and throw things, slam doors, or bang the table 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I get so angry with my child that I cannot control my behavior 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I get so angry with my child that I do not do things that I know my child wants 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
me to do
10. I get so angry with my child that I feel my blood boil 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. I get so angry with my child that I feel my muscles get tight 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. I get so angry with my child that I grab or push my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. I get so angry with my child that I just want to make the tension go away 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. I get so angry with my child that I say mean things, use bad language, curse or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
insult my child
15. I get so angry with my child that I scream or yell at my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. I lose control of my anger with my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. I resent the time and energy I put into parenting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. I think my anger with my child is justified because of the way my child 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
behaves
19. I think that I have a harder job being a parent than other people 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. I think that my child deserves to be punished for misbehaving 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
21. I use my anger to get my child to behave 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. When I feel angry with my child, I boil inside, don't show it, and keep things 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
inside of me
23. When I get angry with my child, I tell relatives and friends so they will know 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
how bad my child has behaved

24. I lose my temper with my child about:

1 almost nothing.
2 only one thing.
3 two or three things.
4 several things.
5 many things.
6 almost everything.

25. When I get angry with my child, I stay angry for:

1 only a few minutes.
2 less than 1 hour.
3 about 1-2 hours.
4 several hours.
5 about 1-2 days.
6 several days.
 PARENT ANGER SCALE 28

26. On average, how angry do you get at your child?

1 not at all angry
2 somewhat angry
3 mildly angry
4 moderately angry
5 very angry
6 extremely angry
Running Head: PARENT ANGER SCALE

Online Supplemental Materials

Table S1

Inter-item Correlation Matrix for Parent Anger Scale Items

Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
2 0.33
3 0.52 0.49
4 0.38 0.62 0.63
5 0.63 0.27 0.61 0.50
6 0.31 0.71 0.47 0.58 0.39
7 0.32 0.73 0.50 0.65 0.39 0.72
8 0.28 0.77 0.50 0.73 0.36 0.72 0.81
9 0.36 0.62 0.53 0.58 0.46 0.61 0.67 0.67
10 0.45 0.58 0.67 0.65 0.57 0.59 0.65 0.66 0.64
11 0.48 0.56 0.61 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.81
12 0.28 0.84 0.47 0.59 0.28 0.74 0.73 0.78 0.63 0.56 0.56
13 0.44 0.49 0.57 0.55 0.56 0.49 0.57 0.54 0.60 0.73 0.74 0.51
14 0.35 0.65 0.54 0.71 0.46 0.59 0.68 0.77 0.56 0.63 0.59 0.64 0.61
15 0.46 0.50 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.57 0.53 0.56 0.55 0.67 0.60 0.50 0.63 0.71
16 0.32 0.70 0.52 0.75 0.42 0.59 0.71 0.80 0.59 0.65 0.58 0.68 0.58 0.79 0.66
17 0.35 0.62 0.49 0.57 0.33 0.49 0.60 0.66 0.51 0.60 0.59 0.64 0.58 0.62 0.53 0.67
18 0.44 0.44 0.56 0.47 0.53 0.43 0.46 0.47 0.50 0.60 0.56 0.41 0.61 0.56 0.56 0.47 0.46
19 0.45 0.42 0.57 0.44 0.46 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.57 0.55 0.37 0.50 0.44 0.48 0.43 0.48 0.51
20 0.44 0.25 0.52 0.33 0.58 0.32 0.25 0.23 0.38 0.45 0.44 0.22 0.48 0.31 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.59 0.43
21 0.34 0.65 0.51 0.67 0.43 0.66 0.69 0.69 0.58 0.55 0.54 0.66 0.53 0.69 0.59 0.67 0.56 0.51 0.44 0.32
22 0.44 0.33 0.38 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.39 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.32 0.25 0.40 0.37 0.28
23 0.37 0.51 0.57 0.56 0.43 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.48 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.54 0.58 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.54 0.53 0.41 0.57 0.35

Note. Average inter-item correlation = 0.52