Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

Measuring the potential for child maltreatment: The reliability and

validity of the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory—2夽,夽夽
Nicola A. Conners ∗ , Leanne Whiteside-Mansell,
David Deere, Toni Ledet, Mark C. Edwards
Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
Received 18 March 2003; received in revised form 26 July 2005; accepted 12 August 2005
Available online 6 January 2006

Abstract

Objective: The field of child protection needs reliable and valid methods of assessing the potential for child abuse
and neglect. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Adult Adolescent Parenting
Inventory—2 (AAPI-2), Form B, using a sample of 309 low-income, rural families in a southern state.
Method: The AAPI-2 is a 40-item survey designed to assess the parenting and child rearing attitudes of adult and
adolescent parent and pre-parent populations. Each of the five AAPI-2 scales was (a) examined using factor analysis
in order to determine the unidimensionality of the scale, (b) evaluated based on estimates of the scales reliability
in order to determine the consistency with which the construct was measured, and (c) when possible, examined to
determine if it is related to other constructs in meaningful and expected ways.
Results: While the factor structure reported by the developer was not fully confirmed in this sample, there is some
evidence that the instrument is measuring at least two of the constructs it purports to measure and that the total
score may be useful. Correlations with other instruments measuring parenting behavior and child behavior were
significant, and in the expected direction, offering some support for the validity of the AAPI-2.

夽
This article was supported by Grant no. 8015 from the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and its three centers, the Center for Mental Health Services, the
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, and Casey Family Programs, the SESS
principal investigators, project directors and researchers, and the parent representatives who helped design and supervise the
data collection.
夽夽
The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of DHHS of Casey Family Programs, nor
does the mention of commercial products imply endorsement by the US Government. Responsibility for the content of this
article rests solely with the named authors.
∗
Corresponding author address: UAMS/Partners for Inclusive Communities, 2001 Pershing Circle, Suite 300, North Little
Rock, AR 72114-1841, USA.

0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.08.011
40 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

Conclusions: While the AAPI-2 appears to measure attitudes related to harsh or neglectful parenting, caution should
be used in the interpretation of the individual AAPI-2 scales.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Child abuse; Psychometrics; Parenting attitudes

Introduction

In addition to interventions that are evidence-based, the field of child protection needs reliable and
valid methods of assessing the potential for child abuse and neglect. Workers in the field of child abuse
prevention need reliable ways to identify groups of parents that are at high risk of engaging in child mal-
treatment. Child abuse prevention programs have an interest in assessing the success of their interventions
in changing attitudes, beliefs and behaviors related to child maltreatment. Further, researchers need tools
to assess constructs related to high-risk parenting practices. One option for such assessments is a clinical
interview. This option requires qualified personnel and frequently is too expensive and time-consuming.
Clinical interviews also lack generalizability. In many settings, a reliable and valid paper and pencil
instrument is the only reasonable approach to assess the potential for maltreatment.
Two of the most popular instruments for assessing the potential for maltreatment in recent years have
been the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP Inventory; Milner, 1989) and the Adult Adolescent
Parenting Inventory (AAPI; Bavolek & Keene, 1999). The CAP Inventory is a 160-item questionnaire,
and in some situations the time required for administration makes its use impractical. The shorter AAPI,
developed in 1979, takes about 20 minutes to administer, and its use has grown rapidly in recent years.
The original version of the AAPI was subsequently revised and re-normed, using new items to assess the
same constructs. These revisions resulted in the 40-item AAPI-2. More than 1,400 adults and adolescents
recruited from 53 different social service, health, and education providers in 23 different states contributed
to the normative data. Like the original version, the AAPI-2 is designed to assess the parenting and child
rearing attitudes of adult and adolescent parent and pre-parent populations. Items are based on the known
parenting and child rearing beliefs of abusive parents, and responses to the inventory provide an index of
risk for practicing abusive and neglectful behavior.
There are two forms of the AAPI-2 (Form A and Form B), and both include 40 items presented in
a 5-point scale. The forms are intended to serve as pre and posttests; however, they are frequently used
independently. In addition to a total score, the AAPI-2 provides five subscale scores that are purported
to measure the following parenting attitudes: (1) inappropriate expectations of children, (2) parental lack
of empathy towards children’s needs, (3) strong belief in the use of corporal punishment as a means
of discipline, (4) reversing parent-child role responsibilities, and (5) oppressing children’s power and
independence (Bavolek & Keene, 1999).
The AAPI-2 developers suggest several important potential uses for the survey, including: (1) to provide
pretest or posttest data to measure treatment effectiveness, (2) to assess the parenting and child rearing
attitudes of parents and adolescents prior to parenthood, (3) to design specific treatment and intervention
parenting education programs, (4) to design nurturing experiences for parents and adolescents whose
attitudes indicate a high-risk for child maltreatment, and (5) to screen foster parent applicants, child care
staff, and volunteers. As a result, the AAPI-2 is being widely used. For example, it was recently used as
the primary assessment tool in a study in the state of Florida that was designed to determine the impact
 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53 41

that parent education programs had on improved parenting practices for families who were identified as
abusive, neglectful, or at risk for child maltreatment. This multiyear study began in 1999, and the use of
the AAPI-2 was required of all agencies receiving funding from the Florida Department of Children and
Families (Bavolek, 2002). It has also been used in multisite research studies. For example, the national
evaluation of Early Head Start used two subscales from the AAPI (inappropriate expectations of children,
lack of empathy) to assess program impacts on 3,001 children (Mathematica Policy Research, 2003).
Despite the widespread use of the AAPI-2, there has been little examination of its psychometric prop-
erties outside of that reported by the developers. The manual includes reports of α reliability coefficients
and results from a factor analysis which are offered as support for the validity of the five AAPI-2 con-
structs. As evidence of the discriminant validity of the AAPI-2, the developers point to findings that
abusive parents (29 males and 58 females) in their norming sample expressed significantly more abusive
attitudes than non-abusive parents in all five parenting constructs. The authors also report similar findings
based on the original version of the AAPI (Bavolek & Keene, 1999). The lack of additional evidence
supporting the validity of the AAPI-2 is of particular concern given that it is being used as a basis for
making important decisions about the needs of individual parents and the effectiveness of parent train-
ing programs. Establishing the construct validity and reliability of a measure for a given population is
important for assessing the utility of a measure (Crocker & Algina, 1986; Sax, 1980). Therefore, it is
critical that more information about its reliability and validity be made available, particularly in high-risk
families in which it is frequently used, and that its appropriateness for use with different populations be
examined. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the AAPI-2
(Form B) using a sample of low-income, rural families in a southern state whose children were enrolled
in Head Start Programs.
We felt that it would be valuable to examine the utility of the AAPI-2 with this sample for several
reasons. First, these parents all had children enrolled in Head Start, the federally sponsored preschool
program for low-income children. Because Head Start uses a comprehensive approach to foster healthy
child development, various family support and parent education programs are often an important com-
ponent, and appropriate tools are needed to assess the effectiveness of those programs. Second, there is
evidence that Head Start families, like other low-income families, often have numerous life stressors and
display high rates of harsh discipline. In a recent study focused on Head Start families, Webster-Stratton
and Hammond (1998) reported that 35% of the families had three or more major family risk factors
(e.g., depression, psychiatric illness, single parenthood), and that more than 40% of Head Start mothers
displayed high rates of harsh or physically negative discipline. Finally, the rural nature of the sample
interesting, as research on high-risk families often takes place primarily in urban areas.

Method

Sample description

The sample for this study included 309 low-income parents whose preschool age children enrolled
in Head Start programs in rural Arkansas, and who were participants in the Starting Early Starting
Smart (SESS) research study. The SESS study was a research study designed to test the effectiveness of
integrating mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment into early childhood and primary
care programs serving young children and their families. Participants were drawn from the Arkansas site,
one of 12 study sites around the nation.
42 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

Table 1
Sample description (N = 309)
Child
Female (%) 52.0
Race
Caucasian (%) 88.0
African-American (%) 6.5
Hispanic (%) 2.0
Multiracial (%) 2.0
Other (%) 1.5
Mean age in months (SD = 6.3) 48.5
Mean number of siblings (SD = 1.4) 1.7

Primary caregiver
Relationship to child
Biological mother (%) 92.0
Biological father (%) 3.5
Grandparent (%) 2.0
Other (%) 2.5
Completed 12th grade (%) 74.6
Mean monthly income in Dollars (SD = 834.5) 1225.11

In Arkansas, eligibility for SESS was determined at the Head Start center level. All participating
Head Start centers were operated by the same agency, and centers within that agency were matched on
key demographic characteristics and then randomly assigned to either the intervention or comparison
condition. All children enrolled in those centers were recruited into the study. The study was explained to
families during their registration for Head Start and written consent for study participation was obtained
either during registration or at the beginning of the baseline interview. Most (99% in Arkansas) eligible
families agreed to participant.
As seen in Table 1, 52% of the children participating in the study were female, and most children
were Caucasian (88%). The children were between 3 and 5 years of age. On average, the children had
slightly fewer than two siblings (range of 0–7). The study child’s biological mother served as primary
caregiver in 92% of the cases. More than two-thirds of the caregivers were between the ages of 21 and 30,
and one-fourth of caregivers had not completed high school. All families were income-eligible for Head
Start services at the beginning of the study, and the average monthly family income was approximately
$1200.

Procedures

The data were collected at the baseline of the intervention study during a home interview that also
included other assessments of parenting behavior and attitudes and child and family characteristics. The
interviews were conducted by trained research assistants. Participants were paid $20 for their participation
in the baseline assessment. The protocol was approved by the institutional review board at the University
of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and consent was obtained from the families involved.
 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53 43

Due to concerns about the respondents’ reading abilities, the paper and pencil questionnaires, including
the AAPI-2, were read aloud by the research assistant to the primary caregiver. The research assistant
also recorded the caregiver’s responses.

Instruments

Participants completed a number of questionnaires during the baseline interview. This section includes
a description of instruments designed to assess constructs that we believe should be related to one or more
of the AAPI-2 scales, and that will be used to examine the validity of the AAPI-2.

The Home Observations for the Measurement of the Environment (HOME). The HOME is a combination
of observation and interview items designed to measure the quality of the home environment (Caldwell &
Bradley, 1984). The Early Childhood version of the HOME was completed at the baseline SESS interview.
Each item on the HOME is given a score of Yes or No by the interviewer, with scores of Yes indicating
a higher quality home environment. HOME has been used in over 400 published studies world-wide,
the majority of them were studies of high-risk families, and about half of the norming sample for each
version is African American. Extensive reliability and validity data have been reported for the measure,
and interobserver agreement exceeds 90% (Bradley, 1994). Two scales were used in the present study:
Parental Responsivity and Acceptance of the Child. Examples of the seven items on the Responsivity
Scale include “Parent caresses, kisses, or cuddles child during visit” and “Parent spontaneously praises
child’s abilities twice during visit.” A low score on the Responsivity Scale indicates lack of warm and
nurturing interactions between caregiver and child. Examples of the four items on the Acceptance Scale
include “Parent does not scold or derogate child more than once” and “Parent neither slaps nor spanks
child during visit.” A low score on the HOME Acceptance Scale indicates the use of harsher forms of
discipline. Cronbach’s α for the scales were .75 and .74, respectively.

The Parental Discipline Methods Interview (PDMI). The PDMI is designed to assess the nature and
frequency of caregiver disciplinary responses to three child behaviors (disobeying a command, annoying
inappropriate behavior, and positive behavior). The PDMI was based on the Parenting Practices Interview
(PPI; Baydar, Reid, & Webster-Stratton, 2003) with modifications made for the SESS study. The PPI was
adapted from the Oregon Social Learning Center’s Discipline Questionnaire and consisted of 19 items
grouped into three sets based on content. Key modifications to the PPI for the SESS study included changes
in the wording of child management situations, as well as the wording and selection of parental response
items. Each of the three behaviors corresponds to a scenario described in the instrument, followed by a
series of items that document the frequency of the caregiver’s response. Items on the PDMI are rated on a
5-point scale with possible responses ranging from “never” to “always.” The one scale score derived from
the PDMI used in this study includes two items and is an indicator of frequent use of harsh discipline
(spanking, and slapping/hitting/pushing).

Parenting style. The measure of parenting style developed by Greenberger and Goldberg (1989) uses two
surveys to assess parental types of discipline (Harsh Control, Firm/Responsive Control, and Lax Control)
and demands for maturity (independence, self-control, prosocial). Response items for Harsh (13 items),
Lax (13 items) and Firm (13 items) control range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). The
response items for parental expectations for mature behavior in the three areas of independence (9 items),
44 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

self-control (11 items), and prosocial behavior (8 items) were also on a 7-point scale (Never to Always).
Two scales from the Parenting Style measure (Harsh Control and Demands for Maturity) were utilized
in this study. Cronbach’s α for the scales were .70 and .89, respectively.

The Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PKBS). The PKBS (Merrell, 1994) is a 76-item,
broad-based behavioral rating scale designed to assess the social and behavioral functioning of children
between the ages of 3- and 6-years-old. The instrument was designed to be completed by the child’s
caregiver (e.g., parent and teacher), and we utilized the parent report for this study. Items are rated on
a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (often) and consists of two scales. The Social Skills Scale
contains 34 items and is multidimensional covering constructs including social cooperation, interactions
and independence. The multidimensional Problem Behavior Scale contains 42 items and includes areas
of internalizing and externalizing behavior including attention problems, aggressive and self-centered
behaviors, social withdrawal, and somatic problems. Merrell (1994, 1996) reported internal consistencies
of the scales to range from .85 to .97, and test-retest reliabilities to range from .58 to .87 (3-week interval).
Edwards, Whiteside-Mansell, Conners, and Deere (2002) examined the PKBS in a study that included
the families in this study. They found that reliabilities of the PKBS were sufficient for using the PKBS
as a measure of group performance for young at risk children.

Analysis plan

Following the paradigm outlined by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), each AAPI-2 Scale was (a) exam-
ined using factor analysis in order to determine its unidimensionality and structure, (b) evaluated based
on estimates of the scales reliability in order to determine the consistency with which the construct was
measured, and (c) examined to determine if it is related to other constructs in meaningful and expected
ways.
A two-stage approach was used to assess the unidimensionality and structure of each AAPI-2 Scale.
First, each scale was examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Second, where the results
from the CFA did not support the unidimensionality of the scales, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was
used to examine the structure of the scales.
The computer programs PRELIS 2.30 and LISREL-8.30, developed by Joreskog and Sorbom (1996a,
1996b), were used for all CFA modeling using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. PRELIS, a pre-
processor for the LISREL, was used to examine the distributional assumptions of the observed data and
compute variance-covariance matrices for input into LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996b). In all anal-
yses, the error variances for observed variables were estimated but error covariances were not estimated.
In the assessment of fit of the model using CFA, both global fit measures and local fit measures
were examined. A significant χ2 statistic was not considered sufficient criteria to reject the model. Hu
and Bentler (1999) recommended a two-index strategy to evaluate global model fit. Based on their
examination of different types of models and modeling conditions, the combination of CFI (≥.95) and
SRMR (≤.09) was selected. When sample sizes are small (N ≤ 250), they recommend the CFI/SRMR
combination because other combinations tend to over-reject true-population models in small samples.
These combinations and cutoff values also work well in larger samples. Other commonly reported statistics
of global model fit were also obtained, including the nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973)
and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). The NNFI usually range in
value from 0 to 1 with values above .90 a common cut for acceptable models and above .95 indicating a
 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53 45

good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Values close to zero for the RMSEA suggest that the data and model fit. The
RMSEA and NNFI are the most sensitive index to models with misspecified factor loadings. In addition
to global fit, local fit of individual parameters were examined using t values (>2) and modification indices
(small and similar in magnitude).
Where results from the CFA failed to support the factor structure suggested by the developer,
exploratory procedures were performed using SPSS (version 10.0, 1999). All items were first exam-
ined using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Oblimin rotation, with the number of factors dependent
upon the number of eigenvalues greater than one. Because there was little intercorrelation between the
factors resulting from the PAF, the analyses were rerun using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with
Varimax rotation. This is consistent with the recommendations of Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991), who
suggest that PCA with Varimax is preferred where there is little correlation between factors, because it
often produces more interpretable results. Specifically, all items were examined using Principal Com-
ponents Analysis with Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Again, the number of factors was
dependent upon the number of eigenvalues greater than one.
Alpha reliability coefficients were computed using SPSS to examine the internal consistency of the
AAPI-2 scales. The validity of the AAPI-2 scales and total score was assessed by examining correlations
with instruments designed to measure theoretically related constructs. As each AAPI-2 Scale is believed
to measure a different aspect of attitudes related to parenting, correlations were computed selectively
only for particular AAPI-2 scales that might be related to another instrument collected during the home
visit. Therefore, no correlations were computed for some AAPI-2 scales. The total score from the AAPI-
2 is used in practice as an assessment of the multidimensional construct and was included in validity
analyses. It should be noted that high scores on the AAPI-2 total scale and subscales are indicative of
appropriate, nurturing parenting attitudes and behavior, though this may seem somewhat confusing given
the names of the scales, which suggest the reverse. Therefore, the following relationships were expected:
(1) positive scores on the AAPI-2 Inappropriate Expectation Scale would be negatively correlated with
the Parenting Style—Maturity Demands Scale (few inappropriate expectations should be related to fewer
demands for maturity), (2) AAPI-2 Lack of Empathy scores would be positively correlated with the
HOME Responsivity Scale (high levels of empathy should be related to high levels of responsivity), and
negatively correlated with the Parenting Style—Harsh Control Scale, (3) positive scores on the AAPI-2
Value Physical Punishment scale (less endorsement of physical punishment) would be negatively related
to scores on the Parenting Style—Harsh Control and PDMI—Harsh Discipline Scale, positively related
to HOME Acceptance, and negatively related to PKBS problem behaviors, and (4) the AAPI-2 total scale
score would be related positively to the HOME Responsivity and HOME Acceptance scales, negatively
to the two measure of harsh parenting (Parenting Style—Harsh Control and PDMI—Harsh Discipline),
and negatively related to presence of problem behaviors on the PKBS.

Results

Unidimensionality of AAPI-2 scales

As indicated in Table 2, the global fit indices suggest that only one AAPI-2 Scale, Oppressing Children’s
Power and Independence, fit with a one-factor model. Standardized factor loadings for this scale ranged
from .39 to .59. For four AAPI-2 scales (Lack of Empathy, Value Corporal Punishment, Inappropriate
46 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

Table 2
Alpha reliability coefficients and results from Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Scale Number of items α χ2 df p RMSEA NNFI CFI SRMR Summary of fit
Lack of Empathy 10 .79 178.82 35 0.0 .11 .75 .86 .89 Poor
Inappropriate 7 .64 161.21 14 0.0 .18 .52 .68 .11 Poor
Expectations
Value Corporal 11 .79 216.31 44 0.0 .11 .78 .82 .06 Poor
Punishment
Role Reversal 7 .59 103.91 14 0.0 .14 .62 .75 .09 Poor
Oppressing Power 5 .50 5.65 5 .34 .02 .99 1.0 .02 Good
and Independence
Note. df, degrees of freedom; p, probability level; RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation; NNFI, nonnormed fit
index; CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardized root mean squared error of approximation.

Expectations, and Role Reversal) values on either the CFI or SRMR differed from the recommended
cutoff, indicating that the scale does not fit with a one-factor model. Given that the fit was poor for four
of the five scales, all 40 AAPI items were examined using exploratory factor analysis (first with Principal
Axis Factoring or PAF, then with Principal Components Analysis or PCA). The PAF resulted in 10 factors,
which were generally uncorrelated (of the 45 correlations, only 6 were greater than .30). Because there
was little correlation between factors, the items were then re-examined using PCA with Varimax, which
often produces more interpretable results. Results from the PCA are reported below. Table 3 includes
the factor loadings for each item from both the confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses (Principal
Components Analysis).
The PCA resulted in 10 factors which explained 56.2% of the total variance. The first factor, which
included 7 items, accounted for 18.2% of the variance (eigenvalue = 7.3). This factor included 7 of 10
items from the Lack of Empathy Scale, and factor loadings ranged from .56 to .71. The second factor
consisted of 9 of 11 items from the Value Corporal Punishment Scale, and accounted for 9.3% of the
variance (eigenvalue = 3.7). Factor loadings ranged from .44 to .73. The third factor included 3 of 7 items
from the Inappropriate Expectations Scale, and accounted for 6.3% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.5).
Factor loadings ranged from .58 to .73.
The fourth factor included three items from the Role Reversal Scale, one item from the Inappropriate
Expectations Scale, and two items from the Lack of Empathy Scale (though they loaded only slightly
higher on this factor than on factor 1). This factor accounted for 4.3% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.7).
Factor loadings ranged from .35 to .69. The fifth factor consisted of two items from the Role Reversal
Scale and one item from the Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence Scale. This factor accounted
for 3.6% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.4). The factor loadings for these items ranged from −.54 to .74.
The sixth factor included 2 of 5 items from the Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence Scale
and an item from the Inappropriate Expectations Scale. This factor accounted for 3.2% of the variance
(eigenvalue = 1.2), and the factor loadings ranged from −.40 to .71.
The seventh factor included two items from the Role Reversal Scale and two items from the Oppressing
Children’s Power and Independence Scale. The factor accounted for 3.1% of the variance (eigen-
value = 1.2), and the factor loadings ranged from .36 to .67. The eighth factor included an item from
the Value Corporal Punishment Scale and an item from the Lack of Empathy Scale. The factor loadings
were −.43 and .66, and the factor accounted for 2.9% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.1). The ninth factor
 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53 47

Table 3
AAPI-2 (Form B) items and factor loadings: Confirmatory and Exploratory Factor Analysis
AAPI-2 scales and itemsa CFA: factor EFA: factor and
loadings (factor loadings)
Inappropriate Expectations
2. The problem with kids today is that parents give them too much .72 F3 (.73)
freedom.
10. Children should be obedient to authority figures. .27 F6 (−.40)
15. Children nowadays have it too easy. .70 F3 (.68)
22. Give children an inch and they’ll take a mile. .51 F3 (.58)
23. Parents spoil babies by picking them up when they cry. .42 F4 (.46)
27. Children should be taught to obey their parents at all times. .41 F9 (.54)
39. Good children always obey their parents. .28 F9 (.71)

Lack of Empathy
1. Children who express their opinions usually make things worse. .66 F1 (.58)
9. Crying is a sign of weakness in boys. .80 F1 (.71)
13. Parents’ needs are more important that children’s needs. .59 F1 (.63)
14. Praising children is a good way to build their self-esteem. .70 F1 (.59)
20. Children should be seen and not heard. .65 F1 (.56)
21. Parents who encourage their children to talk to them only end up .77 F1 (.66)
listening to complaints.
30. The less children know, the better off they are. .63 F1 (.34), F4 (.39)
31. Two-year-old children make a terrible mess of everything. .53 F1 (.33), F4 (.35)
33. Parents should expect more from boys than girls. .85 F1 (.66)
40. Children cry just to get attention. .57 F8 (−.43)
Value Corporal Punishment
5. Spanking children when they misbehave teaches them how to .74 F2 (.73)
behave.
6. Children who bit others need to be bitten to teach them what it .55 F2 (.44)
feels like.
11. You cannot teach children respect by spanking them. .51 F2 (.62)
12. Children learn violence from their parents. .13 F8 (.66)
18. Children who are spanked usually feel resentful towards their .52 F2 (.68)
parents.
19. Strong-willed toddlers need to be spanked to get them to behave. .61 F2 (.55)
28. Mild spankings can begin between 15 and 18 months of age. .64 F2 (.59)
29. If a child is old enough to defy a parent, then he or she is old .66 F2 (.55)
enough to be spanked.
32. If you love your children, you will spank them when they mis- .75 F2 (.66)
behave.
36. Never hit a child. .27 F10 (.77)
37. Children who are spanked behave better than children who are .69 F2 (.67)
not.
Role Reversal
3. Children should offer comfort when their parents are sad. .19 F5 (.67)
7. Children need to be potty trained as soon as they are two years .33 F7 (.61)
old.
16. Children should be the main source of comfort for their parents. .42 F7 (.67)
24. Children should be considerate of their parent’s needs. .29 F5 (.74)
48 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

Table 3 (Continued )
AAPI-2 scales and itemsa CFA: factor EFA: factor and
loadings (factor loadings)
25. In father’s absence, the son needs to become the man of the .77 F4 (.69)
house.
34. Older children should be responsible for the care of their .71 F4 (.55)
younger brothers and sisters.
38. Children should know when their parents are tired. .54 F4 (.59)
Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence
4. Children who learn to recognize feelings in others are more .48 F5 (−.54)
successful in life.
8. Parents who are sensitive to their children’s feelings and moods .39 F7 (.42)
often spoil them.
17. Parents expectations of their children should be high, but .59 F6 (.71)
appropriate.
26. Consequences are necessary for family rules to have meaning. .55 F7 (.36)
Rewarding children’s appropriate behavior is a good form of dis- .54 F6 (.62)
cipline.
a
Items were recoded prior to analysis so that higher scores on all items indicate more nurturing parenting attitudes.

included two items from the Inappropriate Expectations Scale. The factor accounted for 2.7% of the
variance (eigenvalue = 1.07), and the factor loadings were .54 and .71. Finally, the tenth factor included
one item from the physical punishment scale, accounted for 2.6% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.05), and
the factor loading was .77.

AAPI-2 Scale reliability

Alpha reliability coefficients were computed for each AAPI-2 Scale. For the full 40-item scale, the α
value was .85. The α coefficients for the subscales are shown in Table 2, and were highest for the Lack
of Empathy and Value Corporal Punishment scales (.79). The scale demonstrating the lowest internal
consistency was Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence (.50).

AAPI-2 Scale validity—relationships with other instruments

Correlations between three AAPI-2 scales (Inappropriate Expectations, Lack of Empathy, and Value
Corporal Punishment) and the full scale and related instruments were computed. As seen in Table 4,
11 of the 12 correlations were significant, using α less than .05 as the criteria. Using a more stringent
test of significance to control for experimentwise error rate (α = .05/12), the four smallest correlations
would not be considered significant. Relatedly, using Cohen’s (1988) criteria to interpret the magnitude
of the correlations, 8 of the 12 were “small” (<.30) in magnitude, while 4 were “moderate” (>.30 and
<.50) in size. Specifically, there was a small correlation between the Lack of Empathy Scale and the
HOME Responsivity Scale (.22, p < .01), and a moderate correlation with the Harsh Scale from the
Parenting Style instrument (−.37, p < .01). The direction of the correlations suggests that the presence of
more empathy on the AAPI-2 is positively correlated with the presence of nurturance and responsivity
on the HOME and negatively correlated with a harsh parenting style. Correlations between the Value
 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53 49

Table 4
Correlations between AAPI-2 scales and related instrumentsa,b
Selected AAPI-2 scalesc

Inappropriate Lack of Empathy Value Corporal Punishment Full Scale

Expectations
HOME Warmthc – .22** – .19**
HOME Acceptancec – – .14 *
.18**
PDMI—Harsh Disciplined – – −.33** −.36**
Parenting Style—Harsh Controld – −.37** −.29** −.45**
Parenting Style—Maturity Demands ns – – –
PKBS Problem Behaviore – – −.17* −.23**
a
Dashes indicate no correlations were calculated.
b
Sample size varies due to missing data on some questionnaires.
c
High scores indicate positive parenting.
d
High scores indicate harsh parenting.
e
High scores indicate greater behavior problems.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Corporal Punishment Scale and other paper and pencil measures of harsh discipline were significant and
of moderate size (−.29, −.33, p < .01). The direction of the correlations indicate that positive scores on
this scale (not endorsing use of physical punishment) were related negatively to the other measures of
harsh discipline and harsh parenting style. The correlation between the Value Corporal Punishment Scale
and the observational measure of discipline (HOME Acceptance) was small, though still significant,
and in the expected direction (.14, p < .05). There was also a small negative correlation (−.17, p < .05)
between the Value Corporal Punishment Scale and the PKBS Problem Behavior Scale (not endorsing use
of physical punishment is negatively related to presence of behavior problems). Correlations between
the full scale and related measures were all significant and ranged in size from small to moderate (.18
to −.45). In sum, all correlations were in the expected direction, though most were small in magnitude
(Cohen, 1988).

Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to examine the utility of the AAPI-2 for assessing parenting attitudes in
a specific population: low-income, rural parents whose children were enrolled in Head Start programs.
Given concerns about the literacy levels of participants, we chose to administer the AAPI-2 by reading
the items aloud to respondents and recording their answers. In interpreting the findings of this study it is
important to remember that the results apply to this unique sample, using this particular administration
method. Based on this sample, results from the CFA support the unidimensionality of one of the five
AAPI-2 scales: Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence. For the remaining four scales the fit of
the data to the model did not support the hypotheses of unidimensionality. Exploratory factor analysis of
the 40-item scale provided limited support for the factor structure suggested by the AAPI-2 developer.
The strongest support was for the Value Corporal Punishment Scale, as 9 of 11 items on this scale loaded
50 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

together. The two items that did not load on this factor (“never hit a child” and “children learn violence
from their parents”) were described by data collectors in this study as having been a source of confusion
for many parents. The PCA results also offer some support for the Lack of Empathy Scale, as 7 of 10
items loaded together, and 2 more items loaded only slightly higher on other factors.
In this sample, both the CFA and PCA analyses indicate that the remaining three scales from the AAPI-
2 did not form three one-dimensional constructs. Items from the Role Reversal Scale were split across
three factors, each of which also included items from other scales. Similarly, items from the Oppressing
Children’s Power and Independence Scale were split across three factors, and Inappropriate Expectations
items were split across four factors.
It should be noted that the purpose of the exploratory factor analysis was not to suggest a new factor
structure, rather it was yet another way to assess the level of support for the factor structure suggested
by the developer. Given that purpose, we chose to report all factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1,
even though several of the factors accounted for little variance. If we were suggesting an alternate factor
structure, it would likely be appropriate to evaluate a model with fewer factors.
Different standards for reliability have been advocated depending on the intended use of the measure.
Salvia and Ysseldyke (1995) proposed a .60 standard for tests used to measure group performance, .80
for tests used for screening, and .90 for tests used to make individual diagnostic decisions. Based on the
.60 standard for group performance, the α reliability coefficients were acceptable for three scales, but
were lower for Role Reversal and Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence. The α coefficients
were highest for the Lack of Empathy and Value Corporal Punishment Scales, which were most clearly
supported by the PCA. In this sample, the α coefficients did not meet the standards for screening or
making diagnostic decisions. Similar to our findings, the developers of the AAPI-2 also reported finding
the highest α coefficients for the Value Corporal Punishment (.92) and Lack of Empathy (.88) scales,
and the lowest for Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence (.80). However, in their sample the α
reliability coefficients for all scales met or exceeded the .80 standard that has been suggested for screening
tools (Bavolek & Keene, 1999).
The most direct test of the validity of the AAPI-2 would involve comparing the scores of confirmed
abusers to the scores of parents who do not abuse their children. As previously noted, the developer of
the AAPI-2 found that mean scores were significantly lower for abusers than non-abusers. Since this
approach was not possible in this study, we examined the pattern of correlations between the AAPI-
2 and other related instruments. These correlations provide some support for the validity of the full
scale in this sample as well as for the Value Corporal Punishment and Lack of Empathy scales, though
not for the Inappropriate Expectations Scale. There was no relationship between scores on Inappropriate
Expectations and scores on the Maturity Demands instrument that is part of the parenting style measure. As
expected, good scores on the Value Physical Punishment Scale (don’t endorse use of physical punishment)
were negatively related to scores on the two measures of harsh parenting and discipline. It should be noted
that the strength of the association between the AAPI scales and the PDMI harsh discipline measure may
have been affected by the limited variability of the PDMI (which was based on only two items). There
were small positive correlations between scores on the Value Physical Punishment Scale and scores on a
measure of child problem behavior, and on the HOME Acceptance observational measure of discipline
(high scores indicate use of more positive discipline strategies). High levels of empathy on the AAPI-2
were related to high levels of responsivity or warmth on the HOME (though the correlation was small) and
were related negatively to the measures of harsh parenting behaviors. For the full scale, there were small
positive correlations between AAPI-2 scores (indicating positive parenting attitudes) and Responsivity
 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53 51

and Acceptance scores on the HOME, and negative correlations with measures of harsh parenting styles
and discipline techniques. In addition, positive scores on the AAPI-2 were related to fewer problem
behaviors in children as rated on the PKBS.
As would be expected, the larger correlations were between the AAPI-2 scales and other paper and
pencil questionnaires related to parenting, rather than observational measures (HOME), or the child
behavior measure. It should be emphasized that most of the correlations between the AAPI-2 scales and
other measures were small in magnitude. Only four of the correlations were of “moderate” size, and the
four smallest correlations we reported would not be considered significant using a more stringent criterion
to control for the experimentwise error rate. Nonetheless, the pattern of correlations between the AAPI-2
scales included in this analysis and theoretically related constructs offers support for the validity of the
AAPI-2 in this sample.
In sum, based on a sample of low-income, rural, Head Start parents, and using an oral administration
method, this study failed to confirm the five-factor structure proposed by the developer of AAPI-2.
While the Oppressing Children’s Power and Independence Scale was confirmed using CFA (although
the standardized loadings were low), the items from this scale did not load together in the exploratory
analysis, and the scale demonstrated low internal consistency. The results offered partial support for the
Lack of Empathy and Value Corporal Punishment scales. While the CFA results suggested they were not
strictly unidimensional, most items loaded together in the exploratory analysis. This suggests that while
most items factor together, there are some items from the original scale that do not contribute to the scale
for this sample. Additionally, these scales demonstrated good internal consistency and were correlated
as expected to theoretically related measures, suggesting that overall the scales may be useful. This
study did not find evidence for the unidimensionality or validity of the Role Reversal and Inappropriate
Expectations scales. Finally, this study provided some support for the use of the 40-item AAPI-2 total
score as a multidimensional scale based on its internal consistency and relationships to other measures
of parenting and child behavior.
However, these results also suggest that some caution should be used in the interpretation of AAPI-2
results or the use of some of the individual subscales independently. The AAPI-2 manual suggests that
the five scales can provide information about the specific parenting strengths and weaknesses of the
individual, and can serve as the basis for designing specific parenting interventions (Bavolek & Keene,
1999, p. 22). The manual also indicates that the AAPI-2 may be useful as a screening tool for prospective
foster care parents or employees who wish to work with children. Our results suggest that, with samples
similar to ours, caution should be used when the AAPI-2 scales are employed for individual screening or
diagnostic purposes.
Beyond the considerations mentioned above, there are clearly other factors researchers or clinicians
must consider as they make decisions about how to measure the potential for child abuse. For example,
while the AAPI-2 has the advantage of being a brief inventory, the CAP Inventory has other advantages,
including indices designed to detect response bias. All such issues should be given consideration during
the instrument selection process.
One limitation of this study is the relatively small and homogeneous nature of the sample. While we
felt that it was important to examine the utility of the AAPI-2 in this particular population, it is important
to remember that these findings may not generalize to the entire population. Additional validation studies
are needed using larger samples and samples from a variety of populations. Also, studies are needed to
closely examine the validity each scale of the AAPI-2. We were unable to correlate two scales with any
other theoretically related measures.
52 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53

Finally, as previously noted, because of literacy concerns all questionnaires were read aloud to parents
by a research assistant. The AAPI-2 is frequently given to parents to complete on their own, and it is
unclear how differences in mode of administration may impact the results. It is possible that by reading
the questionnaires aloud, parents might be more likely to respond in a manner they believe is socially
acceptable. However, we believe it is important to examine the utility of the AAPI-2 using an oral mode of
administration given that parents with low education levels (and likely low literacy levels) often participate
in parenting support or child abuse prevention classes. When the literacy levels of the respondents are
unknown, reading questionnaires aloud for all participants may be preferable to simply assuming they can
read and understand the questions. Another alternative is to read the questionnaires aloud while allowing
participants to record their responses privately, rather than responding directly to the interviewer. Further
study may be necessary to investigate differences related to mode of administration.

Conclusion

This study provides important information about the validity and reliability of the AAPI-2 for a
particular population of low income, rural parents. In this sample, our results suggest that the AAPI-2
appears to measure attitudes related to harsh or neglectful parenting. However, caution should be used in
the interpretation of individual AAPI-2 scales, especially for individual screening or diagnostic decision
making. Given that the questionnaire is being used as a basis for making important decisions about the
needs of individual parents and the effectiveness of parent training programs, further examination of its
psychometric properties in different populations is warranted.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of Angela White and Danya Johnson, whose work on this study
was extremely valuable.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Bavolek, S. J. (2002). The Florida report: The impact of gender, race, income and education on parenting attitudes. Retrieved
February 10, 2003 from http://www.nurturingparenting.com/researchand/aapirv.htm.
Bavolek, S. J., & Keene, R. G. (1999). Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-AAPI-2: Administration and development handbook.
Park City, UT: Family Development Resources, Inc.
Baydar, N., Reid, M. J., & Webster-Stratton, C. (2003). The role of mental health factors and program engagement in the
effectiveness of a prevention parenting program for Head Start mothers. Child Development, 74, 1433–1453.
Bradley, R. H. (1994). The HOME Inventory: Review and reflections. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and
behavior (pp. 241–288). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). Home observation for the measurement of the environment. Little Rock: University of
Arkansas at Little Rock.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 N.A. Conners et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 30 (2006) 39–53 53

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.
Edwards, M. C., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Conners, N. A., & Deere, D. (2002). The utility of the Preschool and Kindergarten
Behavior Scales in assessing child behavior in an at-risk sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21(1), 16–31.
Greenberger, E., & Goldberg, W. A. (1989). Work, parenting and the socialization of children. Developmental Psychology, 25,
22–35.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996a). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996b). PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Early Head Start research and evaluation. Retrieved February 27, 2003 from
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/3rdLevel/ehstoc.htm.
Merrell, K. W. (1994). Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Merrell, K. W. (1996). Social-emotional assessment in early childhood: The Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales. Journal
of Early Interventions, 20, 132–145.
Milner, J. (1989). Child Abuse Potential Inventory. DeKalb, IL: PSYTEC, Inc.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1995). Assessment (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sax, G. (1980). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
SPSS. (1999). SPSS base 10.0 users guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 25, 173–180.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1998). Conduct problems and level of social competence in Head Start children:
Prevalence, pervasiveness and associated risk factors. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 1, 101–124.

Résumé

French-language abstract not available at time of publication.

Resumen

Spanish-language abstract not available at time of publication.