CHAPTER 3

PARENTAL CONTROL SCALE (PCS): TEST MANUAL

Ronald P. Rohner
Abdul Khaleque

Most socialization researchers appear to agree that behavioral control (permissiveness-

strictness) refers to the attempts made by parents to regulate, manipulate, or manage their
childrens behavior. In effect behavioral control has to do with the demands, directives,
prescriptions (you shall) and proscriptions (you shall not) that parents place on childrens
behavior. The concept of behavioral control also involves the extent to which parents insist on
compliance with their demands, directives, rules, prescriptions, and proscriptions. Behavioral
control does not, however, imply anything specific about the manner in which parents attempt
to enforce their rules. That is, for example, behaviorally controlling parents may use corporal
punishment as a means of enforcing rules, but so may permissive parents. Areas where
parents typically attempt to exert behavioral control include but are not limited to care of
household or other valued items, neatness, obedience, orderliness, noise, responsibility
behavior, punctuality, choice of friends, modesty behavior, and aggression.

Structure of the Parental Control Scale

The Parental Control Scale (PCS) is a 13-item self-report measure (except for the
Parent PCS: Infant Version described below) assessing individuals perceptions of the
behavioral control (i.e., permissiveness or strictness) they now experience as children (Child
PCS: Mother or Father version), experienced earlier in childhood (Adult PCS: Mother or
Father version), or now enforce on their children (Parent PCS: Child version). All versions are
identical except for minor differences such as the verb tense used. A fourth version (Parent
PCS: Infant Version) contains only eight items. It is designed to be used by parents (mothers
or fathers) when they reflect on their behavior toward their infants. This version is virtually
identical to the Parent PCS: Child Version except that five items were removed because they
are not relevant to the infancy period. All versions are included in the Appendixes to this
chapter.

Items in the PCS are scored on a four-point Likert-like scale ranging from (4) Almost
always true to (1) Almost never true. Scores on all but the Infant version spread from a low of
13 (minimum behavioral control, i.e., maximum permissiveness) to a high of 52 (maximum

107
restrictive behavioral control). Scores between 13-26 conceptually indicate low/lax control;
27-39 moderate control; 40-45, firm control, and; 46-52, strict/restrictive control. In effect,
scores in the low/lax control range signify that parents rarely try to control the youth's
behavior. Rather, they allow their offspring to regulate their own activities to the greatest
extent possible. Scores in the moderate control range signify that parents sometimes or often
try to control the youth's behavior. That is, parents are flexible in their control, insisting on
compliance with parental wishes in some contexts but allowing youths considerable latitude
in regulating their own activities in other contexts. Scores in the firm control range signify
that parents usually try to control the youth's behavior. These parents are very demanding and
directive--though not unyielding--of their children's behavior. Finally, scores in the
strict/restrictive range signify that parents (almost) always try to control the youth's behavior.
Restrictive parents demand strict, unyielding obedience and total compliance with parental
directives.

Scores on the Infant version range from a low of 8 (minimum control) to a high of 32
(maximum or restrictive control). This scale was designed in such a way that scores between
8-16 conceptually indicate low/lax control; 17-24, moderate control; 25-28, firm control; and,
29-32, strict/restrictive control.

Development of the Parental Control Scale

The PCS was created in 1987 from three control scales on Schaefer's "Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory" (CRPBI) (Schaefer, 1965; Schludermann &
Schludermann, 1970). Specifically, four items were drawn from Schaefer's Control scale, five
from his Extreme Autonomy scale, and four from his Hostile Control scale. In order to avoid
confounding the content of the PCS with issues of perceived parental acceptance-rejection,
any item in Schaefer's Control scales that suggested warmth/affection, hostility/ aggression,
indifference/neglect, or undifferentiated rejection was deleted. Moreover, only items
consistent with the conceptual definition of parental control given earlier, in the Glossary at
the end of this Handbook, and in Rohner & Rohner (1981) were selected from Schaefer's
CRPBI. Additionally, minor wording changes were made on some of the CRPBI items to
make them more appropriate for inclusion in the PCS.

Since the time of its original development, the PCS has been used in studies within
every major ethnic group in the U.S.including among African Americans, Asian
Americans, European Americans, and Hispanic Americansand in many studies
internationally. Currently (2004), the scale is available in ten languages around the world.
These include Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Dutch, English, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Turkish,
and Urdu. The PCS continues to be translated into other languages as well.

Analyses of the Reliability and Validity of the Parental Control Scale

Coefficient alphaa measure of internal consistencyis the primary measure of

reliability available at this time, though test-retest reliability is also reported later for the
Parent PCS: Infant version. Construct validity of the PCS is estimated through principal
components factor analysis. Results of these analyses are reported below.

108
Reliability of the PCS: Child, Adult, and Parent Versions

As noted above, the Child, Adult, and Parent versions of the PCS (but not the Infant
Version) have been used in every major ethnic group of the U.S.including among European
Americans (Whites). Additionally, the questionnaire has been used in many studies
internationally. In this section we present results of a meta-analysis of coefficient alpha that
emerged in 11 studies internationally. Following this meta-analysis we provide evidence
about the reliability of the Infant version.

Meta-Analytic Method. To locate relevant data for the meta-analysis, we conducted a

literature search of studies from 1987 (the year the scale was created) through May, 2002.
Several sources were used to locate studies. The principal one was the online bibliography of
the Rohner Center for the Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection at the University of
Connecticut (Rohner, 2004). This bibliography includes hundreds of books, monographs,
journals, book chapters, reviews, theses, dissertations, conference papers, and unpublished
papers pertinent to parental acceptance-rejection and parental control. In addition, online
searches were conducted on PsycINFO, Current Contents, Social Work Abstracts,
Dissertation Abstracts International, Anthropological Literature, Sociofile, Child
Development Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, National Council on Family Relations, and
Educational Resources Information Center Database Systems.

Selection of Studies. The meta-analysis included empirical studies that measured

alpha coefficients of the different versions of the PCS described earlier. Unpublished studies
were sought along with published ones because published studies often appear to be biased in
favor of significant results (Kraemer & Andrews, 1982).

Description of Studies. As shown in Table 1, the meta-analysis was computed on 26

effect sizes of the alpha coefficients reported in eleven studies conducted between 1990 and
2002 (Rohner & Khaleque, 2003). Of these eleven studies, eight were unpublished and three
were published. Among the 26 effect sizes, 12 employed the Child version of the PCS
(Mother, 7; Father, 5); ten employed the Adult version (Mother, 5; Father, 5); and, four
employed the Parent Version: Child Form (Mother, 3; Father, 1). Alpha coefficients in these
studies ranged from a minimum value of .49 to a maximum value of .91. All alphas were
positive and statistically significant (p < .001). The studies included an aggregated sample of
4,203 respondents. Respondents to the Child version of the PCS ranged in age from 7 through
19 years; respondents to the Adult and Parent versions of the PCS ranged in age from 19
through 89 years. Among these persons, 1,762 were from the U.S. (African American, 275;
Asian American, 490; European American, 478; mixed ethnicity including African American,
Asian American, and European American, 519). Cross-culturally the sample included 1,917
respondents from Asia, 216 from Europe, and 308 from the West Indies. Studies included in
the meta-analysis are listed with asterisks in the References.

109
 Table 1. Summary of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis of Alpha Coefficients of the PCS: Child, Adult, and Parent Versions

Age Age Ethnic2 Parental Control Effect

Pub1 N M Range Geographic (USA) Child Adult Parent
Size()
Study Mo Fa Mo Fa Mo Fa
Location Alpha
Jordan 1990 u 91 24-53 N. America Mixed X .62***
Khaleque 2001 u 114 22 19-43 N. America Mixed X .88***
Khaleque 2001 u 110 22 19-43 N. America Mixed X .89***
Kim & Rohner 2002 p 245 14 11-18 N. America AsA X .81***
Kim & Rohner 2002 p 245 14 11-18 N. America AsA X .81***
Riaz & Khan 2002 u 100 13 10-16 Pakistan ------ X .48***
Riaz & Khan 2002 u 100 13 10-16 Pakistan ------ X .60***
Riaz & Khan 2002 u 100 49 45-48 Pakistan ------ X .74***
110

Riaz & Khan 2002 u 100 55 50-65 Pakistan ------ X .71***

Rising 1999 u 102 44 30-89 N. America Mixed X .64***
Rising 1999 u 102 44 30-89 N. America Mixed X .69***
Rohner 1995 u 127 8-19 N. America EA X .75***
Rohner 1995 u 119 8-19 N. America EA X .80***
Rohner 1995 u 154 8-18 N. America AfA X .68***
Rohner 1995 u 121 8-18 N. America AfA X .80***
Rohner & Brothers 1999 p 35 N. America EA X .77***
Rohner & Brothers 1999 p 35 N. America EA X .91***

110
 Table 1. (continued)

Age Age Ethnic2 Parental Control Effect

1 Range Geographic Child Adult Parent
Study Pub N M (USA) Size()
Mo Fa Mo Fa Mo Fa
Location Alpha
Rohner, Kean, 1991 p 308 13 7-18 W. Indies ------ X .66***
Cournoyer
Sethi 2001 u 108 20 17-28 Ukraine ------ X .50***
SEIT 2001 u 108 20 17-28 Ukraine ------ X .58***
Stern 1999 u 81 8-13 N. America EA X .70***
111

Stern 1999 u 81 8-13 N. America EA X .63***

Varan 2002 u 356 12 8-17 Turkey ------ X .70***
Varan 2002 u 354 12 8-17 Turkey ------ X .71***
Varan 2002 u 415 34 18-70 Turkey ------ X .81***
Varan 2002 u 392 34 18-70 Turkey ------ X .76***
1
Note: p = Published, u = Unpublished.
2
AfA = African American, AsA = Asian American, EA = European American, Mixed = majority European American; minority African American,
Asian American, and/or Hispanic American.
*** p < .001

111
Meta-analytic Procedures. Because alpha coefficient is based on Pearsons product moment
correlation, the computational method appropriate for aggregating the r family effect sizes
(Rosenthal, 1994) was used. To address the problem of skewness of higher values of alpha
coefficients (in relation to lower values), we used Fishers -transformation method (Fisher,
1928) as suggested by Rosenthal (1994). Alpha coefficients were adjusted in proportion to
sample size in order to examine the impact of sample size on the coefficients. Following the
recommendation of Hedges & Olkin (1985), we then computed the weighted means using the
Z-transformation method.

We also computed aggregate means of unweighted and weighted alpha coefficients for
all studies included in the sample. However, because Hedges and Olkin (1985) showed that
effect sizes may be meaningfully aggregated across studies only if the studies are
homogenous (i.e., if they share a common population) we performed heterogeneity tests to
identify possible outliers, as recommended by Rosenthal (1994). Moreover, to address the
problem of potential bias favoring results in published versus unpublished research, we
computed the Fail Safe N test recommended by Cooper (1979) and by Rosenthal (1979).
Results of all these tests are discussed next.

Results of Meta-Analyses. Results of the meta-analysis displayed in Table 2 show

that the weighted mean effect size (i.e., the overall alpha coefficient) aggregated across all
versions of the PCS and across all samples was .73. Both the unweighted and weighted mean
effect sizes exceeded the .70 level often recommended as the criterion for an acceptable
reliability estimate for multi-item measures used in basic research (Cournoyer & Klein, 2000).

Table 2. Summary Results of Meta-Analysis of Alpha Coefficients Aggregated Across the

Child, Adult, and Parent Versions of the PCS

Summary Measures Statistics

Unweighted mean effect size .74
Weighted mean effect size .73
Total heterogeneity (X2) 0.00
Probability level ns
Fail safe N 2,359
Number of effect sizes 26
Sum total of sample sizes 4,203

Because the heterogeneity test revealed no significant heterogeneity among studies

and no outliers, one may conclude that the studies included in this sample provide a common
or homogeneous estimate of the population effect size of the PCS. Moreover, Fail Safe N test-
results (Wolf, 1986) showed that an additional 2,359 studiesall with non-significant
resultswould be needed to accept the conclusion that the effect sizes (i.e., unweighted and

112
weighted alpha coefficients) shown here were spurious, or that these results were due to
sampling bias.

It is also important to point out that, as shown in Table 3, meta-analyses of all three
versions of the PCS each aggregated across the full range of sociocultural groups represented
in the samples were acceptably highthough both the unweighted and weighted mean effect
sizes of the Parent PCS were marginally below the recommended criterion of .70.
Specifically, unweighted mean effect sizes for the Child, Adult, and Parent versions were .72,
.77, and .68 respectively; weighted mean effect sizes for the three versions were .71, .77, and
.69 respectively. Nonetheless, heterogeneity tests for the three versions showed no significant
heterogeneity or outliers. Moreover, between 53 and 496 additional studiesall with
nonsignificant resultswould be required to accept the conclusion that the effect sizes were
spurious or due to sampling bias.

Table 3. Summary Results of Meta-Analysis of Alpha Coefficients of the PCS: Child, Adult,
and Parent Versions

Summary Measures Child Adult Parent

Unweighted mean effect size .72 .77 .68
Weighted mean effect size .71 .77 .69
Total heterogeneity (X2) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Probability level ns ns ns
Fail safe N 496 343 53
Number of effect sizes 12 10 4
Aggregate sample size 2,310 1,521 372

Grouping the effect sizes by American ethnic groups and by geographic regions of the
world (aggregated across the various versions of the PCS), as presented in Table 4, showed
similar results. Specifically, the unweighted and weighted mean effect sizes for African
Americans were .75 and .74 respectively; for Asian Americans were both .81; for European
Americans they were .78 and .76 respectively; and for multi-ethnic groupings they were .79
and .78 respectively.

Regarding geographic regions, unweighted and weighted effect sizes for Asia were .70
and .73 respectively; for Europe (Ukraine) they were both .55; for North America they were
.78 and .77 respectively; and for the West Indies they were both .66. It is unclear why the
effect sizes for the Ukraine were so low, except that we believe there may have been a
problem with the Russian translation of the PCS used there. The other set of low alphas comes
from the English-speaking West Indies (St. Kitts). It is not entirely clear why these alphas are
marginally below the commonly accepted criterion. It is possible, however, that the cognitive

113
Table 4. Summary of Meta-Analyses of the Parental Control Scale by Geographic Region
and by American Ethnic Group

Geographic Region American Ethnic Group

Asia Europe North West African Asian European Multi-
America Indies American American American Ethnic1
Unweighted mean .70 .55 .78 .66 .75 .81 .78 .79
effect sizes
Weighted mean effect .73 .55 .77 .66 .74 .81 .76 .78
sizes
Number of effect sizes 8 2 17 1 2 2 6 5
Aggregate Sample size 1,917 216 1,762 308 275 490 478 519
1
Multi-ethnic: Two or more American ethnic groups, including African Americans, Asian Americans, and
European Americans.

immaturity of children (i.e., seven- and eight-year-olds) in the St. Kitts sample tended to skew
the alphas slightly downward. Other effect sizes approach or exceed the .80 criterion
sometimes recommended not only for basic research but for studies in clinical and applied
settings where individuals lives may be directly affected by action taken on test results
(Cournoyer & Klein, 2000).

Finally, we should note that the mean effect size for published studies using all three
versions of the PCS ( = .80) was only marginally higher than the mean effect size for
unpublished studies ( = .76). Similarly, the mean effect size ( = .77) for studies with sample
sizes above the median of all PCS studies (median N = 109) was not appreciably larger than
the mean effect size ( = .71) of studies with sample sizes below the median.

Reliability of the PCS: Infant Version

At this time (2004) only one study has reported on the reliability and validity of the
Parent PCS: Infant Version. In that longitudinal study (Britner et al., 2004), 46 parents
reported on their behavioral control of their four-month-old infants at Time 1; 12 months later
(Time 2) a subsample of 28 parents reported on their behavioral control of their then 16-
month-old infants. Eighteen of the infants were female; 10 were male. The sample was
composed primarily of middle-class European American families. Alpha coefficient of the
PCS: Infant version was .74 at both Time 1 and Time 2. Test-retest reliability over the span of
12 months was r (22) = .67, p < .001.

As a matter of general interest it is worth noting that parents at both time periods
reported being moderate in control (Time 1: M = 21.50, SD = 4.17; Time 2: M = 18.74,
SD = 3.56). However, parents were significantly more controlling with younger infants than
with older ones (t (23) = 4.1, p < .001).

114
 Validity of the Parental Control Scale

As noted earlier, the construct validity of the PCS for use in cross-cultural and intra-
national (American) research is estimated here through principal components factor analysis.
In every case, resultant factor matrixes were rotated to an oblique (Direct Oblimin) solution.
Eleven relevant bodies of data are available at this time. As shown in Table 5, these include
data from the Child PCS: Mother Version in American, Korean American, and Pakistani
samples. Table 6 presents data regarding the Child PCS: Mother and Father versions from
Turkey. In this study, Varan (2004) provided information from normal (i.e., nonclinical) and
clinical samples of youths. Unlike data in Table 5, which is based on analyses of individual
PCS items, Varan based his analyses on five clusters of PCS items in each sample, as he did
in Table 7 for the Adult PCS: Mother and Father versions. Finally, Table 8 provides evidence
about the factor structure of the Parent PCS: Infant Version, which draws from an American
sample. Demographic characteristics of each of these samples are shown in Table 9, along
with the sources of each data set. As expected, the same two strong factors emerged in all
analyses. In every case, the first factor was parental strictness; the second was parental
permissiveness.

Table 5. Factor Analyses of the Child PCS: Mother Version (American, Korean American,
and Pakistani Samples)

Americans Korean Americans Pakistanis

Items Strict Permissive Strict Permissive Strict Permissive
5 .34 .12 .41 .08 .49 .06
9 .50 .19 .54 -.35 .39 .38
14 .57 .02 .61 -.21 .78 -.11
18 .63 .28 .63 -.41 .49 .11
27 .60 -.07 .74 -.06 .67 -.01
36 .67 -.00 .72 -.28 .41 .50
45 .53 -.17 .64 -.16 .42 .02
50 .62 .21 .46 -.25 .07 .23
59 .49 .11 .60 -.34 .39 .29
23 .03 .69 .29 -.75 .20 .66
32 .17 .71 .23 -.74 -.03 .42
41 .12 .77 .31 -.69 -.02 .79
54 .11 .67 .15 -.79 -.18 .64
Eigenvalue 2.98 2.02 4.04 1.70 2.39 2.01
% of
variance 22.92% 15.56% 31.08% 13.07% 18.36% 15.46%
explained

115
Table 6. Factor Analyses of the Child PCS: Mother and Father Versions (Turkish Samples)

Normal Sample (n = 1,407) Clinical Sample (n = 248 )

Mother version Father version Mother version Father version
Item Cluster Strict Permissive Strict Permissive Strict Permissive Strict Permissive
1 .21 .88 .13 .88 .87 .23 .86
2 .15 .88 .10 .88 .13 .85 .12 .86
3 .80 .82 .81 .80
4 .82 .19 .81 .10 .83 .13 .78 .25
5 .82 .32 .79 .33 .80 .28 .79 .32
Eigenvalue 2.23 1.35 2.11 1.49 2.09 1.45 2.13 1.32
% of 44.53 27.00 42.22 29.72 41.71 28.94 42.69 26.45
variance
explained
Note: Factor loadings .10 are suppressed

Table 7. Factor Analyses of the Adult PCS: Mother and Father Versions (Turkish Samples)

Mother Version Father Version

Item
Cluster Strict Permissive Strict Permissive

1 .34 .92 .33 .92

2 .33 .92 .24 .92
3 .86 .20 .86
4 .86 .35 .85 .31
5 .87 .43 .84 .44
Eigenvalue 2.76 1.18 2.66 1.30
% of variance 55.19 23.67 53.20 25.91
explained
Note: n = 1,613. Factor loadings .10 are suppressed.

116
Table 8. Factor Analyses of Items in the Parent PCS: Infant Version

Age, 4 months (N = 28) Age, 16 months (N = 28)

PCS Item Strict Permissive Strict Permissive

Tell baby how to behave .85 -.11 .85 .32
Do exactly what supposed to do .88 -.12 .67 .40
Tell baby what to do .83 .13 .82 .02
Control baby .82 -.20 .71 .41
Believe in rules .49 -.64 .62 -.16
Give baby freedom -.01 .85 .29 .83
Let baby do anything .22 .82 .10 .79
Baby knows exactly what to do .50 -.74 .05 .34
Eigenvalue 3.50 2.21 3.06 1.39
% of variance explained 43.70 27.56 38.22 17.36

Discussion

Meta-analyses of alpha coefficients and factor analyses reported in this chapter

support the conclusion that the PCS is a reliable and valid measure for purposes of cross-
cultural research as well as for use throughout the U.S. Effect sizes (alpha coefficients) of
individual studies in the meta-analysis, for example, spread from .48 to .91, with an overall
weighted mean effect size of .73all with probability values less than .001. Alpha coefficient
for the Infant version was .74. Additionally, there is no statistically significant heterogeneity
in effect sizes across the Child, Adult, and Parent versions of the PCS, or across the various
geographic regions and ethnic groups sampled. Results of these meta-analyses also show that
effect sizes are similar for published versus unpublished studies, as well as for smaller-sample
versus larger-sample studies. We should also point out that differences in ethnicity, social
class, race, and other such factors do not appear to exert enough influence to override the
tendency for individuals throughout the U.S. and cross-culturally to perceive PCS items in
similar ways. This inference is based in part on the fact that the same factor structure emerged
in all eleven samples analyzed here. The inference is also supported by the fact that the
average inter-correlation among PCS items (i.e., coefficient alphas) tends to be fairly high
within most of the samples included. Having said this, however, we must also stress that
because effect sizes are far from perfect, part of the unexplained variance in these alphas may
indeed result from sociocultural and other exogenous influences, in addition to attenuation
created by possible translation problems, scoring errors, response bias, and other sources of
measurement error. Nonetheless, overall evidence supports the conclusion that the PCS is a
useful measure for assessing variations in perceived parental control.

117
Table 9. Sample Characteristics of Respondents to the PCS

Respondent
N Age Range Gender SES Source1
Country/Ethnic Group (years) (m/f) (%)

American 281 8-18 129 m 13 poverty Rohner (1995)

152 f 65 working
22 middle
American 46 4 months 15 m 20 working Britner et al.
Infants 31 f 80 middle (2004)
28 16 months 10 m 20 working Britner et al.
18 f 80 middle (2004)
Korean 245 11-18 111 m 42 working Kim & Rohner
American 134 f 58 middle (2002)

Pakistan 100 10-16 60 m 50 low Riaz (in press)

40 f 50 middle

Turkey Normal 1,406 9-19 682 m 24 low Varan (2004)

Child 724 f 21 middle
39 high
17 missing
Clinical 248 9-19 151 m 24 low Varan (2004)
Child 97 f 21 middle
39 high
17 missing
Normal 328 low Varan (2004)
Adult 1,613 17-78 637 m 621 middle
972 f 579 high
1
Bibliographic sources are cited in the References.

118
 References

References marked with asterisks indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

*Britner, P. A., Axia, G., Rohner, R. P., Moscardino, U., Russell, B. S., & Trevisanut, P.
(2004). Temperament, caregiving, and parental warmth in early infancy: Cross-cultural
perspectives between the U.S. and Italy. Manuscript in preparation, University of
Connecticut, Storrs.
Cooper, H. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex
differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
131-146.
Cournoyer, D. E., & Klein, W. C. (2000). Research methods for social work. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Fisher, R. A. (1928). Statistical methods for research workers. London: Oliver & Boyd.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York:
Academic Press.
*Jordan, F. F. (1990). A test of parental acceptance-rejection theory and validation and
reliability of related measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of
Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.
*Khaleque, A. (2001). Parental acceptance-rejection, psychological adjustment and intimate
adult relationships. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Connecticut.
*Kim, K., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Parental warmth, control, and involvement in schooling:
Predicting academic achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 127-140.
Kraemer, N. C., & Andrews, G. (1982). A nonparametric technique for meta-analysis effect
size calculation. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 404-412.
*Riaz, M., & Khan, U. (2002).[Associations among perceived parental acceptance-rejection,
control, and psychological adjustment in Pakistani children.] Unpublished raw data.
Riaz, M. N. (in press). Relationships among perceived parental acceptance-rejection, control,
and psychological adjustment of children in Pakistan.
*Rising, D. G. (1999). The influence of perceived parental acceptance-rejection, parental
control, and psychosocial adjustment on job instability among men. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University.
*Rohner, R. P. (1995). [McIntosh County Parental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Project].
Unpublished raw data.
Rohner, R. P. (2004). Rohner Center for the Study of Parental Acceptance-Rejection
Bibliography. Retrieved from www.cspar.uconn.edu/bibliographies.html.
*Rohner, R. P., Bourque, S. L., & Elordi, C. A. (1996). Childrens perceptions of corporal
punishment, caretaker acceptance, and psychological adjustment in a poor, biracial
Southern community. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 842-852.
*Rohner, R. P., & Brothers, S. A. (1999). Perceived parental rejection, psychological
maladjustment, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 81-
95.
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2003). Reliability and validity of the Parental Control Scale:
A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 34, 643-649.

119
 Rohner, R. P., & Rohner, E. C. (1981). Parental acceptance-rejection and parental control:
Cross-cultural codes. Ethnology, 20, 245-260.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures for effect size. In Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V.
(Eds.), The handbook for research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Schaefer, (1965). Childrens reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development,
36, 413-424.
Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in childrens report of
parental behavior. Journal of Psychology, 76, 239-249.
*Sethi, R. (2002). [Parental acceptance-rejection and control in the contemporary Ukraine.]
Unpublished raw data.
*Stern, B. S. (1998). The parenting styles of mothers and aggression in AD/HD children.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, Hampstead, New York.
*Varan, A. (2002). [Assessment of parental acceptance-rejection and control in Turkish
children.] Unpublished raw data.
Varan, A. (2004). Assessment of parental acceptance and rejection in Turkish children.
Manuscript in preparation. Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
*Varan, A. (2005). Relation between parental acceptance and intimate partner acceptance in
Turkey: Does history repeat itself? Ethos, 33, 414-426.
*Veneziano, R. A. (1996). Perceived parental warmth, parental involvement, and youths
psychological adjustment in a rural, biracial Southern community. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
*Veneziano, R. A., & Rohner, R. P. (1998). Perceived paternal acceptance, paternal
involvement, and youths psychological adjustment in a rural, biracial Southern
community. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 335-343.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

120
 Appendixes to Chapter 3

1 ADULT PCS: Father

2 ADULT PCS: Mother

3 CHILD PCS: Father

4 CHILD PCS: Mother

5 PARENT PCS: Child

6 PARENT PCS: Infant

7 Scoring Sheet: Parent, Child, and Adult PCS: Mother and Father

8 Scoring Sheet: Parent PCS: Infant

Note: For the Intimate Partner Control Scale see Chapter 6 regarding the IPAR/CQ Test Manual

121
 ADULT PCS: Father
Parental Control Scale

_________________________ ___________________
Name (or I.D. number) Date

The following pages contain a number of statements describing the way fathers sometimes act toward their
children. Read each statement carefully and think how well it describes the way your father treated you when you
were about 7-12 years old. Work quickly. Give your first impression and move on to the next item. Do not dwell
on any item.

Four boxes are drawn after each sentence. If the statement is basically true about the way your father
treated you, then ask yourself, Was it almost always true? or Was it only sometimes true? If you think your
father almost always treated you that way, put an X in the box ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE; if the statement was
sometimes true about the way your father treated you then mark SOMETIMES TRUE. If you feel the statement is
basically untrue about the way your father treated you then ask yourself, Was it rarely true? or Was it almost
never true? If it is rarely true about the way your father treated you put an X in the box RARELY TRUE; if you
feel the statement is almost never true then mark ALMOST NEVER TRUE.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to any statement, so be as frank as you can. Respond to
each statement the way you feel your father really was rather than the way you might have liked him to be. For
example, if in your memory he had many rules that he made you follow, you should mark the item as follows:

NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY FATHER
FATHER
Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost Never
Always True True
True
My father had many rules that he made me follow

Respondents significant male caregiver

(if not Father)

Copyright 2001, 2004 by Rohner Research Publications

All rights reserved.
(Revised July, 2004)

122
 NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY FATHER
FATHER
MY FATHER Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost
Always True Never True
True
1. Saw to it that I knew exactly what I may or may not do

2. Told me exactly what time to be home when I went out

3. Was always telling me how I should behave

4. Believed in having a lot of rules and sticking to them

5. Gave me as much freedom as I wanted

6. Told me exactly how I was to do my work

7. Let me go any place I wanted without asking

8. Insisted that I must do exactly as I was told

9. Let me go out any time I wanted

10. Would have liked to be able to tell me what to do all

the time
11. Gave me certain jobs to do and would not let me do
anything else until they were done
12. Let me do anything I wanted to do

13. Wanted to control whatever I did

123
 ADULT PCS: Mother
Parental Control Scale

_________________________ ___________________
Name (or I.D. number) Date

The following pages contain a number of statements describing the way mothers sometimes act toward
their children. Read each statement carefully and think how well it describes the way your mother treated you
when you were about 7-12 years old. Work quickly; give your first impression and move on to the next item. Do
not dwell on any item.

Four boxes are drawn after each sentence. If the statement is basically true about the way your mother
treated you, then ask yourself, Was it almost always true? or Was it only sometimes true? If you think your
mother almost always treated you that way, put an X in the box ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE; if the statement was
sometimes true about the way your mother treated you then mark SOMETIMES TRUE. If you feel the statement is
basically untrue about the way your mother treated you then ask yourself, Was it rarely true? or Was it almost
never true? If it is rarely true about the way your mother treated you put an X in the box RARELY TRUE; if you
feel the statement is almost never true then mark ALMOST NEVER TRUE.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to any statement, so be as frank as you can. Respond to
each statement the way you feel your mother really was rather than the way you might have liked her to be. For
example, if in your memory she had many rules that she made you follow, you should mark the item as follows:

NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY MOTHER
MOTHER
Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost Never
Always True True
True
My mother had many rules that she made me follow

Respondents significant female caregiver

(if not mother)

Copyright 2001, 2004 by Rohner Research Publications

All rights reserved.
(Revised July, 2004)

124
 NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY MOTHER
MOTHER
MY MOTHER Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost
Always True Never True
True
1. Saw to it that I knew exactly what I may or may not do

2. Told me exactly what time to be home when I went out

3. Was always telling me how I should behave

4. Believed in having a lot of rules and sticking to them

5. Gave me as much freedom as I wanted

6. Told me exactly how I was to do my work

7. Let me go any place I wanted without asking

8. Insisted that I must do exactly as I was told

9. Let me go out any time I wanted

10. Would have liked to be able to tell me what to do all

the time
11. Gave me certain jobs to do and would not let me do
anything else until they were done
12. Let me do anything I wanted to do

13. Wanted to control whatever I did

125
 CHILD PCS: Father
Parental Control Scale

_________________________ ___________________
Name (or I.D. number) Date

Here are some statements about the way fathers and other caregivers act toward their children.
I want you to think about how each one of these fits the way your father treats you. If the statement is basically
true about the way he treats you then ask yourself, "Is it almost always true?" or "Is it only sometimes true?" If
you think your father almost always treats you that way, put an X in the box ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE; if the
statement is sometimes true about the way he treats you then mark SOMETIMES TRUE. If you feel the
statement is basically untrue about the way your father treats you then ask yourself, "Is it rarely true? or "Is it
almost never true?" If it is rarely true about the way he treats you put an X in the box RARELY TRUE; if you
feel the statement is almost never true then mark ALMOST NEVER TRUE.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to any statement, so be as honest as you can. Answer each
statement the way you feel your father really is rather than the way you might like him to be. For example, if he
has many rules that he makes you follow, you should mark the item as follows:

NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY FATHER
FATHER
Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost Never
Always True True
True
My father has many rules that he makes me follow

Respondents significant male caregiver

(if not father)

Copyright 2001, 2004 by Rohner Research Publications

All rights reserved.
(Revised July, 2004)

126
 NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY FATHER
FATHER
MY FATHER Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost
Always True Never True
True
1. Sees to it that I know exactly what I may or may not do

2. Tells me exactly what time to be home when I go out

3. Is always telling me how I should behave

4. Believes in having a lot of rules and sticking to them

5. Gives me as much freedom as I want

6. Tells me exactly how I am to do my work

7. Lets me go any place I want without asking

8. Insists that I must do exactly as I am told

9. Lets me go out any time I want

10. Would like to be able to tell me what to do all the time

11. Gives me certain jobs to do and does not let me do

anything else until they are done
12. Lets me do anything I want to do

13. Wants to control whatever I do

127
 CHILD PCS: Mother
Parental Control Scale

_________________________ ___________________
Name (or I.D. number) Date

Here are some statements about the way mothers act toward their children. I want you to think
about how each one of these fits the way your mother treats you. If the statement is basically true about the way
she treats you then ask yourself, "Is it almost always true?" or "Is it only sometimes true?" If you think your
mother almost always treats you that way, put an X in the box ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE; if the statement is
sometimes true about the way she treats you then mark SOMETIMES TRUE. If you feel the statement is
basically untrue about the way your mother treats you then ask yourself, "Is it rarely true? or "Is it almost never
true?" If it is rarely true about the way she treats you put an X in the box RARELY TRUE; if you feel the
statement is almost never true then mark ALMOST NEVER TRUE.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to any statement, so be as honest as you can. Answer each
statement the way you feel your mother really is rather than the way you might like her to be. For example, if she
has many rules that she makes you follow, you should mark the item as follows:

NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY MOTHER
MOTHER
Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost Never
Always True True
True
My mother has many rules that she makes me follow

Respondents significant female caregiver

(if not Mother)

Copyright 2001, 2004 by Rohner Research Publications

All rights reserved.
(Revised July, 2004)

128
 NOT TRUE OF MY
TRUE OF MY MOTHER
MOTHER
MY MOTHER Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost
Always True Never True
True
1. Sees to it that I know exactly what I may or may not do

2. Tells me exactly what time to be home when I go out

3. Is always telling me how I should behave

4. Believes in having a lot of rules and sticking to them

5. Gives me as much freedom as I want

6. Tells me exactly how I am to do my work

7. Lets me go any place I want without asking

8. Insists that I must do exactly as I am told

9. Lets me go out any time I want

10. Would like to be able to tell me what to do all the time

11. Gives me certain jobs to do and does not let me do

anything else until they are done
12. Lets me do anything I want to do

13. Wants to control whatever I do

129
 PARENT PCS: Child
Parental Control Scale

_________________________ _________________
Name (or I.D. number) Date

___________________________________
Relationship to the child (e.g., mother, father)

The following pages contain a number of statements describing the way different parents sometimes act
toward their children. Read each statement carefully and think how well it describes the way you treat your child.
Work quickly; give your first impression and move on to the next item. Do not dwell on any item.

Four boxes are drawn after each sentence. If the statement is basically true about the way you treat your
child then ask yourself, Is it almost always true? or Is it only sometimes true? If you think you almost always
treat your child that way, put an X in the box ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE; if the statement is sometimes true about
the way you treat your child, mark SOMETIMES TRUE. If you feel the statement is basically untrue about the
way you treat your child then ask yourself, Is it rarely true? or Is it almost never true? If it is rarely true about
the way you treat your child, put an X in the box RARELY TRUE; if you feel the statement is almost never true
mark ALMOST NEVER TRUE.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to any statement, so be as honest as you can. Respond to
each statement the way you feel you really are rather than the way you might like to be. For example, if you have a
lot of rules that you make your child follow, you should mark the item as follows:

TRUE OF ME NOT TRUE OF ME

Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost Never
Always True True
True
I have a lot of rules that I make my child follow

Copyright 2001, 2004 by Rohner Research Publications

All rights reserved.
(Revised July, 2004)

130
 TRUE OF ME NOT TRUE OF ME
Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost
Always True Never True
True
1. I see to it that my child knows exactly what (s)he may
or may not do
2. I tell my child exactly what time to be home when
(s)he goes out
3. I always tell my child how (s)he should behave

4. I believe in having a lot of rules and sticking to them

5. I give my child as much freedom as (s)he wants

6. I tell my child exactly how (s)he is to do his/her work

7. I let my child go any place (s)he wants without asking

8. I insist that my child must do exactly as (s)he is told

9. I let my child go out any time (s)he wants

10. I would like to be able to tell my child what to do all

the time
11. I gives my child certain jobs to do and I do not let
him/her do anything else until they are done
12. I let my child do anything (s)he wants to do

13. I want to control whatever my child does

131
 PARENT PCS: Infant
Parental Control Scale

_________________________ ___________________
Name (or I.D. number) Date

_____________________________________
Relationship to the infant (e.g., mother, father)

The following pages contain a number of statements describing the way different parents sometimes act
toward their babies. Read each statement carefully and think how well it describes the way you treat your baby.
Work quickly; give your first impression and move on to the next item. Do not dwell on any item.

Four boxes are drawn after each sentence. If the statement is basically true about the way you treat your
baby then ask yourself, Is it almost always true? or Is it only sometimes true? If you think you almost always
treat your baby that way, put an X in the box ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE; if the statement is sometimes true about
the way you treat your baby, mark SOMETIMES TRUE. If you feel the statement is basically untrue about the
way you treat your baby then ask yourself, Is it rarely true? or Is it almost never true? If it is rarely true about
the way you treat your baby put an X in the box RARELY TRUE; if you feel the statement is almost never true then
mark ALMOST NEVER TRUE.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer to any statement, so be as honest as you can. Respond to
each statement the way you feel you really are rather than the way you might like to be. For example, if you have a
lot of rules that you make your baby follow, you should mark the item as follows:

TRUE OF ME NOT TRUE OF ME

Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost Never
Always True True
True
I have a lot of rules that I make my baby follow

Copyright 2001, 2004 by Rohner Research Publications

All rights reserved.
(Revised July, 2004)

132
 TRUE OF ME NOT TRUE OF ME
Almost Sometimes Rarely True Almost
Always True Never True
True
1. I see to it that my baby knows exactly what (s)he may
or may not do
2. I always tell my baby how (s)he should behave

3. I believe in having a lot of rules and sticking to them

4. I give my baby as much freedom as (s)he wants

5. I try to insist that my baby do exactly what (s)he is

supposed to do
6. I tell my baby what to do all the time

7. I let my baby do anything (s)he wants to do

8. I want to control everything my baby does

133
 Scoring Sheet: PARENT, CHILD, and ADULT Parental Control Scale: Mother and
Father Versions

Version _______________________
(e.g., CHILD PCS: Mother)

Name (ID) _____________________

Date __________________________
Item

*5

*7

*9

10

11

*12

13
Original Reverse
______ Score Score
Total 4 = 1
Control 3 = 2
2 = 3
*Reverse scoring required: 1 = 4

134
 Scoring Sheet: PARENT PCS: Infant Version

Name (ID) _______________________

Date ___________________________
Item

*4

*7

______
Total
Control
Original Reverse
Score Score
*Reverse scoring required:
4 = 1
3 = 2
2 = 3
1 = 4

135