Essay

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Towards a Model of Contemporary

Parenting: The Parenting Behaviours and
Dimensions Questionnaire
Carly A. Y. Reid, Lynne D. Roberts, Clare M. Roberts, Jan P. Piek*
School of Psychology & Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
* [email protected]
Abstract
The assessment of parenting has been problematic due to theoretical disagreement, con-
cerns over generalisability, and problems with the psychometric properties of current par-
a11111 enting measures. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive, psychometrically
sound self-report parenting measure for use with parents of preadolescent children, and to
use this empirical scale development process to identify the core dimensions of contempo-
rary parenting behaviour. Following item generation and parent review, 846 parents com-
pleted an online survey comprising 116 parenting items. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses supported a six factor parenting model, comprising Emotional Warmth, Pu-
OPEN ACCESS
nitive Discipline, Anxious Intrusiveness, Autonomy Support, Permissive Discipline and
Democratic Discipline. This measure will allow for the comprehensive and consistent as-
Citation: Reid CAY, Roberts LD, Roberts CM, Piek
JP (2015) Towards a Model of Contemporary sessment of parenting in future research and practice.
Parenting: The Parenting Behaviours and
Dimensions Questionnaire. PLoS ONE 10(6):
e0114179. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179
Academic Editor: Michel Botbol, University of

Western Brittany, FRANCE Introduction
Received: December 29, 2013 It has long been recognised that child development is affected by multiple interacting contextu-
Accepted: November 5, 2014 al factors at individual, familial, and societal levels [1]. One factor within this context that has
been consistently identified as a significant predictor of child outcomes is parenting. There is a
Published: June 4, 2015
large body of research that suggests that parenting impacts on a range of domains in childhood,
Copyright: © 2015 Reid et al. This is an open including academic, psychological, behavioural, and social [2–4]. In particular, various parent-
access article distributed under the terms of the
ing dimensions, including psychological control, lack of parental warmth and autonomy sup-
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any port, and ineffective behavioural management, have been found to be strongly associated with
medium, provided the original author and source are internalising, externalising, and social problems in children in cross-sectional and longitudinal
credited. studies [5–7].
Funding: This study was supported by funds
Factors such as evolution, family dynamics, culture, and social and political institutions
provided by Curtin University. The funders had no have influenced parenting beliefs and practices over time [8]. However, contemporary parents
role in study design, data collection and analysis, and children are increasingly exposed to advertising, media, and new technologies, and parents
decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. may seek child rearing advice or information from a number of available sources, including
Competing Interests: The authors have declared websites, chat rooms, magazines, and television shows which offer a wide range of contradicto-
that no competing interests exist. ry opinions about parenting. As a result, there is increasing ambiguity surrounding the
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 1 / 23

Parenting Behaviours and Dimensions Questionnaire
behaviours that define “good” parenting, the acceptability of corporal punishment and other
traditional disciplinary strategies, and expected behavioural and developmental standards for
children [9–11].
In addition, there are several specific social trends that have occurred in recent decades that
have had a significant influence on contemporary parenting behaviour. Since the 1970s, the
number of women in the workforce has increased without a corresponding decrease in the
number of men working, general material prosperity has increased, divorce rates have in-
creased, and there have been significant changes in the structure and composition of the aver-
age family [12]. In addition, it appears that contemporary parents are spending more time
working to provide material necessities for their children and less time interacting with chil-
dren and addressing their emotional needs as compared to parents of previous generations
[10].
Although children appear to be better off in many ways than children were 30 years ago, a
number of adjustment and psychological problems, such as childhood depression and anxiety,
are increasing in prevalence with the age of onset decreasing [13]. Furthermore, Loeber and
colleagues [14] reported that externalising symptoms are the primary reason for referral to
child and adolescent mental health services. These disorders are considerably disabling, and
place a significant burden on individuals, families, and society as a whole with regards to both
direct and indirect costs [13], [15]. As parenting has been found to have a significant impact on
the developmental trajectory of both internalising and externalising problems [16], [17], it ap-
pears that there is a pressing need for the comprehensive and accurate definition and measure-
ment of key parenting behaviours that both contribute to and protect against childhood
maladjustment outcomes.
While a substantial amount of theoretical and empirical research over the past six decades
has focused on the concept of parenting, there is a lack of agreement regarding the key ele-
ments and assessment of this construct. A large proportion of the literature has been based on
Baumrind’s [18–20] parenting styles. However, much of this research uses a simplified two fac-
tor typology of emotional warmth and behavioural control to distinguish four parenting styles.
This does not take into account the complexity of Baumrind’s original descriptions, including
elements such as democracy and autonomy granting. In addition, there has been an increasing
focus on the dimension of psychological control in research on adolescent outcomes, a factor
not traditionally associated with Baumrind’s typology, and there is evidence that it may be im-
portant to examine this dimension in the parenting of preadolescent children as well [16], [21],
[22], [23]. The small number of studies that have included the dimension of psychological con-
trol in the parenting of preadolescent children have indicated that it has specific and unique ef-
fects on a number of important childhood outcomes, including internalising and externalising
symptomology [16], [23].
It has also been argued that important information may be lost in combining parenting di-
mensions into styles, and disaggregating these typologies will allow the individual key elements
of parenting to be operationally defined, assessed, and combined into meaningful styles or pat-
terns [24], [25]. Researchers will then be able to examine the independent, cumulative, and in-
teractive effects of these dimensions on childhood outcomes, and the dimensions will provide
the foundations for comprehensive and comparable parenting assessment in future research
and clinical practice [25].
O’Connor [26] and Skinner et al. [25] agreed that the parenting dimensions identified in
any current model may not adequately describe the phenomenology of parenting, and that
there may be other dimensions that warrant further attention. Indeed, a number of parenting
constructs have been proposed in the literature, including democracy [27], involvement [28],
other-oriented discipline [29–32], monitoring [33], corporal punishment [34], contingent

discipline [35], and inconsistency [36]. In addition, constructs such as anxious intrusiveness
[37], power assertion and love withdrawal [29–32], behavioural, emotional, and cognitive psy-
chological control [38], conditional regard [39], hostility [40], dependency-oriented and
achievement-oriented psychological control [41], overprotection and overindulgence [42],
scaffolding [43], [44], responsiveness [45], and invalidation, guilt induction, excessive expecta-
tions, ridiculing, embarrassing in public, comparing to others, ignoring, and violation of priva-
cy [46] have all been described as psychologically controlling or autonomy supportive
parenting behaviour. However, it is unclear whether these dimensions can be subsumed under
the themes of warmth, behavioural control, and psychological control, or whether they com-
prise distinct parenting dimensions that have unique effects on childhood outcomes. In addi-
tion, there does not appear to be any current parent self-report assessment that
comprehensively assesses all of the relevant dimensions and subdimensions in parents of pre-
adolescent children. It is possible that previously unidentified parenting dimensions may be
better able to predict child adjustment outcomes, which highlights the importance of using rig-
orous empirical methodology to uncover the true underlying factor structure of a measure in
order to identify and assess the salient practices of contemporary parents. It is clear from the
literature that a comprehensive but economical, psychometrically sound, and high utility par-
enting measure is needed in order to advance research into the optimisation of parenting be-
haviour and childhood adjustment outcomes.
Therefore, this research aimed to develop an inclusive assessment of parenting through
which the key elements of parenting could be identified and operationally defined, and the spe-
cific effects on childhood outcomes could be investigated. It was hoped that the comprehensive
identification of important parenting elements would allow for clear comparison of parenting
behaviour across parent, child, family, and cultural groups, and greater cohesion between the
various theoretical conceptualisations of parenting, and provide an indication of the important
parenting behaviours to assess in the development of future observational and interview
assessment measures.
This research was based on a wide range of theoretical parenting conceptualisations, self-
report assessments, and qualitative and quantitative input from a sample of parents. A mixed-
method approach was employed in order to combine the expertise of parenting researchers
with the endorsement of contemporary parents in selecting important and relevant items for
inclusion in the final Parenting Behaviours and Dimensions Questionnaire (PBDQ).
Study 1: Item Development

DeVellis [47] suggested that scale development begin with a review of the substantive theories
of interest in order to establish a theoretical foundation for the scale, and items for inclusion in
the initial item pool should be developed to reflect this theoretical basis as well as the purpose
of the scale. However, there is a huge diversity of parenting dimensions that have been
hypothesised and included in assessments developed by the experts in the parenting field over
the past sixty years. This has meant that there is no unanimous agreement over a single, com-
prehensive theory of parenting or set of definitive, core dimensions that this measure could be
based on [26]. Thus, although a comprehensive review of the parenting literature was con-
ducted, including the theoretical conceptualisations of parenting and the development and psy-
chometric evaluation of current parenting instruments, items that were generated for the item
pool were based on pre-existing parenting measures that were selected due to their utility,
availability, theoretical and psychometric support, and assessment of a range of parenting fac-
tors considered to be important by experts in the parenting field. According to DeVellis [47],
expert review of the item pool is an important step in scale development, as experts can

confirm or invalidate the relevance of items, and provide feedback on clarity, redundancies,
item length, reading difficulty, and the use of ambiguous terminology, as well as highlight any
relevant theoretical areas that have not been included. Experts are generally considered to be
people who have worked extensively with the chosen construct [4]. However, 192 of the 210
items in the initial item pool were based on existing questionnaire items proposed by a number
of experts within the parenting field, rather than being written by the researcher (see Table 1),
and can be considered to represent a range of expert opinions. As a result, the experts consulted
in the current project to assess content validity were a sample of parents. Parents were con-
sulted to ensure that the items that were originally developed by the experts in the field were
also considered clear, valid, and practically relevant in assessing the parenting behaviour of
contemporary parents. Some items were also added according to suggestions made by parents
that were consistent with parenting literature and agreed upon by the research team.
Method
This study was approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee. In
study 1, participants provided written consent to participate. They were provided with an in-
formation and consent form, which they were invited to send back in a separate provided enve-
lope to ensure confidentiality.
Participants. Sixteen parents recruited from advertisements throughout the researcher’s
university, community newspapers, and snowballing participated in this study. Participants
were all mothers, with ages ranging from 31 to 51 years (M = 41.71, SD = 7.48). Number of
children per family ranged from one to four, with children’s ages ranging from 3 to 17 years of
age; however all parents had at least one child aged between 3 and 12 years.
A further 15 parents of children aged 3 to 12 years of age were recruited for focus groups
using community advertisements and snowballing. Participants were all female with ages rang-
ing from 32 to 51 years (M = 39.64, SD = 5.57). Number of children per family ranged from
one to five, with children’s ages ranging from 2 to 18 years of age.
Measures. The 270 items of six parent self-report measures were selected as the initial
item pool: the Parenting Scale [48], Alabama Parenting Questionnaire [49], Parenting Styles
Table 1. Parenting Measures Included in the Initial Item Pool.
Measure Author Scope Subscales Items

PS Arnold et al., 1993 Dysfunctional discipline Laxness, overrreactivity, verbosity 30
styles
APQ Shelton et al., 1996 Practices related to Parental involvement, poor monitoring/supervision, inconsistent discipline, 42
externalising problems positive parenting, corporal punishment, other discipline practices
PSDQ Robinson et al., 1995 Baumrind's parenting Authoritative parenting (warmth and involvement, reasoning/induction, 62
typology democratic participation, good natured/easygoing); authoritarian parenting
(verbal hostility, corporal punishment, non-reasoning/punitive strategies,
directiveness); permissiveness (lack of follow through, ignoring misbehavior,
self-confidence)
PAQ-R Reitman et al., 2002 Baumrind's parenting Authoritative, authoritarian, permissive parenting 30
typology
PCRQ Furman & Adler, 1983 Qualities of the parent- Warmth, personal relationship, disciplinary warmth, power assertion, and 57
child relationship possessiveness
WPI Weinberger, Feldman, Parent attitudes and Child-centredness power assertive discipline, inconsistent/permissive 49
& Ford, 1989 behaviours parenting
Note. PS = Parenting Scale; APQ = Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, PSDQ = Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire, PAQ-R = Parental
Authority Questionnaire- Revised, PCRQ = Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire, WPI = Weinberger Parenting Inventory.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179.t001

and Dimensions Questionnaire [50], Parenting Authority Questionnaire- Revised [51], Parent
Child Relationship Questionnaire [52], and Weinberger Parenting Inventory [53]. These mea-
sures were chosen as they assessed a range of important parenting styles and dimensions, were
parent self-report rather than child-reported or retrospectively reported, were freely available,
validated for use with parents of preadolescent children, and included the most frequently used
measures in the literature. A list of 18 items related to dimensions of autonomy support, intru-
siveness, and overprotection was also generated by the research team due to the underrepresen-
tation of these dimensions in the included questionnaires. The combined measures yielded a
total of 288 items. Upon review by the research team, 90 items unanimously deemed redundant
were eliminated, 10 double-barrelled items were reworded into two separate items and 1 triple-
barrelled item reworded into three separate items. This resulted in an initial item pool of
210 items.
It was decided that the response format of the new measure would focus on the frequency of
parenting behaviours (a 5-point Likert-type scale response format ranging from 1 (never), 2
(sometimes), 3 (about half the time), 4 (often), and 5 (always) rather than assessing attitudes or
beliefs, as behavioural frequency appears to be more reliably reported by parents in previous re-
search [54].
A child age range of 3 to 12 years was chosen for the measure, as Roberts et al. [55] reported
relative stability in parenting practices used with children in this age range.
Procedure. Permission was received from authors of the original measures to include
them in this research. The 16 parents initially recruited were asked to review the parenting
questions in the initial item pool and make suggestions, cross out, or write comments about the
questions (participants did not complete the questionnaire). This included questions that
didn’t make sense, were ambiguous, unclear, or difficult to answer, were badly worded, repeti-
tive, irrelevant or inappropriate, or any other comment. The order that the lists were presented
in was alternated, with the option to provide feedback on only one list if preferred. Parents
were then asked to return the comments on the questionnaires to the researcher in the reply
paid envelope.
Three focus groups were conducted using the 15 additional parents recruited, with six par-
ticipants in focus group one, five participants in focus group two, and four participants in focus
group three. At the commencement of the focus group, parents were given a brief outline of the
importance of parenting and the purpose of the current research. Participants were then asked
some general questions about their perspectives on parenting, including what defined them as
a parent, what were the most important things about the way that they parented, what they
thought made a good parent, and what things they wanted to avoid as a parent. Participants
were then asked to read through the parenting questions, and discuss whether the questions
were relevant, made sense, were clearly worded, or repetitive, and finally, if there were any
questions or themes that they felt were missing from the list. Focus groups ran for an average
of 156 minutes.
Results
The initial 16 participants provided written feedback on 210 items, with 16 items receiving no
comments from parents, suggesting that they were unanimously deemed clear and appropriate.
Written comments for each question were collated, and suggestions for additional items were
listed separately. Tapes from the three focus groups were transcribed. Specific item feedback
was extracted from each transcriptand combined with the individual parent comments. Con-
tent analysis [56] was then conducted on each transcript with a focus on manifest meaning.
The categories or themes chosen for the current analysis were reflective of specific parenting

behaviours that had not been assessed by the items in the item pool, as well as any general feed-
back on the item pool that was not item specific. Twenty one themes and accompanying quotes
were combined with suggestions for additional items provided by participants. As a result, 21
items were added to the item pool, using original participant quotes to aid in the wording of
the additional items.
Each item with comments was evaluated by the research team, comprising a PhD (Clinical
Psychology) student, a professor of developmental psychology, and an associate professor and
clinical psychologist with extensive experience in parent research, training, and assessment,
and child behaviour therapy. Two members of the research team are parents. Each item was
evaluated based on the number of comments made by participants, similarity of concerns
raised, and agreement amongst the research team concerning the validity of the feedback raised
in relation to the parenting literature. One hundred and fourteen items that were redundant,
difficult to answer, or inappropriate were deleted. Items that were badly worded, double-bar-
relled, or unclear were reworded where appropriate. Items that were not unanimously voted by
the research team to be deleted were retained. In total, sixty six items were retained unchanged,
114 items were eliminated, and 30 items were reworded, with two of these items reworded into
one item. A ‘rarely’ option was also added to the Likert scale, as suggested by individual and
focus group participants. Final response options therefore included 1 (never), 2 (rarely), 3
(sometimes), 4 (about half the time), 5 (often), and 6 (always). The final list of questions con-
tained 116 items. A summary of the item selection process is presented in a flow chart pre-
sented in Fig 1.
Discussion
The aims of Study One were to develop an initial item pool for the proposed PBDQ that re-
flected the expertise of parenting researchers, and employ a sample of contemporary parents to
conduct an expert review of the items. Following these processes, a total of 116 items were in-
cluded in the final item pool. The response scale for the proposed PBDQ was changed from a
five point Likert-type scale to a six point Likert-type scale due to the participants’ suggestion
that a ‘rarely’ response option be included.
A diverse range of parenting issues and behaviours were considered relevant and important by
parents in the current study. Not all of these issues have been identified by previous parenting
measures, but many of these appear to be consistent with concepts discussed by previous parent-
ing researchers. Other added items did not appear to be directly related to parenting literature, but
are discussed in other areas of psychological literature. For example, the modelling of behaviour,
values, and attitudes relates back to constructivist theories [57], while encouraging or rewarding
good behaviour is discussed in operant conditioning [58], and praising effort rather than focusing
on achievement has been researched in relation to motivational styles [59].
The combination of written parent comments and focus group data in the current research
combined the advantages of both methodologies. Giving parents the opportunity to provide
written feedback allowed them complete the questionnaire at a convenient time and place, and
the feedback was individual and therefore less likely to be influenced or coerced by others [60].
In addition, the methodology was less intrusive and more private than interviews or focus
groups [61], which may have been beneficial in discussing sensitive parenting issues such as
the use of corporal punishment. On the other hand, Kitzinger [62] suggested that the group
discussion of focus groups is particularly advantageous when the researcher intends to encour-
age participants to explore and discuss issues that are important to them using their own vo-
cabulary, which was the case in the current study. Krueger and Casey [63] explained that focus
group participants may also take their cues from other participants' comments, and therefore

Fig 1. Summary of item selection process.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179.g001
greater exploration of a range of perceptions can be achieved due to a process of ongoing and
dynamic activation of the participants’ relevant memories or thoughts.
The combination of a number of different sources of expertise was important as there are a
large number of parenting conceptualisations in the literature and a lack of agreement over the
core dimensions to assess [26]. Finally, the items developed for this measure were designed to
assess the frequency of parenting behaviours rather than assessing attitudes or beliefs, as previ-
ous measures of parenting have been criticised due to their inability to provide specific beha-
vioural information, and behavioural frequency appears to be more reliably reported by
parents [54]. Therefore, the current research combined the advantages of several methodolo-
gies, including literature review, consultation of previous assessments, individual parent feed-
back, and focus groups, in order to produce a reduced item pool of 116 items for the empirical
development of the proposed PBDQ.

One limitation of the study was that no fathers responded to the advertisements to partici-
pate. It is possible that this sample bias may have impacted on the items that were retained in
the initial PBDQ item pool.
Study 2: Factor Structure of the PBDQ

The aim of Study 2 was to determine the factor structure underlying the parenting items for
the proposed PBDQ using a combination of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirma-
tory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Method
This study was approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee. In
study 2, an online questionnaire was used. The link provided in advertising the survey directed
participants to an information sheet housed on the Curtin University website outlining the
purpose of the study, the rights of the participants, and the procedure. Participants were in-
formed that clicking on the link indicated that they gave consent to participate in the study.
Participants were instructed to complete the demographics questionnaire, followed by the par-
enting questionnaire items. Once the parenting questionnaire items were completed, partici-
pants were directed to a debriefing page housed on the Curtin University website.
Participants. Participants comprised a convenience sample of 846 parents of at least one
child aged 3 to 12 years, recruited by advertising through radio, community newspapers, online
parenting and research forums, and snowball sampling. Participants included 763 females and
77 males (gender data missing for six participants) and were aged between 19 and 57 years
(M = 35.85, SD = 6.76). Participants were asked to select one of their children to answer the
questionnaire items about, as there may be differences in the behaviours used by the same par-
ent with different children in their family [64–66]. This was based on the parent’s decision, and
no guidance was given about which child to select.
The majority of the parents who completed the questionnaire lived in Australia (77.42% of
total sample), self-described their ethnic identity as Australian (65.84%), and were mothers
(89.48%), and primary caregivers (86.05%). In addition, the majority of participants were high-
ly educated, with 76.35% having commenced or completed a university qualification.
Almost 82% of participants had partners who lived in the home, and 69.57% of all partners
were married. More than half of the partners (54.14%) had commenced or completed some
university or obtained a university qualification. Participants indicated that 51.89% of their
partners considered their ethnic identity to be Australian, and 18.44% had suffered from psy-
chological problems at some point in their life.
A large majority of the sample (90.19%) came from families with three children or less, and
almost 70% of these families were comprised of the child’s mother and father living together.
The age of the child chosen by the parent ranged from 3 to 12 years (M = 6.85, SD = 2.84), and
most of these were first born children (66.19%). Slightly more male children (50.83%) were
chosen than female children (47.87%), and parents indicated that 7.68% of children had suf-
fered from psychological problems at some point in their life.
Materials. The reduced list of 116 parenting items developed in the previous chapter was
used for this study. These items asked participants to report how often they engaged in the be-
haviours specified in the items, rated on a 6 point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 6
(always).
A questionnaire assessing a number of parent, child, and family related demographic vari-
ables was used in this study.

Procedure. Demographic questions and the PBDQ item pool were formatted into an on-
line survey using the limesurvey.com platform. Internet data collection was used in the current
study as a cost-effective means of obtaining a large and diverse sample of parents as partici-
pants without affecting the nature and quality of the results [67]. In line with best practice [68],
the survey was sandwiched between an information sheet and debriefing page hosted on a uni-
versity website. Items from the PBDQ item pool were presented immediately following the de-
mographic questions. The child’s age and parenting questionnaire items were set to forced
response so that all of these items had to be answered. Upon completion of the survey partici-
pants were invited to enter a draw to win a $100 voucher, a strategy previously shown to in-
crease survey response and retention rates [69].
Data Analysis. Data for the EFA were collected over a six month period. Cases (N = 815)
were downloaded from limesurvey.com into an Excel file, which were then imported into a
Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) database. Once the data were screened for non-valid re-
sponses (N = 778 cases remaining), 580 cases were randomly selected for the EFA using
PASW.
Data were downloaded from limesurvey.com again five months later into an Excel file
(N = 888) and imported into a PASW database. Once these data were screened, the additional
68 cases collected were combined with the 198 remaining cases from the previous PASW data-
base for the CFA (N = 266).
Results
Exploratory Factor Analysis. Assumption testing indicated the data were suitable for fac-
tor analysis, with the sample size of 580 meeting the minimum ratio of five cases per variable
[70]. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Promax rotation (Kappa = 4) was selected as the aim
was to identify the latent variables that caused the manifest variables to covary [71]. Oblique
rotation was chosen over orthogonal rotation, as the literature suggests that some factors, such
as warmth and autonomy support, may be correlated [19], [20], [50].
Parallel analysis was conducted at the beginning of the analysis, and after the elimination of
each item, to determine the number of factors to retain [72]. Initial parallel analysis indicated
that ten factors should be retained, which was specified as the value of the fixed number of fac-
tors to extract in the initial PAF analysis. The minimum criteria for item retention was a prima-
ry factor loading greater than or equal to 0.32, and cross-loadings on a secondary or tertiary
factor less than 0.32 as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell [73]. Items were eliminated in-
dividually, beginning with those items with the lowest primary factor loadings. A total of 41
items were eliminated as they failed to meet the minimum primary factor loading criteria.
Items cross-loading on a secondary or tertiary factor greater than 0.32 were then eliminated as
recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell, beginning with those items with the highest cross
loadings. Following the removal of each item, all remaining items were re-evaluated against the
minimum primary loading criteria before being re-examined for significant cross-loadings.
The elimination of significant cross-loadings resulted in the removal of a further 15 items.
A six factor solution was achieved, with all items meeting the minimum criteria for signifi-
cant primary factor loading and non-significant cross-loadings. Further items were then re-
moved with the aim of producing a brief measure that minimised burden on respondents while
retaining acceptable reliability [47]. Twenty-two items were removed based on lack of theoreti-
cal fit and/or the impact on the reliability of the scales. One item was also removed for utility
purposes, as it was the only remaining reverse-scored item in the questionnaire. Cronbach’s
alpha remained above the acceptable level of 0.7 [74] for all scales.

The final EFA six factor solution consisted of 36 items. The pattern factor loading matrix
for this solution is presented in Table 2. Factor loadings ranged from .39 to .80, with the major-
ity above .50. Factors, labelled based on previous literature [20], [37], [49], [53], [75], [76],
were Emotional Warmth, Punitive Discipline, Autonomy Support, Permissive Discipline, Anx-
ious Intrusiveness, and Democratic Discipline.
Table 2. Final Pattern Factor Loading Matrix for EFA.
Item Factor Loading
EW PD AI AS PerD DD
I tell my child how proud I am of him/her .73
I respond to my child’s feelings or needs .68
I show an interest in my child’s life .65
I show my child that I love them unconditionally .63
I recognise my child’s strengths and talents .56
I make time for my child when he/she needs me .50
The punishments that I decide on are influenced by my mood .75
I lose my patience when my child does something to upset me .75
I punish my child more severely than I mean to .70
I am easy on my child one minute, and hard on him/her the next .68
I threaten my child with punishments that I would never actually use .48
I worry about my child when he/she is not at home .61
I am more concerned with my child’s feelings than my own .55
I share more of my life with my child than with anyone else .54
I try to anticipate what my child’s desires are and provide them before he/she has to ask .52
I rely on my child to cheer me up when I’m feeling down .50
I try to shield my child from experiencing negative emotion .46
I try to meet my child’s desires immediately .46
I encourage my child to try things for him/herself before asking for help .74
I encourage my child to problem solve .62
I let my child try to figure things out for him/herself before giving my input .61
I adjust my level of assistance in tasks based on my child’s age and ability .44
I encourage my child to choose his/her own interests and activities .43
I give my child responsibilities appropriate to his/her age .42
I don’t punish my child when he/she has misbehaved .59
I allow my child to interrupt other adults .54
I do things for my child when he/she refuses to do them .54
I ignore my child’s misbehaviours .49
I don’t punish my child if he/she acts sorry .45
I give in to my child when he/she gets upset .42
I do things for my child that he/she is capable of doing for him/herself .39
I talk to my child about the consequences of his/her actions .80
I explain to my child how I feel about his/her behaviour .68
I let my child know what behaviour is expected .51
I give my child reasons about why he/she isn’t allowed to do something .51
I encourage my child to consider the consequences of their choices before making them .43
Note. EW = Emotional Warmth, PD = Punitive Discipline, AI = Anxious Intrusiveness, AS = Autonomy Support, PerD = Permissive Discipline,
DD = Democratic Discipline.

Table 3. Comparison of Correlated and Uncorrelated CFA Models.
Model S-B χ2 S-B χ2/df CFI NNFI RMSEA RMSEA upper limit RMSEA lower limit
Cut-off Criteria <2 = / >.85 = / >.85 = / <.06 <0.08 close to 0
Original Correlated Model 952.19 1.65 0.86 0.85 0.05 0.06 0.04
Correlated Model with 3 Items Removed 675.8 1.51 0.9 0.89 0.04 0.05 0.04
Uncorrelated Model 1157.34 2.34 0.73 0.71 0.07 0.08 0.07
Note. S-B χ = Satorra-Bentler Chi-square statistic, S-Bχ /df = Satorra-Bentler chi-square divided by degrees of freedom, CFI = Comparative Fit Index,
2 2
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. CFA was conducted on the separate, independent sample
of 266 participants. Two models were compared: a correlated six factor model, and an uncorre-
lated six factor model. Following testing of assumptions, CFA was conducted using EQS ver-
sion 6.1, utilising the robust statistics option. The Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test indicated
three items had significant cross-loadings with other factors and were removed from the analy-
sis. These items were ‘I rely on my child to cheer me up when I’m feeling down’, ‘I encourage
my child to problem solve’, and ‘I ignore my child’s misbehaviours’. Four fit indices; the Com-
parative Fit Index (CFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) and the Satorra-Bentler chi-square divided by degrees of freedom;
were used to evaluate model fit. The fit statistics for the 33 item correlated and uncorrelated
models are summarised in Table 3. The correlated model demonstrated acceptable fit statistics,
meeting the minimum value for all robust fit estimates. Table 4 shows the final pattern factor
matrix for the CFA.
Using the combined EFA and CFA dataset, mean scores were created for each of the six
factors using the average score of the items which had their primary loadings on each factor,
with higher scores indicating greater use of the parenting behaviours described by the di-
mension. A mean score was chosen due to the unequal number of items in each factor, al-
lowing for greater ease of comparability between subscales. Sample descriptive statistics for
the six factors are displayed in Table 5. Inspection of the distribution of the 33 items includ-
ed in the final measure indicates a moderate degree of skewness (range of skewness -2.2 to
1.4, standard error .08) and kurtosis (range of kurtosis -1.27 to 6.3, standard error .17) of
some items. These values fall below the cut-offs of 3 and 8 respectively that indicate data is
unsuitable for analysis without transformation [77]. Visual inspection of the histograms and
Q-Q plots suggested that all factors excepting Emotional Warmth and Punitive Discipline
approximated normality. The Emotional Warmth factor appears to be significantly nega-
tively skewed and leptokurtic, while the Punitive Discipline distribution appears to be mod-
erately positively skewed. This is consistent with previous research, which shows that
parents in community samples generally score highly in dimensions of warmth and accep-
tance, and low in harsh, punitive discipline [78–81]. Cronbach’s alpha for the Anxious In-
trusiveness subscale was only minimally acceptable in the combined sample (.60 for
subscales with less than 10 items [82]).
Correlations between factor scores are displayed in Table 6. As expected, some medium to
large significant correlations were found between composite scores, specifically between Emo-
tional Warmth and Punitive Discipline, Anxious Intrusiveness, Autonomy Support, and Dem-
ocratic Discipline; Punitive Discipline and Autonomy Support, Permissive Discipline, and
Democratic Discipline; Autonomy Support with Permissive Discipline and Democratic Disci-
pline; and Permissive Discipline with Democratic Discipline.

Table 4. Final Pattern Factor Loading Matrix for CFA.
Item Factor Loading
EW PD AI AS PerD DD
I tell my child how proud I am of him/her .67
I show an interest in my child’s life .70
I show my child that I love them unconditionally .71
I make time for my child when he/she needs me .74
I respond to my child’s feelings or needs .73
I recognise my child’s strengths and talents .64
I lose my patience when my child does something to upset me .55
I threaten my child with punishments that I would never actually use .60
I am easy on my child one minute, and hard on him/her the next .76
The punishments that I decide on are influenced by my mood .74
I punish my child more severely than I mean to .61
I worry about my child when he/she is not at home .24
I am more concerned with my child’s feelings than my own .40
I share more of my life with my child than with anyone else .43
I try to anticipate what my child’s desires are and provide them before he/she has to ask .68
I try to shield my child from experiencing negative emotion .49
I try to meet my child’s desires immediately .53
I encourage my child to choose his/her own interests and activities .44
I encourage my child to try things for him/herself before asking for help .56
I adjust my level of assistance in tasks based on my child’s age and ability .54
I give my child responsibilities appropriate to his/her age .71
I let my child try to figure things out for him/herself before giving my input .56
I give in to my child when he/she gets upset .65
I don’t punish my child if he/she acts sorry .39
I do things for my child that he/she is capable of doing for him/herself .44
I do things for my child when he/she refuses to do them .72
I allow my child to interrupt other adults .54
I don’t punish my child when he/she misbehaves .49
I let my child know what behavior is expected .64
I encourage my child to consider the consequences of their choices before making them .56
I give my child reasons about why he/she isn’t allowed to do something .44
I talk to my child about the consequences of his/her actions .77
I explain to my child how I feel about his/her behavior .70
Discussion
This research aimed to use empirical procedures to produce a brief but comprehensive assess-
ment of key contemporary parenting dimensions. Following item development and evaluation,
EFA and CFA were used to support the development of a multidimensional measure of parent-
ing, including Emotional Warmth, Punitive Discipline, Anxious Intrusiveness, Autonomy Sup-
port, Democratic Discipline, and Permissive Discipline. The resultant Parenting Behaviours
and Dimensions Questionnaire (PBDQ) has a sound factor structure and good internal consis-
tency for all subscales.
The Emotional Warmth factor, consistent with previous descriptions of warmth [20], [28],
[78] reflects the degree of affection and emotional support that parents show toward their
child, with higher scores indicating high levels of acceptance, display of positive affect, and

Table 5. Sample Descriptive Statistics for Final Solution (N = 846).
Factor Score α M SD K-S p Skewness Kurtosis
Range Raw score z-score Raw score z-score

Emotional Warmth 2.67–6.00 0.83 5.53 0.46 0 -1.64 -19.48 4.81 28.63
Punitive Discipline 1.00–5.20 0.79 2.24 0.71 0 0.87 10.33 0.91 5.39
Anxious Intrusiveness 1.50–5.83 0.66 3.49 0.8 0 0.28 3.3 -0.3 1.8
Autonomy Support 2.60–6.00 0.7 5.06 0.54 0 -0.6 -7.15 0.89 5.32
Permissive Discipline 1.00–4.50 0.7 2.52 0.61 0 0.33 3.88 0.16 0.93
Democratic Discipline 3.00–6.00 0.75 5.2 0.56 0 -0.7 -8.27 0.46 2.76
Note. K-S = Kolmogorov—Smirnov.
receptiveness shown to the child. Half of the items were suggested by contemporary parents in
the item development phase, supplemented by on researcher generated item, and two items
from previous measures [50], [53].
Emotional warmth facilitates the development of a sense of competence, agency, and trust
in the child, providing the foundation for confidence and competence in social interactions as
well as high academic achievement [83], [84]. When emotional warmth is absent, a number of
adverse outcomes may arise, including elevated levels of hostility, dependence or detachment,
and anxiety, poor self-esteem and self-adequacy, emotional unresponsiveness and dysregula-
tion, and a negative worldview [85–87].
Previous research suggests that punitive, power assertive, or physical punishment methods
are associated with poor outcomes in children [34], [88]; and in the current study, Punitive
Discipline emerged as the second strongest factor. All Punitive Discipline items were based on
items included in the WPI [53] Higher scores on this subscale reflect higher levels of harsh,
psychological, and mood-dependent discipline strategies. This Punitive Discipline factor ap-
pears to be consistent with authoritarian parental control which is forceful, punitive, and re-
strictive, as opposed to authoritative control, which is democratic, clearly explained, rational,
and firm [18–20]. This factor also appears to reflect power assertive behaviours as described by
Hoffman [29], [30], [89]. Parental rejection or hostility, reflected in this Punitive Discipline
subscale, may be part of the psychological control dimension, including criticism, hostility, ag-
gression, harshness, ignoring, and neglect [40], [46], [90]. The current findings support
Table 6. Correlation Between Factors in Final Solution (N = 846).
Emotional Punitive Anxious Autonomy Permissive Democratic

Warmth Discipline Intrusiveness Support Discipline Discipline
Emotional Warmth 1.00 -.37* .26* .49* -.19* .53*
Punitive Discipline 1.00 .12* -.32* .35* -.31*
Anxious 1.00 .01 .20* .05
Intrusiveness
Autonomy Support 1.00 -.29* .49*
Permissive 1.00 -.29*
Discipline
Democratic 1.00
Discipline
Note.
*p < .01.

Grolnick and Pomerantz’s [91] proposal that authoritarian and psychologically controlling
strategies, such as the use of force, intrusiveness, curbing initiative, power assertion, and failing
to take the child’s perspective are separate from structure, referring to setting rules and limits,
and provision of an organised and predictable environment [91], [92], as items describing the
latter content did not load on this factor. This also reflects the distinction between behavioural
control and autonomy support discussed by Barber [24].
The Anxious Intrusiveness factor was given the same name as the factor in Becker’s [37] re-
search, which he described as tendencies toward infantilising and overprotection, and oversoli-
citousness for the child's safety and happiness. These behaviours were thought to discourage
the development of autonomy and independence in children [37]. Two items from this list
were developed by the researchers, one item was suggested by parents who participated in the
focus groups, and other items were based on items from existing measures [50], [52], [53].
Higher scores on this subscale indicate higher levels of parental enmeshment, intrusive assis-
tance, and indulgence.
Intrusive parental behaviours reflect unrealistic expectations of the child’s developmental
level and their capabilities, and may involve infantilising behaviour and the provision of exces-
sive and unnecessary assistance [93]. Many of these items also relate to parental overprotection
[94], [95], which includes overpossessiveness, domineering behaviour, overgratification of the
child’s wishes, and intrusive attempts to protect the child from experiencing disappointment
and distress [96–99]. This reflects noncontingent, protective, and indulgent parenting strate-
gies which are thought to impact on the child’s sense of mastery, agency, self-efficacy and per-
ceived control, and prevent them from learning effective coping and emotional regulation
skills [100–102]. In this sense, Anxious Intrusiveness appears to be related to psychological
control as defined by SDT [103], [104], and particularly dependency-oriented psychological
control, which refers to behaviours that encourage enmeshment and discourage individuation
[41], [105]. This is often considered the opposite of responsive autonomy support [106], [43],
[107]. However, a very low correlation was found between Anxious Intrusiveness and Autono-
my Support (r = -.03) in the current study. It is important to note that Cronbach’s alpha for the
Anxious Intrusiveness subscale was only minimally acceptable in the combined sample (.60 for
subscales with less than 10 items) [82]. Further research is needed to investigate the reliability
of this subscale across different sample groups.
The next factor to emerge was Autonomy Support, referring to scaffolding and responsive
parenting behaviour. Low scores may reflect developmentally inappropriate, intrusive, and un-
solicited assistance [108] and restrictive control or forcing the parent’s own agenda [20], [91],
[109], [110]. Such behaviour may occur as a result of parental anxiety or unrealistic expecta-
tions of their child’s abilities [107]. Large correlations between Autonomy Support and Emo-
tional Warmth (r = .45), and Democratic Discipline (r = .48) indicate that high parental
Autonomy Support is also associated with higher Democracy and Emotional Warmth, consis-
tent with theorised relationships [111, 112].
Two of the items in the Autonomy Support factor were suggested by parents in focus
groups, with the remaining three items originated from the researchers. This dimension has
not been adequately assessed in earlier parenting measures [23], [16], [21] Self-report measures
of autonomy support generally ask parents to rate how often they provide directions or assis-
tance, which does not include consideration of the needs and abilities of the child [106]. The
child’s age, needs, and abilities are explicitly referred to in two of the Autonomy Support items,
which is a significant strength of this PBDQ subscale.
Permissive or inconsistent discipline has long been associated with externalising problems
in children [113], as well as the development of an external locus of control [114–116]. Permis-
sive Discipline reflects the setting and enforcing of rules and expectations. One of the

Permissive Discipline items was generated by the researchers, while the remaining items were
based on items from existing questionnaires [48], [49], [50]. Permissive Discipline items appear
to describe laissez-faire parents, who allow their children a great degree of behavioural freedom
even if their actions affect others in a negative way [96]. This factor also includes failure to fol-
low through with demands and promises, erratic changes in expectations and behavioural con-
sequences, indiscriminate responses to the child’s behaviours, and giving in to the child after
initially resisting Permissive Discipline appears to be consistent with chaos, which is the oppo-
site of firm behavioural control or structure [18], [19], [20], [91]. Some items in the Permissive
Discipline factor appear to be related to a form of psychological control, as these behaviours
are not responsive to the developmental needs of the child. The immediate alleviation of a
child’s distress is not conducive to optimal development of independent regulation [117] and
noncontingent parenting behaviour may undermine the child’s sense of agency, autonomy,
and competence, and result in the child developing an unpredictability schema about their en-
vironment [114]. Permissive Discipline is negatively associated with Autonomy Support (r =
-.28), which reflects contingent, responsive parenting behaviour.
The final factor to emerge from the EFA was labelled Democratic Discipline, which reflected
the parent’s use of reasoning and explanation. One of these items was suggested by parents in
the focus groups, while the remaining items were based on items from previous questionnaires
[50], [51], [52]. Democratic Discipline is associated with authoritative parenting [18–20] and is
the main distinguishing factor between firm control and restrictive, superfluous control used
by authoritarian parents [118]. Previous research suggests parents who use democratic disci-
pline are high in loving acceptance and autonomy [76], provide structure in an autonomy sup-
portive way [109], and are responsive to the needs of the child [110]. Reflecting this,
Democratic Discipline was highly correlated with Emotional Warmth (r = .51) and Autonomy
Support (r = .48), and negatively correlated with the noncontingent disciplinary factors of Pu-
nitive Discipline (r = -.30) and Permissive Discipline (r = -.29).
It appears that the PBDQ dimensions of Emotional Warmth, Autonomy Support, and
Democratic Discipline are associated with autonomy supportive parenting behaviour which is
administered in a responsive and contingent manner, while Punitive Discipline, Anxious Intru-
siveness, and Permissive Discipline describe non-contingent and unresponsive parenting be-
haviours that can be described as psychologically controlling. These results provide strong
support for the importance of assessing autonomy supportive and psychologically controlling
behaviours in parents of preadolescent children.
Interestingly, most of the dimensions uncovered in this research appear to relate to the con-
ceptualisations proposed by Baumrind [18–20] and to a lesser extent, Hoffman [29], [30],
[119]. Although not distinguished as separate dimensions, Emotional Warmth and Democratic
Discipline are consistent with descriptions of Baumrind’s [18–20] authoritative parenting style.
In addition, authoritative parenting was later described in terms of high levels of responsive-
ness and demandingness by Maccoby and Martin [120] and Baumrind [121], [122] and these
are consistent with low levels of Permissive Discipline and high levels of Autonomy Support re-
spectively. Behaviours associated with authoritarian parenting include punitive, forceful, and
autonomy restrictive behaviours and discouragement of democracy and explanation [18],
which appears to be consistent with high levels of Punitive Discipline and low levels of Autono-
my Support and Democratic Discipline in the current conceptualisation. Authoritarian parent-
ing is also generally thought to be characterised by low levels of Emotional Warmth and
Permissive Discipline. Baumrind [123] also explained that authoritarian parents may be pro-
tective and concerned, which could relate to Anxious Intrusiveness. Permissive parents were
described by Baumrind [18–20] as non-punitive and democratic, but they do not attempt to
shape or assist in the regulation of the child’s behaviour. This parenting style appears to be

most strongly related to Permissive Discipline, but these parents may also score highly on
Emotional Warmth and Democratic Discipline, and low on Autonomy Support. These parents
are also unlikely to engage in Punitive Discipline, although Baumrind stated that permissive
parents may also be indulgent and protective, which is consistent with Anxious Intrusiveness.
The final parenting style of neglectful parenting, which was later added by Maccoby and Mar-
tin [120] does not appear to be consistent with any particular dimensions of the PBDQ; howev-
er, we can hypothesise that involved parenting would correspond to low scores on all of the
PBDQ dimensions. These results suggest that the PBDQ dimensions may represent a disaggre-
gation of Baumrind’s parenting styles into composite dimensions, which will allow for the ex-
amination of their unique, relative, and combined contributions to childhood outcomes.
In addition, Autonomy Support and Democratic Discipline appear to reflect Hoffman’s
[29], [30], [119] concepts of other-oriented and inductive discipline, while power assertion and
Punitive Discipline also seem to describe similar parenting behaviours. However, love with-
drawal, which involves ignoring the child, rejection, and expression of anger [29], [30], [119],
does not appear to be closely related to any of the PBDQ dimensions. Interestingly, Lewis [118]
suggested that the provision of responsive, democratic, and inductive parenting is more impor-
tant than parental control in promoting positive child outcomes. Indeed, it seems that Autono-
my Support and Democratic Discipline can be broadly described as autonomy supportive
parenting behaviours as they are administered in a responsive manner, with Emotional
Warmth also thought to be a feature of responsive parenting [106], [112]. On the other hand,
Punitive Discipline, Permissive Discipline, and Anxious Intrusiveness describe unresponsive
parenting behaviours that undermine the child’s autonomy, and are therefore considered psy-
chologically controlling. It therefore appears that an important component of all of the PBDQ
dimensions is the way in which the behaviour is administered, and this is more important in
describing contemporary parenting practices than the use of specific control strategies.
Indeed, one of the major contributions of the PBDQ is the assessment of parental autonomy
support or responsiveness in parents of preadolescent children. This dimension appears to be
related to the administration of specific parenting behaviours, such as assistance, behavioural
control, and comfort, in a way that takes into account the child’s developmental level, needs,
and abilities. Johnston and colleagues [106] explained that self-report measures that ask how
often parents assist their child in tasks or provide directions do not accurately capture this di-
mension; however, the Autonomy Support items included in the PBDQ specifically ask parents
about the child’s age, needs, and abilities, and discuss the encouragement of initiative and prob-
lem solving before asking for help. Interestingly, all of the Autonomy Support items were de-
rived from suggestions made by participants or the list of researcher generated items related to
responsiveness and autonomy support, suggesting that existing parenting measures have not
adequately assessed autonomy supportive, responsive parenting behaviour. Studies on the par-
enting of preadolescent children have rarely included a measure of autonomy support or psy-
chological control, although features of these dimensions are sometimes assessed as part of the
parental warmth or behavioural control dimensions [16].
Although the original item pool for the PBDQ included items from assessments of parent-
ing styles, homogenous parenting dimensions emerged in the factor analysis. Furthermore,
these dimensions had differential relationships with other PBDQ dimensions. For example,
Emotional Warmth was moderately correlated with Anxious Intrusiveness, while the related
concept of Autonomy Support did not appear to be related to this dimension at all. These re-
sults provide support for the assessment of disaggregated parenting dimensions rather than fo-
cusing on aggregated parenting styles.
The PBDQ can be used to improve comprehensiveness, quality, consistency, and accuracy
of parenting assessment in both research and clinical settings. The dimensions identified by the

PBDQ can also provide the foundations for the development of alternative and more complex
parenting assessment systems, including observational measures, research and clinical inter-
views, and child-report measures. These can then be used to collect comprehensive and valid
multitrait multimethod parenting assessment data that addresses problems such as shared
method variance. Grolnick [109] suggested that previous studies may have underestimated the
magnitude of relationships between parenting and child outcomes due to shared method vari-
ance and unreliable or inconsistent methods, and therefore the use of more complex assess-
ment systems based on core dimensions may result in larger and more clinically and
practically significant results.
The evaluation of such parenting interventions or clinical studies could also be achieved by
administering the PBDQ before and after the intervention is conducted to determine if any
meaningful changes in parenting behaviour have occurred. This measure has the additional ad-
vantage of being relatively brief and economical, which minimises the burden of participant re-
sponses and increases the utility of the measure, particularly for research purposes [47]. As a
result, it could also be used for large scale screening of children or families at risk for poor psy-
chosocial outcomes, allowing for early identification, targeted intervention, and identification
of clinical samples for future parenting research. Further research establishing the concurrent
and predictive validity of the PBDQ will also allow researchers and clinicians to predict the in-
fluence of parenting dimensions on academic, social, and psychological outcomes in children.
The PBDQ could also be administered longitudinally to determine which parenting dimen-
sions are stable over time and which may be amenable to intervention.
A major strength of the PBDQ is the rigorous methodology that was used in developing the
scale, combining previous parenting literature and existing parenting assessments with qualita-
tive parent feedback and empirical assessment of the item and overall model performance. The
combination of a number of different sources of expertise was particularly important as the
content of the questionnaire was not mapped onto domains of interest as a result of the large
number of parenting conceptualisations in the literature and the lack of agreement over the
core dimensions to assess [26]. In addition, mixed-method designs provide the study with the
combined advantages of qualitative and quantitative research, and allow the researcher to inte-
grate and draw conclusions using the different perspectives that are gained through these
methodologies [124].
One limitation of the current study was the failure to use random sampling in asking pa-
rents to choose a child to answer the parenting items about. This may represent a source of
bias in the responses; for example, parents may have chosen the child who they employed the
most socially desirable parenting behaviours with. It is also possible that the higher education
level attained by the participants in all phases of this research as compared to Australia’s na-
tional average as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics [125] may have impacted on
the items that were retained in the initial PBDQ item pool, as well as the resultant factor struc-
ture. Furthermore, generalisability of results may be affected by the self-selection process of
participation. Parents who volunteered to participate may be more interested, committed, and
involved in parenting, more willing to change their behaviours to become more effective pa-
rents, and more open to information about parenting, than other parents who did not choose
to participate. Finally, the majority of the parents who completed the questionnaire lived in
Australia, and were mothers and primary caregivers. Future research is needed to replicate the
factor structure and psychometric properties of the PBDQ across larger and more diverse sam-
ples of parents, including low socioeconomic groups, ethnic minority groups, non-primary
caregivers, and groups of fathers, where random sampling procedures are used.
Although a diverse range of parenting issues and behaviours were considered relevant and
important by parents in Phase One of this research, many of these items failed to meet the

minimum loading criteria on any factor in the EFA. It is possible that the decision to interpret
the suggestions made by parents as indicative of specific parenting behaviours rather than
broader parenting constructs may have contributed to this outcome. Indeed, further factors
may have emerged in the EFA if more items had been developed to reflect these broader
themes, which could be an area of future development of the PBDQ model. In addition, the de-
cision to use a Likert scale anchored by ‘Never’ and ‘Always’ may elicit trait judgments in re-
spondents and it is possible that some of the assessed content may vary over time
and situations.
Conclusion
The newly developed PBDQ is a brief but comprehensive measure of contemporary parenting
behaviour that measures six core dimensions of parenting: Emotional Warmth, Punitive Disci-
pline, Anxious Intrusiveness, Autonomy Support, Permissive Discipline, and Democratic Dis-
cipline. These dimensions combined a number of different concepts from previous literature,
providing some clarity to the definition of key parenting dimensions as well as highlighting the
similarities and differences between a number of parenting concepts that vary in terminology,
definition, theoretical basis, and assessment. The measure was developed using rigorous scale
development procedures, and the results of this study provide preliminary support for factorial
validity and internal consistency.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all of the parents who participated in this research.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: CAYR JPP LDR CMR. Performed the experiments:
CAYR. Analyzed the data: CAYR LDR CMR JPP. Wrote the paper: CAYR LDR JPP.
References
1. Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 330 p.
2. Domitrovich CE, Bierman KL (2001) Parenting practices and child social adjustment: Multiple path-
ways of influence. Merrill Palmer Q 47: 235–263. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2001.0010
3. Roksa J, Potter D (2011) Parenting and academic achievement. Sociol Educ 84: 299–321. doi: 10.
1177/0038040711417013
4. Stormshak EA, Bierman KL, McMahon RJ, Lengua LJ (2000) Parenting practices and child disruptive
behavior problems in early elementary school. J Clin Child Psychol 29: 17–29. doi: 10.1207/
S15374424jccp2901_3 PMID: 10693029
5. Barber BK, Harmon EL (2002) Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and ado-
lescents. In: Barber BK, editor. Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and ad-
olescents. Washington, DC: APA. pp. 15–52. doi: 10.1037/10422-002
6. Cunningham CE, Boyle MH (2002) Preschoolers at risk for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and
oppositional defiant disorder: Family, parenting, and behavioral correlates. J Abnorm Child Psychol
30: 555–569. doi: 10.1023/a:1020855429085 PMID: 12481971
7. Zhou Q, Eisenberg N, Losoya SH, Fabes RA, Reiser M, et al. (2002) The relations of parental warmth
and positive expressiveness to children's empathy-related responding and social functioning: A longi-
tudinal study. Child Dev 73: 893–915. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00446 PMID: 12038559
8. Bornstein MH (2006) Series foreword: Monographs in parenting. In: Bornstein MH, Cote LR, editors.
Acculturation and parent-child relationships: Measurement and development. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum. pp. xi–xii.
9. Hoghughi MS (2004) Parenting—an introduction. In: Hoghughi MS, Long N, editors. Handbook of par-
enting: Theory, research and practice. London, UK: Sage. pp. 1–18.

10. Long N, Hoghughi MS (2004) Towards a parenting society. In: Hoghughi MS, Long N, editors. Hand-
book of parenting: Theory, research and practice. London, UK: Sage. pp. 380–388.
11. Holden GW (2010) Childrearing and developmental trajectories: Positive pathways, off-ramps, and
dynamic processes. Child Dev Perspect 4: 197–204.doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00148.x
12. Richardson S, Prior M (2005) Childhood today. In: Richardson S, Prior M, editors. No time to lose: The
wellbeing of Australia's children. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press. pp. 1–36.
13. Cassano P, Fava M (2002) Depression and public health: An overview. J Psychosom Res 53:
849–857. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3999(02)00304-5 PMID: 12377293
14. Loeber R, Burke JD, Lahey BB, Winters A, Zera M (2000) Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder:
A review of the past 10 years, part I. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 39: 1468–1484. doi: 10.
1097/00004583-200012000-00007 PMID: 11128323
15. Dretzke J, Davenport C, Frew E, Barlow J, Stewart-Brown S, et al. (2009) The clinical effectiveness of
different parenting programmes for children with conduct problems: a systematic review of rando-
mised controlled trials. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 3: 7. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-3-7
PMID: 19261188
16. Aunola K, Nurmi J-E (2005) The role of parenting styles in children's problem behavior. Child Dev 76:
1144–1159. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x-i1 PMID: 16274431
17. Hoeve M, Blokland A, Dubas J, Loeber R, Gerris J, et al. (2008) Trajectories of delinquency and par-
enting styles. J Abnorm Child Psychol 36: 223–235. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9172-x PMID:
17786548
18. Baumrind D (1966) Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Dev 37: 887–907.
doi: 10.2307/1126611
19. Baumrind D (1967) Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genet Psy-
chol Monogr 75: 43–88. PMID: 6032134
20. Baumrind D (1971) Current patterns of parental authority. Dev Psychol 4: 1–103. doi: 10.1037/
h0030372
21. Aunola K, Nurmi J-E (2004) Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological control on a
child's mathematical performance. Dev Psychol 40: 965–978. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.965
PMID: 15535751
22. Caron A, Weiss B, Harris V, Catron T (2006) Parenting behavior dimensions and child psychopatholo-
gy: Specificity, task dependency, and interactive relations. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 35: 34–45.
doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3501_4 PMID: 16390301
23. Kuppens S, Grietens H, Onghena P, Michiels D (2009) Measuring parenting dimensions in middle
childhood. Eur J Psychol Assess 25: 133–140. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.133
24. Barber BK (1996) Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Dev 67:
3296–3319. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x PMID: 9071782
25. Skinner E, Johnson S, Snyder T (2005) Six dimensions of parenting: A motivational model. Parenting
5: 175–235. doi: 10.1207/s15327922par0502_3
26. O'Connor TG (2002) Annotation: The èffects' of parenting reconsidered: findings, challenges, and ap-
plications. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 43: 555–572. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00046 PMID: 12120853
27. Baldwin AL (1946) Differences in parent behavior toward three- and nine-year-old children. J Pers 15:
143–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1946.tb01058.x PMID: 20292821
28. Locke LM, Prinz RJ (2002) Measurement of parental discipline and nurturance. Clin Psychol Rev 22:
895–929. doi: 10.1016/s0272-7358(02)00133-2 PMID: 12214330
29. Hoffman ML (1963) Childrearing practices and moral development: Generalizations from empirical re-
search. Child Dev 34: 295–318. doi: 10.2307/1126729 PMID: 13963930
30. Hoffman ML (1970) Conscience, personality, and socialization techniques. Hum Dev 13: 90–126.
doi: 10.1159/000270884 PMID: 5452755
31. Hoffman ML (1982) Affect and moral development. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 1982: 83–103. doi:
10.1002/cd.23219821605
32. Hoffman ML (1994) Discipline and internalization. Dev Psychol 30: 26–28. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.
30.1.26
33. Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ (1998) Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent prob-
lem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 1: 61–75. doi: 10.
1023/a:1021800432380 PMID: 11324078
34. Gershoff ET (2002) Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences:
A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 128: 539–579. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.
539 PMID: 12081081

35. Grusec JE, Goodnow JJ (1994) Impact of parental discipline methods on the child's internalization of
values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Dev Psychol 30: 4–19. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.30.1.4
36. Chamberlain PP, Patterson GR (1995) Discipline and child compliance in parenting. In: Bornstein
MH, editor. Handbook of parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 202–225.
37. Becker WC (1964) Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In: Hoffman ML, Hoffman LH,
editors. Review of Child Development Research. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 169–
208.
38. Morris AS, Silk JS, Steinberg L, Sessa FM, Avenevoli S, et al. (2002) Temperamental vulnerability
and negative parenting as interacting predictors of child adjustment. J Marriage Fam 64: 461–471.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00461.x
39. Assor A, Roth G, Deci EL (2004) The emotional costs of parents' conditional regard: A self-determina-
tion theory analysis. J Pers 72: 47–88. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x PMID: 14686884
40. Silk JS, Morris AS, Kanaya T, Steinberg L (2003) Psychological control and autonomy granting: Oppo-
site ends of a continuum or distinct constructs? J Res Adolesc 13: 113–128. doi: 10.1111/1532-7795.
1301004
41. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Luyten P (2010) Toward a domain-specific approach to the study of pa-
rental psychological control: Distinguishing between dependency-oriented and achievement-oriented
psychological control. J Pers 78: 217–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00614.x PMID: 20433618
42. Thomasgard M, Metz W (1993) Parental overprotection revisited. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 24:
67–80. doi: 10.1007/bf02367260 PMID: 8287694
43. Landry SH, Miller-Loncar CL, Smith KE, Swank PR (2002) The role of early parenting in children's de-
velopment of executive processes. Dev Neuropsychol 21: 15–41. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2101_2
PMID: 12058834
44. Vygotsky LS (1962) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
45. Ainsworth MDS, Bell SMV, Stayton DM (1971) Individual differences in strange situation behavior of
one year olds. In: Schaffer HR, editor. The origins of human social relations. London: Academic
Press.
46. Barber BK, Xia M, Olsen JA, McNeely CA, Bose K (2012) Feeling disrespected by parents: Refining
the measurement and understanding of psychological control. JAdolesc 35: 273–287. doi: 10.1016/j.
adolescence.2011.10.010 PMID: 22177194
47. DeVellis R (2003) Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
48. Arnold DS, O'Leary SG, Wolff LS, Acker MM (1993) The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional
parenting in discipline situations. Psychol Assess 5: 137–144. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.137
49. Shelton KK, Frick PJ, Wootton J (1996) Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary
school-age children. J Clin Child Psychol 25: 317–329. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2503_8
50. Robinson CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, Hart CH (1995) Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive par-
enting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychol Rep 77: 819–830. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.
77.3.819
51. Reitman D, Rhode PC, Hupp SDA, Altobello C (2002) Development and validation of the Parental Au-
thority Questionnaire—Revised. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 24: 119–127. doi: 10.1023/
a:1015344909518
52. Furman W, Giberson RS (1995) Identifying the links between parents and their children’s sibling rela-
tionships. In: Shulman S, editor. Close relationships in socialemotional development. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex. pp. 95–108.
53. Wentzel KR, Feldman SS, Weinberger DA (1991) Parental child rearing and academic achievement
in boys. J Early Adolesc 11: 321–339. doi: 10.1177/0272431691113002
54. Bornstein MH, Toole M (2010) Assessment of parenting. In: Tyano S, Keren M, Herrman H, Cox J, ed-
itors. Parenthood and mental health: A bridge between infant and adult psychiatry. West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 349–355. doi: 10.1002/9780470660683.ch31
55. Roberts GC, Block JH, Block J (1984) Continuity and change in parents' child-rearing practices. Child
Dev 55: 586–597. doi: 10.2307/1129970
56. Wilkinson S (2008) Focus groups. In: Smith JA, editor. Qualitative psychology. 2nd ed. London, UK:
Sage Publications. pp. 186–206.
57. Bandura A (1965) Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative re-
sponses. J Pers Soc Psychol 1: 589–595. doi: 10.1037/h0022070 PMID: 14300234
58. Skinner BF (1953) Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

59. Dweck CS (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning. Am Psychol 41: 1040–1048. doi: 10.
1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040
60. Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC (2003) Collecting behavioural data using the world wide
web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health 57: 68–73. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.
1.68 PMID: 12490652
61. Durant LE, Carey MP (2000) Self-administered questionnaires versus face-to-face interviews in as-
sessing sexual behavior in young women. Archives of Sexual Behavior 29: 309–322. doi: 10.1023/
a:1001930202526 PMID: 10948721
62. Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ 311: 299–302. doi: 10.1136/
bmj.311.7000.299 PMID: 7633241
63. Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
64. Boyle MH, Jenkins JM, Georgiades K, Cairney J, Duku E, et al. (2004) Differential-maternal parenting
behavior: Estimating within- and between-family effects on children. Child Dev 75: 1457–1476. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00751.x PMID: 15369525
65. Furman W, Lanthier R (2002) Parenting siblings. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting.
2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 165–188.
66. Holden GW, Miller PC (1999) Enduring and different: A meta-analysis of the similarity in parents' child
rearing. Psychol Bull 125: 223–254. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.223 PMID: 10087937
67. Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP (2004) Should we trust web-based studies? A compara-
tive analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 59: 93–104. doi: 10.
1037/0003-066x.59.2.93 PMID: 14992636
68. Allen PJ, Roberts LD (2010) The ethics of outsourcing online survey research. International Journal of
Technoethics 1: 35–48. doi: 10.4018/jte.2010070104
69. Göritz AS (2006) Incentives in web studies: Methodological issues and a review. International Journal
of Internet Science 1: 58–70.
70. MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD (2002) On the practice of dichotomization of quan-
titative variables. Psychol Methods 7: 19–40. doi: 10.1037//1082-989X.4.1.84 PMID: 11928888
71. Costello AB, Osborne JW (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations
for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10: 1–9.
72. Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A
tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods 7: 191–205. doi: 10.1177/
1094428104263675
73. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
74. George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 up-
date. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
75. Baldwin AL (1948) Socialization and the parent-child relationship. Child Dev 19: 127–136. doi: 10.
2307/1125710
76. Schaefer ES (1959) A circumplex model for maternal behavior. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 59: 226–235.
doi: 10.1037/h0041114 PMID: 14442320
77. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guildford Press.
78. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR (2006) Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations for so-
cial, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Dev Psychol 42: 627–642. doi: 10.
1037/0012-1649.42.4.627 PMID: 16802896
79. Mahoney A, Donnelly WO, Lewis T, Maynard C (2000) Mother and father self-reports of corporal pun-
ishment and severe physical aggression toward clinic-referred youth. J Clin Child Psychol 29:
266–281. doi: 10.1207/S15374424jccp2902_12 PMID: 10802835
80. Mallinckrodt B (1992) Childhood emotional bonds with parents, development of adult social compe-
tencies, and the availability of social support. J Couns Psychol 39: 453–461. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.
39.4.453
81. Spokas M, Heimberg R (2009) Overprotective parenting, social anxiety, and external locus of control:
Cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships. Cognit Ther Res 33: 543–551. doi: 10.1007/s10608-
008-9227-5
82. Loewenthal KM (2001) An introduction to psychological tests and scales. New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
83. Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA (1997) Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children's adjust-
ment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child Dev 68: 908–923. doi: 10.2307/1132041

84. Stolz HE, Barber BK, Olsen JA (2005) Toward disentangling fathering and mothering: An assessment
of relative importance. J Marriage Fam 67: 1076–1092. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00195.x
85. Rohner RP (1986) The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
86. Rohner RP (1999) Acceptance and rejection. In: Levinson D, Ponzetti J, Jorgensen P, editors. Ency-
clopedia of human emotions New York, NY: Macmillan. pp. 6–14.
87. Rohner RP, Rohner EC (1980) Antecedents and consequences of parental rejection: A theory of emo-
tional abuse. Child Abuse Negl 4: 189–198. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(80)90007-1
88. Baumrind D, Black AE (1967) Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in
preschool boys and girls. Child Dev 38: 291–327. doi: 10.2307/1127295 PMID: 6057386
89. Hoffman ML (1975) Moral internalization, parental power, and the nature of parent-child interaction.
Dev Psychol 11: 228–239. doi: 10.1037/h0076463
90. Walling B, Mills R, Freeman W (2007) Parenting cognitions associated with the use of psychological
control. J Child Fam Stud 16: 642–659. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-9113-2
91. Grolnick WS, Pomerantz EM (2009) Issues and challenges in studying parental control: Toward a
new conceptualization. Child Dev Perspect 3: 165–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00099.x
92. Verhoeven M, Junger M, Van Aken C, Dekovic M, Van Aken MAG (2007) A short-term longitudinal
study of the development of self-reported parenting during toddlerhood. Parenting 7: 367–394. doi:
10.1080/15295190701665672
93. McLeod BD, Wood JJ, Avny SB (2011) Parenting and child anxiety disorders. In: McKay D, Storch
EA, editors. Handbook of child and adolescent anxiety disorders. New York, NY: Springer. pp.
213–230.
94. Arrindell WA, Gerlsma C, Vandereycken W, Hageman WJJM, Daeseleire T (1998) Convergent validi-
ty of the dimensions underlying the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) and the EMBU. Pers Individ Dif
24: 341–350. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00187-6
95. Thomasgard M, Metz WP (1999) Parent-child relationship disorders: What do the Child Vulnerability
Scale and the Parent Protection Scale measure? Clin Pediatr 38: 347–356. doi: 10.1177/
000992289903800605 PMID: 10378092
96. Capron EW (2004) Types of pampering and the narcissistic personality trait. J Individ Psychol 60:
76–93.
97. Carlson L, Grossbart S, Stuenkel JK (1992) The role of parental socialization types on differential fam-
ily communication patterns regarding consumption. J Consum Psychol 1: 31–52. doi: 10.1016/
s1057-7408(08)80044-7
98. Hauser S (1991) Families and their adolescents. New York, NY: Free Press.
99. Hauser ST, Powers SI, Noam GG, Jacobson AM, Weiss B, et al. (1984) Familial contexts of adoles-
cent ego development. Child Dev 55: 195–213. doi: 10.2307/1129845 PMID: 6705622
100. Chorpita BF, Barlow DH (1998) The development of anxiety: The role of control in the early environ-
ment. Psychol Bull 124: 3–21. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.3 PMID: 9670819
101. Rapee RM (2001) The development of generalized anxiety. In: Vasey MW, Dadds MR, editors. The de-
velopmental psychopathology of anxiety. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. pp. 481–503.
102. Wood J (2006) Parental intrusiveness and children’s separation anxiety in a clinical sample. Child
Psychiatry Hum Dev 37: 73–87. doi: 10.1007/s10578-006-0021-x PMID: 16932853
103. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
104. Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determi-
nation of behavior. Psychol Inq 11: 227–268. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
105. Barber BK, Buehler C (1996) Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different ef-
fects. J Marriage Fam 58: 433–441. doi: 10.2307/353507
106. Johnston C, Murray C, Hinshaw SP, Pelham WE, Hoza B (2002) Responsiveness in interactions of
mothers and sons with ADHD: Relations to maternal and child characteristics. J Abnorm Child Psy-
chol 30: 77–88. doi: 10.1023/a:1014235200174 PMID: 11930974
107. Mulvaney MK, McCartney K, Bub KL, Marshall NL (2006) Determinants of dyadic scaffolding and cog-
nitive outcomes in first graders. Parenting 6: 297–320. doi: 10.1207/s15327922par0604_2
108. Maccoby EE, Masters JC (1970) Attachment and dependency. In: Mussen PH, editor. Carmichael's
manual of child psychology. 4th ed. New York, NY: Wiley. pp. 73–158.
109. Grolnick WS (2003) The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

110. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M (2010) A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological
control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Dev Rev 30: 74–99. doi: 10.
1016/j.dr.2009.11.001
111. Sturge-Apple ML, Gondoli DM, Bonds DD, Salem LN (2003) Mothers' responsive parenting practices
and psychological experience of parenting as mediators of the relation between marital conflict and
mother—preadolescent relational negativity. Parenting 3: 327–355. doi: 10.1207/
s15327922par0304_3
112. Karreman A, van Tuijl C, van Aken MAG, Deković M (2006) Parenting and self-regulation in pre-
schoolers: A meta-analysis. Infant Child Dev 15: 561–579. doi: 10.1002/icd.478
113. Patterson GR (1976) Living with children: New methods for parents and teachers. Champaign, IL:
Research Press.
114. Baumrind D (1997) The discipline encounter: Contemporary issues. Aggress Violent Behav 2:
321–335.doi: 10.1016/s1359-1789(97)00018-9
115. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1987) The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol
53: 1024–1037. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 PMID: 3320334
116. Seligman MEP (1975) Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman.
117. Winnicott DW (1964) The child, the family and the outside world. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
118. Lewis CC (1981) The effects of parental firm control: A reinterpretation of findings. Psychol Bull 90:
547–563. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.90.3.547
119. Hoffman LH (1980) Moral development in adolescence. In: Adelson J, editor. Handbook of adolescent
psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 295–343.
120. Maccoby EE, Martin JA (1983) Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In:
Müssen PH, Hetherington EM, editors. Handbook of child psychology. 4th ed. New York, NY:
Wiley. pp. 1–101.
121. Baumrind D (1991) The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J
Early Adolesc 11: 56–95. doi: 10.1177/0272431691111004
122. Baumrind D (1996) The discipline controversy revisited. Fam Relat 45: 405–414. doi: 10.2307/
585170
123. Baumrind D (1978) Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth Soc 9:
239–267. doi: 10.1177/0044118x7800900302
124. Tashakkori A, Creswell JW (2007) Editorial: Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed meth-
ods research. J Mix Methods Res 1: 207–211. doi: 10.1177/1558689807302814
125. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Australian social trends (2011) year 12 attainment (Publication
No. 4102.0). Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main
+Features40Mar+2011. Accessed 10 July 2013.

Essay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Essay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Essay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Towards a Model of Contemporary

Academic Editor: Michel Botbol, University of

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 1 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 2 / 23

Study 1: Item Development

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 3 / 23

Table 1. Parenting Measures Included in the Initial Item Pool.

Measure Author Scope Subscales Items

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 4 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 5 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 6 / 23

Fig 1. Summary of item selection process.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 7 / 23

Study 2: Factor Structure of the PBDQ

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 8 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 9 / 23

Table 2. Final Pattern Factor Loading Matrix for EFA.

Item Factor Loading

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 10 / 23

Table 3. Comparison of Correlated and Uncorrelated CFA Models.

RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 11 / 23

Table 4. Final Pattern Factor Loading Matrix for CFA.

Item Factor Loading

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 12 / 23

Table 5. Sample Descriptive Statistics for Final Solution (N = 846).

Factor Score α M SD K-S p Skewness Kurtosis

Range Raw score z-score Raw score z-score

Note. K-S = Kolmogorov—Smirnov.

Table 6. Correlation Between Factors in Final Solution (N = 846).

Emotional Punitive Anxious Autonomy Permissive Democratic

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 13 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 14 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 15 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 16 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 17 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 18 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 19 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 20 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 21 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 22 / 23

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114179 June 4, 2015 23 / 23

You might also like