Chinese MAPS Study

Running head: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF CHINESE VERSION OF MAPS
Manuscript Under Review
Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Multidimensional
Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS)
Nigela Ahemaitijiang1 • Zhuo Rachel Han1 •
Chelsea Dale 2 • Karissa DiMarzio 2 • Justin Parent 2
1
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration
Center for Experimental Psychology Education, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal
University, Beijing, China

2
Center for Children and Families, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Zhuo Rachel Han, Beijing
Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for
Experimental Psychology Education, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, No. 19,
Xin Jie Kou Outer St., Beijing, China, 100875, Email: [email protected].
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF CHINESE VERSION OF MAPS 2
Abstract
Parenting practices have been linked to a wide range of issues related to children’s
psychological adjustment; however, more research is warranted to further understand not only
cultural variations of parenting norms, but also how such variations might differentially
influence child outcomes. The current study examined the psychometric properties of
a Chinese translation of the Multidimensional Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS) in order
to: 1) assess both positive and negative dimensions of parenting in Chinese-speaking societies,
and 2) to explore the relationships between these practices and children’s psychopathological
symptoms. A total of 2237 parents with children between 6-12 years old completed the MAPS,
Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale (IM-P), adapted Parental Bonding Instrument
(PBI), and other measures related to children’s psychosocial functioning. Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses revealed a clear six-factor structure. Results demonstrated adequate
psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. MAPS
subscales also showed concurrent and convergent validity with mindful parenting, parent-child
bonding, and children’s psychopathology outcomes. The importance of using culturally validated
dimensional measures of parenting is discussed in this paper.
Keywords: broadband parenting, Chinese translation, validation, child psychopathology

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Multidimensional Assessment of
Parenting Scale (MAPS)
Recognized as an important research topic, parenting has commanded considerable interest
and attention from different fields of study (e.g., Belsky, 1984; Darling & Steinberg, 1993;
Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970). For example, in clinical psychology, the direct and
indirect roles of parenting on child psychopathology (e.g., child externalizing/internalizing
symptoms) and later cognitive and social outcomes have been extensively studied for several
decades, both theoretically and empirically (Lovejoy et al., 1999; McKee et al., 2013). During
this time, a number of questionnaires have emerged assessing parents’ thoughts, feelings, and
attitudes towards parenting as well as their specific parenting behaviors. Through this work,
researchers have identified two broad domains of parenting styles – warmth vs. hostility and
autonomy vs. control - that have been found to differentially impact children’s behavioral health
outcomes (Baumrind, 1967; Baumrind, 1991; Rodriguez, Donovick, & Crowley, 2009; Schaefer,
1959). For instance, in a meta-analysis, parental warmth and autonomy granting were shown to
be negatively correlated with child externalizing problems, while parental hostility and
psychological control were shown to be positively correlated with child externalizing problems
(Pinquart, 2017). With these advancements, however, several considerations have been
underscored, including the influence of culture on parenting norms (Kim, 2002) and, relatedly,
the importance of validating assessments of parenting to account for differences across cultures.
Numerous studies have revealed that parents from different cultures approve of different
child-rearing behaviors (Liu & Guo, 2010). For example, in China, which is widely recognized
as a collectivistic culture based on Confucianism legacy, specific cultural values (e.g., social
interdependence, conformation and obedience to norms and authority) likely impact and inform
parents’ beliefs and behaviors (Costigan & Su, 2008; Chao & Tseng, 2002). Compared to parents
from Western cultures, traditional Chinese parents are generally characterized as authoritarian
caregivers in that they are more likely to approve of high levels of harsh discipline, engage in
fewer verbal expressions of love, and put stronger emphasis on children’s academic achievement
(Deater-Deckard et al. 2011; Lin & Fu 1990; Liu & Merritt, 2018; Matsumoto et al., 2008, Wu et
al. 2002). These parenting practices may, in turn, promote culturally desirable behaviors in
children (e.g., obedience; Liu & Guo, 2010), which may help to explain why the associations
between harsh and controlling parenting practices and negative child outcomes observed in
Western families have not been consistently observed in Chinese samples. For instance, several
parenting practices, that are generally considered negative (e.g., psychological control) and are
typically associated with maladjustment in children in Western societies, appear to have no such
effect on Chinese children (Chua, 2011). To the contrary, some studies have found that children
of authoritarian parents in China exhibit higher academic performance and lower levels of
depressive symptoms (e.g. Dornbusch et al., 1987; Li et al., 2010). However, parenting
ideologies and practices may also be shaped by societal changes (Way et al. 2013). Over the
past several decades, China has been subject to rapid progressive change due to the influence of
globalization and China’s continuous economic reform. A more child-centered approach of
parenting has been gradually adopted in urban areas of China, and especially among parents of
higher educational attainment (Li et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2005). For instance, Chang and
colleagues (2011) found that in some urban areas, Chinese parents strongly endorsed Western-
based values (i.e., promoting independence and self-confidence) in socializing their children.
Further, similar correlations between parenting and youth outcomes were observed for these
families as previously observed in Western families. For example, Chinese parents’ support for
autonomy was associated with fewer depressive symptoms among children in middle childhood
(Yan et al., 2017). These findings highlight a blending of traditional Chinese and Western
approaches to parenting, and suggest that more updated studies are needed to explore how
current practices in Chinese societies influence children’s psychological wellbeing.
Although existing measures of parenting have contributed to our broad understanding, there
are notable limitations that have hindered our capacity for greater depth. Among the limitations
of existing parenting measures is the fact that few have assessed both positive and negative
dimensions simultaneously (Darling &Steinberg, 1993). For example, existing literature has
commonly used measurements of only one dimension of parenting, such as negative parenting,
to predict child or adolescent psychopathology (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; McKee et al., 2013).
Examining both dimensions of parenting could have important clinical implications for the
intervention and prevention of negative child outcomes, as multidimensional assessments may
provide a more accurate depiction of parenting practices than traditional unidimensional
assessments (Parent & Forehand, 2017). Moreover, many existing self-report parenting
questionnaires have significant psychometric issues, such as low reliability and un-tested
measurement invariance (Parent & Forehand., 2017, Tourangeau et al., 2000). As a result, many
researchers have argued for using measurements with better psychometric properties, as well as
assessments that are sensitive to changes across developmental periods (O’Connor, 2002).
Ceiling or floor effects have also been commonly observed in measures of parenting (Kazdin,
2003), emphasizing a need to better identify the ranges of scores. Lastly, there can be significant
differences in parenting behaviors and values across cultures as previously discussed. Although
existing scales related to parenting (e.g., Parental Bonding Instrument, PBI; Interpersonal
Mindfulness Parenting Scale, IM-P) have been validated and widely utilized in Hong Kong and
Mainland China, these scales primarily focus on parenting styles (i.e., authoritative,
authoritarian, permissive, uninvolved) or a specific aspect of parenting (i.e., mindful parenting;
Duncan et al., 2009; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). As such, the field lacks a well-established
multidimensional assessment of parenting practices with strong psychometric properties of scale
scores from Chinese parents.
Parent and Forehand (2017) proposed a comprehensive 34-item Multidimensional
Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS) with the aim of overcoming the previously described
limitations in parenting research. The MAPS was developed to measure multidimensional
parenting practices, targeting American parents of children in early childhood through
adolescence. The MAPS scores have demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including
high reliability and initial support for validity in longitudinal analyses, and became a useful tool
for simultaneously assessing both positive (e.g., warmth) and negative (e.g., harshness) aspects
of parenting across developmental stages. For instance, the prominent links between broadband
positive/negative parenting and children’s externalizing/internalizing problems have been
verified among early childhood (3-7 years old), middle childhood (8-12 years old), and
adolescence (13-17 years old) (e.g., Parent & Forehand, 2017; Riley et al., 2019). Given the
assumption that parenting norms vary across cultures (Leung et al., 1998, Smith & Dishion,
2013), it is necessary to explore the reliability and validity of the MAPS among parents in
countries outside of the United States (US) - both as a means of accurately assessing parenting
practices across cultures and of facilitating cross-cultural research on parenting and child
development.
To date, no study has explored the psychometric properties of the MAPS in a non-US
sample. Thus, the aim of the current study is to assess the psychometric properties of a Chinese
(Mandarin) translation of the MAPS. First, factor structure, internal consistency and test-retest
reliability for the Chinese MAPS was assessed. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
used to confirm the factor structures of the Chinese MAPS in conjunction with a concurrent
validity test. Theoretical and empirical research have linked both mindful parenting and
parenting styles with specific parenting practices (e.g., Duncan et al. 2009a, Han et al., 2019).
For example, parents who reported higher levels of mindful parenting were more likely to
support children’s autonomy and endorse greater sensitivity to children’s needs during parent-
child interactions (Duncan et al. 2009; Parent et al. 2016). In addition, negative parenting styles
(e.g., overprotective style) have been shown to correlate with parents’ controlling behaviors,
whereas positive parenting styles (e.g., caring style) have been shown to correlate with parents’
active involvement in child rearing (Safford, Alloy, & Pieracci, 2007). Given such research, both
constructs were selected as criterion variables to test the concurrent validity of the Chinese
MAPS. Then the measurement invariances across the child gender, parent gender, and child age
were tested in sequence. Finally, convergent validity was assessed by testing the associations
between the Chinese MAPS and a series of children’s psychopathological outcomes (e.g.,
externalizing and internalizing problems, emotion regulation).
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited through flyers distributed throughout the community and
electronically through communication websites for parents in Mainland China. All procedures
were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the sponsoring university.
2237 parents of children between the ages of 6 and 12 years-old participated in the current study
(mean age of child = 9.40 years, SD = 1.78, 48.1% female; mean age of parent = 38.46 years, SD
= 4.43, 23% fathers). Participants were largely of Han ethnicity (93.8%), well-educated (56.9%
with at least a college degree), and employed either full-time (67.2%) or part-time (13.7%).
70.3% of the families reported living in households with an annual income at or above average
for urban Chinese families (approximately $17,316 annually; National Bureau of Statistics of the
People’s Republic of China 2017). Participants’ demographics are shown in Table 1.
The sample was randomly divided into two independent subsamples using the random
sampling procedure by SPSS, with both subsamples normally distributed. One sample (sample
A, N =1136) consisted of nearly 50% of the total number used for Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA), whereas the other sample (sample B, N = 1101) was used for Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA). To assess test-retest reliability, a subgroup of parents who had agreed to
complete the questionnaire for a second time were assessed four weeks later (N = 423).
Procedures
With the permission of the original authors of the MAPS, the questionnaire was forward-
and back-translated by a group of Chinese psychology professors who specialize in parenting
and are fluent in both Chinese and English. The back translated version was sent to the original
author for comparison; any inconsistencies were discussed, clarified and resolved. These
resolved changes were then applied to the translated Chinese version accordingly. Chinese
culture and language particularities were also extensively taken into account during the
translation. The updated version was then back-translated again and sent to the original author.
The final Chinese questionnaire was agreed upon once all parties were satisfied with the
translated and back-translated versions, and was sent out to a group of Chinese parents to ensure
that they understood all items clearly. The above steps confirmed that the updated Chinese
version of the MAPS was consistent with the English version and, thus, was acceptable for
further evaluation.
After signing the informed consent, parents were asked to fill out a series of questionnaires
through the online Qualtrics Survey Software (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., 2012). In cases where
families had multiple children, parents were asked to select one child who was within the
required age range (i.e., 6 to 12 years old) and to provide their responses with respect to the
selected child. The families received feedback on their parenting as well as on their children’s
psychological well-being based on their responses to the questionnaire.
Measures
Multidimensional Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS; Parent &Forehand, 2017). The 34
items of the original MAPS were selected from several well-established parenting scales: The
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Frick, 1991), the Parenting Practices Questionnaire
(PPQ; Block, 1965; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995), the Parenting Scale (PS; Arnold,
O’Leary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993), the Management of Children’s Behavior Inventory (MCBS;
Perepletchikova & Kazdin, 2004), the parent report version of the Children’s Report of Parenting
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965; Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970), the Parent
Behavior Inventory (PBI; Lovejoy, Weis, O’Hare, & Rubin, 1999), the Parenting Young
Children scale (PARYC; McEachern et al., 2012), and the Parental Monitoring Scale (PM;
Stattin & Kerr, 2000). The final adapted version included seven domains of parenting practices
and two broadband domains (i.e., positive and negative parenting). The broadband positive
subscale consisted of items representing proactive parenting (e.g., “I provide my child with a
brief explanation when I discipline his/her misbehavior”), positive reinforcement (e.g., “If I give
my child a request and she/he carries out the request, I praise her/him for listening and
complying”), warmth (e.g., “My child and I hug and/or kiss each other”), and supportive
parenting practices (e.g., “I listen to my child’s ideas and opinions”). The 18-item negative
parenting subscale included items representing parental hostility (e.g., “I explode with anger
toward my child”), lax control (e.g., “I feel that getting my child to obey is more trouble than
it’s worth”), and physical control (e.g., “I use physical punishment (for example, spanking) to
discipline my child because other things I have tried have not worked”). Each item was rated on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Higher scores reflected higher levels
of certain dimensions of parenting behaviors (i.e., positive, negative). The original MAPS
demonstrated excellent psychometric properties and has been used with children across multiple
developmental stages (Parent, McKee, Rough, & Forehand, 2016). Reliability for the current
study was strong for both the positive, ω = .90, and negative broadband parenting scales, ω = .88.
Interpersonal Mindfulness Parenting Scale (IM-P; Duncan et al., 2009) Mindful parenting
behaviors were assessed by parents’ composite scores on the Interpersonal Mindfulness
Parenting Scale. The Chinese version of the IM-P has demonstrated good psychometric
properties (Lo et al., 2018) and was used in the current study. The 39-item inventory has five
subscales corresponding to a variety of mindful parenting behaviors: (1) listening with full
attention (e.g., “I rush through activities with my child without being really attentive to
him/her”); (2) emotional awareness of self and child (e.g., “How I am feeling tends to affect my
parenting decisions, but I do not realize it until later”); (3) self-regulation in the parenting
relationship (e.g., “I often react too quickly to what my child says or does”); (4) nonjudgmental
acceptance of self and child (e.g., “I have difficulty accepting my child’s growing
independence”); and (5) compassion for self and child (e.g., “When I do something as a parent
that I regret, I try to give myself a break”). Parents provided their responses using a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true), with higher scores indicating higher
levels of mindful parenting. Reliability was good for the current sample, ω = .84.
Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker et al., 1979) An additional measurement of
parenting was utilized in the current study. In the Chinese version of the PBI, item 13 was
removed due to inadequate psychometric properties (Yang, Zhou, Chu, Liu, & Liu, 2009). The
PBI is an important indicator of the two dimensions of parenting styles (i.e., overprotection and
care), but given that children in the current study were in middle childhood and the literacy
comprehension was uneven across children, we carefully adapted the original version to parents’
self-report. The care subscale measures parental warmth towards their children (e.g., “I let my
child do those things he/she likes doing”), and the overprotection scale measures the extent to
which parents want to regulate children strictly and intrusively, and have demands for high
accomplishment and obedience (e.g., “I try to control everything my child does”). Items were
rated on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). Such
methods of modifying only the subject without changing any content of the measure has been
commonly applied in parenting literature (e.g., Xie et al., 2019). Our parent report version also
obtained good internal reliability, with ω = .85 and ω = .73 for the care and overprotection
scales, respectively.
Brief Problem Monitor-Parent Form (BPM-P; Achenbach et al., 2011) Children’s
externalizing, internalizing, and attention problems were measured with the Brief Problem
Monitor-Parent Form. Nineteen items of BPM-P were adapted from the Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach 1991), especially for children ages 6 to 18 years old. The attention
problems subscale consists of six items (e.g., “Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long”),
the externalizing problems subscale consists of seven items (e.g., “Disobedient at home”), and
the internalizing problems subscale consists of six items (e.g., “Feels too guilty”). Parents
provided responses using a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not true) to 3 (very true), with
higher scores indicating a greater level of behavioral and emotional problems in children. The
Chinese version of BPM-P was translated and back-translated by three associate professors of
psychology and sent to the original author to ensure that all items retained the original meanings.
Reliability of the BPM-P in the current study was ω = .82 for attention problems, ω = .77 for
externalizing problems, and ω = .81 for internalizing problems.
Child Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) The Emotion
Regulation Checklist is a parent-report measure that assesses children’s ability to regulate their
emotions. The measure consists of 24 items comprising two subscales: 1) Emotion Regulation
(e.g., “Responds positively to neutral or friendly approaches by peers”) and 2)
Liability/Negativity (e.g., “Exhibits wide mood swings”). Parents rated the extent to which the
descriptions accurately reflected their child’s emotions or behaviors using a 4-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all like this) to 4 (exactly like this). The ERC displayed good convergent
and discriminant validity in prior studies with Chinese samples (Chang et al., 2003; Han et al.,
2015). In the current study, reliability for the emotion regulation subscale was ω = .70, and ω
= .82 for the emotion negativity subscale.
Data Analysis
First, we applied a two-step factor analysis approach to examine the factor structure of the
Chinese version of the MAPS. Sample A was used to perform an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) and a series of reliability analyses, whereas sample B provided data for a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and other validity analyses, including concurrent validity, convergent
validity, and measurement invariance.

Results
Factor structure of the Chinese version of the MAPS
To test the factorial structure of the MAPS using sample A, EFA analysis with Geomin
oblique rotation and maximum likelihood estimation (ML) were carried out using Mplus Version
7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Based on 34 items, seven alternative models were examined
which are shown in Table 2. As observed, the fit indices of model 7 were acceptable and
significantly better than those of model 1 to model 6. Therefore, a seven-factor structure was
most suitable for the data, as it had adequate fit indices of RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR and
was similar to the original English version of the MAPS.
Factor loadings for each item in model 7 were further assessed as shown in Table 3. Items
with factor loadings ≤ .30 or cross loadings ≥ .30 were considered to have a poor fit to the factor
structure. Three items (11, 18, and 19) had cross loadings larger than .30, but were kept due to
structural and cultural considerations. The first was item 11: If my child does his/her chores, I
will recognize his/her behavior in some manner. This item had a loading of .30 under the
Positive Reinforcement factor, which was its original factor in the English version, and a loading
of .45 under the Supportiveness factor. The second was item 18: If I give my child a request and
she/he carries out the request, I praise her/him for listening and complying. This item had a
loading of .35 under the Positive Reinforcement factor (its original factor in the English version)
and .46 under the Supportiveness factor. If we had deleted items 11 and 18, there would have
only been two items left in the Positive Reinforcement subscale, which would consequently
impair the item representation of the factor. In addition, the phrasing of both items was
semantically closer to positive reinforcement when considered in Chinese; thus, items 11 and 18
were kept in the Positive Reinforcement subscale despite their comparatively moderate loadings.
The third was item 19: I warn my child before a change of activity is required (such as a five-
minute warning before leaving the house in the morning). This item had a loading of .30 under
Proactive Parenting in the original version of the MAPS and a loading of .36 under the
Supportiveness factor in the Chinese version. After a careful examination of the semantic
contents of item 19 and its associations with different factors, item 19 was kept in the Proactive
Parenting subscale. Additionally, item 28 (I tell my child my expectations regarding behavior
before my child engages in an activity) had a loading of .46 under the Positive Reinforcement
factor but only .02 under the original factor of Proactive Parenting. Considering that in Chinese
culture, parents' expectations for their children function as a method of reinforcement, such as
reinforcing the goals of academic achievements (Chua, 2011), as well as the fact that all of these
items load onto the broadband positive parenting factor, item 28 was moved from the Proactive
Parenting factor to the Positive Reinforcement factor. Finally, the 34 items were used in all
further analyses. The names for the seven factors from the English version were maintained
Proactive Parenting, Positive Reinforcement, Warmth, Supportiveness, Hostility, Lax Control,
and Physical Control, to make the two versions comparable.
Reliability
To determine the internal consistency of the items, McDonald’s omega ( ω ) was calculated.
Omega was utilized in the current study rather than Cronbach’s α because of arguments that α is
not an appropriate measure of reliability (Hayes & Coutts, 2020). Table 4 shows the omega
coefficients for each subscale, the range of inter-item correlations, and the mean of each inter-
item correlation. The internal consistency of each subscale was satisfactory, except for Lax
Control (ω = .62), which showed moderate internal consistency. However, the inter-item
correlations only ranged from .10 to .41 for the Lax Control subscale. In addition, there was a
subset of 423 participants who completed a retest 4 weeks after the first round of data collection.
The test-retest reliability of the total Chinese version of the MAPS was found to be slightly lower
than the original English version, demonstrated by the fact that the reliability coefficients for the
subscales ranged from .56 to .73 across time. See Table 4 for additional information on the
internal consistency and test-retest reliability of each subscale.
More specifically, the subscale of Lax Control demonstrated comparatively low internal
consistency and inter-item correlations. When comparing the items of the Lax Control subscale
with those of the original version, we found that the construct may have different meanings for
Chinese parents compared to their Western counterparts. For instance, item 23 (I feel that getting
my child to obey is more trouble than it is worth) and item 27 (I give in to my child when she/he
causes a commotion about something) both reflect parental laxity and compromise on child
obedience. Although socioecological changes in urban China may be encouraging authoritative
parenting practices in China, exiting evidence suggests that certain traditional cultural values,
such as high control, are still the norm (Chen, Sun, & Yu, 2015; Li et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2005).
Thus, the opposite to high control or laxity may not mean permissiveness for Chinese parents,
but rather a total neglect of children’s needs. Given the low internal consistency and the
potential different meanings of these practices in Chinese cultures, the Lax Control subscale was
omitted. The goodness of fit for the final model is presented in Table 2.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
A CFA analysis was performed to verify the psychometric properties of the six-factor
model of the Chinese MAPS using sample B (N = 1101). The results showed that the initial
model (model 1) fit the data, but not ideally, χ2 = 1247.55, df = 309, p < .001, CFI = .92, TLI
= .91, RMSEA = .06. Based on the modification indices, we found that some items conveyed
similar meanings when expressed in Chinese. For example, the expression of affection in item 1
(I express affection by hugging, kissing, and holding my child) and the expression of close
relationship in item 21 (My child and I hug and/or kiss each other) were quite parallel in
Chinese language. Items 6 (The punishment I give my child depends on my mood) and 29 (When
I am upset or under stress, I am picky and on my child’s back) unanimously stated that certain
parenting behaviors depend on the emotions of parents in Chinese language. In addition, the
word physical punishment appeared in items 25 (I use physical punishment as a way of
disciplining my child) and 31 (I use physical punishment (for example, spanking) to discipline my
child because other things I have tried have not worked), which have similar meanings in
Chinese language. Thus, we set free the covariances between items mentioned above and a
better-fitting model (model 1-R) emerged, χ2 = 1005.38, df = 306, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93,
RMSEA = .05. The fit indices suggested that the data fit model 1-R well, with RMSEA values
and SRMR values less than .08 and CFI and TLI close to .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Therefore,
model 1-R appeared to be the best fit for the data. These results are shown in Table 5. The
loadings of each item on the corresponding latent construct in the final six-factor model are
reported in Table 6. All loadings for the items on the corresponding latent variables were
statistically signiﬁcant (ps < .001).
Broadband factor structure. In order to examine hierarchical factor structure and test if a
broadband positive and negative parenting factor structure of the original MAPS was supported,
a higher-order CFA model was used. The higher-order model with broadband positive and
negative factors demonstrated good fit, χ2 (317, N = 1066) = 1082.16, p > .10, RMSEA = .048,
95% CI .044 - .051, CFI = .92, SRMR = .061. Proactive Parenting (.86), Positive Reinforcement
(.92), Warmth (.69), and Supportiveness (.95) all had significant factor loadings onto the
Broadband Positive Parenting factor. Additionally, Hostility (.83) and Physical Control (.88) had
significant factor loadings on the Broadband Negative Parenting factor.
Measurement invariance. A multiple-group CFW model was employed to examine and
test whether measurement invariance across the child gender, parent gender, and child age was
supported. Three different forms of measurement invariance were tested: configural (i.e.,
identical factor structure for each stage), metric (factor loadings are held equal across groups),
and scalar (factor loadings and intercepts/thresholds are held equal across groups). Chi-square
difference tests between the configural, metric, and scalar models across child gender were all
nonsignificant (all ps > .20), supporting strong measurement invariance of subscales for boys and
girls. Similarly, measurement invariance tests for child developmental stage supported strong
measurement invariance of the MAPS across childhood (ages 6-8) and early adolescence (ages
9-12) with comparisons between configural, metric, and scalar models all non-significant (all
ps > .20). However, chi-square difference tests between the configural and metric models across
parent gender was nonsignificant (p = .575) but the comparison between metric and scalar
models was significant (p < .001) which supports partial measurement invariance across mother
and father informants on the MAPS.
Concurrent Validity
The Pearson correlations among the Chinese MAPS, IM-P, and PBI were investigated to
test the concurrent validity of the MAPS, its six factor subscales, and the two broadband
subscales. Table 7 shows the corresponding correlation coefficients. The results showed that the
correlation between the broadband positive parenting and PBI Care scores was significant. The
subscales of the broadband positive parenting and PBI Care score also showed moderate to
strong positive correlations (total score: r = .58, p < 0.001; Proactive Parenting: r = .46, p <
0.001; Positive Reinforcement: r = .44, p < 0.001; Warmth: r = .44, p < 0.001; Supportiveness: r
= .55, p < 0.001) and similar results for the PBI Overprotection subscale (total score: r = -.17, p
< 0.001; Positive Parenting: r = -.13, p < 0.01; Positive Reinforcement: r = -.15, p < 0.001;
Warmth: r = -.11, p < 0.001; Supportiveness: r = -.107 p < 0.001). The broadband negative
parenting score and its subscales exhibited significant negative correlations with the PBI Care
subscale (total score: r = -.35, p < 0.001; Hostility: r = -.34, p < 0.001; Physical Control: r = -.30,
p < 0.001) and significant positive correlations with the PBI Overprotection subscale (total score:
r = .09, p < 0.001; Hostility: r = .09, p < 0.01; Physical Control: r = .08, p < 0.05).
Correlations were also computed between MAPS and IM-P scores. As we expected, the
total score on the IM-P was positively correlated with broadband positive parenting as measured
by the MAPS (r = .65, p < 0.001), and negatively correlated with broadband negative parenting
(r = -.56, p < 0.001). Furthermore, correlations among the six subscales of the MAPS and the
total IM-P score ranged from -.46 to .68 (ps < .001). Significant correlations were found between
the MAPS’s two broadband factors and all factors of the IM-P, with Pearson correlation
coefficients ranging from .41 to .53 (all ps < 0.001) for positive parenting and -.57 to -.30 (all ps
<0.001) for negative parenting.
In general, there were satisfactory correlations between the MAPS and IM-P as well as
between the MAPS and PBI, supporting good concurrent validity of the Chinese version of the
MAPS.
Convergent Validity
To test the convergent validity of the Chinese version of the MAPS, we investigated the
linear regression of the two broadband parenting scales on child psychopathological outcomes
(i.e., externalizing, internalizing and attentional problems; emotion regulation and negativity). As
shown in Table 8, broadband positive parenting, which was composed of Proactive Parenting,
Positive Reinforcement, Warmth, and Supportiveness, was negatively associated with children’s
externalizing, internalizing, and attention problems. Positive parenting behaviors were also
related to children’s ability to regulate their emotions, in that higher scores of positive parenting
were associated with higher levels of child emotional regulation and lower levels of emotional
negativity. Conversely, broadband negative parenting, which was composed of Parental Hostility
and Physical Control, was positively associated with children’s externalizing, internalizing, and
attention problems. Higher scores of negative parenting were also related to lower levels of child
emotional regulation and higher levels of emotional negativity.
Discussion
To accurately assess parenting practices and relate parenting with child outcomes across
cultures, the current study aimed to validate the Chinese version of the Multidimensional
Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS; Parent & Forehand, 2017). Following the conduction of
an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability tests, we assessed the internal consistency
and test-retest reliability of the Chinese MAPS and its subscales. After considering Chinese
cultural factors and consulting with the original author of the MAPS, the Lax Control subscale
was removed from the final version. Confirmatory factor analyses and several validity tests were
then conducted in sequence. The results indicate that the Chinese MAPS has good psychometric
properties, presenting it as a promising and comprehensive tool for assessing parenting in
Chinese-speaking populations.
First, after carefully examining both the original and Chinese versions of the MAPS, we
found that the items under Lax Control were representative of parents’ permissiveness or
absence of control (e.g., item 23, I feel that getting my child to obey is more trouble than it’s
worth), inconsistency with punitive behaviors (e.g., item12, I let my child out of a punishment
early, like lift restrictions earlier than I originally said ), and tendency to give up on control
attempts due to children’s behaviors (e.g., item 20, If my child gets upset when I say No, I back
down and give in to her/him). This phenomenon of loose or inconsistent control, however, might
hold a different meaning (i.e., neglect rather than permissiveness) for Chinese families, in which
parents are supposed to guan their children. Guan is highly regarded child-rearing behaviors in
China, involving parental governance as well as the imbuement of care and concern (Chen, Sun,
& Yu, 2015). These culturally specific parenting behaviors were likely shaped by Confucianism
given its emphasis on parental efforts to ensure children’s obedience to norms and social
interdependence, which, in turn, is thought to reinforce children to perform in culturally desirable
ways (Liu & Guo, 2010). The items of Lax Control were contradictory of Guan behavior which
may have impacted parents’ perceptions of the items. That is to say, instead of referring to
permissive or inconsistent behaviors as the items do for Western cultures, the Lax Control items
may have been more suggestive of neglectful behaviors for Chinese families. Hence, it seemed
that the Lax Control items had different meanings for Chinese parents (i.e., poor Guan behavior
or neglect) as compared to Western parents (i.e., permissiveness). Therefore, after consulting
with the original author and a group of Chinese experts on parenting, we decided to remove the
Lax Control subscale from the Chinese MAPS. After confirming the good fitness of the
remaining 28-item and six-subscale structure model, four subscales (i.e., Proactive Parenting,
Positive Reinforcement, Warmth, and Supportiveness) were combined to represent Positive
Parenting, and two subscales, Hostility and Physical Control, were combined to represent
Negative Parenting.
Next, we examined the CFA and concurrent validity of the Chinese MAPS. After removing
the Lax Control subscale, the results of the CFA supported a multidimensional six-factor structure
model, including the higher-order broadband positive and negative parenting scales. Further,
strong measurement invariance was supported across child gender and child developmental stage
and partial measurement invariance for parent gender. These results are encouraging and support
the equivalent use of the MAPS for parenting practices of boys and girls and for parents of children
and early adolescents. In contrast, only partial measurement invariance was supported for parent
gender. Failure to find strong measurement invariance of scales is common (Vandenberg & Lance,
2000), and in most cases, full measurement invariance is not a necessary condition for comparisons
across groups to be valid (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthen, 1989). However, when comparing mean
scores across Chinese mothers and fathers is the primary focus of future studies, caution is
warranted, and future research should explore how cultural expectations about fatherhood or
motherhood could influence mothers and fathers responding differently to parenting items.
Concurrent validity of the Chinese MAPS was tested using the IM-P and adapted PBI, given
prior research highlighting how positive and negative parenting practices are strongly associated
with mindful parenting (Bögels et al., 2014; Parent et al., 2015) as well as different parenting styles
(Safford, Alloy, & Pieracci, 2007). In the current study, results showed that all correlations were
significant. In particular, positive parenting was shown to be associated with mindful parenting,
such that parents who utilized more positive parenting practices also reported engaging in higher
levels of mindful parenting behaviors (e.g., being nonjudgmental, having high present-moment
awareness, and being sensitive to children’s needs). The reverse was found for negative parenting,
with parents who reported utilizing more negative parenting practices also reporting fewer mindful
parenting behaviors (e.g., difficulties listening to children with full attention, failing to be
compassionate with either children or themselves). In addition, positive parenting was shown to
be positively related to the care subscale of the PBI, but negatively related to the overprotection
subscale of the PBI, indicating that parents who scored high on positive parenting were also more
likely to report greater caring behaviors and fewer controlling behaviors towards their children. In
contrast, negative parenting was positively related to the overprotection subscale of the PBI, but
was negatively related to the care subscale of the PBI. This finding is consistent with existing
literature suggesting that parenting behaviors are related to parent-child bonding (Pinquart, 2017).
As a result of these findings, we were able to confirm the concurrent validity of the Chinese MAPS.
In regard to convergent validity, since parenting practices are significantly related to
children’s emotional expressivity and psychopathological outcomes (Han, Qian, Gao, & Dong,
2015), the BPM-P (Achenbach et al. 2011) and ERC (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) were utilized in
the current study to test the measure’s convergent validity. Results were also satisfactory for the
convergent validity test. We found that broadband positive parenting was negatively associated
with children’s psychopathological symptoms (e.g., attentional, externalizing, and internalizing
problems) and positively associated with their ability to regulate emotions. In contrast,
broadband negative parenting demonstrated a negative effect on both children’s
psychopathological outcomes and emotion regulation. These results were consistent with
previous studies conducted in Chinese and Western cultural contexts (Balan, Dobrean, Roman,
& Balazsi, 2016; Li et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017), thus providing further support for positive
parenting practices being important contributors to children’s psychosocial development. On the
contrary, negative parenting practices may impair children’s behavioral and/or emotional
development. Overall, these results verified the convergent validity of the Chinese MAPS,
providing multidimensional indicators of parenting that can be used to evaluate how specific
practices impact various psychopathological outcomes among children.

Despite our demonstration of the strong psychometric properties of the Chinese version of
the MAPS, this study has several limitations. First, the current findings are based on samples
from an urban area of China, which might not be generalizable to the overall Chinese population.
Future research should consider testing this version with samples that are more representative of
Chinese society. Second, all data were collected using self-report measures, and thus might be
subject to the social desirability effect and other common methodological biases. Because of this,
future studies should supplement the Chinese MAPS with observational parenting data or data
from multiple informants to provide more comprehensive information. Third, the PBI was
adapted to be a parental self-report measure for the purposes of the current study and should be
furthered validated. Fourth, the lack of the detection of discriminant validity in the analysis
approach may weaken the psychometric properties of the Chinese MAPS. Finally, the percentage
of fathers who participated in the study was relatively low; therefore, the influence of parent
gender should be considered when interpreting the findings of the current study. Notwithstanding
its limitations, the current study has many strengths, including the large sample size and strong
statistical methodology.
Importantly, this is the first translation and validation of the MAPS for Chinese-speaking
parents of school-age children. Like the original MAPS, this 28-item scale has demonstrated
good psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity; therefore, it appears to be a
promising instrument for measuring multidimensional parenting practices in this population. Use
of the Chinese version of the MAPS will help facilitate multidimensional parenting research in
China – an especially important goal given recently observed shifts in parenting behaviors and
values. Findings from the Chinese MAPS may also assist in guiding recommendations for and
the development of intervention programs for Chinese families. Moreover, this study may
promote future cross-cultural studies testing the effect of both positive and negative parenting on
children’s psychopathological adjustment.

Running head: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF CHINESE VERSION OF MAPS
References
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., Ivanova, M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2011). Manual for the
ASEBA Brief Problem Monitor. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for
Children, Youth, & Families. Retrieved from http://www.aseba.org.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF
profiles. Development of Psychiatry University of Vermont.
Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The parenting scale: A
measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5,
137-144. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.137
Balan, R., Dobrean, A., Roman, G. D., & Balazsi, R. (2016). Indirect effects of parenting
practices on internalizing problems among adolescents: The role of expressive
suppression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1-8. doi: 10.1007/s10826-016-0532-4
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan
& E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Advances in family research series. Family transitions (pp.
111-163). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-
96. doi:10.2307/l 129836
Block, J. H. (1965). The child-rearing practices report: A technique for evaluating parental
socialization orientations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Institute of Human
Development.
Bögels, S. M., Hellemans, J., Deursen, S. V., Römer, M., & Meulen, R. V. D. (2014). Mindful
parenting in mental health care: effects on parental and child psychopathology, parental
stress, parenting, coparenting, and marital functioning. Mindfulness, 55, 536-551. doi:
10.1007/s12671-013-0209-7
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for equivalence of factor
covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological
Bulletin, 105, 456-466. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting (pp. 59-93). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Chang, L., Chen, B., & Ji, L. (2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in China.
Parenting: Science and Practice, 11, 102-115. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2011.585553
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in
relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 598-
606. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.598
Chen, J. J., Sun, P., & Yu, Z. (2017). A comparative study on parenting of preschool children
between the Chinese in china and Chinese immigrants in the United States. Journal of Family
Issues, 33, 859-65. doi: 10.1177/0192513X15619460
Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Costigan, C., & Su, T. F. (2008). Cultural predictors of the parenting cognitions of immigrant
Chinese mothers and fathers in Canada. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
32, 432-442. doi:10.1177/0165025408093662

Darling, D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Developmental Psychology, 113, 487-496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Alampay, L. P., Sorbring, E., Bacchini, D., et
al. (2011). The association between parental warmth and control in thirteen cultural groups.
Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 790-794. doi:10.1037/ a0025120
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Liederman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation
of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01455.x
Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful parenting:
Implications for parent-child relationships and prevention research. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 12, 255-270. doi:10.1007/s10567-009-0046-3
Frick, P. J. (1991). The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Unpublished rating scale. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama.
Han, Z. R., Ahemaitijiang, N., Yan, J., Hu, X., Parent, J., Dale, C., DiMarzio, K., & Singh, N.
(2019). Parent mindfulness, parenting, and child psychopathology in China. Mindfulness,
11, 230-240. doi:10.1007/s12671-019-01111-z
Han, Z. R., Qian, J., Gao, M., & Dong, J. (2015). Emotion socialization mechanisms linking
Chinese fathers’, mothers’, and children’s emotion regulation: A moderated mediation
model. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3570-3579. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-
0158-y
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating
reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14, 1-24. doi:
10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Hu, Li‐tze, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-
55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (vol. 3). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Kim, S. Y., & Wong, V. Y. (2002). Assessing Asian and Asian American parenting: A review of
the literature. Asian American Mental Health, 185-201. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0735-
2_13
Leung, P. W. L., & Kwan, K. S. F. (1998). Parenting styles, motivational orientations, and self-
perceived academic competence: A mediational model. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 1-19.
doi: 10.2307/23093390
Li, J., Ahemaitijiang, N., Han, Z. R., & Jin, Z. (2018). Grandparents’ parenting on children’s
internalizing symptoms: The serial mediation of parents’ psychological control and
children’s emotion regulation. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 2996-4018. doi:
10.1177/0192513x18804284
Li, Y., Costanzo, P. R., & Putallaz, M. (2010). Maternal socialization goals, parenting styles, and
social-emotional adjustment among Chinese and European American young adults: Testing
a mediation model. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 171, 330-362.
doi:10.1080/00221325.2010.505969.
Lin, C. Y. C., & Fu, V. R. (1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among Chinese,
immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian American parents. Child Development, 61, 429-433.
doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02789.x
Liu, M., & Guo, F. (2010). Parenting practices and their relevance to child behaviors in Canada
and China. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 109-114. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2009.00795.x
Liu, Y., & Merritt, D. H. (2018). Examining the association between parenting and childhood
depression among Chinese children and adolescents: A systematic literature review.
Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 316-332. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.019
Lo, H. H. M., Yeung, J. W. K., Duncan, L. G., Ma, Y., Siu, A. F. Y., Chan, S. K. C., et al.
(2018). Validating of the interpersonal mindfulness in parenting scale in Hong Kong
Chinese. Mindfulness, 5, 1390-1401. doi: 10.1007/s12671-017-0879-7
Lovejoy, M. C., Weis, R., O'Hare, E., & Rubin, E. C. (1999). Development and initial validation
of the parent behavior inventory. Psychological Assessment, 11, 534-545. doi:
10.1037/1040-3590.11.4.534
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. E., Fontaine, J., Anguas-Wong, A. M., Arriola, M., Ataca, N., & Grossi,
E. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between
emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 39, 55-74. doi:10.1177/0022022107311854
McEachern, A. D., Dishion, T. J., Weaver, C. M., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F.
(2011). Parenting young children (PARYC): Validation of a self-report parenting measure.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 498–511. doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9503-y
McKee, L. G., Jones, D. J., Forehand, R., & Cueller, J. (2013). Assessment of parenting style,
parenting relationships, and other parenting variables. In D. Saklofski (Ed.), Handbook of
psychological assessment of children and adolescents (pp. 788-821). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2012). Mplus (Version 7.0). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
O'Connor, T. G. (2002). Annotation: The ‘effects’ of parenting reconsidered: Findings,
challenges, and applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 555-572.
doi：10.1111/1469-7610.00046
Parent, J., & Forehand, R. (2017). The multidimensional assessment of parenting scale (MAPS):
Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1-16.
doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0741-5
Parent, J., McKee, L. G., Anton, M., Gonzalez, M., Jones, D. J., & Forehand, R.
(2016). Mindfulness in parenting and coparenting. Mindfulness, 7, 504 513. doi:
10.1007/s12671-015-0485-5
Parent, J., McKee, L. G., & Forehand, R. (2016). Seesaw discipline: The interactive effect of
harsh and lax discipline on youth psychological adjustment. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 25, 396-406. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0244-1
Parker G., Tupling, H., Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing
problems of children and adolescents: an updated meta-analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 53, 873-932. doi: 10.1037/dev0000295
Perepletchikova, F., & Kazdin, A. E. (2004). Assessment of parenting practices related to
conduct problems: Development and validation of the management of children’s behavior
scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 385-403. doi: 10.1023/B:JCFS.
0000044723.45902.70.
Riley, A. R., Walker, B. L., Wilson, A. C., Hall, T. A., Stormshak, E. A., & Cohen, D. J. (2019).
Parents' consumer preferences for early childhood behavioral intervention in primary care.
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 40, 669-678. doi:
10.1097/DBP.0000000000000736
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian,
and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports,
77, 819-830. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819
Rodriguez, M. M. D., Donovick, M. R., & Crowley, S. L. (2009). Parenting styles in a cultural
context: Observations of “protective parenting” in first-generation Latinos. Family
Process, 48, 195-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01277.x
Safford, S. M., Alloy, L. B., & Pieracci, A. (2007). A comparison of two measures of parental
behavior. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 16, 375-384. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-9092-3
Schaefer, E. S. (1959). A circumflex model for maternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 59, 226-235.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child
Development, 413-424. doi: 10.2307/1126465
Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in children's report of
parent behavior (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 7, 239-249.
doi: 10.1080/00223980.1970.10545281
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The
development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33,
906-916. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.906

Smith, J. D., & Dishion, T. J. (2013). Mindful parenting in the development and maintenance of
youth psychopathology. In J. T. Ehrenreich-May & B. C. Chu (Eds.), Transdiagnostic
mechanisms and treatment for youth psychopathology (pp. 138 – 160). New York: Guilford
Press.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71,
1072-1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Way, N., Okazaki, S., Zhao, J., Kim, J. J., Chen, X., & Yoshikawa, H., et al. (2013). Social and
emotional parenting: Mothering in a changing Chinese society. Asian American Journal of
Psychology, 4, 61-70. doi: 10.1037/a0031204
Wu, P., Robinson, C. C., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Olsen, S. F., Porter, C. L., et al. (2002).
Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United
States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 481-491. doi:
10.1080/01650250143000436
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational
research. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 139-158. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002
Xie, X., Chen, W., Zhu, X., & He, D. (2019). Parents’ phubbing increases adolescents’ mobile
phone addiction: Roles of parent-child attachment, deviant peers, and gender. Children and
Youth Services Review, 105, 104426. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth

Xu, Y., Farver, J. A., Zhang, Z., Qiang, Z., Yu, L., & Cai, B. (2005). Mainland Chinese
parenting styles and parent-child interaction. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29, 524-531. doi: 10.1080/01650250500147121
Yan, J., Han, Z. R., Tang, Y., & Zhang, X. (2017). Parental support for autonomy and child
depressive symptoms in middle childhood: The mediating role of parent-child
attachment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 165-175. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-
0712-x
Yang, H., Zhou, S., Chu, Y., Liu, L., Liu, Q. (2009). The revision of parental bonding instrument
for Chinese college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17, 434-436. doi:
10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2009.04.024
Zhang, W., Wei, X., Ji, L., Chen, L., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2017). Reconsidering Parenting in
Chinese Culture: Subtypes, Stability, and Change of Maternal Parenting Style During Early
Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1117-1136. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-
0664-x
Table 1
Demographics of Participants (N = 2237)
Frequency %
Relationship to child
Mothers 1723 77.0
Fathers 514 23.0
Parental age
<30 53 2.4
31-40 1531 71.3
41-50 549 25.6
>50 15 0.7
Education
Master’s degree or higher 239 10.7
Bachelor’s degree or junior college 1022 45.7
High school diploma or equivalency 529 23.6
Middle school diploma 366 16.4
Primary school diploma 58 2.6
Did not graduate from primary school 23 1.0
Occupation
Unemployed or laid off 427 19.1
Working part-time 306 13.7
Working full-time 1504 67.2
Child gender
Female 1075 48.1
Male 1162 51.9
Child age
6 67 3.0
7 361 16.1
8 354 15.8
9 345 15.4
10 420 18.8
11 328 14.7
12 362 16.2
Number of children
1 1705 76.2
2 503 22.5
3 or more 29 1.3
Table 2
Summary of Goodness of Fit Statistics for EFA Contrasting Alternative Models of MAPS
Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Model 1
1 Factor 7218.60*** 527 .11 .51 .48 .12
Model 2
2 Factors 3379.37*** 494 .73 .79 .76 .06
Model 3
3 Factors 2518.42*** 462 .06 .85 .82 .04
Model 4
4 Factors 1845.53*** 431 .06 .90 .86 .03
Model 5
5 Factors 1217.97*** 401 .04 .94 .92 .03
Model 6
6 Factors 862.05*** 372 .04 .96 .95 .02
Model 7
7 Factors 679.66*** 344 .03 .98 .96 .02
Model 8
6 Factors-final 484.81*** 204 .04 .98 .96 .02
Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. *p <0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
Table 3
Factor loadings for MPAS items obtained from EFA (N = 1136)
EFA Standardized Loading
Item
PP PR WM SP HS LC PC
Item15: Reasons for requests .34 .08 .08 .28 .07 -.01 .02
]Item19: Warn before activity change .27 .12 -.02 .36 .14 -.06 -.06
Item28: Expectations before activity .02 .46 -.02 .08 .06 .18 .11
Item32: Explain discipline .68 -.03 .01 .04 -.03 -.01 -.01
Item33: Clear choices .58 .05 -.01 .12 -.07 .05 -.05
Item34: Clear consequences .49 .16 -.01 .05 .04 -.07 .06
Item11: Praise chore completion .04 .30 .05 .45 -.03 -.04 .06
Item18: Praise listening .01 .35 -.04 .46 .04 .00 -.04
Item26: Proud after task .02 .56 .04 .24 -.03 .02 -.02
Item30: Praise for helping .03 .58 .07 -.02 -.20 .02 .04
Item1: Express affection .03 .00 .84 .01 .02 -.02 -.02
Item7: Warm and intimate times -.03 .01 .49 .36 -.07 .02 .01
Item21: Hug and/or kiss -.00 .05 .79 .03 .09 -.02 -.06
Item10: Show respect .11 .07 .07 .57 -.20 .11 .05
Item17: Encourage communication .22 .05 .09 .60 .01 .02 .04
Item22: Listen .20 -.03 .19 .55 -.03 .04 -.07
Item4: Argue .13 -.04 .16 -.1 .37 .02 .06
Item5: Threats -.01 .07 .00 -.24 .36 .12 .17
Item6: Punishment based on mood -.01 .06 .03 -.29 .31 .20 .25
Item8: Yell or shout -.03 -.03 -.01 .00 .79 -.02 .00
Item13: Explode in anger -.06 .00 -.01 -.01 .75 .02 .08
Item16: Lose temper .06 -.08 -.02 .02 .65 .01 .12
Item29: Picky and on child’s back .09 .10 .05 -0.3 .34 .17 .11
Item2: Gives in -.10 -.01 .01 .12 .09 .47 -.14
Item3: Afraid to discipline .02 .15 -.13 -.1 .10 .35 -.04
Item9: Talked out of punishments .01 .11 .08 .03 -.12 .30 .09
Item12: End punishment early .07 .04 .01 -.02 .04 .49 -.01
Item20: Back down and give in -.02 -.13 -.07 .07 .00 .67 -.03
Item23: Not worth the trouble .14 -.07 .03 -.09 .02 .31 .03
Item27: Give in to commotion -.18 -.03 -.01 -.03 -.04 .53 .07
Item14: Spank with hand -.18 -.02 .00 .03 .11 -.08 .76
Item24: Spank when angry -.13 .01 -.04 .07 .09 -.01 .80
Item25: Physical punishment .05 -.03 .01 -.15 -.10 .04 .71
Item31: Other ways haven’t worked .08 .00 -.05 -.14 .05 .01 .70
Note. PP = Proactive Parenting; PR= Positive Reinforcement; WM=Warmth; SP=Supportiveness; HS=Hostility;
LC=Lax Control; PC=Physical Control.
Table 4
Internal Consistency Reliability Analyses for MAPS Subscales (N = 1136, N1=423)
Mean
No. of McDonald ’ s Range of inter- Test-retest
Subscale inter-item
items omega item correlations reliability
correlation
Proactive Parenting 5 .76 .32-.46 .38 .56
Positive
5 .75 .26-.47 .37 .58
Reinforcement
Warmth 3 .83 .53-.70 .60 .73
Supportiveness 3 .81 .56-.61 .58 .59
Hostility 7 .83 .23-.64 .41 .66
Lax Control 7 .62 .10-.41 .20 .57
Physical Control 4 .87 .55-.73 .62 .71
Note. N1 was the sample for test-retest reliability.
Table 5
Summary of Goodness of Fit Statistics for CFA Testing Alternative Models of MAPS (N=1101)
Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Model 1 1247.55*** 309 .05 .93 .92 .05
Model 1-R 1005.38*** 306 .05 .94 .93 .05
***
Note. p<0.001
Table 6
Factor Loadings for MPAS Items Obtained from CFA (N = 1101)
CFA Standardized Loading
Item
PP PR WM SP HS PC
Item15: Reasons for requests .64***
Item19: Warn before activity change .66***
Item32: Explain discipline .61***
Item33: Clear choices .63***
Item34: Clear consequences .59***
Item11: Praise chore completion .69***
Item18: Praise listening .66***
Item26: Proud after task . .66***
Item28: Expectations before activity .42***
Item30: Praise for helping .48***
Item1: Express affection .69***
Item7: Warm and intimate times .75***
Item21: Hug and/or kiss .69***
Item10: Show respect .72***
Item17: Encourage communication .74***
Item22: Listen .78***
Item4: Argue .37***
Item5: Threats .54***
Item6: Punishment based on mood .59***
Item8: Yell or shout .73***
Item13: Explode in anger .83***
Item16: Lose temper .75***
Item29: Picky and on child’s back .58***
Item14: Spank with hand .84***
Item24: Spank when angry .86***
Item25: Physical punishment .74***
Item31: Other ways haven’t worked .78***
Note. PP = Proactive Parenting; PR= Positive Reinforcement; WM=Warmth; SP=Supportiveness; HS=Hostility;
LC=Lax Control; PC=Physical Control. ***p<0.001
Table 7
Pearson Correlation Coefficients between MAPS Factors, IM-P, and PBI (N=1101)
IM-P -t IM-P1 IM-P2 IM-P3 IM-P4 IM-P5 PBI-ca PBI-op
PosP .65*** .42*** .57*** .41*** .63*** .47*** .58*** -.17***
NegP -.56*** -.44*** -.30*** -.57** -.44*** -.41*** -.35*** .09**
PP .52*** .32*** .50*** .31*** .53*** .35*** .46** -.13**
PR .48*** .30*** .44*** .31*** .46*** .33*** .44*** -.15***
WM .46*** .27*** .40*** .29*** .45*** .36*** .44*** -.11***
SP .68*** .48*** .53*** .45*** .65*** .50*** .55*** -.17***
HS -.57*** -.49*** -.27*** -.61*** -.41*** -.41*** -.34*** .09**
PC -.46*** -.33*** -.26*** -.45*** -.38*** -.34*** -.30*** .08*
Note. PosP = Broadband Positive Parenting; NegP = Broadband Negative Parenting; PP = Proactive Parenting; PR=
Positive Reinforcement; WM=Warmth; SP=Supportiveness; HS=Hostility; PC=Physical Control; IM-P-t = IM-P
total; PM-P1 = Listening with Full Attention Subscale; IM-P2 = Emotional Awareness of Self and Child Subscale;
IM-P3 = Self-Regulation in the Parenting Relationship Subscale; IM-P4 = Non-judgmental Acceptance of Self and
Child; IM-P = Compassion for Self and Child. *p <0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
Table 8
Multiple Regression Results for Each Broadband MAPS Factor as an Independent Variable (N=1101)
Externalizing Internalizing Attention ERCR ERCN
Cage .00 .07* .04 -.23*** -.03
Cgender -.38** -.22* .13*** .42** -.90**
Page -.03* -.03* .02*** .05* -.05
Pgender -.05 -.02 .16 1.00*** -.36
BPP -.76*** -.63*** -.69*** 2.38*** -2.87***
BNP 1.52*** .95*** 1.65*** -.47*** 3.04***
R2 .20 .11 .19 .18 .21
F 84.3 42.94 76.24 66.08 81.38
Note. *p <0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001. Unstandardized regression coefficients. Cage = Child age; Cgender = Child
gender; Page = Parent age; Pgender = Parent gender; BPP = Broadband positive parenting; BNP = Broadband
negative parenting.

Chinese MAPS Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chinese MAPS Study

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

Chinese MAPS Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF CHINESE VERSION OF MAPS

Manuscript Under Review

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Multidimensional

Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS)

Nigela Ahemaitijiang1 • Zhuo Rachel Han1 •

Chelsea Dale 2 • Karissa DiMarzio 2 • Justin Parent 2

Center for Experimental Psychology Education, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal

University, Beijing, China

Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for

a Chinese translation of the Multidimensional Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS) in order

Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale (IM-P), adapted Parental Bonding Instrument

psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. MAPS

dimensional measures of parenting is discussed in this paper.

Keywords: broadband parenting, Chinese translation, validation, child psychopathology

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Multidimensional Assessment of

Parenting Scale (MAPS)

Recognized as an important research topic, parenting has commanded considerable interest

indirect roles of parenting on child psychopathology (e.g., child externalizing/internalizing

globalization and China’s continuous economic reform. A more child-centered approach of

current practices in Chinese societies influence children’s psychological wellbeing.

intervention and prevention of negative child outcomes, as multidimensional assessments may

provide a more accurate depiction of parenting practices than traditional unidimensional

authoritarian, permissive, uninvolved) or a specific aspect of parenting (i.e., mindful parenting;

multidimensional assessment of parenting practices with strong psychometric properties of scale

scores from Chinese parents.

Parent and Forehand (2017) proposed a comprehensive 34-item Multidimensional

limitations in parenting research. The MAPS was developed to measure multidimensional

parenting practices, targeting American parents of children in early childhood through

positive/negative parenting and children’s externalizing/internalizing problems have been

externalizing and internalizing problems, emotion regulation).

People’s Republic of China 2017). Participants’ demographics are shown in Table 1.

and back-translated by a group of Chinese psychology professors who specialize in parenting

psychological well-being based on their responses to the questionnaire.

Multidimensional Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS; Parent &Forehand, 2017). The 34

behaviors were assessed by parents’ composite scores on the Interpersonal Mindfulness

Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker et al., 1979) An additional measurement of

Brief Problem Monitor-Parent Form (BPM-P; Achenbach et al., 2011) Children’s

externalizing problems, and ω = .81 for internalizing problems.

(e.g., “Responds positively to neutral or friendly approaches by peers”) and 2)

= .82 for the emotion negativity subscale.

validity, and measurement invariance.

Factor structure of the Chinese version of the MAPS

was similar to the original English version of the MAPS.

Parenting subscale. Additionally, item 28 (I tell my child my expectations regarding behavior

Proactive Parenting, Positive Reinforcement, Warmth, Supportiveness, Hostility, Lax Control,

and Physical Control, to make the two versions comparable.

internal consistency and test-retest reliability of each subscale.

obedience. Although socioecological changes in urban China may be encouraging authoritative

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

word physical punishment appeared in items 25 (I use physical punishment as a way of

statistically signiﬁcant (ps < .001).

significant factor loadings on the Broadband Negative Parenting factor.

Measurement invariance. A multiple-group CFW model was employed to examine and

and father informants on the MAPS.

<0.001) for negative parenting.

emotional regulation and higher levels of emotional negativity.

properties, presenting it as a promising and comprehensive tool for assessing parenting in

interdependence, which, in turn, is thought to reinforce children to perform in culturally desirable

or neglect) as compared to Western parents (i.e., permissiveness). Therefore, after consulting