Confirmatory and Exploratory Factor Analyses of the Parental Authority Questionnaire

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Confirmatory and Exploratory Factor Analyses of the Parental Authority Questionnaire
Physical Description:
1 online resource (54 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Hill,Michelle Toston
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.E.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Educational Psychology, Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education
Committee Chair:
Ashton, Patricia T
Committee Members:
Algina, James J

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
analysis -- authoritarian -- authoritative -- authority -- baumrind -- buri -- confirmatory -- exploratory -- factor -- parenting -- permissive -- questionnaire -- style
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Educational Psychology thesis, M.A.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Numerous researchers have conducted studies of the relationship of parenting styles to students' academic achievement and psychological well-being. However, findings are inconsistent due at least in part to use of different measures. Only a few studies have been conducted on the psychometric characteristics of these instruments, which raises questions about the reliability and validity of the data obtained with these measures. The purpose of this study was to use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine whether the widely recognized three-factor model of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles was validated in a sample of 331 college students' responses to the mother's form and 328 responses to the father's form of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), a 30-item self-report questionnaire consisting of a mother's and father's form designed by Buri (1991) to measure children's perceptions of the three parenting styles originally proposed by Baumrind (1971). Results of the CFA indicated that the three-factor model of parenting did not fit the data from these college students for either the mother's or father's form. Seven exploratory factor analyses (EFA), ranging from one factor to seven, were then performed to determine the number of factors needed to fit the data. Results of the EFAs suggested that the three-factor model of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles provided the best interpretation of the data. Recommendations for creating more discriminating items on the basis of the item loadings on the three factors include omitting or revising item 24 on the mother's form and items 8, 14, and 24 on the father's form.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michelle Toston Hill.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.E.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Ashton, Patricia T.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043467:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CONFIRMATORY AND EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSE S OF THE PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE By MICHELLE TOSTON HILL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT S FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Michelle Toston Hill

PAGE 3

3 To my husband, family and friends

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS t hank God, who is the head of my life, for all of H is strength, me rcy, and guidance throughout this journey. I know that w ithout Him, I could do nothing and with Him, all things are possible Titus Hill II, for his love, support, and encouragement over the many years and for always being the re for me also like to thank my parents, brothers and grandmother s for their love, inspiring words and consistent encouragement for me to excel. say t hanks and God b less to all of my family, friends, colleagues, and church family Last, Patricia Ash ton, for her countless hours of helping me revise my research papers for all of her support, and for never giving up on me and my co advisor, Dr. James Algina, for all of his help and invaluable knowledge

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 PARENTING STYLES ................................ ................................ ............................ 10 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) ................................ .................... 11 Factor Analytic Studies of the PAQ ................................ ................................ .. 11 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 13 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 14 Theoretical Significance ................................ ................................ ................... 14 Practical Signifi cance ................................ ................................ ....................... 17 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 17 2 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 19 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19 Measure ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 19 The PAQ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19 Reliability and Validity ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 22 Assessing Model Fit ................................ ................................ ................................ 22 3 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 25 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Statistical Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) ................................ ................................ 25 Model fit ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 25 Summary of CFA ................................ ................................ ....................... 26 Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) ................................ ................................ .. 26 Data analyses ................................ ................................ ............................ 26 Comparisons of alternative models ................................ ............................ 27 Summary of EFA ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ...... 45 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 45 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47

PAGE 6

6 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 49 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 53

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 The three scales of the PAQ ................................ ................................ ............... 23 3 1 CFA factor loading matrix for PAQ orm ................................ ............ 35 3 2 CFA factor loading matrix for PAQ ................................ ............. 37 3 3 Goodness of fit indices for models ................................ ............ 39 3 4 Goodness of fit indices for models ................................ ............. 39 3 5 EFA factor loadings for the three factor model of parenting styles fo rm ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 40 3 6 EFA factor loadings for the three factor model of parenting styles form ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 42 3 7 Geomin factor correlations for ......................... 44 3 8 ........................... 44

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate Scho ol of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education CONFIRMATORY AND EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSE S OF THE PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE By Michelle Toston Hill August 2011 Chair: Patricia T. Ashton Major: Educational Psychology Numerous researchers have conducted studies of the relationship of parenting being. However, findings are inconsistent due at lea st in part to use of different measures. Only a few studies have been conducted on the psychometric characteristics of these instruments, which raises questions about the reliability and validity of the data obtained with these measures. The purpose of thi s study was to use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine whether the widely recognized three factor model of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles was validated in a sample of 331 college the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), a 30 item self report questionnaire consisting perceptions of the three parenting sty les originally proposed by Baumrind (1971). Results of the CFA indicated that the three factor model of parenting did not fit the data from these college students for either the mother or father form. Seven exploratory factor analyses (EFA), ranging fr om one factor to seven, were then performed to determine the number of factors needed to fit the data. Results of the EFAs suggested

PAGE 9

9 that the three factor model of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles provided the best interpretati on of the data. Recommendations for creating more discriminating items on the basis of the item loadings on the three factors include 8, 14 form.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 PARENTING STYLES Statement of the Problem The effective socialization of children is a key concern for parents and society. In popular topic of research. One of the most widely studied c onstructs in this literature is parenting style. Baumrind (1967) identified three styles of parenting; authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. The authoritarian style of parenting is highly demanding. Children are held to high standards and rules ar e made that must be followed for fear not place demands on children for achieving high standards. The authoritative style is highly demanding and highly responsive to chi conception of the three parenting styles is conceptually compelling, inconsistencies in the research literature raise questions about whe ther the measures used to assess parenting style are adequate. One of t he most widely used measure s of parenting style AQ). The purpose of this study wa s to determine whether a confirmatory factor analysi res on the PAQ would yield the three factors of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting that the PAQ was designed to measure. In this chapter, I describe the construction of the PAQ and previous research on its psyc hometric characteristics, and I review research that highlights the need for a measure that can be useful in resolving development.

PAGE 11

11 The P arental Authority Questionnaire ( PAQ ) Description of the PAQ The PAQ is a 30 item self report questionnaire designed to authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles proposed by Baumrind (1971 ). Buri (1991) initiall y included 48 items in the questionnaire, and after individuals considered expert in the field reviewed the m easure for appropriateness, he shortened the questionnaire to 30 items with each scale consisting of 10 items. Responses are on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). Participants are instructed to respond to the items first as descriptions of their mother and then as descriptions of their father. S ther in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt Factor Analytic Studies of the PAQ e PAQ Their findings suggest that characteristics of the sample may be related to the adequacy of the measure. In the following section, I describe the factors that have been identified in these analyses of the PAQ. Parenting s tyles and m ental h ealth of Palestin ian Arab a dolescents in Israel (Dwairy, 2004). Dwairy conducted exploratory factor analyses to determine whether the authoritarian authoritative, and permissive parenting styles for mothers and fathers Buri (1991) intended to measure with the PAQ were validated in a sample of 431

PAGE 12

12 Palestinian Arab adolescents from six schools (three urban and three rural). Dwairy presented a table showing the factor loadings for the three factor model. Factor 1 ( A uthoritative Parenting ) consisted of 10 items with factor loadings ranging from .47 to .73. Factor 2 ( A uthoritarian Parenting ) consisted of 10 items with factor loadings ranging from .40 to .66. Factor 3 ( P ermissive Parenting ) consisted of 10 items with factor loadings ranging from .31 to .58. However, item 3 on cross loaded on Authoritarian and Permissive Parenting ( loadings were .35 and .51 respectively ). Items 1 and 9 on permissive scale also cross loaded on Authoritarian and Permis sive Parenting (.32 and .51 respectively for item 1 and .58 and .31 for respectively for item 9 ). Dwairy gave no explanation as to the significance of these three items having cross loadings nor did she address what she did about those items. Further facto r analyses of the PAQ in other samples is needed to determine if these items have similar cross loadings in those samples. Dwairy reported that she conducted confirmatory factor analyses to verify the three factor model in her sample, but she did not inclu de the results of those analyses in the article. Parenting s tyle of Mexican, Mexican American, and Caucasian Non Hispanic Families: Social c ontext and c ultural i nfluences (Varela et al., 2004). The authors conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the r esponses of 150 children, ages 10 to 1 4 and their parents ( N factor model fit the dat a. They found that when the items on the permissive scale of the PAQ w ere removed, fit increased to NNFI =1.00 for the Mexican descent (MD) group (made up of Mexican Immigrants and Mexican American participants combined) and NNFI = .99 for the full sample, .98 for the Mexican group, and .97 for the Caucasian group

PAGE 13

13 W ith the permissive scale items in the analysis, the fit indices ranged from only .70 to .88. The correlations between the Authoritative and Authoritarian scales were 48, .16, and .33 for the Mexican, MD, and CNH samples, respectively. The authors used only the Authoritative and Authoritarian scales of the PAQ in further analyses. However, the responses with their children raise questions about whether the need to omit the permissive scale was the result of the unique characte ristics of their sample. relationship to perceived parenting styles (Chan & Chan, 2007). In this study, the goal orientation. The authors performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the responses of 285 teacher education students from the University of Hong Kong to the PAQ. The goodness of fit indices were as follows: C FI = .95, GFI = .87, Adjusted goodness of fit index, or AGFI = .83, RMSEA = .08, and RMR = .07) T he authors concluded that the three factor model was confirmed, consisting of A P .86), and A P arenting S tyles. Purpose of the Study Buri (1991) created the PAQ to assess parental styles of authority from the perspective of their children The goal of this study was to determine whether the parenting styles that Buri proposed to measure with the PAQ were verified in I test ed the fit of the three factor model of authoritative, permissive, and authoritarian parenting styles to data provided by over 300 University of Florida college students. The

PAGE 14

14 confirmatory factor analyses of their responses to the PAQ (Buri, 1991) w ere conducted (1971) three parenti ng styles. Significance of the Study Theoretical Significance The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) is used to assess the extent that students perceive that their parents use the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive styles of parenting. This study provides researchers and educators a better understanding of the adequacy of the PAQ Next, I provide an example of theoretical issues that could be clarified with a more adequate measure of the PAQ Specifically, I illustrate an unresolved question regarding the relationship between parenting style and self esteem. Most of the studies of the relationship between parenting style and emotional well esteem (Buri, 1989; Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988; Milevsky, Schlechter, Netter, & Keehn, 2007). For example, in a study of 230 college students enrolled in an introductory psychology course, Buri et al. (1988) conducted a study to clarify the relationship between parenting style and esteem and found modest relationships. Student participants responded students also responded to th e Tennessee Self Concept (TSC) scale (Fitts, 1965), a 100 item scale that measures global self esteem ( r = .26, p < .01), whereas mot

PAGE 15

15 esteem ( r = .41, p < .01 related to self esteem ( r = .18, p < .01 positively rel ated to self esteem ( r = .38, p < .01 ). The researchers also found gender differences. For girls, mothers authoritarian parenting was negatively related to self esteem ( r = .29, p = .01 authoritative parenting was positively relate d to self esteem ( r = .42, p = <.01 and r = .50, p = .01 respectively ). In contrast, for boys the relationships between parenting style and self esteem were lower (although they were in the same direction as for girls self esteem were negatively correlated ( r = .21, p authoritative parenting and self esteem were significant but lower than for girls, .36 ( p < .01 ) and .19 ( p < .05) respectively. They found that 89% of students with both an authoritative mother and an authoritative father had high self esteem, and they concluded that the authoritative style esteem than is authoritari 281). In contrast, 84% of students in their study with both an authoritarian mother and an authoritarian father had low self esteem. How e ver, t authoritative parenting style is better than the authoritarian parenti ng style is not warranted because their findings are based upon correlational research. They are unable to make causal claims based on the data they have collected. als of parenting style and to provide further information regarding the extent that parenting style related to self esteem. Buri asked the students to complete the TSC, the Parental Nurturance Scale (PNS), and the PAQ. The PNS and the PAQ

PAGE 16

16 were reworded for perceptions of their nurturance and parenting styles. Buri hypothesized that mother and esteem and that th e authoritarian style of parenting would be negatively related to behaviors would be more strongly related to their self of their own behavi nurturance w as esteem ( r = .54, p < .01 for both self esteem ( r = .3 0 p < .01 for mothers and r = .22, p < .03 for fathers). He also found r = .30, p < .01 r = .46, p < .01 r = .22, p < .01 r = .41, p < .01 ). The only parenting styles that were significantly related to self esteem were r = .18, p < .05) and fathe perception of their own authoritativeness ( r = .23, p < .05). Buri also reported that the relationship of parenting behavior to self esteem may be moderated by parental nurturance. That is, when he controlled for parental nurturance, parenting style ac counted for only 4% of the variance in scores on the self esteem measure, compared to nurturance, which accounted for 40.59% of the variance. This study was designed to provide researchers with a better understanding of PAQ. Investigated here was whether provide valid information on the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive styles of

PAGE 17

17 parenting The goal was to help researchers improve their investigations of the important parenting issues raised in t he studies reviewed here. Practical Significance this study also has implications for educational practice. Considerable research has linked parenting style to academic achieve ment and adolescent behavior, and many researchers believe that t he authoritative style of parenting is the most appropriate emotional well being. Some studies, however, have suggested that other styles of parenting may be more appropriate for children in some ethnic and socioeconomic groups ( e.g., Chao, 1994, 2001 ; Garcia & Gracia, 2009; Julian McKenry, & McKelvey, 1994; Taylor, Hinton, & Wilson,1995 ). Researchers need a measure of pa renting styles that yields reliable and valid scores of parenting style to investigate these important relationships. The factor analyses conducted in this study will give researchers a better understanding of the factors assessed by the PAQ in a sample of college students. Summary and socioemotional development. However, the research on the topic is controversial due at least in part to the use of different questionnaires to measure parenting styles. Several researchers have conducted confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of raising questions about the adequacy of scores on the PAQ as a measure of the three factor model of aut horitarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles To address these questions, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether the factors identified by Buri (1991)

PAGE 18

18 were validated in a sample of college students at a large state un iversity Some issues to be resolved in future research with the PAQ are the relationships between parenting esteem. Studies by Buri (Buri et al. 1988 ; Buri 1989) were conducted to provide clarification regarding the conflicting research on the question of whether parenting style is related to self esteem. More research is needed, however, on numerous important questions including style were more strongly related to their self esteem their own parenting style and (b) given the decline in variance accounted for by parenting style when nurturance was in the model, might other variables also reduce the amount of variance that parenting style accounts fo r in self esteem scores and other important student outcomes, such as academic achievement and emotional and social well being.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 METHOD Participants The data for this study were taken from an existing dataset of 413 respondents from the Universi ty of Florida (Ribadeneira, 2006). The participants were recruited from a participant pool of students in the Department of Educational Psychology. Students were also recruited from undergraduate courses in the D epartments of Romance Languages and Literatu re, and Health and Human Performance for a study of predictors of career decision self efficacy (Ribadeneira, 2006). A subset of 331 students completed the PAQ and a subset of 328 students completed the The gender and e thnic composition in the sample were as follows: 232 female (81.98%), 51 male (18.02%); 194 were Caucasian (68.55%), 49 Hispanic (17.31%), 12 Asian (4.24%), 18 African American (6.36%), and 10 did not identify their ethnicity (3.53%). Student classificati ons were as follows: (a) sophomore (118 students, 41.70%), (b) juniors (82 students, 28.90%), (c) seniors (44 students, 15.50%), and (d) freshman (37 students, 13.10%). A final category, other, for students who did not identify with the previously mentione d classifications was also included in the study (2 students, 0.7 1 %). Ages of participants ranged from 17 to 32. This information was obtained from Ribadeneira (2006). M easure The PAQ The measure of interest wa s the PAQ (Buri, 1991). Students responded t o 30 questions regarding their mothers parenting style and then the same 30 questions regarding their fathers Response options on the items ranged from 1

PAGE 20

20 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). See Table 2 1 for the 10 items pr oposed to load on the three scales Buri created to measure authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles. Reliability and Validity Reliability. Buri (1991) administered the PAQ to 62 college students in an introductory psychology class at the be ginning of the term and, 2 weeks later, to 61 of those students. He reported test retest reliabilities for the 2 week interval of scores on Then, f or the scores of 185 students (95 women, 90 men) from an introductory psychology course, Buri reported internal consistency coe Discriminant validity To exa mine the discriminant validity of the scores on the PAQ, Buri (1991) administered the questionnaire to 127 college students in an authoritarianism was negatively correlate r = .38, p < r = .48, p < .01) as one would expect, but the values of the correlations were surprisingly modest especially for the relationship between the authoritarian and permissive styles, which from a conceptual perspective are considered opposites. Similar permissiveness ( r = .50, p < .01) and fa r = .52, p < .01).

PAGE 21

21 authoritativeness. Criterion related validity. To examine criterion scores on the Parental Nurtur ance Scale (Buri, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988) were correlated with their PAQ subscale scores. Buri hypothesized that if the scores on the (a) an parenting would be inversely related to their (b) authoritative parenting would be positively related to nurturance, and (c) permissive parenting would not be related to nurturance. His hypotheses were supported He found that perceptions of authoritative parenting (for mothers, r = .56, p < .01 and for fathers, r = .68, p < .01). Also, authoritarian parenting was negatively related to parental nurturance ( r = .36 p < 01 for mothers and r = .53 p < 01 for fathers), and permissive parenting was not related to nurturance ( r = .04 p > .10 for mothers and r = .13 p < .10 for fathers), supporting his hypotheses. Social desirability. Buri als o parenting scales might be affected by the social desirability bias. Buri recruited 69 students from an introductory psychology course to complete the PAQ and the Mar lowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). He found no veness Some of these correlations might

PAGE 22

22 have reached significance with a larger sample. Buri did not investigate other possible Procedures All p articipants signed consent fo rms The participants completed the PAQ twice, The questionnaire was taken home and when completed was returned to the principal investigator, Ms. Ribade neira. Assessing Model Fit Two confirmatory factor analyses of the three factor models of the parenting conducted using the Mplus 6.0 (Muthn & Muthn, 1998 2010) and the w eighted least squares estimator (WLSM V ). I hypothesized that the three factor model would fit the data from the college students. Goodness of fit of the three factor model was assessed according to the following standards: a non significant chi square, CFI and TLI values greater than .95, RMSEA less t han .05, and SRMR less than .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

PAGE 23

23 Table 2 1 The three s cales of the PAQ Authoritarian re forced to conform to what she thought was right. 3. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions. 7. As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any de cision she had made. 9. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to. 12. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family. 16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her. those expectations, she punished me. 25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to growing up. 26. As I was growing up my mother often told me ex actly what she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it. 29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority. Authoritative 4. A s I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family. 5. My mother has always encouraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictio ns were unreasonable. 8. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline. 11. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt free t o discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable. 15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways. 20. As I was growing up my mother decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it. 22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, bu t she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family.

PAGE 24

24 Table 2 1 continued 23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me. 27. As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her. 30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made a mistake. Permissive 1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well run home the children sho uld have their way in the family as often as the parents do. 6. My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want. 10. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them. 13. As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior 14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions. 17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their isions, and desires as they are growing up. 19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from her. 21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I wa s growing up. 24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do. 28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors, activities and desires of the children in the family. Note The same questions were asked Items are organized by subscales from the Journal of Personality Assessment published by the Society for Personality Assessment, Copyright 199 1, reproduced with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK, LTD JOURNALS in the format Dissertation via Copyright Clearance Center.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Introduction use of the authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting styles proposed by Baumrind (1971). Baumrind described the authoritarian style as strict and highly controlling, the permissive style as high in responsiveness to children, but low in demands, and the authoritative style as high in responsiveness and high in demands on children. On the PAQ, Buri (1991) measured these styles with 10 items for each style. In this study confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine whether the three factor model provided good fit to the data from the responses of the college student Statistical Analyses Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) Confirmatory analyses were performed on t Ribadeniera (2006). I used weighted least squares means and variance adjusted estimation procedure (WLSMV) to test the fit of Baumri factor model of parenting styles to the data. The factor loadings for the three factor model for mothers are presented in Table 3 1 and in Table 3 2 for fathers. Only items with factor loadings equal to or greater than .30 were included i n the factors. Model f it Mothers and Fathers T referring to mothers were as follows: CFI = .78, TLI = .76, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .11

PAGE 26

26 and 2 (402) = 1154.65 ( p < .01)). These indices were all indicative of poor model fit. T he fit indices for the three CFI = .78, TLI = .77, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .13 and 2 (402) = 1187.82 ( p < .01). Sim ilar to the results for the mothers, the fit indices for the three factor model for fathers also indicated poor model fit Summary of CFA The CFAs of the three indicated that the three factor model wa s not a good fit to the data for either mothers or fathers. The TLI, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR indices indicated poor model fit. Next, I conducted exploratory factor analyses of several models using the PAQ data from e the number of factors that best fit the data. Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) Data a nalyses Seven EFA models of parenting style were tested using Mplus 6.0 (Muthn & Muthn, 1998 2010). The models were estimated using WLSMV, the same estimation proced ure used in the CFA of the three factor model. I began with the one factor model and estimated seven models with the intention to estimate additional models if none of these models provided an adequate fit. No restrictions were placed on the factors. The a nalyses defaulted to GEOMIN as its oblique rotation operation, which allowed the factors to be correlated. F actor loadings smaller than .30 in absolute value were not considered salient and, therefore, were not used as a basis for interpreting factors

PAGE 27

27 Com p arisons of alternative m odels indicated the fit of the models improved slightly with the addition of each new factor ( see Table 3 3) ; however interpretability decreased as more tha n three factors were added to the model. Similarly, for fathers, comparison of the fit indices indicated little improvement beyond three factors (see Table 3 4) Also, i nterpretability of the factors decreased as more than three factors were added to the m odel factor model of parenting s tyles The factor loadings for the factor model are presented in Table 3 5. Twelve items had salient loadings on the first factor referred to here as Authoritarian Parenting. Of these 12 items, 10 had been on B that ranged from .54 to .76, with a median of .66. Fourteen items had salient loadings on the second factor referred to her e as Mothe ; 10 of the items were on B parenting scale, with loadings that ranged from .35 to .78 and a median of .64. Eleven items had salient loadings on the third factor, Permissive Parenting Ten of the item s had been on B and had loadings that ranged from .31 to .66, with a median of .51. These results indicate better measurement of ve Parenting. A total of seven items had cross loadings on two items; none had cross loading on three items. Of the items intended to measure authoritarian parenting, only item 7 cross loaded. Of the items intended to measure authoritative parenting, item s 5 and 8

PAGE 28

28 cross couraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were ) had loadings of is consistent with the conception of the two parenting styles, specifically that authoritarian parents will not allow much less encourage children to question their decisions, whereas authoritative parents do encourage such interactions. The fact that item s 5 and 7 do not which parental decision making and rules about children are largely irrelevant Item 8 ions of the children in Authoritative Parenting and loading was not on the factor it was intended to measure. Nevertheles s, the pattern of positive and negative loadings is consistent with the conception of the two parenting styles. The remaining four items were intended to measure permissive parenting. Only item 10 As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and with loadings of .30 and .31, respectively. The pattern of loadings is again consistent with the conception of the two parenting styles. Items 21, 24, and 28 had salient

PAGE 29

29 f view on family Parenting (.61). It is not clear whether item 24 is a descripti on of authoritative or permissive parenting and this may account for the pattern of results. It is interesting that item 2 4 expect children of authoritarian parenting not to endo rse this item. Items 21 and 28 had directing and guiding my behavior as I was gro and .35.The pattern of loadings is consis tent with the conception of permissive and authoritative parenting, but again it is interesting that the items did not load negatively factor model of parenting s tyle The factor loadings for the three factor model are presented in Table 3 6. Eleven items had salient loadings on the first factor referred to here as Of these ad loadings th at ranged from 45 to 85 with a median of 68 Eigh teen items had salient loadings on the second factor referred to here as Fa ; 10 of the items parenting scale, wi th loadings that ranged from 31 to 82 and a median of 66 Nine items had salient loadings on the third factor, Fa

PAGE 30

30 Permissive Parenting Item 1 did not load on the Permissive factor as it was proposed to in the Buri scale. The items h ad loadings that ranged from 43 to 65 with a median of 57 These results also indicate better measurement of Fa horitarian Parenting and Fa thoritative Parenting than of Fa A total of 8 items had cross loadings on two items; none had cross loading on three items. Of the items intended to measur e authoritarian parenting, three items cross loaded (7, 8, and 16) Of the items intended to measure authoritative parenting, eight items cross loaded ( 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24, and 28) It my fa ther did not all ow me to question any decision he on Fa ting (.6 8 and .45, respectively) and on Fa Parenting ( .33 and .32, respectively) Item 21 cross Parenting with a factor loading of.65 and a negative loading of Authoritative Parenting, reflecting the negative relationship of the two items with regard .33 and a factor loading of .60 on Fath T wo items, 14 Most of the time as I was growing up my father did what the children in the fami ly wanted when making family decisions and 24 As I was growing up my father allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do ) cross

PAGE 31

31 Authoritative Par enting (.31 and .45, respectively) (. 43 and .46, respectively). The positive loadings suggest that these items fail to Permissive Parenting an d therefore should be revised to better discriminate between the factor s and therefore should be revised or omitted from the measure. Items 13, 21, and 28 concern setting guidelines for behavior. Items 14 and 24 concern granting autonomy to the child in ho w the family spent their time. Item 8 my fa ther directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through ) had loadings of 46 on Parenting and .45 on Fa Author itative Parenting. Thus its largest positive loading was not on the factor it was intended to measure. No items cross per missive parenting. However, f ive items cross loaded on the permissive and authoritative factors ( as discussed above, items 13, 14 21, 24, and 28), which is again consistent with the conception of the two parenting styles. Analysis of correlation tables. C orrelation tables for the three factor models of parenting style for mother and fathers are presen ted in Tables 3 7 and 3 8 respectively factor models, Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting were significantly negatively correlated. The higher students score on Authoritarian Parenting, the lower their sc ore is likely to be on Permissive Parenting. However, one might wonder why the correlation is not higher in that the conception of those two styles are in opposition and the items seem to reflect that difference. Consider, for example, item 2 that loads on Authoritarian Parenting for both parents:

PAGE 32

32 ther allowed me to decide most things for myself The strength of the negative relationship appeared also to be related to whether the question observable behaviors o r a permissive item While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well run home the children should have their way in the fa ) and item 2 an authoritarian item our own good if we were forced to confor ) had a .21 relationship while item s 5 My mother has always enco uraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were ) and 7 an authoritarian item ( As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to que ) had a .50 relationship For father s While I was growing up my father felt that in a well run home the children should have their way in the fa Even if h is children im my fa ther felt it was for our own good if we were forc ed to conform to what she thought was ) have only a .19 correlation. By contrast, items 7 an authoritarian item ( As I was growing up my father did not allow me to qu estion any ) and 27 an authoritative item As I was growing u p my father gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but he was also understa nding ), which concern observable behavior s have a .36 correlation coefficients. Thus there is not a tendency for the items associate d with

PAGE 33

33 Questions that require participants to make inference about parenting behavior should be separated from those that require participants to report on parenting beha vior in analyses to determine whether items pairs that assess behavior have consistently higher negative correlations Summary of EFA Of the seven models, the three factor model of parenting styles provided the most interpretable results for both the moth parenting style, the three factor model had adequate fit, although three items on 24 positively cross loaded on two factors in the mod el, suggesting that the item does not clearly discriminate between the two factors and should be omitted or revised to better reflect differences in the two parenting styles. factor model also had good fit. The fath three factor mo del included t wo items (8, and 24) that positively cross loaded on two factors, indicating that the items did not clearly discriminate between the two factors and should be omitted or revised to better differentiate between the two fac tors. In conclusion, exploratory factor analyses of seven models, ranging from one factor to seven, showed that the fit of the data to the models increased slightly with the addition of each factor beyond three; however the interpretation of these factors is styles, the 3 factors are labeled Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Permissive Parenting. From the factor loadings table (Table 3 tha t had a salient loading on each factor and did not have a salient loading on a second factor are (a)

PAGE 34

34 Authoritative Parenting: items 4, 11, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27, and 30; (Table 3 thoritative Parenting: items 1, 4, 5, Parenting: items 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, and 28. subscales of his instrument are consis tent with the loadings in the 3 factor EFA model for mothers and fathers. In addition, most of the cross loadings are consistent with the theory underlying the development of the instrument.

PAGE 35

35 Table 3 1 CFA f actor loading m atrix for PAQ Moth orm Fa ctor Loadings for Mothers Item 1 2 3 M SD Authoritarian felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right .81 (.07) 2.79 1.26 3. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions. .76 (.06) 3.32 1.18 7. As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision she had made .66 (.06) 2.30 1.09 9. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to .87 (.07) 2.66 1.27 12. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is bos s in the family .73 (.06) 2.98 1.14 16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her .61 (.06) 2.65 1.11 18. As I was growing up my mother let me know what those expectations, she punished me .68 (.07) 3.12 1.21 25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they as they are growing up .74 (.06) 2.89 1.15 26. As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it. .68 (.06) 2.97 1.14 29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in th e family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority. .82 (.06) 2.89 1.21 Authoritative 4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother discussed the reasoning b ehind the policy with the children in the family .72 (.06) 3.53 1.08 5. My mother has always encouraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable .73 (.06) 3.41 1.12 8. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline .30 (.06) 3.53 1.03 11. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectat ions with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable .81 (.05) 3.83 1.09 15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways .61 (.05) 3.94 0.90

PAGE 36

36 Table 3 1. c ontinued Factor Loadings for Mothers Item 1 2 3 M SD opinions into consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it . 60 (.06) 3.75 1.06 22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family .66 (.05) 3.64 1.05 23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me .77 (.05) 3.87 1.01 27. As I was gro wing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her .63 (.05) 3.54 0 .96 30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made a mistake .75 (.05) 3.68 1.08 Permissive 1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do .53 (.07) 2.56 1.19 6. My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want .76 (.07) 2.50 1.14 10. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them .51 (.07) 2.21 1.11 13. As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior .46 (.07) 1.97 1.06 14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions .44 (.07) 2.69 1.08 17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up .35 (.07) 2.45 1.05 19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from her .62 ( .07) 2.92 1.11 21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up .37 (.07) 1.90 1.06 24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she genera lly allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do .52 (.07) 3.28 1.10 28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family .49 (.06) 2.19 0 .98 Note Values in parenthes is are standard errors.

PAGE 37

37 Table 3 2 CFA f actor loading m atrix for PAQ orm Factor Loadings for Fathers Item 1 2 3 M SD Authoritarian for our own good if we were f orced to conform to what he thought was right .79 (.07) 3.08 1.26 3. Whenever my father told me to do something as I was growing up, he expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions. .73 (.06) 3.43 1.19 7. As I was growing up my father did not allow me to question any decision he had made .82 (.06) 2.41 1.17 9. My father has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to .88 (.06) 2.69 1.22 12 My father felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family .83 (.06) 3.00 1.13 16. As I was growing up my father would get very upset if I tried to disagree with him .67 (.06) 2.76 1.19 18. As I was grow ing up my father let me know what behavior he punished me .74 (.07) 3.18 1.23 25. My father has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their growing up .71 (.06) 3.10 1.14 26. As I was growing up my father often told me exactly what he wanted me to do and how he expected me to do it. .73 (.06) 2.89 1.14 29. As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in the family and he insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority. .77 (.06) 2.93 1.21 Authoritative 4. As I was growing u p, once family policy had been established, my father discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family .73 (.06) 3.10 1.19 5. My father has always encouraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and res trictions were unreasonable .81 (.06) 3.00 1.23 8. As I was growing up my father directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline .33 (.06) 3.15 1.09 11. As I was growing up I knew what my fat her expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my father when I felt that they were unreasonable .91 (.06) 3.56 1.20 15. As the children in my family were growing up, my father consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways .83 (.05) 3.62 1.11 consideration when making family decisions, but he would not decide for something simply because the children wanted i t .70 (.06) 3.65 1.10 22. My father had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but he was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family .66 (.06) 3.34 1.13

PAGE 38

38 Table 3 2 continued Factor Loadings for Fathers Item 1 2 3 M SD 23. My father gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and he expected me to follow h is direction, but he was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me .84 (.06) 3.52 1.17 27. As I was growing up my father gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but he was also understanding when I disagreed with h im. .79 (.05) 3.27 1.07 30. As I was growing up if my father made a decision in the family that hurt me, he was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if he had made a mistake .81 (.06) 3.29 1.21 Permissive 1. While I was growing up my father felt that in a well ru n home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do .15 (.07) 2.27 1.14 6. My father has always felt that what h is children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want .47 (.07) 1.18 1.18 10. As I was growing up my father did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them .47 (.06) 1.91 0 .95 13. As I was growing up, my father seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior .67 (.06) 2.09 1.11 14. Most of the time as I was growing up my father did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions .32 (. 06) 2.70 1.03 17. My father feels that most problems in society would be solved if desires as they are growing up .31 (.07) 2.39 1.04 19. As I was growing up my father allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from h im. .54 (.06) 2.92 1.06 21. My father did not view h im self as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up .77 (.06) 2.15 1.13 24. As I was growing up my father allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do .29 (.07) 3.07 1.09 28. As I was growing up my father did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of t he children in the family .78 (.06) 2.43 1.12 Note Values in parenthesis are standard errors.

PAGE 39

39 Table 3 3 Goodness of fit i ndices for m odels f orm # of Factors 2 df ( p ) CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA 1 3501.44 405 (.00) .48 .44 .17 .15 2 1019.30 376 (.00) .89 .88 .06 .07 3 634.86 348 (.00) .95 .94 .04 .05 4 544.13 321 (.00) .96 .95 .04 .05 5 462.06 295 (.00) .97 .96 .03 .04 6 409.21 270 (.00) .98 .96 .03 .04 7 3 59.77 246 (.00) .98 .97 .03 .04 Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR = Standard Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. Table 3 4 Goodness of fit i ndices for m odels orm # of fac tors 2 df (p) CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA 1 3712.33 405 (.00) .47 .43 .18 .16 2 921.48 376 (.00) .91 .90 .06 .07 3 571.54 348 (.00) .96 .96 .04 .04 4 489.97 321 (.00) .97 .96 .03 .04 5 415.73 295 (.00) .98 .97 .03 .04 6 367.33 270 (.00) .98 .98 .03 .03 7 31 9.83 246 (.01) .99 .99 .02 .03 Note CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR = Standard Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

PAGE 40

40 Table 3 5 EFA f actor loadings for the t hree factor model of parenting styles m other f orm Geomin Factor Loading for Mothers AR AT P Item 1 2 3 1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well run home the children should hav e their way in the family as often as the parents do. .22 (.06) .13 (.07) .33* (.06) was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right. .70* (.04) .06 (.0 7) .04 (.06) 3. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions. .76* (.04) .11 (.08) .04 (.06) 4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family. .10 (.05) .64* (.03) .01 (.04) 5. My mother has always encouraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable. .30** (.05) .62 (.04) .14 (.06) 6. My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want. .19 (.06) .03 (.07) .59* (.05) 7. As I wa s growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision she had made. .58* (.04) .34** (.06) .01 (.02) 8. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline. .13 (. 06) .35* (.08) .46** (.06) 9. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to .67* (.05) .13 (.06) .04 (.06) 10. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them. .30** (.06) .15 (.06) .31* (.06) 11. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss tho se expectations with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable. .13 (.05) .78* (.03) .12 (.07) 12. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family. .68* (.05) .04 (.07) .05 (.07) 13. As I was gr owing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior. .12 (.06) .26 (.10) .60* (.06) 14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions. .05 (.06) .17 (.08) .47* (.05) 15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways. .00 (.03) .74* (.05) .21 (.06) 16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disag ree with her. .59* (.05) .23 (.07) .12 (.05) 17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved and desires as they are growing up. .01 (.06) .06 (.07) .35* (.06)

PAGE 41

41 Ta b le 3 5 continued Geomin Factor Loading for Mothers AR AT P Item 1 2 3 18. As I was growing up my mother let me know what behavior she expected of me, and if I di punished me. .59* (.05) .17 (.06) .17 (.06) 19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from her. .01 (.05) .14 (.09) .66* (.04) 20. As I was growing up my consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it. .03 (.05) .61* (.05) .13 (.07) 21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for direc ting and guiding my behavior as I was growing up. .01 (.04) .47** (.07) .44* (.07) 22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family. .09 (.05) .66* (.04) .03 (.06) 23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to d iscuss that direction with me. .01 (.05) .83* (.03) .09 (.06) 24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do. .01 (.02) .45** (.09) .61* (.04) 25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with they are growing up. .64* (.04) .03 (.05) .10 (. 06) 26. As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it. .54* (.05) .03 (.04) .19 (.06) 27. As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her. 23 (.05) .61* (.04) .00 (.03) 28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family .06 (.06) .35** (.09) .55* (.06) 29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority. .70* (.04) .05 (.07) .01 (.05) 30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hur t me, she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made a mistake. .23 (.05) .63* (.04) .07 (.06) Note. Factors: AR = A uthoritarian, AT = A uthoritative, P = P ermissive. indicates items with factor

PAGE 42

42 Table 3 6 EFA f actor l oadings for the t hree factor model of parenting styles f f orm Geomin Factor Loading for Fathers AR AT P Item 1 2 3 1. While I was growing up my father felt that in a well run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do .21 (.08) .33* (.05) .17 (.08) 2. Even if his our own good if we were forced to conform to what he thought was right .64* (.06) .00 (.04) .02 (.07) 3. Whenever my father told me to do something as I was growing up, he expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions. .72* (.05) .11 (.05) .05 (.06) 4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my father discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family .05 (.06) .67* (.04) .05 (.0 9) 5. My father has always encouraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable .22 (.05) .66* (.04) .15 (.09) 6. My father has always felt that what his children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want .00 (.05) .28 (.07) .57* (.06) 7. As I was growing up my father did not allow me to question any decision he had made .68* (.05) .33** (.04) .05 (. 07) 8. As I was growing up my father directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline .46* (.07) .45** (.05) .11 (.09) 9. My father has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order t o get their children to behave the way they are supposed to .85* (.05) .02 (.04) .15 (.07) 10. As I was growing up my father did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them . 08 (.08) .01 (.04) .64* (.07) 11. As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my father when I felt that they were unreasonable .00 (.04) .82* (.03) .17 (.10) 12. My fat her felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family .74* (.06) .00 (.03) .06 (.07) 13. As I was growing up, my father seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior .08 (.09) .30** (.09) .63* (.08) 1 4. Most of the time as I was growing up my father did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions .02 (.07) .31** (.06) .43* (.07) 15. As the children in my family were growing up, my father consistently gave us direction and gui dance in rational and objective ways .04 (.05) .79* (.04) .12 (.10) 16. As I was growing up my father would get very upset if I tried to disagree with him .45* (.07) .32** (.05) .06 (.08) 17. My father feels that most problems in society would be so lved if desires as they are growing up .10 (.07) .16 (.07) .50* (.07) 18. As I was growing up my father let me know what behavior he expected tions, he punished me .69* (.06) .23 (.05) .07 (.08) 19. As I was growing up my father allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from him .01 (.07) .06 (.08) .57* (.07)

PAGE 43

43 Table 3 6. continued Geomin Factor Load ing for Fathers AR AT P Item 1 2 3 consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decid e for something simply because the children wanted it .08 (.06) .64* (.04) .06 (.09) 21. My father did not view h im self as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up .03 (.06) .36** (.08) .65* (.07) 22. My father had clea r standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but he was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family .07 (.07) .59* (.04) .08 (.09) 23. My father gave me direction for my b ehavior and activities as I was growing up and he expected me to follow h is direction, but he was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me .02 (.04) .76* (.03) .13 (.100 24. As I was growing up my father allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do .01 (.05) .45** (.06) .46* (.07) 25. My father has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents t o strictly and forcibly deal with their growing up .60* (.06) .00 (.03) .10 (.06) 26. As I was growing up my father often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how he expected me t o do it. .75* (.04) .20 (.05) .01 (.02) 27. As I was growing up my father gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but he was also understanding when I disagreed with h im. .09 (.06) .79* (.03) .17 (.10) 28. As I was growing up my father did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family .07 (.07) .33** (.07) .60* (.07) 29. As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in the family and he insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for his authority .66* (.05) .07 (.04) .01 (.05) 30. As I was growing up, if my father made a decision in the family that hurt me, he was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if he had made a mistake .11 (.06) .67* ( .04) .01 (.04) Note. Factors: AR = A uthoritarian, AT = A uthoritative, P = P ermissive. indicates items with factor

PAGE 44

44 Table 3 7 actors Factor 1 2 3 1. Authoritarian 1.00 2. Authoritative .20 1.00 3. Permissive .41* .08 1.00 Note. N = 331 p < .01. T able 3 8 tors Factor 1 2 3 1. Authoritarian 1.00 2. Authoritative .23 1.00 3 Permissive .57* .12 1.00 Note N = 331 p < .01.

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion This study co nsisted of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of the responses of 331 college students to the PAQ and 328 college I hypothesized that the confirmatory factor analyses woul d support the 3 factor model Baumrind (1971) proposed and Buri (1991) used to create the PAQ, a 30 item, self report measure with parenting styles. The confirmatory fa ctor analysis showed that the three factor model PAQ. From exploratory factor analyses of models ranging from one to seven factors I concluded that although the fit of the model s t o the data increased slightly for factors four through seven, the three factor model had the most clearly interpretable factors for both mothers and fathers. In this chapter I discuss implications of the results of these analyses and limitations and recommendations of this study for future research. Inconsistent f indings of confirmatory and exploratory factor a nalyses As described in chapter 1 of this thesis, Dwairy (2004) concluded from her confirmatory factor analysis o f 431 Palestinian Arab three factor model of parenting styles fit her data. Similarly, Chan and Chan (2007) concluded that the three factor model was confirmed in their confirmatory factor analysis of the respons es of 285 teacher education students from the University of Hong Kong to the PAQ. In contrast, from confirmatory analyses of the responses of a

PAGE 46

46 diverse sample of 150 Hispanic and Caucasian children Varela et al. (2004) concluded that a two fact o r model wit h the items from the permissive scale removed provided a better fit to their data. The conflicting results in these three studies raise the question of why the confirmatory factor analys e s of the three factor model of parenting this study showed that that the model did not fit the data for either the P ossible explanation s differences in the samples including ethnic and age differences adole scents, and the sample of Varela et al. consisted of 450 Hispanic and Caucasian children ages 10 to 1 4 and their parents. T he results of their c o nfirmatory factor analysis of ethnic subgroups are questionable given the small size of their samples. To exa mine th e s e possibilit ies researchers should conduct confirmatory factor analyses with data from other samples in which the items identified in this study as not discriminating between factors are revised or omitted. Although the three factor model of pa analyses ranging from one fact or to seven factors that the three factor model yielded the most interpretable factors. However, three items did not adequately discriminate between the fact o rs o f one item (Item 24 As I was gro wing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do ) (factor loading of .45) and Mothe

PAGE 47

47 one item (item 8 As I was growing up my father directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline) did not adequately discriminate bet wo items did not Parenting: item 14, Most of th e time as I was growing up my father did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions with factor loadings of .31 on Authoritative Parenting and 43 on Permissive Parenting; and item 24, As I was growing up my father allowed me to fo rm my own point of view on family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do, with loadings of .45 on Authoritative Parenting and .46 on P ermissive Parenting. These items (24 on the 8, 14, and 24 on th allow better discriminat ion between factors. The results of the exploratory factor analyses suggest that removing items from the factors may provide a more adequate measure of parenting style Limitations T his study had several limitations. First, the majority of participants in the dat aset were White and female Previous research suggests that males and females perceive and report parenting styles differently. Therefore i ncluding data from both males and fe males in a single factor analysis of parenting style can be misleading In future studies, separate factor analyses should be conducted for each gender to assess these differences. Differences in perception may also occur on the basis of race. Consequentl s ponses to the items on the PAQ load differently for different genders and ethnicities.

PAGE 48

48 Second, in this study adult children provided self reports of their perceptions of of authority, which required them to recall experiences from their childhood. These adult recall and overall impressions of their childhood may have biased their responses to the items on the PAQ. Third, the format of the PAQ, a Likert scale in which respondents indicate the extent to which their parents used authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive styles, allows respondents to indicate that their parents use more than one of the styles. Analyses that fail to take into account that responde nts may perceive their parents as using more than one style consistently may Recommendations Considerable research suggests that parenting style is related to important future behavior and outcome s. For example, Rothrauff, Cooney, and An (2009 ), in a sample of 2, 232 adults age 40 and over being in later life. The adults who remembered their parents being authoritarian or uninvolved reported lower scores on a psychological well being scale and reported more depressive symptoms later in life. Also, adults who remembered having uninvolved parents were more likely to abuse substances. Simi larly, Baldwin, McIntyre, and Hardaway (2007) found that 63 college students who perceived their parents as authoritative had higher levels of optimism than students who reported having authoritarian parents. Although these are correlational studies and ca usal relationships cannot be assumed, these studies suggest that examination of these relationships with structural equation modeling might provide support for a causal relationship between parenting style in childhood and psychological well being in later life. In light of the need

PAGE 49

49 to conduct further research on issues such as the relationship of parenting styles to important future outcomes, I recommend continued research on the improvement of the PAQ as a measure of the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles. The factor analyses conducted in this study suggest the following recommendations. 8, 14, to be omitted or revised to i ncrease the discriminant validit responses to the items on the PAQ. 2. Research is needed to determine why the negative correlations between the factors of authoritarian and permissive parenting on th forms are only moderate, when conceptually th ese parenting styles are quite different from each other. 3. gender and ethnicity, factor analytic research should be conducted to assess this possibility by examining the factor loa samples that are limited to one gender and one ethnicity. 4. Resea r chers should explore ways to study the implications of the possibility that parents use more than one consistent style of parenting to deal with the differing situations that arise during socialization of their children. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to determine whether the three factor model on which the PAQ was based was verified in a dataset of undergraduate college students from factor model of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles Buri (1991) intended to measure with the PAQ did not have adequate fit to the data. However, results of seven exploratory factor analyses with factors ranging from one to seven suggested that increasing the number of factors beyond three did not yield interpretable factors. Th e elimination of item 24 14, and 24 on the fath may result in a three factor model that pr ovides a better fit to the data in future samples,

PAGE 50

50 which should be limited to one gender and ethnicity to eliminate the pos sibility that differences in gender and ethnicity will influence the results of the factor analyses.

PAGE 51

51 LIST OF REFERENCES Baldwin, D. R., McIntyre, A., Hardaway, E. (2007). Perceived parenting styles on college students' optimism. College Student Journal, 41 (3), 550 557. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75 43 88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 1 (2), 1 103. Buri, J. R. (1989). Self esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4 (1), 33 49. Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57 (1), 110 119. Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14 (2), 271 282. Nothing I eve r do seems to please my parents Female and male self nurturance St. Paul, MN: College of St. Thomas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED285114) Chan, K., & Chan, S. (2007). Hong Kong teacher educati and perceived parenting styles. Educational Psychology, 27 (2), 157 172. Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65 (4), 1111 1119. Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72 (6), 1832 1843. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive : S tudies in evaluative dependence. New York NY : Wiley. Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting style s and mental health of Palestinian Arab adolescents in Israel. Transcultural Psychiatry, 41 (2), 232 252. Fitts, W. (1965). Tennessee self concept s cale Los Angeles CA : Western Psychological Services.

PAGE 52

52 Garcia, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44 (173), 101 131. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1 55. Julian T. W., McKenry, P. C., & McKelvey, M. W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting : Perceptions of Caucasian, A frican American, Hispanic, and Asian American parents. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43 (1), 30 37. Milevsky A., Schlechter M., Netter S., & Keehn D. (2007). Maternal a nd paternal parenting styles in adolescents: Associations with self esteem, depression and life satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16 (1), 39 47. Muth n, M., & Muth n, L. K. (1998 2010). Mplus (Versi on 6.0 ). Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & M uthn Ribadeneira, A. (2006). Familial, individual, social cognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self efficacy: An ecological perspective Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, United States Florida. Retrieved July 23, 2010, fr om Dissertations & Theses @ University of Florida FCLA. (Publication No. AAT 3293968). Rothrauff, T. C., Cooney, T. M., & An, J. S. (2009). Remembered parenting styles and adjustment in middle and late adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sc iences, 64B (1), 137 146. Taylor, L. C., Hinton, I. D., & Wilson M. N. (1995). Parental influences on academic performance in African American students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4 (3), 293 302. Varela, R. E., Vernberg, E. M., Sanchez Sosa, J. J., Riveros, A., Mitchell, M., & Mashun k ashey, J. (2004). Parenting s tyle of Mexican, Mexican American, and Caucasian Non Hispanic f amilies: Social c ontext and c ultural i nfluences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18 (4), 651 657.

PAGE 53

53 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mi chelle Toston Hill was born i n 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. She moved with her family to Jacksonville, Florida, where she was raised most of her life, attending local magnet schools. Her father, Carl Toston Sr., was a social worker with Children and Famil Hardware store. In 1998 she was accepted into the International Baccalaureate program at Stanton College Preparatory School in Jacksonville Florida. She graduated with colleg e credit, the International Baccalaureate diploma, and a high school diploma in 2002. Michelle attended Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, as an undergraduate and earned the Bachelor of Science degree in psychology in 2005. While at Florida State, Michelle was an undergraduate research assistant and teaching assistant for the general psychology course offered to undergraduates. Her interests in teaching at the university/col lege level led her to pursue the doctorate degree in educational psychology. In the summer of 2005, she was invited to participate in a program for minority students, hosted by the Board of Education at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, which introduces students to and prepares students for Graduate Sc hool. She was also offered a Presidential Fellowship from the College of Education at the University of Florida, a fellowship that afforded her the opportunity to teach undergraduate courses at the university. During her graduate research career at the Un iversity, Michelle presented at several conferences, including T he Closing of the Achiev ement Gap through Partnerships C onference, the 18 th Annual National Youth at Risk Conference, the

PAGE 54

54 th International Conference, and the University of Florida Graduate Student Council Interdisciplinary Conference. tors that may influence student s academic achievement (i.e. parenting styles, teaching styles, peer behaviors). She is also interested in studying the benefits of using authoritative teaching practices to increase student academic achievement and reduce the achievement gap. In 2006, she married her high school sweetheart, Reverend Titus Wayne Hill II. They currently reside in Jacksonville, Florida, where together they raise their two dogs, Lana and Miles Michelle received her Master of Arts in Education degree in educational psychology in the summer of 2011. She plans to continue her education at the University of F lorida and receive h er Doctorate degree in educational p sychology.