Citation
The development of an instrument measuring children's perceptions of parenting

Material Information

Title:
The development of an instrument measuring children's perceptions of parenting
Creator:
Steier, Herbert M., 1953-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 171 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Child development ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Children ( jstor )
Fathers ( jstor )
Mothers ( jstor )
Nurturance ( jstor )
Parenting ( jstor )
Parents ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Children's Apperception Test ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Parent and child ( lcsh )
Perception in children ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1983.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 151-170.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Herbert M. Steier.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
029291527 ( ALEPH )
09911990 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text






















THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT MEASURING CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS
OF PARENTING

BY

HERBERT M. STEIER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1983



























































Copyright 1983
by
Herbert Michael Steier















In loving memory of my grandmother, Seren Fried Steier.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank a number of people who helped to make the completion of this project a reality.

First, I want to thank Dr. Ellen Amatea, my committee chairperson, for her ideas, encouragement, and support. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Larry Loesch and Dr. Steve Olejnik, for their valuable insights and assistance. Thanks must also be extended to Dr. Joe Wittmer for all he has done for me.

I would like to thank Behrokh Ahmadi for her invaluable assistance and great patience in helping me with my data analysis. I would also like to thank Mr. Dan Rich, who put this whole thing on paper. It was a pleasure working with you both.

Appreciation must also be extended to all the

principals, school counselors, teachers and students, in the schools that participated in this study.

I would like to extend a very special thanks to four very important people. First, I would like to thank John Steier, my dear father, who taught me to believe in myself, to challenge myself, and to fight for what I believe in. Next, I would like to thank Betsy Steier, my loving mother,










who taught me tolerance, patience, and what it is like to be loved. Next, thanks are extended to Yvonne Verplanke, my big sister, life-long best friend, and confidant. Finally, I must give very special thanks to my wife, Nancy Blackmon, for loving me as you do.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . ...

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. . . . ...
Statement of the Problem . ...
Need for the Study . . . . ...
Purpose of the Study . . . ...
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . ...
Organization of the Remainder of

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
Parenting Philosophy . .. .


* ;t. .d.*

* . . . .


Traditional-Restrictive Model . .. Rational-Permissive Model ....


Psychological Theories and Parenting Trends Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structural Family Theory . . . . . . . . ....
Family Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Supportive Research . . . . . . . . ....
Low Socioeconomic Families . . . . ....
Psychosomatic Families . . . . . . ....
Alcoholic Families . . . . . . . . .
Addict Families . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary ................ . . . . .
Existing Instruments on Children's Perceptions of Parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Univariate Measures . . . .
Conflict-Integration ... . .....
Love-Nurturance . . . . . . ........
Conflict-Aggression .................
Role Differentiation ................
Power, Affection, Support .. .....
Autonomy-Achievement Training .......
Other Constructs ...... . . . .
Multivariate Measures . ......
Intrapsychic-Interpersonal Subject Measures Observational Measures . . . . . . . ...
Interpersonal Objective Measures . . ...
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .









Page


CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
Introduction ....
Item Development . .
Content Validity . �
Procedures . . .
Data Analysis
Construct Validity
Subjects . . .
Procedures . .
Data Analysis .
Reliability ....
Subjects . . .
Procedures . .
Data Analysis .
Limitations ....


* . . . . . . . . * * .
* * * * * . . . * . . *

* . . . . . . * * . * *
* . . . * . * * . * * .
* * . * . . . . . . . .
* * * . . . . * . . . .
* . . * . * . . . . . .
* * . . . . . * . * . .
* . . * . * . . . * * .
* . . . . . * * . . . .


CHAPTER IV. RESULTS . ... .. ... ...
Content Validity of the CPPS .... *. .
Construct Validity of the CPPS . . . ...
Factor Structure of the Mother Form ....
Factor Structure of the Father Form o ..
Reliability of the CPPS . . . . .
Temporal Reliability for the Mother Form Temporal Reliability for the Father Form Internal Reliability for the Mother Form
Internal Reliability for the Father Form o

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS


FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .. .. .. Discussion of Validity Data . ...
Content Validity . .... . . .
Construct Validity . * . * . Discussion of Reliability Data ...
Temporal Reliability . ...
Internal Reliability . ... Summary of Result and Item Revisions .
Item Revisions . . . .. ..
Summary . *. . .. . . . . * .
Limitations to Interpretation of Data
Sampling Procedure . * * * .
Administration . . . .. ...
Future Research . . . .......
Parenting Theory and Family Counse


APPENDICES
A CPPS PILOT INSTRUMENT .. . . . . ...
B PARENTAL CONSENT FORMS . ......


ling . . .


C ITEM RESPONSE FREQUENCY RESULTS FROM PILOT
OF THE CPPS STUDY . . . .. . . . . . ..


62 62 63 67 67 68
68 69 72 73 73 73 74 75 75

78 78 81
81 93 107 107 107 108 108


109 109 109 113 116 116
117 117 117 119 121 121 122 122 124


* . 126
* . 133 . . 135


vii










Page


D COEFFICIENT ALPHA RESULTS FROM PILOT OF CPPS . 138 E REVISED CPPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
F CPPS EXPERT EVALUATION RATING FORM ...... 145 G SCHOOLS CONTACTED FOR PARTICIPATION . . . . . 147 H INSTRUCTION FOR CLASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
I INFORMATION SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

REFERENCES . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171


viii

















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1 CONTENT AREAS OF SUBSCALES FOR THE
CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTING
SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

2 RESULTS OF EXPERT EVALUATIONS OF THE
ITEM CONTENT OF THE CPPS . . . . . . . . . . 79

3 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ITEMS ON MOTHER
FORMS FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL COMPONENT
FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE
ROTATION TO SIMPLE SOLUTION . . . . . . . . . 83

4 RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN
OBLIQUE ROTATION TO A SIX FACTOR
STRUCTURE FOR MOTHER FORMS OF THE CPPS . . . 87

5 FINAL FACTORS IN THE MOTHER FORM OF
THE CPPS . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . 90

6 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ITEMS ON FATHER FORMS
FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO
SIMPLE SOLUTION....... . . . . . . . . 94

7 RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE
ROTATION TO AN EIGHT FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR
THE FATHER FORMS OF THE CPPS . . . . . . . . 98

8 FINAL FACTORS IN THE FATHER FORM OF THE
CPPS . *. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 103

9 EXPERT CLASSIFICATION BY RESULTING FACTOR
STRUCTURE FOR THE MOTHER FORM OF THE CPPS � .111

10 EXPERT CLASSIFICATION BY RESULTING FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR THE FATHER FORM OF THE CPPS . .112
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy




THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT MEASURING
CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTING


By


Herbert Michael Steier


April, 1983


Chairperson: Ellen Amatea
Major Department: Counselor Education


The gathering of information from multiple levels

within the family system is important in assessing family interaction and structure. The purpose of this study was the development of an instrument, The Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CPPS), which measures children's perceptions of parenting through the use of separate mother and father forms. Special emphasis was placed on the development of items and on the establishment of reliability and validity of the instrument. A total of 401 nine, ten, and eleven year-old children provided 726 observations on both CPPS forms. Subjects were all fourth and fifth grade students attending public and private elementary schools in Alachua County, Florida.









Responses to the 45-item CPPS were analyzed separately for mother and father forms in establishing construct validity, internal reliability, and temporal reliability. Results indicated temporal reliability for the mother form was .70 at a thirty-day interval and .85 for the father form. Internal reliability for the mother form of the CPPS was .74, while internal reliability for the father form was .70.

Following separate factor analyses for both CPPS forms, a six-factor structure for the mother form and an eightfactor structure for the father form best represented the factor structure of the CPPS. Common factors for both mother and father forms were those of encouraging participation in rule setting, parent-child relationship and contact, leniency of rules, parental concern, and the encouragement of children's independent behavior. The mother form included an additional factor of encouraging responsibility for behavioral consequences, while the father form included the additional factors of strictness in rules, strictness in expectations, and consistency of rules.

It was concluded that these factor analysis findings partially supported the presence of the three hypothesized construct areas of nurturance, guidance/autonomy, and control in the CPPS. The resulting factors were seen as specific subdivisions of these three global construct areas. Further refinements of items in the CPPS were recommended. Implications for future research were discussed as were implications for parenting theory and family counseling.















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



The family is the only social institution other than religion which is formally developed in all societies (Goode, 1964). In all known societies, both past and present, individuals have lived their lives and defined themselves as part of a family, enmeshed in its complex network of roles and interactions. This basic organizational structure known as "the family" is certainly not unique to the human species. Okun and Rappaport (1980) state, "all animal species provide for some type of organizational structure during the time that an infant is too young to satisfy its own needs for food, shelter, and safety" (p. 5). Thus, as the cornerstone of society, the family plays a critical role in the development and growth of both the individual and the society, providing a biological, social and cultural framework in which life may continue.

As the human species has developed at varying rates across cultures and throughout history, the family has functionally adapted itself to societal changes. Thus, family organization, structure and function change with the






-2-


times. Similarly, different cultures, depending on their development and individual characteristics, require varied degrees of organization and structure within the family unit. Minuchin (1974) suggests that as "primitive societies grow more complex . . . societal structures are differentiated" (p. 46) and become more specific. This specification of structure and function filters down to the family unit as evidenced in family forms in modern western society.

As our societal structure changes, with women's

participation in the civilian labor force increasing from 43.3% in 1970 to 51.6% in 1980 (United States Census, 1981), with divorce rates climbing, and with single parent families on the rise, a good deal of attention has been placed on descriptive studies of family form in relation to children and their development. In reviewing literature on family form, Marotz-Baden, Adams, Bueche, Munro and Munro suggest, "a basic tenet of much of the literature suggests that variations from the nuclear traditional family produce deviations in children's personality, social behavior and school success" (1979, p. 5). This deficit model of family form is illustrated in the work of Parsons (1949), Herzog and Sudia (1970) and Goldstein, Freud and Solnit (1973), to mention just a few. Arguments against the deficit model, in favor of a more process-oriented model where deviation is explained in terms of family interaction rather than family form, have been made by an increasing number of authors






-3-


(e.g., Hoffman, 1974, 1977, Gold and Andres, 1978, Etaugh, 1974 Marantz and Mansfield, 1977, and Marotz-Baden et al., 1979), suggesting that variations in family form do not, in and of themselves, lead to family or individual dysfunction, and in fact, may be advantageous in increasing children's independence and autonomy while reducing sex-role stereotyping.

Clearly, the relationship between children's development and their families has been an important subject of study in understanding children and their behavior. The "human experience of identity has two elements--a sense of belonging and a sense of being separate. The laboratory in which these ingredients are mixed and dispensed is the family . . . " (Minuchin, 1974, p. 47).

Following this metaphor, the scientist who is responsible for the mixture of these critical elements in the creation of human identity is the parent. Ausubel and Sullivan (1970) suggest that "parental influences are so critical and pervasive in child development that it is almost impossible to discuss any aspect of this field [child development] without considering its relationship to parent attitudes and behaviors" (p. 289). These authors go on to suggest that "parent-child relationships deserve . . . extensive treatment because they constitute perhaps the most important single category of variables impinging on the personality development and socialization of the child" (Ausubel and Sullivan, 1970, p. 289).






-4-


With parents wanting to do the best they can in raising children, their attitudes are affected by social, cultural and personal factors which in turn, affect their parenting behaviors. Similarly, parents are influenced, and may feel somewhat pressured, to conform with popularized expectations or images of what may be termed "acceptable parental behavior." For example, ". . . a recent article that reported on the development of 'Advice to Parents' in this country [suggested]: In 1910, the slogan was 'spank them'; in 1920, it was 'deprive them'; in 1930 it was 'ignore them'; in 1940 it was 'reason with them'; in 1950 it was 'love them'; in 1960 it was 'spank them lovingly'; and in 1970, it was 'TO HELL WITH THEM'" (Okun and Rappaport, 1980, p. 218). Faced with this, along with other social, cultural and individual issues, parenting appears to be a confusing and complex topic.

Although a diversity of literature can be found describing appropriate parenting and child-rearing behaviors, a few key concepts appear to be included by most theorists as central to parenting. Breckenridge and Vincent (1955) outline these common areas by suggesting parents should provide children with affection (nurturance), discipline (control) and an environment in which to learn (guidance). Additionally, the intensity of the parent-child relationships, that is, the degree to which a parent is involved in these key parenting functions, is a common element in much of the literature.






-5-


Unfortunately, as attempts are made to investigate the area of parenting and its effects on children's development, it has become apparent that there has been a distinctive lag in the development and application of assessment/diagnostic measurement tools, particularly from the child's perspective, which can be used for family diagnostic or evaluative purposes. This lag in the development of family assessment instrumentation has made interpretation of results of parenting studies more difficult, unpredictable and often times, unreliable.



Statement of the Problem

Within the past ten years there has been a dramatic

increase in the number of family-oriented assessment instruments (both published and unpublished) which are available to the researcher and clinician. In a recent review, Straus and Brown, (1978), cited 813 referenced and documented family instruments. Although abundant, serious methodological and technical concerns regarding the quality of many of these assessment tools have been voiced by numerous researchers (Gurman and Kniskern, 1981, and Straus and Brown, 1978). In reviewing family assessment instruments, Straus and Brown (1978) note " . . . a tabulation of a random sample of one hundred (100) of the instruments in this book reveals . . . more than half (58%) give no evidence of reliability. In respect to validity, the situation is even less adequate. Almost three quarters (65%) did not even









mention the concept of validity, much less offer any evidence" (p.5). Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976) in an adaptation of the work of Lake, Miles and Earle (1973), describe five basic shortcomings in family diagnostic tools: the scarcity of longitudinal and empirical instrument development; the tendency to use or develop instruments without critically assessing their appropriateness for use with given populations; the lack of available information on many instruments; the excessive use of "faddish" instruments; and the problem that many instruments have limited practical application. This sobering information leaves the researcher/therapist/educator wary of available instruments and somewhat hesitant to use them. Similar concerns have also been raised regarding the sexist nature of many instruments and the lack of sound conceptual frameworks for large proportions of these instruments (Straus and Brown, 1978).

Clearly, there is a great need for reliable and valid

measures of perceptual and behavioral change in working with children, couples, and families (Cromwell, Olson and Fournier, 1976). Additionally, sound instrumentation is needed in the area of descriptive research, where attempts are being made to define and evaluate special populations. It is only through critical review of existing diagnostic and evaluative tools that one can begin to discriminate between strong and weak instruments, be more selective in the use of available measures, and gain direction for sorely needed









replication studies and further instrument development. This push for the refinement of family instrumentation takes on added significance in light of the call of Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976) for the "linking [of] diagnosis and evaluation to the intervention process and the importance of bridging research, theory, and practice" (p. 2), in the area of family/systems treatment.



Need

"The assumption, indeed the fear that the ways in which infants are treated by their parents provide the basis for personality development . . . has been part of scientific literature since its beginnings. Fortunately, recent evidence on infants' contribution to interactions . . . has provided balance" (Walters and Walters, 1980, p. 817). Studies by Korner (in Walters and Walters, 1980) and ClarkeStewart (1973, 1978, in Walters and Walters, 1980) support this point and suggest the importance of not only treating, but assessing families from a systemic perspective.

Valid self-report questionnaires that assess selfesteem and attitudes of children toward parents and schools are clearly needed (Coopersmith, 1967). O'Leary and Turkewitz (1978) in reviewing methodological errors in marital and child treatment research emphasize the "strong need for data from the child's perspective in evaluation of child therapy" (p. 752). The same argument holds true for descriptive studies.






-8-


The validity of children reporting their perceptions of parenting has been challenged in terms of accuracy and generalizability. Itkin contends that,

Caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions as
to parental attitudes from reports made by children.
� . Parental behavior when studied through children's
reports should be recognized for what it is--a report of parental behavior as it is observed by their children, and it can not be assumed that these reports are
perfectly valid indicators of underlying parent attitudes. To say the least, there are without doubt individual variations among children in their ability to
observe and evaluate the behavior of their parents.
Inaccuracies in children's reports due to emotional and attitudinal factors may introduce a source of error the
size of which should be known in evaluating the result
of investigations based upon such data. (Itkin, 1952,
p. 74)

Such criticisms of children's perceptions of parenting research are valid in part. Naturally, all children will differ in their abilities, both cognitively and perceptually. "Cognitive and verbal immaturity set limits on the child's ability to make fine distinctions among feeling tones, [and] to conceptualize . . . " (Ausubel and Sullivan, 1970, p. 305), thus placing limits on data gathering with young children. "Therefore, in regard to the child's perception of the parenting they receive, it would seem to be of importance to consider the nature of the child's cognitive framework at various stages in their development . . . to be able to specify eventually, the developmental transformations which may occur" (Appel, 1977, p. 1693). Thus, as with any instrument, assessing any given population, one must be sensitive and aware of both the social and






-9-


developmental factors at play if interpretation is to be accurate and meaningful.

Importantly, children's perceptions of parenting should not be viewed as valid indicators of underlying parent attitudes. They are, rather, children's reactions to parental behaviors and, as such, are interpersonal in nature, not intrapsychically bound. Such interpersonal information is representative of a "piece" of the parent-child relationship, and therefore provides relevant information on both family structure and interaction. "Although parent behavior is an objective event in the real world, it affects children . . . only to the extent and in the form in which they perceive it" (Ausubel, Balthazar, Rosenthal, Blackman, Schpoont and Welkowitz, 1954, p. 173). Thus, children's perceptions reflect their realities. Estvan and Estvan, (1959) echo this point stating, "the way in which an individual perceives or regards a situation is directly related to their behavior . . . perception is also involved in understanding other people's behavior which in turn, modifies our reaction to whatever they do" (p. 4-5). This feedback loop between perceptions of others and subsequent behaviors makes it clear that children's perceptions and behaviors cannot be viewed from an intrapsychic perspective. They are interpersonal in nature, representing part of the larger system in which children operate and rather, must be viewed in relation to the social context in which they occur. If accurate information is to be obtained on






-10-


families or on parenting practices, information must therefore be gathered from multiple levels within the family (Gurman and Kniskern, 1978, 1981) to reflect the total family system. The assumption made here is that individual behavior and perceptions can only be understood in terms of their relationship to the system in which they occur. Following this systemic perspective, data should be gathered from all family members to yield complete and accurate information. Instruments that measure children's perceptions of parenting can be used as a means of gathering information on a child or family by examining an individual's perceptions of parenting or by comparing perceptions that family members have of one another. Such instruments have applicability in both clinical and non-clinical situations. Not only can they be used clinically as pre-post treatment measures, or as measures of treatment progress, they can also be used in non-clinical settings for descriptive purposes (such as comparing perceptions of parents of single-parent children to that of dual-parent children), or for evaluative purposes (for example, measuring the effectiveness of a parent education program). Finally, such instruments have the potential for use in developmentally-oriented activities such as family enrichment programs, to increase family awareness and communication.

In light of the need to gather information from the child's perspective and the lack of adequate assessment






-11-


devices, there appears to be a significant need to develop an instrument which addresses these two conditions.



Purpose

The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument, the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CPPS), which measures nine, ten and eleven-year-old children's perceptions of parenting. The focus of the research centered on the development and refinement of an assessment tool appropriate for use with nine, ten and eleven year-old children which was both theoretically and technically sound.

Two forms of the instrument were developed. One

measured children's perceptions of mother's parenting while the other measured children's perceptions of father's parenting.



Rationale

In effort to assure content validity of the CPPS, the content of the instrument was evaluated by experts in the field of family therapy. Two separate forms for mothers and fathers were developed in effort to allow children to differentiate parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers. With the exception of sex, both instruments were identical. This evaluation of the content of the CPPS was done after field testing and refinement of a pilot instrument. Field testing of both the pilot and revised instruments was conducted through the use of samples drawn from local public






-12-


and private schools. This non-clinical sample was chosen for the purposes of finding a group representative of the larger population of nine, ten and eleven year-old children. The only children excluded from participation in this study were those considered to be severely emotionally impaired, learning disabled or mentally ill. Therefore, special education classes were not sampled. No limitations were placed on participation in regard to family form. Entire classes were sampled as a cluster for convenience and ease in administration.

Nine, ten and eleven year-old children were chosen as a target population in this study in light of the difficulties in both methodology and practicality encountered by prior instruments assessing children's perceptions of parenting. Similarly, the development of new instrumentation in this area was selected as opposed to the refinement of existing instruments, because of serious methodological concerns in existing instruments and the lack of varied theoretical orientations in such measures.



Definition of Terms

For the purpose of clarity, definitions of the following terms are provided: Family structure. "Family structure can be defined as the

invisible set of functional demands that organizes the ways in which family members interact" (Minuchin, 1974,

p. 54).






-13-


Family systems. "Family systems represent a dynamic order

of people (along with their intellectual, emotional and

behavioral processes) standing in mutual interaction"

(Okun and Rappaport, 1980, p. 7).

Family subsystems. Family subsystems refer to discrete

functional units within the family system. These

subsystems "can be formed by generation, by sex, by

interest or by function" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 52). Boundaries. Boundaries can exist around systems or

subsystems, and are rules that govern "who participates

and how" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 53). Boundaries may be

clear, enmeshed or disengaged and function to

differentiate the system.

Clear boundaries. Clear boundaries are seen as healthy.

They are found in relationships considered to be

clinically within the normal range. Clear boundaries

are well defined, yet flexible enough to permit

interaction between subsystems.

Enmeshed boundaries. Enmeshed boundaries can be characterized as diffuse and undefined where relationships

tend to be too close.

Disengaged boundaries. Disengaged boundaries can be seen as

inappropriately rigid where resulting relationships

tend to be distant.

Nurturance. By definition, nurturance can be defined as the

act of supplying "food, nourishment and protection"

(Webster, 1976, p. 1552). In regard to families, this






-14-


term relates particularly to the provision of food and

shelter and a sense of love or emotional closeness.

Guidance. Webster (1976) defines guidance as "to regulate

or manage--direct or supervise towards some desirable

end . . . or development" (p. 1009). This refers particularly to the development of autonomous and

independent behavior.

Control. Webster (1976) defines control as "to exercise a

restraining or direct influence over . . . to regulate"

(p. 497). In regard to families, this term refers to

the establishment and maintenance of limits.



Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The remainder of this study is organized into four

chapters. Chapter II contains a review of the literature related to attitudes about parenting and current methods of assessing children's perceptions of parenting. A discussion of research methodology and data collection procedure is in Chapter III. The results of the study are presented in Chapter IV, including analysis of the content, factor structure, and reliability of the instrument. Chapter V contains a summary, including conclusions made from the investigation and recommendations for further research.















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE



Introduction

A review of related literature will focus on the

evolution of attitudes in this country regarding appropriate parenting behavior. Methods of assessing these behaviors will also be examined. A description of the conceptual base for the development of the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale will complete this chapter.



Parenting Philosophy

The idea that parents influence the development of

their children has its roots in antiquity. Throughout history, there can be found a vast quantity of literature suggesting that parents influence their children's development. Although the literature on parental behaviors and their influences on children have varied emphases, two general philosophical models of parenting have been used (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). The first parenting model has been termed the traditional-restrictive model. In this model children were seen as "empty slates" subject to the authority of parents. Parenting therefore focused on "imprinting"


-15-






-16-


parental expectations on the child. It was the parent's responsibility to train children, while it was the child's role to obey. Discipline and training best characterized this approach. This viewpoint was most commonly associated with parenting theory before the 1930's.

The second model of parenting, the rational-permissive model, was popular during and following 1940. In contrast to earlier approaches, this model emphasized the development of the child. It stressed a more "scientific" approach to parenting, and emphasized warmth and nurturance in parent-child relations. Children were encouraged to develop autonomous, independent behaviors while parents typically placed fewer limits and expectations on children in an effort to achieve this end.

Contemporary theories of parenting may incorporate elements from both of these models. For example, though many current parenting models stress independence for children as they develop, discipline is still seen as a crucial element in parenting behavior. Recent models, which utilize increased knowledge regarding developmental competencies and expectations, suggest a variety of parental behaviors as a function of the developmental stage of the child.



Traditional-Restrictive Model

Prior to the mid-1800's, advice on parenting in the

United States came primarily from England (Brim, 1959). The mother's influence on children was of primary concern, with






-17-


fathers playing only a small part in child-rearing. Childrearing advice, with its roots in Calvinist philosophy, viewed children as "born depraved" with parents forcing children to obey in order to free the child of their evil nature (Brim, 1959). This emphasis on forcing the child to "obey" remained central to parenting ideas for much of the remainder of the 19th century.

Around the turn of the century, between approximately

1890-1910, parenting philosophies began to shift in what was called by some an era of "sweet permissiveness" (Brim, 1959). Okun and Rappaport (1980) describe this period as characterized by a concern for the development of the child's character. Moral traits were emphasized through religion and discipline. In addition, there was a rising new interest in children's physical health. This preoccupation with moral, spiritual and physical aspects of child development typified the values of the Victorian era in which it flourished.

With the waning of Victorianism between 1910-1920, parenting philosophies reverted back toward stricter discipline and control (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). The mother continued to be the primary care-giver for children in what Brim (1959) called "the age of the mother." Rigid discipline characterized popular beliefs about parenting until the 1930's, though a slight shift in thought was detected during the 1920's in response to the influence of John B. Watson and the behavioral movement. In what Johnson






-18-


and Medinnus (1969) suggest as the first revolution in 20th century parenting, the emphasis in child rearing shifted to conditioning and training. In his 1928 work, Psychological Care of Infant and Child, (in Johnson and Medinnus, 1969) Watson called for parenting to become objective and firm, and to concern itself with conditioning children through behavioral methods. Interestingly, for one of the first times, the concept of independence was seen in the literature. Arlitt (1931) echoed Watson's behavioral emphasis stressing training and education of children and mothers in his work, Psychology for Parents. He suggested that children would respond to honesty, fairness, affection and fair discipline.



Rational-Permissive Model

Until this point, parenting theories had been dominated by themes of strict discipline, rigid control and the training of children. This restrictive model began to be expanded by the advent of the behavioral movement and its influence on parenting practices. By the mid-1930's with the influence of Sigmund Freud and G. Stanley Hall dominating psychological thought, a real shift in parenting thought began with a new emphasis on the personality development of the child (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). As a transitionary period leading the way to more permissive parenting models, the shift in emphasis from discipline to nurturance was apparent. Nimkoff (1933, in Thorpe, 1940) in discussing the






-19-


ideal parent-child relationship stressed that the child had two parents, that the parents love each other, that the parents love the child, that the parents understand the child, and that parents help the child reach "selfhood." Parents were encouraged to love their children, accept the differences between parents and children, and realize that there are two sides to every situation.

In addition to stressing nurturance in parent-child relations, the idea of viewing parent-child relationships along a continuum of involvement was now widely accepted. Champney (1941a) presented parental behaviors on a continuum from underinvolvement to overinvolvement. Similarly, Cole (1947) addressed the style and degree to which parents are involved with their children, suggesting a middle ground of involvement may be the healthiest for child development. Bruce and Freeman (1942) stressed a similar concept in viewing maternal behavior on a continuum from rejection to overprotection. Bruce and Freeman (1942) suggested, "it is clear that such disparate and extreme forms of treatment will have very appreciable effects upon the development of a child's personality and behavior" (p. 220). These authors presented a "healthy model" of parent-child relations where security, organization, freedom to make supervised decisions, affection and non-autocratic discipline were stressed.

This rationale-permissive parenting model remained the dominant parenting model throughout the 1950's. It was a






-20-


decade which also stressed an intellectual approach to child-rearing. Bruch (1952) termed this period, "the age of the educated parent" and stressed love and affection as important areas of child-rearing. Although the emphasis in child-rearing strategies during this time was focused on the affective domain of parent-child relationships, the concept of discipline was not totally ignored. Ilg and Ames (1955) discussed the need for consistency in parental discipline behaviors and presented a model of discipline they called "informed permissiveness." This discipline strategy called for understanding what can be realistically expected of a child, particularly in relation to the child's personality. Beecher and Beecher (1955) also addressed child discipline suggesting there is a certain insecurity which is a product of a lack of limits. They stated that there is a security in justice, and recommended a form of discipline that sets limits while not overprotecting children or allowing them no choice. Support for this view can also be found in the work of Illingworth (1972). Similarly, Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) summarized child rearing through factor analysis results of maternal interviews, stressing maternal warmth, punishment and permissiveness as critical elements in child rearing. Many of these same views remained dominant in the 1960's and where popularized, particularly by the writings of Spock (1963) in his book, Baby and Child Care.

Today we find ourselves at a point where parenting is no longer viewed as merely a matter of strict discipline or






-21-


scientific principle. Rather it is viewed as an exemplary process where limits are negotiated, not imposed, and freedom is considered a payoff for responsibility (Okun and Rappaport, 1980).



Psychological Theories and Parenting Trends

Psychological research and counseling theories have exerted an influence in shaping popular ideas about parenting. In addition to the influence of Watson (1928, in Johnson and Medinnus, 1969) more contemporary behaviorists such as Bijou and Baer (1967), and Bannatyne and Bannatyne (1973) have addressed parenting concerns. From this behavioral perspective, parents are taught to identify salient reinforcements for children (focusing on positive reinforcement) in shaping their child's behavior. Behavioral principles such as successive approximations, extinction, and shaping are employed by parents with a familiar focus on conditioning children's behavior.

Similarly, other psychological theories have influenced the child-rearing techniques practiced by today's parent. The theories of Alfred Adler have had a marked influence in the area of parenting, mainly through the work of Driekurs and Soltz (1964), Dinkmeyer and McKay (1976), Grey (1974) and others. With their emphasis on understanding the purpose of behavior and misbehavior, encouragement, and the establishment of logical consequences for behavior, Adlerians have strongly affected the parenting






-22-


movement, particularly through the development of parent education programs such as Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (Dinkmeyer and McKay, 1976). Interestingly, though Adlerians have a distinctive philosophical perspective, they address many of the same areas as do other theorists. With their emphasis on education, Adlerians stress encouragement (nurturance), consequences for behavior (discipline) and strive to establish a feeling of belonging and success in children as they move towards autonomy and independence.

Other popular parent education programs, particularly Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) (Gordon, 1970), have influenced parenting through the adaptation of psychological and counseling theory. Stemming from a client-centered foundation and the work of Rogers and Carkhuff, (in Corey, 1977) PET presents parenting from the humanistic perspective. Stressing active listening techniques, sending "I" messages, and "no-lose" problem solving techniques, this model of parenting has gained wide popularity. Stressing discipline by negotiation rather than by power, PET highlights the nurturant and autonomy-enhancing areas of the parent-child relationship through the establishment of a healthy atmosphere within which children can grow.



Summary

Literature in the area of parenting and child rearing is both vast and abundant. In addition to material on






-23-


parenting attitudes and practices, information is abundant on areas such as why parents have children (Moriarity, 1970; Pohlman, 1969), birth-order and parenting (Clausen, 1966; Warren, 1966; Breckenridge and Vincent, 1955, Sampson, 1965), social class and parenting (Becker, 1964; Walters, Conner, and Zunich, 1964; Bronfenbrenner, 1961b), and culture and parenting (LeMasters, 1970; Guthrie and Jacobs, 1966; and Whiting, 1953).

When reviewing literature on parenting strategies, at first glance materials appear to have wide divergence in areas of emphasis. Upon closer examination, however, there appears to be a core of three behavioral areas common to most of these theories. These are the areas of nurturance, discipline and autonomy development. Although different theorists may emphasize one concept more than another, both as a function of their theoretical perspective and contemporary context, all three areas appear common to most parenting approaches. In addition, the idea of focusing on the intensity of the parent-child relationship in terms of a continuum from underinvolvement to overinvolvement has frequently appeared in the literature, particularly after 1930. Thus, the areas of nurturance, discipline, autonomy/guidance, and the degree of parental involvement in each of these areas appear to be critical in assessing the parent-child relationship.






-24-


Structural Family Theory

"Consider a man felling a tree with an axe. Each

stroke of the axe is modified or corrected, according to the shape of the cut face of the tree left by the previous stroke. This self-corrective . . . process is brought about by a total system, tree-eyes-brain-muscles-axe-stroke-tree; and it is this total system that has the characteristics of (the) . . . mind" (Bateson, in Minuchin, 1974, p. 5). This metaphor is demonstrative of the shift to a systemic perspective characteristic of structural family therapy. Lane suggests, "the theoretical foundation of this model of family therapy rests on the belief that the whole and the parts can be properly explained only in terms of the relations that exist between the parts" (Lane, in Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 311). It now becomes necessary to view human behavior from a broad perspective, incorporating both internal and external forces and their subsequent interaction, in understanding interpersonal behavior. Thus, in an effort to understand the structure of human behavior, one must consider the social network in which the individual functions. One of the most powerful of the social forces that helps to shape individual behavior is the family.

By expanding the definition of the mind to include extracerebral, as well as intracerebral functioning, (Minuchin, 1974) it becomes more difficult to pinpoint the site of pathology in the child or adult. The child who is operating within a family system must be seen as a working






-25-


unit of that family organization, and this individual's behavior (whether healthy or unhealthy) must now be seen as being maintained by the system while also helping to maintain the rest of the system. Thus, individual behavior within a family must be viewed as system maintained and system maintaining. As such, any attempt to change one facet of the system will be met by resistance from the rest of the system, as an attempt to maintain a dynamic homeostatic balance or equilibrium necessary for systemic order and survival.

Structural family theory provides more of a family

model rather than a model for change. The structural family model however, has definite implications for how change can occur through reorganization or restructuring of the family. Though the concept of change is central to the therapist, it is the model of the family that is central to this study and to the conceptualization of the family.



Family Model

Structural family therapy focuses on family structure or the organization of the family members and their interactions which are governed by "invisible functional demands" (Minuchin, 1974). This family structure dictates family transactional patterns and the individual behavior of family members. Minuchin (1974) points out that there are both generic and idiosyncratic constraints on family structure. Generic constraints represent "universal rules






-26-


governing family organization" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 52). Idiosyncratic constraints reflect the expectations of individual family members (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). In the development of a family model, the focus of structural theory was directed to examining generic constraints which universally apply to all families. Characteristics such as the presence of a power hierarchy within the family where parents and children assume varying degrees of authority is one such generic constraint. This power hierarchy will vary in composition throughout different societies and cultures. Thus, family models will vary as a function of the culture in which they operate. Similarly, family structure and power hierarchy are contingent upon the stage of family development or stage of the family life cycle specific to the given family. These considerations of culture and developmental process highlight the need for family models to be flexible and applicable to varying family life situations.

Within the family unit, differentiation typically occurs by separating the family into subsystems (Minuchin, 1974; Kantor and Lehr, 1975) for the purpose of organization and division of responsibilities. Though subsystems may develop along varying criteria, subsystems representing spouse, parental and sibling units are most common. Each subsystem carries along with it roles and expectations for its members, and boundaries dictating rules for involvement.






-27-


The parental subsystem, which is of primary interest in this study, carries with it the responsibility for child care and protection, and the primary functions of providing children with nurturance, guidance and control (Minuchin, 1974). Nurturance represents the emotional bond between parent and child, and can be seen as an important element in establishing a sense of belonging and identification in children. This concept relates strongly to the affective relationship between parent and child. Guidance refers to parental encouragement of independent behaviors in children. Ideally, the importance of this parental function increases with age as children grow older and move toward adulthood. This concept can be closely associated with the development of a sense of separateness or individuality in children. Finally, control refers to the limits parents place on children. These limits provide children with a sense of what behaviors are acceptable, and thus, this concept plays a crucial role in children's socialization. Additionally, parental control provides children with a sense of protection and security, particularly when accompanied by a strong parent-child emotional bond.

It is the boundary around the parental subsystem that defines who is to provide these functions and the degree to which these functions are provided. Thus, it is the boundary that truly organizes the family and directly influences subsequent interactional patterns within the family unit. Structural family theory (Minuchin, 1974)






-28-


views boundaries along a continuum from enmeshment or overinvolvement to disengagement or underinvolvement. As such, enmeshed boundaries tend to be diffuse and unclear while disengaged boundaries tend to be overly rigid. Along this family model, a middle ground on the boundary continuum is considered "healthy" while extremes are seen as unhealthy. Minuchin (1972) states,

at the enmeshment pole, family transactions are
characterized by a fast tempo of interpersonal
exchange; multiproblem families tend to resolve tensions by actions because of their paucity of
mediating processes between impulse and action. The resulting style of interpersonal relationship has a high degree of mutual enmeshment and fast shifts in
both focus or transaction and affective tone. At the
abandonment (disengaged) pole, family members seem
oblivious to the effect of their actions on one
another. Monologues, parallel play, and a variety of
maneuvers of psychological and physical abandonment
characterize this modality. (p. 296)

Following this conceptual scheme of the healthy family, Minuchin states three assumptions regarding healthy family functioning: "a family is transformed over time, adapting restructuring itself so as to continue functioning; the family has a structure, which can be seen only in movement; and families adapt to stress in a way that maintains family continuity while making restructuring possible" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 65-66).

Thus, from the structural family perspective, critical issues of maintaining family health center around the concept of flexibility in adapting appropriate developmental family structures. Extremes in flexibility or rigidity of






-29-


family boundaries and structure are seen as signals of concern and potential family dysfunction.



Supportive Research

In reviewing research on structural family therapy

three distinct areas of inquiry surface: family functioning studies; treatment outcome studies; and studies centering around training issues (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981). Studies on family functioning are highlighted as they have the most direct application to the current study. An organizational grouping of family functioning studies has been made, differentiating studies on four clinical family forms: (1) low socioeconomic family forms (Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, and Schumer, 1967); (2) psychosomatic family forms (Minuchin, Rosman, and Baker, 1978); (3) alchoholic families (Davis, Stern and Van Deusen, 1977); and (4) addict families (Kaufman and Kaufman, 1979; Stanton, Todd, Van Deusen, Marder, Roboff, Seaman, and Skibinski, 1979; Ziegler-Driscoll, 1977, 1979).



Low Socioeconomic Families

Minuchin et al., (1967) studied clinical families

characterized by low socioeconomic status through the use of structured tasks and observational means (Elbert, Rosman, Minuchin, and Guerney, 1964) and projective techniques (Minuchin et al., 1967). In this study, 12 clinical families were compared to 11 control families prior to






-30-


family treatment. Evaluation of the treatment group following therapy was also conducted without controls. Pre-treatment analysis of communication patterns of patient and control families indicated that patient families tended to yield bimodal results, suggesting extremes in behavior, with statements tending to be less clear than those of their control counterparts (Minuchin et al., 1967). In terms of executive behavior such as leadership, control and guidance, similar results were obtained. Minuchin defined these terms as: "Leadership included activity directing task performance. Behavior control concerned statements regulating non-task behaviors . . . but focused on immediate control. Guidance statements . . . regulated others behaviors by pointing to inappropriate ways of behaving" (Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, and Schumer, 1967, in Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 342). Patient mothers tended to demonstrate continued extremes of behavior, using significantly more or less behavior control than did control mothers. Interestingly, in both cases of extreme behavior, patient children were seen as uniformly more unruly and disruptive during task activities than were control children. Additionally, patient mothers were seen as "less responsive" to their children than were control mothers. Family Interaction Apperception Technique (FIAT) stories supported these observational findings with patient families' stories containing fewer accounts of nurturing than did reports of control families (Minuchin et al., 1967). Aponte and Van






-31-


Deusen, (1981) noted "while the concept of enmeshment and disengagement was actually elaborated after these studies, these descriptive data tend to support those concepts. . . . (This) clustering of patient mothers and children at poles of interaction before treatment, suggests enmeshment versus disengaged positions" (p. 344).



Psychosomatic Families

Studies have demonstrated psychosomatic children's centrality in the regulation of family stress (Baker, Minuchin, Milman, Liebman and Todd, 1975; Baker and Barcai, 1975; and Baker, Minuchin and Rosman, 1974). Minuchin, Rosman, and Baker, (1978) studied 30 families with psychosomatic children (eleven anorectic, nine diabetic and ten asthmatic) along with seven control medical-diabetic families and eight control medical-diabetic families with children demonstrating behavior problems. Observational task activities were implemented here as dependent measures. Patient psychosomatic families demonstrated the most asymmetry in executive roles, indicating an authoritarian skew between parents. Not surprisingly, these families tended to be the least productive in terms of task completion.

As compared to psychosomatic families, normal control families tended to be more flexible, produce more alternatives, argue and disagree more openly and demonstrate more complete resolution of assigned tasks (Minuchin et al.,






-32-


1978). In addition, enmeshment-type behaviors were measured in all families. "Results indicated clearer subsystem boundaries and greater interpersonal differentiation in normal families than in psychosomatic families. The psychosomatic group displayed the poorest differentiation between parental and child subsystems. Their transactions also revealed more mediating, go-between type statements than did those of the other two groups" (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 346).



Alcoholic Families

Davis, Stern and Van Deusen (1977), in studying 17 alcoholic families (with one alcoholic member) and 16 control families present results similar to those reported in studies of low socioeconomic and psychosomatic families. Through the use of observational task measures, Davis et al., (1977) reported that husbands and wives in alcoholic families tended to speak less than did their control counterparts, while children of alcoholic families tended to speak more. Additionally, alcoholic families tended to take longer on completing tasks than did control families. Importantly, alcoholic parents were seen as extreme in their relationships with their children, tending to present continuum extremes of enmeshment or disengagement.






-33-


Addict Families

Stanton, Todd, Steier, Van Deusen, Marder, Rosoff,

Seaman and Skibinski (1979), in their work with substance abuse families (families where one member is a substance abuser), found similar characteristics in dysfunctional families. In studying 65 addict families and 25 control families, addict families tended to be more rigid in their communication patterns, while control families tended to speak more openly and freely. Additionally, addict families tended to demonstrate "disruptive" performances on assigned tasks, while simultaneously avoiding open conflict. In addition to these problems in executive function, researchers found more mother-child coalitions in addict families along with more disengaged fathers. The results of observational task assessment techniques suggest difficulties such as enmeshment (mother-son coalitions) and disengagement (peripheral fathers) in dysfunctional families much the same as reported by other researchers in work with varied types of dysfunctional families.



Summary

Structural family theory suggests that there are

specific roles and behaviors associated with each subsystem within the family unit. The parental subsystem has the responsibility for child rearing and has the main task of providing children with nurturance, guidance towards independent behavior, and control or discipline. These






-34-


three functions closely parallel areas outlined as salient features in other parenting theories. Additionally, this theory views the parental subsystem in terms of the strength of the boundary which surrounds it. Rigid, overly strong boundaries suggest distance between parent and child. Weak, undefined boundaries suggest overly close relationships and overly permissive parenting styles.

Support for this theory can be found in family functioning studies. Summarizing results of these studies, (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981) noted the following common family characteristics: (1) patient families tended to have rules, boundaries and transactional patterns that were less productive than control families; (2) patient families took longer at tasks; (3) patient families tended to be less clear in communication; (4) patient families tended to be more rigid, coming up with fewer options and alternatives than control families; (5) patient families tended to demonstrate more coalitions across subsystems.

Thus, it appears that healthy families tended to be seen as more moderate while unhealthy (patient) families tended to be seen as more extreme. Relationships in these dysfunctional families tended to be bipolar, representing either overly close (enmeshed) or overly rigid (disengaged) characteristics.

Importantly, Doane (1978) has independently replicated a number of the above studies with similar results. Findings indicated " . . . disturbed families manifested






-35-


more cross-generational coalitions, greater husband-wife conflict, more frequent spontaneous agreement (conflictavoidance) among children, less acknowledgement of other member's statement, lower clarity of message content and less productive task-completion. . . . Perhaps her major finding was that secondary analysis showed 'subsystem behaviors' to be more informative units of analysis than either whole family or individual measures" (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 349).



Existing Instruments on Children's Perceptions of Parenting

As suggested previously, attention to parenting and children's relations with parents can be found in the literature dating back many years. The first review of literature on children's attitudes towards parents was provided by Stodgill (1937), who reviewed research in this area between the years 1894 and 1936. It appears that one of the first documented studies of children's perceptions of parents was conducted by Barnes in 1894 (in Stodgill, 1937). Barnes looked at 4000 children's (ages 7-16) responses to how they viewed parental punishment. Generally, studies during this time period focused on variables such as punishment, parental ideal and parental preference. Cross-cultural studies in these areas also appeared popular during this time. Stodgill (1937) in summarizing the findings from these early studies noted the following: (1) Children feel a high degree of dependency on






-36-


parents which decreases with age; (2) Mothers are generally preferred over fathers, though delinquents and problem children typically select their opposite sex parent; (3) Children feel parents prefer children of the opposite sex;

(4) Children resent severe, unjust punishment; (5) Very strict discipline and religion in the early home may be associated with later personality maladjustment; (6) Children are more likely to be antagonistic towards parents when parents are morally and socially liberal; and (7) Attitudes are influenced primarily by the family and environment rather than intelligence or social level.

Findings of other studies of this time yielded similar results. These studies accepted the importance of the family, but obviously were firmly rooted in intrapsychic theory, the prevailing therapeutic model of the time. Stagner and Drought (1935) noted "there is some indication that the attitudes (of a child) towards his parent is determined, not only by parental treatment, but also by the personality of the child" (p. 176). The results of these early studies are presented not only for their historical significance and interest, but also as an example of the influence that social, political, and cultural attitudes of the times exert over research. No doubt throughout history this pattern prevails, sensitizing us to consider the extent to which current society influences research and assessment.

There is little mention of assessment technique in

these early studies. It appears that structured interviews






-37-


were commonly used to gather information, or the modification of existing techniques that were available at the time. (Many of these modified instruments can be traced to the original work of Thurstone.) Similarly, there is little mention of reliability, validity, theoretical orientation or instrument development in these studies. As the 1940's arrived, momentum slowly increased in the development of assessment techniques for measuring children's perceptions of parenting. This momentum increased decade by decade up until the present, where one finds themselve wading knee deep in diagnostic evaluation tools.

This review of the literature is not intended to

provide the reader with a reference system designed for quick location of various available measures. An efficient location system of related literature has been presented by Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976). Rather, the system here is intended to provide a structured framework in which various instruments measuring children's perceptions of parenting can be evaluated.

Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976) describe the

criteria for assessing an instrument in their review. These criteria are useful when deciding which diagnostic method is most appropriate for the therapist/researcher's specific needs and allows for general test evaluation as well. Cromwell et al. (1976, p. 28-29) suggested that the method should tap some theoretical concepts and dimensions that are relevant to the treatment process; that the sample of






-38-


stimuli should not only relate to the overall concepts or dimensions (content validity) but should be relevant, important, and representative for the given group being evaluated; that procedures including multi-method approaches are preferable; that the instrument should be evaluated for both reliability and validity; that the procedure should be designed so the clients do not feel tricked or deceived during administration; that the instrument should require minimal equipment, facilities, cost and time to administer and score; and that the instrument should be appropriate for a wide variety of age groups and social classes.

Instrument evaluation procedures outlined by Kerlinger (1973) and Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (1976) overlap the Cromwell model, stressing the evaluation of assessment and diagnostic tools along the dimensions of validity, reliability, administratability, objectivity, scorability, adequacy, utility, comparability, and economy.

This review incorporates many of these evaluative

criteria in its critique of instruments assessing children's perceptions of parenting to highlight both the advantages and disadvantages of these diagnostic tools. Additionally, several questions are addressed in examining available instruments. Does the instrument have a sound theoretical background? Does the instrument provide reports of adequate reliability? Does the instrument report adequate validity? Is the instrument easy to administer and score? Does the instrument have varied utility and applicability? Is the






-39-


instrument appropriate for use with nine, ten, and eleven year-old children? Does the instrument provide acceptable normative data? Does the instrument focus on the parental subsystem or does it single out mother-child interaction?

This review of the literature concentrates on

objective, interpersonal measures of children's perceptions of parenting. Though non-objective and intrapsychic measures are discussed, primary emphasis is placed on the objective, interactional assessment techniques. Similarly, multivariate assessment measures are also stressed. The need for this focus lies in the importance of these instruments as both practical and accessible tools for professional use in varied settings. Whether used by the therapist to evaluate progress or outcome of treatment, by the descriptive researcher to identify and evaluate special populations, or by the educator to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs, these objective instruments are thought to be more flexible in their applicability for use in varied settings. This is primarily due to their relative ease of administration and scoring, plus their increased utility over more complex subjective techniques.

The remainder of the chapter will be divided into two major sections. First, univariable assessment tools are reviewed. This section is subdivided into areas which highlight the specific variables under study. This is followed by a review of multivariate measures. The multivariate






-40-


section of this chapter is further subdivided into areas which represent how the assessment is made.



Univariate Measures

Conflict-integration. Rundquist and Sletto (in Shaw

and Wright, 1967) provide for the measure of conflict within a family in a subscale measure incorporated within an intrapsychic, objective attitude scale. Subscales assessing family variables that are included in intrapsychic personality instruments are common throughout the literature, and will be seen periodically throughout this review. Projective measures in this area are more common taking the form of doll play techniques (Mussen and Distler, 1959), sentence completion techniques (Rabin, 1959), and story completion techniques (Seaton, 1949; Porcell and Clifford, 1966; and Ausubel, Balthazar, Rosenthal, Blackman, Schpoont, and Wilkowitz, 1954). These instruments vary in length between 9 and 16 items and require special training in both administration and interpretation, reducing their utility. Objective, interpersonal measures of family conflict-integration are provided by Swanson (in Straus and Brown, 1978), Stott and Sykes (1958), Simmons, Rosenburg and Rosenburg (1973), Kaufman (1971), Heston (1949), Cooper (1960, 1966), Ausubel, Balthazar, Rosenthal, Blackman, Schpoont, and Welkowitz (1954) and Offer (1969). These instruments vary tremendously in length and required response. The Perceived Opinions of Parents Scale (Simmons, Rosenburg, and Rosenburg,






-41-


1973) contains only three questions while the Heston Personal Adjustment Inventory (Heston, 1949) contains 270 true-false items. The Bristol Social Adjustment Guide (Stott and Sykes, 1958) contains 221 items where children are to underline sentences within paragraphs. This type of response task appears somewhat difficult for the younger child or the slow reader. Additionally, a number of these instruments have limited age applicability (Kaufman, 1971, and Offer, 1969), while others make no mention of age appropriateness. Finally, a number of interview-observational measures can be found in this area (Schwarzweller and Lyson, 1974, and Cassell, 1962). These techniques tend to be time consuming and costly, and many times are unusable when time, money and facilities are not available.

Love-nurturance. Objective, interpersonal measures in this area tend to be quite short in length with a median length of 11 items (McKinley, 1964; Heilburn, 1965; Floyd and South, 1971; Strykers, 1955; Rosenberg, 1965; Robertson and Dotson, 1969; and Severy, 1973). These measures typically require true/false or Likert type responses from the subject with as many as six alternatives. Similar concerns as those mentioned above in terms of reliability, validity, age appropriateness, and theoretical foundation can be applied to this group of instruments.

Conflict-aggression. The Minnesota Personality Scale (Dailey and McNamara, 1941) and the Interpersonal Relations Scale (Denten and Monroe, 1961) provide subscale scores for






-42-


the area of family conflict. It is difficult to view these subscales as independent of the rest of their respective measures (in terms of their reliability, validity, etc.), and therefore, their independent use is not encouraged. Ausubel et al., (1954), Block (1937), LoSecuto and Karlin (1972), Edwards and Branburger (1973), Dimock (1937), and Maxwell, Connor and Walters (1961) have developed objective instruments in this area that were designed for children's use. Though the Emancipation from Parent Scale (Dimock, 1937) was intended for adolescent use with 360 items, the other instruments do not appear to be excessive in length, and at times appear surprisingly short. Two of the more interesting tests in this area are the Disagreement with Perceived Parent Opinion Test (Ausubel et al., 1954) and the Perception of Parent Role Performance Questionnaire (Maxwell, Conner, and Walters, 1961), where discrepancy scores were reported between children's and parent's perceptions. Projectives are also available in this area (Cummings, 1952; Sears, Pinter and Sears, 1946; and Grace and Lohman, 1952) as are observational measures (Johnson and Lobitz, 1974).

Role differentiation. Hoffman, Rosen and Lippitt

(1960), Epstein and Komorita (1965), Hawkes, Burchinal and Gardner (1957), Hunt (1974), and Moulton, Burnstein, Liberty and Altucher (1966) have designed children's objective instruments in the area of role differentiation and discipline. Scheck, Emmerick and El-Assal (1973) and Radke






-43-


(1946) tap this same variable, but employ a retrospective format of parental evaluation to be used by adults for their parents.

These assessment tools provide little theoretical background and sketchy reliability and validity data. Moreover, many are not published making their acquisition difficult. Tiffany and Shontz (1962), Stone and Landis (1953), Payne and Mussen (1956) and Hoeflin and Kell (1959) have developed children's projectives in this area, requiring advanced training in administration and scoring.

Power, affection, support. Few instruments can be

found that measure only power, affection or support. Most measurement tools that assess these variables can be found in the multivariate section of this review as they provide for numerous categories of assessment. Itkin (1952), Wechsler and Funkenstein (1960) and Dlugokinski and Firestone (1973) do provide objective measures of children's perceptions of parental power, acceptance and affections. As with all categories reviewed previously, these instruments vary greatly from one to the other and have numerous shortcomings. Wechsler and Funkenstein (1960), in the Perceptions of Family Questionnaire, provide measurements of authority and affection from both the child's and adult's perspective, allowing for interesting comparison. Unfortunately, this questionnaire takes approximately four hours to finish, making completion of this survey quite fatiguing for the adult, let alone the child. Problems with the length of






-44-


measurement tools, both exceedingly long and short, can be found throughout the literature. The Parental Disciplne Inventory (PDI) (Dlugokinski and Firestone, 1973) allows for the measurement of children's perceptions of maternal induction and power assertion. The PDI does report adequate test-retest reliability of .87 and .79 at a ten-day interval. This inventory has a maternal focus, a common characteristic of many of the assessment techniques involving parents and children. Appropriate for children ages 8-15, this instrument focuses on the mother-child relationship and makes no mention of other adults that also serve as family members in the executive parental subsystem. With fathers playing an increased role in parenting, this maternal focus is outdated and misleading, providing only partial information for the therapist or researcher. Projective measures can also be found that address themselves to this same topic (Kagan, 1958; Emmerick, 1959a, 1959b; and Funkenstein, King and Drolette, 1957).

Autonomy-achievement training. A number of very short measurement scales can be found measuring this variable: The Independence from Family Autonomy Scale (Schwartz, 1971); The Parental Pressure for Educational Achievement Index (Tec, 1973); and the Parents Conformity Measure (Utech and Hoving, 1969); containing four, three, and ten items respectively. Such short measures raise numerous methodological concerns for the researcher.






-45-


Longer instruments are also available for use with young children such as the Family-Peer Group Orientation Scale (Bowerman and Kinch, 1959) and The Children's Dependency Scale (Golightly, Nelson and Johnson, 1970). For use with college-aged individuals, instruments such as The Sherman Emancipation Questionnaire (Sherman, 1946) are available. Similarly, observational task measures such as the Parental Pressure Scale (Pearlin, Yarrow and Scarr, 1967) can also be found which focus on this variable. Concerns that have been raised earlier in the areas of reliability, validity, theoretical base and age appropriateness also apply to this category of assessment tools.

Other constructs. Objective measures can be found in numerous other areas that are directed towards children's perceptions. These include identification similarity (Heilburn, 1965; Gray, 1959; Devereux, 1970; Calomico and Thomas, 1973; Brittain, 1963; Bowerman and Bahr, 1973), communication (Good, Good and Nelson, 1973; Bienvenu, 1969), activities (Tulkin, 1968; Harris, Clark, Rose and Valasek, 1954; Denten and Monroe, 1961) and flexibility (Denten and Monroe, 1961; Elder, 1971). Instrument lengths vary in these measures from three (Elder, 1971) to three hundred and twenty-four (Heilburn, 1965) items. These instruments, on the whole, appear to be no stronger in terms of methodology or theory than those cited earlier and fall suspect to many of the shortcomings that have previously been mentioned.






-46-


Observational task activities in the area of communication (Haley, 1967) and identification (Bronfenbrenner, 1970) provide alternative means of gathering data on children's perspectives.

Many of the variables discussed in this section of the review can also be found in the next section of this chapter. Rather than provide a comprehensive list of all instruments that tap into these variables, this section has highlighted narrower, more focused instruments.



Multivariate Measures

The remaining instruments that are discussed all fall under the category multivariate measures. These assessment techniques measure a number of variables, providing the therapist/researcher with information on multiple related factors. Due to the quantity of available instruments in this area, many of these multivariate assessment techniques are referenced, while only a handful are discussed in depth. As opposed to the format of the previous section, this section presents the multivariate measures according to how the assessment is approached and data gathered (intrapsychic, objective, interpersonal, or observational). The instruments reviewed in depth in this section include those which are most commonly used.

Intrapsychic-interpersonal subjective measures. Two of the most well known intrapsychic projective measures available today are the Thematic Apprehension Test (TAT)






-47-


(Murray, in Straus and Brown, 1978) and the Childrens' Apprehension Test (CAT) (Bellak and Bellak, 1941). These techniques have particular importance in the area of children's perceptions of parenting. Their value lies not in their direct applicability in assessing children's perceptions of parenting, rather they serve as prototypes which have been expanded and adapted to measure more interpersonal variables. Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman and Schumer (1967) modified the TAT in forming the Wiltwyck Family Interaction Apperception Technique better known as the Family Interaction Apperception Technique (FIAT), where children are presented ten family pictures and are to create a story about the picture. This technique is intended to tap into children's internalized views of family interaction. The FIAT, which is based on a model of structural family therapy, focuses on areas of guidance, control, unity and aggression. The FIAT, which has an age appropriateness of seven years and older, takes approximately 30 minutes to complete, and is appropriate for use with a variety of clientele. Similar picture projectives have been developed such as the Symonds Picture Story Test (in Straus and Brown, 1978), the Family Relatives Indicator (Howells and Lickorish, 1969), the Family Rorschach (Loveland, Wynne, and Singer, 1963), the Parent Image Checklist (Meger and Tolman, 1955), the Eidectic Parents Test (Ashen, 1972) and the Family Relations Test (Anthony and Bene, 1957). Advantages in the use of these projective measures are that they are






-48-


relatively unstructured and allow the therapist or researcher to reach the subject's attitudes and beliefs at a more unconscious level. Unfortunately, these instruments are predominantly for clinical use only and are used almost exclusively with clinical populations. Secondly, they require advanced training in their administration and interpretation which greatly reduces their utility. Other interpersonal subjective measures are available utilizing techniques such as doll play (Radke, 1946) and Q-sort (Block, 1972). Finally, there have been instruments developed that incorporate both objective and subjective methods in data collection. The Elias Family Opinion Survey (Elias, 1952) is one such measure, in its assessment of isolation-mutuality in families. Although this survey reports strong reliability data (internal consistency = .97 and temporal reliability = .92) and can claim the advantages of indirect assessment strategies, it has problems in its limitations of requiring trained administrators and scorers, its lack of a strong conceptional base, its primary use with clinical populations, and its limited age applicability.

Observational measures. Direct observational techniques are commonly employed in family assessment. Problem solving tasks (Blechman, 1974; Morrell and Stachowiak, 1967; Strauss and Tallman, 1971; Elbert, Rosman, Minuchin and Guerney, 1964; and Haley, 1962), decision-making tasks (Riskin, 1963), and conflict resolution tasks (Jurkovic and Prentice, 1974; and Farina, 1960) have all been used for






-49-


descriptive purposes and as pre-treatment and post-treatment evaluation measures. As example, most all outcome studies reported by the structural school of family therapy, which has provided the strongest outcome research support for non-behavioral family treatment, have used observationaltask measurements as dependent variable indices (see Elbert et al., 1964) along with projective measures. Many of these techniques remain unpublished and, as a whole, provide sketchy evidence of reliability and validity. The advantages in observation of direct family interaction are tempored by the need for observational facilities, trained observers, and extended time in their use. Additionally, many of these observational techniques lack strong theoretical foundation (though some are well grounded in theory, i.e., Haley, 1962 and Elbert et al., 1964) and provide little if any statistical and technical analysis. Interview techniques such as the Bias in Perception of Family Relations Measure (Niemi, 1974) and Interview Measure of Family Activities and Relationships (Brown and Rutter, 1966) can also be found in the literature.

Interestingly, a large percentage of observational

measures used in both laboratory and naturalistic settings have focused on the mother-child relationship exclusively. Instruments such as the Maternal Behavior Factor Indexes (Whiting, Child, and Lambert, 1960), the Maternal Behavior Measures (Tulkin and Kagan, 1972), the Maternal Behavior Observational Categories (Brody, 1965), the Mother-Child






-50-


Interaction Scales (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), the Rating Scale for Home Observation of Mother-Child Interaction (Crandell, Preston and Rabson, 1960), the Maternal Behavior Rating Scale (Finney, 1961), the Observational Schedule for MotherChild Interaction (Hilton, 1967), the Maternal Care Checklist (Rheingold, 1960), the Maternal Behavior Measure (Stayton, Hogan, and Ainsworth, 1971), the Mother-Child Interaction Rating Scale and Observational Categories (Bishop, 1951), the Human or Maternal Environmental Scale (Watts, 1974), and the Communication Checklist (Ling and Ling, 1974) provide the reader with a sense for the attention the mother-child relationship has attracted in the field of family assessment. These measures are similar to those observational techniques mentioned previously in both advantages and weaknesses. Moreover, they reflect a stereotypical preoccupation with the mother-child relationship, reflective of the traditional sex-role assignment of the mother as caregiver. With changes of family form and function in today's society, this traditional model is quickly losing its appropriateness and relevance in the field of treatment and research. Techniques which combine the use of both observation and interview (Rafferty, Tyler and Tyler, 1960; Lytton, 1973; Leon, 1971; Majoribanks, 1972; Gardner, 1969; and Cooper, 1966) and those which incorporate the use of recording and videotaping in observation (Burke, 1967, and Guttman, 1972) can also be found in the literature.






-51-


The Fels Parent-Behavior Rating Scale (Champey, 1941b) stands as one of the most researched and widely used observational measure of parenting behavior. With it 30 scales clustering in areas of warmth, adjustment, indulgence, democracy, intellectuality, restrictiveness, clarity and interference, it has been subject to numerous factor analytic, and reliability studies. Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breese, (1949) report good inter-rater reliability on the Fels for trained-raters. More importantly, with family assessment focusing on so many variables (i.e., control, activities, affect, etc.) the factor analysis studies on this instrument begin to narrow the focus to those variables that are salient in understanding parenting. Rolf (1949), in a factorial study of the Fels, reports concern for the child; democratic guidance; permissiveness; parent-child harmony; sociability-adjustment of parents; activeness of home; and, non-readiness of suggestion; as seven factors of significance. Baldwin, (1946) and Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breese, (1945) present more focused factorial findings, presenting warmth, objectivity and control as the three primary factors in the Fels scale. Though observational techniques such as the Fels do not provide direct access to children's perceptions of parenting, they do provide a source of comparability (particularly in terms of factor analysis findings) when looking at factors included more in objective, child-perception instruments.






-52-


Interpersonal objective measures. Anthony and Bene (1957) state, "although a great number of tests available today are concerned with the psychological assessment of the child, there seemed to us to be a special clinical and research need for one that would indicate objectively, reliably and rapidly the direction of intensity of the child's feelings towards various members of the family . . . " (p. 541). Twenty plus years later, this statement still holds true. Attempts have been made to use various intrapsychic measures for the purpose of obtaining chidren's perceptions of the family (Serot and Teeran, 1961). Similarly, objective measures for parents are common throughout the literature (Dielman, Barton and Cattell, 1973; Emmerich, 1962; Love, Kaswan and Bugental, 1972; Pumroy; 1966; Sears, Maccoby and Levin, 1957; Sebald and Andrews, 1962; Van der Veen, Huebner, Jorgens, and Neja, 1964; and Winder and Rau, 1962). The question remains, are there objective, interpersonal measures for children that provide rapid and reliable results?

In reviewing objective interpersonal measures of children's perceptions of parenting, many of the same concerns raised with other instrumentation in this paper surface. There are a number of instruments that are maternally based (Milton, 1958; Mosychuk, 1969; Polansky, Borgman and DeSaix, 1972; and Schvaneveldt, 1968) providing no information on father-child relationships. With fathers playing an increasing role in child-rearing today, this maternal focus






-53-


is certainly a limiting factor. Other instruments such as the Family Inventory (Hayward, 1935) and the Parental Authority-Love Statements (Williams, 1958) provide maladjustment scores and thus, are based on models of family pathology rather than family health. When interpreting subscale scores of authority, love and parental role, Williams (1958) suggests intermediate scores on the subscales represent unknown and inconsistent parental behaviors. In fact, families taking such an instrument will tend to receive a maladjustment score, as no combination of subscale scores produces a healthy rating. This pathogenic base illustrates another limitation that can be found in the assessment literature. Concerns stemming from instrument length, both those which are very short (less than 15 items) such as the Family Background Scores (Ferdinand and Luchterhand, 1968), Parent Contact Scale (Hollender, Duke and Nowicki, 1973), Children's Concept of Parental Roles (Thomas, 1968), Corell Socialization Inventory (Bronfenbrenner, 1961a), and Perceived Closeness to Mother Scale (Miller, 1961) and those which are exceedingly long such as the Parent Behavior Question Schedule (Cox and Leaper, 1961) which takes 2-1/2 hours to complete and the Authority Figure Perception Test (Ferguson and Kennelly, 1974) which contains 307 items, can also be frequently found in the literature. Similarly, there are other assessment instruments that have limited age appropriateness (Devereux, Shouval, Bronfenbrenner, Rodgers, Kav-Venaki, Kiely and Karson, 1974; Nye, 1958; and






-54-


Schvaneveldt, 1968), due to difficulty in readability, conceptual structure, and length. Another concern focuses on instruments that provide no normative information or instruments that were normed on samples not representative of the general population. Examples can be seen in tests that are normed on clinical populations (Williams, 1958), on samples drawn from specific geographic locations (Brown, Morrison and Couch, 1947), social strata, religious or ethnic background. Finally, there are instruments (many of which have already been named) that have been developed for use in specific studies, which lack strong theoretical foundation. These instruments typically lack validity data and many times reliability data as well.

There are many other assessment techniques that are

available for both clinical and research use that overlap a number of categories presented in this review: The Piety Parent Perception Questionnaire, (Piety, 1966), The Parent Child Relationship Indexes (Farber and Jenne, 1963), The Family Adjustment Test (Elias, 1952), The Family Interaction Schedule (Straus, 1964), The Herbst Family Relationship Questionnaire (Herbst, 1952), The Intra-Family Relationship Questionnaire (Myers, 1935), The Children's Concept of Parental Circumstances (Thomas, 1968), The Family Relationship Test (Scott and Ashworth, 1965), The Parent Evaluation Scale (Cooper and Blair, 1959) and The Family Concept Test (Van der Veen, 1964); plus techniques such as the Thorman Family Relations Technique (in Straus and Brown, 1978) that






-55-


are not tests and report no scores, reliability, validity or external references. The reader should exercise caution, carefully researching these instruments before use.

The Family Environmental Scale (FES) (Moos, 1974)

focuses on the social climate of the family and represents one of a number of instruments that either directly or indirectly are based on the circumplex model (Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell, 1979). This 90 question, true/false instrument reports relatively good internal consistency (.64-.79) and test-retest reliability (.68-.86), yet very limited validity. The author reports no factor analysis results for the measure and reports the characteristics of the normature population to be white, middle class families. There are 10 subscales within the FES concentrating on family relations, developmental process and structure. Although a short form containing 40 items is also available, little can be found on this shortened version. Other instruments such as the Family Functioning Index (Pless and Satterwhite, 1973) and Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) (Olson, Bell, and Portner, 1978) also are grounded in circumplex theory and have been designed for diagnostic use. These instruments, though firmly rooted in theory, suffer from a number of the shortcomings mentioned above. Issues of replication, reliability and validity, length, normative demographics, factor analytic results, etc., must be considered when approaching these instruments. Additionally, preference on theoretical orientation becomes a factor






-56-


when the therapist employs these measures for diagnostic or outcome measure purposes.

Another instrument reflecting circumplex theory and a psychoanalytic framework is the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire, PCRQ (Roe and Siegelman, 1963). This 130 item, Likert type instrument focuses on specific behaviors as opposed to attitudes. Its forms for males and females differ slightly and it reports a norming population of 142 Harvard University seniors (all male) and 99 social workers and engineers, specifically excluding single parent families, and individuals who are divorced or widowed. This raises a serious methodological question for this measure. As with most circumplex instruments, the PCRQ is presented in retrospective form, and thus, is geared to the adult and not the child. Other instruments such as Parental Role Patterns (Slater, 1962), Perception of Parent Behavior Scale (Apperson, 1965), and Family Relations Inventory (Brunkan, 1965) are also retrospective in nature, raising questions to their applicability for use with young children.

The final group of instruments that assess children's perceptions of parenting that will be discussed in this review will be those that have resulted from the work of E.S. Schaefer. Interestingly, Schaefer's work is grounded in "a circumplex model for maternal behavior" (Schaefer, 1949), with the development of the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) (Schaefer, 1965) stemming from factor analysis results of mother-child






-57-


observation. The CRPBI scale contains 260 items with 26 scales. A shortened version is also available (Schluderman, 1971, in Straus and Brown, 1978) containing 108 items. Factor analysis results (Schaefer and Bell, 1955, Schaefer, Bell, and Bayley, 1959) indicate two main factors: autonomy vs control and love vs hostility that are contained in this instrument. This instrument has been widely used (Armentrout and Burger, 1972; Burger and Armentrout, 1971; and Burger, Lamp and Rodgers, 1975), particularly in descriptive studies. The CRPBI represents one of the best efforts in children's perception of parenting assessment. It is firmly rooted in theory, reports good reliability, and has been widely used. It does however, present problems in its length and age applicability. Additionally, the CRPBI reports reliability in terms of internal consistency only, never mentioning temporal reliability. Lastly, its maternally based origins do not reflect our social structure today and, therefore may not be reflective of current trends in parenting. The CRPBI has encouraged further instrument development, many of which serve as compliments to the children's reports (Schaefer and Bell, 1958, Schaefer, Bell, and Bayley, 1957 and Kaufman, 1965).



Summary

In general, a review of instruments that measure children's perceptions of parenting has yielded mixed results. There is no question as to the diversity and scope of






-58-


assessment techniques that are available for use today. These techniques focus on many different variables and employ observational, projective and objective strategies in gathering data. Naturally, some are stronger than others, but on a whole, the most striking finding is that few instruments can be found measuring children's perceptions of parenting that do not suffer from either theoretical, methodological, or technical shortcomings. Even those instruments that apparently are firmly rooted in theory, such as those based on circumplex theory, demonstrate characteristics which limit their utility and appropriateness for use with children.

In summarizing the characteristics of this assessment literature, three major strengths can be noted. First, there is a tremendous variety and diversity in available assessment measures. This provides the researcher/therapist with a great deal of flexibility in choosing the best instrument for their purposes. Cromwell et al., (1976) and Straus and Brown (1978) have provided excellent reference systems that make the task of instrument selection much more efficient and effective.

Second, there have been a number of factor analysis

studies performed on a limited number of instruments. These studies help in providing a more focused perspective on this vast area. It appears that the factors of warmth/lovehostility and control-autonomy are common to most






-59-


factor-analysis findings, suggesting that these factors are central to parenting.

Third, circumplex theory appears to be well represented as a theoretical base for a good number of instruments, more so than any other theoretical foundation.

In summarizing the weaknesses found in children's perceptions of parenting assessment literature, the following list of weaknesses have been highlighted. First, most instruments lack sound theoretical foundations. For those instruments that are grounded in theory, they are almost exclusively derived from circumplex theory. Few other theoretical orientations are represented, particularly in interpersonal, objective measures.

Second, a large number of instruments suffer from ad

hoc designs, having been developed specifically for use in a given study. Such instruments suffer serious methodological limitations.

Third, evidence of instrument reliability and validity is, at best, sketchy. This holds particularly true in the case of validity.

Fourth, many instruments are based on a deficit model of family functioning. These instruments yield maladjustment scores and are pathologically based. Instruments based on models of healthy family functioning would provide more of a flexible model for all families along the continuum of system health.






-60-


Fifth, many instruments focus on the mother-child

relationship and do not examine the father-child relationship. Other instruments that do focus on both parents are based on mother-child observations and thus are not representative of today's parenting trends.

Sixth, most instruments in this area have problems in length, either being too short or too long. Such factors affect both the reliability of these measures and their applicability for use with younger children.

Seventh, many instruments discussed are old and outdated. Such instruments are reflective of the social era in which they were conceived and may not be appropriate for use in today's changing society.

Eighth, few instruments provide the necessary information regarding norming procedures and populations. Many are normed on samples which are not representative of the general population, many times focusing on clinical samples or samples reflecting specific geographic, religious, ethnic or socioeconomic characteristics.

Ninth, many of the instruments that claim to be

designed to assess children's perceptions of parenting are not appropriate for use with children, due to length, difficulty in response required, vocabulary or design. Finally, it is clear that there is serious question as to the utility of many of these instruments. Most instruments discussed cannot be used by therapists, educators, and researchers due to factors such as time, training needed in






-61-


administration and interpretation, cost, and availability. Instruments are needed that have a wide versatility and that can be used by different professionals in various settings.

When considering future directions in the area of

instrumentation of children's perceptions of parenting, two directions appear clear. Firstly, there is a need for replication and refinement of existing instruments. Many instruments available today could be altered and improved so that they could be used more frequently and with more confidence. Secondly, new instruments, representing different theoretical orientations (particularly interpersonal objective measures) are sorely needed. This would be particularly helpful if we are to follow Cromwell's (1976) advice in "linking diagnosis and evaluation to the intervention process . . . (in) bridging research, theory and practice" (p. 2).















CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY



The intent of this study was to develop and refine an objective instrument, the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CCPS) which measures nine, ten, and eleven year-old children's perceptions of parenting. In establishing the scale, three research questions were addressed. Was the content of the scale representative of established and accepted parenting behaviors? Did the scale measure the theoretical constructs of parental nurturance, control and guidance? Were scores derived from the scale internally consistent and stable over time?

This chapter is organized into the following three

sections: methodology involved in the development of items for the CPPS; methodology involved in determining the validity of the CPPS; and methodology involved in establishing the reliability of the instrument. For each of these sections, information is presented on the population and sample, sampling procedures, methods of data collection, and analysis of data. Potential limitations of this study are discussed at the close of the chapter.


-62-






-63-


Item Development

Based on the literature review of general parenting

theories, structural family therapy and existing assessment approaches to measuring children's perceptions of parenting, the areas of nurturance, control and guidance/autonomy were identified as the central functions to be assessed in determining children's perceptions of parenting. The function of care-giving was also seen as vital in parenting responsibility and was added as a fourth factor. The resulting four sub-scales were those of nurturance, control, guidance/autonomy and care-giving. Items were generated for each of the four subscales representing underinvolved, overinvolved, and moderate/healthy parent-child interactions. (See Table 1). A panel of experts were consulted for input regarding item format, content, readability, and comprehensiveness. This panel included faculty in the Counselor Education Department at the University of Florida involved in family therapy training and staff members of the North Central Florida Community Mental Health Center, Child, Youth and Family Center.

A total of 134 items were generated in the initial item development of the CPPS. This item pool was reduced to 45 items in the final CPPS. A true/false format was selected for use during this time as it was felt appropriate for use with nine year-old children. For the purposes of field testing the initial CPPS, a third response category of "Problem" was added to the true/false format originally






-64-


TABLE 1

CONTENT AREAS OF SUBSCALES FOR THE
CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTING SCALE


Nurturance Guidance/Autonomy Control


The amount of parents spend children


The quality of time parents spend with children


Parental readiness to listen to children


Parental physical contact with children


Parental emotional involvement with children

Preference in parental activities (with or without children)


The amount parents encourage children to make decisions


The support parents give children in their efforts to act independently

The degree to which parents monitor children's activities

Parental interest in children's problem solving development

The degree to which parents give children responsibility

The degree to which parents encourage children to discuss their ideas

Parental encouragement of children's decision making development


The degree to which parents help children understand limits

The degree to which parents remind children of limits or rules

The consistency of parental punishment



The rigidity of parental punishment or limits.


The amount of or limits set parents


rules by


The severity in limits or rules set



The clarity in parental limits


The care-giving area was removed from the CPPS. Its emphasis was in the amount and quality of parental time spent in caring for children's physical needs.


time with





-65-


selected. Children were instructed to check the "Problem" space if they could not understand the question, or if they found it exceedingly difficult. Appendix A presents the initial form of the CPPS developed as a pilot instrument.

One fourth and one fifth grade class were selected for inclusion in the pilot study. Considerations in the selection of classes were focused on availability of classes and on the selection of classes considered to be representative of the student body. Parental consent forms (Appendix B) were distributed to the classes and only students returning signed forms were allowed to participate. A total of 34 subjects returned parental consent forms and took part in the pilot study.

Response frequencies for each item were tabulated to assess the discriminative ability of each question. The results of this tabulation are presented in Appendix C. In addition to the item response-frequency analysis, a test for internal consistency of the four sub-scales was conducted. A coefficient alpha was performed on the results of the pilot. The results of this analysis are found in Appendix D.

Due to poor results in both the item response frequency analysis and internal consistency analysis, the factor representing care-giving was dropped. This deletion of the care-giving factor can also be supported theoretically by collapsing the factor into the areas of nurturance and control. Similarly, the function of care-giving is not highlighted in structural family theory (Minuchin, 1974),






-66-


and rather, seen as a component of the areas of nurturance and control or limit setting.

The three remaining factors of nurturance, guidance and control were included in the revised CPPS (Appendix E). Fifteen items representing each of the three sub-scale areas were selected as a result of item response-frequency findings. Furthermore, within each of the three sub-scale areas, items were selected to represent each of the continuum areas of underinvolvement, overinvolvement and moderate parent-child interactions. The following 45 items were selected for inclusion in the revised CPPS:

1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 24, 31, 27, 29, 40, 43, 48, 52, 53, 62, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87,

89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 99, 100, 102, 106, 107, 108,

110, 116, 119.

In addition to reducing item quantity from 135 to 45, a four point Likert-type response format was developed for the revised CPPS, and the "Problem" response category was deleted. Items were also revised to be more suitable to a Likert-type response system.

Finally, in effort to insure that the revised CPPS was appropriate for use with fourth and fifth grade children, the Dale-Chall Formula (1948) was used to assess the readability level of the instrument. This formula predicts grade-level readability through analysis of sentence length, number of sentences, and familiarity of words. Using this formula, a raw score of 4.169 was obtained for the revised





-67-


CPPS. Converting this raw score to a corrected grade level score, the CPPS yielded a predicted readability level below the 5.0 value representative of a fourth grade reading level.



Content Validity

To determine the degree to which items constructed on the CPPS represented established and accepted parenting behaviors, the CPPS was distributed to a group of five experts for their evaluation. These "experts" were sampled from faculty at the University of Florida and from practicing professionals working in both community based and private clinical settings in Alachua County, Florida. The academic and practicing professionals used as experts for this purpose were required to have had experience working with families and be experienced in both theoretical and practical applications of structural family theory. Associate or clinical membership in the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy was used as a minimum selection criterion for experts in order to ensure an equivalent level of family therapy experience.



Procedures

The experts were met with by this researcher and were provided a general overview of the study. Procedures for using the CPPS Expert Evaluation Rating Form (Appendix F) were explained and presented along with a copy of the






-68-


revised CPPS. Experts were instructed to read the items on the CPPS, classify them in the appropriate categories designated on the CPPS Expert Evaluation Rating Form, and then to return their results to the researcher in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided for this purpose.



Data Analysis

Results of this evaluation were tallied for each item. A baseline of no more than two expert classifications in categories other than the one theoretically assigned for each item was set for item content validity criteria. This criterion was set in light of the feeling that sub-scales on the CPPS were separate yet somewhat interrelated.



Construct Validity

Based on the theoretical model in which the CPPS was grounded, three separate, though somewhat related, factors of nurturance, control and guidance/autonomy were hypothesized to be central factors of the CPPS. Factor analysis procedures were utilized to confirm whether these theoretical factors were in fact, present. It should be noted that due to the nature of the CPPS in addressing children's perceptions of parent's behavior, parallel forms for mother and father were developed. As such, all reporting of demographic data and results are reported independently for mothers and fathers.






-69-


Subjects

The participants in this study were fourth and fifth

grade children enrolled in either public or private elementary schools in Alachua County, Florida. Alachua County is located in north central Florida and has a population of approximately 151,348 (Florida Statistical Abstracts, 1981). The county can be characterized as containing one central urban area, the city of Gainesville, and a surrounding rural area where farming and cattle production serve as major economic resources. The county does not have a disproportionate quantity of senior citizens or seasonal residents as does the rest of the state. The white to ethnic minority ratio of Alachua county is approximately 9:2 (119,205:32,143). The City of Gainesville, population 81,371 (Florida Statistical Abstracts, 1981), is the county's major urban area and the home of the University of Florida. Due to the presence of the university, major medical facilities, and numerous light industries, the city and its immediate surrounding area contain a large number of professional individuals. Additionally, the University of Florida, a public, state-funded institution, provides a major economic influence on the city.

Participating children were required to be currently living with at least one parent or legal guardian. It should be noted that this parent(s) or guardian(s) did not necessarily have to be the natural parent of the child. Children were not limited from participation in this study






-70-


by sex, race, religion, or parent's marital status. The only limitations placed on participation in this study were the exclusion of those children thought to be actively psychotic, retarded, or severely emotionally impaired, or limitations placed on subject availability as a function of individual elementary school policy. This was assured by sampling no special education classes within schools.

The sample selected for participation in this study was drawn from consenting public and private elementary schools in Alachua County (See Appendix G). Twenty-six schools were contacted to participate in this study with 15 schools agreeing to participate. A total of nine schools participated in the study. Five were public elementary schools, one was an affiliate of the University of Florida, and three were private schools.

Within each participating school, all consenting fourth and fifth grade classes were included in the potential sample. Classroom participation in the study was a function of class availability and teacher cooperation rather than researcher selection. Similarly, only those students obtaining parental consent to participate in this study were included in the sample. A total of 401 subjects participated in the study, yielding 726 completed mothers and fathers forms of the CPPS. Of this total, 575, approximately 80%, came from white children, while 151, approximately 20%, came from minority students. Three hundred and fifty-one observations (48%) were from males,






-71-


while 375 were from female students. In regard to family form, 540, or roughly 75% of participating children reported to be living with their two natural parents. Seventy-five students (10%) were living in single parent households, 81 (11%) were living in blended or remarried households, and 30

(4%) were living in extended families. Finally, of the total number of observations, 10 came from eight year olds, 307 came from nine year olds, 319 came from ten year olds, and five came from twelve year olds.

In viewing subjects who filled out questionnaires on mothers, a total of 394 children participated. Of these subjects, 308 (78%) were white, while 86 (22%) were minorities. Additionally, 190 (48%) of these observations on mothers were from males, with females contributing the remaining 204 observations. Of this sample, 269 (68%) reported living with both natural parents. Sixty-nine (18%) reported living with single parent mothers, 40 (10%) reported living with remarried or blended families, and 16 children (4%) reported living in extended households.

In reviewing the 332 subjects who provided observations on fathers, 267 (80%) were white and 65 (20%) were minorities. As with subjects evaluating mothers, 48% (161) were male, while 52% (171) were female. In regard to family form, 81% (271) reported living with both natural parents, with only six (2%) living with single parent fathers, 41 (13%) living in remarried, blended families, and 14 (4%) living with other relatives in an extended family.






-72-


Procedures

Administration of the instrument was conducted by the researcher, and took place in the classroom environment. Entire classes were tested as a group for purposes of efficiency and ease of administration. Administration of the CPPS was conducted during both morning and afternoon school hours.

A total of 1122 parental consent forms were distributed to potential subjects with 411 returned. This 37% return rate is somewhat inflated due to the inclusion of subjects drawn from P.K. Yonge School, where parental consent for research participation is provided upon entrance to school. Omitting these subjects, 1022 parental consent forms were distributed, with 291 (28%) returned. Only those students returning the parental consent form were allowed to participate in the study. Students who did not participate were instructed to work on written classroom assignments silently at their desks during the administration. Prior to administration of the CPPS, children were read standardized instructions (See Appendix H) and filled out a general demographic information sheet (Appendix I). Children filled out the CPPS for each parent and/or guardian with whom they lived. Students filling out only one CPPS worked on written classroom assignments while other students finished work on their second CPPS.






-73-


Data Analysis

Following administration, separate factor analyses were performed on mother and father forms to determine the factors common to each form. The extent to which the obtained factor structures corresponded with the theoretical constructs was examined to determine the level of construct validity for each form of the CPPS.


Reliability

Though issues of contemporary history exert some

influence over children's views of their parents, it is assumed that more stable parenting structure or patterns are more influential in dictating the directionality of children's perceptions of their parents, and ultimately in shaping the child's behavior. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, both forms of the CPPS were to be regarded as reliable measures to the extent that scores obtained from a second administration of the instrument corresponded with scores obtained from an initial administration of the CPPS. Additionally, the internal consistency of the instrument was also computed to provide another measure of reliability.



Subjects

To establish internal consistency for the CPPS, the

data obtained from the original sample was analyzed and thus no new subjects were be necessary for internal consistency analysis. Participants in the temporal reliability phase of






-74-


the study were a subset of the same sample population described in the previous section.

A total of 52 subjects participated in effort to

establish temporal reliability of the CPPS, yielding 95 observations. Of the 52 subjects who filled out forms reporting perceptions of their mothers, 38 (73%) were white, while 14 (27%) were minorities. The male to female ratio was 1:1, with 26 males and 26 females participating. In regard to family form, 36 students (69%) reported living with both natural parents, nine students (18%) reported living with single parent mothers, six students (11%) reported to be living in blended households, and only one reported to be living in an extended family household.

Of the 43 subjects reporting perceptions of fathers, 33 (77%) were white, while 10 (23%) were minorities. Twentyone males and 22 females contributed to this phase of the project. Finally, 36 (83%) of these subjects reported living with both natural parents, none lived with single parent fathers, six (15%) lived with remarried parents, and one lived in an extended family.

Selection of classes to participate in this sample subset was random and represented both fourth and fifth grade levels.



Procedures

Approximately 30 days following the initial administration of the CPPS, subjects were given a second






-75-


administration of the CPPS. The stability of children's responses over time provided an indication of the extent to which the CPPS was able to measure a consistent structure, rather than a transient situational attitude. In light of criticisms leveled against the stability of children's perceptions highlighted in the previous chapter, the establishment of temporal reliability for the CPPS was crucial. A similar procedure was followed as outlined in guidelines for the administration of the CPPS (See "Construct") with the exception that there was no re-distribution of the parental consent forms. Again, entire classrooms were sampled as a cluster.

In an effort to assess the extent to which the CPPS was internally reliable, the internal consistency of the scale was assessed. Results from the CPPS pilot study (Appendix C) provided preliminary findings in this area.



Data Analysis

For the establishment of reliability of the CPPS,

Pearson Product Moment Correlations were employed to assess its temporal reliability, while Coefficient Alpha analyses were employed to assess its internal consistency.



Limitations

One potential limitation of this study relates to sampling procedures employed. Due to the nature of the research and the sample size needed, it was necessary to






-76-


obtain subjects from public and private elementary schools. Inclusion of schools in the study was a function of individual school policy and not school desirability. Only schools which agreed to participate were available for inclusion. Thus, there exists the possibility that refusal to participate by schools was representative of a school policy which relates to parental attitudes. If this is the case, only sampling agreeable schools yielded a skewed sample. Though this possibility did exist, it was felt that it was more likely that participation decisions made by the schools reflected school administration policy rather than parental attitudes.

Another more powerful limitation in the sampling for

this study centers around the area of parental consent. Due to the nature of this research and the age of the target population, written parental consent was required for participation in the study. The possibility existed that parents who feared their children would evaluate them in a negative fashion withheld permission for their children to participate. Likewise, children who had poor relations with parents may not have brought parental consent forms home to be signed, and as such, eliminated themselves from the sample pool. This concern is somewhat minimized by the purpose of this research, but effects of such potential limitations cannot be overlooked.

Finally, the potential that teachers cooperation was reflective of parental attitudes also touches on the issue






-77-


of sampling. Though this is a possibility, it was felt that little resistance was given by teachers. It appeared that parents and administrators may have had more reservations regarding participation in this study than did teachers.

Another potential limitation of this study was that items on the CPPS may not have been appropriate and, as such, yielded misleading results. This concern was minimized by the nature of this study as an instrument refinement effort. The results of this study were not to be seen as conclusive but rather, directional in further refinements of the CPPS. Issues of contemporary history also entered in as potential limitations of this research, particularly in the time lapse between test and re-test phases of experimentation. It was thought however, that sources of error in this area tended to balance out and as such were canceled, with appropriate numbers.

Finally, another limitation of this study is its

generalizability. It was thought that children's relations with parents, and thus their perceptions of parents, were strongly influenced by the development stage of the child and family. It would therefore be expected that the same child would change perceptions of the same parents as a function of time. Because of this natural and "healthy" characteristic, findings for specific age groups can be generalized only to that same age group and not to children either younger or older. Norms for the CPPS would have to be established for different age groups, to ensure accurate use with children of varying age children.















CHAPTER IV

RESULTS



The purpose of this study was to develop validity and

reliability data for the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CCPS). Specific content and construct validity data were collected along with both internal and temporal reliabilities. Results of construct validity and reliability analyses are presented separately for mother and father forms of the CPPS.

Content Validity of the CPPS

A total of five experts having associate or clinical status in the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy evaluated the content of the CPPS by categorizing items in terms of theoretical construct areas which they represented. A summary of these evaluations across all five experts is presented in Table 2. A limit of no more than two expert placements in construct areas other than the one hypothesized for each item was used as a baseline criterion for determining whether an item was judged to represent construct areas described. Of the 45 items on the CPPS, experts' evaluations supported hypothesized constructs for 38 of the 45 items. Items 4, 5, 39, 40, 42, 44, and 45 were


-78-







-79-


TABLE 2
RESULTS OF EXPERT EVALUATIONS OF THE ITEM CONTENT OF THE CPPS


I FACTOR I ITEM GUIDANCE/AUTONOMY LIMIT SETTING NURTURING






-80-


TABLE 2 CONTINUED


I FACTOR

ITEM GUIDANCE/AUTONOMY LIMIT SETTING NURTURING


38 0 5 0 39 1 4 0 40 4 1 0 41 0 5 0 42 5 0 0 43 0 5 0 44 1 4 0 45 1 4 0






-81-


the only items categorized by more than two experts in construct areas other than those originally hypothesized.



Construct Validity of the CPPS

To determine the construct areas actually represented in the CPPS, a series of factor analyses were conducted. The factor structures of the mother and father forms of the CPPS were considered independently and results of these analyses are presented separately.



Factor Structure of the Mother Form

Three hundred and ninety-four subjects provided observations on mother forms of the CPPS which were used for factor analysis purposes. A Principal Component Factor Analysis with an orthogonal rotation was performed on the raw data. As a result of the anticipated relationship between the hypothesized factors, results of this data analysis yielded an unclear factor structure. Following this procedure, an oblique rotation to simple loadings was utilized to develop a clear factor matrix. This procedure yielded 14 factors for the mother form shown in Table 3. Results from this analysis suggested that a minimum of a five factor structure could best be used in effort to produce the most concise, clear factor structure for the mother form.

Next, oblique rotations with five, six, seven, and

eight factor structures were investigated with a six factor






-82-


structure indicating the clearest representation of factors in the mother form of the CPPS. This six factor structure was chosen because it yielded the fewest multiple factor loadings for items above the .30 level, and it provided the clearest, most representative factor structure in regard to common item content. This six factor structure is presented in Table 4.

This six factor structure accounted for 39% of the

total variance of the mother form of the CPPS. Items 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 30, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, and 43 did not load on any of the six factors above the .40 loading cut point used. Although item 28 loaded on factor 5 with a loading of -.40 and item 42 loaded on factor 3 with a loading of .45, these items were not representative of their respective factors and thus were disregarded with the above sixteen items, leaving 29 items found in Table 5.

Factor 1, named flexibility in encouraging participation in rule setting, contained seven items loading above .40. Loadings ranged from .47 to .72 for items in this factor. The content of items in this area all related to the encouragement of children's involvement in decision making and rule setting. This factor was seen as a subset of the general area of guidance or teaching children autonomy. Items in this factor related to wanting to know children's ideas and allowing children to help set rules. This factor accounted for 13% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS.






-83-


TABLE 3


FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ITEMS ON MOTHER FORMS
FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS
WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO SIMPLE SOLUTION

ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5


0.036 0.003 0.125 0.115
-0.075 0.354 0.018 0.103 0.098 0.070 0.015 0.123 0.001 0.074 0.106 0.166 0.073
-0.003
-0.023 0.279 0.009
-0.110
-0.230 0.025 0.116 0.661
-0.035
-0.014
-0.082
-0.202 0.684 0.547 0.725 0.245 0.051 0.331
-0.147 0.554


0.702
-0.131 0.205 0.186
-0.034 0.386
-0.108 0.087 0.167 0.036 0.134 0.028
-0.211 0.379 0.017 0.410
-0.065 0.086
-0.182 0.015
-0.079 0.165
-0.089 0.152
-0.211 0.075 0.612 0.079 0.473 0.142
0.130
-0.126
-0.061 0.261
-0.023 0.136 0.209
-0.153


0.097 0.093
-0.117 0.656
-0.113 0.086 0.202 0.014 0.060
-0.415
-0.033
-0.021 0.547 0.032
0.037
-0.172
-0.016
-0.069
-0.601
-0.129 0.245
0.022 0.169
-0.337 0.093 0.042 0.029
-0.072 0.136
-0.079
-0.059 0.031 0.053 0.106
-0.431 0.161 0.085
-0.019


0.001 0.000
-0.159 0.003
-0.141 0.006
0.028 0.124
-0.016 0.131
0.116
-0.001
-0.094
-0.090
0.034
-0.026
-0.155
-0.094
-0.051
-0.104
-0.304
0.134 0.038 0.031
0.152
-0.005
0.041
-0.037
-0.015 0.141
-0.127
-0.032
-0.030
-0.118
-0.031
-0.001
0.123 0.007


-0.036 0.824 0.015 0.078 0.729
-0.108 0.207
0.462
-0.040
0.029 0.070 0.014
-0.065
-0.044 0.057 0.238
-0.087
0.033 0.193 0.115
-0.049 0.118
-0.064 0.044
-0.030 0.065
-0.130
-0.071
0.028 0.209 0.008
-0.061 0.021
-0.070
-0.011 0.296
-0.005
-0.037






-84-


TABLE 3 CONTINUED


ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5


Eigen value


0.044 0.086
-0.161 0.151 0.116 0.042
-0.007


2.760


-0.071
-0.105 0.155 0.123 0.056
-0.005
-0.009


2.195


-0.082
-0.111
0.268
-0.162
-0.102 0.036
-0.010


1.987


0.017
-0.089
-0.187
-0.036 0.052 0.862 0.888


1.943


0.219
-0.105
-0.119 0.074 0.123
-0.057
-0.067


1.913






-85-


TABLE 3 CONTINUED


ITEM FACTOR 6 FACTOR 7 FACTOR 8 FACTOR 9 FACTOR 10


0.213 0.099
-0.087 0.042 0.016
-0.029 0.048 0.085 0.168
0.087
-0.220
-0.123
-0.014 0.066
-0.109 0.004
-0.003 0.767
-0.039
-0.076 0.033 0.707 0.366
-0.033
0.415
-0.118
-0.030 0.063
-0.004
-0.160
-0.100 0.170
-0.056
-0.080 0.104
-0.166
-0.123 0.051
-0.089 0.118
-0.102 0.076
-0.235 0.011
-0.020

1.838


-0.104
-0.034
-0.031
-0.055
-0.092
-0.144
-0.061 0.408
-0.007 0.187 0.269
0.954 0.097
-0.024 0.242 0.208 0.742
-0.061
-0.225
-0.006 0.597 0.085 0.090 0.148 0.062 0.082
-0.010
-0.085 0.199 0.019
0.018 0.126
-0.032
-0.084 0.125
-0.053 0.047 0.104
-0.183 0.077 0.165
-0.033 0.237
-0.073
-0.046

1.683


0.088
-0.031
-0.130 0.023 0.043 0.100 0.047 0.032 0.021
0.196 0.375
-0.069 0.137 0.394
-0.091 0.178
-0.063 0.011 0.133
-0.087
-0.080
-0.134 0.287 0.040
-0.028 0.106
-0.029 0.091
-0.085 0.187
-0.153 0.180
-0.034 0.473 0.078 0.044
-0.042 0.184 0.627 0.345 0.163 0.091 0.368
-0.003
-0.020


1.648


-0.014 0.104 0.338
-0.155 0.027 0.135 0.603
-0.010
-0.008 0.499 0.207
-0.111
0.169 0.019
-0.139
-0.321 0.057 0.073
-0.095 0.112
-0.061
-0.034 0.145
0.582
-0.126
-0.029 0.052 0.024
-0.014
-0.138 0.087
-0.093
-0.086 0.129 0.055 0.083 0.027
-0.096 0.023
-0.211
-0.085 0.194 0.257
-0.036 0.074


0.038
-0.002 0.001 0.032 0.040 0.214 0.051 0.002 0.021
-0.131
-0.031 0.158 0.112 0.189 0.236 0.105 0.037
-0.131 0.130 0.646
-0.067 0.020 0.389 0.240 0.043
-0.138 0.056 0.013 0.174
-0.050
-0.006
-0.096 0.189 0.054
-0.088 0.021 0.667 0.157
-0.075 0.386
-0.025
-0.050
-0.006 0.010 0.011


1.633 1.618


Eigen value






-86-


TABLE 3 CONTINUED


ITEM FACTOR 11 FACTOR 12 FACTOR 13 FACTOR 14


0.010
-0.066
-0.231 0.078
-0.057
-0.190
0.016
-0.027
-0.096 0.251
-0.023 0.132 0.018 0.040
0.123 0.077
-0.064
-0.008 0.028
-0.007
-0.145
0.115
-0.213
-0.017
0.083 0.035 0.097
0.713 0.169
-0.488
0.077
-0.079
-0.026
-0.079
-0.482 0.027 0.120 0.046 0.054
0.038 0.329 0.210 0.136
-0.006
-0.076


Eigen value


1.545


-0.032 0.071
-0.070 0.124
-0.166
0.028 0.023
0.128 0.040
-0.118 0.007
0.698
-0.053
-0.038
-0.627 0.083
-0.057 0.032
0.084
-0.008
-0.149
-0.122 0.147
-0.004
0.202 0.141
0.041 0.019 0.108
-0.129 0.026
-0.233 0.062
0.000 0.083
-0.197
0.015
-0.254
-0.090
-0.109 0.144
-0.262 0.153
-0.063
0.003

1.437


-0.152 0.057 0.504
-0.047
-0.003 0.026 0.065
-0.158
-0.030
-0.151 0.148 0.039
-0.008
-0.064 0.009
-0.099 0.025 0.123 0.048
-0.095 0.060 0.012
-0.074
-0.064 0.643
0.056 0.177 0.080 0.149 0.336 0.049
-0.020 0.055 0.010
-0.016 0.085 0.072 0.012
-0.016 0.252 0.253 0.475
-0.024 0.044 0.012

1.378


0.084
-0.021 0.012 0.147
0.029
-0.147
-0.088
-0.149 0.777 0.006
-0.043 0.183 0.353
-0.281 0.188
-0.037 0.117 0.129 0.098
-0.053
-0.087 0.026
-0.089 0.087 0.017
-0.048 0.150
-0.038
-0.092 0.063
0.130 0.129
-0.025
-0.171 0.053
-0.155
0.120
-0.020 0.214
-0.119 0.263
-0.095
-0.078
-0.036 0.043


1.318






-87-


TABLE 4
RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN TO A SIX FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR MOTHER


OBLIQUE ROTATION FORMS OF THE CPPS


ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6


0.722 0.676
0.632 0.583 0.576 0.500
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.316 0.361
0.0
0.329
0.0 0.0
0.276


0.0 0.0
0.251
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.625
0.617 0.591 0.574 0.516 0.295
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.359
0.0
0.382
0.0
0.371 0 282
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.299 0.386
0.0
0.439
0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.623 0.579 0.543
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.454
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.286 0.386
0.0 0.0
0.394
0.0
-0.467
0.0
0.301


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.755 0.734 0.640 0.638
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.584 0.552
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.263 0.456
0.0
0.320
-0.402
0.253 0.266
0.406
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.700 0.660 0.622
0.0
0.286
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.334
0.0






-88-


TABLE 4 CONTINUED


ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6


0.352
0.0
0.379
0.0
0.472
0.0


0.0
0.393
0.0
0.322
0.0
0.376


0.0 0.0
0.453 0.258
0.0 0.0


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0
-0.318
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0.0 0.0
0.254
-0.253
0.0 0.0


The above factor loading matrix has been rearranged so that the columns appear in decreasing order of variance explained by factors. The rows have been rearranged so that for each successive factor, loadings greater than 0.5000 appear first. Loadings less than 0.2500 have been replaced by zero.






-89-


Factor 2, named parent-child relationship and contact, contained a total of six items. A loading range between .44 and .62 was revealed for items in this factor. Seen as a component of the global construct of nurturance, items in this area reflected parent-child activity and communication. This factor accounted for 8% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS.

Factor 3, named encouragement of children's

responsibility for behavioral consequences, was seen as a subset of the general area of guidance and autonomy. This factor contained five items which loaded between .45 and .62. These items reflected parental efforts to teach children to anticipate behavioral consequences and accept responsibility for their behaviors. This factor accounted for 7% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS.

Factor 4, named leniency of rules, contained four items which loaded between .63 and .75. These items, which were seen as a subset of the general construct area of control, all directly addressed maternal leniency in limit setting and discipline. This factor accounted for 4% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS.

Factor 5, named parental concern, contained four items with a loading range between .40 and .58. This factor, which represented a subset of the general area of nurturance, contained items which related to parental worry and concern for children. Some of the items represented this theme by addressing parental monitoring and supervision




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT MEASURING CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTING BY HERBERT M. STEIER DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1983

PAGE 2

Copyright 1983 by Herbert Michael Steier

PAGE 3

In loving memory of my grandmother, Seren Fried Steier.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank a number of people who helped to make the completion of this project a reality. First, I want to thank Dr. Ellen Amatea, my committee chairperson, for her ideas, encouragement, and support. I would also like to thank the other members of ray committee. Dr. Larry Loesch and Dr. Steve Olejnik, for their valuable insights and assistance. Thanks must also be extended to Dr. Joe Wittraer for all he has done for me. I would like to thank Behrokh Ahmadi for her invaluable assistance and great patience in helping me with my data analysis. I would also like to thank Mr. Dan Rich, who put this whole thing on paper. It was a pleasure working with you both. Appreciation must also be extended to all the principals, school counselors, teachers and students, in the schools that participated in this study. I would like to extend a very special thanks to four very important people. First, I would like to thank John Steier, my dear father, who taught me to believe in myself, to challenge myself, and to fight for what I believe in. Next, I would like to thank Betsy Steier, my loving mother. iv

PAGE 5

who taught me tolerance, patience, and what it is like to be loved. Next, thanks are extended to Yvonne Verplanke, my big sister, life-long best friend, and confidant. Finally, I must give very special thanks to ray wife, Nancy Blackmon, for loving me as you do. V

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT X CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 5 Need for the Study 7 Purpose of the Study 11 Rationale 11 Definition of Terms 12 Organization of the Remainder of the Study .... 14 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 15 Introduction 15 Parenting Philosophy 15 Traditional-Restrictive Model 16 Rational-Permissive Model 18 Psychological Theories and Parenting Trends . 21 Summary 22 Structural Family Theory 24 Family Model 25 Supportive Research 29 Low Socioeconomic Families 29 Psychosomatic Families 31 Alcoholic Families 32 Addict Families 33 Summary 33 Existing Instruments on Children's Perceptions of Parenting 35 Univariate Measures 40 Conflict-Integration 40 Love-Nurturance 41 Conflict-Aggression 41 Role Differentiation 42 Power, Affection, Support 43 Autonomy-Achievement Training 44 Other Constructs 45 Multivariate Measures 46 Intrapsychic-Interpersonal Subject Measures . 46 Observational Measures 48 Interpersonal Objective Measures 52 Summary 57 vi

PAGE 7

Page CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY 6 2 Introduction ^2 Item Development 63 Content Validity 67 Procedures 67 Data Analysis 68 Construct Validity 68 Subjects 69 Procedures 72 Data Analysis 73 Reliability 73 Subjects 73 Procedures 74 Data Analysis 75 Limitations 75 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 78 Content Validity of the CPPS 78 Construct Validity of the CPPS 81 Factor Structure of the Mother Form 81 Factor Structure of the Father Form 93 Reliability of the CPPS 107 Temporal Reliability for the Mother Form . . 107 Temporal Reliability for the Father Form . . 107 Internal Reliability for the Mother Form . . 108 Internal Reliability for the Father Form . . 108 CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 109 Discussion of Validity Data 109 Content Validity 109 Construct Validity 113 Discussion of Reliability Data 116 Temporal Reliability 116 Internal Reliability 117 Summary of Result and Item Revisions 117 Item Revisions 117 Summary 119 Limitations to Interpretation of Data 121 Sampling Procedure 121 Administration 122 Future Research 122 Parenting Theory and Family Counseling . . . 124 APPENDICES A CPPS PILOT INSTRUMENT 126 B PARENTAL CONSENT FORMS 133 C ITEM RESPONSE FREQUENCY RESULTS FROM PILOT OF THE CPPS STUDY 135 vii i

PAGE 8

Page D COEFFICIENT ALPHA RESULTS FROM PILOT OF CPPS . 138 E REVISED CPPS 139 F CPPS EXPERT EVALUATION RATING FORM 145 G SCHOOLS CONTACTED FOR PARTICIPATION 147 H INSTRUCTION FOR CLASS 149 I INFORMATION SHEET 150 REFERENCES 151 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 171 V i i i

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 CONTENT AREAS OF SUBSCALES FOR THE CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTING SCALE 64 2 RESULTS OF EXPERT EVALUATIONS OF THE ITEM CONTENT OF THE CPPS 79 3 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ITEMS ON MOTHER FORMS FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO SIMPLE SOLUTION 8 3 4 RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO A SIX FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR MOTHER FORMS OF THE CPPS ... 87 5 FINAL FACTORS IN THE MOTHER FORM OF THE CPPS 90 6 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ITEMS ON FATHER FORMS FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO SIMPLE SOLUTION 94 7 RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO AN EIGHT FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR THE FATHER FORMS OF THE CPPS 9 8 8 FINAL FACTORS IN THE FATHER FORM OF THE CPPS 103 9 EXPERT CLASSIFICATION BY RESULTING FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR THE MOTHER FORM OF THE CPPS . .111 10 EXPERT CLASSIFICATION BY RESULTING FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR THE FATHER FORM OF THE CPPS . .112 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT MEASURING CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTING By Herbert Michael Steier April, 1983 Chairperson: Ellen Amatea Major Department: Counselor Education The gathering of information from multiple levels within the family system is important in assessing family interaction and structure. The purpose of this study was the development of an instrument, The Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CPPS), which measures children's perceptions of parenting through the use of separate mother and father forms. Special emphasis was placed on the development of items and on the establishment of reliability and validity of the instrument. A total of 401 nine, ten, and eleven year-old children provided 726 observations on both CPPS forms. Subjects were all fourth and fifth grade students attending public and private elementary schools in Alachua County, Florida.

PAGE 11

Responses to the 45-item CPPS were analyzed separately for mother and father forms in establishing construct validity, internal reliability, and temporal reliability. Results indicated temporal reliability for the mother form was .70 at a thirty-day interval and .85 for the father form. Internal reliability for the mother form of the CPPS was .74, while internal reliability for the father form was .70. Following separate factor analyses for both CPPS forms, a six-factor structure for the mother form and an eightfactor structure for the father form best represented the factor structure of the CPPS. Common factors for both mother and father forms were those of encouraging participation in rule setting, parent-child relationship and contact, leniency of rules, parental concern, and the encouragement of children's independent behavior. The mother form included an additional factor of encouraging responsibility for behavioral consequences, while the father form included the additional factors of strictness in rules, strictness in expectations, and consistency of rules. It was concluded that these factor analysis findings partially supported the presence of the three hypothesized construct areas of nurturance, guidance/autonomy, and control in the CPPS. The resulting factors were seen as specific subdivisions of these three global construct areas. Further refinements of items in the CPPS were recommended. Implications for future research were discussed as were implications for parenting theory and family counseling. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The family is the only social institution other than religion which is formally developed in all societies (Goode, 1964). In all known societies, both past and present, individuals have lived their lives and defined themselves as part of a family, enmeshed in its complex network of roles and interactions. This basic organizational structure known as "the family" is certainly not unique to the human species. Okun and Rappaport (1980) state, "all animal species provide for some type of organizational structure during the time that an infant is too young to satisfy its own needs for food, shelter, and safety" (p. 5). Thus, as the cornerstone of society, the family plays a critical role in the development and growth of both the individual and the society, providing a biological, social and cultural framework in which life may continue. As the human species has developed at varying rates across cultures and throughout history, the family has functionally adapted itself to societal changes. Thus, family organization, structure and function change with the

PAGE 13

-2times. Similarly, different cultures, depending on their development and individual characteristics, require varied degrees of organization and structure within the family unit. Minuchin (1974) suggests that as "primitive societies grow more complex . . . societal structures are differentiated" (p. 46) and become more specific. This specification of structure and function filters down to the family unit as evidenced in family forms in modern western society. As our societal structure changes, with women's participation in the civilian labor force increasing from 43.3% in 1970 to 51.6% in 1980 (United States Census, 1981), with divorce rates climbing, and with single parent families on the rise, a good deal of attention has been placed on descriptive studies of family form in relation to children and their development. In reviewing literature on family form, Marotz-Baden , Adams, Bueche, Munro and Munro suggest, "a basic tenet of much of the literature suggests that variations from the nuclear traditional family produce deviations in children's personality, social behavior and school success" (1979, p. 5). This deficit model of family form is illustrated in the work of Parsons (1949), Herzog and Sudia (1970) and Goldstein, Freud and Solnit (1973), to mention just a few. Arguments against the deficit model, in favor of a more process-oriented model where deviation is explained in terms of family interaction rather than family form, have been made by an increasing number of authors

PAGE 14

-3(e.g., Hoffman, 1974, 1977, Gold and Andres, 1978, Etaugh, 1974 Marantz and Mansfield, 1977, and Marotz-Baden et al. , 1979), suggesting that variations in family form do not, in and of themselves, lead to family or individual dysfunction, and in fact, may be advantageous in increasing children's independence and autonomy while reducing sex-role stereotyping. Clearly, the relationship between children's development and their families has been an important subject of study in understanding children and their behavior. The "human experience of identity has two eleraents--a sense of belonging and a sense of being separate. The laboratory in which these ingredients are mixed and dispensed is the family ..." (Minuchin, 1974, p. 47). Following this metaphor, the scientist who is responsible for the mixture of these critical elements in the creation of human identity is the parent. Ausubel and Sullivan (1970) suggest that "parental influences are so critical and pervasive in child development that it is almost impossible to discuss any aspect of this field [child development] without considering its relationship to parent attitudes and behaviors" (p. 289). These authors go on to suggest that "parent-child relationships deserve . . . extensive treatment because they constitute perhaps the most important single category of variables impinging on the personality development and socialization of the child" (Ausubel and Sullivan, 1970, p. 289).

PAGE 15

-4With parents wanting to do the best they can in raising children, their attitudes are affected by social, cultural and personal factors which in turn, affect their parenting behaviors. Similarly, parents are influenced, and may feel somewhat pressured, to conform with popularized expectations or images of what may be termed "acceptable parental behavior." For example, "... a recent article that reported on the development of 'Advice to Parents' in this country [suggested]: In 1910, the slogan was 'spank them'; in 1920, it was 'deprive them'; in 1930 it was 'ignore them'; in 1940 it was 'reason with them'; in 1950 it was 'love them'; in 1960 it was 'spank them lovingly'; and in 1970, it was 'TO HELL WITH THEM'" (Okun and Rappaport, 1980, p. 218). Faced with this, along with other social, cultural and individual issues, parenting appears to be a confusing and complex topic. Although a diversity of literature can be found describing appropriate parenting and child-rearing behaviors, a few key concepts appear to be included by most theorists as central to parenting. Breckenridge and Vincent (1955) outline these common areas by suggesting parents should provide children with affection ( nurturance ) , discipline (control) and an environment in which to learn (guidance). Additionally, the intensity of the parent-child relationships, that is, the degree to which a parent is involved in these key parenting functions, is a common element in much of the literature.

PAGE 16

-5Unf ortunately , as attempts are made to investigate the area of parenting and its effects on children's development, it has become apparent that there has been a distinctive lag in the development and application of assessment/diagnostic measurement tools, particularly from the child's perspective, which can be used for family diagnostic or evaluative purposes. This lag in the development of family assessment instrumentation has made interpretation of results of parenting studies more difficult, unpredictable and often times, unreliable. Statement of the Problem Within the past ten years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of family-oriented assessment instruments (both published and unpublished) which are available to the researcher and clinician. In a recent review, Straus and Brown, (1978), cited 813 referenced and documented family instruments. Although abundant, serious methodological and technical concerns regarding the quality of many of these assessment tools have been voiced by numerous researchers (Gurman and Kniskern, 1981, and Straus and Brown, 1978). In reviewing family assessment instruments, Straus and Brown (1978) note "... a tabulation of a random sample of one hundred (100) of the instruments in this book reveals . . . more than half (58%) give no evidence of reliability. In respect to validity, the situation is even less adequate. Almost three quarters (65%) did not even

PAGE 17

-6mention the concept of validity, much less offer any evidence" (p. 5). Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976) in an adaptation of the work of Lake, Miles and Earle (1973), describe five basic shortcomings in family diagnostic tools: the scarcity of longitudinal and empirical instrument development; the tendency to use or develop instruments without critically assessing their appropriateness for use with given populations; the lack of available information on many instruments; the excessive use of "faddish" instruments; and the problem that many instruments have limited practical application. This sobering information leaves the researcher/therapist/educator wary of available instruments and somewhat hesitant to use them. Similar concerns have also been raised regarding the sexist nature of many instruments and the lack of sound conceptual frameworks for large proportions of these instruments (Straus and Brown, 1978). Clearly, there is a great need for reliable and valid measures of perceptual and behavioral change in working with children, couples, and families (Cromwell, Olson and Fournier, 1976). Additionally, sound instrumentation is needed in the area of descriptive research, where attempts are being made to define and evaluate special populations. It is only through critical review of existing diagnostic and evaluative tools that one can begin to discriminate between strong and weak instruments, be more selective in the use of available measures, and gain direction for sorely needed

PAGE 18

-7replication studies and further instrument development. This push for the refinement of family instrumentation takes on added significance in light of the call of Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976) for the "linking [of] diagnosis and evaluation to the intervention process and the importance of bridging research, theory, and practice" (p. 2), in the area of family/systems treatment. Need "The assumption, indeed the fear that the ways in which infants are treated by their parents provide the basis for personality development . . . has been part of scientific literature since its beginnings. Fortunately, recent evidence on infants' contribution to interactions . . . has provided balance" (Walters and Walters, 1980, p. 817). Studies by Korner (in Walters and Walters, 1980) and ClarkeStewart (1973, 1978, in Walters and Walters, 1980) support this point and suggest the importance of not only treating, but assessing families from a systemic perspective. Valid self-report questionnaires that assess selfesteem and attitudes of children toward parents and schools are clearly needed ( Coopersmith , 1967). O'Leary and Turkewitz (1978) in reviewing methodological errors in marital and child treatment research emphasize the "strong need for data from the child's perspective in evaluation of child therapy" (p. 752). The same argument holds true for descriptive studies.

PAGE 19

-8The validity of children reporting their perceptions of parenting has been challenged in terms of accuracy and generalizability. Itkin contends that, Caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions as to parental attitudes from reports made by children. . . . Parental behavior when studied through children's reports should be recognized for what it is — a report of parental behavior as it is observed by their children, and it can not be assumed that these reports are perfectly valid indicators of underlying parent attitudes. To say the least, there are without doubt individual variations among children in their ability to observe and evaluate the behavior of their parents. Inaccuracies in children's reports due to emotional and attitudinal factors may introduce a source of error the size of which should be known in evaluating the result of investigations based upon such data. (Itkin, 1952, p. 74) Such criticisms of children's perceptions of parenting research are valid in part. Naturally, all children will differ in their abilities, both cognitively and perceptually. "Cognitive and verbal immaturity set limits on the child's ability to make fine distinctions among feeling tones, [and] to conceptualize ..." (Ausubel and Sullivan, 1970, p. 305), thus placing limits on data gathering with young children. "Therefore, in regard to the child's perception of the parenting they receive, it would seem to be of importance to consider the nature of the child's cognitive framework at various stages in their development . . . to be able to specify eventually, the developmental transformations which may occur" (Appel, 1977, p. 1693). Thus, as with any instrument, assessing any given population, one must be sensitive and aware of both the social and

PAGE 20

developmental factors at play if interpretation is to be accurate and meaningful. Importantly, children's perceptions of parenting should not be viewed as valid indicators of underlying parent attitudes. They are, rather, children's reactions to parental behaviors and, as such, are interpersonal in nature, not intrapsychically bound. Such interpersonal information is representative of a "piece" of the parent-child relationship, and therefore provides relevant information on both family structure and interaction. "Although parent behavior is an objective event in the real world, it affects children . . . only to the extent and in the form in which they perceive it" (Ausubel, Balthazar, Rosenthal, Blackman, Schpoont and Welkowitz, 1954, p. 173). Thus, children's perceptions reflect their realities. Estvan and Estvan, (1959) echo this point stating, "the way in which an individual perceives or regards a situation is directly related to their behavior . . . perception is also involved in understanding other people's behavior which in turn, modifies our reaction to whatever they do" (p. 4-5). This feedback loop between perceptions of others and subsequent behaviors makes it clear that children's perceptions and behaviors cannot be viewed from an intrapsychic perspective. They are interpersonal in nature, representing part of the larger system in which children operate and rather, must be viewed in relation to the social context in which they occur. If accurate information is to be obtained on

PAGE 21

-10families or on parenting practices, information must therefore be gathered from multiple levels within the family (Gurman and Kniskern, 1978, 1981) to reflect the total family system. The assumption made here is that individual behavior and perceptions can only be understood in terms of their relationship to the system in which they occur. Following this systemic perspective, data should be gathered from all family members to yield complete and accurate information. Instruments that measure children's perceptions of parenting can be used as a means of gathering information on a child or family by examining an individual's perceptions of parenting or by comparing perceptions that family members have of one another. Such instruments have applicability in both clinical and non-clinical situations. Not only can they be used clinically as pre-post treatment measures, or as measures of treatment progress, they can also be used in non-clinical settings for descriptive purposes (such as comparing perceptions of parents of single-parent children to that of dual-parent children), or for evaluative purposes (for example, measuring the effectiveness of a parent education program). Finally, such instruments have the potential for use in developmentally-or iented activities such as family enrichment programs, to increase family awareness and communicat ion. In light of the need to gather information from the child's perspective and the lack of adequate assessment

PAGE 22

-11devices, there appears to be a significant need to develop an instrument which addresses these two conditions. Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument, the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CPPS), which measures nine, ten and eleven-year-old children's perceptions of parenting. The focus of the research centered on the development and refinement of an assessment tool appropriate for use with nine, ten and eleven year-old children which was both theoretically and technically sound. Two forms of the instrument were developed. One measured children's perceptions of mother's parenting while the other measured children's perceptions of father's parenting. Rationale In effort to assure content validity of the CPPS, the content of the instrument was evaluated by experts in the field of family therapy. Two separate forms for mothers and fathers were developed in effort to allow children to differentiate parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers. With the exception of sex, both instruments were identical. This evaluation of the content of the CPPS was done after field testing and refinement of a pilot instrument. Field testing of both the pilot and revised instruments was conducted through the use of samples drawn from local public

PAGE 23

-12and private schools. This non-clinical sample was chosen for the purposes of finding a group representative of the larger population of nine, ten and eleven year-old children. The only children excluded from participation in this study were those considered to be severely emotionally impaired, learning disabled or mentally ill. Therefore, special education classes were not sampled. No limitations were placed on participation in regard to family form. Entire classes were sampled as a cluster for convenience and ease in administration. Nine, ten and eleven year-old children were chosen as a target population in this study in light of the difficulties in both methodology and practicality encountered by prior instruments assessing children's perceptions of parenting. Similarly, the development of new instrumentation in this area was selected as opposed to the refinement of existing instruments, because of serious methodological concerns in existing instruments and the lack of varied theoretical orientations in such measures. Definition of Terms For the purpose of clarity, definitions of the following terms are provided: Family structure . "Family structure can be defined as the invisible set of functional demands that organizes the ways in which family members interact" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 54).

PAGE 24

-13Family systems . "Family systems represent a dynamic order of people (along with their intellectual, emotional and behavioral processes) standing in mutual interaction" (Okun and Rappaport , 1980, p. 7). Family subsystems . Family subsystems refer to discrete functional units within the family system. These subsystems "can be formed by generation, by sex, by interest or by function" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 52). Boundaries . Boundaries can exist around systems or subsystems, and are rules that govern "who participates and how" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 53). Boundaries may be clear, enmeshed or disengaged and function to differentiate the system. Clear boundaries . Clear boundaries are seen as healthy. They are found in relationships considered to be clinically within the normal range. Clear boundaries are well defined, yet flexible enough to permit interaction between subsystems. Enmeshed boundaries . Enmeshed boundaries can be characterized as diffuse and undefined where relationships tend to be too close. Disengaged boundaries . Disengaged boundaries can be seen as inappropriately rigid where resulting relationships tend to be distant. Nurturance . By definition, nurturance can be defined as the act of supplying "food, nourishment and protection" (Webster, 1976, p. 1552). In regard to families, this

PAGE 25

-14term relates particularly to the provision of food and shelter and a sense of love or emotional closeness. Guidance . Webster (1976) defines guidance as "to regulate or manage — direct or supervise towards some desirable end ... or development" (p. 1009). This refers particularly to the development of autonomous and independent behavior. Control . Webster (1976) defines control as "to exercise a restraining or direct influence over ... to regulate" (p. 497). In regard to families, this term refers to the establishment and maintenance of limits. Organization of the Remainder of the Study The remainder of this study is organized into four chapters. Chapter II contains a review of the literature related to attitudes about parenting and current methods of assessing children's perceptions of parenting. A discussion of research methodology and data collection procedure is in Chapter III. The results of the study are presented in Chapter IV, including analysis of the content, factor structure, and reliability of the instrument. Chapter V contains a summary, including conclusions made from the investigation and recommendations for further research.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Introduction A review of related literature will focus on the evolution of attitudes in this country regarding appropriate parenting behavior. Methods of assessing these behaviors will also be examined. A description of the conceptual base for the development of the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale will complete this chapter. Parenting Philosophy The idea that parents influence the development of their children has its roots in antiquity. Throughout history, there can be found a vast quantity of literature suggesting that parents influence their children's development. Although the literature on parental behaviors and their influences on children have varied emphases, two general philosophical models of parenting have been used (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). The first parenting model has been termed the traditional-restrictive model. In this model children were seen as "empty slates" subject to the authority of parents. Parenting therefore focused on "imprinting" -15-

PAGE 27

-16parental expectations on the child. It was the parent's responsibility to train children, while it was the child's role to obey. Discipline and training best characterized this approach. This viewpoint was most conunonly associated with parenting theory before the 1930 's. The second model of parenting, the rational-permissive model, was popular during and following 1940. In contrast to earlier approaches, this model emphasized the development of the child. It stressed a more "scientific" approach to parenting, and emphasized warmth and nurturance in parent-child relations. Children were encouraged to develop autonomous, independent behaviors while parents typically placed fewer limits and expectations on children in an effort to achieve this end. Contemporary theories of parenting may incorporate elements from both of these models. For example, though many current parenting models stress independence for children as they develop, discipline is still seen as a crucial element in parenting behavior. Recent models, which utilize increased knowledge regarding developmental competencies and expectations, suggest a variety of parental behaviors as a function of the developmental stage of the child. Traditional-Restrictive Model Prior to the mid-1800's, advice on parenting in the United States came primarily from England (Brim, 1959). The mother's influence on children was of primary concern, with

PAGE 28

-17fathers playing only a small part in child-rearing. Childrearing advice, with its roots in Calvinist philosophy, viewed children as "born depraved" with parents forcing children to obey in order to free the child of their evil nature (Brim, 1959). This emphasis on forcing the child to "obey" remained central to parenting ideas for much of the remainder of the 19th century. Around the turn of the century, between approximately 1890-1910, parenting philosophies began to shift in what was called by some an era of "sweet permissiveness" (Brim, 1959). Okun and Rappaport (1980) describe this period as characterized by a concern for the development of the child's character. Moral traits were emphasized through religion and discipline. In addition, there was a rising new interest in children's physical health. This preoccupation with moral, spiritual and physical aspects of child development typified the values of the Victorian era in which it flourished. With the waning of Victorianisra between 1910-1920, parenting philosophies reverted back toward stricter discipline and control (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). The mother continued to be the primary care-giver for children in what Brim (1959) called "the age of the mother." Rigid discipline characterized popular beliefs about parenting until the 1930 's, though a slight shift in thought was detected during the 1920 's in response to the influence of John B. Watson and the behavioral movement. In what Johnson

PAGE 29

-18and Medinnus (1969) suggest as the first revolution in 20th century parenting, the emphasis in child rearing shifted to conditioning and training. In his 1928 work, Psychological Care of Infant and Child , (in Johnson and Medinnus, 1969) Watson called for parenting to become objective and firm, and to concern itself with conditioning children through behavioral methods. Interestingly, for one of the first times, the concept of independence was seen in the literature. Arlitt (1931) echoed Watson's behavioral emphasis stressing training and education of children and mothers in his work. Psychology for Parents . He suggested that children would respond to honesty, fairness, affection and fair discipline. Rational-Permissive Model Until this point, parenting theories had been dominated by themes of strict discipline, rigid control and the training of children. This restrictive model began to be expanded by the advent of the behavioral movement and its influence on parenting practices. By the mid-1930's with the influence of Sigmund Freud and G. Stanley Hall dominating psychological thought, a real shift in parenting thought began with a new emphasis on the personality development of the child (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). As a trans it ionary period leading the way to more permissive parenting models, the shift in emphasis from discipline to nurturance was apparent. Nimkoff (1933, in Thorpe, 1940) in discussing the

PAGE 30

-19ideal parent-child relationship stressed that the child had two parents, that the parents love each other, that the parents love the child, that the parents understand the child, and that parents help the child reach "selfhood." Parents were encouraged to love their children, accept the differences between parents and children, and realize that there are two sides to every situation. In addition to stressing nurturance in parent-child relations, the idea of viewing parent-child relationships along a continuum of involvement was now widely accepted. Champney (1941a) presented parental behaviors on a continuum from under involvement to overinvolvement . Similarly, Cole (1947) addressed the style and degree to which parents are involved with their children, suggesting a middle ground of involvement may be the healthiest for child development. Bruce and Freeman (1942) stressed a similar concept in viewing maternal behavior on a continuum from rejection to overprotection. Bruce and Freeman (1942) suggested, "it is clear that such disparate and extreme forms of treatment will have very appreciable effects upon the development of a child's personality and behavior" (p. 220). These authors presented a "healthy model" of parent-child relations where security, organization, freedom to make supervised decisions, affection and non-autocratic discipline were stressed. This rationale-permissive parenting model remained the dominant parenting model throughout the 1950 's. It was a

PAGE 31

-20decade which also stressed an intellectual approach to child-rearing. Bruch (1952) termed this period, "the age of the educated parent" and stressed love and affection as important areas of child-rearing. Although the emphasis in child-rearing strategies during this time was focused on the affective domain of parent-child relationships, the concept of discipline was not totally ignored. Ilg and Ames (1955) discussed the need for consistency in parental discipline behaviors and presented a model of discipline they called "informed permissiveness." This discipline strategy called for understanding what can be realistically expected of a child, particularly in relation to the child's personality. Beecher and Beecher (1955) also addressed child discipline suggesting there is a certain insecurity which is a product of a lack of limits. They stated that there is a security in justice, and recommended a form of discipline that sets limits while not overprotecting children or allowing them no choice. Support for this view can also be found in the work of Illingworth (1972). Similarly, Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) summarized child rearing through factor analysis results of maternal interviews, stressing maternal warmth, punishment and permissiveness as critical elements in child rearing. Many of these same views remained dominant in the 1960 's and where popularized, particularly by the writings of Spock (1963) in his book. Baby and Child Care . Today we find ourselves at a point where parenting is no longer viewed as merely a matter of strict discipline or

PAGE 32

-21scientific principle. Rather it is viewed as an exemplary process where limits are negotiated, not imposed, and freedom is considered a payoff for responsibility (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). Psychological Theories and Parenting Trends Psychological research and counseling theories have exerted an influence in shaping popular ideas about parenting. In addition to the influence of Watson (1928, in Johnson and Medinnus, 1969) more contemporary behaviorists such as Bijou and Baer (1967), and Bannatyne and Bannatyne (1973) have addressed parenting concerns. From this behavioral perspective, parents are taught to identify salient reinforcements for children (focusing on positive reinforcement) in shaping their child's behavior. Behavioral principles such as successive approximations, extinction, and shaping are employed by parents with a familiar focus on conditioning children's behavior. Similarly, other psychological theories have influenced the child-rearing techniques practiced by today's parent. The theories of Alfred Adler have had a marked influence in the area of parenting, mainly through the work of Driekurs and Soltz (1964), Dinkmeyer and McKay (1976), Grey (1974) and others. With their emphasis on understanding the purpose of behavior and misbehavior, encouragement, and the establishment of logical consequences for behavior, Adlerians have strongly affected the parenting

PAGE 33

-22moveraent, particularly through the development of parent education programs such as Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (Dinkmeyer and McKay, 1976). Interestingly, though Adlerians have a distinctive philosophical perspective, they address many of the same areas as do other theorists. With their emphasis on education, Adlerians stress encouragement ( nurturance ) , consequences for behavior (discipline) and strive to establish a feeling of belonging and success in children as they move towards autonomy and independence . Other popular parent education programs, particularly Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) (Gordon, 1970), have influenced parenting through the adaptation of psychological and counseling theory. Stemming from a client-centered foundation and the work of Rogers and Carkhuff, (in Corey, 1977) PET presents parenting from the humanistic perspective. Stressing active listening techniques, sending "I" messages, and "no-lose" problem solving techniques, this model of parenting has gained wide popularity. Stressing discipline by negotiation rather than by power, PET highlights the nurturant and autonomy-enhancing areas of the parent-child relationship through the establishment of a healthy atmosphere within which children can grow. Summary Literature in the area of parenting and child rearing is both vast and abundant. In addition to material on

PAGE 34

parenting attitudes and practices, information is abundant on areas such as why parents have children (Moriarity, 1970; Pohlman, 1969), birth-order and parenting (Clausen, 1966; Warren, 1966; Breckenridge and Vincent, 1955, Sampson, 1965), social class and parenting (Becker, 1964; Walters, Conner, and Zunich, 1964; Bronf enbrenner , 1961b), and culture and parenting (LeMasters, 1970; Guthrie and Jacobs, 1966; and Whiting, 1953). When reviewing literature on parenting strategies, at first glance materials appear to have wide divergence in areas of emphasis. Upon closer examination, however, there appears to be a core of three behavioral areas common to most of these theories. These are the areas of nurturance, discipline and autonomy development. Although different theorists may emphasize one concept more than another, both as a function of their theoretical perspective and contemporary context, all three areas appear common to most parenting approaches. In addition, the idea of focusing on the intensity of the parent-child relationship in terms of a continuum from under involvement to overinvolvement has frequently appeared in the literature, particularly after 1930. Thus, the areas of nurturance, discipline, autonomy/guidance , and the degree of parental involvement in each of these areas appear to be critical in assessing the parent-child relationship.

PAGE 35

-24Structural Family Theory "Consider a man felling a tree with an axe. Each stroke of the axe is modified or corrected, according to the shape of the cut face of the tree left by the previous stroke. This self-corrective . . . process is brought about by a total system, tree-eyes-brain-rauscles-axe-stroke-tree ; and it is this total system that has the characteristics of (the) . . . mind" (Bateson, in Minuchin, 1974, p. 5). This metaphor is demonstrative of the shift to a systemic perspective characteristic of structural family therapy. Lane suggests, "the theoretical foundation of this model of family therapy rests on the belief that the whole and the parts can be properly explained only in terms of the relations that exist between the parts" (Lane, in Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 311). It now becomes necessary to view human behavior from a broad perspective, incorporating both internal and external forces and their subsequent interaction, in understanding interpersonal behavior. Thus, in an effort to understand the structure of human behavior, one must consider the social network in which the individual functions. One of the most powerful of the social forces that helps to shape individual behavior is the family. By expanding the definition of the mind to include extracerebral, as well as intracerebral functioning, (Minuchin, 1974) it becomes more difficult to pinpoint the site of pathology in the child or adult. The child who is operating within a family system must be seen as a working

PAGE 36

-25unit of that family organization, and this individual's behavior (whether healthy or unhealthy) must now be seen as being maintained by the system while also helping to maintain the rest of the system. Thus, individual behavior within a family must be viewed as system maintained and system maintaining. As such, any attempt to change one facet of the system will be met by resistance from the rest of the system, as an attempt to maintain a dynamic homeostatic balance or equilibrium necessary for systemic order and survival. Structural family theory provides more of a family model rather than a model for change. The structural family model however, has definite implications for how change can occur through reorganization or restructuring of the family. Though the concept of change is central to the therapist, it is the model of the family that is central to this study and to the conceptualization of the family. Family Model Structural family therapy focuses on family structure or the organization of the family members and their interactions which are governed by "invisible functional demands" (Minuchin, 1974). This family structure dictates family transactional patterns and the individual behavior of family members. Minuchin (1974) points out that there are both generic and idiosyncratic constraints on family structure. Generic constraints represent "universal rules

PAGE 37

-26governing family organization" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 52). Idiosyncratic constraints reflect the expectations of individual family members (Okun and Rappaport, 1980). In the development of a family model, the focus of structural theory was directed to examining generic constraints which universally apply to all families. Characteristics such as the presence of a power hierarchy within the family where parents and children assume varying degrees of authority is one such generic constraint. This power hierarchy will vary in composition throughout different societies and cultures. Thus, family models will vary as a function of the culture in which they operate. Similarly, family structure and power hierarchy are contingent upon the stage of family development or stage of the family life cycle specific to the given family. These considerations of culture and developmental process highlight the need for family models to be flexible and applicable to varying family life situations. Within the family unit, differentiation typically occurs by separating the family into subsystems (Minuchin, 1974; Kantor and Lehr, 1975) for the purpose of organization and division of responsibilities. Though subsystems may develop along varying criteria, subsystems representing spouse, parental and sibling units are most common. Each subsystem carries along with it roles and expectations for its members, and boundaries dictating rules for involvement. I

PAGE 38

-27The parental subsystem, which is of primary interest in this study, carries with it the responsibility for child care and protection, and the primary functions of providing children with nurturance, guidance and control (Minuchin, 1974). Nurturance represents the emotional bond between parent and child, and can be seen as an important element in establishing a sense of belonging and identification in children. This concept relates strongly to the affective relationship between parent and child. Guidance refers to parental encouragement of independent behaviors in children. Ideally, the importance of this parental function increases with age as children grow older and move toward adulthood. This concept can be closely associated with the development of a sense of separateness or individuality in children. Finally, control refers to the limits parents place on children. These limits provide children with a sense of what behaviors are acceptable, and thus, this concept plays a crucial role in children's socialization. Additionally, parental control provides children with a sense of protection and security, particularly when accompanied by a strong parent-child emotional bond. It is the boundary around the parental subsystem that defines who is to provide these functions and the degree to which these functions are provided. Thus, it is the boundary that truly organizes the family and directly influences subsequent interactional patterns within the family unit. Structural family theory (Minuchin, 1974)

PAGE 39

-28views boundaries along a continuura from enmeshment or overinvolvement to disengagement or underinvolvement. As such, enmeshed boundaries tend to be diffuse and unclear while disengaged boundaries tend to be overly rigid. Along this family model, a middle ground on the boundary continuum is considered "healthy" while extremes are seen as unhealthy. Minuchin (1972) states, at the enmeshment pole, family transactions are characterized by a fast tempo of interpersonal exchange; multiproblem families tend to resolve tensions by actions because of their paucity of mediating processes between impulse and action. The resulting style of interpersonal relationship has a high degree of mutual enmeshment and fast shifts in both focus or transaction and affective tone. At the abandonment (disengaged) pole, family members seem oblivious to the effect of their actions on one another. Monologues, parallel play, and a variety of maneuvers of psychological and physical abandonment characterize this modality, (p. 296) Following this conceptual scheme of the healthy family, Minuchin states three assumptions regarding healthy family functioning: "a family is transformed over time, adapting restructuring itself so as to continue functioning; the family has a structure, which can be seen only in movement; and families adapt to stress in a way that maintains family continuity while making restructuring possible" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 65-66). Thus, from the structural family perspective, critical issues of maintaining family health center around the concept of flexibility in adapting appropriate developmental family structures. Extremes in flexibility or rigidity of

PAGE 40

-29family boundaries and structure are seen as signals of concern and potential family dysfunction. Supportive Research In reviewing research on structural family therapy three distinct areas of inquiry surface: family functioning studies; treatment outcome studies; and studies centering around training issues (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981). Studies on family functioning are highlighted as they have the most direct application to the current study. An organizational grouping of family functioning studies has been made, differentiating studies on four clinical family forms: (1) low socioeconomic family forms (Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, and Schumer, 1967); (2) psychosomatic family forms (Minuchin, Rosman, and Baker, 1978); (3) alchoholic families (Davis, Stern and Van Deusen, 1977); and (4) addict families (Kaufman and Kaufman, 1979; Stanton, Todd, Van Deusen, Harder, Roboff, Seaman, and Skibinski, 1979; Ziegler-Driscoll, 1977, 1979), Low Socioeconomic Families Minuchin et al. , (1967) studied clinical families characterized by low socioeconomic status through the use of structured tasks and observational means (Elbert, Rosman, Minuchin, and Guerney, 1964) and projective techniques (Minuchin et al. , 1967). In this study, 12 clinical families were compared to 1 1 control families prior to

PAGE 41

-30family treatment. Evaluation of the treatment group following therapy was also conducted without controls. Pre-treatment analysis of communication patterns of patient and control families indicated that patient families tended to yield bimodal results, suggesting extremes in behavior, with statements tending to be less clear than those of their control counterparts (Minuchin et al. , 1967). In terras of executive behavior such as leadership, control and guidance, similar results were obtained. Minuchin defined these terms as: "Leadership included activity directing task performance. Behavior control concerned statements regulating non-task behaviors . . . but focused on immediate control. Guidance statements . . . regulated others behaviors by pointing to inappropriate ways of behaving" (Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, and Schumer, 1967, in Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 342). Patient mothers tended to demonstrate continued extremes of behavior, using significantly more or less behavior control than did control mothers. Interestingly, in both cases of extreme behavior, patient children were seen as uniformly more unruly and disruptive during task activities than were control children. Additionally, patient mothers were seen as "less responsive" to their children than were control mothers. Family Interaction Apperception Technique (FIAT) stories supported these observational findings with patient families' stories containing fewer accounts of nurturing than did reports of control families (Minuchin et al. , 1967). Aponte and Van

PAGE 42

-31Deusen, (1981) noted "while the concept of enmeshment and disengagement was actually elaborated after these studies, these descriptive data tend to support those concepts. . . . (This) clustering of patient mothers and children at poles of interaction before treatment, suggests enmeshment versus disengaged positions" (p. 344). Psychosomatic Families Studies have demonstrated psychosomatic children's centrality in the regulation of family stress (Baker, Minuchin, Milman, Liebman and Todd, 1975; Baker and Barcai, 1975; and Baker, Minuchin and Rosman, 1974). Minuchin, Rosman, and Baker, (1978) studied 30 families with psychosomatic children (eleven anorectic, nine diabetic and ten asthmatic) along with seven control medical-diabetic families and eight control medical-diabetic families with children demonstrating behavior problems. Observational task activities were implemented here as dependent measures. Patient psychosomatic families demonstrated the most asymmetry in executive roles, indicating an authoritarian skew between parents. Not surprisingly, these families tended to be the least productive in terms of task completion. As compared to psychosomatic families, normal control families tended to be more flexible, produce more alternatives, argue and disagree more openly and demonstrate more complete resolution of assigned tasks (Minuchin et al. ,

PAGE 43

-321978). In addition, enmeshment-type behaviors were measured in all families. "Results indicated clearer subsystem boundaries and greater interpersonal differentiation in normal families than in psychosomatic families. The psychosomatic group displayed the poorest differentiation between parental and child subsystems. Their transactions also revealed more mediating, go-between type statements than did those of the other two groups" (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 346). Alcoholic Families Davis, Stern and Van Deusen (1977), in studying 17 alcoholic families (with one alcoholic member) and 16 control families present results similar to those reported in studies of low socioeconomic and psychosomatic families. Through the use of observational task measures, Davis et al. , (1977) reported that husbands and wives in alcoholic families tended to speak less than did their control counterparts, while children of alcoholic families tended to speak more. Additionally, alcoholic families tended to take longer on completing tasks than did control families. Importantly, alcoholic parents were seen as extreme in their relationships with their children, tending to present continuum extremes of enmeshment or disengagement.

PAGE 44

-33Addict Families Stanton, Todd, Steier, Van Deusen, Marder, Rosoff, Seaman and Skibinski (1979), in their work with substance abuse families (families where one member is a substance abuser), found similar characteristics in dysfunctional families. In studying 65 addict families and 25 control families, addict families tended to be more rigid in their communication patterns, while control families tended to speak more openly and freely. Additionally, addict families tended to demonstrate "disruptive" performances on assigned tasks, while simultaneously avoiding open conflict. In addition to these problems in executive function, researchers found more mother-child coalitions in addict families along with more disengaged fathers. The results of observational task assessment techniques suggest difficulties such as enmeshment (mother-son coalitions) and disengagement (peripheral fathers) in dysfunctional families much the same as reported by other researchers in work with varied types of dysfunctional families. Summary Structural family theory suggests that there are specific roles and behaviors associated with each subsystem within the family unit. The parental subsystem has the responsibility for child rearing and has the main task of providing children with nurturance, guidance towards independent behavior, and control or discipline. These

PAGE 45

-34three functions closely parallel areas outlined as salient features in other parenting theories. Additionally, this theory views the parental subsystem in terms of the strength of the boundary which surrounds it. Rigid, overly strong boundaries suggest distance between parent and child. Weak, undefined boundaries suggest overly close relationships and overly permissive parenting styles. Support for this theory can be found in family functioning studies. Summarizing results of these studies, (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981) noted the following common family characteristics: (1) patient families tended to have rules, boundaries and transactional patterns that were less productive than control families; (2) patient families took longer at tasks; (3) patient families tended to be less clear in communication; (4) patient families tended to be more rigid, coming up with fewer options and alternatives than control families; (5) patient families tended to demonstrate more coalitions across subsystems. Thus, it appears that healthy families tended to be seen as more moderate while unhealthy (patient) families tended to be seen as more extreme. Relationships in these dysfunctional families tended to be bipolar, representing either overly close (enmeshed) or overly rigid (disengaged) characteristics. Importantly, Doane (1978) has independently replicated a number of the above studies with similar results. Findings indicated "... disturbed families manifested

PAGE 46

-35more cross-generational coalitions, greater husband-wife conflict, more frequent spontaneous agreement (conflictavoidance) among children, less acknowledgement of other member's statement, lower clarity of message content and less productive task-completion. . . . Perhaps her major finding was that secondary analysis showed 'subsystem behaviors' to be more informative units of analysis than either whole family or individual measures" (Aponte and Van Deusen, 1981, p. 349). Existing Instruments on Children's Perceptions of Parenting As suggested previously, attention to parenting and children's relations with parents can be found in the literature dating back many years. The first review of literature on children's attitudes towards parents was provided by Stodgill (1937), who reviewed research in this area between the years 1894 and 1936. It appears that one of the first documented studies of children's perceptions of parents was conducted by Barnes in 1894 (in Stodgill, 1937). Barnes looked at 4000 children's (ages 7-16) responses to how they viewed parental punishment. Generally, studies during this time period focused on variables such as punishment, parental ideal and parental preference. Cross-cultural studies in these areas also appeared popular during this time. Stodgill (1937) in summarizing the findings from these early studies noted the following: (1) Children feel a high degree of dependency on

PAGE 47

-36parents which decreases with age; (2) Mothers are generally preferred over fathers, though delinquents and problem children typically select their opposite sex parent; (3) Children feel parents prefer children of the opposite sex; (4) Children resent severe, unjust punishment; (5) Very strict discipline and religion in the early home may be associated with later personality maladjustment; (6) Children are more likely to be antagonistic towards parents when parents are morally and socially liberal; and (7) Attitudes are influenced primarily by the family and environment rather than intelligence or social level. Findings of other studies of this time yielded similar results. These studies accepted the importance of the family, but obviously were firmly rooted in intrapsychic theory, the prevailing therapeutic model of the time. Stagner and Drought (1935) noted "there is some indication that the attitudes (of a child) towards his parent is determined, not only by parental treatment, but also by the personality of the child" (p. 176). The results of these early studies are presented not only for their historical significance and interest, but also as an example of the influence that social, political, and cultural attitudes of the times exert over research. No doubt throughout history this pattern prevails, sensitizing us to consider the extent to which current society influences research and assessment. There is little mention of assessment technique in these early studies. It appears that structured interviews

PAGE 48

-37were commonly used to gather information, or the modification of existing techniques that were available at the time. (Many of these modified instruments can be traced to the original work of Thurstone.) Similarly, there is little mention of reliability, validity, theoretical orientation or instrument development in these studies. As the 1940 's arrived, momentum slowly increased in the development of assessment techniques for measuring children's perceptions of parenting. This momentum increased decade by decade up until the present, where one finds themselve wading knee deep in diagnostic evaluation tools. This review of the literature is not intended to provide the reader with a reference system designed for quick location of various available measures. An efficient location system of related literature has been presented by Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976). Rather, the system here is intended to provide a structured framework in which various instruments measuring children's perceptions of parenting can be evaluated. Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976) describe the criteria for assessing an instrument in their review. These criteria are useful when deciding which diagnostic method is most appropriate for the therapist/researcher's specific needs and allows for general test evaluation as well. Cromwell et al. (1976, p. 28-29) suggested that the method should tap some theoretical concepts and dimensions that are relevant to the treatment process; that the sample of

PAGE 49

-38stimuli should not only relate to the overall concepts or dimensions (content validity) but should be relevant, important, and representative for the given group being evaluated; that procedures including multi-method approaches are preferable; that the instrument should be evaluated for both reliability and validity; that the procedure should be designed so the clients do not feel tricked or deceived during administration; that the instrument should require minimal equipment, facilities, cost and time to administer and score; and that the instrument should be appropriate for a wide variety of age groups and social classes. Instrument evaluation procedures outlined by Kerlinger (1973) and Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (1976) overlap the Cromwell model, stressing the evaluation of assessment and diagnostic tools along the dimensions of validity, reliability, administratabil ity, objectivity, scorability, adequacy, utility, comparability, and economy. This review incorporates many of these evaluative criteria in its critique of instruments assessing children's perceptions of parenting to highlight both the advantages and disadvantages of these diagnostic tools. Additionally, several questions are addressed in examining available instruments. Does the instrument have a sound theoretical background? Does the instrument provide reports of adequate reliability? Does the instrument report adequate validity? Is the instrument easy to administer and score? Does the instrument have varied utility and applicability? Is the

PAGE 50

-39instrument appropriate for use with nine, ten, and eleven year-old children? Does the instrument provide acceptable normative data? Does the instrument focus on the parental subsystem or does it single out mother-child interaction? This review of the literature concentrates on objective, interpersonal measures of children's perceptions of parenting. Though non-objective and intrapsychic measures are discussed, primary emphasis is placed on the objective, interactional assessment techniques. Similarly, multivariate assessment measures are also stressed. The need for this focus lies in the importance of these instruments as both practical and accessible tools for professional use in varied settings. Whether used by the therapist to evaluate progress or outcome of treatment, by the descriptive researcher to identify and evaluate special populations, or by the educator to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs, these objective instruments are thought to be more flexible in their applicability for use in varied settings. This is primarily due to their relative ease of administration and scoring, plus their increased utility over more complex subjective techniques. The remainder of the chapter will be divided into two major sections. First, univariable assessment tools are reviewed. This section is subdivided into areas which highlight the specific variables under study. This is followed by a review of multivariate measures. The multivariate

PAGE 51

-40section of this chapter is further subdivided into areas which represent how the assessment is made. Univariate Measures Conflict-integration . Rundquist and Sletto (in Shaw and Wright, 1967) provide for the measure of conflict within a family in a subscale measure incorporated within an intrapsychic, objective attitude scale. Subscales assessing family variables that are included in intrapsychic personality instruments are common throughout the literature, and will be seen periodically throughout this review. Projective measures in this area are more common taking the form of doll play techniques (Mussen and Distler, 1959), sentence completion techniques (Rabin, 1959), and story completion techniques (Seaton, 1949; Porcell and Clifford, 1966; and Ausubel, Balthazar, Rosenthal, Blackman, Schpoont, and Wilkowitz, 1954). These instruments vary in length between 9 and 16 items and require special training in both administration and interpretation, reducing their utility. Objective, interpersonal measures of family conflict-integration are provided by Swanson (in Straus and Brown, 1978), Stott and Sykes (1958), Simmons, Rosenburg and Rosenburg (1973), Kaufman (1971), Heston (1949), Cooper (1960, 1966), Ausubel, Balthazar, Rosenthal, Blackman, Schpoont, and Welkowitz (1954) and Offer (1969). These instruments vary tremendously in length and required response. The Perceived Opinions of Parents Scale (Simmons, Rosenburg, and Rosenburg,

PAGE 52

-411973) contains only three questions while the Heston Personal Adjustment Inventory (Heston, 1949) contains 270 true-false items. The Bristol Social Adjustment Guide (Stott and Sykes, 1958) contains 221 items where children are to underline sentences within paragraphs. This type of response task appears somewhat difficult for the younger child or the slow reader. Additionally, a number of these instruments have limited age applicability (Kaufman, 1971, and Offer, 1969), while others make no mention of age appropriateness. Finally, a number of interview-observational measures can be found in this area ( Schwarzweller and Lyson, 1974, and Cassell, 1962). These techniques tend to be time consuming and costly, and many times are unusable when time, money and facilities are not available. Love-nurturance . Objective, interpersonal measures in this area tend to be quite short in length with a median length of 11 items (McKinley, 1964; Heilburn, 1965; Floyd and South, 1971; Strykers, 1955; Rosenberg, 1965; Robertson and Dotson, 1969; and Severy, 1973). These measures typically require true/false or Likert type responses from the subject with as many as six alternatives. Similar concerns as those mentioned above in terras of reliability, validity, age appropriateness, and theoretical foundation can be applied to this group of instruments. Conflict-aggression . The Minnesota Personality Scale (Dailey and McNamara, 1941) and the Interpersonal Relations Scale (Denten and Monroe, 1961) provide subscale scores for

PAGE 53

-42the area of family conflict. It is difficult to view these subscales as independent of the rest of their respective measures (in terms of their reliability, validity, etc.), and therefore, their independent use is not encouraged. Ausubel et al. , (1954), Block (1937), LoSecuto and Karlin (1972), Edwards and Branburger (1973), Dimock (1937), and Maxwell, Connor and Walters (1961) have developed objective instruments in this area that were designed for children's use. Though the Emancipation from Parent Scale (Dimock, 1937) was intended for adolescent use with 360 items, the other instruments do not appear to be excessive in length, and at times appear surprisingly short. Two of the more interesting tests in this area are the Disagreement with Perceived Parent Opinion Test (Ausubel et al. , 1954) and the Perception of Parent Role Performance Questionnaire (Maxwell, Conner, and Walters, 1961), where discrepancy scores were reported between children's and parent's perceptions. Projectives are also available in this area (Cummings, 1952; Sears, Pinter and Sears, 1946; and Grace and Lohman, 1952) as are observational measures (Johnson and Lobitz, 1974). Role differentiation . Hoffman, Rosen and Lippitt (1960), Epstein and Komorita (1965), Hawkes, Burchinal and Gardner (1957), Hunt (1974), and Moulton, Burnstein, Liberty and Altucher (1966) have designed children's objective instruments in the area of role differentiation and discipline. Scheck, Emmerick and El-Assal (1973) and Radke

PAGE 54

-43(1946) tap this same variable, but employ a retrospective format of parental evaluation to be used by adults for their parents . These assessment tools provide little theoretical background and sketchy reliability and validity data. Moreover, many are not published making their acquisition difficult. Tiffany and Shontz (1962), Stone and Landis (1953), Payne and Mussen (1956) and Hoeflin and Kell (1959) have developed children's projectives in this area, requiring advanced training in administration and scoring. Power, affection, support . Few instruments can be found that measure only power, affection or support. Most measurement tools that assess these variables can be found in the multivariate section of this review as they provide for numerous categories of assessment. Itkin (1952), Wechsler and Funkenstein (1960) and Dlugokinski and Firestone (1973) do provide objective measures of children's perceptions of parental power, acceptance and affections. As with all categories reviewed previously, these instruments vary greatly from one to the other and have numerous shortcomings. Wechsler and Funkenstein (1960), in the Perceptions of Family Questionnaire, provide measurements of authority and affection from both the child's and adult's perspective, allowing for interesting comparison. Unfortunately, this questionnaire takes approximately four hours to finish, making completion of this survey quite fatiguing for the adult, let alone the child. Problems with the length of

PAGE 55

-44measureraent tools, both exceedingly long and short, can be found throughout the literature. The Parental Disciplne Inventory (PDI) (Dlugokinski and Firestone, 1973) allows for the measurement of children's perceptions of maternal induction and power assertion. The PDI does report adequate test-retest reliability of .87 and .79 at a ten-day interval. This inventory has a maternal focus, a common characteristic of many of the assessment techniques involving parents and children. Appropriate for children ages 8-15, this instrument focuses on the mother-child relationship and makes no mention of other adults that also serve as family members in the executive parental subsystem. With fathers playing an increased role in parenting, this maternal focus is outdated and misleading, providing only partial information for the therapist or researcher. Projective measures can also be found that address themselves to this same topic (Kagan, 1958; Emmerick, 1959a, 1959b; and Funkenstein, King and Drolette , 1957 ) . Autonomy-achievement training . A number of very short measurement scales can be found measuring this variable: The Independence from Family Autonomy Scale (Schwartz, 1971); The Parental Pressure for Educational Achievement Index (Tec, 1973); and the Parents Conformity Measure (Utech and Hoving, 1969); containing four, three, and ten items respectively. Such short measures raise numerous methodological concerns for the researcher.

PAGE 56

-45Longer instruments are also available for use with young children such as the Family-Peer Group Orientation Scale (Bowerraan and Kinch, 1959) and The Children's Dependency Scale (Golightly, Nelson and Johnson, 1970). For use with college-aged individuals, instruments such as The Sherman Emancipation Questionnaire (Sherman, 1946) are available. Similarly, observational task measures such as the Parental Pressure Scale (Pearlin, Yarrow and Scarr, 1967) can also be found which focus on this variable. Concerns that have been raised earlier in the areas of reliability, validity, theoretical base and age appropriateness also apply to this category of assessment tools . Other constructs . Objective measures can be found in numerous other areas that are directed towards children's perceptions. These include identification similarity (Heilburn, 1965; Gray, 1959; Devereux, 1970; Calomico and Thomas, 1973; Brittain, 1963; Bowerman and Bahr, 1973), communication (Good, Good and Nelson, 1973; Bienvenu, 1969), activities (Tulkin, 1968; Harris, Clark, Rose and Valasek, 1954; Denten and Monroe, 1961) and flexibility (Denten and Monroe, 1961; Elder, 1971). Instrument lengths vary in these measures from three (Elder, 1971) to three hundred and twenty-four (Heilburn, 1965) items. These instruments, on the whole, appear to be no stronger in terms of methodology or theory than those cited earlier and fall suspect to many of the shortcomings that have previously been mentioned.

PAGE 57

-46Observational task activities in the area of communication (Haley, 1967) and identification ( Bronf enbrenner , 1970) provide alternative means of gathering data on children's perspectives. Many of the variables discussed in this section of the review can also be found in the next section of this chapter. Rather than provide a comprehensive list of all instruments that tap into these variables, this section has highlighted narrower, more focused instruments. Multivariate Measures The remaining instruments that are discussed all fall under the category multivariate measures. These assessment techniques measure a number of variables, providing the therapist/researcher with information on multiple related factors. Due to the quantity of available instruments in this area, many of these multivariate assessment techniques are referenced, while only a handful are discussed in depth. As opposed to the format of the previous section, this section presents the multivariate measures according to how the assessment is approached and data gathered (intrapsychic, objective, interpersonal, or observational). The instruments reviewed in depth in this section include those which are most commonly used. Intrapsychic-interpersonal subjective measures . Two of the most well known intrapsychic projective measures available today are the Thematic Apprehension Test (TAT)

PAGE 58

-47(Murray, in Straus and Brown, 1978) and the Childrens' Apprehension Test (CAT) (Bellak and Bellak, 1941). These techniques have particular importance in the area of children's perceptions of parenting. Their value lies not in their direct applicability in assessing children's perceptions of parenting, rather they serve as prototypes which have been expanded and adapted to measure more interpersonal variables. Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman and Schumer (1967) modified the TAT in forming the Wiltwyck Family Interaction Apperception Technique better known as the Family Interaction Apperception Technique (FIAT), where children are presented ten family pictures and are to create a story about the picture. This technique is intended to tap into children's internalized views of family interaction. The FIAT, which is based on a model of structural family therapy, focuses on areas of guidance, control, unity and aggression. The FIAT, which has an age appropriateness of seven years and older, takes approximately 30 minutes to complete, and is appropriate for use with a variety of clientele. Similar picture projectives have been developed such as the Symonds Picture Story Test (in Straus and Brown, 1978), the Family Relatives Indicator (Howells and Lickerish, 1969), the Family Rorschach (Loveland, Wynne, and Singer, 1963), the Parent Image Checklist (Meger and Tolman, 1955), the Eidectic Parents Test (Ashen, 1972) and the Family Relations Test (Anthony and Bene, 1957). Advantages in the use of these projective measures are that they are

PAGE 59

-48relatively unstructured and allow the therapist or researcher to reach the subject's attitudes and beliefs at a more unconscious level. Unfortunately, these instruments are predominantly for clinical use only and are used almost exclusively with clinical populations. Secondly, they require advanced training in their administration and interpretation which greatly reduces their utility. Other interpersonal subjective measures are available utilizing techniques such as doll play (Radke, 1946) and Q-sort (Block, 1972). Finally, there have been instruments developed that incorporate both objective and subjective methods in data collection. The Elias Family Opinion Survey (Elias, 1952) is one such measure, in its assessment of isolation-mutuality in families. Although this survey reports strong reliability data (internal consistency = .97 and temporal reliability = .92) and can claim the advantages of indirect assessment strategies, it has problems in its limitations of requiring trained administrators and scorers, its lack of a strong conceptional base, its primary use with clinical populations, and its limited age applicability. Observational measures . Direct observational techniques are commonly employed in family assessment. Problem solving tasks (Blechman, 1974; Morrell and Stachowiak, 1967; Strauss and Tallman, 1971; Elbert, Rosman, Minuchin and Guerney, 1964; and Haley, 1962), decision-making tasks (Riskin, 1963), and conflict resolution tasks (Jurkovic and Prentice, 1974; and Farina, 1960) have all been used for

PAGE 60

-49descriptive purposes and as pre-treatment and post-treatment evaluation measures. As example, most all outcome studies reported by the structural school of family therapy, which has provided the strongest outcome research support for non-behavioral family treatment, have used observationaltask measurements as dependent variable indices (see Elbert et al. , 1964) along with projective measures. Many of these techniques remain unpublished and, as a whole, provide sketchy evidence of reliability and validity. The advantages in observation of direct family interaction are tempered by the need for observational facilities, trained observers, and extended time in their use. Additionally, many of these observational techniques lack strong theoretical foundation (though some are well grounded in theory, i.e., Haley, 1962 and Elbert et al. , 1964) and provide little if any statistical and technical analysis. Interview techniques such as the Bias in Perception of Family Relations Measure (Niemi, 1974) and Interview Measure of Family Activities and Relationships (Brown and Rutter, 1966) can also be found in the literature. Interestingly, a large percentage of observational measures used in both laboratory and naturalistic settings have focused on the mother-child relationship exclusively. Instruments such as the Maternal Behavior Factor Indexes (Whiting, Child, and Lambert, 1960), the Maternal Behavior Measures (Tulkin and Kagan, 1972), the Maternal Behavior Observational Categories (Brody, 1965), the Mother-Child

PAGE 61

-50Interaction Scales (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), the Rating Scale for Home Observation of Mother-Child Interaction (Crandell, Preston and Rabson, 1960), the Maternal Behavior Rating Scale (Finney, 1961), the Observational Schedule for MotherChild Interaction (Hilton, 1967), the Maternal Care Checklist (Rheingold, 1960), the Maternal Behavior Measure (Stayton, Hogan, and Ainsworth, 1971), the Mother-Child Interaction Rating Scale and Observational Categories (Bishop, 1951), the Human or Maternal Environmental Scale (Watts, 1974), and the Communication Checklist (Ling and Ling, 1974) provide the reader with a sense for the attention the mother-child relationship has attracted in the field of family assessment. These measures are similar to those observational techniques mentioned previously in both advantages and weaknesses. Moreover, they reflect a stereotypical preoccupation with the mother-child relationship, reflective of the traditional sex-role assignment of the mother as caregiver. With changes of family form and function in today's society, this traditional model is quickly losing its appropriateness and relevance in the field of treatment and research. Techniques which combine the use of both observation and interview (Rafferty, Tyler and Tyler, 1960; Lytton, 1973; Leon, 1971; Majoribanks, 1972; Gardner, 1969; and Cooper, 1966) and those which incorporate the use of recording and videotaping in observation (Burke, 1967, and Guttman, 1972) can also be found in the literature.

PAGE 62

-51The Pels Parent-Behavior Rating Scale (Chanpey, 1941b) stands as one of the most researched and widely used observational measure of parenting behavior. With it 30 scales clustering in areas of warmth, adjustment, indulgence, democracy, intellectuality, restrictiveness , clarity and interference, it has been subject to numerous factor analytic, and reliability studies. Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breese, (1949) report good inter-rater reliability on the Pels for trained-raters. More importantly, with family assessment focusing on so many variables (i.e., control, activities, affect, etc.) the factor analysis studies on this instrument begin to narrow the focus to those variables that are salient in understanding parenting. Rolf (1949), in a factorial study of the Pels, reports concern for the child; democratic guidance; permissiveness; parent-child harmony; sociability-adjustment of parents; activeness of home; and, non-readiness of suggestion; as seven factors of significance. Baldwin, (1946) and Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breese, (1945) present more focused factorial findings, presenting warmth, objectivity and control as the three primary factors in the Pels scale. Though observational techniques such as the Pels do not provide direct access to children's perceptions of parenting, they do provide a source of comparability (particularly in terms of factor analysis findings) when looking at factors included more in objective, child-perception instruments.

PAGE 63

-52Interpersonal objective measures . Anthony and Bene (1957) state, "although a great number of tests available today are concerned with the psychological assessment of the child, there seemed to us to be a special clinical and research need for one that would indicate objectively, reliably and rapidly the direction of intensity of the child's feelings towards various members of the family ..." (p. 541). Twenty plus years later, this statement still holds true. Attempts have been made to use various intrapsychic measures for the purpose of obtaining chidren's perceptions of the family (Serot and Teeran, 1961). Similarly, objective measures for parents are common throughout the literature (Dielman, Barton and Cattell, 1973; Emmerich, 1962; Love, Kaswan and Bugental, 1972; Pumroy; 1966; Sears, Maccoby and Levin, 1957; Sebald and Andrews, 1962; Van der Veen, Huebner, Jorgens, and Neja, 1964; and Winder and Rau, 1962). The question remains, are there objective, interpersonal measures for children that provide rapid and reliable results? In reviewing objective interpersonal measures of children's perceptions of parenting, many of the same concerns raised with other instrumentation in this paper surface. There are a number of instruments that are maternally based (Milton, 1958; Mosychuk, 1969; Polansky, Borgman and DeSaix, 1972; and Schvaneveldt , 1968) providing no information on father-child relationships. With fathers playing an increasing role in child-rearing today, this maternal focus

PAGE 64

-53is certainly a limiting factor. Other instruments such as the Family Inventory (Hayward, 1935) and the Parental Authority-Love Statements (Williams, 1958) provide maladjustment scores and thus, are based on models of family pathology rather than family health. When interpreting subscale scores of authority, love and parental role, Williams (1958) suggests intermediate scores on the subscales represent unknown and inconsistent parental behaviors. In fact, families taking such an instrument will tend to receive a maladjustment score, as no combination of subscale scores produces a healthy rating. This pathogenic base illustrates another limitation that can be found in the assessment literature. Concerns stemming from instrument length, both those which are very short (less than 15 items) such as the Family Background Scores (Ferdinand and Luchterhand, 1968), Parent Contact Scale (Hollender, Duke and Nowicki, 1973), Children's Concept of Parental Roles (Thomas, 1968), Corell Socialization Inventory ( Bronf enbrenner , 1961a), and Perceived Closeness to Mother Scale (Miller, 1961) and those which are exceedingly long such as the Parent Behavior Question Schedule (Cox and Leaper, 1961) which takes 2-1/2 hours to complete and the Authority Figure Perception Test (Ferguson and Kennelly, 1974) which contains 307 items, can also be freguently found in the literature. Similarly, there are other assessment instruments that have limited age appropriateness (Devereux, Shouval, Bronf enbrenner , Rodgers, Kav-Venaki, Kiely and Karson, 1974; Nye, 1958; and

PAGE 65

-54Schvaneveldt, 1968), due to difficulty in readability, conceptual structure, and length. Another concern focuses on instruments that provide no normative information or instruments that were normed on samples not representative of the general population. Examples can be seen in tests that are normed on clinical populations (Williams, 1958), on samples drawn from specific geographic locations (Brown, Morrison and Couch, 1947), social strata, religious or ethnic background. Finally, there are instruments (many of which have already been named) that have been developed for use in specific studies, which lack strong theoretical foundation. These instruments typically lack validity data and many times reliability data as well. There are many other assessment techniques that are available for both clinical and research use that overlap a number of categories presented in this review: The Piety Parent Perception Questionnaire, (Piety, 1966), The Parent Child Relationship Indexes (Farber and Jenne, 1963), The Family Adjustment Test (Elias, 1952), The Family Interaction Schedule (Straus, 1964), The Herbst Family Relationship Questionnaire (Herbst, 1952), The Intra-Family Relationship Questionnaire (Myers, 1935), The Children's Concept of Parental Circumstances (Thomas, 1968), The Family Relationship Test (Scott and Ashworth, 1965), The Parent Evaluation Scale (Cooper and Blair, 1959) and The Family Concept Test (Van der Veen, 1964); plus techniques such as the Thorraan Family Relations Technique (in Straus and Brown, 1978) that

PAGE 66

-55are not tests and report no scores, reliability, validity or external references. The reader should exercise caution, carefully researching these instruments before use. The Family Environmental Scale (FES) (Moos, 1974) focuses on the social climate of the family and represents one of a number of instruments that either directly or indirectly are based on the circumplex model (Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell, 1979). This 90 question, true/false instrument reports relatively good internal consistency (.64-. 79) and test-retest reliability (.68-. 86), yet very limited validity. The author reports no factor analysis results for the measure and reports the characteristics of the normature population to be white, middle class families. There are 10 subscales within the FES concentrating on family relations, developmental process and structure. Although a short form containing 40 items is also available, little can be found on this shortened version. Other instruments such as the Family Functioning Index (Pless and Satterwhite, 1973) and Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) (Olson, Bell, and Portner, 1978) also are grounded in circumplex theory and have been designed for diagnostic use. These instruments, though firmly rooted in theory, suffer from a number of the shortcomings mentioned above. Issues of replication, reliability and validity, length, normative demographics, factor analytic results, etc., must be considered when approaching these instruments. Additionally, preference on theoretical orientation becomes a factor

PAGE 67

-56when the therapist employs these measures for diagnostic or outcome measure purposes. Another instrument reflecting circumplex theory and a psychoanalytic framework is the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire, PCRQ (Roe and Siegelman, 1963). This 130 item, Likert type instrument focuses on specific behaviors as opposed to attitudes. Its forms for males and females differ slightly and it reports a norming population of 142 Harvard University seniors (all male) and 99 social workers and engineers, specifically excluding single parent families, and individuals who are divorced or widowed. This raises a serious methodological question for this measure. As with most circumplex instruments, the PCRQ is presented in retrospective form, and thus, is geared to the adult and not the child. Other instruments such as Parental Role Patterns (Slater, 1962), Perception of Parent Behavior Scale (Apperson, 1965), and Family Relations Inventory (Brunkan, 1965) are also retrospective in nature, raising questions to their applicability for use with young children. The final group of instruments that assess children's perceptions of parenting that will be discussed in this review will be those that have resulted from the work of E.S. Schaefer. Interestingly, Schaefer's work is grounded in "a circumplex model for maternal behavior" (Schaefer, 1949), with the development of the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) (Schaefer, 1965) stemming from factor analysis results of mother-child

PAGE 68

-57observation. The CRPBI scale contains 260 items with 26 scales. A shortened version is also available ( Schluderinan, 1971, in Straus and Brown, 1978) containing 108 items. Factor analysis results (Schaefer and Bell, 1955, Schaefer, Bell, and Bayley, 1959) indicate two main factors: autonomy vs control and love vs hostility that are contained in this instrument. This instrument has been widely used (Armentrout and Burger, 1972; Burger and Armentrout, 1971; and Burger, Lamp and Rodgers, 1975), particularly in descriptive studies. The CRPBI represents one of the best efforts in children's perception of parenting assessment. It is firmly rooted in theory, reports good reliability, and has been widely used. It does however, present problems in its length and age applicability. Additionally, the CRPBI reports reliability in terms of internal consistency only, never mentioning temporal reliability. Lastly, its maternally based origins do not reflect our social structure today and, therefore may not be reflective of current trends in parenting. The CRPBI has encouraged further instrument development, many of which serve as compliments to the children's reports (Schaefer and Bell, 1958, Schaefer, Bell, and Bayley, 1957 and Kaufman, 1965). Summary In general, a review of instruments that measure children's perceptions of parenting has yielded mixed results. There is no question as to the diversity and scope of

PAGE 69

-58assessment techniques that are available for use today. These techniques focus on many different variables and employ observational, projective and objective strategies in gathering data. Naturally, some are stronger than others, but on a whole, the most striking finding is that few instruments can be found measuring children's perceptions of parenting that do not suffer from either theoretical, methodological, or technical shortcomings. Even those instruments that apparently are firmly rooted in theory, such as those based on circumplex theory, demonstrate characteristics which limit their utility and appropriateness for use with children. In summarizing the characteristics of this assessment literature, three major strengths can be noted. First, there is a tremendous variety and diversity in available assessment measures. This provides the researcher/therapist with a great deal of flexibility in choosing the best instrument for their purposes. Cromwell et al. , (1976) and Straus and Brown (1978) have provided excellent reference systems that make the task of instrument selection much more efficient and effective. Second, there have been a number of factor analysis studies performed on a limited number of instruments. These studies help in providing a more focused perspective on this vast area. It appears that the factors of warmth/lovehostility and control-autonomy are common to most

PAGE 70

-59f actor-analysis findings, suggesting that these factors are central to parenting. Third, circumplex theory appears to be well represented as a theoretical base for a good number of instruments, more so than any other theoretical foundation. In summarizing the weaknesses found in children's perceptions of parenting assessment literature, the following list of weaknesses have been highlighted. First, most instruments lack sound theoretical foundations. For those instruments that are grounded in theory, they are almost exclusively derived from circumplex theory. Few other theoretical orientations are represented, particularly in interpersonal, objective measures. Second, a large number of instruments suffer from ad hoc designs, having been developed specifically for use in a given study. Such instruments suffer serious methodological limitations. Third, evidence of instrument reliability and validity is, at best, sketchy. This holds particularly true in the case of validity. Fourth, many instruments are based on a deficit model of family functioning. These instruments yield maladjustment scores and are pathologically based. Instruments based on models of healthy family functioning would provide more of a flexible model for all families along the continuum of system health.

PAGE 71

-60Fifth, many instruments focus on the mother-child relationship and do not examine the father-child relationship. Other instruments that do focus on both parents are based on mother-child observations and thus are not representative of today's parenting trends. Sixth, most instruments in this area have problems in length, either being too short or too long. Such factors affect both the reliability of these measures and their applicability for use with younger children. Seventh, many instruments discussed are old and outdated. Such instruments are reflective of the social era in which they were conceived and may not be appropriate for use in today's changing society. Eighth, few instruments provide the necessary information regarding norming procedures and populations. Many are normed on samples which are not representative of the general population, many times focusing on clinical samples or samples reflecting specific geographic, religious, ethnic or socioeconomic characteristics. Ninth, many of the instruments that claim to be designed to assess children's perceptions of parenting are not appropriate for use with children, due to length, difficulty in response required, vocabulary or design. Finally, it is clear that there is serious question as to the utility of many of these instruments. Most instruments discussed cannot be used by therapists, educators, and researchers due to factors such as time, training needed in

PAGE 72

-61administration and interpretation, cost, and availability. Instruments are needed that have a wide versatility and that can be used by different professionals in various settings. When considering future directions in the area of instrumentation of children's perceptions of parenting, two directions appear clear. Firstly, there is a need for replication and refinement of existing instruments. Many instruments available today could be altered and improved so that they could be used more frequently and with more confidence. Secondly, new instruments, representing different theoretical orientations (particularly interpersonal objective measures) are sorely needed. This would be particularly helpful if we are to follow Cromwell's (1976) advice in "linking diagnosis and evaluation to the intervention process . . . (in) bridging research, theory and practice" (p. 2).

PAGE 73

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The intent of this study was to develop and refine an objective instrument, the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CCPS) which measures nine, ten, and eleven year-old children's perceptions of parenting. In establishing the scale, three research questions were addressed. Was the content of the scale representative of established and accepted parenting behaviors? Did the scale measure the theoretical constructs of parental nurturance, control and guidance? Were scores derived from the scale internally consistent and stable over time? This chapter is organized into the following three sections: methodology involved in the development of items for the CPPS; methodology involved in determining the validity of the CPPS; and methodology involved in establishing the reliability of the instrument. For each of these sections, information is presented on the population and sample, sampling procedures, methods of data collection, and analysis of data. Potential limitations of this study are discussed at the close of the chapter. -62-

PAGE 74

-63Item Development Based on the literature review of general parenting theories, structural family therapy and existing assessment approaches to measuring children's perceptions of parenting, the areas of nurturance, control and guidance/autonomy were identified as the central functions to be assessed in determining children's perceptions of parenting. The function of care-giving was also seen as vital in parenting responsibility and was added as a fourth factor. The resulting four sub-scales were those of nurturance, control, guidance/autonomy and care-giving. Items were generated for each of the four subscales representing underinvolved , overinvolved, and moderate/healthy parent-child interactions. (See Table 1). A panel of experts were consulted for input regarding item format, content, readability, and comprehensiveness. This panel included faculty in the Counselor Education Department at the University of Florida involved in family therapy training and staff members of the North Central Florida Community Mental Health Center, Child, Youth and Family Center. A total of 134 items were generated in the initial item development of the CPPS. This item pool was reduced to 45 items in the final CPPS. A true/false format was selected for use during this time as it was felt appropriate for use with nine year-old children. For the purposes of field testing the initial CPPS, a third response category of "Problem" was added to the true/false format originally

PAGE 75

-64TABLE 1 CONTENT AREAS OF SUBSCALES FOR THE CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTING SCALE Nurturance Gu i dance/Autonomy Control The amount of time parents spend with children The quality of time parents spend with children Parental readiness to listen to children Parental physical contact with children Parental emotional involvement with children Preference in parental activities (with or without children) The amount parents encourage children to make decisions The support parents give children in their efforts to act independently The degree to which parents monitor children's activities Parental interest in children's problem solving development The degree to which parents give children responsibility The degree to which parents encourage children to discuss their ideas Parental encouragement of children's decision making development The degree to which parents help children understand 1 imits The degree to which parents remind children of limits or rules The consistency of parental punishment The rigidity of parental punishment or limits. The amount of rules or limits set by parents The severity in limits or rules set The clarity in parental limits The care emphas is spent in -g iv ing was in caring area was removed from the CPPS. Its the amount and quality of parental time for children's physical needs.

PAGE 76

-65selected. Children were instructed to check the "Problem" space if they could not understand the question, or if they found it exceedingly difficult. Appendix A presents the initial form of the CPPS developed as a pilot instrument. One fourth and one fifth grade class were selected for inclusion in the pilot study. Considerations in the selection of classes were focused on availability of classes and on the selection of classes considered to be representative of the student body. Parental consent forms (Appendix B) were distributed to the classes and only students returning signed forms were allowed to participate. A total of 34 subjects returned parental consent forms and took part in the pilot study. Response frequencies for each item were tabulated to assess the discriminative ability of each question. The results of this tabulation are presented in Appendix C. In addition to the item response-frequency analysis, a test for internal consistency of the four sub-scales was conducted. A coefficient alpha was performed on the results of the pilot. The results of this analysis are found in Appendix D. Due to poor results in both the item response frequency analysis and internal consistency analysis, the factor representing care-giving was dropped. This deletion of the care-giving factor can also be supported theoretically by collapsing the factor into the areas of nurturance and control. Similarly, the function of care-giving is not highlighted in structural family theory (Minuchin, 1974),

PAGE 77

-66and rather, seen as a component of the areas of nurturance and control or limit setting. The three remaining factors of nurturance, guidance and control were included in the revised CPPS (Appendix E). Fifteen items representing each of the three sub-scale areas were selected as a result of item response-frequency findings. Furthermore, within each of the three sub-scale areas, items were selected to represent each of the continuum areas of underinvolvement , over involvement and moderate parent-child interactions. The following 45 items were selected for inclusion in the revised CPPS: 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 24, 31, 27, 29, 40, 43, 48, 52, 53, 62, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 99, 100, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 116, 119. In addition to reducing item quantity from 135 to 45, a four point Likert-type response format was developed for the revised CPPS, and the "Problem" response category was deleted. Items were also revised to be more suitable to a Likert-type response system. Finally, in effort to insure that the revised CPPS was appropriate for use with fourth and fifth grade children, the Dale-Chall Formula (1948) was used to assess the readability level of the instrument. This formula predicts grade-level readability through analysis of sentence length, number of sentences, and familiarity of words. Using this formula, a raw score of 4.169 was obtained for the revised

PAGE 78

-67CPPS. Converting this raw score to a corrected grade level score, the CPPS yielded a predicted readability level below the 5.0 value representative of a fourth grade reading level. Content Validity To determine the degree to which items constructed on the CPPS represented established and accepted parenting behaviors, the CPPS was distributed to a group of five experts for their evaluation. These "experts" were sampled from faculty at the University of Florida and from practicing professionals working in both community based and private clinical settings in Alachua County, Florida. The academic and practicing professionals used as experts for this purpose were required to have had experience working with families and be experienced in both theoretical and practical applications of structural family theory. Associate or clinical membership in the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy was used as a minimum selection criterion for experts in order to ensure an equivalent level of family therapy experience. Procedures The experts were met with by this researcher and were provided a general overview of the study. Procedures for using the CPPS Expert Evaluation Rating Form (Appendix F) were explained and presented along with a copy of the

PAGE 79

-68revised CPPS. Experts were instructed to read the items on the CPPS, classify them in the appropriate categories designated on the CPPS Expert Evaluation Rating Form, and then to return their results to the researcher in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided for this purpose. Data Analysis Results of this evaluation were tallied for each item, A baseline of no more than two expert classifications in categories other than the one theoretically assigned for each item was set for item content validity criteria. This criterion was set in light of the feeling that sub-scales on the CPPS were separate yet somewhat interrelated. Construct Validity Based on the theoretical model in which the CPPS was grounded, three separate, though somewhat related, factors of nurturance, control and guidance/autonomy were hypothesized to be central factors of the CPPS. Factor analysis procedures were utilized to confirm whether these theoretical factors were in fact, present. It should be noted that due to the nature of the CPPS in addressing children's perceptions of parent's behavior, parallel forms for mother and father were developed. As such, all reporting of demographic data and results are reported independently for mothers and fathers.

PAGE 80

-69Sub jects The participants in this study were fourth and fifth grade children enrolled in either public or private elementary schools in Alachua County, Florida. Alachua County is located in north central Florida and has a population of approximately 151,348 (Florida Statistical Abstracts, 1981). The county can be characterized as containing one central urban area, the city of Gainesville, and a surrounding rural area where farming and cattle production serve as major economic resources. The county does not have a disproportionate quantity of senior citizens or seasonal residents as does the rest of the state. The white to ethnic minority ratio of Alachua county is approximately 9:2 (119,205:32,143). The City of Gainesville, population 81,371 (Florida Statistical Abstracts, 1981), is the county's major urban area and the home of the University of Florida. Due to the presence of the university, major medical facilities, and numerous light industries, the city and its immediate surrounding area contain a large number of professional individuals. Additionally, the University of Florida, a public, state-funded institution, provides a major economic influence on the city. Participating children were required to be currently living with at least one parent or legal guardian. It should be noted that this parent(s) or guardian(s) did not necessarily have to be the natural parent of the child. Children were not limited from participation in this study

PAGE 81

-70by sex, race, religion, or parent's marital status. The only limitations placed on participation in this study were the exclusion of those children thought to be actively psychotic, retarded, or severely emotionally impaired, or limitations placed on subject availability as a function of individual elementary school policy. This was assured by sampling no special education classes within schools. The sample selected for participation in this study was drawn from consenting public and private elementary schools in Alachua County (See Appendix G), Twenty-six schools were contacted to participate in this study with 15 schools agreeing to participate. A total of nine schools participated in the study. Five were public elementary schools, one was an affiliate of the University of Florida, and three were private schools. Within each participating school, all consenting fourth and fifth grade classes were included in the potential sample. Classroom participation in the study was a function of class availability and teacher cooperation rather than researcher selection. Similarly, only those students obtaining parental consent to participate in this study were included in the sample. A total of 401 subjects participated in the study, yielding 726 completed mothers and fathers forms of the CPPS. Of this total, 575, approximately 80%, came from white children, while 151, approximately 20%, came from minority students. Three hundred and fifty-one observations (48%) were from males.

PAGE 82

-71while 375 were from female students. In regard to family form, 540, or roughly 75% of participating children reported to be living with their two natural parents. Seventy-five students (10%) were living in single parent households, 81 (11%) were living in blended or remarried households, and 30 (4%) were living in extended families. Finally, of the total number of observations, 10 came from eight year olds, 307 came from nine year olds, 319 came from ten year olds, and five came from twelve year olds. In viewing subjects who filled out questionnaires on mothers, a total of 394 children participated. Of these subjects, 308 (78%) were white, while 86 (22%) were minorities. Additionally, 190 (48%) of these observations on mothers were from males, with females contributing the remaining 204 observations. Of this sample, 269 (68%) reported living with both natural parents. Sixty-nine (18%) reported living with single parent mothers, 40 (10%) reported living with remarried or blended families, and 16 children (4%) reported living in extended households. In reviewing the 332 subjects who provided observations on fathers, 267 (80%) were white and 65 (20%) were minorities. As with subjects evaluating mothers, 48% (161) were male, while 52% (171) were female. In regard to family form, 81% (271) reported living with both natural parents, with only six (2%) living with single parent fathers, 41 (13%) living in remarried, blended families, and 14 (4%) living with other relatives in an extended family.

PAGE 83

-72Procedures Administration of the instrument was conducted by the researcher, and took place in the classroom environment. Entire classes were tested as a group for purposes of efficiency and ease of administration. Administration of the CPPS was conducted during both morning and afternoon school hours. A total of 1122 parental consent forms were distributed to potential subjects with 411 returned. This 37% return rate is somewhat inflated due to the inclusion of subjects drawn from P.K. Yonge School, where parental consent for research participation is provided upon entrance to school. Omitting these subjects, 1022 parental consent forms were distributed, with 291 (28%) returned. Only those students returning the parental consent form were allowed to participate in the study. Students who did not participate were instructed to work on written classroom assignments silently at their desks during the administration. Prior to administration of the CPPS, children were read standardized instructions (See Appendix H) and filled out a general demographic information sheet (Appendix I). Children filled out the CPPS for each parent and/or guardian with whom they lived. Students filling out only one CPPS worked on written classroom assignments while other students finished work on their second CPPS.

PAGE 84

-73Data Analysis Following administration, separate factor analyses were performed on mother and father forms to determine the factors common to each form. The extent to which the obtained factor structures corresponded with the theoretical constructs was examined to determine the level of construct validity for each form of the CPPS. Reliability Though issues of contemporary history exert some influence over children's views of their parents, it is assumed that more stable parenting structure or patterns are more influential in dictating the directionality of children's perceptions of their parents, and ultimately in shaping the child's behavior. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, both forms of the CPPS were to be regarded as reliable measures to the extent that scores obtained from a second administration of the instrument corresponded with scores obtained from an initial administration of the CPPS. Additionally, the internal consistency of the instrument was also computed to provide another measure of reliability. Subjects To establish internal consistency for the CPPS, the data obtained from the original sample was analyzed and thus no new subjects were be necessary for internal consistency analysis. Participants in the temporal reliability phase of

PAGE 85

-74the study were a subset of the same sample population described in the previous section. A total of 52 subjects participated in effort to establish temporal reliability of the CPPS, yielding 95 observations. Of the 52 subjects who filled out forms reporting perceptions of their mothers, 38 (73%) were white, while 14 (27%) were minorities. The male to female ratio was 1:1, with 26 males and 26 females participating. In regard to family form, 36 students (69%) reported living with both natural parents, nine students (18%) reported living with single parent mothers, six students (11%) reported to be living in blended households, and only one reported to be living in an extended family household. Of the 43 subjects reporting perceptions of fathers, 33 (77%) were white, while 10 (23%) were minorities. Twentyone males and 22 females contributed to this phase of the project. Finally, 36 (83%) of these subjects reported living with both natural parents, none lived with single parent fathers, six (15%) lived with remarried parents, and one lived in an extended family. Selection of classes to participate in this sample subset was random and represented both fourth and fifth grade levels. Procedures Approximately 30 days following the initial administration of the CPPS, subjects were given a second

PAGE 86

-75administration of the CPPS. The stability of children's responses over time provided an indication of the extent to which the CPPS was able to measure a consistent structure, rather than a transient situational attitude. In light of criticisms leveled against the stability of children's perceptions highlighted in the previous chapter, the establishment of temporal reliability for the CPPS was crucial. A similar procedure was followed as outlined in guidelines for the administration of the CPPS (See "Construct") with the exception that there was no re-distribution of the parental consent forms. Again, entire classrooms were sampled as a cluster. In an effort to assess the extent to which the CPPS was internally reliable, the internal consistency of the scale was assessed. Results from the CPPS pilot study (Appendix C) provided preliminary findings in this area. Data Analysis For the establishment of reliability of the CPPS, Pearson Product Moment Correlations were employed to assess its temporal reliability, while Coefficient Alpha analyses were employed to assess its internal consistency. Limitations One potential limitation of this study relates to sampling procedures employed. Due to the nature of the research and the sample size needed, it was necessary to

PAGE 87

f -76obtain subjects from public and private elementary schools. Inclusion of schools in the study was a function of individual school policy and not school desirability. Only schools which agreed to participate were available for inclusion. Thus, there exists the possibility that refusal to participate by schools was representative of a school policy which relates to parental attitudes. If this is the case, only sampling agreeable schools yielded a skewed sample. Though this possibility did exist, it was felt that it was more likely that participation decisions made by the schools reflected school administration policy rather than parental attitudes. Another more powerful limitation in the sampling for this study centers around the area of parental consent. Due to the nature of this research and the age of the target population, written parental consent was required for participation in the study. The possibility existed that parents who feared their children would evaluate them in a negative fashion withheld permission for their children to participate. Likewise, children who had poor relations with parents may not have brought parental consent forms home to be signed, and as such, eliminated themselves from the sample pool. This concern is somewhat minimized by the purpose of this research, but effects of such potential limitations cannot be overlooked. Finally, the potential that teachers cooperation was reflective of parental attitudes also touches on the issue

PAGE 88

-77of sampling. Though this is a possibility, it was felt that little resistance was given by teachers. It appeared that parents and administrators may have had more reservations regarding participation in this study than did teachers. Another potential limitation of this study was that items on the CPPS may not have been appropriate and, as such, yielded misleading results. This concern was minimized by the nature of this study as an instrument refinement effort. The results of this study were not to be seen as conclusive but rather, directional in further refinements of the CPPS. Issues of contemporary history also entered in as potential limitations of this research, particularly in the time lapse between test and re-test phases of experimentation. It was thought however, that sources of error in this area tended to balance out and as such were canceled, with appropriate numbers. Finally, another limitation of this study is its generalizability. It was thought that children's relations with parents, and thus their perceptions of parents, were strongly influenced by the development stage of the child and family. It would therefore be expected that the same child would change perceptions of the same parents as a function of time. Because of this natural and "healthy" characteristic, findings for specific age groups can be generalized only to that same age group and not to children either younger or older. Norms for the CPPS would have to be established for different age groups, to ensure accurate use with children of varying age children.

PAGE 89

CHAPTER IV RESULTS The purpose of this study was to develop validity and reliability data for the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CCPS). Specific content and construct validity data were collected along with both internal and temporal reliabilities. Results of construct validity and reliability analyses are presented separately for mother and father forms of the CPPS. Content Validity of the CPPS A total of five experts having associate or clinical status in the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy evaluated the content of the CPPS by categorizing items in terms of theoretical construct areas which they represented. A summary of these evaluations across all five experts is presented in Table 2. A limit of no more than two expert placements in construct areas other than the one hypothesized for each item was used as a baseline criterion for determining whether an item was judged to represent construct areas described. Of the 45 items on the CPPS, experts' evaluations supported hypothesized constructs for 38 of the 45 items. Items 4, 5, 39, 40, 42, 44, and 45 were -78-

PAGE 90

-79TABLE 2 RESULTS OF EXPERT EVALUATIONS OF THE ITEM CONTENT OF THE CPPS I FACTOR 1 ITEM GUIDANCE/AUTONOMY LIMIT SETTING NURTURING 1 2 0 3 2 5 0 0 3 3 0 2 4 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 6 0 0 5 7 3 1 1 8 0 0 5 9 0 5 0 10 0 5 0 11 0 0 5 12 5 0 0 13 0 5 0 14 0 0 5 15 0 5 0 16 0 0 5 17 0 5 0 18 5 0 0 yj 19 5 0 0 20 0 0 5 21 0 5 0 22 5 0 0 23 2 0 3 24 0 3 2 25 5 0 0 26 5 0 0 27 0 0 5 28 3 0 2 29 0 0 5 30 3 1 1 31 2 3 0 32 0 5 0 33 1 5 0 34 0 0 5 35 1 3 1 36 3 0 2 37 0 0 5

PAGE 91

-80TABLE 2 CONTINUED I FACTOR 1 ITEM GUI DANC E/ AUTONOMY LIMIT SETTING NURTURING 38 0 5 0 39 1 4 0 40 4 1 0 41 0 5 0 42 5 0 0 43 0 5 0 44 1 4 0 45 1 4 0

PAGE 92

-81the only items categorized by more than two experts in construct areas other than those originally hypothesized. Construct Validity of the CPPS To determine the construct areas actually represented in the CPPS, a series of factor analyses were conducted. The factor structures of the mother and father forms of the CPPS were considered independently and results of these analyses are presented separately. Factor Structure of the Mother Form Three hundred and ninety-four subjects provided observations on mother forms of the CPPS which were used for factor analysis purposes. A Principal Component Factor Analysis with an orthogonal rotation was performed on the raw data. As a result of the anticipated relationship between the hypothesized factors, results of this data analysis yielded an unclear factor structure. Following this procedure, an oblique rotation to simple loadings was utilized to develop a clear factor matrix. This procedure yielded 14 factors for the mother form shown in Table 3. Results from this analysis suggested that a minimum of a five factor structure could best be used in effort to produce the most concise, clear factor structure for the mother form. Next, oblique rotations with five, six, seven, and eight factor structures were investigated with a six factor

PAGE 93

-82structure indicating the clearest representation of factors in the mother form of the CPPS. This six factor structure was chosen because it yielded the fewest multiple factor loadings for items above the .30 level, and it provided the clearest, most representative factor structure in regard to common item content. This six factor structure is presented in Table 4. This six factor structure accounted for 39% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS. Items 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 30, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, and 43 did not load on any of the six factors above the .40 loading cut point used. Although item 28 loaded on factor 5 with a loading of -.40 and item 42 loaded on factor 3 with a loading of .45, these items were not representative of their respective factors and thus were disregarded with the above sixteen items, leaving 29 items found in Table 5. Factor 1, named flexibility in encouraging participation in rule setting, contained seven items loading above .40. Loadings ranged from .47 to .72 for items in this factor. The content of items in this area all related to the encouragement of children's involvement in decision making and rule setting. This factor was seen as a subset of the general area of guidance or teaching children autonomy. Items in this factor related to wanting to know children's ideas and allowing children to help set rules. This factor accounted for 13% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS.

PAGE 94

-83TABLE 3 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ITEMS ON MOTHER FORMS FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO SIMPLE SOLUTION ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 1 0.036 0.702 0.097 0.001 -0. 036 2 0.003 -0.131 0.093 0.000 0.824 3 0.125 0.205 -0.117 -0. 159 0.015 4 0.115 0.186 0.656 0.003 0.078 5 -0.075 -0.034 -0.113 -0.141 0.729 6 0.354 0.386 0.086 0.006 -0. 108 7 0.018 -0.108 0.202 0.028 0.207 8 0.103 0.087 0.014 0.124 0.462 9 0.098 0.167 0.060 -0.016 -0.040 10 0.070 0.036 -0.415 0.131 0.029 11 0.015 0.134 -0.033 0.116 0.070 12 0.123 0.028 -0.021 -0.001 0.014 13 0.001 -0.211 0.547 -0.094 -0.065 14 0.074 0.379 0.032 -0.090 -0.044 15 0.106 0.017 0.037 0.034 0.057 16 0.166 0.410 -0.172 -0.026 0.238 17 0.073 -0.065 -0.016 -0.155 -0.087 18 -0.003 0.086 -0.069 -0.094 0.033 19 -0. 023 -0.182 -0.601 -0.051 0.193 20 0.279 0.015 -0.129 -0.104 0.115 21 0.009 -0.079 0.245 -0.304 -0.049 22 -0.110 0.165 0.022 0.134 0.118 23 -0.230 -0.089 0.169 0.038 -0.064 24 0.025 0.152 -0.337 0.031 0.044 25 0. 116 -0.211 0.093 0.152 -0.030 26 0.661 0.075 0.042 -0.005 0.065 27 -0.035 0.612 0.029 0.041 -0.130 28 -0.014 0.079 -0.072 -0.037 -0.071 29 -0.082 0.473 0.136 -0.015 0.028 30 -0.202 0.142 -0.079 0.141 0.209 31 0.684 0.130 -0.059 -0.127 0.008 32 0.547 -0.126 0.031 -0.032 -0.061 33 0.725 -0.061 0.053 -0.030 0.021 34 0.245 0.261 0.106 -0.118 -0.070 35 0.051 -0.023 -0.431 -0.031 -0.011 36 0.331 0.136 0.161 -0.001 0.296 37 -0.147 0.209 0.085 0.123 -0.005 38 0.554 -0.153 -0.019 0.007 -0.037

PAGE 95

-84TABLE 3 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 39 0.044 -0.071 -0.082 0.017 0.219 40 0.086 -0.105 -0.111 -0.089 -0.105 41 -0.161 0.155 0.268 -0. 187 -0.119 42 0.151 0.123 -0.162 -0.036 0.074 43 0.116 0.056 -0.102 0.052 0.123 44 0.042 -0.005 0.036 0.862 -0.057 45 -0.007 -0.009 -0.010 0.888 -0.067 E igen value 2.760 2.195 1.987 1.943 1.913

PAGE 96

-85TABLE 3 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 6 FACTOR 7 FACTOR 8 FACTOR 9 FACTOR 10 1 0.213 -0.104 0.088 -0.014 0.038 2 0.099 -0.034 -0.031 0.104 -0.002 3 -0.087 -0.031 -0.130 0.338 0.001 4 0.042 -0.055 0.023 -0.155 0.032 5 0.016 -0.092 0.043 0.027 0.040 6 -0.029 -0.144 0.100 0.135 0.214 7 0.048 -0.061 0.047 0.603 0.051 8 0.085 0.408 0.032 -0 .010 0.002 9 0.168 -0.007 0.021 -0.008 0.021 10 0.087 0.187 0.196 0.499 -0.131 11 -0.220 0.269 0.375 0. 207 -0.031 12 -0.123 0.954 -0.069 -0.111 0 .158 13 -0.014 0.097 0.137 0.169 0.112 14 0.066 -0.024 0.394 0.019 0.189 15 -0.109 0.242 -0.091 -0.139 0.236 16 0.004 0.208 0.178 -0.321 0.105 17 -0.003 0.742 -0.063 0.057 0.037 18 0.767 -0.061 0.011 0.073 -0.131 19 -0.039 -0.225 0.133 -0.095 0.130 20 -0.076 -0.006 -0.087 0.112 0.646 21 0.033 0.597 -0.080 -0.061 -0.067 22 0.707 0.085 -0.134 -0.034 0.020 23 0.366 0.090 0.287 0.145 0.389 24 -0.033 0.148 0.040 0.582 0.240 25 0.415 0.062 -0.028 -0.126 0.043 26 -0.118 0.082 0.106 -0.029 -0.138 27 -0.030 -0.010 -0.029 0.052 0.056 28 0.063 -0.085 0.091 0.024 0.013 29 -0.004 0.199 -0.085 -0.014 0.174 30 -0.160 0.019 0.187 -0.138 -0.050 31 -0.100 0.018 -0.153 0.087 -0.006 32 0.170 0.126 0.180 -0.093 -0.096 33 -0.056 -0.032 -0.034 -0.086 0.189 34 -0.080 -0.084 0.473 0.129 0.054 35 0 104 v • J. V7 1 0 1 ?s yj % \J I \j \j % \j ~j ~j w . u o o 36 -0.166 -0.053 0.044 0.083 0.021 37 -0.123 0.047 -0.042 0.027 0.667 38 0.051 0.104 0.184 -0.096 0.157 39 -0.089 -0.183 0.627 0.023 -0.075 40 0.118 0.077 0.345 -0.211 0.386 41 -0.102 0.165 0.163 -0.085 -0.025 42 0.076 -0.033 0.091 0.194 -0.050 43 -0.235 0.237 0.368 0.257 -0.006 44 0.011 -0.073 -0.003 -0.036 0.010 45 -0.020 -0.046 -0.020 0.074 0.011 Eigen 1.838 1.683 1.648 1.633 1.618 value

PAGE 97

-86TABLE 3 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 11 FACTOR 12 FACTOR 13 FACTOR 14 1 0.010 -0.032 -0.152 0.084 2 -0.066 0.071 0.057 -0.021 3 -0.231 -0.070 0. 504 0.012 4 0.078 0.124 -0.047 0. 147 5 -0.057 -0.166 -0.003 0.029 6 -0.190 0.028 0 .026 -0.147 7 0.016 0.023 0.065 -0.088 8 -0.027 0.128 -0.158 -0.149 9 -0.096 0.040 -0.030 0.777 10 0.251 -0.118 -0.151 0 . 006 11 -0.023 0.007 0. 148 -0,043 12 0.132 0 .698 0 .039 0.183 13 0.018 -0.053 -0.008 0.353 14 0 .040 -0 .038 -0.064 -0.281 15 0. 123 -0.627 0.009 0.188 16 0 .077 0.083 -0.099 -0 .037 17 -0.064 -0.057 0,025 0. 117 18 -0 .008 0.032 0.123 0. 129 19 0.028 0.084 0,048 0.098 20 -0 .007 -0.008 -0,095 -0.053 21 -0.145 -0.149 0,060 -0.087 22 0.115 -0.122 0.012 0.026 23 -0.213 0.147 -0.074 -0.089 24 -0.017 -0.004 -0.064 0.087 25 0.083 0.202 0.643 0.017 26 0.035 0.141 0.056 -0.048 27 0.097 0.041 0. 177 0.150 28 0.713 0.019 0.080 -0.038 29 0.169 0.108 0.149 -0.092 30 -0.488 -0.129 0.336 0.063 31 0.077 0.026 0.049 0.130 32 -0.079 -0.233 -0.020 0.129 33 -0.026 0.062 0.055 -0,025 34 -0.079 0.000 0.010 -0,171 35 -0,482 0.083 -0 016 V , U J J 36 0.027 -0.197 0.085 -0.155 37 0.120 0.015 0.072 0.120 38 0.046 -0.254 0.012 -0.020 39 0.054 -0.090 -0.016 0.214 40 0.038 -0.109 0.252 -0.119 41 0.329 0.144 0.253 0.263 42 0.210 -0.262 0.475 -0.095 43 0.136 0.153 -0.024 -0.078 44 -0.006 -0.063 0.044 -0.036 45 -0.076 0.003 0.012 0.043 Eigen 1.545 1.437 1.378 1.318 value

PAGE 98

-87TABLE 4 RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO A SIX FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR MOTHER FORMS OF THE CPPS ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6 38 0.722 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 0.676 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0.632 0.251 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.583 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 0.576 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 0.500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 0.625 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 0.617 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.591 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37 0.0 0.574 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.0 0.516 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.295 0.623 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 0.0 0.579 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.543 0.0 0.0 0.0 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.755 0.0 0.0 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.734 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.640 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.638 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.584 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.552 0.0 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.700 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.660 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.622 24 0.0 0.359 0.454 0.0 0.263 0.0 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.456 0.286 12 0.0 0.382 0.0 0.0 0.0 "7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.320 28 0.0 0.371 0.0 0.0 -0.402 11 0.0 0 282 0.0 0.0 0.253 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.266 5 0.0 0.0 0.286 0.0 0.406 3 0.0 0.0 0.386 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.316 0.299 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.361 0.386 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 35 0.0 0.0 0.394 0.0 0.0 O.'o 6 0.329 0.439 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 0.0 -0.467 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.334 39 0.276 0.0 0.301 0.0 0.0 O.'o

PAGE 99

-88TABLE 4 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6 40 0.352 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41 0.0 0.393 0.0 0.0 -0.318 0.0 42 0.379 0.0 0.453 0.0 0.0 0.254 43 0.0 0.322 0.258 0.0 0.0 -0.253 15 0.472 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.0 0.376 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 The above factor loading matrix has been rearranged so that the columns appear in decreasing order of variance explained by factors. The rows have been rearranged so that for each successive factor, loadings greater than 0.5000 appear first. Loadings less than 0.2500 have been replaced by zero.

PAGE 100

-89Factor 2, named parent-child relationship and contact, contained a total of six items. A loading range between .44 and .62 was revealed for items in this factor. Seen as a component of the global construct of nurturance, items in this area reflected parent-child activity and communication. This factor accounted for 8% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS. Factor 3, named encouragement of children's responsibility for behavioral consequences, was seen as a subset of the general area of guidance and autonomy. This factor contained five items which loaded between .45 and .62. These items reflected parental efforts to teach children to anticipate behavioral consequences and accept responsibility for their behaviors. This factor accounted for 7% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS. Factor 4, named leniency of rules, contained four items which loaded between .63 and .75. These items, which were seen as a subset of the general construct area of control, all directly addressed maternal leniency in limit setting and discipline. This factor accounted for 4% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS. Factor 5, named parental concern, contained four items with a loading range between .40 and .58. This factor, which represented a subset of the general area of nurturance, contained items which related to parental worry and concern for children. Some of the items represented this theme by addressing parental monitoring and supervision

PAGE 101

-90TABLE 5 FINAL FACTORS IN THE MOTHER FORM OF THE CPPS Factor 1 Flexibility in encouraging participation in rule setting. I tern Factor Loading 38. My mother will change rules to be fair to rae. .72 33. My mother lets me help set some of the rules that I must follow. .67 32. My mother will drop a rule when I am good. .63 26. My mother asks me what I think about how things should be done. .58 31. My mother wants to know my ideas. .50 15. My mother sets very few rules for me. .47 Factor 2 Parent-child relationship and contact. I tem Factor Loading 27. My mother does not spend any more time with me than she has to. .62 29. My mother only talks to me when she feels like it. .61 1. My mother doesn't seem to want to play with me. .52 37. My mother is slow to listen to me. .57 14. My mother wants for us to do things together. .51 6. My mother wants to do things with me. .44

PAGE 102

-91TABLE 5 CONTINUED Factor 3 Encouragement of children's responsibility for behavioral consequences. Item Factor Loading 4. My mother tells me it is my own fault when I get into trouble. .62 10. My mother explains what will happen if I am bad. .57 19. My mother is always asking me if my work is done . .54 24. My mother helps me understand how I might be harmed if I do bad things. .45 13. My mother punishes me when I am bad. .46 Factor 4 Leniency of rules. Item Factor Load ing 44. My mother lets me go out as often as I please. .75 45. My mother lets me go anywhere I please. .73 17. My mother lets me off easy when I don't do my work. .64 21. My mother lets me get away with a lot of things I shouldn't do. .63

PAGE 103

-92TABLE 5 CONTINUED Factor 5 Parental concern. I tern r actor Loading 8. My mother worries about me a lot. .58 2. My mother wants to know every place I go and everything I do. . D D 23. My mother leaves me alone when I get upset. .45 5. My mother wants to know what I am doing at all times. .40 Factor 6 Encouragement of independent behavior. Item Factor Loading 18. My mother lets me work by myself. .70 22. My mother likes me to do things on ray own. .66 25. My mother feels that I should do ray work by myself . .62

PAGE 104

-93of children. This factor accounted for 3% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS. Factor six, encouragement of independent behavior, contained a total of three items which loaded between .62 and .70. These items reflected parental encouragement of children working on their own and represented a factor seen as a component of the general area of autonomy and guidance. This factor accounted for 4% of the total variance of the mother form of the CPPS. Factor Structure of the Father Form A total of 332 subjects completed father forms of the CPPS which were used for factor analysis purposes. Following a Principal Component Factor Analysis with an orthogonal rotation which yielded an unclear factor structure for the father form of the CPPS due to a relationship among factors, an oblique rotation was used. This procedure resulted in the 15 factor structure shown in Table 6. As with the mother form, these results suggested a minimum of a five factor structure to best represent the factors in the father form of the CPPS. Oblique rotations with five, six, seven, and eight factor structures were next investigated with an eight factor structure providing the clearest structure for the father form in regard to content consistency and multiple loadings. This eight factor structure is presented in Table 7. A loading cut point of .40 was employed for the father form of the CPPS. Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 24,

PAGE 105

-94TABLE 6 FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ITEMS ON FATHER FORMS FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO SIMPLE SOLUTION ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 1 -0.054 0.076 0.191 0.049 0.018 2 0.045 0.103 0.144 -0. 067 -0.080 3 -0.082 -0.245 -0.008 -0.005 -0.197 4 0.335 0.045 0.077 0. 226 0.034 5 -0.058 0.069 0.011 0 . 208 0.063 6 0.167 0.008 0.715 0.016 0.017 7 0.078 -0.109 0.017 0.254 0.091 8 -0.050 -0.047 -0,113 -0. 120 0.063 9 0.112 0 .125 -0.010 -0.046 -0.010 10 -0. 127 0.046 -0.041 0.101 0.058 11 -0.014 0.007 0.118 -0 .057 0.145 12 0.109 0.030 0.020 0.014 0.067 13 -0.004 0 .029 -0.045 0.291 -0.028 14 0.028 0.007 0.764 0. 097 -0.049 15 0.044 0.022 0.060 0.053 -0.119 16 -0.083 0.106 0.396 0.021 -0.210 17 -0.054 0.092 0.021 -0.099 -0.152 18 -0.094 0.587 -0. 130 0.089 0.031 19 -0.260 -0.125 0.088 -0.038 -0.123 20 0.029 -0.114 0. 105 -0.060 -0. 048 21 0.068 -0.019 0.002 0.014 -0.074 22 -0.048 0.793 0.108 -0.014 0.002 23 0.038 0.197 -0.001 0.031 -0.096 24 0.053 0.002 0.027 0.126 0.061 25 0.033 0.642 -0.034 -0.042 0.014 26 -0.081 -0.168 0.084 0.674 -0.025 27 0.219 0.124 -0.063 -0.047 -0.041 28 0.498 0.243 -0.007 -0.151 -0.126 29 0.352 0.135 0.262 -0.089 -0.025 30 -0.476 -0.097 0.422 -0.147 0.181 31 0.071 0.151 -0.015 0.692 -0.093 32 -0.217 0.121 0.070 0.306 -0.122 33 0.045 0.019 0.063 0.535 -0.009 34 -0.025 0.032 0.241 0.091 0.041 35 -0.692 0.173 -0.186 -0.078 -0.096 36 -0.023 -0.142 0.252 0.219 -0.112 37 0.019 0.069 -0.015 0.082 -0.025 38 0.071 -0.032 0.036 0.164 -0.130

PAGE 106

-95TABLE 6 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 39 0.105 0.120 0.054 0.058 0.008 40 0.035 -0.020 -0.141 0.111 -0.234 41 0.651 -0.123 0.024 -0.010 -0.007 42 0.004 0.127 0.077 0.145 0.094 43 0.006 -0.129 0.094 0.107 -0.100 44 -0.038 0.040 -0.073 0.014 0.863 45 0.036 0.007 0.057 -0.022 0.824 Eigen value 2.046 1.879 1.871 1.848 1.828

PAGE 107

-96TABLE 6 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 6 FACTOR 7 FACTOR 8 FACTOR 9 FACTOR 10 1 -0.122 -0.158 2 0.148 0.031 3 0.535 -0.018 4 -0.102 0.025 5 -0.003 0.030 6 -0.166 0.054 7 0.050 -0.145 8 -0.039 0.135 9 -0.043 -0.058 10 0.614 -0.045 11 0.445 0.296 12 -0.028 0.036 13 -0.118 -0.019 14 0.070 -0.058 15 0.005 0.019 16 0.064 0.037 17 0.087 0.022 18 -0.145 0.086 19 -0.034 -0.032 20 -0.088 0.628 21 -0.049 0.035 22 0.075 -0.150 23 -0.124 0.139 24 0.547 0.098 25 -0.027 0.074 26 -0.093 0.044 27 0.223 0.164 28 0.031 0.049 29 0.325 -0.066 30 0.034 0.182 31 0. 180 0.086 32 -0.093 0.035 33 0.147 0.085 34 0.119 0.465 •33 U . 1 D u _n TOO — U . i z iS 36 0.196 0.231 37 0.005 0.201 38 0.153 0.116 39 -0.086 0.116 40 -0.045 0.676 41 0.030 -0.055 42 0.153 0.486 43 0.324 0.036 44 0.021 0.030 45 0.048 -0.099 Eigen 1.795 1.775 value -0.100 0.088 0.634 0 .752 -0.046 -0.194 0.075 0.037 0.304 -0 .165 -0.094 0 . 139 0.757 0.027 0.087 0.177 0.098 0.063 0.032 0.027 0.137 0.066 0.071 -0.024 0.001 0.052 -0.037 0.160 0.010 -0. 151 -0.024 -0.007 0.028 -0.003 -0.033 0.160 -0.179 -0.018 -0.175 0.017 -0.050 0.088 -0.094 0.186 0.043 -0.149 -0.347 -0.062 0.004 0.707 0.104 0.092 -0.046 0.098 0. 140 -0.012 -0.034 0.173 -0.016 0.288 -0.026 0.750 -0.087 0.048 -0.038 0.025 -0. 130 -0.154 -0.030 0.094 0.039 -0.053 0.040 0.142 0.036 0.014 -0.213 0.145 -0.142 -0. 153 0.317 -0.014 -0.054 -0.002 -0.249 0.018 0.097 -0.032 -0.009 -0.122 0.154 0.030 0.014 -0.310 0.299 -0.186 0.003 0.241 -0.043 -0.059 0.076 0.073 -0.039 -0-09? 0.104 -0.028 0.029 -0.007 -0.087 0.721 -0.215 0.302 0.100 -0.086 -0.163 -0.124 0.047 0.032 -0.125 -0.089 0.000 0.078 -0.203 0.092 -0.009 -0.105 -0.192 -0.060 -0.016 -0.079 -0.001 -0.008 -0.057 0.001 1.732 1.727 1.564

PAGE 108

-97TABLE 6 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 11 FACTOR 12 FACTOR 13 FACTOR 14 FACTOR 15 1 0.171 0.024 -0.007 0. 147 -0.140 2 0.051 0.069 -0.083 -0.008 -0 . 129 3 -0.061 0.164 0.039 -0. 224 -0.069 4 -0.033 0.154 -0.198 -0.201 0.185 5 -0.003 -0.055 0.074 0.078 0.019 6 0.096 -0.011 0.093 0.056 -0.102 7 0.568 -0.181 0.078 -0.032 -0.103 8 0.746 0.080 -0.046 0. 124 0.067 9 0.001 0.638 0.080 0.018 0.009 10 0.033 -0.148 0.084 0.003 -0.010 11 0.268 0.327 0.021 0.016 0.220 12 -0.054 0.289 -0.142 0.569 -0.022 13 -0.073 0.478 -0.257 0.161 0.143 14 -0.130 0.004 -0.024 0.092 0.147 15 0.026 0.061 0.157 0.037 0.729 16 0.441 0.045 0.039 -0.162 0.027 17 0.050 0.110 -0.099 -0.040 0.205 18 -0.014 0.189 0.184 -0.016 -0.290 19 0.115 -0.097 0.129 0.621 -0.001 20 -0.067 0.042 0.117 0.083 0.079 21 0.031 -0.105 0.034 -0.042 0.017 22 -0.043 -0.141 -0.110 -0.119 0.146 23 0.087 -0.102 -0. 563 0.058 -0.063 24 0.009 -0.167 -0.039 0.331 -0.014 25 -0.054 0.203 -0.003 0.040 -0.029 26 0.058 -0.032 0.031 0.005 -0.027 27 -0.165 0.031 0.017 0.166 -0. 139 28 0.133 -0.073 0.174 0.003 0.029 29 -0.012 -0.090 -0.173 0.155 -0.320 30 -0.217 -0.074 0.050 -0.082 -0.034 31 -0.161 0.010 0.096 0.059 0.113 32 -0.098 0.130 0.146 0.039 -0.190 33 0.211 0.012 -0.077 -0.048 -0.034 34 0.202 0.059 0.006 0.087 -0.044 35 0.098 0 004 n lift U . U X ^ U . U ^ 36 0.118 0.318 0.040 -0.188 -0.243 37 -0.055 -0.150 -0.116 -0.078 0.175 38 0.051 0.202 0.359 -0.017 -0.194 39 0.044 -0.067 0.740 0.060 0.106 40 0.081 -0.026 -0.036 -0.056 -0.021 41 -0.103 0.217 0.109 -0.083 0.056 42 -0.033 -0.325 0.012 0.013 -0.010 43 0.154 -0.031 0.090 0.476 0. 152 44 0.006 0.082 0.034 -0.018 -0.060 45 0.115 -0.026 0.043 -0.045 -0.005 Eigen 1.556 1.494 1.434 1.409 1.229 value

PAGE 109

-98TABLE 7 RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN OBLIQUE ROTATION TO AN EIGHT FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR THE FATHER FORMS OF THE CPPS ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 26 0.711 0.0 0 . 0 0,0 31 0.545 0.0 0 . 0 -0.266 36 0.541 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 29 0.0 0.685 0 . 0 0.0 41 0.0 0.0 0.633 0.0 45 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0.765 44 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0.738 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 8 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 19 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 22 0 . 0 0.277 0.0 0 . 0 21 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 38 0.312 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 17 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 -0 . 380 5 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 10 0.0 0.0 0.410 0.0 20 0.311 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.333 0.406 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 -0.295 0.308 0.0 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 0.347 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 0.0 0.328 0.0 1 0.0 0.292 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 0.474 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 0.367 0.370 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.415 0.0 30 0.0 0.0 0.492 0.0 11 0.0 0.253 0.0 0.0 32 0.387 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 0.494 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.389 0.282 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 0.0 -0.492 0.0 3 0.0 0.268 0.0 0.0 37 0.0 0.425 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.393 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PAGE 110

-99TABLE 7 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 40 0.322 0.0 0.0 -0.391 16 0.253 0.0 0.0 0.0 42 0.0 0.377 -0.308 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 0.495 0.0 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.361 0.296 0.0 0.0 The above factor loading matrix has been rearranged so that the columns appear in decreasing order of variance explained by factors. The rows have been rearranged so that for each successive factor, loadings greater than 0.5000 appear first. Loadings less than 0.2500 have been replaced by zero.

PAGE 111

-100TABLE 7 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6 FACTOR 7 FACTOR 8 26 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 31 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 45 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 44 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 43 0 .625 0.0 0,0 0.0 8 0.605 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0 .528 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.0 0.700 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 0 .674 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 0.621 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 0.0 0.598 0.0 38 0.0 0.0 0. 529 0.0 17 0.0 0.0 0.515 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.733 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.708 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 258 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.309 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.309 23 0.0 0.0 -0.431 -0. 254 24 0.387 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.307 0.0 -0. 256 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.437 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0.0 0.0 0.366 -0.338 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.274 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 -0.294 0.0 0.271 37 0.0 0.0 -0.298 0.0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0.263 0.0 0.0 0.0 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.310 0.0 0.0 0.0

PAGE 112

-101TABLE 7 CONTINUED ITEM FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6 FACTOR 7 FACTOR 8 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.319 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 The above factor loading matrix has been rearranged so that the columns appear in decreasing order of variance explained by factors. The rows have been rearranged so that for each successive factor, loadings greater than 0.5000 appear first. Loadings less than 0.2500 have been replaced by zero.

PAGE 113

-10228, 32, 34, 39, 40, and 42 did not load above the .40 level and thus were rejected. The remaining 29 items are included in Table 8. This eight factor structure accounted for 42% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 1, named flexibility in encouraging participation in rule setting, contained four items with loadings ranging between .49 and .71. As with factor 1 of the mother form, this factor was seen as a component of the general construct of autonomy and guidance. Items within this factor related to the encouragement of children's participation in decision making and rule setting, and the desire to know children's ideas about limits and rules. This factor accounted for 11% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 2, parent-child relationship and contact, contained a total of four items which loaded above the .40 level. These items reflected parent-child interaction, communication, and time together. This factor was seen as a sub-division of the more global construct area of nurturance. This factor accounted for 8% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 3, strictness in parental expectations, contained six items that loaded between .41 and .63. Items in this factor reflected parental expectations of children's behavior in regard to success and to following rules. Although the relationship between the constructs of autonomy and control can clearly be seen in these items, this factor

PAGE 114

-103TABLE 8 FINAL FACTORS IN THE FATHER FORM OF THE CPPS Factor 1 Flexibility in encouraging participation in rule setting. I tern Factor Loading 26. My father asks me what I think about how things should be done. .71 31. My father lets me question if punishment is fair. .54 36. My father wants to know my ideas. .54 33. My father let me help set some of the rules that I must follow. .49 Factor 2 Parent-child relationship and contact. I tern Factor Loading 29. My father only talks to me when he feels like it. .68 14. My father wants for us to do things together. .41 27. My father does not spend any more time with me than he has to. .47 37. My father is slow to listen to me. .42 •I

PAGE 115

-104TABLE 8 CONTINUED Factor 3 Strictness of parental expectations. Item Factor Loading 41, My father sets strict rules for me to follow. .63 10. My father explains what will happen if I am bad. -.41 4. My father tells me it is my own fault when I get into trouble. .41 30. My father pushes me to do very good in everything that I do. -.49 35. My father nags me when I am bad. -.49 9. My father won't change his mind when he makes a rule. .49 Factor 4 Leniency of rules. I tern Factor Loading 44. My father lets me go out as often as I please. .74 45. My father lets me go anywhere I please. .76 Factor 5 Parental concern. Item Factor Loading 43. My father explains why I shouldn't do things. .62 8. My father worries about me a lot. .60 19. My father is always asking me if my work is done . .53 11. My father wants to know how I am feeling. .44

PAGE 116

-105TABLE 8 CONTINUED Factor 6 Encouragement of independent behavior. I tern Factor Load ing 18. My father lets me work by myself. .70 25. My father feels that I should do ray work by myself . .67 22. My father likes me to do things on my own. .62 Factor 7 Consistency of rules. I tern Factor Load ing 21. My father lets me get away with a lot of things I shouldn't do. .60 38. My father will change rules to be fair to me. .53 17. My father lets me off easy when I don't do my work. .51 23. My father leaves me alone when I get upset. -.43 Factor 8 Strictness of rules. Item Factor Loading 5. My father wants to know what I am doing at all times. .73 2. My father wants to know every place I go and everything I do. .71

PAGE 117

-106was regarded as a principle subset of the general area of control. This factor accounted for 6% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 4 only contained two items which loaded above the .40 level. Seen as a component of the general area of control, this factor was named leniency in rules. The two items in this factor reflected leniency in parental rules regarding the degree to which children were allowed to choose when and where they go. This factor accounted for 4% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 5, parental concern, contained four items which loaded above .40. With a loading range between .44 and .62, these items were seen as representing the general area of nurturance. Items within this factor addressed parental worry and concern for children in regard to children's effect and behavior. This factor accounted for 3% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 6, encouragement of independent behavior, contained three items focusing on parental encouragement of children working on their own. These three items were seen as falling under the general area of autonomy. The range of loading for these three items was between .62 and .70. This factor accounted for 4% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 7, named consistency in rules, contained four items which loaded between .43 and .60. These items all reflected consistency in parental limit setting and parental

PAGE 118

-107comfort in the establishment of rules regardless of children's attitudes. This factor was seen as a subset of the general construct area of control. This factor accounted for 3% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Factor 8, named strictness in rules, contained only two items which loaded at .71 and .73. These items represented parental monitoring of children's activities and whereabouts. Although related to the area of autonomy, this factor was seen as a component of the general area of control. This factor accounted for 3% of the total variance of the father form of the CPPS. Reliability of the CPPS Temporal Reliability for the Mother Form A total of 52 subjects were re-tested at a 30 day interval to establish temporal reliability for the mother form of the CPPS. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to establish a correlation between scores obtained from these two administrations of the CPPS. A correlation of .70 was obtained for the mother form at a thirty-day interval. Temporal Reliability for the Father Form A total of 43 subjects were re-tested at a 30 day interval to establish the temporal reliability for the father form of the CPPS. Similar statistical procedures were employed with the father form as were used with the mother form. A correlation of .85 was obtained for the father form at a thirty day interval.

PAGE 119

-108Internal Reliability for the Mother Form A total of 394 subjects provided observations on mother forms of the CPPS. A Coefficient Alpha analysis was utilized to assess internal consistency of the responses. Results indicated internal reliability for the mother form to be .74. Internal Reliability for the Father Form A total of 332 children responded to the father form of the CPPS. Similar statistical procedures were followed as were used in internal reliability efforts as described for the mother form. Internal reliability for the father form was .70.

PAGE 120

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The purpose of this study was the development of the Children's Perceptions of Parenting Scale (CPPS). Children's Perceptions of mothers and fathers were assessed independently by use of two different CPPS forms. Three research issues regarding the content validity of items, the underlying theoretical factors present, and the reliability of scores obtained on the CPPS were of particular interest in this study. A discussion of results of content validity, construct validity and reliability analyses are presented in this chapter along with discussion of limitations and implications for future research. Discussion of Validity Data Content Validity Of the 45 items on the CPPS, expert evaluations of content validity supported 38 items in regard to representation of hypothesized constructs. Seven items, 4, 5, 39, 40, 42, 44, and 45, received expert evaluations in areas other than the one hypothesized. Only three of these seven items, 39, 40, and 42, either did not load on any factor -109-

PAGE 121

-noabove a .40 loading cut level or in the case of item 42 were seen as unrepresentative of the factor in regard to item content and construct theme, even though they loaded at the .40 level. These items are seen as having poor content and it is recommended that they be greatly revised or omitted from the final CPPS form. Due to the predicted relationship between construct areas, items 4, 5, 44, and 45 received varied classifications in areas other than those originally suggested. Expert evaluations for items, 4, 44, and 45 were generally supported by factor analysis finding and can be seen as representing different construct areas than those hypothesized. The predicted relationship between construct areas becomes most apparent when expert classifications are examined in relation to resulting factor structures. Tables 9 and 10 present expert classifications grouped by factor structure. The strong relationship between construct areas illustrated in these tables highlights the difficulty in approaching these parenting functions as separate and independent. In considering item 5, expert evaluation did not agree with the hypothesized construct area, nor with factor analysis results. Interestingly, as a result of factor analysis, this item was seen as representing different factors for mothers and fathers, with its representation for mothers supporting the hypothesized construct of nurturance. This situation highlights the limitation of

PAGE 122

-111TABLE 9 EXPERT CLASSIFICATION BY RESULTING FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR THE MOTHER FORM OF THE CPPS FACTOR ITEM EXPERT CLASSIFICATION 1 38 Control 1 33 Control 1 32 Control 1 26 Autonomy 1 31 Control 1 15 Control 2 27 Nurturance 2 29 Nurturance 2 1 Nurturance 2 37 Nurturance 2 14 Nurturance 2 6 Nurturance 3 4 Autonomy 3 10 Control 3 19 Autonomy 3 24 Control 3 13 Control 4 44 Control 4 45 Control 4 17 Control 4 21 Control 5 8 Nurturance 5 2 Autonomy 5 23 Nurturance 5 5 Autonomy 6 18 Autonomy 6 22 Autonomy 6 25 Autonomy

PAGE 123

-112TABLE 10 EXPERT CLASSIFICATION BY RESULTING FACTOR STRUCTURE FOR THE FATHER FORM OF THE CPPS FACTOR ITEM EXPERT CLASSIFICATION 1 26 Autonomy 1 31 Control 1 36 Autonomy 1 Control 2 29 Nurturance 1 A Nurturance «j z z7 Nurturance 2 37 Nurturance 3 41 Control 3 10 Control 3 4 Autonomy 3 30 Autonomy 3 35 Control •3 9 Control 4 44 Control 4 45 Control 5 43 Control 5 8 Nurturance 5 19 Autonomy 5 11 Nurturance 6 18 Autonomy 6 25 Autonomy 6 22 Autonomy 7 21 Control 7 38 Control 7 17 Control 7 23 Nurturance 8 5 Autonomy 8 2 Autonomy

PAGE 124

-113assuming that items will represent similar construct areas for mothers and fathers, and thus the limitation of having experts evaluate items in such a way as to assume this commonality. Although item 5 received such varied review, this confusion may be attributable to evaluation conception and procedure as opposed to item quality, and representativeness , Construct validity . Factor analysis results suggested the CPPS to contain six factors for mothers and eight factors for fathers. These factors are seen as components of the three hypothesized construct areas of nurturance, guidance/ autonomy and control. The obtained factors are more specific, specialized divisions of these three general parenting areas, suggesting that the CPPS does, in part, represent hypothesized construct areas. Importantly, these findings also suggest that the three general areas of control, guidance and nurturance may be so global and interrelated that an overall parenting score may be the most efficient means of assessing parenting as perceived by children. Additionally, more specific subdivisions within each of these three general construct areas may be particularly useful in further understanding and defining individual parenting scores and patterns. These subdivisions may also be particularly useful in better understanding differences in overall parenting scores of mothers and fathers.

PAGE 125

-114Interest ingly , although factors found in mother and father forms appear relatively similar, the father factors provided additional specification in regard to strictness of rules, consistency of rules, and strictness in expectations for children's behavior. Mother factors, in contrast, emphasized an additional area of encouraging children to be responsible for behavioral consequences. Common factor areas for both mother and father forms were the factors of encouraging participation in rule setting, parent-child relationship and contact, leniency of rules, parental concern and the encouragement of children's independent behavior. The differences in mother and father results can be explained as consistent with traditional sex and parenting roles, with fathers taking a more authoritative, control position in the parental subsystem than do mothers. Of the 45 items on the CPPS , 23 were common to both mother and father forms following factor analysis. Each of these 23 items loaded above the .40 loading cut level for mothers and fathers factors. It should be noted that although these 23 items were common to both mother and father forms, they did not necessarily load on the same factors for mothers and fathers. Item 38 is such an example, with the same item loading on the factor of consistency of rules for fathers while loading on the factor of flexibility in encouraging participation in rule setting for mothers. This situation again demonstrates the limitations of viewing mother and father items as representing common construct

PAGE 126

-115areas, and suggests the need to address thera as independent and unique. There were 10 items which were directly rejected from mother and father forms of the CPPS as a result of factor analysis findings. Items 3, 7, 12, 16, 20, 34, 39, and 40 did not load above the .40 level on any factors for either mothers or fathers. Items 42 and 28 did load on factors above the .40 level, but were not consistent with other items in their respective factors and thus were also omitted. The above 10 items are seen as generally poor items and it is not recommended that they be included in future forms of the CPPS. There were 12 items, items 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 24, 30, 32, 35, 41, and 43, which loaded on factors for either mothers or fathers, but not both. These items will be discussed in the section of this chapter entitled, "Summary of Results and Item Revisions." Finally, the total variance of the CPPS that can be explained by the six factors in the mother form and the eight factors on the father form is 39% and 42%, respectively. These unimpressive figures may have been affected by the nature of the study as an instrument development. The form of the CPPS used in this study contained numerous items which, as indicated by the results, were inappropriate for further inclusion, either without revision or totality. These poor items may have contributed to the lowering of these variance scores.

PAGE 127

-116Discussion of Reliability Data Temporal Reliability Although efforts to establish temporal reliability of mother and father forms of the CPPS provided relatively encouraging results, with mother form scores having a .70 correlation and father form scores having a .85 correlation at a 30 day interval, attention is called to the variability in retest correlations between mother and father forms. This difference may be partially attributable to a fatigue factor in completion of the mother form discussed in the limitations section of this chapter. Failure to actively direct children in the order of completing questionnaires inadvertently permitted children to generally evaluate fathers before mothers, and thus may have contributed to the size of error in this area. Another interpretation of the difference in stability scores for mothers and fathers centers around the area of contemporary history. There is no doubt that even with the recent increases in women working and in alternative family forms, women are still functioning as the primary caregivers in child rearing and child supervision responsibilities. It can therefore be assumed that with primary responsibility for parenting comes greater contact with children and thus a broader and more varied interaction with children. This suggests that because mothers' behaviors and interactions with children are typically more varied on a daily basis than are fathers, evaluations of maternal behavior will be

PAGE 128

-117more unstable and will fluctuate more than will scores obtained for more peripheral fathers. Internal Reliability Internal consistency results of mother and father forms of the CPPS were encouraging at .74 and .70 respectively. Due to the nature of this study as an instrument development, it was assumed that as a result of this research, numerous itms on the CPPS would have to be revised or omitted from the final version of the CPPS. The inclusion of these weak or non-representative items in the current CPPS used in this research study, may have been a contributing factor in the lowering of internal reliability scores for both mother and father forms. Summary of Result and Item Revisions Item Revisions After reviewing the 12 items which loaded on factors for one parent and not the other, items 11, 13, 15 and 43 are not recommended for revision and it is suggested that they be included in their respective forms on the CPPS, with items 13 and 15 to be included in mother versions and items 11 and 43 to be included in father versions. The remaining eight items appear revisable. Item 1, which loaded for mothers and not fathers states, "My (father/mother) doesn't seem to want to play with me". This item may reflect fathers ' /mothers '

PAGE 129

-118unavailability rather than desire to interact with children. Modification of this item is reconunended to reflect this distinction. An example of such modification could be, "Even when my (father/mother) has time, (he/she) doesn't want to play with me". Similarly, item 6 reflects a similar situation. Revision of this item might state, "V/hen my (father/mother) has time, (he/she) wants to do things with me." Item 9, which loaded for fathers and not mothers is recommended for revision. The item, "My (mother/father) won't change (her/his) mind when (she/he) makes a rule," may not be an answerable statement when fathers are primarily responsible for making rules. Evidence of this pattern can be found in factor analysis result where factors for fathers were more heavily weighted towards rule making and strictness. A modification of this item should reflect this typical pattern and could read "Once my parents make a rule, my mother will not change her mind." Similarly, item 41 reflects this same situation and could be revised to read, "My (mother/father) agrees that there should be strict rules for me to follow," Item 24, "My (father/mother) helps me understand how I might be harmed if I do bad things," loaded for mothers and not for fathers. A revision of this item might substitute the word "wants" for "helps" in effort to be better representative of fathers' behaviors. Results of factor analysis included an additional area for mothers of teaching

PAGE 130

-119autonomy that was not found with fathers' results. This situation may represent traditional sex roles in parenting and the item could be revised to adjust for this specialization. Item 30, "My (mother/father) pushes me to do very well in everything that I do." loads for fathers and not for mothers. This item represents the area of parental expectation which was seen in the father form's eight factor structure but not in the six factor structure of the mother form. This item could be reworded to reflect mothers' agreement of that situation. If rewording of this item does not produce a more favorabale loading for mothers, it is suggested that it only be included in the father form. Similarly, item 32 did not load for fathers and could be reworded to suggest flexibility rather than the abandonment of rules. This item should be retained for mothers in any event . Finally, item 35, "My (mother/father) nags me when I am bad," loaded for fathers and not for mothers. It is recommended that the word "nags" be removed from this item and it be revised. It is felt that this word may be somewhat ambiguous for children and one possible revision could be, "My (mother/father) always reminds me when I've been bad." Summary Items 3, 7, 12, 16, 20, 34, 39, 40, 42 and 28 were not included in factor structures for mothers or fathers and it

PAGE 131

-120 is recommended that they be omitted from further versions oi the CPPS. Items 11, 13, 15, and 43 loaded for either fathers or mothers, and should be included in their respective forms without revision. Items 1, 6, 9, 24, 30, 32, 35 and 41 are recommended for revision and should be included in future CPPS studies along with the remaining 23 items common to both forms of the CPPS. Factor analysis findings supported only in part the presence of the three hypothesized construct areas of nurturance, guidance/autonomy, and control in the CPPS. Although all extracted factors reflect one of these general construct areas, the factors found in mother and father versions of the CPPS were more specific subdivisions of these global constructs. Five factors were found to be common to mother and father forms of the CPPS with the mother form containing one additional factor in the general area of autonomy and the father form containing three additional factors in the general area of control. Results strongly suggest the need to view mother and father forms of the CPPS as independent. Although mother and father forms of the CPPS were identical (with the exception of reference to gender) and were reviewed as one by experts, this is not recommended for future efforts. Findings indicate that mother and father forms of the CPPS may have to include different items. Similarly, it should not be assumed that the same item will represent common factor areas for both parents. Reliability results suggest

PAGE 132

-121the CPPS to be a relatively reliable instrument. Revisions suggested as a result of this study should help to increase CPPS reliabilities. Limitations to Interpretations of Data Inherent limitations of this research study were discussed at the close of Chapter III. These limitations, along with concerns in administrative procedure, provide limits on data interpretation. Sampling Procedure Of the 26 elementary schools contacted as potential sample pools, only 15 schools agreed to participate in this research. Of these 15 schools, only nine schools actually participated in this study due to difficulties in arranging satisfactory testing schedules as a result of conflicting school activities such as school testing, vacations, trips, etc. Although only nine of a possible 26 schools participated in this study, the resulting sample appeared to be fairly representative of the population as a whole, with a white:minority ratio of 4:1 (slightly higher than the 9:2 ratio of Alachua County), and a male: female ratio of approximately 1:1. Although the resulting sample appeared fairly representative of the population in regard to race, sex, and family form, the return rate of parental consent forms adds additional concerns in data interpretations. An adjusted return

PAGE 133

-122rate of 28% raises questions as to the characteristics of the almost three-quarters of the contacted children who failed to return this form. It must therefore be assumed that the resulting sample reflects a larger than average percentage of children who either have good relationships with their parent (s), or have parent (s) who show strong involvement in their children's school activities. This should be considered when approaching the data. Administration The major limitation in the administration of the CPPS to subjects was the failure to actively vary the order of presentation of mother and father forms of the CPPS. Although children were not instructed to complete the forms in any particular sequence beyond filling out one form for each parent with whom they live, children typically filled out father forms first due to its attachment to the information sheet which was completed before the questionnaire. This introduced the problem of fatigue in completing mother forms, particularly for younger subjects. Effects of this variable could be manifested in reliability and validity findings for mother forms of the CPPS. Future Research Additional research with the CPPS is strongly recommended. Following revisions, reliability studies focusing on both temporal and internal stability are

PAGE 134

-123suggested as a means of evaluating if revisions on the CPPS are strategic. Similarly, additional factor analysis studies with the revised CPPS would be recommended with concern paid to the amount of total variance explained by resulting factors of mother and father forms. These scores would be anticipated to improve in future efforts. Another area of study in regard to the CPPS would be in the area of concurrent validity. Studies involving other valid instrumentation and/or clincial versus non-clinical samples are strongly encouraged as a measure of CPPS discr iminability. Such studies have direct impact on potential uses of the CPPS as a diagnostic tool for family practitioners. Studies that are descriptive in nature are also encouraged to evaluate special populations. Differences in responses by sex, age, family form, parental work status, ethnic origin and socioeconomic status would all be recommended. The results of a number of these areas will be presented in a later paper by the author. Finally, further emphasis should be directed in efforts to establish a general parenting score for the CPPS along the dimension of parental involvement. One general parenting score representing parental involvement may greatly expand the utility of the CPPS, particularly for non-clinical purposes. By providing both a general parenting score and specific sub-scale scores, the practical applicability of this instrument may be greatly enhanced in addressing the

PAGE 135

-124general needs of the non-clinician, as well as the more specific needs of the family clinician. Parenting Theory and Family Counseling Ideally, the responsibility of parenting falls equally on the shoulders of both parents in a two-parent household. In reality though, the major responsibility for parenting in American society has traditionally been placed with mothers. As such, mothers and fathers have developed different styles of parenting and child rearing, emphasizing different components of child development and behavior. The same behavior performed by a mother and a father might be interpreted quite differently by a child. It may therefore be insufficient to view child-rearing from a global perspective. Instead, it may be necessary to place greater emphasis on defining areas of mothering and fathering to better understand child rearing and development. By understanding the differences in mothering and fathering, parents may be better able to work together in the difficult task of raising children. Recent effort to bridge the gap between the sexes and move towards sexual equality have focused on the commonality of women and men. Although this movement is very important and long overdue, the limitations of not seeing the differences between the sexes are clear. Men and women have their own distinctive perspectives and fortes. These unique qualities can best be utilized when viewed as complimentary

PAGE 136

-125(not competitive) qualities, and used together to achieve a common goal. Women have much to teach men, as men have much to teach women. This idea has direct implication for the helping professional who works with both healthy and dysfunctional families. Utilizing differences, and the idea of complimentarity provides a much needed flexibility for the family counselor, particularly when working with rigid, dysfunctional family systems. Further research in the area is much needed to provide specific direction. The topic of parenting is by no means new to the literature and is in a state of constant change. Continued study of the family, parenting, and child development are strongly needed to keep abreast of the rapid changes in social structure and the effects these changes have on families .

PAGE 137

APPENDIX A CPPS PILOT INSTRUMENT TRUE FALSE PROBLEM MY MOTHER: 1. LETS ME GO OUT AS OFTEN AS I PLEASE. 2. LETS ME GO ANYWHERE I PLEASE. 3. DOESN'T CARE WHAT I THINK ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE. 4. MAKES ME ACT TOO GROWN UP. 5. MAKES ME WORK LIKE A GROWN UP. 6. PAYS NO ATTENTION TO WHAT I AM DOING IN SCHOOL. 7. DOESN'T WANT ME TO BRING FRIENDS HOME. 8. DOESN'T TRY TO HELP ME LEARN NEW THINGS. 9. IS NEVER AROUND TO HELP ME WITH MY WORK. 10. FEELS THAT I SHOULD ALWAYS DO MY WORK BY MYSELF. 11. NEVER KNOWS WHEN I DISAGREE WITH HER. 12. MAKES ME LET HER KNOW WHERE I AM GOING IF I PLAN ON GOING OUT. 13. SOMETIMES DECIDES IF I CAN GO SOMEWHERE OR NOT. 14. LETS ME CHOOSE MY OWN FRIENDS. 15. LETS ME KEEP THE DOOR CLOSED TO MY ROOM 16. ASKS ME WHAT I THINK ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE. 17. TREATS ME MY AGE. 18. MAKES ME FEEL WHAT I DO IS IMPORTANT. -126-

PAGE 138

-127APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) TRUE FALSE PROBLEM MY MOTHER: 19. LIKES ME TO DO THINGS ON MY OWN. 20. MAKES ME FEEL PROUD WHEN I DO WELL. 21. LIKES WHEN I BRING MY FRIENDS HOME. 22. PRAISES ME WHEN I EARN IT. 23. LETS ME WORK BY MYSELF. 24. LETS ME DO THINGS THAT I FEEL ARE IMPORTANT EVEN IF IT IS HARD ON HER. 25. TEACHES ME THINGS THAT I WANT TO LEARN. 26. HELPS ME WITH MY HOMEWORK IF I ASK. 27. LIKES ME TO THINK ABOUT HOW I SPEND MY ALLOWANCE . 28. WANTS TO KNOW MY IDEAS. 29. NEVER LETS ME OUT OF HER SIGHT. 30. WANTS TO GO EVERYWHERE WITH ME. 31. ALWAYS WANTS TO KNOW EVERYPLACE I GO AND EVERYTHING I DO. 32. ALWAYS WANTS MY ROOM NEAT IN CASE COMPANY COMES. 33. WANTS ME TO TELL HER EXACTLY WHAT I DO. 34. NEVER ASKS FOR MY SIDE OF HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE. 35. TREATS ME LIKE A BABY. 36. BELIEVES I SHOULD HAVE NO SECRETS FROM HER. 37. PUSHES ME TO DO VERY WELL IN EVERYTHING THAT I DO. 38. WANTS TO DECIDE WHO I BRING HOME. 39. FEELS THAT I SHOULD NEVER FIGHT OR GET ANGRY.

PAGE 139

-128APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) TRUE FALSE PROBLEM MY MOTHER: 40. ALWAYS WANTS ME TO GO TO A TEACHER OR PARENT WHEN THINGS GO WRONG. 41. ALWAYS IS TELLING ME WHAT I SHOULD LEARN. 42. ALWAYS TELLS ME WHAT TO DO. 43. IS ALWAYS ASKING ME IF MY WORK IS DONE. 44. ALWAYS TELLS ME WHEN AND HOW TO DO MY HOMEWORK. 45. MUST KNOW HOW I SPEND ALL OF MY ALLOWANCE. 46. NEVER LETS ME DO ANYTHING ALONE. 47. FEELS THAT I SHOULD NEVER DISAGREE WITH HER. 48. NEVER SEEMS TO WANT TO PLAY WITH ME. 49. THINKS THAT I SHOULD NOT GET TOO MANY HUGS AND KISSES. 50. IS TOO BUSY WITH HER JOB TO PLAY WITH ME. 51. HAS NO PATIENCE TO TALK WITH ME. 52. ENJOYS PLAYING WITH ME AT DIFFERENT THINGS. 53. ENJOYS HUGGING AND KISSING ME. 54. ENJOYS TALKING THINGS OVER WITH ME. 55. LETS ME KNOW THAT SHE CARES ABOUT ME. 56. LOOKS FORWARD TO SPENDING TIME WITH ME. 57. FEELS HURT IF WE DON'T DO THINGS TOGETHER. 58. PRESSURES ME TO DO THINGS WITH HER. 59. DOESN'T SEEM TO ENJOY PLAYING WITH ME WHEN SHE DOES.

PAGE 140

-129APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) TRUE FALSE PROBLEM MY MOTHER: 60. OFTEN SAYS THAT I AM STUPID OR DUMB. 61. SPENDS A LOT OF TIME WITH ME BECAUSE SHE FEELS THAT SHE HAS TO. 62. ALWAYS IS WORRYING ABOUT ME. 63. LIKES TO SEE ME DO THINGS ALONE. 64. LIKES TO TAKE CARE OF ME WHEN I AM SICK. 65. NAGS ME TO TAKE CARE OF MY HEALTH. 66. IS ALWAYS AFRAID THAT I WILL GET SICK. 67. LETS ME GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING I WANT TO DO. 68. LETS ME GET AWAY WITHOUT DOING WORK THAT SHE TOLD ME TO DO. 69. EXPLAINS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF I AM BAD. 70. MAKES ME UNDERSTAND WHY I SHOULDN'T DO THINGS. 71. ALWAYS MAKES SURE THAT I HEAR ABOUT IT WHEN I BREAK A RULE. 72. MAKES A LOT OF RULES THAT I HAVE TO FOLLOW. 73. LETS ME GET OFF EASY WHEN I DON'T DO MY WORK. 74. LETS ME GO WHEN I GET INTO TROUBLE. 75. DOESN'T LET ME KNOW WHAT SHE WANTS ME TO DO. 76. SETS VERY FEW RULES FOR ME. 77. WILL DROP RULES WHEN I AM GOOD. 78. TELLS ME IT IS MY OWN FAULT WHEN I GET INTO TROUBLE. 79. DOES NOT CARE IF I GET INTO TROUBLE.

PAGE 141

-130APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) TRUE FALSE PROBLEM MY MOTHER: 80. SOMETIMES WAITS A WEEK TO TELL IF I HAVE BEEN BAD. 81. HELPS ME UNDERSTAND HOW I MIGHT BE HARMED IF I DO BAD THINGS. 82. WANTS TO HEAR MY SIDE OF THE STORY WHEN I HAVE BEEN BAD. 83. ALWAYS LOOKS FOR ME TO DO BAD THINGS. 84. ALWAYS PUNISHES ME WHEN I AM BAD. 85. WILL SOMETIMES CHANGE RULES TO BE FAIR TO ME. 86. LETS ME KNOW WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO BEFORE I DO IT. 87. LETS ME HELP SET SOME OF THE RULES THAT I MUST FOLLOW. 88. NEVER LISTENS TO MY SIDE OF THINGS WHEN I GET INTO TROUBLE. 89. NEVER CHANGES HER MIND WHEN SHE MAKES A RULE. 90. NAGS ME WHEN I AM BAD. 91. NEVER LETS ME QUESTION IF PUNISHMENT IS FAIR. 92. FEELS THAT STRICT RULES ARE IMPORTANT. 93. DOES NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME WITH ME THAN SHE HAS TO. 94. NEVER KNOWS HOW I AM FEELING. 95. ACTS LIKE I AM IN THE WAY. 96. DOESN'T TALK TO ME MUCH. 97. ONLY TALKS TO ME WHEN SHE FEELS LIKE IT. 98. LIKES TO GET AWAY FROM ME. 99. LIKES FOR US TO DO THINGS TOGETHER.

PAGE 142

-131APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) TRUE FALSE PROBLEM MY MOTHER: 100. TAKES ME TO INTERESTING PLACES. 101. DOESN'T SHARE IN PLAY WITH ME. 10 2. LEAVES ME ALONE WHEN I GET UPSET. 10 3. FORGETS MY BIRTHDAY. 104. NEVER REALLY LISTENS TO ME. 105. WOULD RATHER SPEND TIME WITH FRIENDS THAN BE WITH ME. 106. IS SLOW TO LISTEN TO ME. 107. ALWAYS WANTS TO KNOW WHAT I AM DOING. 108. ALWAYS WANTS TO DO THINGS WITH ME. 109. SOMETIMES LIKES FOR US TO DO THINGS TOGETHER. 110. ENJOYS STAYING AT HOME WITH ME RATHER THAN GO OUT WITH OTHER PEOPLE. 111. TAKES ME TO INTERESTING PLACES AND TALKS TO ME ABOUT WHAT WE SEE. 112. LISTENS TO ME WHEN I HAVE A PROBLEM. 113. OFTEN SPEAKS OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT I DO. 114. SAYS NICE THINGS ABOUT ME. 115. MAKES IT EASY FOR ME TO TALK TO HER. 116. IS QUICK TO LISTEN TO ME. 117. WANTS ME TO SPEND EVEN MORE OF MY FREE TIME WITH HER. 118. DOESN'T WANT ME TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME AWAY FROM HOME. 119. ALWAYS WANTS TO KNOW HOW I AM FEELING. 120. IS ALWAYS WAITING FOR ME TO SPEAK.

PAGE 143

-132APPENDIX A (CONTINUED) TRUE FALSE PROBLEM MY MOTHER: 121. DOESN'T LIKE FOR ME TO SPEND TIME AWAY FROM HOME. 122. DOES NOT CARE IF I GET THE RIGHT FOOD. 123. FORGETS TO GET ME THINGS THAT I NEED. 124. DOESN'T CARE HOW I AM DRESSED. 125. LETS ME STAY UP AS LATE AS I WOULD LIKE. 126. WOULD RATHER LEAVE MY CARE WITH SOMEONE ELSE. 127. WILL HAVE SOMEONE STAY WITH ME IF SHE GOES OUT. 128. NEVER STAYS WITH ME WHEN I AM SICK. 129. ALMOST NEVER LEAVES ME WITH OTHER PEOPLE. 130. DOESN'T KNOW WHEN I AM SICK. 131. TRIES TO MAKE ME FEEL BETTER WHEN I AM SICK. 132. WORKS WITH THE REST OF THE FAMILY IN TAKING CARE OF THE HOUSE. 133. WORRIES ABOUT MY HEALTH ALL THE TIME. 134. NEVER LEAVES ME WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

PAGE 144

APPENDIX B PARENT CONSENT Dear Parent: In an effort to better understand children, we are always interested in seeing how they feel about situations they may face in the future. It is reasonable to assume that most children will become parents as they grow older. I would like to ask your permission for your child to participate in a research study designed to focus on children's feelings about parents. Your child will be required to fill out a short questionnaire. I can assure you that there is no risk, either physical or psychological, for your child. If you do allow your child to participate in this study, you are free to withdraw your permission at any time you choose. This survey is confidential and your child's identity will be protected within all legal limitations. If you have questions about this study, or if you are interested in children's responses to the questionnaire, I will be happy to meet with you and share this group information with you. Please feel free to call your child's school or contact me at the address below to arrange such a meeting. No monetary compensation will be awarded for participation in this study. Please sign the section below, have a friend or adult family member witness your signature, and have your child bring it back to school tomorrow. I will return a copy of this consent form to you shortly. Your assistance in this research study is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, -133-

PAGE 145

-134APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) PARENT CONSENT I have read and understand the procedure above. I give permission for my child, , to participate in this procedure. Signatures: Child Parent Witness Researcher Herbert M, Steier 1017 N.W. 11th Ave. Gainesville, FL 32601 Home phone: 377-6664 Office phone: 392-0731

PAGE 146

APPENDIX C ITEM RESPONSE FREQUENCY RESULTS FROM PILOT OF CPPS STUDY Item True False Prob 1 17 17 0 2 6 26 2 3 2 32 0 4 2 32 0 5 4 29 1 6 3 31 0 7 1 32 1 8 3 30 1 9 8 25 1 10 1 31 2 11 5 25 4 12 29 3 2 13 32 1 1 14 32 1 1 15 28 3 3 16 27 6 1 17 33 1 0 18 32 1 1 19 22 11 1 20 32 1 1 21 27 1 6 22 25 3 6 23 25 6 3 24 28 5 1 25 31 1 1 26 32 2 0 27 25 5 4 28 27 7 0 29 2 31 1 30 2 30 2 31 13 19 2 32 27 6 1 33 7 23 4 34 9 23 2 35 1 31 2 36 5 25 4 37 14 17 3 38 5 26 3 39 22 11 1 40 17 13 4 41 7 26 1 42 7 26 1 43 23 11 0 -135-

PAGE 147

-136APPENDIX C (CONTINUED) I tern True 44 7 45 6 46 2 47 5 48 5 49 4 50 5 51 4 52 27 53 28 54 31 55 32 56 32 57 10 58 2 59 3 60 4 61 8 62 11 63 20 64 28 65 14 66 7 67 4 68 2 69 28 70 28 71 25 72 12 73 4 74 3 75 32 76 16 77 8 78 15 79 1 80 1 81 27 82 31 83 1 84 16 85 25 86 30 87 22 88 2 89 4 90 7 91 3 92 14 93 7 False Problem 25 2 21 7 29 3 24 5 27 2 29 1 27 2 30 0 7 0 5 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 20 4 32 0 28 3 29 1 22 4 20 3 9 5 4 2 10 4 24 3 28 2 31 1 5 1 4 2 7 2 12 1 29 1 28 3 2 0 14 4 21 5 14 5 32 1 30 3 5 2 1 2 29 4 12 6 5 4 3 1 8 4 31 1 25 5 24 3 26 5 14 6 26 1

PAGE 148

-137APPENDIX C (CONTINUED) I tern True False Prnh 1 94 2 o o A 95 2 Zo 4 96 3 31 u 97 5 O O 28 1 98 2 30 z 99 30 4 n u 100 26 7 1 101 5 27 102 10 20 A 103 1 32 1 1 104 3 31 u 105 2 30 o £, 106 8 25 X 107 16 1 A 14 108 18 12 109 27 4 110 18 11 c 3 111 28 5 1 X 112 31 2 1 113 31 1 Z 114 32 1 1 115 31 3 n u 116 22 10 •> 117 9 20 c 118 13 15 O 119 23 10 1 120 8 23 3 121 3 30 1 122 1 31 Z 123 3 30 1 124 5 29 0 125 3 31 0 126 2 32 0 127 14 18 2 128 1 32 1 129 7 26 1 130 2 32 0 131 32 1 1 132 27 5 2 133 19 9 6 134 5 28 1

PAGE 149

APPENDIX D COEFFICIENT ALPHA RESULTS FROM PILOT OF CPPS Scale Items Variance Co. a I Guidance/ 48 33.683 .67 Autonomy II Nurturance 44 30.513 .69 III Care Giving 16 6.307 .48 IV Limit Setting 26 28.921 .78 -138-

PAGE 150

APPENDIX E REVISED CPPS ALWAYS SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 1. MY FATHER DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO PLAY WITH ME. 2. MY FATHER WANTS TO KNOW EVERY PLACE I GO AND EVERYTHING I DO. 3. MY FATHER LETS ME DO THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT EVEN IF IT IS HARD ON HIM. 4. MY FATHER TELLS ME IT IS MY OWN FAULT WHEN I GET INTO TROUBLE. 5. MY FATHER WANTS TO KNOW WHAT I AM DOING AT ALL TIMES. 6. MY FATHER WANTS TO DO THINGS WITH ME. 7. MY FATHER WANTS ME TO GO TO A TEACHER OR PARENT WHEN THINGS GO WRONG. 8. MY FATHER WORRIES ABOUT ME A LOT. 9. MY FATHER WON'T CHANGE HIS MIND WHEN HE MAKES A RULE. 10. MY FATHER EXPLAINS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF I AM BAD. 11. MY FATHER WANTS TO KNOW HOW I AM FEELING. 12. MY FATHER DOESN'T KNOW WHEN I DISAGREE WITH HIM. 13. MY FATHER PUNISHES ME WHEN I AM BAD. -139-

PAGE 151

-140APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) ALWAYS SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 14. MY FATHER WANTS FOR US TO DO THINGS TOGETHER. 15. MY FATHER SETS VERY FEW RULES FOR ME. 16. MY FATHER IS ALWAYS HUGGING AND KISSING ME. 17. MY FATHER LETS ME OFF EASY WHEN I DON'T DO MY WORK. 18. MY FATHER LETS ME WORK BY MYSELF19. MY FATHER IS ALWAYS ASKING ME IF MY VJORK IS DONE. 20. MY FATHER IS QUICK TO LISTEN TO ME. 21. MY FATHER LETS ME GET AWAY WITH A LOT OF THINGS I SHOULDN'T DO. 22. MY FATHER LIKES ME TO DO THINGS ON MY OWN. 23. MY FATHER LEAVES ME ALONE WHEN I GET UPSET. 24. MY FATHER HELPS ME UNDERSTAND HOW I MIGHT BE HARMED IF I DO BAD THINGS. 25. MY FATHER FEELS THAT I SHOULD DO MY WORK BY MYSELF. 26. MY FATHER ASKS ME WHAT I THINK ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE.27. MY FATHER DOES NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME WITH ME THAN HE HAS TQ 28. MY FATHER MAKES ME WORK LIKE A GROWN UP. 29. MY FATHER ONLY TALKS TO ME WHEN HE FEELS LIKE IT.

PAGE 152

-141APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) ALWAYS SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 30. MY FATHER PUSHES ME TO DO WELL IN EVERYTHING THAT I DO. 31. MY FATHER LETS ME QUESTION IF PUNISHMENT IS FAIR. 32. MY FATHER WILL DROP A RULE WHEN I AM GOOD. 33. MY FATHER LETS ME HELP SET SOME OF THE RULES THAT I MUST FOLLOW. 34. MY FATHER PLAYS WITH ME AT DIFFERENT THINGS. 35. MY FATHER NAGS ME WHEN I AM BAD.36. MY FATHER WANTS TO KNOW MY IDEAS37. MY FATHER IS SLOW TO LISTEN TO ME. 38. MY FATHER WILL CHANGE RULES TO BE FAIR TO ME. 39. MY FATHER TELLS ME THAT I SHOULD NEVER FIGHT OR GET ANGRY. 40. MY FATHER TAKES ME WITH HIM WHEREVER HE GOES. 41. MY FATHER SETS STRICT RULES FOR ME TO FOLLOW. 42. MY FATHER STAYS AT HOME WITH ME RATHER THAN GOING OUT WITH OTHER PEOPLE. 43. MY FATHER EXPLAINS WHY I SHOULDN'T DO THINGS, 44. MY FATHER LETS ME GO OUT AS OFTEN AS I PLEASE. 45. MY FATHER LETS ME GO ANYWHERE I PLEASE.

PAGE 153

APPENDIX E REVISED CPPS ALWAYS SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 1. MY MOTHER DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO PLAY WITH ME. 2. MY MOTHER WANTS TO KNOW EVERY PLACE I GO AND EVERYTHING I DO. 3. MY MOTHER LETS ME DO THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT EVEN IF IT IS HARD ON HER. 4. MY MOTHER TELLS ME IT IS MY OWN FAULT WHEN I GET INTO TROUBLE. 5. MY MOTHER WANTS TO KNOW WHAT I AM DOING AT ALL TIMES. 6. MY MOTHER WANTS TO DO THINGS WITH ME. 7. MY MOTHER WANTS ME TO GO TO A TEACHER OR PARENT WHEN THINGS GO WRONG. 8. MY MOTHER WORRIES ABOUT ME A LOT. 9. MY MOTHER WON'T CHANGE HER MIND WHEN SHE MAKES A RULE. 10. MY MOTHER EXPLAINS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF I AM BAD. 11. MY MOTHER WANTS TO KNOW HOW I AM FEELING. 12. MY MOTHER DOESN'T KNOW WHEN I DISAGREE WITH HER. 13. MY MOTHER PUNISHES ME WHEN I AM BAD. -142-

PAGE 154

-143APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) ALWAYS SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 14. MY MOTHER WANTS FOR US TO DO THINGS TOGETHER. 15. MY MOTHER SETS VERY FEW RULES FOR ME. 16. MY MOTHER IS ALWAYS HUGGING AND KISSING ME. 17. MY MOTHER LETS ME OFF EASY WHEN I DON'T DO MY WORK. 18. MY MOTHER LETS ME WORK BY MYSELF19. MY MOTHER IS ALWAYS ASKING ME IF MY WORK IS DONE. 20. MY MOTHER IS QUICK TO LISTEN TO ME. 21. MY MOTHER LETS ME GET AWAY WITH A LOT OF THINGS I SHOULDN'T DO. 22. MY MOTHER LIKES ME TO DO THINGS ON MY OWN. 23. MY MOTHER LEAVES ME ALONE WHEN I GET UPSET. 24. MY MOTHER HELPS ME UNDERSTAND HOW I MIGHT BE HARMED IF I DO BAD THINGS. 25. MY MOTHER FEELS THAT I SHOULD DO MY WORK BY MYSELF. 26. MY MOTHER ASKS ME WHAT I THINK ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE 27. MY MOTHER DOES NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME WITH ME THAN SHE HAS TO. — 28. MY MOTHER MAKES ME WORK LIKE A GROWN UP. — 29. MY MOTHER ONLY TALKS TO ME WHEN SHE FEELS LIKE IT.

PAGE 155

-144APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) ALWAYS SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 30. MY MOTHER PUSHES ME TO DO WELL IN EVERYTHING THAT I DO. 31. MY MOTHER LETS ME QUESTION IF PUNISHMENT IS FAIR. 32. MY MOTHER WILL DROP A RULE WHEN I AM GOOD. 33. MY MOTHER LETS ME HELP SET SOME OF THE RULES THAT I MUST FOLLOW. 34. MY MOTHER PLAYS WITH ME AT DIFFERENT THINGS. 35. MY MOTHER NAGS ME WHEN I AM BAD.36. MY MOTHER WANTS TO KNOW MY IDEAS37. MY MOTHER IS SLOW TO LISTEN TO ME. 38. MY MOTHER WILL CHANGE RULES TO BE FAIR TO ME. 39. MY MOTHER TELLS ME THAT I SHOULD NEVER FIGHT OR GET ANGRY. 40. MY MOTHER TAKES ME WITH HER WHEREVER SHE GOES. 41. MY MOTHER SETS STRICT RULES FOR ME TO FOLLOW. 42. MY MOTHER STAYS AT HOME WITH ME RATHER THAN GOING OUT WITH OTHER PEOPLE. 43. MY MOTHER EXPLAINS WHY I SHOULDN'T DO THINGS. 44. MY MOTHER LETS ME GO OUT AS OFTEN AS I PLEASE. 45. MY MOTHER LETS ME GO ANYWHERE I PLEASE.

PAGE 156

APPENDIX F CPPS EXPERT EVALUATION RATING FORM After reading the CPPS, please indicate the area which you feel the items best represent. AUTONOMY LIMIT SETTING NURTURING J. U ClU 1 J. T e^vn 2 T ^ Ckvn JL l,(7Jll •J «j Jl l-t?lLl 4 J. U C?1U c. c o 1 1 erti 7 1 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16 Item 17 Item 18 Item 19 -145-

PAGE 157

-146APPENDIX F (CONTINUED) AUTONOMY LIMIT SETTING NURTURING Item 20 Item 21 Item 22 Item 23 Item 24 Item 25 Item 26 Item 27 Item 28 Item 29 Item 30 Item 31 Item 32 Item 3 3 Item 34 Item 35 Item 36 Item 37 Item 38 Item 39 Item 40 Item 41 Item 4 2 Item 4 3 Item 44 Item 4 5

PAGE 158

APPENDIX G SCHOOLS CONTACTED FOR PARTICIPATION School Status Participation Duval approved No Glen Springs approved Yes Idy Iwild approved Yes J.J. Finley approved Yes Lake Forrest denied No Littlewood approved Yes Rawl ings denied No Metcalfe approved No Terwilliger approved Yes Prairie View denied No Stephen Foster denied No Williams approved No P.K. Yonge approved Yes Brentwood School approved Yes Martha Manson Academy approved Yes Gainesville Academy denied No Saint Patrick's denied No Rolling Green Academy approved No Lotus Land approved No Heritage Christian School approved No -147-

PAGE 159

-148APPENDIX G (CONTINUED) School Alachua Archer High Springs Newberry Shell Waldo Status approved denied approved denied denied denied Participation Yes No No No No No

PAGE 160

APPENDIX H INSTRUCTION FOR CLASS Hello. My name is Herb Steier and I'd like to thank you for letting me visit your class today. I'd also like to thank you for helping me discover how children feel about parents. Pleasevsit silently at your desk as I read these instructions to you. The questionnaire that you are about to take is about how you feel about your parents. There are no right or wrong answers on this test, and each of you may answer each question differently. You will get no grade from this questionnaire nor will it count towards your grade in this class. Please answer every question on the questionnaire. Some questions may be difficult to answer and you may want to check a few answers. Only check one answer for each question. If you have a hard time deciding on an answer, mark the answer that fits most of the time. On the top of each page you will see the word Mother or Father. If it says Mother, answer all questions about your mother. If it says Father, answer all questions about your father. You will each fill out questionnaires on only the parent or parents you live with. If you have a problem, please raise your hand and I will come to your desk to help you. You are to work silently and by yourself. After you finish your questionnaires, turn your paper over and I will collect it. Some of you may fill out two, while others will fill out just one. Now, please fill in the information sheet that looks like this, when you have finished it please begin. -149-

PAGE 161

APPENDIX I INFORMATION SHEET School Class Number 1. Age 2. Sex: Male Female 3. Who do you live with? Mother Father Step-father Step-mother Grandparents Other relative 4. Does your mother work: Yes No 5. Does your father work: Yes No 6. Race: Ethnic Minority White -150-

PAGE 162

REFERENCES Anthony, E.J., and Bene, E. A technique for the objective assessment of the child's family relationships. Journal of Mental Science, 1957, 102(432), 541,544. Antonovsky, H.F. A contribution to research in the area of mother-child relationship. Child Development , 1959, 30, 73-51. Aponte, H.J. , and Van Deusen, J.M. Structural family therapy. In A.S. Gurman and D.P. Kniskern (Eds.). Handbook of family therapy . New York: Brunner/Mazel , Inc., 1981. Appel, Y.H. Developmental differences in children's perception of maternal socialization behavior. Child Development , 1977, j48(4), 1689-1693. Apperson, L.B. Childhood experiences of schizophrenics and alcoholics. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1965, 106 , 301-313. Ar 1 i 1 1 , A . D . The child from one to twelve; Psychology for parents . New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1931. Armentrout, J. A., and Burger, G.K. Children's reports of parental child-rearing behaviors at five grade levels. Developmental Psychology , 1972, 2(1)' 44-48. Ary, D. , Jacobs, L.C., and Razavieh, A. Introduction to research in education . Second Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Ashen, A. Eidetic Parent Test and analysis . New York: Brandon House, Inc., 1972. Ausubel, D.P., Balthazar, E.E., Rosenthal, I., Blackman, L.S., Schpoont, S.H., and Welkowitz, J. Perceived parent attitudes as determinants of children's ego structure. Child Development , 1954, 25^{3) , 173-183. Ausubel, D.P., and Sullivan, E.V. Theory and problems of child development . New York: Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1970. -151-

PAGE 163

-152Baker, L., and Barcai, A. Psychosomatic aspects of diabetes mellitus. In O.W. Hill (Ed.) Modern trends in psychosomatic medicine (Vol. 2,), London: Butterworths , Inc., 1970. Baker, L., Minuchin, S., and Rosman, B. The use of beta-adrenergic blockage in the treatment of psychosomatic aspects of juvenile diabetes mellitus. In A. Snart (Ed.) Advances in beta-adrenergic blocking Therapy (Vol. 5.), Princeton: Excerpta Medica, 1974. Baker, L. , Minuchin, S., Milman, L. , Liebraan, R., and Todd, T. Psychosomatic aspects of juvenile diabetes mellitus: A progress report. In Modern problems in pediatrics (Vol. 12.), New York: Basel, Karger, Inc., 1975. Bakwin, H., and Bakwin, R.M. Home and family as a guidance unit. In E. Harmes (Ed. ) Handbook of child guidance . New York: Care Publishers, 1947, Baldwin, A.L. The appraisal of parent behavior. Abstract. American Psychologist , 1946, 1^, 251. Baldwin, A.L. , Kalhorn, J., and Breese, F.K. Patterns of parental behavior. Psychological Monographs , 1945, 58,(4), 1-74. Baldwin, A.L., Kalhorn, J., and Breese, F.K. The Appraisal of Parent Behavior. Psychological Monographs . 1949, 63(4), 1-85. Bannatyne, A., and Bannatyne, M. How your children can learn to live a rewarding life . Springfield, Illinois: Thomas Publishers, 1973. Barnhill, L. Healthy family systems. Family Coordinator , 1979, 28, 22-37. Baruch, D.W. New ways in discipline . New York: McGrawHill, Inc., 1949. Becker, W.C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research . New York: Russell Sage, 1964. Beecher, M., and Beecher W. Parents on the run . New York: Julian Press, 1955. Bellak, L., and Bellak, S.S. Children's Apperception Test; Manual and CAT recording and analysis blank . New York: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1941.

PAGE 164

-153Bienvenu, M.J. Sr. Measurement of parent-adolescent communication. Family Coordinator , 1969, 18^, 117-121. Bijou, S.W., and Baer, D.M. Child development readings in experimental analysis . New York: Appleton, Century and Crofts, 1967. Bishop, B.M. Mother-child interaction and the social behavior of children. Psychological Monographs , 1951, 6^(11), 1-34. Blechman, E.A. The family contract game: A tool to teach interpersonal problem solving. Family Coordinator , 1947, e, 269-281. Block, J.H. Generational continuity and discontinuity in the understanding of societal rejection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1972, 22^, 333-345. Block, J.H., Jennings, P.H., Harvey, E., and Simpson, E. Interaction between allergic potential and psychopathology in childhood asthma. Psychosomatic Medicine , 1964, 26, 307-320. Block, V.L. Conflicts of adolescents with their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology , 1937, 32 , 193-206. Bowerman, C.E., and Bahr, S.J. Conjugal power and adolescent identification with parents. Sociometry , 1973, 36, 366-377. Bowerman, C.E., and Kinch, J.W. Changes in family and peer orientation of children between fourth and tenth grades. Social Forces , 1959, 3J7' 206-211. Breckenridge, M.E., and Vincent, E.L. Child Development . Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1955. Brim, O.G. Education for child rearing . New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1959. Brittain, C.V. Adolescent choices and parent-peer cross press. American Sociological Review , 1963, 28, 385-391. Brody, G.F. Relationship between maternal attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1965, 2, 317-323.

PAGE 165

-154Bronf enbrenner , U. Towards a theoretical model for the analysis of parent-child relationships in a social context. In J.C. Glidewell (Ed.), Parental attitudes and child behavior . Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1961a. Bronf enbrenner , U. The changing American child: A speculative analysis. Journal of Social Issues , 1961b, 17, 6-17. Bronf enbrenner, U. Two worlds of childhood . New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970. Brown, A.W. , Morrison, J., and Couch, G.B. Influence of affectional family relationships or character development. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1947, £2, 422-428. Brown and Rutter, M. The measurement of family activities and relationships. Human Relations , 1966, 19^, 241-264. Bruce, W.F., and Freeman, F.S. Development and Learning . New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1942. Bruch, H. Don't be afraid of your child . New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1952. Brunkan, R.J. Perceived parental attitudes and parental identification in relation to field of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 1965, 12 , 39-47. Brunkan, R.J., and Crites, J.O. An inventory to measure the parental attitude variable in Roe's theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 1968, 15, 324-328. Burger, G.K., and Armentrout, J. A. A factor analysis of 5th and 6th grader's reports of parental child-rearing behavior. Developmental Psychology , 1971, A_, 483. Burger, O.K., Lamp, R. , and Rodgers, D. Developmental trends in children's perceptions of parental child-rearing behavior. Developmental Psychology , 1975, 11(3) , 391. Burke, H. The communication of intent: A systematic approach to the observation of family interaction. Human Relations , 1967, 20, 13-28. Calomico, J.M., and Thomas, D.L. Role taking as a function of value similarity and affect in the nuclear family. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1973, 35^, 655-665.

PAGE 166

-155Cassel, R.N. Child Behavior Rating Scale manual . Beverly Hills California: Western Psychological Services, 1962. Champney, H. Variables of parental behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1941a, 36^, 525-542. Champney, H. The measurement of parent behavior. Child Development , 1941b, 12^(2), 131-166. Chess, S., Thomas, A., and Birch, H. Your child as a person . New York: Viking Press, 1965. Clarke-Stewart, K.A. Interactions between mothers and their young children: Characteristics and consequences. Society for Research in Child Development Monographs , 1973, 38.' 1-100' Clausen, J. A. Family structure, socialization and personality. In L.W. Hoffman and M.L. Hoffman (Eds.) Review of child development research . New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966. Cole, L. Psychology of childhood and adolescence . New York: Rinehart and Company, 1947. Cooper, J.B. Parent evaluation: Social ideology. Psychological Reports , 1960, 414. Cooper, J.B. Two scales for parent evaluation. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1966, 108 , 49-53. Cooper, J.B., and Blair, M.A. Parent evaluation as a determiner of ideology. The Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1959, 9±, 93-100. Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem . San Francisco: Freeman Publishing Company, 1967. Corey, G. Theory and practice of Counseling and psychotherapy . Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1977. Cox, F.N., and Leaper, P.M. Assessing some aspects of parent-child relationship. Child Development , 1961, 32., 637-649. Cradell, V.J. Preston, A., and Rabson, A. Maternal reactions and the development of independence and achievement behavior in young children. Child Development , 1960, 31^, 243-251.

PAGE 167

-156Crorawell, R. , Olson, D. , and Fournier, D. Tools and techniques for diagnosis and evaluation in marital and family therapy. Family Process, 1976, L5 ( 1 ) , 1-49. Cummings, J.D. Family pictures: A projection test for children. British Journal of Psychology , 1952, 43 , 53-60. Dailey, J.G. and McNamara, W.J. Minnesota Personality Scale . New York: Psychologist Corporation, 1941. Dale, E., and Chall, J.S. A formula for predicting readibility: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin , 1948, 27(2), 37-54. Danziger, K. The socialization of immigrant children . Toronto: York Institute of Behavioral Research, 1971. Davis, P., Stern, D. , and Van Deusen, J. Enmeshmentdisengagement in the alcoholic family. In F. Seixas (Ed.), Alcoholism: Clinical and experimental research . New York: Grune and Stratton, 1977. Denten, R.A., and Monroe, L.J. The family and early adolescent conformity and deviance. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1961, 23^, 241-247. Devereux, E.C., Jr. The role of peer group experience in moral development. In S.E. Hill (Ed.) Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 4), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970. Devereux, E.C., Jr., Shouval, R. , Bronf enbrenner , U. , Rodgers, R. , Kav-Venaki, S., Kiely, E., and Karson, E. Socialization practics of parents, teachers, and peers in Israel: The Kibbutz versus the city. Child Development , 1974, 4_5, 2. Dielman, T.E., Barton, K. , and Cattell, R.B. Crossvalidation evidence on the structure of parent report of child-rearing practices. Journal of Social Psychology , 1973, 90, 243-350. Dimock, H.S. Emancipation from parents. In Dimock, H.S. Rediscovering the Adolescent . New York: Association Press, 1937, 141-157. Dinkmeyer, D. , and McKay, G. Systematic training for effective parenting . Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1976. Dlugokinski, E.L., and Firestone, I. Congruence among four methods of measuring other-centeredness. Child Development , 1973, £4, 304-308.

PAGE 168

-157Doane, J. Family interaction and communication deviance in disturbed and normal families: A review of research. Family Process , 1978, 17, 357-376. Dodson, F. How to father . Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1974. Dreikurs R. , and Soltz, V. Children: The challenge . New York: Hawthorne Books, Inc. 1964. Droppleman, L.F., and Schaefer, E.S. Boy's and girl's report of maternal and paternal behavior. American Psychologist , 1961, 16^, 345-346. Edwards, T.N., and Branburger, M.B. Exchange and parentyouth conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1973, 25, 101-107. Elbert, S., Rosman, B.S., Minuchin, S.M., and Guerney, B.G. , Jr. A method for the clinical study of family interaction. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1964, 34, 885-894. Elder, G.H., Jr. Racial conflict and learning. Sociometry , 1971, 34, 151-173. Elias, G. A measure of "homelessness . " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1952, £7, 62-66. Emmerich, W.A. Young children's discriminations of parent and child roles. Child Development , 1959a, 30 , 403-419. Emmerich, W.A. Parent identification in young children. Genetic Psychology Monographs , 1959b, 60^, 257-308. Emmerich, W.A. Variations in the parent role as a function of the parent's sex and the child's sex and age. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 1962, 8^, 3-11. Epstein, R. , and Komorita, S.S. The development of a scale of parental punctiveness towards aggression. Child Development , 1965, 36.' 129-142. Estvan F., and Estvan, E. The child's world; His social perception . New York: Putnam Sons, Inc., 1959. Etaugh, C. Effects of maternal-employment on children: A review of recent research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 1974, 20_(2) , 71-98. Farber, B. and Jenne, W.C. Family organization and parentchild communications. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 1963, 28 .

PAGE 169

-158Farina, A. Patterns of role dominance and conflict in parents of schizophrenic patients. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1960, 6J^, 31-38. Fein, R.A. Men's entrance to parenthood. Family Coordinator , 1976, 25(4), 341-348. Ferdinand, T.N., and Luchterhand, E.G. Inner-city youth, the police, the juvenile court, and justice. Social Problems , 1968, 17, 510-527. Ferguson, B., and Kennelly, K. Internal-external locus of control and perception of authority figures. Psychological Reports , 1974, 3±, 1119-1123. Finney, J.C. Some maternal influences on children's personality and character. Genetic Psychological Monographs , 1961, 6^/ 199-278. Fleming, J.W. Care and management of exceptional children . New York: Meredith Corporation, 1973. Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Florida statistical abstract, 1981 . R.B. Thompson (Ed.), Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1981. Floyd, H.H., Jr., and South, D.R. Parents or peer orientation? Options and implications for youth and parents. Southern Quarterly , 1971, 49-62. Funkenstein, D.H., King, S.H., and Drolette, M.E. Mastery of stress . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. Gardner, R.A. The guilt reaction of parents of children with severe physical disease. American Journal of Psychiatry , 1969, 126 , 636-644. Gesell, A., and Ilg, F. Infant and child in the culture today . New York: Harper and Row, 1943. Gold, D. , and Andres, D. Developmental comparisons between ten-year-old children with employed and non-employed mothers. Child Development , 1978, 49(1)/ 75-84. Goldstein, J., Freud, A., and Solnit, A.J. Beyond the best interests of the child . New York: Free Press, 1973. Golightly, C. , Nelson, D. , and Johnson, J. Children's dependency scale. Developmental Psychology , 1970, 3^, 114-118. Good, L.R., Good, K.C., and Nelson, D.A. Assumed attitude similarity and perceived intraf ami 1 ial communication and understanding. Psychological Reports , 1973, 32 , 3-71.

PAGE 170

-159Goode, W.J. The family . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Gordon, T. Parent effectiveness training . New York: Wyden, Inc., 1970. Grace, H.A., and Lohman, J.J. Children's reactions to stories depicting parent-child conflict situations. Child Development , 1952, 23, 61-74. Gray, S.W. Perceived similarity to parents and adjustment. Child Development , 1959 , 30^, 91-107. Grey, L. Discipline without fear . New York: Hawthorne Books , Inc. , 1974. Gurraan, A. , and Kniskern, D. Research in marital and family therapy: Emperical, clinical and conceptual issues. In S.L. Garfield and A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (Revised Edition), New York: Wiley, 1978. Gurraan, A., and Kniskern, D. Family therapy outcome research: Knowns and Unknowns. In A.S. Gurman and D.P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of Family Therapy , New York: Brunner/Mazel , Inc., 1981. Guthrie, G.M., and Jacobs, P.J. Child rearing and personality in the Philippines . University Park: The Penn. State University Press, 1966. Guttman, H.A. A time-unit method of coding intraf ami 1 ial interaction from the audiotape. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice , 1972, 9, 267-280. Haley, J. Family experiments: A new type of experimentation. Family Process , 1962, 1_, 265-293. Haley, J. Experiment with abnormal families: Testing done in a restricted communication setting. Archives of General Psychiatry , 1967, 17, 53-63. Haley, J. Critical overview of the present status of family interaction research. In J.L. Framo (Ed.) Family interaction: A dialogue between family researchers and family therapists . New York: Springer, 1972. Harris, D.B., Clark, K.E., Rose, A.M., and Valasek, F. The Relationship of children's home duties to an attitude of responsibility. Child Development , 1954, 25./ 29-33.

PAGE 171

-160Hattwick, B.W. Interrelations between the preschool child's behavior and certain factors in the home. Child Development , 1936, 1_, 200-226. Hawkes, G.R. Burchinal, L.G. , and Gardner, B. Measurement of pre-adolescent ' s view of family control of behavior. Child Development , 1957, 28, 387-392. Hayward, R.S. The child's report of psychological factors in the family. Archives of Psychology , 1935, 189 , 75. Heilbrun, A.B., Jr. Parental model attributes, nurturant reinforcement, and consistency of behavior in adolescents. Child Development , 1964, 35^, 151-167. Heilbrun, A.B., Jr. The measurement of identification. Child Development , 1965, 36.' 111-127. Herbst, P.G. The measurement of family relationships. Human Relations , 1952, 5^, 3-35. Herzog, E., and Sudia, C. Boys in fatherless families . United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Heston, J.C. Heston personal adjustment inventory . Yonkers, New York: World Book, 1949. Hilton, I.R. Differences in the behavior of mothers towards first and later born children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1967, 1_, 282-290. Hoeflin, R. , and Kell, L. The Kell-Hoeflin incomplete sentence blank: Youth-parent relations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 1959, 29 (Serial No. 72) . Hoffman, L.W. Effects of maternal employment on the child, A review of the research. Developmental Psychology , 1974, jLO, 204-228. Hoffman, L.W. Changes in family roles, socialization, and sex differences. American Psychologist , 1977, 32(8), 644-657. — Hoffman, L.W. , Rosen, S., and Lippitt, R. Parental coerciveness, child autonomy, and child's role at school. Sociometry , 1960, 23^, 15-22. Hollender, J.W., Duke, M.P., and Nowicki, S. Interpersonal distance: Sibling structure and parental affection antecedents. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1973, 123 , 3 5 4 5 •

PAGE 172

-161Horrucks, J.E. Parent-child conflicts. In I. Crow and A. Crow (Eds.), Readings in child and adolescent psychology . New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1961. Howells, J.G., and Lickerish, J.R. A projective technique for assessing family realtionships. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1969, 25, 304-307. Hunt, D.G. Parental permissiveness as perceived by the offspring. Human Relations , 1974, 21_, 267-285. Ilg, F., and Ames, L. Child behavior . New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Illingworth, R. The normal child . London: Churchill Livingstone, 1972. Itkin, W. Some relationships between intra-family attitudes and pre-parental attitudes towards children. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1952, 80, 221-252. Jacob, T. Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review. Psychological Bulletin , 1975, 82^(1), 33-65. Jenkins, R. The varieties of children's behavioral problems and family dynamics. American Journal of Psychiatry , 1968, 124, 1440-1445. Johnson, O.G. Tests and measurement in child development: Handbook II . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976. Johnson, R.C., and Medinnus, G.R. Child psychology . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969. Johnson, S.M., and Lobitz, G.K. The personal and marital adjustment of parents as related to observed child deviance and parenting behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 1974, 2, 193-207. Jones, R.K., Reid, J.B., and Patterson, G.R. Naturalistic observation in clinical assessment. In McReynolds, P. (Ed.). Advances in Psychology (Vol. 3), San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 1974. Jurkovic, G.J., and Prentice, N.M. Dimensions of moral interaction and moral judgement in delinquent and non-delinquent families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1974, £2, 256-262. Kagan, J. Socialization of aggression and the perception of parents in fantasy. Child Development , 1958, 29, 311-320.

PAGE 173

-162Kantor, D. , and Lehr, W. Inside the family . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1975. Kaufman, J.H. Family relations test responses of disturbed and normal boys: Additional comparative data. Journal of Personality Assessment , 1971, 3_5, 128-130. Kaufman, E., and Kaufman, P. From a psychodynamic orientation to a structured family therapy approach in the treatment of drug dependency. In E. Kaufman and P. Kaufman (Eds.), The family therapy of drug and alcohol abuse . New York: Gardner, 1979. Kaufman, M. Family diagnoses are therapy in child emotional pathology. Family Process , 1965, £, 241-258. Kerlinger, F. Foundations of behavioral research . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Lake, D.G., Miles, M.B., and Earle, R.B. (Eds.). Measuring human behavior . New York: Teachers College Press, 1973. LeMasters, E.E. Parents in modern America . Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1970. Leon, G.R. Case report: The use of a structured mother-child interaction and projective material in studying parent influences on child behavior problems. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1971, 27, 413-416. Ling, A.M., and Ling, D. Communication development in the first three years of life. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research , 1974, r?, 146-159. LoSecuto, L.A., and Karlin, R.M. Correlates of the generation gap. Journal of Psychology , 1972, 81 , 253-262. Love, L.R., and Kaswan, J.W. Troubled children their families, schools and treatments . New York: Wiley-Interscience , 1974. Love, L.R., Kaswan, J.W., and Bugental, D.E. Differential effectiveness of three clinical interventions for different socioeconomic groupings. Journ a l of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1972, 39, 347-360. Loveland, N.T. , Wynne, L.C., and Singer, M.T. The Family Rorschach: A new method for studying family interaction. Family Process , 1963, 2, 187-215.

PAGE 174

-163Lytton, H. Three approaches to the study of parent-child interaction: ethological interview and experimental. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 1973, 14 , 1-17. Majoribanks, K. Achievement orientation of Canadian ethnic groups. Alberta Journal of Educational Research , 1972, 18^, 162-173. Marantz, S.A. and Mansfield, A.E. Maternal employment and the development of sex-role stereotyping in five to eleven year old girls. Child Development , 1977, 48(2), 668-673. Marotz-Baden, R. , Adams, G.R., Bueche, N. , Munro, B. , and Munro, G. Family form or family process? Reconsidering the deficit family model approach. The Family Coordinator , 1979, ^(1), 5-14. Maxwell, P.H., Connor, R., and Walters, J. Family member perception of parent role performance. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 1961, 7, 31-37. McKinley, D. Social class and family life . New York: The Free Press, 1964. Meger, M.M., and Tolman, R.S. Correspondence between attitudes and images of parental figures in TAT stories and in therapeutic interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1955, 19, 79-82. Miller, B.B. Effects of father absence and mother's evaluation of father on the socialization of adolescent boys . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University, New York, 1961. Milton, G.A. A factor analytic study of child-rearing behaviors. Child Development , 1958, 29^(3), 381-392. Minuchin, S.M. Conflict-resolution family therapy. In G.D. Erickson and T.P. Hogan (Eds.), Family therapy: An introduction to theory and technigue . Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1972. Minuchin, S.M. Families and family therapy , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974. Minuchin, S.M., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B.G., Rosman, B.L., and Schumer, F. Families of the slums . New York: Basic Books, 1967. Minuchin, S.M., Rosman, B., and Baker, L. Psychosomatic families . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

PAGE 175

-164Moos, R.H. The family environment scale preliminary manual . Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1974. Moriarity, T. The psychology of human reproduction. Science News , 1970, I, 148-149. Morrell, S.A. and Stachowiak, J.G. Consistency, rigidity and power in the interaction patterns of clinic and non-clinic families. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 1967, 72, 265-272. Mosychuk, H. Differential home environments and mental ability patterns . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Alberta, Canada, 1969. Moulton, R.W. , Burnstein, E., Liberty, B.C., Jr., and Altucher, N. Patterning of parental affection and disciplinary dominance as a determinant of guilt and sex typing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1966, _4, 356-363. Mussen, P.H. and Distler, L. Masculinity identification and father-son relationships. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1959, 59^, 350-356. Myers, T.R. Intra-family relationships and pupil adjustment. Teachers College Contribution to Education , 1935a, No. 651. Myers, T.R. Intra-family relationships and pupil adjustment . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935b. Niemi, R. How family members perceive each other . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Nye, F.I. Family relationships and delinquent behavior . New York: Wiley, 1958. Offer, D. The psychological world of the teen-ager . New York: Basic Books, 1969. Okun, B.F., and Rappaport, L.J. Working with families; An introduction to family therapy , Norton Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1980. O'Leary, K.D., and Turkewitz, H. Methodological errors in marital and child treatment research. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology , 1978 , 46(4), 747-758.

PAGE 176

-165Olson, D. , Bell, R. , and Portner, J. Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales . Family Social Science Department, University of Minnesota, Unpublished Manuscript, 1978, Olson, D., Sprenkle, D., and Russell, C. Circumplex model of marital and family systems I: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types and clinical applications. Family Process , 1979, £(1), 19-76. Parsons, T. The social structure of the family. In R. Ansber (Ed.), The family; Its function and destiny . New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Payne, D.E., and Mussen, P.H. Parent-child relations and father identification among adolescent boys. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology , 1956, S2_, 358-362. Pearlin, L.I., Yarrow, M.R., and Scarr, H.A. Unintended effects of parental aspirations: A case of children's cheating. American Journal of Sociology , 1967, 73 , 73-83. Piety, K.R. Perceptual dissonance and role learning. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1966, 22^, 10-14. Pless, I., and Satterwhite, B. A measure of family functioning and its application. Social Science and Medicine, 1973, 613-621. Pohlman, E.H. Psychology of birth planning . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman, 1969. Polansky, N.A., Borgman, R.D., and DeSaix, C. Roots of futility . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Porcell, K. , and Clifford, E. Binocular rivalry and the study of identification in asthmatic and non-asthmatic boys. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1966, 30 , 388-394. Pumroy, D.K. Maryland Parent Attitude Survey: A research instrument with social desirability controlled. Journal of Psychology , 1966, 64^, 73-78. Rabin, A.I. Attitudes of kibbutz children to family and parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1959, 29, 172-179. Radke, M.J. The relation of parental authority to children's behavior and attitudes. University of Minnesota Child Welfare Monographs , 1946, 22 .

PAGE 177

-166Rafferty, J.E., Tyler, B.B., and Tyler, F.B. Personality assessment from free play observations. Child Development , 1960, 3]^, 691-702. Rheingold, H.L. The measurement of maternal care. Child Development , 1960, 21' 565-570. Riskin, J. Methodology for studying family interaction. Archives of General Psychiatry , 1963, 8^, 343-348. Robertson, L.S., and Dotson, C.E. Perceived parental expressivity, reaction to stress, and affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1969, 12 , 229-234. Roe, A., and Siegelman, M. A parent-child relations questionnaire. Child Development , 1963, 34(2) , 355-369. Rolf, M. A factorial study of the PELS Parent Behavior Scales. Child Development , 1949, 20(1), 29-44. Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965. Sampson, E.E. A study of the ordinal position: Antecedents and outcomes. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965. Schaefer, E.S. A circumplex model for maternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1949, 59 , 226-235. Schaefer, E.S. Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development , 1965, 36^, 413-424. Schaefer, E.S. and Bell, R.Q. Structure of attitudes towards child-rearing and the family. American Psychologist , 1955, 1^(8), 319-320. Schaefer, E.S. and Bell, R.Q. Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Development , 1958, 29, 339-361. Schaefer, E.S., Bell, R.Q., and Bayley, N. Qualification of a maternal behavior research instrument. American Psychologist , 1957, 12, 401. Schaefer, E.S., Bell, R.Q., and Bayley, N. Development of a maternal behavior research instrument. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1959, 95^, 83-104.

PAGE 178

-167Scheck, D.C., Emmerick, R. , and El-Assal, M.M. Adolescent's perceptions of parent-child relations and the development of internal-external control orientation. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1973, 35^, 643-654. Schvaneveldt, J.D. Correlates of perceptions towards maternal overprotection. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1968, 112, 267-273. Schwartz, A.J. A comparative study of values and achievement: Mexican-American and Anglo youth. Sociology of Education , 1971, _44, 438-462. Schwarzweller , H.K., and Lyson, T.A. Social class, parental interest and the educational plans of American and Norwegian rural youth. Sociology of Education , 1974, 47, 443-465. Scott, R.D., and Ashworth, P.L. The 'Axis value' and the transfer of psychosis: A scored analysis of the interaction in the families of schizophrenic patients. British Journal of Medical Psychology , 1965, 38 , 97-116. Sears, R.R., Maccoby, E.E., and Levin, H. Patterns of child-rearing . New York: Harper-Row, 1957. Sears, R.R., Pinter, M.H., and Sears, P.S. Effect of father separation on preschool children's doll play aggression. Child Development , 1946 , 17_, 219-243. Seaton, J.K. A projective experiment using incomplete stories with multiple-choice endings. Genetic Psychology Monographs , 1949, 40, 149-228. Sebald, H., and Andrews, W.H. Family integration and related factors in a rural fringe population. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1962, 2±, 347-351. Serot, N.M., and Teeran, R.C. Perceptions of the parent-child relationship and its relation to child adjustment. Child Development , 1961, 32.( 2), 373-378. Severy, L.J. Exposure to deviance committed by valued peer group and family members. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 1973, 10_, 35-46. Shaw, M.E. and Wright, T.M. Scales for the measurement of attitudes . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967, 418-420. Sherman, A.W. , Jr. Emancipaton status of college students. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1946, 68^, 171-180.

PAGE 179

-168Simmons, R.G. , Rosenburg, F. , and Rosenberg, M. Disturbance in the self-image at adolescence. American Sociological Review , 1973, 5J7, 553-568. Slater, Philip. Parental Behavior and the personality of the child. The Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1962, 101, 53-68. Spock, B. Baby and child care . New York: Pocket Books, 1963. Stagner, R. , and Drought, N. Measuring children's attitudes towards their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1935, 26, 169-176. Stanton, M.D., Todd, T., Steier, F., Van Deusen, J., Marder, L., Rosoff, R. , Seaman, S., and Skibinski, E. Family characteristics and family therapy of heroin addicts; Final report, 1974-1978 . Philadelphia: Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic, 1979. Stayton, D.J., Hogan, R. , and Ainsworth, M.D.S. Infant obedience and maternal behavior: The origins of socialization reconsidered. Child Development , 1971, 42, 1057-1069. Stodgill, R.M. Survey of experiments on children's attitudes towards parents: 1894-1936, Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1937, 5J^, 293-303. Stone, C.L. and Landis, P.H. An approach to authority pattern in parent-teenage relationships. Rural Sociology , 1953, IS^, 233-242. Stott, D.H. and Sykes, E.G. Manual to the Bristol Social Adjustment Guides , London: London University Press, 1958. Straus, M.A. Power and support structure of the family in relations to socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1964, 25.f 318-326. Straus, M.A., and Brown, B.W. Family measurement techniques abstracts of published instruments, 1935-1974 , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978. Straus, M.A., and Tallman, I. SIMFAM: A technique for observational measurement and experimental study of families. In J. Aldous, (Ed.). Family Problem Solving . Hinsdale, 111.: Dryden Press, 1971, 381-439.

PAGE 180

-169Strykers, S. The adjustment of married offspring to their parents. American Sociological Review , 1955, 29 , 149-154. Teagarden, F. Child psychology for professional workers . New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1946. Tec, N. Parental educational pressure, adolescent educational conformity and marijuana use. Youth and Society , 1973, _4, 291-312. Thomas, M.M. Children with absent fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 968, 30.' 89-96. Thorpe, L. Child psychology and development . New York: Ronald Press Company, 1940. Tiffany, D.W. and Shontz, F.C. The measurement of experienced control in preadolescent. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1962, 2A' 491-497. Tulkin, S.R. Race, class, family and school achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1968, 9^, 31-37. Tulkin, S.R., and Kagan, J. Mother-child interaction in the first year of life. Child Development , 1972, 43 , 31-41. United States Government Printing Office. Statistical abstract of the United States , (102nd ed.), Washington, D.C.: United States Bureau of the Census, 1981. Utech, D.A., and Hoving, K.L. Parents and peers as competing influences in the decision of children of differing ages. Journal of Social Psychology , 1969, 28, 267-274. Van der Veen, F. Relationships between the parent's concept of the family and family adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1964, 3j4f 45-55. Van der Veen, F., Huebner, B.F., Jorgens, B. , and Neja, P., Jr. Relationships between the parent's concept of family and family adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1964, 21' 45-55. Walters, J., Connor, R., and Zunich, M. Interaction of mothers and children from lower-class families. Child Development , 1964, 3^/ 433-480. Walters, J., and Walters, L.H. Parent-child relationships: A review, 1970-1979. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1980, 4_2, 807-822.

PAGE 181

-170Warren, vT.R. Birth order and social behavior. Psychology Bulletin , 1966, 65(1), 38-49. Watts, J.C. Understanding intellectual experiences in young children . Paper delivered at the meeting of the Minnesota Round Table, Minneapolis, May 1974. Webster, D. Webster's third new world international dictionary of the english language. Unabridged . Springfield, Illinois: G & G Merriara Company, 1976. Wechsler, H., and Funkenstein, D.H. The family as a determinant of conflict in self-perception. Psychological Report , 1960, 1_, 143-149. Wells, R.A., and Dezen, A.E. The results of family therapy revisited: The nonbehavioral methods. Family Process , 17, 1978. Wells, R.A., Dilkes, T.C., and Trivelli, N. The results of family therapy: A critical review of the literature. Family Process , 11, 1972. Whiting, J., and Child, I. Child training and personality; A cross cultural study . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Whiting, J.W.M., Child, I.L., and Lambert, W.W. Field guide for study of socialization . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960, 78-82. Williams, W.C. The EALS test: A technique for children to evaluate both parents. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1958, 22, 487-495. Winder, C.L., and Rau, L. Parental attitudes associated with deviance in preadolescent boys. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology , 1962, 6J^, 134-159. Yarrow, M.R., Campbell, T.D., and Burton, R.V. Reliability of material retrospection: A preliminary report. Family Process , 1964, 3^/ 207-218. Zeigler-Driscoll, G. Family research study at Eagleville, Hospital and Rehabilitation Center. Family Process , 1977, 16, 175-190. Zeigler-Driscoll, G. The similarities in families of drug dependents and alcoholics. In E. Kaufman and P. Kaufman (Eds.), The Family Therapy of Drug and Alcohol Abuse , New York: Gardner Press, 1979.

PAGE 182

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Herbert M. Steier was born on September 29, 1953, in New York, New York. After growing up in Bethpage, New York, he graduated from Rutgers University with a B.A. degree in psychology in 1975. He received his M.Ed, and Ed.S. degrees from the University of Florida in Counselor Education specializing in marriage and family therapy in 1980. He is currently a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, and a clinical member of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy. He plans to continue private practice in Gainesville, Florida, following the completion of his Ph.D. in April, 1983. -171-

PAGE 183

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ellen Amatea, Chairperson Assistant Professor of Counselor Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor of Counselor Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Steven Olejnik Assistant Professor of Foundation of Education

PAGE 184

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Counselor Education in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. April, 1983 Dean, Graduate Studies and Research