• Users Online: 58
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 73-77

A review of scales of perceived parenting style


1 Department of Psychiatric Social Work, NIMHANS, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Biostatistics, NIMHANS, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication22-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Janardhana Navaneetham
Department of Psychiatric Social Work, NIMHANS, Bengaluru, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jmhhb.jmhhb_34_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Research in the field of parenting has grown in the recent decade. Parenting style scales are used to measure the perception of parenting style either from the child's viewpoint or parent's viewpoint. The previous review of scales affirms the parenting style scales in the western context. The current review examines the scales available to measure the same from a young adult's perspective and throws light on the need to have a scale which can bring out cultural aspect. Methodology: Searches of PubMed, EBSCO, PROQUEST, and Google Scholar to identify scales that focus on the perception of parenting styles and find publications that assess their criterion-related validity. Results: Almost 10 numbers of instruments assessing parenting style among the young adults were located. Searches identified 10 scales and the publication that assesses the validity. The evident approach to item generation was available literature, focus group discussion, and interviews prominently on the foundation of Baumarind's theory of parenting style. Findings raise methodological concerns, which inform recommendation for future development. Conclusion: Scales perceiving parenting styles have been developed in the western context and validated for Indian context, hence there is a need for developing indigenous scales suiting our collectivistic culture.

Keywords: Parenting styles scales, perception, validity


How to cite this article:
Rajan S, Navaneetham J, Marriamma P, Muralidhar D. A review of scales of perceived parenting style. J Mental Health Hum Behav 2019;24:73-7

How to cite this URL:
Rajan S, Navaneetham J, Marriamma P, Muralidhar D. A review of scales of perceived parenting style. J Mental Health Hum Behav [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 13];24:73-7. Available from: http://www.jmhhb.org/text.asp?2019/24/2/73/290514




  Introduction Top


Parenting may be defined as purposive activities aimed at ensuring the survival and development of children. It is a two-way process of interaction between the child and the parent.[1] It is a process through which a person exhibits a specific, warm, and affectionate behavior toward their infants. Parenting also influences children and adolescent's overall development, and it has an impact on the parent–child relationship.[2] Hence, to understand the parenting style, the perspective of children/adolescent becomes an obligation. Perception about parenting style refers to the opinion of the adults about their parents' child-rearing practice, which paints a picture of their parents. Parenting styles have been conceptualized in terms of two underlying dimension which is demandingness and responsiveness.[3] The most seminal work in the area of parenting has been done by Baumrind[4] and extended by Maccoby.[1],[5] Based on these dimensions, parenting has been classified as authoritative parenting (high demandingness/high responsiveness), authoritarian parenting (high demandingness/low responsiveness), the indulgent style (low demandingness/high responsiveness), and the uninvolved parenting (low demandingness/low responsiveness).[3] The description of the same is as follows: authoritative parenting is marked by parental warmth. The rules and reasoning are to promote obedience, discipline, and nonpunitive punishment.[6] The core dimensions involved are autonomy granting, behavioral control, and acceptance.[7] Authoritarian parenting is marked by control and less of warmth. There is a rigid adherence to the set rules, and power use the hierarchy is emphasized with punitive manner.[6] Permissive parenting is marked by less of control and low of warmth. There is no consistency in rules made; more of laissez-faire attitude is promoted.[6] Parents neither allow the child to express nor do they control the child. They give in to all the needs of the child.[8] Uninvolved parenting is marked by extremely lax and uncontrolling. Parents do not have time to devote to their children.[9]

The increasing investigation of parenting styles has actually accompanied by a rise of instruments measuring parenting styles.[10] In summary, there are various instruments that identify parenting styles and practices. The purpose of this review is to provide information regarding the psychometric and technical characteristics of available measures addressing the construct of parenting styles. Instruments examined are applicable to adolescents and young adults. For the purposes of this review, the term parenting style has been employed. An important distinction to draw among the available measure of parenting styles pertains to the specificity of scale items.


  Methodology Top


For the present study, scoping review has been used. It aims to map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available and can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before.[11]

This review aims to understand the different types of scales available to measure the perception of parenting styles among young adults.

Arksey and O'Malley[12] have given steps for the scoping review

  1. Identify the research questions: what domain needs to be explored?
  2. Find the relevant studies, through the usual means: electronic databases, reference lists (ancestor searching), websites of organizations, and conference proceedings
  3. Select the studies that are relevant to the question (s)
  4. Chart the data, i.e., the information on and from the relevant studies
  5. Collate, summarize, and report the results.


Based on the above-mentioned process relevant scales were identified through literature searches in PROQUEST, EBSCO, PubMed, and Google Scholar published in January 2002–December 2017. The search terms used were “Perception AND (Parenting OR Childrearing)” and “Perception AND Parenting AND Scale.”

The inclusion criteria involve the full-text English articles from the past 15 years which have used parenting style scales. The studies in any other language than English and the scales used in the child and adolescent population have also been excluded from the study.

On the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 scales have been identified. Some scales were excluded due to insufficient data being available on their psychometric properties; some were excluded due to content falling outside the scope of the review. In addition, there may be some scale measuring systems issues and family functioning. Of 1658 studies found on the above-mentioned database, the number of articles assessed for eligibility was only 210. 10 scales fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included, other scales were out of the scope of the present study were excluded from the review. The identified measures are presented in tables. Scales have been presented in chronological order from parental constructs to functioning issues.

The description of the measures (author, citation, and dimension) has been presented in [Table 1] and [Figure 1], and their psychometric properties have been presented in [Table 2].
Table 1: Description of the measures

Click here to view
Figure 1: PRISMA chart

Click here to view
Table 2: Summary of psychometric properties

Click here to view



  Results Top


Following, we present, the instrument before presenting this study results.

Item generation and development have the foundation from a range of theoretical and conceptual perspectives with Baumarinds and Buri's parenting theories in dominance. In addition to the perception of parenting styles such as positive and negative parenting, it also features some aspects of family functioning; many scales also include specific parenting aspect as related to father and mother. Many of the scales such as Parental Bonding Index (PBI) and Parenting scale as well as other parenting scales actually assess the problematic negative parenting, hostility, and coercive behavior which most often contribute to child abuse. As demonstrated in this review, most of the instrument in the present literature possesses adequate psychometric properties.

It is evident that the scale available in the literature is developed from a variety of theoretical backgrounds and for a different purpose as well. While doing factor analysis or scale construction, the recommended rule of thumb is a minimum of five participants per variable[21] whereas as a general rule of thumb is 300 cases.[22] However, most of the scale have not adopted this parameter. Other than that, data on all the scales are not available. A good example of research over the period is PBI, which shows the validity over 20 years. The scales review in here complements research where parenting style is looked on. The PBI measures hostility and coercive behavior; additionally, it also captures supportive and engaged parenting. Some additional purport that measures parenting styles and associated with Baumarind's classification actually includes the Parental Authority Questionnaire[13] and revised version.[23] The foundation of the Parent Behavior Importance Questionnaire is parent development theory, which is based on social learning and cognitive development theories.[24]


  Discussion and Conclusion Top


The scoping review was done to explore scales related to the perception of parenting style among young adults. A large number of instruments measuring the construct of parenting style have been developed. Most interest has focused on the development of scales for the adolescent measuring their perceived parenting style OR parents perception of the same, with relatively fewer scales and studies examining the perception of parenting styles from youth/adult perspective. In the present paper, scales were described and reviewed with regard to psychometric properties. The application decides the choice of the scale. The parenting scale varies on content, domains, rating, and time frame. Differences can be seen in terms of reliability and validity. All of the measures have some missing information regarding the psychometric properties. The development of some of the instruments was limited by testing one aspect of reliability and one aspect of validity. Nearly, all scales are developed in the western context; however, it has been widely used and validated in the Indian context. Only perceived dimension on parenting scale is developed in Lahore. The subscale which describes orthodox parents is very unique and has a relevance to the Indian context.

Only few instruments are considered as the best ones since they were used widely worldwide. Based on this review, several recommendations can be given for further research. PAQ is the potential tool to measure the broad parenting prototypes of Baumrind. If one has to assess the positive coin of parenting exercised by parents, then PBI is the best option. Many scales have been constructed to measure the broad types of parenting styles which follows Baumarind's protocol. These scales include PAQ, scale on perceived parenting style, and adolescents' perceptions of parenting style during childhood. One of the important issues raised by the study is if the validation reference in not provided for scale, it is difficult to assess or replicate the methodology. This has been seen with the EMBU scale which has been validated in many places.

The review also raises concerns regarding the cultural aspects. Research says that Asians have different understanding and parenting practices for the children as compared to the west.[25] The collectivistic culture promotes interdependence, and corporal punishment is one of the methods used by most of the families to control the child's behavior, which is culturally accepted.[26] Theses cultural norms had not been employed in any of the scales in the western context that creates a need for further development of instrument.

Limitation

First, the studies which were published in the English language were only included. Second, there is a possibility that some measures are not evaluated in the literature. Third, measures of perception of parenting style from the adolescent perspective were excluded.


  Conclusion Top


Scoping review of perceived parenting styles resulted in the identification of 10 scales which has been used with the young adults/youth to measure their perception of parenting style in a retrospective manner. We should, however, note that though majority of the scales are validated in India, none of them has been developed in India. This indicates the need for the development of scale in collectivistic culture like India.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Maccoby EE, Martin JA. Socialization in the contex of the family: Parent-child interaction. Handbook of Child Psychology 4th Edition. Socialization, personality, and social development, Vol 4; 1983. p. 1-101.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychol Bul 1993;113:487.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Hughes SO, Power TG, Orlet Fisher J, Mueller S, Nicklas TA. Revisiting a neglected construct: Parenting styles in a child-feeding context. Appetite 2005;44:83-92.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Baumrind D. Current patterns of parental authority. Develp Psychol 1971;4:1.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Damon W, Lerner RM, Eisenberg N. Handbook of Child Psychology, Social, Emotional, and Personality Development: John Wiley and Sons; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Lerner R, Noh R, Wilson C, editors. The parenting of adolescents and adolescents as parents: A developmental contextual perspective. Proceedings of the conference held in Madison, Wisconsin; 1998.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Mayseless O, Scharf M, Sholt M. From authoritative parenting practices to an authoritarian context: Exploring the person–environment fit. J Res Adolesc 2003;13:427-56.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Sultana S, Ghose A. Construction of a scale on perceived parenting style. Int J Soc Sci Humanit Invent 2013;2:55-66.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Maccoby EE, Martin JA, Mussen P, Hetherington EM. Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development. New York NY: Wiley; 1983. p. 1-101.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Tagliabue S, Olivari MG, Bacchini D, Affuso G, Confalonieri E. Measuring adolescents' perceptions of parenting style during childhood: psychometric properties of the parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire. Psicologia Teoria e Pesquisa 2014;30:251-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J. Synthesising research evidence. Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Sci Res Method 2005;8:19-32.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Buri JR. Parental authority questionnaire. J Pers Assess 1991;57:110-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
George EL, Bloom BL. A brief scale for assessing parental child-rearing practice: Psychometric properties and psychosocial correlates. Fam Process 1997;36:63-80.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB. A parental bonding instrument. Br J Med Psychol 1979;52:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Arrindell WA, Sanavio E, Aguilar G, Sica C, Hatzichristou C, Eisemann M, et al. The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personal Individ Differ 1999;27:613-28.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Mageau GA, Ranger F, Joussemet M, Koestner R, Moreau E, Forest J. Validation of the perceived parental autonomy support scale (P-PASS). Can J Behav Sci 2015;47:251.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Robbins R. An Assessment of Perceptions of Parental Autonomy Support and Control: Child and Parent Correlates; 1994.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Peisah C, Brodaty H, Luscombe G, Kruk J, Anstey K. The parent adult-child relationship questionnaire (pacq): The assessment of the relationship of adult children to their parents. Aging Ment Health 1999;3:28-38.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Batool SS, Mumtaz AN. Development and validation of parenting style scale. Pak J Psychol Res 2015;30:225-48.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Tinsley HE, Kass RA. The latent structure of the need satisfying properties of leisure activities. J Leis Res 1979;11:278-91.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Comrey A, Lee H. Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. AFirst Course in Factor Analysis. Vol. 2. London: Psychology press; 1992.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Reitman D, Rhode PC, Hupp SD, Altobello C. Development and validation of the parental authority questionnaire–revised. J Psycopathol Behav Assess 2002;24:119-27.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Mowder BA. Parent development theory: Understanding parents, parenting perceptions and parenting behaviors. J Early Child Infant Psycho 2005;1:45-65.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Parmar P, Harkness S, Super CM. Asian and Euro-American parents' ethnotheories of play and learning: Effects on preschool children's home routines and school behaviour. Int J Behav Dev 2004;28:97-104.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Mishra RC. Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications 18. US: Sage; 1994. p. 225-38.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion and C...
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed205    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded61    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]