PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [USC University of Southern California]On: 29 November 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906872283]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775648094

Development of a parenting alliance inventoryRichard R. Abidin; Jack F. Brunner

To cite this Article Abidin, Richard R. and Brunner, Jack F.'Development of a parenting alliance inventory', Journal ofClinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 24: 1, 31 — 40To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2401_4URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2401_4

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Ctin~ca! Child Psychology 1995, VoI. 24, No. 1 . 31 -40

Copyeght 1995 by Lawrence Erlbagm Associates. tnc.

Development of a Parenting Alliance Inventory

Richard R. Abidin and Jack F, Brunner t!rri~~ersic o f Virginin

Reports the iriifiaifacfor strucrure, reiiabiii~, ar~nndpreiiminan. v a t i d i ~ afihe Parent- ing Alliance In1~entor.v ( P A / ; .4birlin. 1'988). Tlre 20-item PA41 assesses the degree ro which parents believe that they haw o soand workirrg reiariotrship wrdi rheir chiid's other parent. Our sample consisled of512parenfs (321 mothers and I F I farhersj and 78 reacherxlchiid care providers. The P.41 proved ro have high irrtenlal consisrerzcy arid showed no significonr d€fference behvee~i rhe resporrses qf merz and tsomen. The PA41 discriminated accumiely between couples who were nmrried, separate& ar;rl dh~orced, In n nzanrler corzsistertr with its hypothesized naiure. the PA1 correlated signzjicarerly with established measures of rnaritai sati~facrion, parenzirrg stress, and parenting style. hi addition, the FAI correiared sign[ficant!\. wirh memures of the target chiid'x positive adjusrmenr and sociai comperence. Aithough smrisricnily sip- niflcarrt, the order of magnitude qf fhese reiationx are sm i i , arrd tiir results need to be interpreted wirh caution.

This article describes the development of the Parent- ing Alliance fnventorj (FAI, .4bldln, 1988 r The P.M is a 20-~tem self-report ialstrument that measures the pnrentrng alliance. a concept created by Vi'elssman and Cohen 11985) to describe the part of the manta! re!a- tionship that rs concerned with parenthood and chiid rearing A sound parent~ng alliai~ce 1s established if these conditions are met: "(a) each parent is invested Jn the child, (bj each parent values the other parent's involvement with the chiid, dc) each parent respects the judgments of the other parent, and (d) each parent desires to commun~cate s i t h the other" t Mreissman 8r Cohen. 1985, p. 25). Thus, the parenting alliance is separate from the romantlc or sexual aspects of map-

riage and measures rhe degree of cornmftrnent and cooperation between the husband and uife in chhd reanng In contrast to other measures of marital sat:s- faction and addiustment (Locke & Wallace, 1959: Span- ler & Thompson. f 9821. the P.41 is a narrow-band measure of the type recommended by HoIden and Ed- wards ( 1989) for second-generatnon family measures

Given our society's iarge number of divorced blended, arid intact famiiaes. measurement of the par- entlng alllance is potentlaHy usefur becau~e ~t IS lrketj to relate to the coupie's success as parents versus the success of a couple. \Veissmar, and Cohen (1985) sue- gested that. ~f parents have a strong alllance around the

We express our nppreciatron to Paticia Poizlen and Patsy Dass f ~ r their assistance in the collection and analysis of the data.

We are listed alphabeticdiy Requests for reprints should be sent ia Richard R Ahidin. Curry

Programs i r Clinical and School Psychology, Uni\.crsi:y of Virginiz. 405 Emmet Street, Chariottes\:ille. V A 12923-2495

issue of parenting. the] can continue to nurture thelr children after a ditorce or during a conflictual mar- nage. The case studles described b] W'eissman and Cohen suggest rhat a posithe parenting alliance tan mitigate the harm of divorce. The measurement of the parentnng alliance is. therefore. Important to rhe extent that .t relates to parents' abilitj to cooperate w ~ t h each other bl nurturrnp and meeting the de\elopmeniaI needs of the child Such ameasure would ha\.e potential udlit) in joint custod) decisrons. clicical work ulth families. arrd research lnvestigatmp modeis that de- scribe the determinants of parenting behavior

The asscxiatlon between manta1 discord in the fam- ilg and the deveIopment of behavioral problems in

children has been suggested by a number of authors (Emery. I952: Gartiand & Day. 1992, Jour:Tes, Mu:- pP.1. & Fams. I991 1 Others hake demonstrated that manis1 discord ns related to depression. fears and inse- cunty in the child and to long-tern1 negative effects. including p m r academic performance and cf~fficulties wlth the opposite sex (Dadds &L Powell. 1991. Katz & Gottman. 1933: Walierstein & Kell! , 1980 1. In the past decade. howel er. the srrength of the re la t i~n betu een marria! dlscord and child behaylor problems has been questioned Cslng a nonclrnrcai sample. E m e ~ and O'Leary (1984) found that. although there u a s an as- sociation between manta1 discord and chiid behavior probiems. the re!atlon was fairl! weak Emerq and O'LearySs results are consnstent uith other studies that used nonclin~cal poputatjons and found the relation between marital discord and chiid behasior problems to be weak (Emen. Vierntraub, & IL'eaIe, 1982. \Yhi!- taker Sr BQ, 1991)

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

ABIDEN & BRUNNER

One explanation of chis difference between clinical and noncI:n~caI populations may be that marrtai drscord is most harmful when ~t rs one of many siressors in the family, as may be the case In the clrnical samples. If marital discord occurs in a familq that 1s function~ng welt otherwise, the effects of marital discord may be weaker. The combination of several family stressors rs the most damoglng (Red B Cr~safu'uEIl, 1990, Rutter, 1978). -4 posin~ye parentrcg alliance in a family with wrnrltal discord wouBd reduce the risk effect of the marital drscord. Another way of understanding the re- lation between mairai d~scsrcl and chiIdhood malad- justment is that marital conflict in general 1s nor the problem, rather. 11 is pathologreal parental anteractions (e g., inconsrstent parentai discipl~ne) that create prob- lems (Becker. 1964: Jenkins B Smith, I99@). With regard to this possrbility. Block, Block, and Morrison f E 98 I : found that a disagrzerneamt among parents over childrearrng was predictive of chlld behavlor problems in school. More recently. Fauber, Forehand, Thomas. and Wierson (1990) asserted that manta1 conflrct is not the primar? cause of childhood Eaiadjustmect. ri rs the disruption of parentinsg caused by the marital drscord that is responsible

Despite Fauber el ai,'s (19901 siudj. other research- ers continue to beiieve that marital conflict does hahe a direct effect on child adjustnnent through factors such as creating a high tevel of tenslon ln the home or causing the child to internalize cenaia~ nodeled hus- band and wrfe te~teractions (KIlne, Johnston. & Tschann. 1991) Cox, Owen, Lewis, and Henderson : I9891 stated that, even when differences In psycholag- ~ca l adjustment were %ken ~nio account, mothers are wlamer and more sensitive .n ~ t h their infants and fa- thers hold more positrve attitudes tcmx-3 their infants and their robes as parents when they are in close:con- fiding marriages. EIowes and Markman 1,1989; ex- tended ehrs conciusion and asserted that rnaritai quality borh before and after the ckrid.~ birth are h ~ h l y related to the chird's Pinnctioning-speclficaIiy, to the child's patterns of attachment and sociability. The paths of influence of parent51 behaylor on the chrld 3re likely to be complex enough to include both i:nes of reasonang. As Goidberg and Easterbrooks (19841 suggested. the paths of influence between n~wtd qualrty. parenting, and chiid outcome are likeiy to be conpHex. bidirec- tronai, and circular

The relative absence of negative effects on children ir! noncllnacai sampies may be the result of the bufferrng that occurs due to the qualit? of the parenaneg aBI:ance. It is reasonable to assume that parents n ho are commit- ted to rnaintairning a posit:\ e parentrng alliance, despite being in conflicted and unsatrsfying marriages, will have chiIdren who are better adj;justed than chiidren from similar famiiies in which a weak or neganke parenting alilaance exists. In the presence of a positwe parenting alllance children in families where a conflic-

32

tua4 marrage exists are less Likely to have anpaired seEf-esteem. be torn between parents, or have negative role modeis regarding ccmtlact resolution.

The PM is offered as a more direct measure of a key component of a couple's shared commitment and com- municatlon regarding child rearlng. We hypothesized that thrs measure is more meaningful and likeIy to be more directIy related to parenting behaviors because the focus is on bothparents' responses to their parenting interactions, not on more remote aspects of the maritd relationship We theorized that the common n m w e d faerrs of :he questionnaire will reduce the *'noisem' from other related and unrelated marital variables that ccln confound the relaclon between parenting bel~efs. par- enting behaviors. and chijd out- come.

The total sample consisted of 5 12 parents: 52 I moth- ers and 191 fathers. Seventy-eight teachers/ehild care providers prov~ded criterion validit: data The total sarnpie was collected in rwa waves. The first sampie cocs~sted of 99 mothers, 61 fathers. and 78 teachers1 child care providers. AH 61 fathers in the firs[ sample had their child's other parenr in the sample. For the 99 mothers. 6 I had partners in the sample, 16 had partners who dndn't participate, and 22 were ~ ~ i i h o u t partners in the home The second sample consisted of 222 nothers and 130 farhers. The parents were recrujted from child care centers located In mrd and urban areas of Virginia, a group peb~atric practice, the Ronald h4cDonald House. and a public recrearlonai facility The sample represents a wide ranage of racial and socioeconomic ISES) backgronnds. Nineteen percent sf the sample consisted of minority parents, Including African Americans, Hispanics. and Asran t2merncans. A w9de range of total fami!y incomes was represented, mith 2 I % of the farniiles earning beHo~* $20.000, 17% e m - ~ n g between %20,000 and $29,999, 27% e m m g be- tweeil $30.000 and $39,999, 18% earning between $4O.M@. and $49,999.9% earnrng berweei~ 650,000 and $59,999 and 7% earnlwg $60.000 07 more. The median family income for Virginia was $34,WQ. The derno- g rqhcs of the sample are presented in Tatsle I and :ndicate that the ninorlty scores are inadequate to draw canclusions about those populat~ons.

We drd not record :he refusals of subjects ap- proached, thus, refusal rates are unavailable. Compll- ance after agreemen! to serve as a subject bas 89% for women and 91% for men.

Wave f parents were contacted t,kough a letter sent to those parents whose children attended the cooperat-

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

THE P&RENTING 4Ll-IANCE INVENTORj

Table 1, Farnil? Demographic Srar~stzcs The packets rncluded t h e e sets of questionnazres one for the mother. one for the father, and one for the cia\ a r e pro\~der/tedcher The mother and father sets of quest~onnaires were identical and consisted of the foilowrng Instruments a demographic sheet, the hfsr- kowe-Crow ne Social Desirab~I~t> Scale (M-CSDS Crow ne & Marlowe, f 9501. the Pli l (ftbidm, 1988'1. the Parental Attitudes F o u a r d Chtldrearing Scale (PATCS, Goldberg tit Easterhrooks. 1984). the Parent- ~ n g Stress Index (PSI, .LLbndin, 1983:. the Earl3 School Behavior Scale t ESBS, Caldwell & Pranta. 199 I!, and theReblsed Manta1 Adjustment Test IRMAT. KimmeI & Van Der Veen. "74\

The teacherkhrid care probiders' packet cons~sted of rhe ESBS (Caidwell (4i Piaarra. 1991 I. the Beha~lor A~ademic Self-Esteem Scale iBASES, Coopersmith & Gilberts. I982 1. and the Cahforcla Preschool Social Cornpetencq Scale ICPSCS: Le\ me. E?ze\. & Leu 1s. 1969: Wave I of data collectror! produced a sample of 99 mothers. 61 fathers. an3 78 teachers/chrld care pro- \ iders. The target child n as betn een 4 and 6 \. ears

To ensure adequate sample slze an conduct the factor and rel~ability analyses of the first phase of the data analysis. addntlonal subjects (Wa .~c 21 iiere recm~ted

Sex of Target Chiid ~Wde Femaie

Age oi Child

Agz of Mother 20-29 30-33 40 -

Age of Fainei 20-29 30-39 30 +

Race of mother African American Hispanic As~an American Caucasian

Empioymenr ! Fuli-Time Mother

Yes No

Father Yes No

Fam!y mcome $0-$20.093 320.WXJ-$24.999 $30.0.31,-$39.993 S40,03€~-S-r9,993 950 OtW-$59,999

froir. a public recrearrondl facilit) and the outpatient pedia:ric clinic of the Un~~e:slt:v of Virginia Medical Center The sample consisted of 222 mothers and : 30 fathers. These subjects completed a srnalier set of ques- tio~~naires consisting of a demographic sheet. the PA1 Abldin. i988i. 2nd Questions I and I4 taken from the

RMAT (Kirnrriet & \'an Der Veen. 197.1) Cross and Sharpley t 198Ii showed that these tvro questions pre- d~c t the results of the RhIAT as we11 as the scale as a

$60,3204 Mother's Eaucatlonai Levei

Grades ! Through E Grades 9 Through 12 \'ocatronai'Some Coiiege College Graduate

Graduate 'Profess~onal Schoo

\\hoie, thus they serve as a suitable sutsstltute for the entre test. For Wa\e 2 subjectb. the corre;dt:on be- tween the sum of Quest~ons 1 and :4 and the rota1 RM.4T score uas 89 KO star~st~rally signiGcanr dif- ferences were found hetneen Wa\e I anct U'a5e 2

samples In etcher the demagraph~s \ariaDles or the tesr data

Fatheis Educanonal Level Grades 1 Through 5 Grades 9 Through 12 \.xational:Sorne Coilege College Graduate Graduate Professional Schw

The P.41, developed h j Abidln 11988), consisted of an initial pool of 80 items written bj farnil) therapists and psychologists, uslnp the four drmenslon, of a sound parenting allrance cWeissman tit Cohen. 19851 as a gu~de. The items were submitted to a panek of f ve farnll! therap~sts and five clrnical ps>choiog~sis who are in\ crlved in farn11) research for e l ajuation First. the panel rnembers rated each ltern to deten~lrne u hlih of the four dimension\ of the parenting aI?ianze t h e be- Ileved the item described. Second. thel rated each itern on a 5-point Likeri scale ranging from I idcic*.sn ' f niea- sirre dln:etzsrrri ) to 5 isrxoriai) nrecsures dtr?ensio~t! to

deterrnlne hovl weil the!, belle! ed the ntem measured

33

ing agencies f i e letterexplained the purpose nfthe study and asked the parents for their parilcipation. Particrpa- tion in the studj was voluntap and involved answering zt packet of questionnaires that wouid require approxi- matel) 1 ih, hr to complete. In addition, the parents were asked to select an individual outbide the farnll! who observed their child on a regular basis and M ho would also esaluate the child Such an indl~iduat could be a teacher or chiid care pro\ ider The parents were asked to give these rndividuals apacket of questionnaires and a signed form, givnng permission to the child care provader or teacher to complete the questionnaire.

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

THE P4RENTING .4tLIA?if E IN\-EYTORY

Data AnaIysis

There were taro phases of data analysls rn thrs stud: Phase 1 was designed to establish the statistical charac- teristncs ofthe FA1 (Abid~n, 1958 1 Phase 2 ~c\,olved an investigation of pre l iminq concurrent and construct validity data for [he PAT In the form of correlations between the P N and otherrerated measures used In the study.

Results

Phase 1 -The Statistical Characteristics of the PAI

The PAI responses of 321 mothers and 191 fathers (,V = 51 2 parents) were used :n Phase I analyses. A significant mean difference ( r test, p < .05\ was found between mothers' and fathers' responses to the P.41. Each data set was subsequently factor analyzed by sex using n principal factor analysis with varimax rotations Both soIutions suggested a two-dimensional scale that can be reduced to the same 20 items. Each of these items has a factor loading of .50 or greater on their respectwe scales (see Table 2). The reduction in the length of the scde was done for practical purposes and to eliminate the few items with very low factor loadings. The factor analysls of the 28-item scale accounted for 66.3% and 64.3% of the variance for the mother and father data, respectively. The shortened PtU displayed high inter- nal consistency, as indicated by an alpha reliablliiy of 3 4 .

Significant differences were found among the PAT responses of married. separated, single, and divorced wornear Of the four marital groups, women's mean scores followed a marked 2nd distinct progression Mamed women have the highest mean score on the PAI. followed by separated women. then single women. and finally divorced women. who have the lowest mean score. A comparable analysis of men's responses could not be adequate13 conducted because there was an insufficient number of men in each of the categories of separated, single. and divorced. A s i c i f - acant mean difference was found betweel: married rnen and the psoBed data of the other three men's groups (see Tabie 3).

Phase %Concurrent and Construct Validity

The responses of 99 mothers and 61 fathers frorr. families obtained in Wave 1 of data colIecihon were used during Phase 2. These were all cases in which ieachers/ch:ld care providers' dependent variaOIe data

were avarlable The product-moment correlations of the 61 couples' scores indicated that ihe PA1 scores of this nonci~nacal sample were moderate!! cerrelated ( r =.SO. p = 011.

Cornparison of the PA1 and tile R3Z4T

To examine the relataon of the parenting ali~ance to that of marital adjustment. conelatlons were run between the PA1 and she M4.49 for both n~orhers and fathers. For both mothers ( n = 93 1 2nd fathers fr; = 61). PAX scores and RMAT scores uere significant1) correlated r r = 20. p = .05, and r = 44. p = .Xlk. respective!) ? Hower er. the relatlon for fathers was stronger Glven rhls degree of relation betweer. the PAX and the RMAT. correlations were run to corn- pare their respective concurrent vaiid~ry In relat~on to the criterion \ arrables.

SlgniGcant negatlve conelatlons between the P.41 and the F34AT scores u ere found ir: relation to the total stress score of the PSI. The three ~nterpersonal sub- scales of the PSI and their correlations with the P.4I and RhitAT ,are reported in Table 5 These PSI subscales

Table 2. Resulrs ojFactor Arzd~sis qf P,.if b! SEX qf Parent

Mother Father

Elgenvaiue Factor 1 i? 0 I ! 5 Factor 2 1; 1 4

Percentage of Yanmce Factor 3 600 5- 5 Factor 1 6 3 6 8 Tord 60 3 6-43

Mother Father

P.&l Item Factor t Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor Z

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

ABIDlN & BRLTNNER

Table 3, i Tesr and Planned Comparisons of PA] Score5 b~ hdarital Status for Men and Women

Marital Status

Womena iUellb

Diuorced; Singlei

hiarried Separated Married Separated

M SD LM SD .4lpha M SD M S Alpha

14.0 I ? . ! 57.9 17.6 .XI] 86.3 9,0 70.1 15.0 .Ol Separated Versus Singie 05.4 17.6 50.7 21.9 "06 C - Singie Versus Divorced 60.9 21.9 52.4 16.4 "08 C - Married Versus Single 84.0 3 60.7 21.9 .001 C - Marr~ed Versus Divorced 84.0 13.1 52.4 16.4 .W1 < - Separated Versus Divorced 65.9 15.6 52.4. 16.4 ,001 L -.

"Married, c = 221; separatec?., n = 32: singie, r; - 34; divorced. rt = 34 ( N :: 321\. '~ar r ied . ii = 172; separated, n = 9: singie. r; = 3; divorced. n = 7 {N = 191). 'inadequate sarnpie sizes for cornpansox.

specifically address the relationship berween the parent and the child; thus, they are germane to this study, which examines paents' social competence in the mar- ital and pwental relationship as ir relates to the chiId's social relationships and social competence. The parentsv marital relationship and their parenting aili- ance represent modeIs of behavior for their children. Er is reasonzble to assume tha.: these ineeracaons ~vil! influence their children's social functioning.

Both the RMAT and the PA1 woeld be expected to measure a construct similar to the Relationship With Spouse PSI subscale. As expected. both the mothers' and fathers' Relationeship With Spouse slrbscale scores

Table 4. Correiattsris Bemeen the PAI, the RMAT, and the Crilerion L'oriables

Mother Father

Criterion PAIa W A T 8 ?Alb R M A T ~ -

PA1 - .20* - ;t;***

PSI PSITOP - .& ?fr** -. , 2 ~ * * - ,29** - ,2;* RFPA - ?d** .- . - .09 - .- ?$** - ,19 ATTMT - . I 3 - .09 - 32** -,20 RELNT - ,45*** - S9*** -.39*** -,44***

PATCS WARM .& 38** .04 3gw* : 7

STRlCT - . I? - .06 . I4 .U1 CI-0NFL.T - . I8* - .0: - .?4* - .Oi

Noic: Sei.ent:-eigh: percent of mothers and 1M!% of fathers were married. PA1 = Parenting Alliance Inventoy; RMAT = Revised Marabi Adjustment Tes:; PSI = Parenting Stress Index; PS:TOT = Parenting Stress lndex tntai score; RFPA = Child Reinforces Paren: {PSI subscale): ATTKT = Parent Atracheni (PSI subscaie): RSLNT = Relationship With Spouse {PSI subscale); PATCS = Pa~entai Attimdes Toward Chiidrearing Scaie: WARM = Warm Parenting S ~ i e (PATCS subscaie). STRICT = Strict Parenting Styie {PATCS subscaie:; COMFLT =- Conbic: (PATCS suhscaie:. % = 99.'~ = 61.

correlated slgntficantly with heir RMAT and P.41 scores.

Another PSI subscale consndered rs the Child Re- inforces Parent subscale, which measures how much the parent experiences the chiid as a source of posi- tile reinforcernenr. For both mothers and fzthers. thex Chdd Reinforces Parent subscaie scores corre- laced h~gnificant!) @ = "01) with therr PAX scores. However. these scores were not significantly corre- Iared b3th ~helr RMAT scores, which supports the independence of the P.41 construct from that of over- al1 marital adjustment.

The final PSIre!at,ionshlip-related subscake examined was Parent Attachment, which measures the degree of artachmeni in the parent-child interaction from the parents' perspective The fathers' Parent ~~t:achrnenl subscale score correlated significantly with both the fathers' ChrEdRernforces Parent subscaIe score Cr = .32. p = "01) and his Relationship With Spouse subscale score jr = -.23, p = 05). Note, hswrever, the mothers' Parent Attachment subscale score failed to correlate significantly eith either her PAI or M A T scores, suggesting greater independence of the morher-ehild relaaonshlp from the marital relationship and t h par- entlng alliance.

P.41 and RMAT Relations to the PATCS

Both fathers' and mothers' warn. parenting style l Authoritative subscale of the PATCS) co~eIated slg- nificantly w t h the P-ml scores ( r = "58. p = "001: r = .28, p = "1301). respectivelj. In contrast. neither mothers' nor fsthers' RMAT scores correlated with any of the subscales of the PACR scores (Table 4). This finding provides posrtjve evidence that the F.4I may make a separate contribution ta understanding parental

*.D a .a5 **p < .01 ***p < "031. attitudes and behavior.

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

TFIE PARENTING 4LtlANCE INVENTOR',

Comparison of the Predictive Vaiidity of the PA1 and the WMRT

The n o s t striking finding was the pattern of signifi- cant correlations of mothers' and fathers' P.41 scores correlating with each other's rating of their child. Their RhZAT scores were not related io the other parent's evaluation of their child's ad-justment (Table 5). An- other significant indication of the possible greater pre- dlctive validity of the PAI versus the RMAT is that the father's ELnIAT was not significantly related to any of the 3 mothers' ratings and 6 teachersichild care pro\,iders' ratings of the child's functioning. whereas the PiU was significantly correiated with 6 of the I0 ratings. The pattern of correlation of the mothers' scores for the PA1 and RMAT in relation ta the ciitenon variables was somewhat more variable Nelther the mothers' P N nor their RIMAT scores correlated with their ratings of their child"s behavior ESBS scores. Mothers' PAE scores but not their RMAT scores were, however. significantly correlated with fathers' rating of their child's total adjusted ESBS; the reverse was found for their RIMAT scores.

For mothers. both the PAI and RMAT scores dis- pHayed the same pattern of relat~on to rhe teachersichild care providers' judgment of their child's self-esteem and social competence. In both cases, the chid's social competence was independent of the PA1 and Rh4AT scores: in both cases, the PA1 and RMAT were corre- lated Ir = "20, p = 05) with self-esteem Fathers' PA1

and RMhT scores drsplayed a dlstinctiy different pat- ten. The fathers' PAM score was slpnificmtl> related to the teachers' ratlng of the child's self esteem (BASES) and s m a l competence I CPSCP). u hereas the fathers' RMAT score was rndependent of both.

Kote that both the men and women's. scores on the PA1 nelther correlated significantly with their M- CSDS scores nor with the demograph~c variables (Table 6).

Discussion

The parenting alijance is v i e ~ e d as a central \ arrable in understanding the determinants nf parenting behav- ior i i tbldn. 1990. BeHskj, PIenzog, & Rex me. 1986; M'eissman & Cnhen, 1985) The concept suggests that. although the parenting alliance may reiated to vari- ables such as parental personalit! and manta1 satisfac- tion. it makes a unique contribution to parenting behanor and ulttmatelg to children's adjustment

The dekeiopment of a measure of the parenting alliance was the focus of this study. The PAI's de.ieE- aprnent was guided b> the recommendation of Holden and Edwards (1SiS9'i regarding the need to create narrow-band. parent self-report measures in the family assessment area. The P a l ' s high alpha reliability and [\yo-factor strucfnre suggest some de- gree of success t o ~ a r d the creation of a focused narrow -band measure

Dependent 1-erirnbie MPAP h[K\IAP FPAP" F W I A T ~

MPOSADJ M 4XX MCOMPTNC MCONDUCT MM-CSDS -

FPOSADJ FANX FCOMPTNC FCONDUCT FM-CSDS

TPOSADf 1.5 .20* 17* .i : -;

. - A

TANX .-- ?c** .16 .22* . I 1 TCOMP'FNC .04 i5 . Z I -- . h

TCONDUCT .r37 . 15' I0 . 07 TBASE .20* 20% .19* : -. . &z.

TCPSC .M .I5 .3.*** .7 ., .

,Vote Prefixes: M = mother; F = fahe;: T = teacher <including chiid care provider^. Variabir levels. POSADJ = Fsit!ce ad-b~stment is the sum of the three ESBS subscales of Competence, . h e n !reversed), and Conduct (:eversell: ILNX = h u e ? !ESBS suhscaie): COlMPTNC = Competence {ESBS subscale); CONDUCT = Conduct (ESBS subscale). M-CSDS = hiailawe-Crowne S x i J Des:rability Scde: BASES = Behsviord Academic Self-Esteem Scale: CPSCS = California Preschoo! Social Competency Scale. 'ns = 99. 60, and 78 for conelations with mother, father. an6 teacherichild care provider, respec:ivei:,. ' n s = 6i. Kl, an6 52 foi conela- rions with riother. father, and teacher'ckld care provider. respectiirely. *p < .05. **p < .0l. ***p c .KI!

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

ABIDIK B BRUNNER

Table 6. PAi Correlations Wirh the Demographic FATCS scores and marital adjustment. It appears that i*'a/ariabtes and kf-@SDS for Men an$ warm parenting style is related to the quality of the Women paenticg alliance bit not to the overall quality of the

marriage for both men and women. The data also sug- Men \~i.omen gest that the father's parenting alliance may be a

stronger predictor of the w m t h of his parenting be- Chiid Age .Oe .06 Parent Age .05 .06

havior than is the case for mothers. The absence of a

Educatior, 09 13 significant relation between mothers' ratings of their Income M-CSDS

.?;ore: All correlations were not slgnificanr

The prekiminary validity data for the PM. although weak, was mostly positive. That the P.M was able to discriminate between the responses of married, sepa- rated, and divorced coupies is logical, because one would assume that the parenfng alliance is likely to vary with the degree of intactness of the parental rela- tionship. (The fact that the relatioa: of the PAI to marital adjustment was of a relatively low order. .20 for moth- ers and .44 for fathers, supports to a degree the concep- tual independence of the parenting allrance from that of marital adjustment and satisfaction.) That the magrai- rude of the relation was different for men and women is not surprisrng and seems consistent with our cultural experience in which we find women being more com- mitted to thear parenting role despite their mdta l sar- lsfactlon and men reducing &elr parenting role in the face of marital dissatisfaction or dissolution hBelsky. Giistrrap, &Rovine, 1984; Belsky. Ysnngbiade, &Rov- ine, 19911.

When parents' BAI scores were examined in relation to parentrng stress CPSXI. the expected negative relation was found for hoth mothers and fathers. To the extent that a strong parenting allsance exists. one would expect :he task of parefiting to go more smoottlIy and for both parents to experience less stress in the parenting roie. These Iow-to-moderate relations between stress and the parenting akliance lends some credibihty to the con- struct and the predictive validity sf the PAI. One appar- ent noteworthy sex difference was that mothers' PILE scores were independent of their feelings of attachment tom ard their child, whereas for fathers' parenting alli- ance scores were signlficantiy correlated with their attachment scores. Although one mcsr be cautious not to overinterpret this Eimd:np. it is consistent with our clinical experience with parents that. regardless sf the quality of the marital relationship. most women remain more connected to [hex children. These resuits are consistent with those of Gsldberg and Easterbrooks 11354). who found that a father's attachment to his children is more related to rtiarntal hzrmony than a mother's attachent to her chijdren.

The separateness of the parenting alliance construct from rnarltal adjustment was further den~onstrated by the significant correIations of the PA1 with the PATCS scores arad the absence of a significant relation between

children's adjustment and their PAM scores supports the ~ndependence of the P M measure from the standpoint of a response bias on the part of mothers. Further support of the PPeI's relative independence from re- sponse biases is that the P N scores of both mothers and fathers are independent of their scores on the M-CSBS. In contrast to mothers' PM scores, fathers' PAM scores were consistently related to children's adjustment scores regardless of the source of the chiid rating ii.e.. mothers. fathers, or teachersichilcl care providers). This finding raises some hope with regard to establishing the predictive vaiidkty of the PM. at Ieast in relation to fathers.

Overall. aithough some significant relations were found with regard to the PAI's predictive baliditj, they mere of a relatively io.n order and therefore must be viewed. at best. as suggestive of predictive valid- ity. Ia is possible that future research on the PA1 will more clearly establish its predictive validity in rela- tion to chdd ad-iustment. pxticu9arly If children with it wider range of adjustment are used in the sample. The current "sample of opportuni~y" was essentiallg a nonclinlcaj sample, and we anticipated that the predictive validity of the PAI woukd be substantially greater wrth a broader sample, which we hq3e future research will demonstrate.

Our study provides some data that slappon the reli- ability and the inextial construct and concurerat vaiidrty of [he PAI. Although data sugpesti\.e of potenkal pre- dictive vairdiry were presented, ir is clear that additional research in thns area rs needed. The furire research wlHk need to examine carefully possible sex differences in relation to hoth the parents and the taget child. The construe! of re parenting alliance znd the validity of the PA1 needs further exploration in relation to a variety of family forms and structures. Parent-grandparent, same-sex parents. and foster parents systems are but some of the variants of the parenting nlIiance that need to he examined. Yote that. dthough there was some minority represer~tation in our sample. the zdbsoluie wumSer of participants makes generalizations about the PA1 rc minority populations inappropriat~,. Given that the expression of family life IS somewhat t:ultul-ally specific, the PAI needs to he \.aEidated In relation to the minorities groups and cultures to which it is applied. Future research on the PAI in the should dernonstra~e that ir makes a unique contribution to the measul-emeaxl and understanding of family funcf cpning. To accom- plish this goal, it needs to be examined in reIatio~ erp

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

THE PARENTING ALLIANCE IKVENTORf

other measures of pixrental beliefs, attitudes. and ~aren- ~syr~ming?, ?f. 349-354

tal functioning. From theoretical and practical perspec- Dadds. M R .&Powell. M B (199l) The relatlonshlp ofinterparen- tal confi~ctand global m t a i a J p t m r r t tcaggrrssion. anxlet).

tives, the establishment of a reliable and valid measure and Imrnatunr! an aggreswe and nonclrn~c chlldren iournaic3f of the parenting alliance would be useful Theoreti- 4bnnonnt Cil;[d P.r\choloa~ !9,553-567 caHy, it could help clarify our understanding of the paths of influence of parental attitudes and [he determi- nants of parenting behavior. Practically, a valid mea- sure of the parenting alliance \nould be useful in cI~nically assessing and predicting farnilj functioning m relation to areas such as child custody. child abuse. and special needs children. Future research will need to

explore the utility of the P.4I in relation to a variet? of parenting arrangements.

References

Abidin, R. R. (1983j. Parenting Stress index (PSI) manuai. Char- iotres\:ille. VA: Pediatric Psychology Press.

Ahidin, R. R. t 1988). Parenting Allanre Invenro?. Unpublished scale. llniversity of Virginia. Chariotres~ille.

Abidin. R. R. (1990). Parenting S:ress Index (PSI] maniiu: (3rd ed ). Char~ottesuille. V.4: Pediatric Psychology Press.

Achenbach: T. M. (19?8:. The Chiid Behnv~or Profile. I . Boys aged fS i 1. Journal qfConsia!iir;g and Ciinicai P.r?.chologl, 46, $78-- 48%.

Baumrind. D, (1971). Cumnt patterns of parental authorit? [Mono- graph;. Deveiopmenrul P.y~rholog,: 4, ? - 103.

Recker, W. C. ii964). Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M. t. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.). Re~iew 05fc!zijGi deveiopnzenf research [pp. 169-208) New York. Rus- sell S a p Foundation.

Behar, L., 8; Stnngfield. S, (lY74). A beha\:ior rating scale for the preschool chiid. Developrner~ia/ P~viholog?: IS , 631410.

Belsky. J . , Giistrap. B., & Rovine. hl. i 19%!;1. The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development Project. 1. Stability and change in mother-infant and father-infant intewc:ioa! in a family settnng at one. three. and nine months. Chii:iDevelnpmen;. 55.692505.

Beisky, J . , Hertzog. C.. B Rouine, I\?. (1986). Causal analyses of multiple determinnnts of parenting: Ernpixicd m d methodalog- icai advances. In M. L m b , A Brown, 6; B. Rogofi {Eds.), Advances 1n del~elopmenrai psych0fo.p (Voi. 4. pp. 153-202). Millsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Inc.

Beisky. I., Youngbiacie, L.. & Kovino, M. (1991). Patterns of maiita! change and parentxhild interaction. Jolountn: ny'hfarriage und I ~ E Famiiy, 33,487498.

Block. J . , Block, J . . & Morrison, -4. (198:). Parental a p e m e n t 4 i s - agreemen! on chiidrearing onentations and gender-related per- sonaiity correlates in children. CizildDe~~elop~nettf, 52,955-954

Caldweii, C B., 8; Piant% R. C. (1991). A measure of young children's problems and competence behavior: The Earl! School Behavior Scale. Jounln~' c~fP.~rnoeducar;omI Assess- menr, ?. 32-44.

Cl~ngempeei, iV. ( 1 981). Quasi-kin reiations'nips and marital qudity iri step-father famiiies. Jodorsrnai of Personalit). and Soctal Psy- c:holeg~. 41, 89G-901.

Coopersmith. S.. 6; Giibeas, R (1982:. Behmvorci! 4cndemic S ~ l f - Esteem. P d o Alto, CA. Consulting Psychoiogisrs Press.

Cox, M 5.. Owen, M T,, Lewis, J M,, & Henderson, K. ! 19891 Marriage. adult adjustment. and early parenilng. CniidDei~eiop- menr, 60. I01 5-1 014.

Crass, C . G., &. Sharpieg, D F. (1981). The Locke-Wailace marital adjustment test reconsidered: Some psychometric findings as regards its reliability and factorial valrdiry. Educationa? und Psychologicczt Measurement. 41, 1303- 1306.

Crowne, D. P., & Mxlowe. D. (1960) 4 new scale of soclai desir- abiliry independent of psychopatholog) . Journu! of Consrriiing

Emen R E 11982) Interparental conflsct and the ch11dxn of d~scord and drvorce Pnih~ic~gacalBuiicim 92 319-330

Enier?. R E . & O'Lear: K D ( 1 9 W ~ Manta1 dlscord and child behat nor problem$ ~n a noncllnlc sample Sc~urni oj4bnr~rn1a! Child P ~ i c h l ~ g ~ 12 41 i -420

Emeq R E kelnunob S B Neale J M t i9821 Effectsafmanta d~scora on the school behm~o: of chidren b lib ichzoph~nlc . affects elv d ~ s o r d e ~ d . anJ nom~al parents Jouv~~:or.4hnc*~mui: Ch'ld Pnihoh)g\ 10 225-128

Faukr R Forehand R T h o r n . A & lhre5on. t f 'l99i;. A mediat~onal model of the Impact of mw.tal confl~ct on adoies- cent adjustment in intact and d~vorced famil~es. The role of disrupted parenting. ChiidD~i~ioprneni, 61, ! 1 !?-f f 23.

Gafiiand. K. f . . & Day. K. D ; I 9 9 2 P m n d conflict and male adolescent probiem behavior. The daurna! q?Genetic P.ycho:- og?. :r3.201-23.

Goidberg, \V. A,, & Easterbaooh. M. A. 11984:) Role of marital quality in toddler deveiopment. Bn,eioprncnraiPyc.iioiog,. ?O, 5~14-514.

tiolden, G 'JI'.. 6; Eciwards. L. A. (1989). Parrntai attitudes to\vi.ard chiidrearing. Instruments, issues. and implications. Psyhoiog- lcai Butlerin, 106. 14-5e.

Fiowes. P., & Markman.. H, i !I9891 Marital quaiit? and child functionmg: A longrtudinal investigation. Chiid Dt~..eL.,pme.nt. 62. 1*%4-1051

Hughes. H. M. (1984). Measures of seli-toncep: and self-esteem for c5idren ages 3-12 gears- A. revleu and recon~mndadons. Ciicicat P ~ c h i l i c ! g ~ Re>.rrw. 4. 657-602.

Jenkins, I M.. 6; Smith. M. A. i1990'). Factors protecting chiidrrr, living ic disharmonious honles. Maternal repom. Journil; ~:f the

Amenrim Acadprn? of C!i:k' and Adcdescenr Py\,chiarp, 29, 60-49.

Jouriies, E. N., Murphy, C . h,f., & F m s . A M (1941). h i ~ r i t d ad~uscmen(. parental d~sagreements abtrur child rearing, and behavior problems in boys: Increasing the specsfici~ of the marital assessment ChiidDe;elopmeni. 62. 1424-1433.

Katz. L. F.: 6: Gottman. J. M i :993). Patterns of marital con3tct predict chiidren's internal:z~ng and externzilz~ng behaviors. Dr- ~ ~ e ~ o p n z e n r a ~ P . ~ ~ c h a l o g . ZB.94&450.

Lmntel, D.. & Van k r Veen. F. (19951. Factors of marital adjust- ment in t x k e ^ s marital adjustmnr test Joicrnai r!f hfarrirlge trnd the firnil? 35 57-63.

Klinc, M.. Johnston. 1. R.. & Tschann. 3. M. :1991). The long shadow of mai:aJ conflict. A m d e l of childrer?'~ postd:vorce az-lust- rnent Jolirnni ofh!urri(lge and the Fm?~i!\.. 53. 297-33.

LevIne, S.. El=?, F. F., 6; Lewis, M (1969) Cuiifornia Presc,hooi Socta: Cnmpt.rency Sruie. Pale Altc. C.4: Consulting Psychot- ogists Press.

Locke. H. .I.. B Wailace. K hf. i 1959). Shofl marita! adjustment and prediction tests. Their rellabilit: and \~aliditg. Marriage and Fami+ Living, 21, 25 1-255.

OLeq, K., 8 Turkewkz, tf. ( 1 9811. Evaiuating rnariral behavioral therapy fbr male aicoholics: Effects on marit3 a&ustrnent and communication from before rc after trearment. B~'lm,ior Ther- CI,~?. 16. 147-167

Reid, W. 1.. 8 Crisafulh. A. (i39C)j. Mantal discord and chiid hehalrror problems: A mefa-aqalysis. fourrialc~~,4br1o.~malCh:i;; Ps?ciroiogv. 18. 105-i 15.

Rush. R T 3: t985,. Assessing readability: Formulas and alternatives Reading Teacher, 39,244283

Rutter, M. (1978). Early sources of cecunt? and competeram.. In J . S . B ~ n e r & A. Canon !,Eds 1 Human Growih nnc' I)eveiopitlenr (pp 3341). London: Oxford University Press.

Spanier, G 8.: 6: Thompson. L. 11982). .4 confirmaton analysis of the dyadic ae.iustlnen: scale. J~?id,r~ai qfMarriage and Falfz:&. 44.731-738

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009

ASIDIN B BRUNNER

Teti, D M., Nakagawa. M., Das, X., 8 Wi rtk. 0. (199i). Security of Weissman. S. R., B Cohen, R. S. :'1985). The pmnting ailrance and attachment between preschoolers and their mothers. Relations adolescence. ddoiescent pehiarry. 12,2-4-45. amonp social interaction. parenting stress. and mothers' soas of M.'hiE&er. S . , B B q , B. R. j 199; ) Overt and cover( parental cocfiict the attachment q-set. Developmenra! Fsycizology. 27, 3, &I& and adoiescent problems: Observed mantnl interaction in clinic 447, and nonclinic families. .Adolescence, 26,865-876.

Wallersrein, J.: 6r Kelly. 4. ii9801. Divihd kzorrses: Parents and children cope with divorce. New York. Basic.

Webster-Stratton, C. 11988) Mothers; and fathers' perceptions of chnld devsance Roles of parent and chiid behallon and parent adjus~rnent Journal gfCo~suEr:xg and Chnica: Psjchoioy) 56, IZeceiVed December I S 9 '"' 909-9 I5 Final re~~ueeam recerved J m e 20, 1994

Appendix: The Parenting Allliarlce Inventory

PARENTING ALLIANCE INVEMTOORY R.R. Abidirt

Curry School erf Education ~ n i v e r s i t ~ sf Virginia

DIRECTIONS: The questions listed below concern what happens between you and your child's other parent, or the other adult mast involved in the care of your child. While you may not find an answer which exactly describes what you think, please circle the answer that comes closest Po what you think. YOUR FlRST REACTION SHOULD BE YOUR ANSWER.

- i. My chikl's other parent enjoys beirlg atone with our chilc'. 5 4 3 2 1

2. During pregnancy, my child's other parent expressed conf~dence in my ability t o be a good I parent.

3. WRe(1 thare is a problem wkt! our chlld, we w3rk og? a ~ o o d solutlor: together. 5 4 3 2 1

4. My child's other gaaent and k communicad~ welI about our child. 5 4 3 2 1

8. My &Id's Other garen1 i8 willrng to make personal sacrifices to bclp take care of our child. 5 4 3 2 f

8. Palkina to rnv child% other men: about our child is somethina. B look torward la. 6 4 3 2 1

7. My cW's o t b t parent pays a o w : deal o! anerltion to adr cnilc 6 4 3 2 1

8. My child's nthet parent and L agree on what our child should and shouid not be permitted to do.

9. I fee! cbse to my child's o?hcr parent wtler f sea hirn!her play wit% odr child. 5 4 3 2 %

$0. Mv child's other oarent knows how to handie childrec weli. 5 4 5 2 1

I My c W a 6 t h ~ ~aront and I are a good team. 5 4 3 2 1

18. My child" other parent and I would basicalk describe out child in the same way. 5 4 3 2 1

17. If our ctlifd weds tto be punished, n y ch1l3's other parent and I asdally ayree on the type o: prmimenr.

bout what 1s rqh? for our child. 6 4 3 1 1

5 4 3 2 1

20. My child's other parent an6 I have the same goals for our child. 5 4 3 2 1

Downloaded By: [USC University of Southern California] At: 23:12 29 November 2009