See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230639063
Parenting Young Children (PARYC): Validation of
a Self-Report Parenting Measure
Article in Journal of Child and Family Studies · June 2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10826-011-9503-y · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS
READS
11
83
6 authors, including:
Thomas J Dishion
Chelsea M Weaver
416 PUBLICATIONS 19,039 CITATIONS
7 PUBLICATIONS 424 CITATIONS
Arizona State University
SEE PROFILE
University of Pittsburgh
SEE PROFILE
Daniel S Shaw
Frances Gardner
328 PUBLICATIONS 10,521 CITATIONS
125 PUBLICATIONS 4,303 CITATIONS
University of Pittsburgh
SEE PROFILE
University of Oxford
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
An Individually Tailored, Family-Centered Intervention for Childhood Obesity: Connecting Services in
Pediatric Primary Healthcare, the Home, and the Community View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel S Shaw on 01 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:
J Child Fam Stud. 2012 June ; 21(3): 498–511. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9503-y.
Parenting Young Children (PARYC): Validation of a Self-Report
Parenting Measure
Amber D. McEachern,
The Mind Research Network, 1101 Yale Blvd, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA
amceachern@mrn.org
Thomas J. Dishion,
Child and Family Center, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
Chelsea M. Weaver,
Pitt Early Steps Project, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Daniel S. Shaw,
Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Melvin N. Wilson, and
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Frances Gardner
Department of Social Policy and Social Intervention, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
Abstract
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The measurement of parenting behaviors is important to the field of psychology and the goal of
remediating problematic parenting as a means of reducing child problem behaviors. The Parenting
Young Children (PARYC) is a self-report measure designed to address parenting behaviors
relevant for the caregivers of young children, and was assessed in sample of 579 high risk
families. The measure assesses the frequency of several parenting behaviors, the perception of the
parenting behaviors as problematic, and the degree to which the caregiver would like to make
changes in specific parenting skills. An examination of the validity of the parenting behavior items
revealed three parenting scales: (1) Supporting Positive Behavior (2) Setting Limits, and (3)
Proactive Parenting. Confirmatory factor analysis results corroborate the findings of the
exploratory factor analysis, supporting the measurement structure of these parenting scales. Tests
of convergent validity indicate the PARYC scale is a suitable measure of parenting behaviors. In
addition, the self-perception of parenting behaviors as problematic predicted concurrent levels of
service utilization while controlling for simultaneous child behavior problems.
Keywords
Parenting behavior assessment; Factor structure; Validity; Parenting Young Children; Service
utilization
Introduction
The prevention and intervention of behavioral problems in children has taken a front seat for
research due to the deleterious short and long-term outcomes associated with antisocial
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Correspondence to: Amber D. McEachern.
McEachern et al.
Page 2
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
behaviors. Research uncovering the high comorbidity rates of antisocial behaviors among
other behavioral disorders (Hinshaw et al. 1993), co-occurring behavioral problems (Snyder
et al. 2004; White et al. 1994), and the influence of peers (Dishion et al. 1999; Snyder et al.
2004, 2005) has increased knowledge about the formation and severity of problematic
behaviors. Analyzing the developmental trajectories of antisocial behaviors has indicated
that the earlier the problems begin, the more deleterious the potential outcome for the
individual and society at large (Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber 1998; Shaw et al. 2000). The
collective knowledge gained by behavioral problems research suggests intervention and
prevention efforts may be most successful when targeting children in early childhood before
entering into the school environment (Dishion and Patterson 1992). Naturally, the family has
become a primary agent for attempting to reduce the burden of antisocial behaviors, with a
principal focus on improving parenting strategies.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In meeting with the arduous goal of remediation, The Family Check-Up (FCU; see Fig. 1)
was developed as a family centered intervention originally delivered within the school
system (Dishion and Kavanagh 2003) to reduce behavioral concerns relevant to adolescents
(Connell et al. 2007). More recently, the Early Steps Multisite Study has moved the FCU
into the home context at three sites across the United States as a means of preventing
problematic behaviors in young children. Success in improving parent management skills,
maternal depression, and reducing growth in child externalizing and internalizing problem
behaviors has been reported across this multicultural and contextually diverse sample
(Dishion et al. 2008; Shaw et al. 2009).
Within this project, the FCU models a health maintenance framework by relying on
thorough assessments of the family context and utilizing motivational interviewing
strategies to help families move toward change behaviors (Dishion and Kavanagh 2003; Gill
et al. 2008). The FCU is modeled after the Drinker’s Check-Up (Miller and Rollnick 2002),
wherein multiple data sources relevant to the functioning and harmony of the family (e.g.,
maternal depression, child behaviors, family management skills) are collected using paperand-pencil questionnaires, interviews, and videotaped observations. After the completion of
the interview and assessment, the family is provided with feedback regarding the
functioning of their family. The feedback session is structured based on the information
obtained during the interview and assessment portion of the FCU, with careful attention paid
to the strengths of the family and areas where the family could benefit from making
changes.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The feedback portion of the FCU is designed to be motivational and present the family with
empirical evidence surrounding the current performance of the family and potential future
outcomes which will likely result if current behavioral patterns persist. Ideally, families for
whom the interview and assessment procedures suggest change would likely enhance their
future prognosis and success would be motivated to either seek professional support or make
changes on their own based on the information presented during the feedback session. A
menu of options for families experiencing difficulties is presented at the conclusion of the
feedback session. Although the menu is tailored to the needs of the family, a typical menu
may include referrals for specific problems (e.g., developmental delays, maternal
depression), age-appropriate brochures addressing parenting issues (e.g., limit setting), and/
or directly providing parent management services to the family by research project
personnel.
If families so choose, research staff designated as parent consultants (therapists who also
provide the families with detailed feedback) are trained and ready to provide the family with
important parent management skills. In order to teach parenting skills that enhance family
management, the Everyday Parenting Curriculum, an adapted version of Parent
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 3
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Management Training-Oregon (Patterson 1982), is employed. Parent Management Training
has repeatedly been shown to reduce problematic behaviors in children (Kazdin 1997) and
has long been established as an empirically validated treatment for disruptive behaviors with
children (Brestan and Eyberg 1998). Typically, Parent Management Training involves 1-h
sessions of skill building and role-playing important parenting behaviors over approximately
10–17 meetings (Eyberg et al. 2008). In addition to serving as the primary source of
information for the feedback session, the interview and assessment portion of the FCU also
serve the function of providing the parent consultant with individualized information
regarding the specific parenting skill areas where improvement could benefit family
functioning. Such an assessment process assists the interventionist in tailoring the parent
management strategy to the needs of the family. Thus, the feedback session reduces the
intervention time and increases the participant’s investment in the intervention by keeping
the participant engaged in relevant and useful skill building behaviors.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
As the assessment segment of the FCU plays such a vital role in not only the research aspect
of the Early Steps Multisite Study, but also to the actual feedback and treatment provided to
families in need, great care was taken to choose validated measures covering important
aspects of child and parent behaviors (Gill et al. 2008). Because parent skills training is a
primary focus of the intervention, accessing high-quality indices of how parents are
managing in this role was of utmost concern. A gap in the assessment literature was
discovered which seemed imperative to fill for the success of both the intervention and the
families strengthened by this work.
Assessing Parenting
An exhaustive list of the available parenting measures which assess an array of parenting
behaviors, styles and perceptions is beyond the purpose of this report, but the following
provides a sample of accessible parenting assessments. For example, self-report measures
assessing the quality of the relationship between the parent and the child based on principles
of attachment theory, such as the Adult Child Relationship Scale (ACRS; Pianta and Nimetz
1991) are available and easily administered. Other relationship measures are also accessible
which tap into the parents’ perceived efficacy and competence in their parenting role
(Parenting Sense of Competence Scale, PSOC; Johnston and Mash 1989). In addition, selfreport assessments of parenting styles specifically focused on mal-adaptive parenting
strategies that have been related to disruptive behaviors in young children (The Parenting
Scale; Arnold et al. 1993) are also available.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
All three of these self-report measurement tools are extremely important for assessing the
quality of parenting behaviors and can be valuable tools for capturing the current
functioning and potential areas of improvement for families. However, certain areas of
parental functioning are not addressed with these self-report measures, and these parenting
domains (e.g., positive parenting) are vital to properly assess and facilitate improvements
through implementation of the FCU. For example, although the measure developed and
validated by Arnold et al. (1993) is well suited to measure specific parenting practices
deemed as dysfunctional discipline strategies by conventional scientific standards, this
measure does not assess the awareness the parent may or may not have of these behaviors as
problematic for the relationship between the parent and the child. Nor does this measure
evaluate positive parenting strategies or goals the caregivers may have for improving their
parenting behaviors. Whereas the assessment tool developed and validated by Johnston and
Mash (1989) is excellent for measuring perceptions of competence and efficacy as a parent,
little information is provided regarding the specific parenting behaviors the caregiver uses
when responding to acceptable or problematic behaviors exhibited by the child. The same
information is also lacking in the Pianta and Nimetz (1991) instrument, which is excellent
for evaluating adult perceptions of the relationship between themselves and the child based
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 4
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
primarily on the behavioral responses engaged in by the child. In addition, none of the three
measures described addresses the desire of the parent to make changes in their parenting
behaviors, a cornerstone of the theory guiding the FCU and of particular relevance when
working with parents to modify their current, well-practiced parenting behaviors.
Feedback provided to the parents during the FCU process is designed not only to present
areas of concern and strength for specific parenting strategies, but also to assess one’s
motivation for change concerning their current parenting practices. As noted by Miller and
Rollnick (2002), a primary method by which to enhance motivation to change is to discuss
discrepancies between what one views as a problematic behavioral strategy and their actual
behavior. Given the emphasis on motivational interviewing in the FCU, measuring the
specific behaviors, the problematic perceptions of these behaviors, and the desire to change
such behaviors were deemed as necessary areas for assessment. In fact, the caregiver’s
perception of their parenting behavior as problematic has not received much empirical
attention, nor does knowledge exist about important characteristics of introspective parents.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
As previously mentioned, the assessment portion of the FCU also serves as a guide for
tailoring parenting services, after the feedback session, for those families in need and willing
to learn more adaptive parenting strategies. Although proactive parenting strategies, wherein
caregivers preemptively anticipate problem behaviors and work to structure up situations to
avoid problematic behaviors, have been related to reductions in child conduct problems
(Gardner et al. 2003), measurement of such strategies has primarily relied on observational
data (Gardner et al. 1999). As an important strength for the parenting process and a primary
focus of the Everyday Parenting Curriculum, it is helpful to measure proactive parenting
strategies in a simple and cost effective manner, a goal not typically reached by relying on
valuable yet costly and time-consuming observational techniques.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
To summarize, a brief and cost-effective measure of parenting behaviors that simultaneously
addresses problematic perceptions of parenting behaviors and the desire for change was
deemed a needed and clinically relevant undertaking. In response to these gaps in the
assessment of caregiving practices, the Parenting Young Children Scale (PARYC) was
developed, which addresses three areas of parenting behaviors that have been theoretically
linked to effective outcomes for young children: (1) Supporting Positive Behavior, (2)
Setting Limits, and (3) Proactive Parenting. The purpose of the analyses that follow was to
examine the psychometric properties and structure of the brief self-report questionnaire. It
was hypothesized that an exploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis
would support the existence of these three parenting domains. The convergent validity of
this tool was assessed by collecting other measures of parenting behaviors at the same point
in time; it was hypothesized that these measures would correlate with the PARYC. The
contribution of parenting behaviors, perceptions of parenting as problematic, and the desire
to make changes to the recent history of service utilization was then tested in the context of
child behavioral problems. Given that many barriers to treatment recognized by Spoth and
Redmond (1995) are minimized in this research project (e.g., flexible hours, transportation,
at home sessions), it was hypothesized that parenting behaviors, perceptions of parenting as
problematic, the desire to make changes in parenting behaviors, and child behavior problems
would all significantly predict the concurrent service utilization practices of the family.
Method
Participants
Participants for this study included 579 primary caregivers (mostly biological mothers),
alternative caregivers when available (other adults designated by the primary caregiver as
being someone whom also cares for the child, e.g., father figures, grandparents) and their
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 5
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
children initially recruited when the target child was 2 years old from WIC (Women Infants
and Children) programs in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and rural inhabitants near
Charlottesville, VA. Inclusion into the Early Steps Multisite Study (n = 731) required that
the family was considered high risk for future behavior problems on socioeconomic, family,
or child risk factors (see Dishion et al. 2008 for complete details). The PARYC was
implemented during the age 5 assessment procedure, hence the reduced sample size for the
analyses that follow. The sample administered the PARYC did not differ from those who
were not administered this measure in terms of treatment group membership, gender, service
utilization, or the parenting variables used in these analyses. Of the sample who completed
the PARYC, roughly half of the target children were girls (n = 285; 49.2%) and half were
boys (n = 291; 50.3%). Primary caregivers reported on the race of the target child, revealing
a diverse sample of children including 49.9% White, 28.2% Black, 13.3% Biracial, 1.6%
Native American, .5% Unknown, .2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 6.4%
selecting the race option of Other. The mean age for the children at the time of the
assessment was 5 years and 5 months.
Measures
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Every year since recruitment to the study (beginning at age 2), home visits for each family
were comprised of a variety of paper and pencil assessments, assessor impressions,
interviews, and videotaped observations. All of the measures used in this study were
collected at the annual home visits.
Parenting Young Children (PARYC)—At the age 5 assessment, the PARYC was
administered, which is a brief self-report measure designed to assess the frequency in which
parents engaged in three important types of parenting behaviors over the past month. This
measure consists of 21 questions concerning the areas of Supporting Positive Behavior (e.g.,
“Notice and praise your child’s good behavior?”), Setting Limits (e.g., “Make sure your
child followed the rules you set all or most of the time?”), and Proactive Parenting (e.g.,
“Prepare your child for a challenging situation.”). For each question the caregiver was asked
to rate how often they were able to engage in each parenting strategy on a scale from 1 (not
at all) to 7 (most of the time) during the last month. After each question, the caregiver also
reported whether or not they felt performing each of these parenting duties was problematic
(Yes/No). At the conclusion of each of the three parenting areas (Supporting Positive
Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting) parents were then asked to rate whether
or not they would like to do things differently in the distinct area of parenting on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = “really want to change,” to 7 = “fine as is”). The items assessing the
caregiver’s desire to change were reverse-scored in the analyses that follow.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The Parenting Scale—The Parenting Scale (Arnold et al. 1993) consists of 30 questions
asking caregivers to use a 7 point Likert scale to describe their parenting style in response to
child and parenting behaviors and emotions. For example, with the item “When my child
misbehaves,” the caregiver was asked to pick the best descriptor for their response on the 7
point scale where 1 means “I do something right away” and 7 indicates “I do something
about it later.” The alpha reliability of the items included in the Laxness parenting style
was .85, and .77 for the Overreactivity style of parenting.
Adult Child Relationship Scale (ACRS)—The Adult Child Relationship Scale (Pianta
and Nimetz 1991) was collected during the assessment. This brief, 15 item scale asks the
caregiver to rate on 5 point scale from “definitely not” to “definitely” how well a variety of
statements describe the relationship they have with their child. An example item used in the
positive relationship score asked the parents how well ‘This child likes telling me about him/
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 6
herself’ describes the caregiver-child relationship. Alpha reliability for the items included in
the Conflict Relationship Score was .87 and .73 for the Positive Relationship Score.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC)—The PSOC (Johnston and Mash
1989) is a 19 item self report measure which asks the parent to rate how strongly they agree
or disagree with several statements concerning their attitude toward parenting on a 6 point
Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree). This measure contains 3 parenting
scales, Parent Self-efficacy (e.g., “Even though being a parent could be rewarding, I am
frustrated while my child is at his/her present age.”), Parent Satisfaction (e.g., “I would
make a good role model for new parents who needed to learn what it takes to be a good
parent.”), and Parent Competence (an overall score using all of the items from the measure).
Alpha reliability for the items included in the Parent Self-efficacy scale was .71, .82 for the
Parent Satisfaction scale, and the overall alpha reliability for the entire measure (an indicator
of Parent Competence) was .82.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Child Problem Behaviors—Both primary and designated alternate caregivers (when
available) reported on the exhibition of behavior problems using the Eyberg Child Behavior
Inventory (ECBI; Burns and Patterson 2001; Robinson et al. 1980) and the Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach and Edelbrock 1991) at age 5. The ECBI consists of eighteen
statements regarding a child’s behavior and asks the parent to rate how often these behaviors
occur with the target child using a 7 point Likert scale (1 = “never” and 7 = “always”) to
derive a Total Intensity Score. For each statement, parents were also asked to choose
whether or not they perceive each behavior to be a problem. Similarly, the Child Behavior
Checklist is a questionnaire completed by caregivers wherein they are asked to rate the
validity of several statements about their child’s engagement in specific behaviors on a 3
point Likert scale (0 = “not true,” 1 = “somewhat or sometimes true,” 2 = “very true or often
true”). A construct for age 5 child behavior problems was developed by combining the
Aggressive and Rule-Breaking Behavior scores from the CBCL with the Conduct Disorder
and Oppositional Disorder scores from the ECBI. Alpha reliability for the latent construct of
child behavior problems at age 5 was adequate at .73.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Service Utilization—During the age 5 assessment, primary caregivers also responded to
several questions regarding the family’s utilization of services (Service Provider
Questionnaire; Child and Family Center 2003). During the interview, the primary caregiver
was asked questions regarding the utilization of services among members of the home over
the past year. A score of family service utilization was calculated as a sum score of the
number of community services provided to immediate family members (target child,
primary caregiver, alternative caregiver, or target child’s sibling). Community services
addressed in the questionnaire included mental health services, faith-based assistance, help
from other parents or relatives, and/or from agencies serving children (examples provided
include counseling, parent support groups, and developmental disabilities).
Results
Construct Validity
A primary goal of the analyses that follow was to establish the construct validity of the
PARYC. As previously noted, the PARYC was designed with three major parenting
behaviors in mind; Supporting Positive Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting.
Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations of the items included in the PARYC as
the items are theoretically separated. The correlations among the items for the full sample
are included in Table 2. With few exceptions, all items were adequately correlated, and all
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 7
items included under the same theoretical heading were significantly correlated with each
other.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In order to examine the structure of these three parenting domains within this self-report
instrument, the full sample including all 579 children was randomly divided into
approximately two halves using the random sample option of SPSS 15 (SPSS 2007). This
strategy provided one dataset to conduct an Exploratory Factor Analysis (n = 269) and a
second dataset to complete a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (n = 310) based on the EFA
results.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
A principal components factor analysis was conducted on the subsample randomly assigned
to the Exploratory Factor Analysis dataset. All of the items from the PARYC scale were
included in the analyses, and no constraints were imposed on the number of factors to be
extracted. A varimax rotation was used to maximize the distinction between the factors,
resulting in a four factor solution that accounted for 57.16% of the variance within the scale.
The means, standard deviations, and factor loadings for each scale are presented in Table 3.
A clear picture emerged from the results of the exploratory factor analysis which fit with the
theoretical factors used to devise the measurement tool. The analysis suggested a four factor
solution, with all loadings well above the suggested .32 cutoff for interpretation (the lowest
being .53; Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). As can be seen in Table 3, all theoretically
determined Supporting Positive Behavior and Proactive Parenting items significantly loaded
onto the expected factors. With the exception of two items, “Set rules on your child’s
problem behavior that you were willing/able to enforce?” and “Tell your child how you
expected him or her to behave?” all of the items created to measure the parenting behavior
of Setting Limits loaded onto a single construct. The two items that did not load onto the
Setting Limits factor were the only two items included on the fourth factor, and thus will not
be included in the analyses that follow.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
A confirmatory factor analyses was then run on the CFA dataset based on the results
obtained from the EFA. The fit indices for each construct are available in Table 4, noting
first the fit without allowing for correlations among the error variances, and then the
improved fit when error variances for items that were highly correlated at the bivariate level
were allowed to covary in the CFA models. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the Supporting
Positive Behavior items was good at .78. The model fit the data well when the error
variances between the items directly indicating rewarding behaviors were correlated (items 4
and 7). The model resulted in a good fit to the data, where X2 (13) = 30.472, p = .004, CFI
= .966, TLI = .944, RMSEA = .066, and SRMR = .035. Significant loadings were obtained
with all indicators for the construct (all loadings ≥.39). Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha
reliability for the five Setting Limits items was good at .79. The model fit the data well,
where X2 (5) = 16.573, p = .005, CFI = .972, TLI = .945, RMSEA = .087, and SRMR = .
029. Significant loadings were obtained with all indicators for the construct (all loadings ≥.
62). For the Proactive Parenting construct, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the items was
excellent at .85. The best model was obtained when the error variances of the two indicators
with the highest bivariate correlations (items 6 and 7, wherein the parent provides direct
guidance to the child) were allowed to covary. The model fit the data well, where X2 (13) =
28.748, p = .007, CFI = .979, TLI = .966, RMSEA = .063, and SRMR = .036. Significant
loadings were obtained with all indicators for the construct (all loadings ≥.54). All three
constructs were significantly and positively correlated with one another, as can be seen in
Fig. 2.
Convergent Validity
Based on the similar results provided by the EFA and CFA analyses of the PARYC, the two
separate datasets were then merged into one complete sample (n = 579). Composite intensity
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 8
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
scores for Supporting Positive Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting were
computed by calculating the mean of the items for each construct (the two items originally
developed for the Setting Limits construct that did not significantly load onto this construct
were not used). Table 5 contains the correlations of the intensity scores from the PARYC
scales and established scales from The Parenting Scale (Arnold et al. 1993), the ACRS
(Pianta and Nimetz 1991), the PSOC (Johnston and Mash 1989), the ECBI (Burns and
Patterson 2001), and the CBCL (Achenbach and Edelbrock 1991).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
As expected, the intensity scores of the PARYC measure were significantly correlated with
other parenting measures in the expected direction. Specifically, the PARYC was positively
correlated with the PSOC Competency, Self-efficacy, and Parent Satisfaction scales, as well
as the Positive Relationship score from the ACRS. This suggests that higher ratings of
parenting competency, self-efficacy, satisfaction ratings, and positivity in the parent–child
relationship were associated with higher ratings of self-reported skillful parenting practices
of Supporting Positive Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting. The three PARYC
scales were negatively correlated with the Conflict Relationship Score from the ACRS, the
Laxness and Overreactivity Scores from the Parenting Scale, the Total Intensity and Total
Problem Scores from the Eyberg, and the Total Problems Score from the CBCL. These data
suggest that higher ratings of the frequency of engaging in skillful parenting practices
related to Supporting Positive Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting were
related to lower levels of maladaptive parenting strategies and child problem behaviors.
Interestingly, primary caregiver reports of their own engagement in positive parenting
strategies were negatively correlated with some, but not all of the alternative caregiver
reports of the child’s problem behaviors. Significant negative correlations were found
between alternative caregiver reports of the child engaging in problem behaviors via the
Eyberg and CBCL scores and primary caregiver reports of engagement in Supporting
Positive Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting. In addition, alternative
caregivers’ perceptions of the child’s behavior as problematic and the primary caregiver’s
engagement in Setting Limits were significantly and negatively correlated. However,
primary caregiver reports of engaging in Proactive Parenting behaviors was not significantly
correlated with any report of child behavior provided by the alternative caregiver, or the
primary caregivers’ reports of engagement in Supporting Positive Behaviors or the
alternative caregiver’s perception of the child’s behavior as problematic.
Predicting Utilization of Services
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The next step was to examine the usefulness of the PARYC in predicting the utilization of
services as a means of assessing engagement in treatment services available to the general
population. Families in both the treatment and control group were asked to complete the
service utilization questionnaire as an indicator of the family’s tendency to elicit assistance
from common community service agencies. Three separate latent constructs were devised
consisting of the three separate principles measured by the PARYC, including parenting
behavior problems, the perception of parenting as problematic, and the desire to make
changes in parenting. Mean scores were calculated for items loading onto the three parenting
behavior scales of Supporting Positive Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting
and were used as indicators of a latent construct of parenting behavior problems. In addition
to requesting information about the frequency with which certain parenting behaviors occur,
the PARYC also assessed if the caregiver finds each item to be problematic. Sum scores
were computed within each subscale to capture the caregivers’ perception of their parenting
behavior as problematic. Lastly, at the conclusion of each subscale the caregiver was asked
to rate on a 7 point Likert scale how much they would like to do things differently in each
area of parenting. Each of these three items was included on the latent construct measuring
the desire to change parenting behaviors.
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 9
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the indicators for the child behavior
problems, parenting behavior problems, perception of parenting as problematic, the desire to
change parenting behaviors, and the measured indicator for familial service utilization are
included in Table 6. The items included in the child behavior problems construct were
significantly and positively correlated with the items used to measure the perception of
parenting as problematic, the desire to change, and negatively correlated with parenting
behavior problems, with one exception. The only two items used in the analysis that were
not significantly correlated with one another were the Proactive Parenting as a parenting
problem behavior and the family’s utilization of services. All other variables used in these
analyses were significantly correlated in the expected direction.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The model including the latent constructs for child behavior problems, the perception of
parenting as problematic, the desire to change parenting behaviors and the parenting
behavior problems as predictors of the concurrent use of available community services is
displayed in Fig. 3. The model fit the data well, where X2 (57) = 167.859, p = .000, CFI = .
969, TLI = .943, and RMSEA = .058. Significant loadings were obtained with all indicators
for the constructs included in the analyses. Two constructs significantly predicted the
family’s concurrent use of community services: behavior problems exhibited by the child
and the parent’s perception of their parenting skills as problematic. Community service
utilization was not predicted by the parent’s desire to change their parenting behaviors, nor
their problematic parenting behaviors.
Discussion
The factor structure of the PARYC is consistent with recent research and theory (Dishion
and Kavanagh 2003), and suggests this measure adequately assesses Supporting Positive
Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive Parenting as three primary parenting constructs. The
existence of these three theoretically derived parenting constructs was supported in both the
EFA and CFA analyses. In addition, these three factors accounted for an impressive 57% of
the variance in the scale. It is likely some of the remainder of the variance in this scale can
be accounted for by the method variance and measurement error, in addition to the two
Setting Limits items that did not significantly load onto the theorized construct.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Only two items from the original scale did not significantly load onto the three theorized
subscales, both of which were designed to measure limit setting behaviors among parents.
The two items included: (1) “Set rules on your child’s problem behavior that you were
willing/able to enforce?” and (2) “Tell your child how you expected him or her to behave?”
Although both of these questions refer directly to setting rules and stating expectations,
neither loaded onto the setting limits factor and instead the two items clustered together onto
their own factor. It could be that these two items require more abstract thinking in that both
refer to the advanced planning of potential future situations as opposed to more immediate
and defined contexts, as was the case with the other questions developed to measure this
construct.
Aside from sound preliminary measures of construct validity, evidence for convergent
validity is noted in the significant relationships between the PARYC scales and other
measures of both adaptive and dysfunctional parenting strategies. As evidenced by the
positive correlations, primary caregivers had a tendency to rate themselves as high on
parenting practices such as Supporting Positive Behavior, Setting Limits, and Proactive
Parenting when they also self-assessed as high in the areas of parenting competency, selfefficacy and satisfaction, as well as having a positive relationship with their child. Similarly,
negative correlations were obtained between parenting skills and parental perceptions of
child problem behavior, which suggests that high levels of adaptive parenting skills were
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 10
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
related to simultaneous low levels of child behavior problems and maladaptive parenting
practices. These findings are strengthened by the corroborating cross-informant results
obtained by correlations among the primary caregivers parenting skills and reports of the
child’s behavior problems form alternative caregivers for most of the parenting skill items.
No significant relationships were found between the primary caregiver’s report of their
ability to support positive behavior and the alternative caregiver’s perception of the child’s
behavior as problematic. The primary caregiver’s self-assessed report of their proactive
parenting practices was not associated with any ratings made by the alternative caregiver
regarding the behavior problems of the child. However, it is also important to note that the
primary caregiver and the alternative caregiver were also not in high agreement regarding
the behavioral problems of the child.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In addition to measurement properties, these scales provide a simple and cost-effective tool
for interventions focused on improving parenting skills. The results suggest important
parenting behaviors implicated in the long-term development of children and adolescents
(Pettit and Laird 2002) and can be easily measured by a brief self-report measure. The brief
and simple assessment of parenting practices, parental perceptions of parenting strategies,
and the desire to make changes in current parenting practices have the advantage of
enriching therapist-client conversations surrounding parenting strategies and motivation to
change. Discrepancies between current levels of functioning, the parents’ perception of their
parenting behaviors and their desire to make changes can also be explored within a
motivational interviewing context so as to most effectively elicit changes in the parenting
practices for the benefit of the family as a whole (Dishion and Stormshak 2007).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In line with previous findings (Spoth and Redmond 1995), the current analyses suggest that
parents’ perception of their parenting and/or their child’s behavior as being problematic
were related to concurrent service utilization practices. Surprisingly, neither the desire to
change aspects of parenting nor problematic parenting practices was related to concurrent
levels of service utilization. From a logical standpoint, it is not surprising that the existence
of a problem is not predictive of seeking help from familial or community resources.
However, the motivation to change has been related to seeking treatment in other studies
assessing treatment engagement patterns (Jones et al. 2006). It is important to note that the
service utilization questionnaire used in this analysis did not restrict the participants to
reporting formal or empirically validated parenting interventions, so it is conceivable that
the desire to change parenting practices may be more useful when gauging the treatment
motivation for specific interventions related solely to their parenting practices. It should also
be noted that neither prior service utilization nor satisfaction with these services were
considered in this model. These factors may be very important in predicting the likelihood
that someone will seek services for problematic behaviors (Spoth and Redmond 1995).
Even though these initial data support the PARYC as a valuable clinical and research tool,
there are several limitations which should be addressed in future research. First and
foremost, the samples used to evaluate the PARYC were homogeneous in some aspects.
Specifically, all families included in the study were recruited because they met high risk
criterion based primarily on indices of risk status. In addition, the PARYC was only
administered to the parents of children between the ages of 5 and 6 years of age. These
limitations restrict the ability to establish normative values, and the utility of this tool with
parents of children in different developmental periods. This brings up another limitation; not
providing data in the current report on the PARYC’s sensitivity to change. In addition, other
important aspects of parenting were not included in the current version of the PARYC
measure that may be important for the well-being and future outcomes of children,
particularly older (e.g., monitoring, problem solving) or much younger (e.g., responsivity)
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 11
children. The researchers also recognize the social desirability present in measures assessing
parenting behaviors.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In sum, the PARYC shows great promise as a simple and effective means of measuring
many clinically useful aspects of parenting behaviors. The three major parenting constructs
this instrument was designed to evaluate were positive behavior support, limit setting, and
proactive parenting, all of which have strong empirical support suggesting important
predictive ability of later childhood outcomes (Dishion and Patterson 1992; Gardner et al.
2007). In addition to effectively measuring these three important parenting skills, the
PARYC also provides clinicians and researchers with relevant data regarding the
informants’ perception of these skills as problematic and their desire to change parenting
behaviors. Although the desire for change and ineffective parenting practices were not
predictive of concurrent service utilization, motivational interviewing research (Miller and
Rollnick 2002) suggests these data are very useful for promoting change behaviors and
encouraging people to make positive behavioral changes.
References
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Achenbach, TM.; Edelbrock, C. Manual for the child behavior checklist and revised child behavior
profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry; 1991.
Arnold DS, O’Leary SG, Wolff LS, Acker MM. The parenting scale: A measure of dysfunctional
parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment. 1993; 5(2):137–144.
Brestan EV, Eyberg SM. Effective psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with
disruptive behavior disorders: 29 years, 82 studies, and 5272 kids. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology. 1998; 27:179–188.
Burns GL, Patterson DR. Normative data on the Eyberg child behavior inventory and Sutter-Eyberg
student behavior inventory: Parent and teacher rating scales of disruptive behavior problems in
children and adolescents. Child and Family Behavior Therapy. 2001; 23(1):15–28.
Child and Family Center. Service provider inventory (SERV). Unpublished instrument. Child and
Family Center, University of Oregon; Eugene, OR: 2003. p. 97401
Connell AM, Dishion TJ, Yasui M, Kavanagh K. An adaptive approach to family intervention:
Linking engagement in family-centered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2007; 75(4):579–589.
Dishion, TJ.; Kavanagh, K. Intervening in adolescent problem behavior: A family-centered approach.
New York: The Guilford Press; 2003.
Dishion TJ, McCord J, Poulin F. When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior.
American Psychologist. 1999; 54:755–764. [PubMed: 10510665]
Dishion TJ, Patterson GR. Age effects in parent training outcome. Behavior Therapy. 1992; 23:719–
729.
Dishion TJ, Shaw D, Connell A, Gardner F, Weaver C, Wilson MN. The family check-up with highrisk indigent families: Preventing problem behavior by increasing parents’ positive behavior
support in early childhood. Child Development. 2008; 79(5):1395–1414. [PubMed: 18826532]
Dishion, TJ.; Stormshak, EA. Intervening in children’s lives: An ecological family-centered approach
to mental health care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007.
Eyberg SM, Nelson MM, Boggs SR. Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and
adolescents with disruptive behavior. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2008;
37(1):215–237. [PubMed: 18444059]
Gardner F, Shaw DS, Dishion TJ, Burton J, Supplee L. Randomized prevention trial for early conduct
problems: Effects on proactive parenting and links to toddler disruptive behavior. Journal of
Family Psychology. 2007; 21(3):398–406. [PubMed: 17874925]
Gardner F, Sonuga-Barke E, Sayal K. Parents anticipating misbehaviour: An observational study of
strategies parents use to prevent conflict with behaviour problem children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry. 1999; 40:1185–1196. [PubMed: 10604397]
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 12
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Gardner F, Ward S, Burton J, Wilson C. Joint play and the early development of conduct problems in
children: A longitudinal observational study of pre-schoolers. Social Development. 2003; 12:361–
379.
Gill AM, Hyde LW, Shaw DS, Dishion TJ, Wilson MN. The family check-up in early childhood: A
case study of intervention process and change. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology. 2008; 37(4):893–904. [PubMed: 18991138]
Hinshaw SP, Lahey BB, Hart EL. Issues of taxonomy and comorbidity in the development of conduct
disorder. Development and Psychopathology. 1993; 5:31–49.
Johnston C, Mash EJ. A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology. 1989; 18(2):167–175.
Jones N, Pelissier B, Klein-Saffran J. Predicting sex offender treatment entry among individuals
convicted of sexual offense crimes. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 2006;
18(1):83–98. [PubMed: 16763760]
Kazdin AE. Parent management training: Evidence, outcomes, and issues. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1997; 36(10):1349–1356. [PubMed: 9334547]
Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common
misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist. 1998; 53(2):242–259. [PubMed:
9491750]
Miller, WR.; Rollnick, S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. 2. New York:
Guilford Press; 2002.
Patterson, GR. A social learning approach: III. Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia; 1982.
Pettit, GS.; Laird, RD. Psychological control and monitoring in early adolescence: The role of parental
involvement and prior child adjustment. In: Barber, BK., editor. Intrusive parenting: How
psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association; 2002. p. 97-123.
Pianta RC, Nimetz SL. Relationships between children and teachers: Associations with classroom and
home behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 1991; 12:379–393.
Robinson EA, Eyberg SM, Ross AW. The standardization of an inventory of child conduct problem
behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 1980; 9:22–28.
Shaw DS, Bell RQ, Gilliom M. A truly early starter model of antisocial behavior revisited. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review. 2000; 3(3):155–172. [PubMed: 11225751]
Shaw DS, Connell A, Dishion TJ, Wilson MN, Gardner F. Improvements in maternal depression as a
mediator of intervention effects on early childhood problem behavior. Development and
Psychopathology. 2009; 21(2):417–439. [PubMed: 19338691]
Snyder J, Prichard J, Schrepferman L, Patrick MR, Stoolmiller M. Child impulsiveness-inattention,
early peer experiences, and the development of early onset conduct problems. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology. 2004; 32(6):579–594. [PubMed: 15648526]
Snyder J, Schrepferman L, Oeser J, Patterson G, Stoolmiller M, Johnson K, et al. Deviancy training
and association with deviant peers in young children: Occurrence and contribution to early-onset
conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology. 2005; 17:397–413. [PubMed: 16761551]
Spoth R, Redmond C. Parent motivation to enroll in parenting skills programs: A model of family
context and health belief predictors. Journal of Family Psychology. 1995; 9(3):294–310.
SPSS for Windows, Rel. 15.0.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc; 2007.
Tabachnick, BG.; Fidell, LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon;
2001.
White JL, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Bartusch DJ, Needles DJ, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Measuring
impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1994;
103(2):192–205. [PubMed: 8040489]
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 13
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Fig. 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Conceptual model of the family check-up
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 14
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Fig. 2.
Correlations among the parent behavior constructs measured by the PARYC
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 15
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Fig. 3.
The contribution of PARYC constructs and child behavior problems to service utilization
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
McEachern et al.
Page 16
Table 1
Means and standard deviations of PARYC items
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Mean
SD
Supporting good behavior
1. Play with your child in a way that was fun for both of you?
5.91
1.24
2. Stand back and let your child work through problems s/he might be able to solve?
5.37
1.36
3. Invite your child to play a game with you or share an enjoyable activity?
5.55
1.33
4. Notice and praise your child’s good behavior?
6.42
.92
5. Teach your child new skills?
5.57
1.47
6. Involve your child in household chores?
5.67
1.35
7. Reward your child when s/he did something well or showed a new skill?
6.25
.96
1. Stick to your rules and not change your mind?
5.22
1.39
2. Speak calmly with your child when you were upset with him or her?
4.88
1.43
Setting limits
3. Explain what you wanted your child to do in clear and simple ways?
5.71
1.20
4. Tell your child what you wanted him or her to do rather than tell him/her to stop doing something?
5.13
1.25
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
5. Tell your child how you expected him or her to behave?
5.85
1.28
6. Set rules on your child’s problem behavior that you were willing/able to enforce?
5.45
1.36
7. Make sure your child followed the rules you set all or most of the time?
5.55
1.27
Proactive parenting
1. Avoid struggles with your child by giving clear choices?
5.45
1.52
2. Warn your child before a change of activity was required?
5.38
1.61
3. Plan ways to prevent problem behavior?
5.21
1.50
4. Give reasons for your requests?
5.60
1.35
5. Make a game out of everyday tasks so your child followed through?
4.61
1.68
6. Break a task into small steps?
5.36
1.53
7. Prepare your child for a challenging situation?
5.48
1.52
Questions are numbered in the order in which they appear in the PARYC measure. Item examples provided in the measure are not included in
interest of space
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 2
SPB 1
SPB 2
SPB 3
SPB 4
SPB 5
SPB 6
SPB 7
SL 1
SL 2
SL 3
SL 4
SL 5
SL 6
SL 7
PP 1
PP 2
PP 3
PP 4
PP 5
PP 6
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
SPB 1
–
SPB 2
.32**
–
SPB 3
.50**
.38**
–
SPB 4
.36**
.29**
.38**
–
SPB 5
.35**
.25**
.51**
.38**
–
SPB 6
.23**
.30**
.37**
.31**
.39**
–
SPB 7
.32**
.29**
.44**
.59**
.43**
.43**
–
SL 1
.12
.25**
.17*
.21**
.12
.18*
.12
–
SL 2
.34**
.20**
.37**
.26**
.30**
.22**
.31**
.41**
–
SL 3
.28**
.29**
.37**
.34**
.24**
.30**
.36**
.39**
.48**
–
SL 4
.27**
.24**
.38**
.31**
.34**
.28**
.31**
.27**
.48**
.52**
–
SL 5
.23**
.22**
.19*
.30**
.24**
.29**
.30**
.15*
.22**
.36**
.38**
–
SL 6
.22**
.30**
.31**
.35**
.28**
.31**
.30**
.40**
.39**
.49**
.46**
.50**
–
SL 7
.29**
.28**
.35**
.34**
.35**
.33**
.37**
.45**
.44**
.49**
.43**
.38**
.56**
–
PP 1
.18*
.17*
.19*
.25**
.15*
.14*
.22**
.32**
.34**
.45**
.35**
.26**
.40**
.40**
–
PP 2
.11
.23**
.19*
.24**
.23**
.15*
.22**
.30**
.29**
.33**
.30**
.25**
.39**
.31**
.46**
–
PP 3
.19*
.24**
.24**
.21**
.21**
.16*
.21**
.36**
.30**
.36**
.31**
.29**
.43**
.37**
.45**
.52**
–
PP 4
.22**
.28**
.23**
.24**
.19*
.21**
.28**
.34**
.31**
.45**
.39**
.34**
.41**
.37**
.48**
.56**
.58**
–
PP 5
.21**
.17*
.33**
.23**
.30**
.23**
.32**
.18*
.44**
.39**
.37**
.20**
.29**
.34**
.32**
.31**
.40**
.39**
–
PP 6
.18*
.19*
.24**
.25**
.30**
.24**
.28**
.22**
.31**
.38**
.33**
.29**
.40**
.35**
.36**
.39**
.40**
.46**
.40**
–
PP 7
.21**
.25**
.37**
.30**
.38**
.29**
.36**
.30**
.35**
.45**
.35**
.27**
.38**
.46**
.39**
.36**
.48**
.48**
.44**
.62**
McEachern et al.
Correlations among PARYC items
SPB Supporting Positive Behavior, SL Setting Limits, PP Proactive Parenting. Each abbreviation is followed by the corresponding item number
*
p < .05;
Page 17
**
p < .01
McEachern et al.
Page 18
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings for PARYC items from the exploratory factor analysis sample
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Factor
Item
Mean
SD
Factor loading
Invite your child to play a game with you or share an enjoyable activity?
5.65
1.34
.75
Reward your child when s/he did something well or showed a new skill?
6.29
.91
.73
Teach your child new skills (such as tying their shoes)?
5.55
1.51
.70
Play with your child in a way that was fun for both of you?
5.89
1.24
.61
Supporting positive behavior
1
Notice and praise you r child’s good behavior (such as, “Good job putting away your toys.”)
6.34
1.01
.60
Involve your child in household chores?
5.70
1.37
.60
Stand back and let your child work through problems s/he might be able to solve (such as
putting a puzzle together)?
5.48
1.35
.56
Avoid struggles with your child by giving clear choices (such as offering toast or cereal for
breakfast)?
5.39
1.57
.74
Warn your child before a change of activity was required (such as a 5 min warning before
leaving the house in the morning)?
5.30
1.70
.71
Plan ways to prevent problem behavior (such as feeding your child before going to the store)?
5.22
1.50
.71
Give reasons for your requests (such as picking up toys) so your child followed through?
5.65
1.37
.71
Proactive parenting
2
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Make a game out of everyday tasks (such as picking up toys) so your child followed through?
4.60
1.65
.67
Break a task into small steps (such as “Put your shoes on first and then get your coat.” instead
of “Get ready to go.”)
5.32
1.65
.58
Prepare your child for a challenging situation (such as going to a toy store or starting a new
school)?
5.53
1.54
.54
Speak calmly with your child when you were upset with him or her?
4.88
1.46
.76
Stick to your rules and not change your mind?
5.33
1.32
.67
Setting limits
3
4
Explain what you wanted your child to do in clear and simple ways?
5.76
1.16
.62
Make sure your child followed the rules you set all or most of the time?
5.59
1.21
.62
Tell your child what you wanted him/her to do rather than tell him/her to stop doing
something?
5.18
1.25
.53
Set rules on your child’s problem behavior that you were willing/able to enforce?
5.41
1.42
.66
Tell your child how you expected him or her to behave (such as in the grocery store)?
5.78
1.31
.66
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 4
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
Construct
X2
df
p
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
SRMR
1. Supporting positive behavior
48.539
14
.000
.932
.898
.089
.042
1a. Supporting positive behavior (allowing correlations)
30.472
13
.004
.966
.944
.066
.035
2. Setting limits
16.573
5
.005
.972
.945
.087
.029
3. Proactive parenting
78.354
14
.000
.915
.873
.122
.051
3a. Proactive parenting (allowing correlations)
28.748
13
.007
.979
.966
.063
.036
McEachern et al.
Model fit indices for the three parenting behavior constructs from the confirmatory factor analysis sample
Page 19
McEachern et al.
Page 20
Table 5
Correlations of PARYC intensity scales with other validated measures
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Supporting positive behavior
Setting LI mits
Proactive parenting
ACRS: positive relationship score
.29**
.21**
.20**
ACRS: conflict relationship score
−.26**
−.35**
−.21**
PSOC: competency score
.44**
.49**
.37**
PSOC: self-efficacy score
.31**
.40**
.31**
PSOC: satisfaction score
.43**
.41**
.31**
Parenting scale: laxness score
−.25**
−.50**
−.38**
Parenting scale: overreactivity score
−.36**
−.51**
−.36**
Eyberg: PC report: total intensity score
−.27**
−.32**
−.21**
Eyberg: PC report: total problems score
−.23**
−.33**
−.23**
CBCL: PC report: total problems score
−.22**
−.27**
−.14**
Eyberg: AC report: total intensity score
−.23**
−.18**
−.09
Eyberg: AC report: total problems score
−.09
−.14*
−.06
CBCL: AC report: total problems score
−.14*
−.17**
−.09
PC Primary caregiver, AC Alternative caregiver, ACRS Adult child relationship scale, PSOC Parenting sense of competence scale, CBCL Child
behavior checklist
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Child behavior problems
J Child Fam Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 August 06.
1. Eyberg conduct problems score
–
2. Eyberg oppositional score
.64**
–
3. CBCL conduct problems score
.67**
.62**
–
4. CBCL oppositional score
.55**
.73**
.71**
–
5. Supporting positive behavior
.18**
.16**
.18**
.20**
–
6. Setting limits
.27**
.40**
.32**
.34**
.37**
–
7. Proactive parenting
.32**
.41**
.32**
.33**
.36**
.62**
–
8. Supporting positive behavior
−.22**
−.26**
−.23**
−.23**
−.32**
−.25**
−.24**
–
9. Setting limits
−.25**
−.34**
−.27**
−.27**
−.20**
−.47**
−.30**
.55**
–
10. Proactive parenting
−.19**
−.22**
−.17**
−.15**
−.13**
−.30**
−.32**
.46**
.64**
–
11. Supporting positive behavior
.15**
.17**
.15**
.15**
.37**
.34**
.32**
−.52**
−.44**
−.32**
–
12. Setting limits
.21**
.31**
.23**
.26**
.29**
.50**
.38**
−.41**
−.51**
−.31**
.74**
–
13. Proactive parenting
.21**
.23**
.16**
.20**
.23**
.30**
.44**
−.34**
−.38**
−.36**
.68**
.77**
–
14. Service utilization
.13**
.15**
.23**
.19**
.20**
.16**
.21**
−.17**
−.09*
−.01
.21**
.19**
.11*
–
Mean
23.09
36.58
3.85
3.41
.37
.95
.74
41.03
26.82
37.47
2.05
2.37
2.07
2.26
SD
8.65
12.74
3.62
2.30
.93
1.35
1.41
5.76
4.88
7.75
1.51
1.64
1.46
2.01
McEachern et al.
Descriptive statistics and correlations of the latent constructs predicting service utilization
Perception of parenting as problematic
Parenting behavior problems
Desire to change
Dependent variable
*
p < .05;
**
p < .01
Page 21