Child Psychiatry & Human Development

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 426–437 | Cite as

Measuring Parenting Practices and Family Functioning with Brief and Simple Instruments: Validation of the Spanish Version of the PAFAS

  • Anilena Mejia
  • Ania Filus
  • Rachel Calam
  • Alina Morawska
  • Matthew R. Sanders
Original Article


A set of instruments with different response formats is usually used to assess parenting practices in clinical settings and in research studies. These complex protocols can be problematic for parents with low-literacy levels. The Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS) is a brief, easy to read instrument that has been developed to address these concerns. The English version of this instrument suggested that it has good internal consistency (range from .70 to .96), as well as satisfactory construct and predictive validity. The aim of the present study was to explore the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the PAFAS. A sample of 174 Spanish-speaking parents (85 % mothers; M = 37 years old; SD = 9.1) from Panama in Central America completed the instrument alongside the Parenting Scale and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21). Psychometric evaluations revealed that the measure had satisfactory construct and concurrent validity as well as good internal consistency (values >.60 for all subscales) and test–retest reliability (ICC >.60 for all subscales). The PAFAS shows promise as a brief outcome measure to assess parenting practices and family functioning with Spanish-speaking parents. Potential uses of the measure and implications for further validation with diverse samples are discussed.


Parenting Assessment Spanish Psychometric 


  1. 1.
    Barlow J, Coren E, Stewart-Brown S (2002) Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of parenting programs in improving maternal psychosocial health. J R Coll Gen Pract 52:223–233Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaminski JW, Valle LA, Filene JH, Boyle CL (2008) A meta-analytic review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness. J Abnorm Child Psychol 36:567–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lundahl BW, Nimer J, Parsons B (2006) Preventing child abuse: a meta-analysis of parent training programs. Res Soc Work Pract 16:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nowak C, Heinrichs N (2008) A comprehensive meta-analysis of triple P positive parenting program using hierarchical linear modeling: effectiveness and moderating variables. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 11:114–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serketich WJ, Dumas JE (1996) The effectiveness of behavioral parent training to modify antisocial behavior in children: a meta-analysis. Behav Ther 27:171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scott S, Knapp M, Henderson J, Maughan B (2001) Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of antisocial children into adulthood. BMJ 323:191PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cartwright-Hatton S et al (2011) A new parenting-based group intervention for young anxious children: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 50:242–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Battistich V, Scaps E, Watson M, Solomon D, Lewis C (2000) Effects of the child development project on students drug use and other problem behaviours. J Prim Prev 21:75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchings J, Gardner F, Bywater T, Daley D, Whitaker C, Jones K, Eames C, Edwards R (2007) Parenting intervention in Sure Start services for children at risk of developing conduct disorder: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 334:678PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuschel A, Heinrichs N, Hahlweg K (2009) Is a preventative parenting program effective in reducing a child’s externalizing behavior? Eur J Dev Sci 3:299–303Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prinz RJ, Sanders MR, Shapiro CJ, Whitaker DJ, Lutzker JR (2009) Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: the U.S. triple P system population trial. Prev Sci 10:1–13PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gardner F, Burton J, Klimes I (2006) Randomised controlled trial of a parenting intervention in the voluntary sector for reducing child conduct problems: outcomes and mechanisms of change. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 47:1123–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scott S (2005) Do parenting programmes for severe child antisocial behavior work over the long term, and for whom? One year follow-up of a multi-centre controlled trial. Behav Cogn Psychother 33:403–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Markie-Dadds C, Sanders M (2006) Self-directed triple P for mothers with children at-risk of developing conduct problems. Behav Cogn Psychother 34:259–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanders M, Calam R, Durand M, Liversidge T, Carmont S (2008) Does self-directed and web-based support for parents enhance the effects of viewing a reality television series based on the triple P positive parenting program? J Child Psychol Psychiatr 49:924–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fujiwara T, Noriko K, Sanders M (2011) Effectiveness of group positive parenting program (triple P) in changing child behavior, parenting style, and parental adjustment: an intervention study in Japan. J Child Fam Stud 20:804–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sofronoff K, Jahnel D, Sanders M (2011) Stepping stones triple P seminars for parents of a child with a disability: a randomized controlled trial. Res Dev Disabil 32:2253–2262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanders MR, Baker S, Turner K (2012) A randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of triple P online with parents of children with early-onset conduct problems. Behav Res Ther 50:675–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whittingham K, Sofronoff K, Sheffield J, Sanders MR (2009) Stepping stones triple P: an RCT of a parenting program with parents of a child diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. J Abnorm Child Psychol 37:469–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barlow J et al (2013) An evaluation of the parents under pressure programme: a study protocol for an RCT into its clinical and cost effectiveness. Trials 14:210PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Health Organisation (2013) Preventing violence: evaluating outcomes of parenting programmes. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mejia A, Calam R, Sanders MR (2012) A review of parenting programs in developing countries: opportunities and challenges for preventing emotional and behavioural difficulties in children. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 15:163–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanders MR, Morawska A (2010) Parenting and family adjustment Scale. Parenting and Family Support Centre, The University of Queensland, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanders MR, Morawska A, Haslam D, Filus A, Fletcher R (2013) Parenting and family adjustment Scale (PAFAS): validation of a brief parent-report measure for use in assessment of parenting skills and family relationships. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 45:255–272Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psych 32:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Bank (2010) Panama poverty assessment. Human Development Department, Latin America and the Caribbean, The World Bank, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Arnold DS, O’Leary SG, Wolff L, Acker MM (1993) The parenting Scale: a measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychol Assess 5:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF (1995) Manual for the depression anxiety stress Scale, 2nd edn. Families International Publishing, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Daza P, Novy DM, Stanley MA, Averill P (2002) The depression anxiety stress Scale-21: Spanish translation and validation with a Hispanic sample. J Psychopatol Beh Assess 24:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brislin RW (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol 1:185–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muthèn LK, Muthèn BO (2012) Mplus user’s guide: statistical analysis with latent variables. Los Angeles, CA: Muthèn & MuthènGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beauducel A, Herzberg PY (2006) On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Modeling 13:186–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muthen B, Kaplan D (1992) A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol 45:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Browne MW, Cudeck R (1989) Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance-structures. Multivariate Behav Res 24:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Satorra A, Bentler PM (1994) Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: von Eye A, Clogg CC (eds) Latent variables analysis: applications for developmental research. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, pp 399–419Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res 99:323–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Churchill GA (1979) A Paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gerbing DW, Anderson JC (1988) An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J Mark Res 25:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fornell C, Larcer DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cheng Y, Yuan KH, Liu C (2012) Comparison of reliability measures under factor analysis and item response theory. Educ Psychol Meas 72:52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sijtsma K (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74:107–120PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hancock GR, Mueller RO (2001) Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R Cudeck, SD Toit, D Sörbom (eds), Factor analysis and structural equation modeling: a Festschrift honoring Karl G. Jöreskog (pp 19–-216). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software InternationalGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mueller RO, Hancock GR (2001) Factor analysis and latent structure: confirmatory factor analysis. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (eds) International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. Oxford, Pergamon, pp 5239–5244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    De Vaus DA (2002) Analyzing social science data. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weir JP (2005) Quantyfying test–retes reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strenght Cond Res 19:231–240Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1:30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Enders CK (2010) Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Enders CK (2001) A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data: teacher’s corner. Struct Equ Modeling 8:128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Graham JW (2009) Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol 60:549–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Byrne BM (2012) Structural equation modeling with Mplus: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chen F, Bollen KA, Paxton P, Curran PJ, Kirby JB (2001) Improper solutions in structural equation models: causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociol Methods Res 29:468–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fabrega H (1990) Hispanic mental health research: a case for cultural psychiatry. His J Behav Sci 12:339–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Triandis H, Marin G, Lisansky J, Betancourt H (1984) Simpatia as a cultural script of Hispanics. J Pers Soc Psychol 47:1363–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Burma JH (1970) Mexican American in the United Stated: a reader. Schenkman, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Madsen W (1972) Mexican Americans of south Texas, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anilena Mejia
    • 1
  • Ania Filus
    • 2
  • Rachel Calam
    • 1
  • Alina Morawska
    • 2
  • Matthew R. Sanders
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Psychological SciencesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations