Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Parental Bonding Instrument

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) is a widely used assessment tool for measuring parental characteristics that affect parent–child bonds. The measure was developed for and has been most administered in Western populations. Psychometric analyses have yielded discrepant results as to whether the PBI is best represented by a two-factor model (care and overprotection) or a three-factor model (care, overprotection, and autonomy).

Objectives

Little is known about how the PBI performs in Chinese samples, and there is limited data from Eastern populations as a whole. The purpose of this study is to: (1) explore the data and identify the underlying structural model that best fits the Chinese culture, and (2) to further compare the factor structure that emerges in a Chinese sample with that which has emerged in other Eastern cultures (i.e., Japanese) and Western countries.

Methods

The present study investigated the psychometric properties of a Chinese translation of the PBI among a sample (N = 1417) of mothers of kindergarten children. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to identify the most adequate model.

Results

Results supported a four-factor model that included an indifference factor (χ2/df < 3.0; RMSEA < 0.06; SRMR < 0.08). Both the two-factor and three-factor models performed poorly (χ2/df > 5.0; RMSEA > 0.08; SRMR > 1.0; CFI < 0.90 for both). In this sample, use of a Chinese translated version of the PBI was successful. Support for the four-factor model is consistent with findings from previous studies of Eastern populations and discrepant from those among Western samples.

Conclusions

The indifference factor may reflect aspects of parenting specific to Eastern cultures, which tend to value group cohesion over individualization and independence. More research is needed to determine whether these findings are generalizable to all Eastern countries and whether aspects of Chinese culture (e.g., the single-child law) produce unique effects that may impact PBI administration in China.

Introduction

The Parent Bonding Instrument ([PBI] Parker, 1979) is one of the most widely used instruments to measure parent–child bonding. It was designed by Parker to produce a two-factor model that assesses parenting styles in terms of parental caring (e.g., warmth, sensitivity) and overprotection (e.g., control, intrusion). It allows for any parental contribution to disorder to be specified and quantified. The psychometric properties for the PBI are strong and have been well-established (Parker, 1983, Kay and Parker, 1990, Kay et al., 2005, Safford et al., 1997). In addition, the PBI has strong test–retest reliability, long-term reliability, and validity (Parker, 1990, Wilhelm and Parker, 1990, Arrindell et al., 1998).

Poor or unstable parent–child bonding has been significantly associated with a host of negative psychosocial outcomes, including the development of psychopathology during childhood, adolescence, and/or adulthood, criminal behavior, homelessness, substance use, unstable interpersonal relationships, poor school performance, difficulty coping with stress, and low self-esteem (Yoo et al., 2006, Rosenstein and Horowitz, 1996, Rees, 2005, Bell et al., 2000, Canetti et al., 1997, Parker et al., 1999, Enns et al., 2002). Studies examining the PBI specifically have described a relationship between various parental styles and psychosocial dysfunction in community and clinical samples, including depression (Parker et al., 1997), obsessive behavior (Cavedo and Parker, 1994), low self-esteem (Parker, 1993), generalized anxiety (Silove et al., 1991), and recurrence of psychotic episodes in individuals with schizophrenia (Parker and Mater, 1986, Parker et al., 1988). Therefore, understanding aspects of parental attachment through measures such as the PBI may aid in the development of interventions to improve parenting style, bonding, and related outcomes.

The PBI was originally developed by Parker in 1979 and has since been translated into numerous languages, including Spanish, Japanese, French, Italian, and Urdu. Despite the popularity of the measure, there continues to be disagreement as to whether Parker's original two-factor model of “caring” and “overprotection” represents the most valid structure. Other authors (Kendler, 1996, Murphy et al., 1997) have supported a three-factor model wherein “overprotection” is further dimensionalized into two factors. This has varied somewhat by author, and in fact, there have been as many as five different three-factor models proposed (Murphy et al., 1997).

The difficulty in determining the most psychometrically sound factor structure of the PBI is exacerbated by the fact that the PBI has been studied in a variety of English- and non-English-speaking populations with mixed results. Validation in a French sample (Mohr et al., 1999) supported the three factor model, with “overprotection” dimensionalized into “discouragement of behavioral freedom” and “denial of psychological autonomy.” This is consistent with previous findings (Murphy et al., 1997) that examined the PBI in adolescents from both the United States and the United Kingdom. Murphy et al. also reported higher ratings of parental caring among the U.K. respondents but greater endorsement of “denial of psychological autonomy” among U.S. respondents. In an Australian sample (Cubis et al., 1989), a three-factor model that dimensionalized protection into personal versus social domains not only provided a better fit for the data, the authors reported evidence of gender differences within the factor structure that presumably would not have emerged in the two-factor model. Specifically, women were more likely than men to rate their fathers higher on the dimension of denying psychological autonomy and their mothers lower on the dimension of discouraging behavioral freedom. This contradicts findings from another Australian sample (Mackinnon et al., 1989) that supported the two-factor model. Divergent results from the U.S., U.K., and Australian respondents suggest that differences across nationalities cannot be attributed solely to linguistics, as all populations were English-speaking.

Mixed results have also been reported in non-English-speaking samples. Gómez-Beneyto et al. (1993) found support for a three-factor model in a population of Spanish women, which is consistent with a recent study (Terra et al., 2009) of an all-female sample from Brazil. However, among Pakistani women, both the two-factor and the three-factor models were similarly valid (Qadir et al., 2005).

Study of the PBI among Japanese populations has been equally variable. Similar to previous reports (Cubis et al., 1989, Gómez-Beneyto et al., 1993, Kendler, 1996, Murphy et al., 1997), Sato and colleagues (1999) found Parker's model to be inadequate, but among the various three-factor models examined, the model from Kendler (1996), which dimensionalizes overprotection into protectiveness and authoritarianism, provided a superior fit for the responses. Conversely, an earlier study of Japanese respondents (Kitamura and Suzuki, 1993) found Parker's two-factor model to be psychometrically sound. A more recent examination (Uji et al., 2006) supported a four-factor model that included parental caring, indifference/rejection, autonomy, and overprotection. The authors opine that inclusion of the indifference/rejection factor may reflect a cultural phenomenon ignored by Sato and colleagues’ analyses wherein Japanese children may be more prone to feeling rejected and persecuted when those on whom they depend heavily (e.g., parents) do not meet their needs. Further, they point out that, compared to Western cultures, mothers in Japan spend significantly more time with their children (e.g., sleeping and bathing together) and that Japanese cultures value independence and autonomy to a lesser degree than Western societies. Since it was developed originally for use in Western, English-speaking samples, culturally infused parenting styles must be accounted for when applying the PBI to non-Western cultures. More research is needed in order to better understanding the PBI's applicability to non-Western cultures.

Little is known about how the PBI performs in Chinese populations. In fact, to date, no study examining the PBI in Chinese samples has been printed in an English-based journal. Events in China's recent history, including economic reform during the past two decades, have likely had a great impact on the social structure of Chinese populations, including family dynamics and interpersonal relationships. Therefore, measuring parental bonding in this population is very important both in terms of expanding the literature base as well as understanding modern parenting styles specific to Chinese samples. The purpose of this study is to: (1) explore the data and identify the underlying structural model that best fits the Chinese culture, and (2) to further compare the factor structure that emerges in a Chinese sample with that which has emerged in other Eastern cultures (i.e., Japanese) and Western countries.

Section snippets

Subjects

Subjects were the mothers of children who attended 4 area kindergartens already part of a large population-based cohort study (Jintan Child Health Project) in China. The Jintan Child Study consists of a preschool cohort of 1656 children, including 55.5% boys and 44.5% girls. Both parents of the children consented to participate and were sampled from four area kindergartens. However, fathers did not fill out the questionnaire, only mothers. This was because the questionnaire was completed at the

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to report in an English-speaking journal results from psychometric analyses of the PBI in a Chinese population. After comparing several factor structures, results from our confirmatory factor analyses parallel those from Uji et al. (2006) that supported a four-factor model in a Japanese sample. Specifically, the two- and three-factor models supported by others (Parker et al., 1979, Cubis et al., 1989, Gómez-Beneyto et al., 1993, Kendler, 1996, Murphy et

References (52)

  • R.K. Chao

    Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans

    Child Dev.

    (2001)
  • B.J. Cox et al.

    The Parental Bonding Instrument: confirmatory evidence for a three-factor model in a psychiatric clinical sample and in the National Comorbidity Survey

    Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol.

    (2000)
  • J. Cubis et al.

    Australian adolescents’ perceptions of their parents

    Aust. N.Z. J. Psychiatry

    (1989)
  • M.W. Enns et al.

    Parental bonding and adult psychopathology: results from the US National Comorbidity Survey

    Psychol. Med.

    (2002)
  • M. Gómez-Beneyto et al.

    Psychometric properties of the parental bonding instrument in a Spanish sample

    Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol.

    (1993)
  • L. Hu et al.

    Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

    Struct. Equat. Model.

    (1999)
  • W. Kay et al.

    The stability of the Parental Bonding Instrument over a 20-year period

    Psychol. Med.

    (2005)
  • W. Kay et al.

    Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and Intimate Bond Measure Scales

    Aust. N.Z. J. Psychiatry

    (1990)
  • K.S. Kendler

    Parenting: a genetic-epidemiologic perspective

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (1996)
  • S.Y. Kim et al.

    Assessing Asian and Asian American Parenting: A Review of the Literature

  • T. Kitamura et al.

    A validation study of the Parental Bonding Instrument in a Japanese population

    Jpn. J. Psychiatry Neurol.

    (1993)
  • R.B. Kline

    Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling

    (1998)
  • J. Liu et al.

    Cohort profile: The China jintan child cohort study

    Int. J. Epidemiol.

    (2010)
  • J. Liu et al.

    The application of the preschool child behavior checklist and the caregiver-teacher report form to mainland chinese children: Syndrome structure, gender differences, country effects, and inter-informant agreement

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (2010)
  • A.J. Mackinnon et al.

    The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI): an epidemiological study in a general population sample

    Psychol. Med.

    (1989)
  • E. Murphy et al.

    The assessment of parenting using the Parental Bonding Instrument: two or three factors?

    Psychol. Med.

    (1997)
  • Cited by (56)

    • Effects of parental care and overprotection on adolescents' diurnal cortisol profiles

      2022, Hormones and Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      Adolescents were asked to first identify one primary caregiver (i.e., the caregiver whom the adolescent spent most time with and felt closest to) and then rate to what extent each statement truly described the parenting behaviors of the identified caregiver using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = very unlikely, 3 = very likely). Some of the previous studies on the psychometric properties of the PBI demonstrated that indifference items might tap into a different construct from care and should not be regarded as reverse items of the care dimension (Liu et al., 2011; Ngai et al., 2018; Uji et al., 2006). Similarly, there is evidence that autonomy items should not be included in the original overprotection dimension as these items might reflect a distinct dimension (Liu et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 1997; Uji et al., 2006).

    • Quality of parental bonding is associated with symptom severity and functioning among individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis

      2020, Schizophrenia Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) was administered to UHR only, and has exhibited good psychometric properties in a previous study (Rekhi et al., 2017), and is a widely-used, 11-item scale for assessing depression in schizophrenia (Addington et al., 1990). Prior to conducting EFA on the PBI, CFAs of published two-factor, three-factor, and four-factor models were conducted to elucidate its fit for our data (Behzadi and Parker, 2015; Cubis et al., 1989; Gómez-Beneyto et al., 1993; Kapci and Kucuker, 2006; Karim and Begum, 2017; Kendler et al., 1997; Kitamura and Suzuki, 1993; Liu et al., 2011; Mohr et al., 1999; Murphy et al., 1997; Parker et al., 1979; Qadir et al., 2005; Uji et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2016). Next, EFAs were separately conducted on the maternal and paternal PBI scores separately, using Mplus 7.4.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This study is supported, in part, by NIH/NIEHS K01-ES015 877 to the first author.

    View full text