Can Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) Be Used in China?

doi:10.4236/psych.2013.46076

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2013. Vol.4, No.6, 535-540

Published Online June 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.46076

Can Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) Be

Used in China?*

Yixiao Fu1, Xiao Hou2, Qing Qin1, Huaqing Meng1#, Peng Xie3#, Yi Huang4,

Xiaohong Ma4, Wei Deng4, Qinghua Luo1, Yingcheng Wang4, Hua Hu1, Lian Du1,

Haitang Qiu1, Tian Qiu1, Tao Li4#

1Mental Health Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

2Chongqing Medical and Pharmaceutical College, Chongqing, China

3Department of neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

4Mental Health Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

Email: #[email protected], #[email protected], #[email protected]

Received January 26th, 2013; revised February 27th, 2013; accepted March 26th, 2013

bution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

Objective: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of PSDQ (Parenting Styles and

Dimensions Questionnaire, PSDQ). Method: 443 parents of children aged 6 to 16 who lived in Chongqing

were selected. .52 of them were retested 6 weeks later in order to assess the retest reliability. Determina-

tion of reliability included: internal consistency: to calculate Cronbach coefficient; coefficient of retest re-

liability: to calculate person correlation of results in every subscale in twice measurements of 52 parents.

Determination of validity: content validity, structural validity, confirmatory factor analysis. Results: For

each subscale and factor, the values of kappa for inter-rater reliability were between .625 and .884 (p

< .05); the values of retest reliability were between .537 and .832 (p < .05); The scores of the subscale of

PSDQ were correlated with each factor significantly (coefficient of correlation: .732 - .951, p < .05), and

the correlation coefficient was more than those between each factor of this subscale (correlation coeffi-

cient: .382 - .834, p < .05). The confirmatory factor analysis of PSDQ showed the result met the criteria

standard for adequacy of fit. (CMIN/df: 2.218 - 3.745; TLI: .808 - .920; RMSEA: .052 - .079; MECVI of

default model was very close to that of saturated model, most of proliferation index were more than .8).

Conclusion: Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ), in line with requirements of psy-

chometric, had good reliability and validity and was useful as a tool to evaluate the parenting styles for

parents.

Keywords: Parenting Style; Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire; Reliability; Validity

Introduction

During the period of children’s growth and development, the

parents are the children’s first teachers. Parents’ attitude to the

children, manners and behaviors directly affect the children’s

personality and temperament shaping as well as mental health

development, which has been paid extensive attention from

related fields such as education and medicine, but domestic

researches focusing on parenting styles and the adolescents

(Wang & Yuan, 2008; Bi, Wang, Yang, & Wang, 2007) per-

sonality, psychology, emotion and behavior are few. However,

most information on parenting styles is obtained from Egma

Minnen av Bardndosnauppforstran (EMBU) (Yue, Li, Jin, &

Ding, 1993) whose respondent is children (object’s evaluation),

thus, the basis of parenting intervention theory is weak because

the information is obtained indirectly. Besides, the respondents

are small to be biased to their parents’ evaluation because the

scale is suitable for the respondents who are over 14 years old

and can understand the questions. The restriction on the re-

spondents’ age results in more researches on the middle school

students and college students’ parents’ parenting and their

mental issues, personality and socialization, but few researches

on young children’s family environment. However, an individ-

ual’s personality development and mental development are

directly related to the parents’ early parenting, so local version

of the parenting scale (Xia & Liu, 2004) is intended to develop,

but it is not widely applied because of the scale itself. In addi-

tion, the research on family environment also needs be in line

with internationalization, therefore, it is necessary to introduce

mature and comprehensive parenting scale with the parents

themselves as the respondents.

Parenting Style & Dimensions Questionnaire was developed

by Robinson and Mandleco in 1995, which was internationally

recognized as one of the scales with the parents as the respon-

dents to evaluate the parenting style. Since it is developed, the

scale has been revised and used by scholars all over the world

and is demonstrated to have good reliability and validity (Rob-

inson, Mandleco, & Olsen, 2001). Therefore, this research aims

to translate the scale into Chinese and measure its reliability

and validity to hope to provide an effective assessment tool to

*Grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81101025).

#Corresponding authors.

Y. X. FU ET AL.

measure Chinese children’s family environment.

Objective and Methods

Objective

Method of cluster sampling was used to select 443 parents of

6 - 16 years old children who were full-time students in key

primary school, key middle school, ordinary primary school,

ordinary middle school and occupation high school in main city

zone of Chongqing during the period of February to June, 2008.

Inclusion standard: mother (or father) whose child was 6 - 16

years old and student accepted education for all the people and

could fully understand the content of scale. Exclusion standard:

mother (or father) who could not participate in the test because

of physical diseases and mental illnesses.

This study was approved by Ethics Committee of Chongqing

Medical University and the parents participated in the survey

after they signed written informed consent.

Methods

Introduction and Translation of the Scale

Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire, with 62

items evaluated using 5 points, was used for father or mother to

evaluate his or her and spouse/partner’s attitude to frequency of

children’s some behaviors, aiming to mainly understand the

parenting styles. 3 parenting styles, authoritative parenting,

authoritarian parenting and permissive parenting were further

divided into 11 factors (dimensions). Authoritative parenting

included 27 items which were divided into 4 factors: passion

and concentration, rationality/guidance, democratic participa-

tion and good nature/kindness. Authoritarian parenting included

20 items which were divided into 4 factors: verbal confronta-

tion, corporal punishment, irrationality/or punitive strategy and

command. Permissive parenting included 15 items (among of

which, 3 items with reverse scoring) which were divided into 3

factors: no persistence, ignorance of inappropriate behaviors

and lack of confidence. The approach of translation and back-

translation procedure were used to compare the Chinese vision

of scale and the original scale. The scale was formally used

until the version of back-transition was basically close to the

original scale.

Formal Test with Chinese Version of Parenting Style and

Dimensions Questionnaire

The method of cluster sampling was used to select 70 parents

from ordinary primary school, key primary school, ordinary

middle school and key middle school respectively and 120

parents from occupation high school as the subjects. The scale

was given out to the students by the teacher in charge of the

class and then brought home by the students. The scale was

filled out by the students’ father or mother (For the parents,

there were written detailed instructions and informed consent as

well as an envelope which could be returned back according to

the parent’s willing). Within two days, the answer sheets were

recycled and the invalid questionnaires were cancelled. 6 weeks

later, 60 subjects were retested and 52 valid questionnaires

were obtained.

Validity and Reliability Assessment of Chinese Version of

Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire

Reliability test included homogeneity reliability: calculating

the Cronbach coefficient of the total scale and subscales;

test-retest reliability: calculating the Spearson correlation coef-

ficient of 52 students’ parents’ scores of each subscale 6 weeks

before and after. Validity test was to calculate the Spearson

correlation coefficient between each subscale and each factor as

well as Spearson correlation coefficient between factors. Con-

firmatory factor analysis was to analyze the content validity and

construct validity of the scale.

Statistical Method

Paired t-test was used to evaluate the test-retest reliability

and Cronbacha coefficient was used to estimate internal con-

sistency. Total validity and content validity were analyzed with

Pearson correlation. All above were analyzed with SPSS 16.0

and confirmatory factor analysis was analyzed with AMOS7.0.

Results

General Description of the Data

443 valid questionnaires were obtained from the students’

parents. The distribution of subjects’ (parents) children’s

schools was as follows: 51 students from key primary school

(11.5%), 65 students from ordinary primary school (14.8%), 56

students from key middle school (12.6%), 57 students from

ordinary middle school (12.7% ), 60 students from key high

school (13.5%), 53 students from ordinary high school (12%),

101 students from occupation high school (23%); the students’

average age was 12.37 + 3.53 years old; among the parents, fa-

thers accounted for 189 (occupation including: administrative

management: 7.5%; business: 13.9%; service industry: 9.7%;

professional technology: 17.5%; worker: 10.1% ) and mothers

accounted for 254 (occupation including: administrative man-

agement: 6.9%; business: 14.3%; service industry: 9.9%; pro-

fessional technology: 11.5%; worker: 15.7%).

Reliability Test of Chinese Version of Parenting Style

and Dimensions Questionnaire

Internal reliability (Cronbach α) of each subscale was be-

tween .634 and .783 (internal reliability of each factor of sub-

scales: .626 - .866) and test-retest reliability were between .537

and .832 (test-retest reliability of each factor of subscales: .537

- .832) (see Table 1).

Validity Test of Chinese Version of Parenting Style

and Dimensions Questionnaire

Because there was no quantified tool for parenting style

measurement based on Baumrind model, criterion-related va-

lidity was not included into reliability indexes in this research

and content validity, construct validity and confirmatory factor

analysis were analyzed as the evaluation indexes of reliability.

Content Validity

In authoritative parenting subscale, authoritarian parenting

subscale and permissive parenting subscale, the correlation

coefficients between each factor and subscale were between .732

and .951, which was found to be relatively high (p < .01) (see

Tables 2-7).

Structure Validity

The correlations between authoritative parenting subscale,

536

Y. X. FU ET AL.

Table 1.

Reliability test of authoritative parenting subscale of Chinese version of Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ).

Factors and subscales Cronbachα Test-retest reliability Factors and subscales Cronbachα

coefficient Test-retest reliability

Father’s score of

authoritative parenting .871 .665 Mother’s score of

authoritative parenting .857 .728

Father’s score of

authoritarian parenting .884 .698 Mother’s score of

authoritarian parenting .868 .783

Father’s score of

permissive parenting .805 .634 Mother’s score of

permissive parenting .803 .728

Table 2.

Correlation matrix of father’s authoritative parenting subscale and each factor.

Subscales and factors Father’s passion and

concentration

Father’s rationality and

guidance

Father’s democratic

participation

Father’s good

nature/kindness

Father’s authoritative

parenting subscale

Factor 1: Father’s passion and

concentration 1 .748(**) .793 (**) .764 (**) .951 (**)

Factor 2: Father’s rationality and

guidance .748 (**) 1 .724 (**) .656 (**) .880 (**)

Factor 3: Father’s democratic

participation .793 (**) .724 (**) 1 .679 (**) .885 (**)

Factor 4: Father’s good

nature/kindness .764 (**) .656 (**) .679 (**) 1 .838 (**)

Father’s authoritative

parenting subscale .951 (**) .880 (**) .885 (**) .838 (**) 1

Table 3.

Correlation matrix of mother’s authoritative parenting subscale and each factor.

Mother ’s passion and

concentration

Mother’s rationality

and guidance

Mother’s democratic

participation

Mother’s good

nature/kindness

Mother’s authoritative

parenting subscale

Factor 1: Mother ’s passion

and concentration 1 .718 (**) .745 (**) .750 (**) .943 (**)

Factor 2: Mother ’s rationality

and guidance .718 (**) 1 .674 (**) .640 (**) .866 (**)

Factor 3: Mother ’s democratic

participation .745 (**) .674 (**) 1 .635 (**) .856 (**)

Factor 4: Mother ’s good

nature/kindness .750 (**) .640 (**) .635 (**) 1 .829 (**)

Mother ’s authoritative

parenting subscale .943 (**) .866 (**) .856 (**) .829 (**) 1

Table 4.

Correlation matrix of father’s authoritarian parenting subscale and each factor.

Father’s verbal

confrontation

Father’s corporal

punishment Father’s irrationality Father’s order Father’s authoritarian

parenting subscale

Factor 1: Father’s verbal

confrontation 1 .717 (**) .680 (**) .637 (**) .842 (**)

Factor 2: Father’s

corporal punishment .717 (**) 1 .832 (**) .607 (**) .939 (**)

Factor 3: Father’s irrationality .680 (**) .832 (**) 1 .566 (**) .919 (**)

Factor 4: Father’s order .637 (**) .607 (**) .566 (**) 1 .752 (**)

Father’s authoritarian

parenting subscale .842 (**) .939 (**) .919 (**) .752 (**) 1

Y. X. FU ET AL.

Table 5.

Correlation matrix of mother’s authoritarian parenting subscale and each factor.

Mother’s verbal

confrontation

Mother’s corporal

punishment Mother’s irrationalityMother’s order Mother’s authoritarian

parenting subscale

Factor 1: Mother’s verbal

confrontation 1 .709 (**) .670 (**) .657 (**) .844 (**)

Factor 2: Mother’s corporal

punishment .709 (**) 1 .834 (**) .574 (**) .936 (**)

Factor 3: Mother’s irrationality .670 (**) .834 (**) 1 .544 (**) .917 (**)

Factor 4: Mother’s order .657 (**) .574 (**) .544 (**) 1 .739 (**)

Mother’s authoritarian parenting .844 (**) .936 (**) .917 (**) .739 (**) 1

Table 6.

Correlation matrix of father’s permissive parenting subscale and each factor.

Father’s no

persistence

Father’s ignorance of

inappropriate behaviors Father’s lack of confidenceFather’s permissive

parenting subscale

Factor 1: Father’s no persistence 1 .647 (**) .474 (**) .902 (**)

Factor 2: Father’s ignorance of

inappropriate behaviors .647 (**) 1 .382 (**) .830 (**)

Factor: Father’s lack of confidence .474 (**) .382(**) 1 .709 (**)

Father’s permissive parenting

subscale .902 (**) .830 (**) .709 (**) 1

Table 7.

Correlation matrix of mother’s permissive parenting subscale and each factor.

Mother’s no

persistence

Mother ’s ignorance of

inappropriate behaviors

Mother ’s lack of

confidence

Mother ’s permissive

parenting subscale

Factor 1: Mother’s no persistence 1 .644 (**) .478 (**) .895 (**)

Factor 2: Mother ’s ignorance of

inappropriate behaviors .644 (**) 1 .400 (**) .825 (**)

Factor 3: Mother ’s lack of confidence .478 (**) .400 (**) 1 .732 (**)

Mother ’s permissive parenting subscale.895 (**) .825 (**) .732 (**) 1

authoritarian parenting subscale and permissive parenting sub-

scale and each factor were higher than that between two factors

respectively. The correlation coefficients among each factor

were between .382 and .834, which was found to be relatively

high (p < .01) (see Tables 2-7).

Factor Analysis

The factor analysis is to confirm the theoretical model of

scale if factors exist. Parenting Style and Dimensions Ques-

tionnaire (PSDQ) was proved to have good reliability and va-

lidity in foreign countries, namely, with mature theoretical

framework, so this study only aimed to verify whether the

theoretical framework was suitable for China’s national condi-

tions and cultural background and confirmatory factor analysis

was used to verify the theoretical model of PSDQ. Each index

of model fitting saw Table 8.

Discussions

Children’s personality formation, psychological development

and social development start from the family. Under the par-

ents’ influence and guidance, children obtain the initial experi-

ence, knowledge, norms and habits from the family. Family is

the earliest and basic educator and performer for the children.

Among a lot of family factors, parenting style is the most im-

portant factor to affect the children’s development, which has

long been paid wide attention.

Parenting style refers to a tendency of parenting behaviors

shown in the daily education and child care, which is the com-

prehensive reflection of the parenting concepts and behaviors

and high generation of parents’ various parenting behaveiors

(Nadien, 1993) as well as a stable behavior style. Parenting

style involves how the parents treat the children’s requests and

punish the children, requirement on the children’s achievement

as well as education of children, etc. (Taosa, 1994).

Development psychologist of American University of Cali-

fornia Baumrind (Baumrind, 1991) (1967, 1971, 1977) carried

a study three times. She integrated two parameters: the parents’

requirement and response to the children to propose three kinds

of parenting style with relatively great influence: authoritative

parenting, permissive parenting and authoritarian parenting.

Authoritative parents think the parents should have authority in

538

Y. X. FU ET AL.

Table 8.

Confirmatory factor analysis of father’s authoritative parenting subscale of PSDQ.

Default Model CMIN DF P CMIN/DFNF Delta1RFI rho1IFI Delta2 TLI rho2 CFI RMSEA

Father’s authoritative parenting

subscale 705.312 318 .000 2.218 .856 .828 .915 .898 .914 .052

Father’s authoritarian

parenting subscale 459.899 164 .000 2.804 .899 .870 .932 .913 .932 .064

Father’s permissive parenting

subscale 325.773 87 .000 3.745 .770 .872 .820 .870 .870 .079

Mother’s authoritative

parenting subscale 750.372 318 .000 2.360 .829 .797 .894 .872 .892 .055

Mother’s authoritarian

parenting subscale 430.521 164 .000 2.625 .903 .876 .938 .920 .937 .061

Mother ’s permissive

parenting subscale 322.371 87 .000 3.705 .822 .754 .863 .808 .861 .078

their own children’s heart, but this authority comes from their

understanding and respect to the children, frequent communica-

tion with the children, help to the children and right attitude to

the children’s requirements. Permissive parents give the chil-

dren the biggest freedom on behavior and do not restrict the

children’s development. They rarely propose requirements to

the children and think that the respect to the children’s personal

willing is the most important. And even they may leave the

children alone and rarely adopt reward and punishments. Be-

sides, they communicate with children, but the relationship is

indifferent. Authoritarian parents press the children’s personal-

ity and often adopt force as the means to make the children take

the orders from the parents, hope the children to grow accord-

ing to the parents’ ideas and protect and supervise all the chil-

dren’s behaviors, which is a “control” and “controlled” rela-

tionship, so the child has no right to speak. If the children vio-

late the parents’ willing, they shall be punished strictly.

Parenting Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ), with

good reliability and validity, was developed based on Baum-

rind’s theory to be widely used in the world.

This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of Chi-

nese version of scale based on the sample of 443 students’ par-

ents in Chongqing. Reliability refers to the degree of repro-

ducibility of test scores of the same measurement or duplicate

in different time or consistency of related measurements in

retest. Homogeneity reliability (Cronbach a coefficient) and

test-retest reliability were used in this study to measure the

stability and reliability of the scale. Generally speaking, the

scale with the reliability coefficient between .7 and 1.0 is rec-

ognized to be acceptable (Gliner, Morgan, & Harmon, 2001).

However, some scholars propose stricter standard that the scale

with reliability coefficient over .8 is only accepted. In this study,

homogeneity reliability test results revealed that Cronbach Al-

pha coefficient of each subscale and factor was between .882

and .972, which showed that the scale had relatively high ho-

mogeneity.

In order to test the time stability of the scale, 52 subjects

were retested 6 weeks after the first test. Some scholars argue

that in order to test test-retest reliability coefficient of single

item, the coefficient is generally over .50 (Gustavsson, Bergan,

Edman, Ekselius, Knorring, & Linder, 2000). The test-retest

correlation coefficient of the scale showed that test-retest reli-

ability coefficient and test-retest reliability of each subscale and

each factor were higher than .50 respectively, which was founded

to be significantly correlated and revealed the scale had rela-

tively good time stability.

Validity refers to the degree to which a scale truly tests the

properties. There are various methods to verify the validity

(Gotay, Blaine, Haynes, Holup, & Pagano, 2002). Three basic

validity forms were selected in this study: content validity,

construct validity and confirmatory factor analysis. The content

validity was measured based on the correlation coefficient be-

tween the core of each factor and the total score of the scale.

Medium to high correlation coefficient between each subscale

and each factor in this study was obtained to reach the signifi-

cant level, which revealed that the content of each factor was

consistent with the content of the questionnaire and the ques-

tionnaire had good content validity.

Construct validity refers to the degree of which a scale tests

certain psychological structure or characteristics from the per-

spective of theory (Clark & Watson, 1995). Correlation coeffi-

cient among factors and discriminant validity were to test the

construct validity of the questionnaire.

Correlation coefficient between the score of each subscale

and the total score exceeding that between subscales is a

method in construct validity test in psychometrics (Huang,

2002). The study firstly investigated the internal consistency of

test structure and correlation matrix between each factor and

each subscale. According to the result, Pearson correlated cor-

relations of subjects’ score in each subscale and each factor

were founded to be significantly related.

Confirmatory factor analysis was to confirm the theoretical

model of the scale. Parenting Style and Dimensions Question-

naire (PSDQ) was approved to have mature theory frame in

foreign countries, therefore, this study was only to demonstrate

whether the theoretical framework was also suitable for China’s

national conditions and cultural background and confirmatory

factor analysis was analyzed to obtain the evaluation of each fit

index of fitting research mode (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Guo,

Wang, Chen, & Han, 2007; Sivo, Fan, Witta, & Willse, 2006).

Both Chi-square of goodness of fit test (CMIN) and degree

of freedom (DF) are used to illustrate the correctness level of

model, close to 2 to be acceptable. The ratios of each subscale

of PSDQ are between 2.218 and 3.745. Tucker-Lewis Index

(TLI): theoretically, the closer to 1, the better the goodness of

fit is, and the value over .8 illustrates the goodness of fit is ac-

Y. X. FU ET AL.

ceptable. TLIs of each subscale of PSDQ are between .808

and .920. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)

is used to evaluate the degree of non goodness of fit of the scale,

close to 0 showing good goodness of fit, RMSEA ≤ .08 show-

ing reasonable goodness of fit. RMSEAs of each subscale of

PSDQ are between .052 - .079. Generally, proliferation indexes

(CFI: comparative fit index, NFI: non-normed fit index, IFI:

incremental fit index) over .8 are acceptable. The proliferation

indexs of over half of subscales of PSDQ are over .9, vast ma-

jority over .8.

The results of confirmatory factor analysis revealed Parent-

ing Style and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) had good

construct validity and was also suitable for China’s national

conditions and cultural background.

In conclusion, Chinese version of Parenting Style and Di-

mensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) has relatively good reliability

and validity and provides a relatively effective and reliable

psychometric instrument for the parents to understand parenting

style and dimensions and evaluate family education models.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to show their thanks to Professor Li

Tao’s team of West China Hospital of Sichuan University.

REFERENCES

Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent

transition (pp. 115-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-

ates, Inc.

Bi, Y, Wang, J. P., Yang, Z. H., & Wang, Y. L. (2007). The effect of

behavioral inhibition and parenting styles on adolescent’s anxiety.

Chinese Journal of Clinical Psy ch ol ogy , 15, 97-100.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Construction validity: Basic issues

in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 3, 309-

319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309

Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Harmon, R. J. (2001). Measurement

reliability. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent

Psychiatry, 40, 486-488. doi:10.1097/00004583-200104000-00019

Gotay, C. C., Blaine, D., Haynes, S. N., Holup, J., & Pagano, I. S.

(2002). Assessment of quality of life in a multicultural cancer patient

population. Psychol o g i c a l Assessment, 14, 439-450.

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.4.439

Gustavsson, J. P., Bergan, H., Edman, G., Ekselius, L., Knorring, L. V.,

& Linder, J. (2000). Swedish universities scales of personality (ssp):

Construction, internal consistency and normative data. Acta Psy-

chiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 217-225.

doi:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.102003217.x

Guo, Q., Wang, W., Chen, X., & Han, D. (2007). Judgment of model

fitness in confirmatory factor analysis. Exploration of Psychology, 27,

83-87

Huang, G. (2002). Educational measurement and evaluation (pp. 173-

182). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure

analysis: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification.

Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

Nadien, M. B. (1993). Children’s psychosocial development—From

birth to early youth. Beijing: People’s Education Press.

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., & Olsen, S. F. (2001). The parenting

styles and dimension questionnaire (PSDQ). In B. F. Perlmutter, J.

Touliatos, & G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement

techniques: 3 (pp. 319-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publica-

tions, Inc.

Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for

“optima1” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation

modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 267-288.

doi:10.3200/JEXE.74.3.267-288

Taosa, L. L. (1994). 3 - 6 years old children’s mother’s education style

and the influence factors. Psychological Development and Education,

3, 40-46.

Wang, T., & Yuan, J. (2008). 197 college students’ time management

disposition and parenting styles. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 22,

429-432.

Xia, M., & Liu, W. (2004). New research development on the interac-

tion between children’s temperament and parenting. Journal of Da-

lian University of Technology (Social Science Edition), 25, 65-69.

Yue, D. M., Li, M. L., Jin, K. H., & Ding, B. K. (1993). Parenting style:

Preliminary revision of EMBU and its application in neurosis pa-

tients. Chinese Mental Healt h Jo urn al, 7, 97-100.

540