Child & School Psychology

Psychology - Child & School Psychology | Journal of Child and Family Studies - incl. option topublish open access (Editorial Board)

Home > Psychology > Child & School Psychology

JOURNALS BOOKS SERIES TEXTBOOKS REFERENCE WORKS

Editor-in-Chief: Nirbhay N. Singh

ISSN: 1062-1024 (print version)ISSN: 1573-2843 (electronic version)

Journal no. 10826

ABOUT THIS JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD ETHICS & DISCLOSURES CALL FOR PAPERS

Journal of Child and Family Studies

66,39 € Personal Rate e-only

Online subscription, valid from January through December of current calendar year

Immediate access to this year's issues via SpringerLink

1 Volume(-s) with 12 issue(-s) per annual subscription

Automatic annual renewal

More information: >> FAQs // >> Policy

Editor-in-Chief:

Nirbhay N. Singh, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA

Associate Editors:

Jeffrey A. Anderson, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN

Christopher T. Barry, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington

Rosalyn Bertram, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri

Jessica Borelli, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA

Anil Chacko, New York University, New York, NY

Christopher C. Cushing, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Radosveta Dimitrova, Stockholm University, Sweden

Joshua C. Felver, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

Elizabeth Fernandez, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Kristin A. Gansle, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

Mellissa S. Gordon, University of Delaware, Newark, DE

Erin Hambrick, University of Missouri Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri

Zhuo Rachel Han, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Karen Healy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Benjamin D. Hill, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama

Jun Sung Hong, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI

Yoon-Suk Hwang, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Patricia Jennings, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA

Chrystyna Kouros, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX

Russell Lang, Texas State University-San Marcos, TX

Adam B. Lewin, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg

James K. Luiselli, Psychology Consultants, Carlisle, MA

Ramasamy Manikam, Maryland Hospital for Children, Baltimore

Monica A. Marsee, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Carrie L. McPherson, McPherson Therapy & Consulting, Central City, KY

Oleg Medvedev, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Kurt Michael, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC

Peter Muris, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Rachel E. Myers, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA

Laura A. Nabors, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

Jackie A. Nelson, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas

Justin Parent, Florida International University, Miami, Florida

Andy V. Pham, Florida International University, Miami, Florida

Isabelle Roskam, University of Louvain, Belgium

Beth S. Russell, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Anne Shaffer, University of Georgia, Athens

Holly H. Schiffrin, University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA

Cheri Shapiro, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Marlys Staudt, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

Emma M. Sterrett, University of Louisville, KY

Elizabeth Talbott, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL

Janet S. Walker, Portland State University, OR

Yan Wang, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Yaoying Xu, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA

Yiyuan Xu, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI

Yang Yang, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA

Kimberly R. Zlomke, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama

Statistics Editors:

Benjamin D. Hill, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL

Editorial Board:

Kari Adamsons, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Cheryl S. Al-Mateen, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Robert T. Ammerman, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, OH

Joyce A. Arditti, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

Sandra J. Bailey, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

Ana Maria Brannan, Vanderbilt University, TN

Alfiee M. Breland-Noble, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC

Preston A. Britner, University of Connecticut, Storrs

Eric J. Bruns, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle

Barbara J. Burns, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC

Xinguang Chen, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Kelly D. Davis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Andres De Los Reyes, University of Maryland, College Park

Robert Emery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

Elizabeth M.Z. Farmer, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA

Albert D. Farrell, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Rex Forehand, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT

Barbara J. Friesen, Portland State University, OR

Luc Goossens, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Richard Hastings, Bangor University, United Kingdom

Scott W. Henggeler, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston

Kristin D. Hurley, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Charlotte Johnston, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada

Deborah J. Jones, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Bryan T. Karazsia, College of Wooster, OH

Alan E. Kazdin, Yale University, New Haven, CT

Penelope K. Knapp, University of California, Davis

Beth A. Kotchick, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD

Fiorenzo Laghi, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Giulio E. Lancioni, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

Ellen P. Lukens, Columbia University, New York, NY

Kristen McAleavey-Eng, Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Krista Mehari, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL

Dennis Moore, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Diana Morelen, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN

Barbara J. Myers, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Donald P. Oswald, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Cecilia S. Pace, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

Ugo Pace, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy

Alessia Passanisi, Kore University of Enna, Sicily, Italy

Vaishali V. Raval, Miami University, Oxford, OH

Christina M. Rodriguez, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Sonia L. Rubens, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA

Wesley Sanders, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA

Miri Scharf, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Daniel T. L. Shek, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, P.R.C.

Bart Soenens, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Heidi E. Stolz, University of Tennessee at Knoxville

Paul S. Strand, Washington State University, Richland

Terri N. Sullivan, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Kevin Sutherland, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Cynthia Suveg, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Jason Van Allen, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas

Editorial Assistant:

Subhashni D.S. Joy, Fernleaf Scientific Editing and Writing

2016 Impact Factor 1.386

READ THIS JOURNAL ON SPRINGERLINK

FOR AUTHORS AND EDITORS

SERVICES FOR THE JOURNAL

ALERTS FOR THIS JOURNAL

Get the table of contents of every new issue published inJournal of Child and Family Studies.

Your E-Mail Address

Please send me information on new Springerpublications in Child and School Psychology.

RELATED BOOKS - SERIES - JOURNALS

Journal

Child & Youth CareForumEditor» Editor-in-Chief: Carl F.Weems

Online First Articles

All Volumes & Issues

Aims and Scope

Submit Online

Open Choice - Your Way to Open Access

Instructions for Authors

Author Academy: Training for Authors

Contacts

Download Product Flyer

Shipping Dates

Order Back Issues

Article Reprints

Bulk Orders

SUBMIT

Journal of Child and Family Studies

All Volumes & Issues

ISSN: 1062-1024 (Print) 1573-2843 (Online)

In this issue (32 articles)

Original Paper

Traditional vs. Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs: A

Meta-Analysis

Denise K. Whitford, Dake Zhang, Antonis Katsiyannis Pages 671-685

1.

Original Paper

Adult Recidivism in United States: A Meta-Analysis

1994–2015

Antonis Katsiyannis, Denise K. Whitford, Dake Zhang… Pages 686-696

2.

Original Paper

Motivation for Solitude: A Cross-Cultural Examination of

Adolescents from Collectivist and Individualist Cultures in

South Africa

Casper J. J. van Zyl, Esmarilda Dankaert… Pages 697-706

3.

Original Paper

Demanding Kin Relations, Adjustment Problems and

Academic Achievement and Engagement among

Low-Income, African American Adolescents

Ronald D. Taylor Pages 707-716

4.

Original Paper

Profiles of Contextual Risk at Birth and Adolescent

Substance Use

Gilbert R. Parra, Gail L. Smith, W. Alex Mason… Pages 717-724

5.

Original Paper

A Matter of Life and Death: Understanding Continuing

Bonds and Post-traumatic Growth When Young Adults

Experience the Loss of a Close Friend

Catherine H. Stein, Catherine E. Petrowski… Pages 725-738

6.

Original Paper

Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Ages

and Stages Questionnaires for use in Georgia

Medea Zirakashvili, Maia Gabunia, Nana Tatishvili… Pages 739-749

7.

Original Paper

A Cost Analysis of a Validated Screening Tool for Pediatric

Abusive Head Trauma

Austin C. Cohrs, Edeanya Agbese, Douglas L. Leslie… Pages 750-755

8.

Original Paper

The Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS): an

Indonesian Validation Study

Agnes Sumargi, Ania Filus, Alina Morawska… Pages 756-770

9.

10.

Original Paper

Validation of the Chinese Revision of Emotional and

Behavioral Screener among Preschoolers (4–7 years old)

Lisong Zhang, Zhongquan Li, Kan He Pages 771-779

Original Paper

Cross-Cultural Patterns of Student Victimization in Israel

and Chile

Verónica López, Rami Benbenishty, Ron Avi Astor… Pages 780-792

11.

Original Paper

Sibling Relationships and Family Functioning in Siblings of

Early Adolescents, Adolescents and Young Adults with

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Fiorenzo Laghi, Antonia Lonigro, Susanna Pallini… Pages 793-801

12.

Original Paper

Single Parenthood and Adolescent Sexual Outcomes

Mikaela J. Dufur, John P. Hoffmann… Pages 802-815

13.

Original Paper

The Development of Self-Esteem and the Role of Agency and

Communion: A Longitudinal Study among Chinese

Feifei Chen, Shimin Zhu, Chongzeng Bi Pages 816-824

14.

Original Paper

A Preliminary Study of Activation, Stress, and

15.

Self-Management of Parents of Children with Autism

Spectrum Disorder

Lisa Ruble, Donna Murray, John H. McGrew… Pages 825-834

Original Paper

African American Adolescent-Caregiver Relationships in a

Weight Loss Trial

Kimberly D. Campbell-Voytal, Kathryn Brogan Hartlieb… Pages 835-842

16.

Original Paper

Mental Health Symptoms and Parenting Stress of Parents of

Court-Involved Youth

Larry K. Brown, Nicholas Tarantino… Pages 843-852

17.

Original Paper

An Online Investigation of Imagery to Attenuate Paranoia in

College Students

Katherine Newman-Taylor, Anna Kemp, Hannah Potter… Pages 853-859

18.

Original Paper

Exploring Characteristics of Children Presenting to

Counseling for Grief and Loss

Liz Ener, Dee C. Ray Pages 860-871

19.

Original Paper

Differential Effects of Child Difficulties on Family Burdens

across Diagnostic Groups

Kristen N. Dovgan, Micah O. Mazurek Pages 872-884

20.

We use cookies to improve your experience with our site. More information

Questionnaire (Buri 1991) and investigated their relation-ships with adolescents’ social and emotional competencies.Hasan et al. (2013) used a parent-child relationship measureadapted from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children(Zubrick et al. 2008) and measured its contribution to childdevelopmental outcomes and behavioral problems. Thesestudies merely reported the internal consistencies for themeasures without any further validation of the translatedmeasures. This might have led to biases in the estimation ofeffect sizes and the validity of the obtained results. Further,with a recognized need to enhance parenting competenceand child well-being in developing countries, includingIndonesia, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness ofdisseminated parenting programs (Tomlinson and Andina2015). The use of validated measures of parenting practicesis essential to enable accurate evaluation of these programs.

Validating a measure that originated in another culturebegins with a thorough assessment of the factor structure ofthe translated version to ascertain that it is equivalent to theoriginal version (Borsa et al. 2012). The subsequent stepsinclude an evaluation of the criterion or predictive validityas well as internal consistency. Only with properly trans-lated and validated measures, it is possible to establish anaccurate identification of cross-cultural similarities anddifferences in parenting practices as well as a robust modelof parenting in a new culture (Locke and Prinz 2002).

Indonesia is a developing country in South-East Asia thathas the fourth largest population in the world (i.e., 258.7millions in 2016; Badan Pusat Statistik 2017) and mediumHuman Development Index (i.e., 0.69 in 2016, ranked 113out of 188 countries in the world; United Nations Devel-opment Programme 2016). More than a half of the popu-lation (54%) lives in urban areas and 11% lives below thenational poverty line (United Nations Development Pro-gramme 2016). Approximately 60% of Indonesians live inJava, an island occupying only 7% of the total land area(Badan Pusat Statistik 2017). In terms of education, thenational literacy rate in 2005–2015 was high (94%) and47% of adults (25 years old and older) had at least somesecondary education (United Nations Development Pro-gramme 2016). Indonesia has more than 1300 ethnic groupswith Javanese (40%) as the largest group (Na’im and Sya-putra 2011). Indonesian-Javanese families have a strongbond, it is common that extended family members, such asgrandparents, live together or nearby and become thecaretakers of their grandchildren when parents are working(Setiadi 2006). In the family, fathers are usually thebreadwinners and mothers deal with domestic work andprovide care for their children. In recent days, it has beencommon that a family hires a maid or baby sitter to helpmothers in carrying out their responsibilities (Setiadi 2006).Javanese parents teach their children to pay respect tohigher authorities (e.g., parents and teachers) and repress

their own desires in order to avoid conflict with the wishesof others (Koentjaraningrat 1985). Parents tend to be lenientwith younger children, but use punishment with olderchildren to enforce obedience (Koentjaraningrat 1985).Unfortunately, contemporary studies on parenting andfamily relationships in Indonesia are lacking and therefore,validating parenting measures with Indonesian parentsmight be beneficial as the first step to generate more par-enting research.

The Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS;Sanders et al. 2014) was originally developed in Australiawith the purpose to create a brief and user friendly ques-tionnaire measuring parenting and family adjustment vari-ables targeted in parenting programs. The PAFAS waschosen for two important reasons. First, it is a brief measuredesigned to evaluate not only parenting practices (PAFASParenting) but also parenting risk and protective factors,such as parental emotional adjustment, quality of familyrelationships and parental teamwork (PAFAS Familyadjustment). With a brief measure, parents will be morelikely to complete the questionnaire. Further, the PAFASprovides comprehensive outcomes that can be used toevaluate the need for parenting programs among Indonesianfamilies. Second, the psychometric properties of PAFAS intwo Australian samples (n= 347 and n= 573; both parentsof children aged 2–12 years old) were good. ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis (CFA) resulted in a four-factor 18-itemPAFAS Parenting scale and three-factor 12-item PAFASFamily Adjustment scale. Overall, the PAFAS subscalesshowed good internal consistencies (ranging from .70 to.87) and satisfactory construct and predictive validity(Sanders et al. 2014). Furthermore, the measure has beenvalidated in collectivistic cultures, such as Panama (Mejiaet al. 2015) and China (Guo et al. 2016). In both studies, thefactor structures in the original PAFAS measure weremostly retained with fewer items and adequate internalconsistencies (ranging from .50 to .82 and from .65 to .95for Chinese and Panamanian parents, respectively). Con-sidering that Indonesia is also a country with a collectivisticculture, it is relevant to test the validity of PAFAS andexpect similar results.

Psychological literature and research on parenting prac-tices in Indonesia is scarce. The existing studies imply thatIndonesian parents employ different parenting practicesthan parents from Western, individualistic cultures. Forexample, Indonesian parents, in particular mothers, tend tobe more protective and permissive, and use non-punitiveapproaches towards their young children (Koentjaraningrat1985; Megawangi et al. 1995; Zevalkink and Riksen-Walraven 2001). This contrasts with the parenting inWestern cultures that encourages children’s autonomy fromthe early years by applying authoritative parenting strategies(Liu et al. 2005). In a collectivistic community, such as

J Child Fam Stud

Indonesia, social relations and harmony are important,respect and obedience to a higher authority are expected,and children’s dependence on their parents is encouraged(Megawangi et al. 1995). Thus, parents can have closerelationships with their child and may use higher levels ofcontrol. Parental control reflects parents’ caring for theirchild which is often interpreted as a restriction of the child’sindependence in individualistic cultures (Chao and Tseng2002). The validation studies of the PAFAS with parentsfrom collectivistic countries have shown that PAFAS Par-enting had the same factor structure as the Australian ver-sion with 2 or 3 items that were considered culturallyinappropriate (Guo et al. 2016; Mejia et al. 2015). Forexample, being consistent in dealing with child misbehaviorwas perceived as an ineffective parenting strategy by Chi-nese parents (Guo et al. 2016). With respect to PAFASFamily adjustment, the three-factor model of the originalversion was confirmed with Chinese parents with one-itemremoved (Guo et al. 2016); however, for Panamanian par-ents, a two-factor model with four-items removed showed abetter fit than a three-factor model (Mejia et al. 2015). Theremoved items depicted negative emotional states andfamily disagreement that could be perceived as threateningsocial harmony and therefore, undesirable for people fromcollectivistic cultures. Considering the individualistic-collectivistic differences, we expected that the psycho-metric properties of PAFAS in Indonesia might differ fromthe ones obtained with Australian parents in terms of thefactor structures or specific items. This emphasizes the needfor a rigorous cultural validation of the Indonesian PAFAS.

This study aimed to investigate the construct and pre-dictive validity of the Indonesian version of the PAFAS anddetermine its internal consistency. This responds to the needfor more research on parenting practices in Indonesia usinga culturally appropriate and sensitive measure.

Method

Participants

The sample used for this study was recruited for the Indo-nesian Parent Survey, a project focusing on the need forparenting programs among Indonesian parents (Sumargiet al. 2015b). Two-hundred and ten Indonesian parentsresiding in Indonesia who had a child aged 2 to 12 years oldcompleted the PAFAS and CAPES along with other mea-sures used in the Indonesian Parent Survey (for details seeSumargi et al. 2015b). Participants were recruited via con-venience sampling by advertising the study online throughsocial media, such as Facebook and mailing lists. Toincrease the diversity of the sample, recruitment was alsoconducted in work places, religious sites and neighborhoods

in Surabaya and Denpasar, two capital cities in East Javaand Bali.

Most participants were mothers (n= 153; 73%) and theparents’ mean age was 35.68 (SD= 5.75). The averagechild age was 5.80 (SD= 2.80) and there were slightly moreboys (n= 110; 52%) than girls (n= 100; 48%). Themajority of parents identified themselves as married (n=206; 98%) and came from Javanese (n= 122; 58%) andChinese-descendant backgrounds (n= 41; 20%). Most helda college degree (n= 169; 80%) and worked full time (n=148; 72%). Their financial circumstances were mostly goodwith 67% of parents (n= 139) reporting no difficulties inmeeting essential household expenses and only 28% (n=58) reporting financial difficulties. The majority of partici-pants lived as intact families (n= 152; 72%) or extendedfamilies (n= 55; 26%). Eighty-one percent of participants(n= 170) reported that they had other child caregivers tohelp them, mostly grandparents or relatives (n= 65; 38%)and housemaids (n= 64; 38%).

Procedure

This study used a subset of data from a previously pub-lished survey of Indonesian parents (Sumargi et al. 2015b).The original study obtained ethical clearance from theUniversity of Queensland after following a review processaccording to the Australian National Statement on EthicalConduct in Human Research.

Parents who were recruited online and offline as descri-bed above were asked for their consent to participate in thisstudy. Two-hundred and ten Indonesian parents who pro-vided their consents completed a set of questionnaires intheir own time either online (n= 125; 60%) or using paperversions (n= 85; 40%). Parents who chose the paper-basedquestionnaires received the survey from data collectors,completed them in their own time, and returned the ques-tionnaires to the data collectors who then transferred par-ents’ responses into the online database. There were nosignificant differences between parents completing thequestionnaires online or using paper-based versions in termsof demographic characteristics, with the exception that thepaper-based participants had lower levels of education andreported more difficulties in meeting their essential house-hold needs.

Measures

The Family Background Questionnaire (FBQ; Turner et al.2002) assesses demographic characteristics of participantsand their family. This includes parent and child age andgender, marital status, ethnicity, education level, employ-ment status, and financial condition.

J Child Fam Stud

The PAFAS (Sanders et al. 2014) consists of 30 itemsassessing parenting practices and family adjustment overthe past four weeks. It consists of two scales. PAFASParenting encompasses: Parental consistency (5 items; e.g.,“I give my child what they want when they get angry orupset”), Coercive parenting (5 items; e.g., “I shout or getangry with my child when they misbehave”), Positiveencouragement (3 items; e.g., “I praise my child when theybehave well”), and Parent-child relationship (5 items; e.g., “Ichat/talk with my child”). PAFAS Family adjustmentencompasses: Parental adjustment (5 items; e.g., “I feelstressed or worried”), Family relationships (4 items; e.g.,“Our family members fight or argue”), and Parental team-work (3 items; e.g., “I work as a team with my partner inparenting”). Each item is scored on a 4-point scale rangingfrom not true of me at all (0) to true of me very much ormost of the time (3). The items are summed to yield aseparate score for each domain where higher scores indicatehigher levels of dysfunction. Thus, higher scores in Parentalconsistency, Coercive parenting, Positive encouragement,and Parent-child relationship denote higher levels ofinconsistent parenting, more frequent use of coercivepractices, less frequent use of positive encouragement, andpoorer parent-child relationships, respectively. Similarly,higher scores in Parental adjustment, Family relationships,and Parental teamwork indicate more parental stress, poorerfamily relationships, and less frequent teamwork in par-enting a child, respectively. Sanders et al. (2014) reportedthat the PAFAS had satisfactory construct and predictivevalidity, as well as good internal consistencies amongAustralian parents (α= .70 –.85).

The CAPES (Morawska et al. 2014) consists of 27 itemsassessing child maladjustment over the past four weeks(CAPES Intensity) and 19 items assessing parents’ level ofconfidence in managing child misbehavior (CAPES Self-efficacy). CAPES Intensity encompasses two domains:Behavior problems (24 items; including behavior concerns,such as “My child yells, shouts or screams” and behaviorcompetencies, such as “My child follow rules and limits”)and Emotional problems (3 items, such as “My child wor-ries”). Each item is scored on a 4-point scale ranging fromnot true of my child at all (0) to true of my child very much,or most of the time (3). The items are summed for each scalewith higher scores indicating higher levels of child pro-blems. CAPES Self-efficacy encompasses only a singledomain where each item is scored on a 10-point scale,ranging from certain I can’t do it (1) to certain I can do it(10). The items are summed to compute the total score withhigher scores indicating a greater level of parenting con-fidence. Morawska et al. (2014) reported that the CAPEShad satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity, aswell as good internal consistencies (α= .74–.96) amongAustralian parents. The CAPES has been used in two

intervention studies with Indonesian parents (Sumargi et al.2014, 2015a), the internal consistencies were reported to begood (α= .81, Sumargi et al. 2014; α= .71–.94, Sumargiet al. 2015a).

All measures were available in English. The first authortranslated the measures into Indonesian and to ensure theaccuracy of the translation, an Indonesian postgraduatestudent in Australia who had academic qualifications inEnglish literature and Education reviewed the translation.The reviewed translation was then tested with three Indo-nesian parents. Based on the reviewer’s and parents’ input,four words were refined for ease of understanding; that is, aword related to threatening in PAFAS Parenting, refinedfrom melontarkan ancaman (throwing criticism) to mem-berikan ancaman (giving a threat); a word related toappropriateness in CAPES Intensity, refined from pantas(decent) to sesuai (appropriate); a word related to followingrules in CAPES Intensity, refined from mengikuti aturan(following rules) to mematuhi aturan (obeying rules); and aword referring to foster fathers/mothers in the FBQ, refinedfrom ayah/ibu wali (guardians) to ayah/ibu asuh (fostermothers/fathers).

Data Analyses

Construct validity

The construct validity of the PAFAS was evaluated viaCFA using Mplus version 7.31 (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2012). In the next step, the convergent and discriminantvalidities, as well as the predictive validity of the Indone-sian PAFAS were assessed.

Convergent and discriminant validity

Convergent validity was evaluated using three com-plementary methods: (i) the evaluation of the significanceand magnitude of factor loadings (Gerbing and Anderson1988), (ii) inspection of whether the amount of varianceshared between the construct and its indicators is at least50% (AVE > .50; Fornell and Larcker 1981), (iii) evalua-tion of the composite reliability (CR), where values above60 indicate good convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi1988). Discriminant validity was assessed using threeapproaches: evaluation of the magnitude of correlationcoefficients between the latent constructs, the Wald test, andcomparisons between AVE and the squared inter-constructcorrelation estimates (SIC). For good discriminant validitythe standardized correlation coefficients between the con-structs should not be equal or close to 1.00. To formally testthis, we used the Wald chi-square test and applied theModel test command in Mplus (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2012). In this test, the correlation between the two latent

J Child Fam Stud

constructs is set to be equal to 1 and a significant p-valueindicates that this correlation is not equal to 1. Finally, theSIC estimates give the magnitude of the shared variancebetween the constructs. These values should be lower thanthe amount of variance shared between the construct and itsindicators (AVE) for good discriminant validity (SIC; For-nell and Larcker 1981).

Predictive validity

The predictive validity of the Indonesian version of PAFASwas assessed by examining the magnitude of correlationcoefficients between PAFAS and CAPES. In particular, weevaluated the associations between Parenting practices andFamily adjustment of PAFAS and Child maladjustment andSelf-efficacy of CAPES. The analyses were performed inthe latent spaces using Mplus. In addition, we used Struc-tural Equation Modelling (SEM) in Mplus to thoroughlyevaluate the theoretical model of associations between theconstructs measured by PAFAS and CAPES as illustrated inFig. 1. Research has shown that family adjustment, such asparenting stress, marital conflict, and parental teamwork,influence child adjustment directly or indirectly throughparenting (Anthony et al. 2005; Gartstein and Fagot 2003;Schoppe Mangelsdorf and Frosch 2001). Similarly, parentalself-efficacy has been found to affect child adjustment eitherdirectly or indirectly via parenting practices (Jones andPrinz 2005; Sanders and Woolley 2005). Parental self-efficacy was also found to be associated with parental stressand depression, as well as family adjustment (Jones andPrinz 2005; Sevigny and Loutzenhiser 2010). Based on this,we predicted that parenting practices would mediate therelationships between family adjustment and child

maladjustment, as well as between parental self-efficacy andchild maladjustment. We also expected that family adjust-ment would be associated with parental self-efficacy, which,in turn, would impact child maladjustment.

Models estimation

The robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) was usedin all analyses because the PAFAS items were on an ordinalscale and the data violated normality assumptions (seePreliminary analysis). The MLR generates fit indices withstandard errors that are robust to non-normality (Muthénand Muthén 1998–2012). In this case, the standard errorsare calculated using a sandwich estimator and the chi-squaregoodness-of-fit statistic is computed using Yuan’s andBentler’s formula (Yuan and Bentler 2000). For both CFAand SEM analyses the fit indices used to evaluate themodels included the chi square goodness-of-fit statistics, thecomparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root meansquare residual (SRMR). Model fit was considered accep-table if the CFI was above .90, and the RMSEA and SRMRwere below .08 (Bentler 1992; Hu and Bentler 1999).Modification Indices (MIs), standardized residuals andtheoretical considerations were also used to respecify themodels (Kline 2011). Since the analyses did not involvecomparing the nested models, we used Akaike informationcriterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) tocompare the non-nested models, where lower values indi-cate a better fitting model (Brown 2006). For the CFAanalyses, we used a standardized factor loading of .40 orhigher as a cut-off point to retain an item for further analysis(Brown 2006). For the SEM analyses, the hypothesizedmediation effects were tested via bootstrap method with2000 bootstrap samples (Shrout and Bolger 2002)

Reliability

We used the H coefficient to measure the internal con-sistency of the Indonesian version of the PAFAS as it ismore appropriate than Cronbach’s alpha when the assump-tions of tau-equivalence and uncorrelated error terms areviolated (Sijtsma 2008; Yang and Green 2011). Similar toCronbach’s alpha, the H coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, withvalues above .70 indicating good internal consistency.However values as low as .60 are still considered acceptable(Hancock and Mueller 2001).

Results

The dataset consisted of 210 parents, with only 0.79% ofvalues missing. The Full Information Maximum Likelihood

Family adjustment

Parental self-efficacy

Parenting practices

Child maladjustment

Fig. 1 Hypothesized model of the relationships between familyadjustment, parental self-efficacy, parenting practices and childmaladjustment

J Child Fam Stud

(FIML) procedure was used to handle missing data, whichis considered more robust than traditional approaches(Graham 2009). In terms of normality assumptions, twenty-four out of 30 PAFAS items (80%) had significant uni-variate skew and 18 out of 30 PAFAS items (60%) hadsignificant univariate kurtosis. The Mardia’s test of multi-variate kurtosis showed a coefficient of 1100.34 with CR of22.65 (p< .001) indicating multivariate non-normality ofthe data. To obtain accurate estimates of standard errors andchi-square values for the models we used MLR estimator(See Data analysis section).

Construct validity

For PAFAS Parenting, a single factor model was tested firstand compared to the hypothesized four-factor model. Thefour-factor model showed a better fit than the one-factormodel (see Table 1, Model A and B), hence it was chosenfor further analysis. However, based on CFI, the fit of thefour-factor model was not satisfactory. Inspection of factorloadings indicated that items 3 “I follow through with aconsequence (e.g., take away a toy when my child mis-behaves” and 11 “I deal with my child’s misbehavior thesame way all the time” of Parental consistency had very lowfactor loadings and were removed from the model. Thisimproved model fit, but it was still not satisfactory based onthe CFI value (see Table 1, Model B1). Further inspectionof factor loadings and standardized residuals indicated thatitem 2 “I give my child a treat, reward or fun activity for

behaving well” of Positive encouragement had a low factorloading (<.40) and large standardized residuals and thus,was removed. Following deletion, the CFI of the 15-itemmodel increased but was still inadequate (see Table 1,Model B2). Examination of MIs suggested strong associa-tion of item 15 “I enjoy giving my child hugs, kisses andcuddles” of Parent-child relationship with Positive encour-agement. Given the high MI and that this item could beinterpreted as a positive encouragement strategy, we spe-cified item 15 as an indicator of Positive encouragement.This final model showed acceptable fit to the data (seeTable 1, Model B3).

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the factor loadings ranged fromsatisfactory to high (.40–.79). Most associations betweenthe latent factors were not significant, with the exception ofthe significant positive correlations between Parental con-sistency and Coercive parenting (r= .50; p < .05) andbetween Positive encouragement and Parent-child relation-ship (r= .78, p< .001).

With respect to PAFAS Family adjustment, we firstlycompared a single factor model with the hypothesized three-factor model. The results showed that the fit of the hypo-thesized model was better than the fit of the one-factormodel (see Table 1, Model C and D). Hence, we selectedthe three-factor model for further analyses. The overall fit ofthe three-factor model was poor. Inspection of standardizedfactor loadings indicated that item 29 “I disagree with mypartner about parenting” of Parental teamwork needed to beremoved due to the low factor loading. However, this only

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis of the factor structure of the Indonesian version of PAFAS parenting

Model χ2 df CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA 90%CI

AIC BIC

PAFAS Parentinga

A. 1-factor model 886.36*** 350 .560 .102 .085 .078–.092 12204.01 12485.17

B. 4-factor model 238.28*** 129 .829 .074 .064 .051–.076 7523.17 7723.99

B1. 4-factor model with items 3 and 11 removed 164.73*** 98 .884 .057 .057 .041–.072 6527.28 6708.02

B2. 4-factor model with item 3, 11, and 2 removed 145.86*** 84 .888 .057 .059 .043–.075 6059.14 6229.84

B3. 4-factor model with item 3, 11, 2 removed and item 15moved into the third factor

130.86*** 84 .915 .056 .052 .033–.068 6042.67 6213.370

PAFAS Family adjustmentb

C. 1-factor model 297.01*** 54 .574 .096 .147 .131–.163 4759.27 4879.59

D. 3-factor model 251.23*** 51 .649 .083 .137 .120–.154 4678.54 4808.89

D1. 3-factor model with item 29 removed 226.38*** 41 .648 .085 .147 .129–.166 4163.22. 4283.54

D2. 3-factor model with item 29 and 27 removed 135.98*** 32 .751 .070 .125 .104-.147 3727.22 3837.51

D3. 3-factor model with items 29, 27, and 19 removed 64.79*** 24 .877 .057 .090 .064–.117 3248.39 3348.66

D4. 3-factor model with items 29, 27, 19, and 23 removed 25.67* 17 .97 .045 .049 .000–.086 2912.65 3002.89

Note: χ2= Sattora–Bentler scaled Chi Square, df degrees of freedom, CFI comparative fit index, SRMR standardized root mean square residual,RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CI confidence interval, AIC Akaike information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criteriona The analyses conducted on N= 210 individualsb The analyses were based on N= 209 individuals

*p< .05; ***p< .001

J Child Fam Stud

slightly improved model fit (see Table 1, Model D1).Inspection of standardized residuals suggested that item27 “Our family members criticize or put each other down” ofFamily relationships should be removed. This improved themodel fit, however it was still not satisfactory based on theCFI and RMSEA values (see Table 1, Model D2). Furtherexamination of standardized residuals indicated that items19 “I feel stressed or worried” and item 23 “I cope with theemotional demands of being a parent” of Parental adjust-ment needed to be removed (Model D3 and D4, respec-tively). The final model showed very good fit to the data(see Table 1, Model D4).

Figure 3 illustrates the final model with 3 latent factorsand 8 items. The factor loadings ranged from satisfactory tohigh (.44–.83). There were significant positive correlationsbetween Parental adjustment and Family relationships(r= .59, p< .001), Family relationships and Parental

teamwork (r= .71, p< .001), and Parental adjustment andParental teamwork (r= .64, p < .001).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

In terms of convergent validity, all items of PAFAS Par-enting and PAFAS Family adjustment had significant andsatisfactory loadings on the designated factors (see Figs. 2and 3). For PAFAS Parenting, the AVE estimate for Posi-tive encouragement exceeded the cut-off value of .50 (.52),but for the remaining three factors the AVE estimates werebelow the cut-off value (see Table 2). Similarly, for PAFASFamily adjustment, the AVE estimate for Parental team-work was satisfactory (.59) but for Parental adjustment andFamily relationships, the AVE estimates were slightlybelow the required cut-off value of .50. The CR estimateswere satisfactory (i.e., above .60) for PAFAS Parenting,

Parental consistency

Item 10: I argue with my child about their behaviour / attitude

Item 13: I get annoyed with my child.

Coercive parenting

Positive encouragement

Parent-child relationship

Item 6: I praise my child when they behave well

Item 8: I give my child attention (e.g. a hug, wink, smile or kiss) when they behave well

Item 15: I enjoy giving my child hugs, kisses and cuddles.

Item 14: I chat/talk with my child.

Item 16: I am proud of my child.

Item 17: I enjoy spending time with my child.

Item 18: I have a good relationship with my child.

Item 7: I try to make my child feel bad (e.g. guilt or shame) for misbehaving to teach them a lesson

Item 9: I spank (smack) my child when they misbehave

Item 1: If my child doesn’t do what they’re told to do, I give in and do it myself

Item 4: I threaten something (e.g., to turn off TV) when my child misbehaves but I don’t follow through.

Item 12: I give my child what they want when they get angry or upset

Item 5: I shout or get angry with my child when they misbehave.

.50***

.47**

.46*

.63**

.51***

.62***

.40***

.46***

.60***

.77***

.79***

.64***

.59***

.78***

.72***

.50*

.14

.13

.17

.78***

.16

Fig. 2 Four-factor confirmatoryfactor analysis of the 15-itemIndonesian version of PAFASParenting. Standardizedestimates are presented. Higherscores indicate higher level ofdysfunctional parenting. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

J Child Fam Stud

Positive encouragement, Parent-child relationship, andCoercive parenting (i.e., .77, .78, and .66, respectively), andfor all the PAFAS Family adjustment factors (i.e., .63 forParental adjustment, .70 for Family relationships, and .74for Parental teamwork). However, the CR estimate forParental consistency was low (.47).

With respect to discriminant validity, the correlationsbetween latent factors of PAFAS Parenting were low andinsignificant with the exception of the association betweenParental consistency and Coercive parenting (r= .50, p< .05) and Positive encouragement and Parent-child rela-tionship (r= .78, p< .001; see Fig. 2). The results of Waldchi-square test for magnitude of these associations indicatedthat these correlations were not equal to 1.00 (493.51 and3908.90, respectively, with p < .001). For PAFAS Familyadjustment, the correlations between latent constructs were

significant and moderate in size (see Fig. 3). The results ofthe Wald chi-square test showed that they were not equal to1.00. The Wald chi-square values were 655.1, 1736.5, and815.26, all p< .001 for the correlations between Parentaladjustment and Family relationships; Parental adjustmentand Parental teamwork; and Family relationships and Par-ental teamwork, respectively.

Table 2 shows the comparisons between AVE and SICestimates for each factor. Coercive parenting and Parentalteamwork had good discriminant validity. Yet, for theremaining factors of PAFAS Parenting and PAFAS Familyadjustment, the AVE estimates were lower compared to theSIC estimates indicating high amount of shared variancebetween these constructs.

Predictive Validity

The predictive validity of PAFAS Parenting and PAFASFamily adjustment was examined in two steps. First, weexamined the bivariate correlations between the scales ofPAFAS and CAPES (see Table 3). Almost all constructs ofPAFAS Parenting and Family adjustment were significantlycorrelated in the expected directions with the constructs ofCAPES Intensity and Self-efficacy. However, the associa-tions between Behavior problems and Positive encourage-ment and Parental adjustment; Emotional problems andPositive encouragement, Parental adjustment, and Parentalteamwork; and Self-efficacy and Coercive parenting werenot significant.

In the next step, we examined if the latent factors ofPAFAS Parenting and PAFAS Family adjustment wouldpredict parental efficacy and child emotional and behavioral

Item 20: I feel happy.

Item 21: I feel sad or depressed.

Item 22: I feel satisfied with my life.

Item 24: Our family help or support each other

Item 25: Our family members get on well with each other.

Item 26: Our family members fight or argue.

Parental adjustment

Family relationships

Parental teamwork

Item 28: I work as a team with my partner in parenting.

Item 30: I have a good relationship with my partner.

.73***

.45***

.61***

.59***

.73***

.80***

.44***

.83***

.70***

.64***

.71***

Fig. 3 Three-factorconfirmatory factor analysis ofthe 8-item Indonesian version ofPAFAS Family adjustment.Standardized estimates arepresented. Higher scoresindicate higher level ofdysfunctional parenting.***p< .001

Table 2 Average variance extracted (AVE) as compared with squaredintercorrelation estimates (SIC) for the PAFAS parenting and PAFASfamily adjustment

AVE SIC

PAFAS Parenting

Parental consistency .23 .25, .03, .02

Coercive parenting .28 .25, .13, .03

Positive encouragement .52 .03, .13, .61

Parent-child relationship .47 .02, .13, .61

PAFAS Family adjustment

Parental adjustment .37 .34, .40

Family relationships .46 .34, .50

Parental teamwork .59 .40, .50

AVE average variance extracted, SIC squared interconstruct correlation

J Child Fam Stud

problems as measured by CAPES. The SEM approach wasapplied to test the hypothesized model of associations (seeFig. 1). Given that CAPES Behavior problems and Self-efficacy scales have more than 15 items each, item parcelingwas applied for these scales in order to control for inflatedmeasurement errors and improve the psychometric proper-ties of the variables (Little et al. 2002). Behavior problemitems were randomly assigned to five parcels, whilst Self-efficacy items were randomly assigned to four parcels. Eachparcel represented the average of the items included. The fitof the initial model was not satisfactory (i.e., χ2 (113)=220.68, p< .001; CFI= .932; SRMR= .089; RMSEA= .068 [90% CI .054–.081]). Inspection of MIs suggestedthat combining Parental consistency and Coercive Parentinginto one latent construct and similarly combining Positiveencouragement and Parent-child relationships into onelatent construct would significantly improve model fit. Thissuggestion was theoretically sensible. In addition, theseconstructs showed high correlations with each other in theCFA analysis (See Fig. 2). The two combined latent con-structs were named: Effective and Ineffective parentingpractices. The revised model showed very good fit to thedata (χ2 (209)= 170.17, p< .001; CFI= .962; SRMR= .062; RMSEA= .051 [90% CI .035–.065]). The stan-dardized results are presented in Fig. 4.

The analyses revealed that family adjustment was sig-nificantly associated with parental self-efficacy and botheffective and ineffective parenting practices, implying that

the poorer the family functioning the lower the level ofparental self-confidence and effective parenting practicesand the higher the level of ineffective parenting practices(i.e., less consistency in parenting, more frequent use ofcoercive practices, less frequent use of positive encour-agement to poorer relationships between a child and aparent). Furthermore, parental self-efficacy was sig-nificantly related to effective parenting practices indicatingthat the higher parental confidence the more frequent theuse of positive parenting strategies such as encouragementand consistency. Surprisingly, there was no significantrelationship between self-efficacy and ineffective parentingpractices, as well as between ineffective and effective par-enting. Furthermore, the results showed that parental self-efficacy and ineffective parenting practices had direct rela-tionships with child maladjustment, indicating that eitherlack of parental self-confidence or harsh and inconsistentparenting could lead to child emotional and behavioralproblems. No significant relationship was found betweeneffective parenting and child maladjustment. Overall, themodel explained 47% of variance in child maladjustment.

Figure 4 illustrates two significant parallel indirecteffects that were tested in subsequent analyses using boot-strapping method (see Data analysis section). One is thepath from family adjustment to child maladjustment medi-ated by parental self-efficacy (β= 0.14, p < .01), and thesecond path was through ineffective parenting practices(β= 0.09, p < .05). The estimates of total indirect effects

Table 3 Correlations between PAFAS parenting, PAFAS family adjustment, and CAPES

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PAFAS-parenting

1. Parental consistency –

2. Coercive parenting 0.45* –

3. Positive encouragement 0.13 0.13 –

4. Parent-child relationship 0.15 0.19 0.76*** –

PAFAS-family adjustment

5. Parental adjustment 0.22 0.43 0.22 0.60*** –

6. Family relationships 0.09 0.18 0.31* 0.49*** 0.66*** –

7. Parental teamwork 0.16 0.08 0.20 0.39** 0.68*** 0.71*** –

CAPES

8. CAPES-behavior problems 0.55*** 0.59*** 0.11 0.33** 0.48 0.27** 0.27** –

9. CAPES-emotional problems 0.32* 0.40** 0.23 0.24* 0.31 0.27* 0.20 0.55*** –

10. CAPES- self efficacy −0.33* −0.12 −0.29** −0.47*** −0.27* −0.42*** −0.31** −0.47*** −0.35** –

Mean 3.15 5.91 0.90 1.23 1.76 1.63 0.75 22.68 1.53 155.68

SD 1.81 2.83 1.43 1.62 1.52 1.54 1.08 8.93 1.54 25.06

Internal consistency .47 .68 .79 .79 .67 .76 .76 .84 .58 .96

Note: High scores in the PAFAS subscales and CAPES-Behavior and Emotional Problems denote negative interpretations, whereas high scores inCAPES-Self efficacy denote positive interpretation. The internal consistency of the CAPES was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha. The internalconsistency of the PAFAS was measured using the H coefficient

*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001

J Child Fam Stud

and total effects of family adjustment on child maladjust-ment were 0.25 (p< .001) and 0.46 (p < .001), respectively.

Reliability

As seen in Table 3, the H coefficients for Positive encour-agement, Parent-child relationship, Family relationships andParental teamwork were all greater than .70, indicating verygood internal consistently. The H coefficients for Coerciveparenting and Parental adjustment were .68 and .67,respectively, indicating satisfactory internal consistency.Finally, Parental consistency had low H coefficient (.47)implying poor internal consistency.

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the validity of a brief, butcomprehensive, parenting and family adjustment measure inthe Indonesian context. The construct validity of thePAFAS was evaluated through CFA and its predictivevalidity was assessed through its associations with a childoutcomes measure (CAPES). Based on the results of CFA,the Indonesian version of PAFAS Parenting comprisedfour-factors with 15 items and PAFAS Family adjustmentcomprised three-factors with 8 items. Similar to the results

of validation studies in China (Guo et al. 2016) and Panama(Mejia et al. 2015), the Indonesian PAFAS had fewer itemsthan the original version with an Australian population(Sanders et al. 2014). The correlational analyses and SEMshowed that most constructs of PAFAS were significantlyassociated in the expected directions with the constructs ofthe CAPES. The overall results indicate that the PAFAS is apromising measure that could capture some aspects ofparenting practices and family adjustment of Indonesianparents.

CFA resulted in a shorter (15-item) version of PAFASParenting in Indonesia. Three items were deleted from themodel; that is, items 3 “I follow through with a consequence(e.g., take away a toy) when my child misbehaves”, 11 “Ideal with my child’s misbehavior the same way all thetime”, and 2 “I give my child a treat, reward or fun activityfor behaving well”. The first two items had negative factorloadings on Parental consistency. This might indicate thatIndonesian parents perceived these items as ineffectiveparenting practices. This is similar to the results in theprevious validation studies of PAFAS in collectivistic cul-tures, namely with Chinese and Panamanian parents (Guoet al. 2016; Mejia et al. 2015), suggesting that the two itemsmay not be culturally appropriate in the non-Western con-text. As a harmonious relationship is highly valued in col-lectivistic cultures, conflicts in parent-child relationships

Family relationship Parcel 1

-.01

Parcel 2

Family adjustment

Parental self-efficacy

Ineffective parenting

Parental consistency

Effective parenting

Parent-child

relationship

Beh. Problems Parcel 1

Child maladjustment

Beh. Problems Parcel 2

Beh. Problems Parcel 3

.69*** .95*** .92***

.63***

.38 ***

.77*** .68***

.04

.41*** - .02 .24*

.98***

-.26**

.64***

.97***

Parental teamwork

.77***

Parental adjustment

.81***

Parcel 3

.98***

Parcel 4

-.36***

- .38***

.68*** .66***

Positive encouragement

.96*** .94***

.40***

Beh. Problems Parcel 4

Beh. Problems Parcel 5

Emotional Problems

Coercive parenting

.29***

.50* .78***

Fig. 4 Structural EquationModel of the direct and indirectrelations between familyadjustment, parental self-efficacy, parenting practices andchild maladjustment inIndonesia. Standardizedregression coefficients arepresented. High scores in familyadjustment, effective andineffective parenting, and childmaladjustment denote negativeinterpretations (i.e., poorerfamily adjustment, higher levelsof dysfunctional parenting, andmore frequent child emotionaland behavioral problems),whereas high scores in parentalself-efficacy denote positiveinterpretations (i.e., higherlevels of parenting confidence).*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

J Child Fam Stud

should be resolved immediately (Keshavarz and Baharudin2009; Trommsdorff and Kornadt 2003). Parents in thesecultures might use different strategies than the one indicatedin item 11 to manage their child’s misbehavior and increasechild compliance, including using threatening without fol-lowing through (Koentjaraningrat 1985; Sumargi et al.2015b). Further studies using qualitative methods arerequired to test this hypothesis. Item 2 was deleted due to alow factor loading on Positive encouragement and largestandardized residual. This indicates that this item did notmeasure positive encouragement in this sample. In addition,based on the inspection of MIs, we moved item 15 “I enjoygiving my child hugs, kisses and cuddles” from Parent-childrelationship to Positive encouragement. The item loadedpositively and significantly on Positive encouragement.This suggests that Indonesian parents use strategies such ashugging, kissing, and cuddling with the main purpose ofencouraging and supporting their children rather thanbuilding and maintaining a positive relationship with them.The final 15-item model showed acceptable fit to the datawith satisfactory to high factor loadings.

Contrary to the findings from the Australian study(Sanders et al. 2014), not all relationships between PAFASParenting scales were significant. Significant associationswere found between Parental consistency and Coerciveparenting, and between Positive encouragement and Parent-child relationship. This indicates that parents who showedinconsistent parenting practices also used a coerciveapproach in parenting their children (ineffective parentingpractices) and parents who showed positive encouragementto their child had good relationships with their child(effective parenting practices). However, there were nosignificant associations between ineffective and effectiveparenting practices (Figs. 2 and 4), indicating that higher orlower levels of ineffective parenting practices are notnecessarily followed by lower or higher levels of effectiveparenting practices. These results are similar to the findingsobtained in the Chinese validation of PAFAS (Guo et al.2016), suggesting the unique characteristics of parentingpractices in collectivistic culture where parents can be warmand supportive but at the same time demanding and strict(Chao and Tseng 2002). In the cross-cultural literature, thisis often referred to as a warm authoritarianism (Kagitcibasi2007). However, qualitative studies are needed to confirm ifindeed this is the case for Indonesian parents.

With respect to PAFAS Family adjustment, the analysisrevealed a three-factor model with 8 items. Four items wereremoved from the original scale to make the entire scalevalid. These were item 29 “I disagree with my partner aboutparenting”, 27 “Our family members criticize or put eachother down”, 19 “I feel stressed or worried”, and 23“I copewith the emotional demands of being a parent”. Except foritem 23, all removed items were exactly the same as the

items deleted from the model in the validation study ofPAFAS Family adjustment with Panamanian parents (Mejiaet al. 2015). The deleted items describe disagreement infamily relationships and negative emotional states. Similarto Latino cultures, Indonesian cultures, in particular theJavanese culture, emphasize the importance of harmoniousrelationships with other people (Koentjaraningrat 1985).Even in marital relationships, husbands and wives oftenavoid open conflict, do not disclose their anger, and usesilent expressions when fighting (i.e., not talking to eachother for a period of time; Megawangi et al. 1995). Thismay explain the low means on both of these items (M=0.65 and M= 0.87 for items 27 and 29, respectively).Additionally, participating parents could have displayedsocial desirability when completing the scale believing thatproblems within a family should not be disclosed to out-siders. All this suggests that the deleted items in PAFASFamily adjustment might not be culturally relevant forIndonesian families. This requires further investigation,preferably using qualitative methods.

The convergent validity for both PAFAS Parenting andPAFAS Family adjustment was adequate as measured bythe significance and magnitude of factor loadings. Theestimates of composite reliability for all scales were alsosatisfactory, except for Parental consistency. However, theinspection on the AVE estimates indicated that there weremore errors than variances explained by the factors forParental consistency, Coercive parenting, and Parentaladjustment. With regards to discriminant validity, the cor-relations between factors of PAFAS Parenting and PAFASFamily adjustment were not close or equal to 1.00 asrevealed by the Wald chi-square tests; providing evidencefor independence of these constructs. Nonetheless, thecomparisons between the AVE and SIC estimates indicatedhigher amount of shared variance between Parental con-sistency and Coercive parenting and between Positiveencouragement and Parent-child relationship in PAFASParenting, as well as between Parental adjustment andParental teamwork, and between Family relationships andParental teamwork in PAFAS Family adjustment. Thus,further research should thoroughly examine these scales andmodify the items if necessary, to improve the convergentand discriminant validity of the Indonesian version ofPAFAS.

The predictive validity of PAFAS Parenting and PAFASFamily adjustment was good, as indicated by correlationaland SEM analyses evaluating its associations with theCAPES. The hypothesized model of relationships betweenparent, family and child constructs showed good fit to thedata. The results indicated two significant indirect effects.These effects imply that in the Indonesian context theoverall family adjustment influences child maladjustmentthrough two parallel processes: ineffective parenting

J Child Fam Stud

practices and parental self-efficacy. This shows that poorfamily functioning is associated with higher use of inef-fective parenting practices (such as coercive parenting andlack of consistency) and lower parental self-efficacy, whichin turn have negative effects on child adjustment. Thesefindings suggest that family maladjustment, parentingpractices (in particular ineffective parenting), and parentalself-efficacy are possible risk factors for child maladjust-ment in Indonesia and should be specifically targeted inprevention and intervention programs. It is, therefore,important to further explore the potential use of PAFASFamily adjustment and Parenting (Parental consistency andCoercive parenting) as well as CAPES Self-efficacy inclinical settings and parenting intervention studies inIndonesia.

The unexpected findings in this study were non-significant relationships between parental self-efficacy andineffective parenting, between ineffective and effectiveparenting, and between effective parenting and child mal-adjustment (Fig. 4). In collectivistic cultures, parents, parti-cularly mothers, have close relationships with their child, butat the same time, they can be strict and controlling in orderto instill interdependence, such as obedience to authoritiesand maintaining good relationships with others (Triandis1995). Indonesian-Javanese parents, for example, teach theirchild to control his or her behavior (self-restraint) byarousing feelings of fear (wedi) to authorities and feeling ofshame (isin) that others will negatively evaluate his or hermisbehavior or disobedience (Megawangi et al. 1995). Thus,Indonesian parents can show both effective and ineffectiveparenting practices, and these might reflect their caring fortheir children (Chao and Tseng 2002). Globalization hasintroduced Western values, and thus not all parents fromcollectivistic cultures hold strong interdependence valuesand instill these to their child (Triandis 1995). For this rea-son, it seems plausible that ineffective and effective par-enting practices were not significantly related. Along thesame line, parents holding high collectivistic values mightemploy ineffective parenting practices irrespective of whe-ther they have parenting confidence or not in dealing withtheir child’s misbehavior. The non-significant relationshipbetween effective parenting and child maladjustment mightbe explained by the availability of emotional support fromother child caregivers. Twenty-six percent of parents in thisstudy lived with their extended family members and 38%out of 170 participating parents shared child caretaking withgrandparents and relatives. Thus, for some children, lackingpositive encouragement and warm relationships from parentsmight not be detrimental as the other child caregivers hadprovided this affection. Notably, further investigation isnecessary to test all these premises.

The estimates of internal consistencies of PAFAS weregood or acceptable, with the exception of Parental

consistency. The H coefficient for this scale was low, whichis consistent with the finding with Chinese parents (Guoet al. 2016). This may be related to the specific character-istics of parenting practices of Asian parents. Similar toChinese parents, Indonesian parents seem to emphasizemore flexibility than consistency in parenting their children.Literature has indicated that Indonesian parents from theJavanese culture tend to encourage dependency and useinconsistent and lenient parenting strategies, such as threa-tening, to their younger children (Geertz 1961; Megawangiet al. 1995). This is due to the belief that younger childrenhave limited understanding and cognitive capacities. Whenchildren grow older, Indonesian parents start to give moreresponsibilities and use more punishment to control ormanage child’s misbehavior (Megawangi et al. 1995). Fur-ther research is needed into the construct of Parental con-sistency in non-Western cultures.

Limitations

There were several limitations of this study that should beconsidered in future research. Although the Indonesianversion of the PAFAS has good construct and predictivevalidity, further work is still needed to improve the con-vergent and discriminant validity, as well as the internalreliability of Parental consistency. A qualitative approach toexplore Indonesian parents’ views towards parental con-sistency is suggested in order to develop culturally appro-priate PAFAS items.

It should also be noted that in this study, a back trans-lation procedure was not conducted; however, the transla-tion was reviewed and tested in a small sample of parents toensure its accuracy. Further, due to a paucity of a validatedchild-outcome measures in Indonesia, the CAPES was usedfor testing the predictive validity of PAFAS. The CAPEShas not been validated in Indonesian culture which mayrepresent a limitation; however, the internal consistencies ofthe measure in two intervention studies with Indonesiansamples of parents were good (Sumargi et al. 2014, 2015a).Future studies should employ more robust procedures andinclude various parenting and child-outcome measures tofurther validate the Indonesian PAFAS.

This study is a cross-sectional study where data werecollected at one point in time. The nature of this study limitscausal interpretations. It is plausible that for example,family adjustment, parental self-efficacy, and parentingpractices as shown in Fig. 4 are influenced by child emo-tional and behavioral problems and their relationships withchild behavior are bidirectional. Furthermore, the age rangeof children in this study was quite wide and parentingpractices might depend on children’s age and behavior. Toeliminate this possibility, future studies should include alongitudinal design and limit the age range of children.

J Child Fam Stud

Another limitation is the representativeness of the samplewhich can reduce generalizability of the findings. Thesample in this study was not representative of the ethnicallydiverse population of parents in Indonesia. Most partici-pating parents were Javanese (58%) and Chinese descen-dants (20%). The percentages of these ethnic groups werehigher than those in Indonesian population (i.e., 40 and 2%for Javanese and Chinese, respectively; Na’im and Syaputra2011). Furthermore, the participating parents had highlevels of education (i.e., 80 and 19% held a college degreeand secondary education qualifications, respectively) andgood financial status (i.e., 67% could meet their essentialneeds and only 28% had financial difficulties). This is notrepresentative of the Indonesian population as there wereonly a limited number of Indonesians enrolled in tertiaryeducation (31%), and poverty is not uncommon (UnitedNations Development Programme 2016). Future studiesshould extend the findings to include Indonesian parentsfrom different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.Employing cluster or stratified random sampling, ratherthan convenience sampling might be relevant. With a morediverse sample, it would be possible to take into account theinfluences of demographic characteristics of participants,such as educational level and financial difficulties, on thestudied variable.

Additionally, this study did not include clinical samples,and therefore, the findings can only be generalized to non-clinical populations. Future studies should extend the workto include clinical samples and test if the Indonesian versionof PAFAS is sensitive enough to differentiate clinical casesfrom non-clinical populations. Having normative values forPAFAS will be beneficial for parenting intervention studiesand clinical works with Indonesian families.

Despite these limitations, the Indonesian version ofPAFAS shows promise as an easy to administer, quick andreliable measure that has the potential to be very useful forevaluating parenting practices and family functioningamong Indonesian populations of parents. The results alsosuggest that Indonesian parents have some unique parentingpractices that are more similar to parents from other col-lectivistic cultures (Chinese and Panamanian) than to par-ents from Western cultures, such as Australia. There is aneed for future validation studies including parents fromWestern and Eastern cultures and employing both quanti-tative and qualitative methods to clarify differences inparenting practice across cultures.

Author Contributions A.S. designed and executed the study, con-ducted data analyses, and wrote the paper. A.F. assisted with dataanalyses, collaborated with the design, writing, and editing the finalmanuscript. A.M. collaborated with the design and editing the finalmanuscript. K.S. collaborated with the design and editing the finalmanuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The author(s) declared the following potentialconflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/orpublication of this article: The Parenting and Family Support Centre ispartly funded by royalties stemming from published resources of theTriple P—Positive Parenting Program, which is developed and ownedby The University of Queensland (UQ). Royalties are also distributedto the Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences at UQ and con-tributory authors of published Triple P resources. Triple P International(TPI) Pty Ltd is a private company licensed by Uniquest Pty Ltd onbehalf of UQ, to publish and disseminate Triple P worldwide. Theauthors of this report have no share or ownership of TPI. Dr Morawskareceives royalties from TPI. TPI had no involvement in the studydesign, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or writing of thisreport. Dr Morawska is an employee at UQ.

Ethical Approval The ethical approval was obtained from theUniversity of Queensland.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all parti-cipants in the study.

References

Afriani, A., Baharudin, R., Nor, Y. S., & Nurdeng, D. (2012). TheRelationship between parenting style and social responsibility ofadolescents in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Pertanika Journal ofSocial Sciences and Humanities, 20(3), 733–750.

Anthony, L. G., Anthony, B. J., Glanville, D. N., Naiman, D. Q.,Waanders, C., & Shaffer, S. (2005). The relationships betweenparenting stress, parenting behaviour and preschoolers’ socialcompetence and behaviour problems in the classroom. Infant andChild Development, 14(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.385.

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2017). Statistik Indonesia 2017. Jakarta: BadanPusat Statistik. [Statistical yearbook of Indonesia 2017].

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structuralequation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02723327.

Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and meth-odology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 400–404.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400.

Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Cross-culturaladaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Someconsiderations. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 22(53), 423–432.https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2012000300014.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for appliedresearch (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Per-sonality Assessment, 57(1), 110–119.

Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and appliedparenting (Vol. 4, pp. 59–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawarence ErlbaumAssociates.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equationmodels with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.

Gartstein, M. A., & Fagot, B. I. (2003). Parental depression, parentingand family adjustment, and child effortful control: Explainingexternalizing behaviors for preschool children. Journal of Applied

J Child Fam Stud

Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 143–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-3973(03)00043-1.

Geertz, H. (1961). The Javanese family: A study of kinship andsocialization. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm forscale development incorporating unidimensionality and itsassessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.https://doi.org/10.2307/3172650.

Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in thereal world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530.

Guo, M., Morawska, A., & Filus, A. (2016). Validation of the par-enting and family adjustment scales to measure parenting skillsand family adjustment in Chinese parents. Measurement andEvaluation in Counseling and Development, Online Access,1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175615625754.

Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking constructreliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, K. G.Jöreskog, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling:Present and future: A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. (pp.195–216). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.

Hasan, A., Hyson, M., & Chang, M. C. (2013). Early childhoodeducation and development in poor villages of Indonesia: Strongfoundations, later success. Washington, D.C.: International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes incovariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus newalternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A MultidisciplinaryJournal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: a review. Clinical Psy-chology Review, 25(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004.

Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development acrosscultures: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Keshavarz, S., & Baharudin, R. (2009). Parenting style in a collectivistculture of Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1),66–73.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equationmodeling. New York: Guilford.

Koentjaraningrat (1985). Javanese culture. Singapore: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Kumpfer, K. L., Pinyuchon, M., de Melo, A. T., & Whiteside, H. O.(2008). Cultural adaptation process for international dissemina-tion of the strengthening families program. Evaluation and theHealth Professions, 31(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278708315926.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F.(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question,weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2),151–173.

Liu, M., Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., Zheng, S., Cui, L., Li, D., & Wang,L. (2005). Autonomy-vs. connectedness-oriented parentingbehaviours in Chinese and Canadian mothers. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 29(6), 489–495.

Locke, L. M., & Prinz, R. J. (2002). Measurement of parental dis-cipline and nurturance. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(6),895–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00133-2.

McKee, L., Colletti, C., Rakow, A., Jones, D. J., & Forehand, R.(2008). Parenting and child externalizing behaviors: Are theassociations specific or diffuse? Aggression and Violent Beha-vior, 13(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.005.

Megawangi, R., Zeitlin, M. F., & Colletta, N. D. (1995). The Javanesefamilies. In M. F. Zeitlin, R. Megawangi, E. M. Kramer, N. D.Colletta, E. D. Babatunde & D. Garman (Eds.), Strengthening the

family: Implications for international development.. Tokyo:United Nations University Press.

Mejia, A., Filus, A., Calam, R., Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R.(2015). Measuring parenting practices and family functioning withbrief and simple instruments: validation of the Spanish version ofthe PAFAS. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46(3),426–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0483-1.

Morawska, A., Sanders, M. R., Haslam, D., Filus, A., & Fletcher, R.(2014). Child Adjustment and Parent Efficacy Scale: Develop-ment and initial validation of a parent report measure. AustralianPsychologist, 49(4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12057.

Muthén, L. K, & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide. LosAngeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Na’im, A., & Syaputra, H. (2011). Kewarganegaraan, suku bangsa,agama, dan bahasa sehari-hari penduduk Indonesia: Hasil sen-sus penduduk 2010 [Citizenships, ethnicities, religions, and day-to-day language of Indonesians: Results of 2010 census ofpopulation]. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik.

Prevatt, F. F. (2003). The contribution of parenting practices in a riskand resiliency model of children’s adjustment. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 21(4), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003322535174.

Sanders, M. R. (2008). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a publichealth approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 22(4), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506.

Sanders, M. R., Morawska, A., Haslam, D. M., Filus, A., & Fletcher,R. (2014). Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales (PAFAS):Validation of a brief parent-report measure for use in assessmentof parenting skills and family relationships. Child Psychiatry andHuman Development, 45(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-013-0397-3.

Sanders, M. R., & Woolley, M. (2005). The relationship betweenmaternal self‐efficacy and parenting practices: Implications forparent training. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(1),65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00487.x.

Schoppe, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (2001). Copar-enting, family process, and family structure: Implications forpreschoolers’ externalizing behavior problems. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 15(3), 526–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.526.

Setiadi, B. N. (2006). Indonesia: Traditional family in a changingsociety. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry, F. J. R. Van De Vijver, C.Kagitcibasi & P. Y.H. (Eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 370–377). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Sevigny, P. R., & Loutzenhiser, L. (2010). Predictors of parenting self-efficacy in mothers and fathers of toddlers. Child: care, healthand development, 36(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00980.x.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental andnonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422.

Sijtsma, K. (2008). On the use, the misuse, and the very limitedusefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.

Sumargi, A., Sofronoff, K., & Morawska, A. (2014). Evaluation of abrief format of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: a pilotstudy with Indonesian parents residing in Australia. BehaviourChange, 31(2), 144–158.

Sumargi, A., Sofronoff, K., & Morawska, A. (2015a). A randomized-controlled trial of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Programseminar series with Indonesian parents. Child Psychiatry andHuman Development, 46(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0517-8.

J Child Fam Stud

Sumargi, A., Sofronoff, K., & Morawska, A. (2015b). Understandingparenting practices and parents’ views of parenting programs: Asurvey among Indonesian parents residing in Indonesia andAustralia. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(1), 141–160.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9821-3.

Tomlinson, H. B., & Andina, S. (2015). Parenting education inIndonesia: Review and recommendations to strengthen programsand systems. Washington, D.C.:World Bank Publications.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder:Westview.

Trommsdorff, G., & Kornadt, H.-J. (2003). Parent-child relations incross-cultural perspective. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook ofdynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 271–306). London: Sage.

Turner, K., Markie-Dadds, C., & Sanders, M. R. (2002). Facilitator’smanual for Group Triple P. Brisbane: Triple P International Pty,Ltd.

United Nations Development Programme (2016). Human developmentreport 2016: Human development for everyone. New York, NY:United Nations Development Programme.

Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliabilitycoefficient for the 21st Century? Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 29(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9101-0.

Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methodsfor mean and covariance structure Analysis with nonnormalmissing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078.

Zevalkink, J., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2001). Parenting in Indo-nesia: Inter- and intracultural differences in mothers’ interactionswith their young children. International Journal of BehavioralDevelopment, 25(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000113.

Zubrick, S. R., Smith, G. J., Nicholson, J., Sanson, A., & Jackiewicz,T. A., LSAC Research Consortium. (2008). Parenting andfamilies in Australia. Canberra: Department of Families, Hous-ing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

J Child Fam Stud