8/19/2019 Kay Wilhelm_Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and Intimate Bond Measure Scales
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kay-wilhelmreliability-of-the-parental-bonding-instrument-and-intimate-bond 1/5
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20759070
Reliability of the Parental BondingInstrument and Intimate Bond Measure
Scales
ARTICLE in AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY · JULY 1990
Impact Factor: 3.41 · DOI: 10.3109/00048679009077683 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS
121
READS
1,217
2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Kay A Wilhelm
University of New South Wales
240 PUBLICATIONS 7,737 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Kay A Wilhelm
Retrieved on: 16 March 2016
8/19/2019 Kay Wilhelm_Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and Intimate Bond Measure Scales
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kay-wilhelmreliability-of-the-parental-bonding-instrument-and-intimate-bond 2/5
RELIABILITY OF THE PARENTAL
BONDING INSTRUMENT AND INTIMATE
BOND MEASURE SCALES
Kay W ilhelm and Gordon Parker
The long-term rel iabi l ity
o
the Parental Bon ding Instrum ent PBI) and
of
the
Int imate Bon d Measure IBM) are examined in a n on-cl in ical grou p, wi th data
being examined over eleven and f ive years for th e two respect iv e measures.
Such rel iabi l i ty data are com pared with rel iabi l i ty data on a nu mb er o per-
sonal i ty m easures within the same coh ort . Results demo nstrate considerable
stabi l i ty in the PBI over an extended per io d and m oderate stabi l i ty in
IBM
scores.
Au stralian and New Zealand Jou rnal of Ps ych iatry 1990; 24:199-202
The Pa ren ta l Bond ing In s t rumen t PBI) w as
developed to measure fundam ental parental dimen-
sions of care and protection control) and to allow
quantification of any parental contribution to sub-
sequent psychiatric disorder. Reliability aspects inter-
nal consistency and short-term test-retest reliability)
were exa min ed in the initial paper [
11
and its validity,
both as a measure of perceived and actual parenting,
has been examined in several studies [ 2 ]
If the PBI is a reliable and valid measure of subjects’
retrospective memories of their parents in their first
sixteen years, then adult subjects should return consis-
ten t scores ove r time ie show high tes t -re tes t
reliability).
The short-term reliability of the PBI has been ex-
amined in several studies.
In
the initial developm ent
paper [11, test-retest reliability in a non-clinical s am ple
was 0.76 for the car e scale and 0.63 for the protection
scale over a three-week interval. Subsequently, in
a
sample of depressives initially depressed and then
Division
o
Psychiatry Prince Henry Hospital Little Bay
NSW
Kay Wilhelm, FR ANZC P, Staff Psychiatrist
Gordon Parker, MD, PhD, FRANZCP, Professor of Psychiatry
Correspond with Dr Wilhelm
significantly im prov ed, much higher correlation coef-
ficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.92) were returned over
a nine-week interval
[ 2 ]
he higher coefficients in this
group, comp ared to the initial sam ple, were judged to
reflect the greater motivation of patients in com -
parison to volunteer or importuned non-clinical
groups) to return questionnaire data conscientiously.
Subsequently, in a
US
study [3] of depressed out-
patients attending the Yale Depression Research unit,
48
depressives scored the PBI when depressed and
some four-six weeks later when significantly im-
proved. PBI scores showed
no
significant change o ver
time and the coefficients of agreement ranged from
0.90 to 0 .96 across the four scales, slightly superior to
the Australian depressed sample. Test-retest reliability
in a group of patients with schizophrenia has been
examined [4] when the coefficients of agreement
ranged from 0.58 to 0.77. This less impressive result
was judged to be a reflection of the sample initially
scoring the PBI shortly after admission to hospital with
an exacerbation of their schizophrenia, with their
judgem ent and ability to complete the self-report ques-
tionnaire impaired. T his interpretation is supported by
a n
A m e r i c a n s t u d y [5] o f 26 s u b j e c t s w i t h
schizophrenia who completed the PBI form on two
occasions a few weeks apart, with correlation coeffi-
A u s t N Z J
P s y c h i a t r y D o w n l o a d e d f r o m i n f o r m a h e a l t h c
a r e . c o m b y U n i v e r s i t y N e w S o u t h W a l e s o n
1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3
F o r p e r s o n a
l u s e o n l y .
8/19/2019 Kay Wilhelm_Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and Intimate Bond Measure Scales
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kay-wilhelmreliability-of-the-parental-bonding-instrument-and-intimate-bond 3/5
2
RELIABILITY OF THE PBI
AND
IBM SCALES
cients ranging from 0.79 to 0.88, with this sample
being distinguished by the sa mp le being selected from
those attending a comm unity mental health centre, and
not assessed during a relapse.
Medium-term reliability data have been provided
[6], with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.79 to
0.81 on the PB I for a non-clinical U.S. sam ple tested
seven months ap art. In the only published study [7] of
the long-term reliability of the PBI, women were
studied in the post-partum period and then two to fou r
years mean 30 months) later. Only the maternal PBI
form was completed by subjects, and the authors
reported that PBI scores were “remarkably stable over
time” for different sub-groups of mothers who were
either depressed on both occasions of testing, initially
depressed and then recovered, or not depressed on
either occasion.
In this paper w e ex amin e the test-retest reliability of
the PBI over a decade. The sam ple has been described
elsewhere [8] and so details only will be sum marized
here. In Septemb er 19 78,38 0 students who had under-
taken a basic Arts or Science university course, and
who were then complet ing a one-year t raining
programme at the Sydney Teachers’ College were
approached in class and invited to participate in a
longitudinal study. While our key objective was to
examine for sex differences in dep ressive experience
over time, the students were not informed about the
specific hypothesis, but were given details on the
range of topics including depression) and develop-
mental issues that would be assessed longitudinally.
Tho se subjects completed PB I data and 1 70 agreed to
take part in the longitudinal study, and so formed the
study cohort, then having a mean age of 23.1 years.
Those taking part and those declining d id not differ in
PBI scores returned for each parent. Sub sequ ently, we
sought to interview the coho rt serially, and self-report
data were obtained from 164 in 1 983 and 163 in 1988 .
On each occasion the subjects were requested to com-
plete the orthodox PBI forms assessing parenting over
the first 16 years), allow ing
us
to compare PBI data
collected ove r extended periods.
The authors have also developed a measure of fun-
damental dimens ions under lying adul t in t imate
relationship s [9]. Th e test-retest reliability of that self-
report, the Intimate Bond Measure or IBM) was as-
sessed in the initial paper, with a non-clinical sa mp le
returning data on two occasions o ver a three-six w eek
interval, with reliability coefficients being very high
at 0.80 and 0.89. That measure was given to our
present cohort in 1983 and in 1988 and w e now report
the test-retest reliability over a five-year interval. It
must be kept in mind, however, that subjects would
not necessarily b e scorin g the sam e “intimate” o n both
occasions, so that we report consistency data for the
whole sam ple and for a sub-sample of those who were
married in 1988 and had rated the sam e “intimate” in
198 3 a fairer test of the mea sure’s reliability. On each
occasion, subjects w ere aske d to score characteristics
of the intimate “in recent times”, the IBM b eing more
a measure of state or current characteristics.
We also take the opportunity to report test-retest
reliability ov er the sa me extend ed period for a number
of other measures. We do that for several reasons.
Firstly, such reports are rare and, more importantly,
those data provide som e basis for comp arison against
the PBI and IBM. It is generally suggested that per-
sonality is constant and w e might therefore expect that
high test-retest reliability would be demonstrated for
personality measures a nd give a base quantitative es-
timate of reliability against which we cou ld jud ge PBI
data, in particular. Th at is, if personality is immutable,
then self-report measures of personality should show
a high level of cons tancy , being weaken ed o nly by
response biases and state effects eg depre ssion) which
are generally accepted to influence self-report scoring.
Thus, we would expect that if the PBI is a reliable
measure, reliability coefficients should be similar to
those returned on personality measures. The per-
sonality measures considered were the Eysenck Per-
sona l i ty Inven to ry neuro t i c i sm sca le [
101, the
Rosenberg self-esteem scale, [111 the dependency
scale from the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire
[
121, the Costello-Comrey trait depression scale
[
131
which was designed to me asure a “person’s tendency
to experience a depressive mood ”, and the Bem sex
role inventory
[
141 with masculinity, femininity and
social desirability sub-scales), the last being ad-
ministered in 1983 and 1988 only. Finally, we report
data on the Wilson-Lovibond state measure of depres-
sion [151 to again allow com parison against the “trait”
measures, anticipating that much lower levels of
agreeme nt should be demonstrated on a state measure
ove r time.
Results
Table 1 reports the mean data returned for the
several measures, and the level of constancy ove r time,
with three intervals 1978-1983, 198 3-1988, and
A u s t N Z J
P s y c h i a t r y D o w n l o a d e d f r o m i n f o r m a h e a l t h c
a r e . c o m b y U n i v e r s i t y N e w S o u t h W a l e s o n
1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3
F o r p e r s o n a
l u s e o n l y .
8/19/2019 Kay Wilhelm_Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and Intimate Bond Measure Scales
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kay-wilhelmreliability-of-the-parental-bonding-instrument-and-intimate-bond 4/5
KAY WILHELM AND GORDON PARKER
2 1
Table
I
Consistency in scores examined
over time
Mean score Consistenc y
coeff icients r)
1978 1983 1988
A A
with wi th wi th
A ) (6) C) c c
PBI
Aaternal care
26.3 26.2
26.3 0.72 0.82
0.6:
inaternal protection
14.8
13.8 13.8
0.74
0.76 0.61
’aternal care
21.9
21.7 21.4
0 80
0.82 0.7;
sternal protection
13.0
12.1 11.9 0.69
0.67 0 5
B M
ntimate care
wholegroup N/A* 30.6 29.5 N/A 0.50 N/A
ntimate control
wholegroup N/A 6.7 6.9 N/A 0.49 N/A
ntirnate ca re
sub-group ”
N/A 31.5 30.2 N/A 0.48 N/A
ntimate control
sub-group N/A 6.5 7.0 N/A 0.49 N/A
Personality
qeuroticism
9.0 8.7
8.7 0.54
0.68 0.5
Self-esteem’”* 1.6
1.0
0.9 0.43
0.61 0.4
lependency
52.6
52.8
53.7 0.64 0.64
0.5
rraitdepression
31.3
31.2 29.4 0.64 0.65 0.4
Sex ro le Inventor y
Masculinity
N/A
4.6 4.7 N/A
0.56 NII
Femininity N/A 4.7
4.8 N/A
0.62 N/I
Socialdesirability
N/A 5.2 5.3 N/A
0.57
N/I
Statedepression
57.0
55.2
55.3 0.25 0.23 0.1
N/A =
not assessed
’*
’** Higher scores indicate lower self-esteem
Those nominating the same intimate in 1983 and
1988 (N=96)
1978- 1988) being exam ined. Mean scale scores were
generally stable for most measu res apart from self-es-
teem, which showed a distinct improvement from
1978 to 1983 t = 4.80, P<O.OOI) and from 1978 to
1988 t = 5.82, P< 0.001 but
no
change from 1983 to
1988 t = 0.87,
ns).
In a similar, but less distinct
fash ion, depression scores decreased from 1978 to
1988, both
on
the trait t = 2.03, PcO.05) and state t =
2.21, P<0.05) measures.
Presumab ly because of the large samp le size for
mean scores were very similar), two significant dif-
ferences were established for the PBI and the IBM
measures. T hu s paternal protection scores dropped
from 1978 to 1988 t = 2.12, p<0.05) while IBM care
scores decreased fr om 1983 to 1988 t=2.86, p<0.05 .
Scores were generally more consistent in the interval
198 3-19 88, when the cohort had left university and
most were in full-time employ ment. The data for the
I-year interval 1978-198 8) show slightly less con-
sistency, presumably reflecting changes in attitudes
over the lengthier assessment period. The test-retest
consistency in PBI scores is extremely impressive for
all three test intervals. Thus, the mean correlation
coefficients were 0.74 1978-198 3), 0.77 1983-198 8)
and
0.65
197 8-19 88), contrasting with the four per-
sonality measures which returned m ean correlations of
0.56, 0.64 and 0.50 respectively. Additionally, the
correlation coefficients for the PBI were superior to
each individual personality test. Stability in IBM
scores both for the whole samp le and for the sub-
group scoring the same partner) was m oderate from
1983 to 1988 and clearly less stable than PBI scores,
as might be anticipated for a state measure. F inally, the
test-retest reliability of the state depression measure
was lo w, as anticipated.
Discussion
Th e sam ple allows a “best estimate”
of
reliability,
in that it involved a non-clinical group, comprising
volunteers who were prepared to take part in a
lon-
gitudinal study and who were, at each review period,
judg ed to be generous in givin g their time for extended
interviews and op en in their discussion with the inter-
viewers. Thus, we judge that sample members were
likely to have completed self-report measures con-
scientiously and as accurately a s possible. Additional-
ly, being a non-clinical sam ple, it is unlikely that mood
disturbance or related factors weakening reliability
estimates would have been over-represented in the
sample. T he data set therefore offers a “best estimate”
potential for any examination of reliability and i t
would be unlikely that non-volunteer or certain clini-
cal group s would return su ch high levels of agreeme nt.
Thus, we acknowledge the unique characteristics of
A u s t N Z J
P s y c h i a t r y D o w n l o a d e d f r o m i n f o r m a h e a l t h c
a r e . c o m b y U n i v e r s i t y N e w S o u t h W a l e s o n
1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3
F o r p e r s o n a
l u s e o n l y .
8/19/2019 Kay Wilhelm_Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and Intimate Bond Measure Scales
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kay-wilhelmreliability-of-the-parental-bonding-instrument-and-intimate-bond 5/5
202
RELIABILITY OF THE PBI AND IBM SCALES
the cohort but suggest that such a group is the ap-
propriate one for such an exam ination.
The test-retest reliability of the PB I is clearly im-
pressive, both intrinsically when the correlation coef-
ficients are examined and, seco ndly, in com parison to
the “personality” tests which we used a s our compara-
tive base. Jorm
[
161 consid ered the test-re test co nsis-
tency of trait anxiety/neuroticism measures, and
referenced work giving a correlation of 0.54 over the
four-six years and
0.40
over
30
years, with lower
levels for state measures of anxiety. Those data are
compatible with our neu roticism score data, and there-
fore supp ort the likely accu racy of the latter.
The test-retest data for the IBM are so mewhat less
impressive and, as we undertook a separate analysis
on
those in stable relationships with similar results,
findings cannot reflect a sub-sam ple scoring different
intimates over time. As the IBM is a measure of current
intimate relationships, some chang e in the perception
of the spouse or intimate would be anticipated over
time, particularly in such a sample of young adults.
While change in parenting over the years might also
be theoretically anticipated, the PBI, by contrast, is
designed deliberately to obtain an overall gestalt of the
parent or “product moment of innumerable experien-
ces” so that the instructions effectively force some
overall judgement in an attem pt to minimise variation
at different developmental stages.
Each of the “personality” measures returned similar
levels of consistency over time despite some of them
eg trait de pression) conceivably being more likely to
be influenced by mood state and therefore potentially
unstable over an extended period. The extent to which
they necessarily reflect intrinsic personality, however,
cannot be addressed by such a study design.
We conclude then that the PBI is a highly reliable
measure over an extended period, suppo rting its claim
to be accurate measure of perceived parenting, and so
useful in quantifying any parental risk to subsequent
psychiatric disorder in adulthood.
We thank our colleagues at the Mood Disorders Unit
for comments on this paper, the
NH MRC
and NSW
Institute of Psychiatry for funding the cohort study,
and Mrs Sandra Evans for typing of the m anuscript.
I .
Parker
G.
A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medi-
cal Psychology 1979;52:1-10.
2. Parker
G.
Parental overprotection: a risk factor in psychosocial
development. New York: Grune Stratton, 1983.
3. Plantes
MM
Prusoff BA, Brennan J, an d Parker G . Parental repre-
sentations of depressed outpatients from a U.S. sample. Journal of
Affective Disorders
1988;15:149-155.
4. Parker G, Fairley M , Greenwood J, Jurd
S,
and S ilove D. Parental
representations of schizophrenics and their association with
onset
and course of schizophrenia. British Journal
of
Psychiatry
1982;141573-581.
schizophrenic patients’ perceptions of their parents and the course
of their illness. British Journal of Psychiatry 1988; 153:344-35 3.
depressive mood over time: Effects of internalized childhood at-
tachments. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1987; 175:703 -
712.
7. Gotlib IH Mount JH Cordy NI and Whiffen V E. Depression and
perceptions of early parenting: A longitudinal investigation.
British Journal of Psychiatry 1988; 152:24-27 .
8. Wilhelm K and Parker G. Are sex differences in depression really
necessary? Psychological M edicine 1989;19:401-414..
9. Wilhelm
K
and Parker G. The dev elopmen t of a measure of in-
timate bonds. Psychological Medic ine 19 88;18:225-234.
10.Eysenck HJ and Eysenck SB. Manual of the Eysenck Personality
Inventory. Lond on: Hodder and Stoug hton, 1964.
11. Rosenberg M .
The
measurement of self-esteem. Society and the
adolescent self-image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1965.
12. Blatt SJ, D’Affliti JP and Quinlan DM. Depressive Experiences
Questionnaire. Unpublished report, Department of Psychology,
Yale University, 1975.
13.
Costello CG and Comrey AL. Scales
for
measurin g depression
and anxiety. Journal of Psychology 1 967;66:3 03-313.
14. Bern SL. Th e measurement
of
psychological androgyny. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1974;42 :155-162.
15. Wilson PH. Behavioural and pharmacological treatment of
depression. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of New South
Wales, 1979.
16. Jorm AF. M odifiability of trait anxiety and neuroticism: A meta-
analysis of the literature. Australian and
New
Zealand Journal
of
Psychiatry 1989;23:21-29.
5
Warner R, and Atkinson
M.
The relationship between
6 Richman, JA, and Flaherty JA. Adult psychosocial assets and
A u s t N Z J
P s y c h i a t r y D o w n l o a d e d f r o m i n f o r m a h e a l t h c
a r e . c o m b y U n i v e r s i t y N e w S o u t h W a l e s o n
1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3
F o r p e r s o n a
l u s e o n l y .