Parenting Stress Index-Short Form: Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version in Mothers of Children Aged 0 to 8 Years

Abstract

The Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) is one of the most commonly used measures of parenting stress both in clinical and research contexts. The PSI-SF is a 36-item, self-report measure with three subscales: Parental Distress (PD), Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction (PCDI), and Difficult Child (DC). The objective of this study was to analyse the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of PSI-SF. Two different samples (N = 309) of mothers with children under 8 years old participated in the study. The first sample comprised 203 mothers with difficulties managing their children’s behaviour. The second sample comprised 106 mothers from the general population. Factor structure of the PSI-SF, convergent validity, and differences between groups were analysed. The expected three-factor structure was confirmed for both samples. Findings suggested that the total PSI-SF scale and the three subscales had adequate internal consistency and convergent validity. Differences between both samples, and between age and economic subgroups in the first sample were tested. The Spanish version of the PSI-SF can be considered an adequate measure of parenting stress in mothers of children under 8 years old with difficulties to manage their children’s behaviour. Further studies with extended samples from the general population are needed.

Alternate abstract:

El Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) es uno de los instrumentos más utilizados para evaluar el estrés parental tanto en el contexto clínico como en el de investigación. El PSI-SF es un autoinforme de 36 ítems con tres subescalas: malestar parental (PD), interacción disfuncional padre/madre-hijo (PCDI) y niño difícil (DC). El objetivo del estudio fue analizar la estructura factorial y las propiedades psicométricas de la versión española del PSI-SF. Dos muestras diferentes (N = 309) de madres con hijos o hijas menores de 8 años participaron en el estudio: la primera muestra estuvo compuesta por 203 madres con dificultades para gestionar la conducta de sus hijos o hijas y la segunda por 106 madres de la población general. Se analizó la estructura factorial del PSI-SF, la validez convergente y la diferencia entre grupos de madres, confirmándose la estructura de tres factores para las dos muestras. Los resultados sugieren que la escala completa del PSI-SF y las 3 subescalas presentaban una adecuada consistencia interna y validez convergente. Se analizaron las diferencias en todas las puntuaciones del PSI-SF entre ambas muestras y entre subgrupos (edad y situación económica) de la primera muestra. La versión española del PSI-SF puede considerarse un instrumento adecuado para medir el estrés parental en madres con niños o niñas menores de 8 años con dificultades para manejar su comportamiento. Se necesitan estudios con muestras más representativas de la población general.

Introduction

Parenting stress is a complex process that can be subsumed within the general stress modef Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and understood as the aversive psychological reaction that occurs when caregivers feeverwhelmed and perceive that they lack the skills required to cope with their parental role (Abidin, 1995; Deater-Deckard, 1998). Parenting stress is conceptually distinct from other life stressors that a parent might experience (e.g., negative life events, financial problems), although they are frequently related (Holly et al., 2019).

Parenting stress has been found te associated with parenting processes across alevelopmental periods. Research suggests that parenting stress tends to show stability and tecrease over time as the chilecomes older, particularly when its initiaevels are not very high (Neece et al., 2012; Stone et al., 2016; Williford et al., 2007).

Research has also shown parenting stress as a normative process that can affect every parent. However, it may be more severe for parents of children with clinically significant emotional, behavioural, or health issues (Crnic et al., 2005; Deater-Deckard & Panneton, 2017; Holly et al., 2019), and particularly challenging for families where parenting demands converge with negative situational circumstances (e.g., low-income) or personaifficulties (e.g., parents mental health problems, children with subclinicaehaviour problems; Barroso et al., 2018; Menon et al., 2020). Higher levels of parenting stress have been found te associated tepression and psychologicaifficulties in parents (Schleider et al., 2015; Theule et al., 2010; Thomason et al., 2014), behaviour problems and self-regulation difficulties in children (Anthony et al., 2005; Mackler et al., 2015; Mäntymaa et al., 2012; Stone et al., 2016), and negative interactions between parents and children (Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013; Gerdes et al., 2007; Van Steijn et al., 2014). Finally, there is evidence that parents’ and children’s factors contribute to parenting stress in a complex transactional process. Both contribute to parenting stress and at the same time are affectey it, having consequences for the well-being of parents and children (Crnic & Rose, 2017).

Considering the negative effects of parenting stress, its reduction constitutes a common and relevant goaf preventive and rehabilitative parenting programmes (Chen & Chan, 2016; Reyno & McGrath, 2006; Van Steijn et al., 2014), so reliable and valid measures are necessary. One of the most commonly instruments used in both clinical and research contexts is the Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1983), a 120-item self-report measure. Given its length, an abbreviated 36-item version was developed – the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1983) – consisting of three subscales of twelve items each: Parentaistress (PD), Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction (PCDI), anifficult Child (DC). The Parentaistress (PD) subscale captures the levef distress resulting from personal factors such as depression or conflict with a partner anife restrictions due to a parent’s perception of his or her child-rearing competence. The Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction (PCDI) subscale assesses the extent to which a parent feels that his/her child is not meeting expectations and that interactions with the child are not reinforcing. The Difficult Child (DC) subscale measures a parent’s view of his/her child’s temperament, defiance, non-compliance, anemandingness. A total score of parenting stress is calculatey summing scores from the three subscales.

The Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) has been used to measure parenting stress in parents from clinical and high-risk populations (Barbot et al., 2014; Crum & Moreland, 2017; Mackler et al., 2015; Vallotton et al., 2016), and to measure treatment effectiveness (Battagliese et al., 2015; Reyno & McGrath, 2006). PSI-SF has been translated to and applied in different languages like Italian (Miragoli et al., 2018), Spanish (Pérez & Menéndez, 2014), Portuguese (Seabra-Santos et al., 2016), and Finnish (Mäntymaa et al., 2012).

Excluding the study carrieut by Abidin (1995), twenty studies have been found in Wef Science and PsycInfatabases analysing the psychometric properties of PSI-SF. Sixteen of those studies examined factor structure, yielding mixed findings. Confirmatory factor analyses in twf these studies found that the original three-factor modeffered an adequate fit (Çekiç & Hamamci, 2018; Lee et al., 2008). Three other studies considered the three-factor model as the best choice due to its clinical value although with suboptimal fit indices (Lee et al., 2016; Reitman et al., 2002; Touchèque et al., 2016). Another group of studies involving both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses concluded that the three-factor model was appropriate but removed some items (Dardas & Ahmad, 2014; Deater-Deckard & Scarr, 1996; Kang et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2019) or proposed two-factor (Haskett et al., 2006) or five-factor (McKelvey et al., 2009; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2007; Zaidman-Zait et al., 2011) models. Despite statistical analyses (confirmatory or exploratory factor analyses) and the amount of dimensions/factors proposed for the PSI-SF, all the studies reported moderate to high correlations between them, supporting the theoretical assumption that the relationship between PSI-SF’s dimensions can be considereblique.

Four studies have analysed factor structure or psychometric properties of the Spanish version of PSI-SF. Twf them used a sample of Spanish middle-class, married couples with infants ageetween ten and thirty-nine-month old. Their findings suggested twifferent models for fathers and for mothers: whereas the original three-factor solution fitted the data for fathers (Díaz-Herrero et al., 2011), a two-factor model – labelled Childrearing Stress (CS), and Personaistress (PD) – was proposed for mothers (Díaz-Herrero et al., 2010). A third study that administered PSI-SF’s two-factor model proposey Díaz-Herrero et al. (2010) to 109 Spanish at-risk mothers with one child ageelow 12 years obtained satisfactory internal consistency and adequate discriminant validity indexes (Pérez-Padilla et al., 2015). Finally, an exploratory factor analysis of a fourth study carrieut with a Chilean sample of 336 dyads consisting mostly of young, single mothers and their infants (age: M = 84.8 days, SD = 78 days) found that the PSI-SF shared the three-factor structure of the original, but proposed the elimination of two items (from the Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction and the Difficult Child subscales; Aracena et al., 2016).

As it has been seen, studies about the factor structure of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) have not yielded consistent results. Several hypotheses can be proposed. First, differences may be linked to sample characteristics. For example, studies conducted with particular populations as younger, less educated, and poorer mothers of younger children (Aracena et al., 2016) or parents of children with autism spectrum disorders diagnosis (Zaidman-Zait et al., 2011) can yielifferent findings related to PSI-SF dimensions. Second, despite the possible effect of sample characteristics, differences between studies may be alsinked to statistical analyses (e.g., confirmatory vs. exploratory factor analyses) used to explore PSI-SF dimensions.

Finally, studies analysing PSI-SF’s convergent validity have found significant relationships between PSI-SF’s total score and measures of family conflict, exposure to violence, anther negative life events; between the Parentaistress subscale and measures of depression or parental anxiety; anetween the Difficult Child subscale and measures of chilehaviour problems (Aracena et al., 2016; Barroso et al., 2016; Haskett et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2016; McKelvey et al., 2009; Pérez-Padilla et al., 2015; Reitman et al., 2002; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2007; Zaidman-Zait et al., 2011).

The aim of the present study was to analyse the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) with two groups of mothers with children aged 0 to 8 years old: mothers with significant problems to cope with their children’s behaviour and mothers from the general population. The factor structure of PSI-SF Spanish version along with data on internal consistency and convergent validity were analysed as well as differences between groups.

Method

Participants

Twifferent samples of mothers of children aged under 8 years old participated in the study (N = 309). The first sample (clinical sample) consistef 203 mothers with significant problems to cope with their children’s behaviour recruited from family support and treatment programmes provided from Child Protection Services of the region of Gipuzkoa (Spain). The second (community sample) was a convenience sample consisting of 106 mothers from the general population of Gipuzkoa who were recruited via six schools that agreed to participate.

Table 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics of Mothers and Children from the Clinical and Community Samples

Note. M = mean; SD = standareviation; df = degrees of freedom; χ² = chi-square; Φ = phi; V = Cramer’s V.

***p < .001.

As can be seen in Table 1, there were sample differences in sociodemographic characteristics. Compared to the community sample, mothers and children from the clinical sample were younger and included higher percentages of single-parent or separated/divorced families, mothers from other countries, with lower educationaevels, and economic problems.

Instruments

Parenting Stress Index/Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995). PSI-SF is a 36-item, self-report measure of parenting stress. It includes three subscales: Parentaistress (PD; e.g., “I feel trappey my responsibilities as a parent”, “I feeonely and without friends”), Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction (PCDI; e.g., “Sometimes I feel my chiloesn’t like me anoesn’t want te close to me”, “When I do things for my child I get the feeling that my efforts are not appreciated” ), anifficult Child (DC; e.g., “My child makes more demands on me than most children”, “My child gets upset easily over the smallest thing”). Each subscale consists of 12 items rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with subscales scores ranging from 12 to 60. A Total score is calculatey summing the three subscales scores, ranging from 36 to 180. Scores of 90 or above may indicate a clinicaevef stress. Abidin (1995) reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .91 for PSI-SF total score, and .87, .80, and .85 for PD, PCDI, anC subscales, respectively. Psychometric data obtained in the present study are presented in the Results section.

Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996). BDI-II is a 21-item, self-report measure of depressive symptomatology. This measure is appropriate for both psychiatric and normative populations. Responses are given using a four-point scale from 0 to 3 (0 = I do not feeike a failure, 1 = I have failed more than I should have, 2 = As I look back, I see a lot of failures, and 3 = I feel I am a total failure as a person), with scores ranging from 0 to 63 and higher scores indicating higher levels of depressive symptomatology. BDI-II has been shown to have adequate reliability (between .92 and .93 for internal consistency and r = .93 for test-retest reliability) as well as adequate construct validity (Beck et al., 1996). In the present study, internal consistency indices were satisfactory for both groups of mothers (Cronbach’s alphas of .87 for the clinical sample, and .77 for the community sample).

Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory (B-CAPI; Ondersma et al., 2005). B-CAPI is a self-report screening questionnaire composey 34 items extracted from the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP; Milner, 1986). Twenty-five items composed the Abuse scale that measures the risk of a parent to physically abuse their children (e.g., “I am often upset ano not know why”, “Sometimes I feeonely”), and two Validity scales: a three-item Random Response scale and a six-item Lie scale. Responses are in a binary scale (agree-disagree), so scores range between 0 to a maximum of 25 in the Abuse scale. Ondersma et al. (2005) indicated good internal consistency for the Abuse scale (KR20 = .89). In the present study, KR20 for the Abuse scale was computed for the clinical sample (.83) and for the community sample (.83). The 34 items used in this study were pulleut from the Spanish version of the CAP Inventory (De Paúl et al., 1999).

Eyberg Chilehaviour Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). ECBI is a parent-rating scale covering 36 common chilisruptive behaviours with two subscales. The Intensity subscale measures the frequency of a child’s problem behaviour (e.g., “Acts defiant when told to something”, “Refuses to go ten time”) on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 to 7 with a minimum score of 36 and a maximum of 252. The Problem subscale measures the extent to which a parent finds their child’s behaviour troublesome, which is raten a binary scale (0 = No, 1 = Yes) with a range score from 0 to 36. Eyberg and Pincus (1999) reported high internal consistency for both Intensity and Problem subscales (α = .95 and KR20 = .94, respectively). In the present study, both Intensity and Problem subscales showed high internal consistency for clinical (α = .91 and KR20 = .88) and community samples (α = .88 and KR20 = .89).

Procedure

The research design was approvey the Ethics Committee of the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (Spain). All participant mothers were informef study goals and gave informed consent. Mothers in the clinical sample were informey Child Protection Services caseworkers and completed the instruments at baseline and 6-months later in the presence of a trained clinical psychologist. Mothers in the community sample were informey their children’s schooirectors, collected the instruments from the school, completed them at home, and returned in a sealed envelope.

Data Analysis

Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.0, Mplus 7.11, and R Studio. Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine data characteristics. Multivariate normality was estimatey Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis tests (Mardia, 1970).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine PSI-SF factor structure

using weighteeast squares mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation method. This method is recommended in non-normally distributeata with severe floor or ceiling effects (Brown, 2015). When the WSLMV estimator is used, missing data are treated with pairwise deletion, which is acceptable when the amount of missing data is minimal (Kline, 2011). In the present study, less than 1% of responses per PSI-SF item in both samples were missing.

Multiple fit indices were examined: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values below .08 represent acceptable fit, comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) values between .90 and.95 represent reasonable model fit, and values above .95 represent excellent model fit (Brown, 2015).

Internal consistency was examiney computing Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, anmega hierarchical coefficients for the PSI-SF as a whole and for the three subscales. Cronbach’s alpha is less reliable in multidimensional measures and require equal factor loadings (Viladrich et al., 2017). Therefore, omega coefficients were also calculated using R Studio software.

Convergent validity was assessey computing Spearman correlations between the Parentaistress subscale of the PSI-SF, anoth the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory (B-CAPI) scores, anetween the Difficult Child subscale of the PSI-SF and the Eyberg Chilehaviour Inventory (ECBI) scores.

Measurement invariance (MI) between both samples anetween subgroups of the clinical sample, child age, gender, and economic difficulties was intended to test. However, it was no possible to calculate MI because groups did not contained the same number of categories per item. For informative purposes, MANOVAs were conducted to test PSI-SF differences between clinical and community samples, anetween subgroups in the clinical sample.

Differences between baseline and 6-months PSI-SF scores were analysed in the clinical sample with a repeated measures MANOVA.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Analyses of item distribution of PSI-SF indicated violations of univariate normality in some items for both samples (see Table 3). Additionally, Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis test was statistically significant (p < .01), suggesting a violation of multinormality in both samples.

PSI-SF Factor Structure and Reliability

Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Standardized Factor Loadings, Descriptive Statistics for Each Item, and Reliability Coefficients of PSI-SF for the Clinical and Community Samples

Note. S = skewness; K = kurtosis; SE = standardized errors; α = alpha; ω = omega; ωh = hierarchicamega; CI = confidence interval 95%.

*p < .05

Clinical sample. Three structural models of the PSI-SF were examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): the original three-factor model proposey Abidin (1995), the two-factor model proposey Díaz-Herrero et al. (2010), and a one-factor model using PSI-SF total score. Goodness-of-fit indices for the three models tested are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Model Fit Indexes for One, Two, and Three Factors of the PSI-SF for the Clinical and Community Samples

Note. χ² = chi-square goodness of fit statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index.

*p < .05

The three-factor model provided the best fit to the data with acceptable goodness of fit indices (RMSEA = .07, CFI = .91, TLI = .90). CFA items loadings, standardized errors, factor correlations, and reliability coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Items loadings and standard errors presented adequate estimates with loadings higher than .30 and standard errors between .03 and .09. Although two items loadings were lower to .30 (items 22 and 31) they were significant to their factors, so no further analyses were made.

As can be observed in Table 3, correlations between PSI-SF three factors rangeetween .53 and .70. Following Brown (2015), the three dimensions showed adequate discriminant validity and were not overlapping. Furthermore, all reliability coefficients were adequate for the three-factor model.

Community sample. CFA analysis conducted for the community sample obtained similar findings than those for the clinical sample (see Table 2). The three-factor model provided the best fit to the data (RMSEA = .06, CFI = .92, TLI = .92). Factor loadings of the three-factor model were all above .30 with adequate standard errors between .04 and .12. Adequate correlations between the three factors were obtained, with values ranging between .34 and .77. Moreover, reliability coefficients showed adequate values for the model (see Table 3).

PSI-SF Convergent Validity

Correlations between BDI-II (depressive symptomatology), B-CAPI (child abuse potential), and ECBI (chilehaviour problems), and PSI-SF Total and subscales scores were analysed in both samples (see Table 4). Total PSI-SF and Parentaistress subscale scores were strongly, positively correlated with BDI-II an-CAPI scores in both samples, indicating that mothers reporting more parentaistress also reported more depressive symptomatology and a higher risk for physical child abuse. Total PSI-SF anifficult Child subscale scores were also strongly positively correlated with ECBI scores in both samples, indicating that mothers who reported greater stress due to having a difficult child also reported more chilehaviour problems. In addition, Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction subscale scores, although with less strength, were also positively correlated with both BDI-II and ECBI scores in both samples.

Table 4 Spearman Correlations between PSI-SF Total and Subscales Scores, and Mother Depressive Symptomatology (BDI-II), Child Abuse Potential (B-CAPI) and Chilehaviour Problems (ECBI) Scores

Note. S = skewness; K = kurtosis; SE = standardized errors; α = alpha; ω = omega; ωh = hierarchicamega; CI = confidence interval 95%.

*p < .05.

PSI-SF Differences between Baseline and 6-Month Measures

The repeated-measures MANOVA (see Table 5) revealed statistically significant differences between baseline and 6-month scores for the total PSI-SF and the Parentaistress, Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction, anifficult Child subscales in the clinical sample of mothers (Wilks’ lambda = .68, F(3, 138) = 21.65, p < .0001). As expected, 6-month scores (after receiving support or treatment services) were lower than baseline scores.

Table 5 Comparisons of PSI-SF Total and Subscales Scores between (1) Clinical and Community Samples, (2) Baseline and 6-month Measures in the Clinical Sample, (3) Children’s age in the Clinical Sample, and (4) Economic Difficulties in the Family in the Clinical Sample

Note. PSI-SF = Parental Stress Index-Short Form Total; PD = Parentaistress subscale; PCDI = Parent-chilysfunctional Interaction subscale; DC = Difficult Child subscale;d = Cohen’s d effect size.

***p < .001.

Comparison between Clinical and Community samples

Statistically significant differences between the PSI-SF scores of both samples were found (Table 5). Mothers of the clinical sample obtained higher scores on the total PSI-SF, Parentaistress subscale, Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction subscale, anifficult Child subscale scores (Wilks’ lambda = .79, F(3, 306) = 26.99, p < .0001) than mothers from the community sample, suggesting that mothers with significant difficulties managing their children’s behaviour felt more stress associated to their parenting role than mothers from the general population.

PSI-SF and Sociodemographic Variables

Differences in the PSI-SF scores basen sociodemographic characteristics (see Table 1) were assessed in both samples using two MANOVAs. Significant differences for child’s age (Wilks’ lambda = .87, F(3, 398) = 4.64, p < .0001) and economic difficulties (Wilks’ lambda = .89, F(3, 164) = 6.45, p < .0001) were observenly in the clinical sample.

Differences between mothers with children of different ages were statistically significant for the total PSI-SF, Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction subscale, anifficult Child subscale scores, but not for the Parentaistress subscale score (Table 5). Mothers of children between 0-3 years old reporteower scores than mothers of children between 4-6 and 7-8 years old. Nifferences between mothers with children 4-6 years old and mothers with children 7-8 years old were observed.

Mothers who reported economic difficulties also reported significantly higher scores on Parentaistress anifficult Child subscales than mothers no reporting economic difficulties. No statistically significant differences were observeetween both groups on Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction subscale and Total PSI-SF scores.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to analyse factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) with twifferent samples of mothers with children under 8 years old.

The results showed that the original PSI-SF three-factor model was the most appropriate for mothers with significant difficulties managing their children’s behaviour as well as for mothers from the general population. Adequate internal consistency was found for the PSI-SF total score, and for the Parentaistress (PD), Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction (PCDI), anifficult Child (DC) subscales. Further, correlations between the three subscales showed significant values but lesser than .80, supporting their discriminant validity (Brown, 2015). Convergent validity with measures of depressive symptomatology, child abuse potential, and chilehaviour problems also supported the PSI-SF three-factor model for both samples. In line with previous studies, the Parentaistress (PD) subscale was highly associated to mothers’ depressive symptomatology, whereas the Difficult Child (DC) subscale showed a stronger association with mothers’ reports of chilehaviour problems (Barroso et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2016; Reitman et al., 2002).

Findings of our clinical sample were consistent with previous studies conducted with mothers of children ageetween 0 to 12 years olf similar sociodemographic characteristics (low socioeconomic status), that concluded that PSI-SF three-factor model was the most adequate (Aracena et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2016; Reitman et al., 2002). Conversely, findings of our sample of mothers from the general population differed from those obtainey Díaz-Herrero et al. (2010), which supported a two-factor model. Differences between both studies can be related to sample characteristics—whereas the study by Díaz-Herrero et al. (2010) was conducted with mothers of children under 3 years old, the present study was conducted with mothers of children between 4 and 8 years old. Both used convenience samples, so additional studies with broader and representative samples are necessary for a better understanding of the psychometric characteristics of the PSI-SF Spanish version with mothers from the general population.

Taken together, our findings suggested that the Spanish version of the PSI-SF with three factors is appropriate to measure parenting stress in mothers having difficulties to manage their children’s behaviour, and is also useful tetect changes following interventions designed to improve parenting skills. Also, the assessment of the three dimensions of parenting stress coule used to focus treatment strategies and for clinicaecision-making.

The present study has some limitations that shoule taken into account. First, small samples sizes did not allow testing invariance across samples and subgroups. Larger samples of mothers are necessary in order to confirm the influence of children’s age and economic difficulties on parenting stress. Second, we only collecteata from mothers, anifferences in parenting stress between mothers and fathers can exist. The two studies that explored this issue yielded mixed results: whereas Deater-Deckard and Scarr (1996) did not found significant differences in PSI-SF scores, Delvecchio et al. (2015) found mothers reporting higher levels of parenting stress than fathers. These studies, however, did not test for measurement invariance (MI) across groups, a recommended analysis to test that the factor structure of an instrument is equivalent across groups and that is not conditioney sample characteristics (for more information, see Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). Thus, further studies confirming the equivalence of PSI-SF factor structure across mothers and fathers are needed. This equivalence is requireefore conducting comparison analyses between groups. Only one study (Luo et al., 2019) analysed the factor structure of the PSI-SF and examined the measurement invariance (MI) across mothers and fathers in a community sample from China. They found that fathers reported significantly higher scores than mothers only in the Parent-Chilysfunctional Interaction subscale (PCDI). However, the PSI-SF version of Luo et al. (2019) only included 15 items, so their findings cannot be generalized to the 36-item original version of the PSI-SF.

Basen our findings and the findings of previous studies with Spanish samples, it can be concluded that the Spanish version of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) is useful to measure parenting stress with mothers with children under 8 years old. Further analyses with larger samples and including mothers and fathers are necessary to compare PSI-SF validity for the general population.

Cite this article as: Rivas, G. R., Arruabarrena, I., & de Paúl, J. (2020). Parenting stress index-short form: psychometric properties of the spanish version in mothers of children aged 0 to 8 years. Psychosocial Intervention, 30(1), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.5093/a2020a14

Financing: This research was supportey a grant from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) of Spain (PSI2013-46272-P) any a grant from the University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU) (PIF2016/188).

References

Abidin, R. R. (1983). The Parenting Stress Index. Pediatric Psychology Press.

Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index: Professional manual (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

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

Aracena, M., Gómez, E., Undurraga, C., Leiva, L., Marinkovic, K., & Molina, Y. (2016). Validity and reliability of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) applied to a Chilean sample. Journaf Child and Family Studies, 25(12), 3554-3564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0520-8

Barbot, B., Crossman, E., Hunter, S. R., Grigorenko, E. L., & Luthar, S. S. (2014). Reciprocal influences between maternal parenting and child adjustment in a high-risk population: A 5-year cross-lagged analysis of bidirectional effects. American Journaf Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 567-580. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000012

Barroso, N. E., Hungerford, G. M., Garcia, D., Graziano, P. A., & Bagner, D. M. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) in a high-risk sample of mothers and their infants. Psychological Assessment, 28(10), 1331-1335. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000257

Barroso, N. E., Mendez, L., Graziano, P. A., & Bagner, D. M. (2018). Parenting stress through the lens of different clinical groups: A systematic review & meta-analysis. Journaf Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 449-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0313-6

Battagliese, G., Caccetta, M., Luppino, O. I., Baglioni, C., Cardi, V., Mancini, F., & Buonanno, C. (2015). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for externalizing disorders: A meta-analysis of treatment effectiveness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 75, 60-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.10.008

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory- II. Psychological Corporation.

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Çekiç, A., & Hamamci, Z. (2018). Adaptation of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form into Turkish: A study of validity and reliability. Anatolian Journaf Psychiatry, 19(1), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.263093

Chen, M., & Chan, K. L. (2016). Effects of parenting programs on child maltreatment prevention: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 17(1), 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014566718

Crnic, K., Gaze, C., & Hoffman, C. (2005). Cumulative parenting stress across the preschool period: Relation to maternal parentig and chilehaviour at age 5. Infant and Chilevelopment, 14, 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd

Crnic, K., & Rose, E. (2017). Parenting stress and parental efficacy. In K. Deater-Deckard & R. Panneton (Eds.), Parental stress and early chilevelopment: Adaptive and maladaptive outcomes (pp. 263-284). Springer International Publishing.

Crum, K. I., & Moreland, A. D. (2017). Parental stress and children’s social anehaviorautcomes: The role of abuse potentiaver time. Journaf Child and Family Studies, 26(11), 3067-3078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0822-5

Dardas, L. A., & Ahmad, M. M. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Parenting Stress Index with parents of children with autistic disorder. Journaf Intellectuaisability Research, 58(6), 560-571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12053

De Paúl, J., Arruabarrena, I., Múgica, P., & Milner, J. (1999). Validation of the Spanish version of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory. Estudios de Psicologia, 20(63-64), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1174/02109399960256766

Deater-Deckard, K. (1998). Parenting stress and child adjustment: Some old hypotheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5(3), 314-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.1998.tb00152.x

Deater-Deckard, K., & Panneton, R. (2017). Unearthing the developmental and intergenerationaynamics of stress in parent and child functioning. In K. Deater-Deckard & R. Panneton (Eds.), Parental stress and early chilevelopment: Adaptive and maladaptive outcomes (pp. 1-11). Springer International Publishing.

Deater-Deckard, K., & Scarr, S. (1996). Parenting stress among dual-earner mothers and fathers: Are there gender differences?; Journaf Family Psychology, 10(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.1.45

Delvecchio, E., Sciandra, A., Finos, L., Mazzeschi, C., & Di Riso, D. (2015). The role of co-parenting alliance as a mediator between trait anxiety, family system maladjustment, and parenting stress in a sample of non-clinical Italian parents. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01177

Díaz-Herrero, Á., de la Nuez, A. G. B., Pina, J. A. L., Pérez-López, J., & Martínez-Fuentes, M. T. (2010). Estructura factorial y consistencia interna de la versión española del Parenting Stress Index-Short Form. Psicothema, 22(4), 1033-1038.

Díaz-Herrero, Á., López-Pina, J. A., Pérez-López, J., de la Nuez, A. G. B., & Martínez-Fuentes, M. T. (2011). Validity of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form in a sample of Spanish fathers. The Spanish Journaf Psychology, 14(2), 990-997. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.44

Dubois-Comtois, K., Moss, E., Cyr, C., & Pascuzzo, K. (2013). Behavior problems in middle childhood: The predictive role of maternaistress, child attachment, and mother-child interactions. Journaf Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(8), 1311-1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9764-6

Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Chilehavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Gerdes, A. C., Hoza, B., Arnold, L. E., Pelham, W. E., Swanson, J. M., Wigal, T., & Jensen, P. S. (2007). Maternaepressive symptomatology and parenting behavior: Exploration of possible mediators. Journaf Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(5), 705-714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9134-3

Haskett, M. E., Ahern, L. S., Ward, C. S., & Allaire, J. C. (2006). Factor structure and validity of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form. Journaf Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_14

Holly, L. E., Fenley, A. R., Kritikos, T. K., Merson, R. A., Abidin, R. R., & Langer, D. A. (2019). Evidence-based update for parenting stress measures in clinical samples. Journaf Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 48(5), 685-705. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2019.1639515

Kang, S.-K., Choi, H.-J., & Mi-Ra, C. (2017). A study of validity on the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form(PSI-SF) for grandmothers of infants and toddlers. The Journaf Future Early Childhood Education, 24(2), 101-125. https://doi.org/10.22155/JFECE.24.2.101.125

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer.

Lee, K. S., Chung, K. M., Park, J. A., & Kim, H. J. (2008). Reliability and validity study for the Korean version of Parenting Stress Index-Short Form(K-PSI-SF). The Korean Journaf Woman Psychology, 13(3), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.18205/kpa.2008.13.3.007

Lee, S. J., Gopalan, G., & Harrington, D.. (2016). Validation of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form with minority caregivers. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(4), 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514554854

Leitão, S., Pimentel, M., Almeida, M., & Moura-Ramos, M. (2016). Incredible Years parent training: What changes, for whom, how, for how long?; Journaf Applieevelopmental Psychology, 44, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.04.004

Luo, J., Wang, M.-C., Gao, Y., Zeng, H., Yang, W., Chen, W., Shouying, Z. S., & Qi, S. (2019). Refining the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) in Chinese parents. Assessment, (81), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119847757

Mackler, J. S., Kelleher, R. T., Shanahan, L., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., & O’Brien, M. (2015). Parenting stress, parental reactions, and externalizing behavior from ages 4 to 10. Journaf Marriage and Family, 77(2), 388-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12163

Mäntymaa, M., Puura, K., Luoma, I., Latva, R., Salmelin, R. K., & Tamminen, T. (2012). Predicting internalizing and externalizing problems at five years by child and parental factors in infancy and toddlerhood. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43(2), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-011-0255-0

Mardia, K. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519-530.

McKelvey, L. M., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Faldowski, R. A., Shears, J., Ayoub, C., & Hart, A. D. (2009). Validity of the Short Form of the Parenting Stress Index for fathers of toddlers. Journaf Child and Family Studies, 18(1), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9211-4

Menon, M., Fauth, R. C., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (2020). Exploring trajectories of young mothers’ parenting stress in early childhood: Associations with protective factors and psychological vulnerabilities. Parenting, 00(00), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2020.1715683

Milner, J. S. (1986). The Child Abuse Potential Inventory: Manual (2nd ed.). Psytec.

Miragoli, S., Balzarotti, S., Camisasca, E., & Di Blasio, P. (2018). Parents’ perception of chilehavior, parenting stress, and child abuse potential: Individual and partner influences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 84(1), 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.034

Neece, C. L., Green, S. A., & Baker, B. L. (2012). Parenting stress and chilehavior problems: A transactional relationship across time. American Journan Intellectual anevelopmentaisabilities, 117(1), 48-66. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.48

Ondersma, S. J., Chaffin, M., Simpson, S., & LeBreton, J. (2005). The Brief Child Abuse Potential inventory: Development and validation. Journaf Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 301-311.

Pérez, J., & Menéndez, S. (2014). Un análisis tipológicel estrés parental en familias en riesgo psicosocial. Salud Mental, 37(1), 27-34.

Pérez-Padilla, J., Menéndez, S., & Lozano, O. (2015). Validity of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form in a Sample of At-Risk Mothers. Evaluation Review, 39(4), 428-446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X15600859

Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., & Stickle, T. R. (2002). A critical evaluation of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) in a head start population. Journaf Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31(3), 384-392. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3103_10

Reyno, S. M., & McGrath, P. J. (2006). Predictors of parent training efficacy for child externalizing behavior problems – a meta-analytic review. Journaf Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01544.x

Schleider, J. L., Patel, A., Krumholz, L., Chorpita, B. F., & Weisz, J. R. (2015). Relation between parent symptomatology and youth problems: multiple mediation through family income and parent-youth stress. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0446-6

Seabra-Santos, M. J., Gaspar, M. F., Azevedo, A. F., Homem, T. C., Guerra, J., Martins, V., Leitao, S., Pimentel, M., Almeida, M., & Moura-Ramos, M. (2016). Incredible Years parent training: What changes, for whom, how, for how long?; Journaf Applieevelopmental Psychology, 44, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.04.004

Stone, L. L., Mares, S. H. W., Otten, R., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2016). The co-development of parenting stress and childhood internalizing and externalizing problems. Journaf Psychopathology anehavioral Assessment, 38(1), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9500-3

Theule, J., Wiener, J., Tannock, R., & Jenkins, J. M. (2010). Parenting stress in families of children with ADHD. A meta-analysis. Journaf Emotional anehavioraisorders, 20(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426610387433

Thomason, E., Volling, B. L., Flynn, H. A., McDonough, S. C., Marcus, S. M., Lopez, J. F., & Vazquez, D. M. (2014). Parenting stress anepressive symptoms in postpartum mothers: Bidirectionar unidirectional effects?; Infant Behavior anevelopment, 37(3), 406-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.05.009

Touchèque, M., Etienne, A.-M., Stassart, C., & Catale, C. (2016). Validation of the French version of The Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (fourth edition). Journaf Community Psychology, 44(4), 419-425. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21778

Vallotton, C., Harewood, T., Froyen, L., Brophy-Herb, H., & Ayoub, C. (2016). Chilehavior problems: Mothers’ and fathers’ mental health matters today and tomorrow. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.006

Van Steijn, D. J., Oerlemans, A. M., Van Aken, M. A. G., Buitelaar, J. K., & Rommelse, N. N. J. (2014). The reciprocal relationship of ASD, ADHD, depressive symptoms and stress in parents of children with ASD and/or ADHD. Journaf Autism anevelopmentaisorders, 44(5), 1064-1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1958-9

Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha anmega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401

Whiteside-Mansell, L., Ayoub, C., McKelvey, L., Faldowski, R. A., Hart, A., & Shears, J. (2007). Parenting stress of low-income parents of toddlers and preschoolers: Psychometric properties of a Short Form of the Parenting Stress Index. Parenting, 7(1), 27-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190709336775

Williford, A. P., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2007). Predicting change in parenting stress across early childhood: Child and maternal factors. Journaf Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9082-3

Zaidman-Zait, A., Mirenda, P., Zumbo, B. D., Georgiades, S., Szatmari, P., Bryson, S., Fombonne, E., Roberts, W., Smith, I., Vaillancourt, T., Volden, J., Waddell, C., Zwaigenbaum, L., Duku, E., & Thompson, A. (2011). Factor analysis of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form with parents of young children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Research, 4(5), 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.213