Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis

Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis

Bibliographic Details
Format: Restricted Document
_version_ 1860797087353929728
building INTELEK Repository
collection Online Access
collectionurl https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072
date 2014-10-28 15:02:06
format Restricted Document
id 11322
institution UniSZA
internalnotes 1. Parker G, Tupling H, Brown L. A parental bonding instrument. Brit J MedPsychol. 1979;52(1):1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x. 2. Uji M, Tanaka N, Shono M, Kitamura T. Factorial structure of the parental bonding instrument (PBI) in Japan: A study of cultural, developmental, and gender inuences. Child Psychiat Hum D. 2006;37(2):115–132. doi: 10.1007/s10578-006-0027-4. 3. Safford SM, Alloy LB, Pieracci A. A comparison of two measures of parental behavior. J Child Fam Stud. 2007;16(3):375–384. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-90 92-3. 4. Wilhelm KAY, Niven H, Parker G, Hadzi-Pavlovic D. The stability of the Parental Bonding Instrument over a 20-year period. Psychol Med. 2005;35(3):387–393. doi: 10.1017/S0033291704003538 5. Parker G. The Parental Bonding Instrument - A decade of research. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 1990;25:281–282. doi: 10.1007/BF00782881. 6. Canetti L, Kanyas K, Lerer B, Latzer Y, Bachar E. Anorexia nervosa and parental bonding: the contribution of parent–grandparent relationships to eating disorder psychopathology. J Clin Psychol. 2008;64(6):703–716. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20482. 7. Enns MW, Cox BJ, Clara I. Parental bonding and adult psychopathology: results from the US National Comorbidity Survey. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):997–1008. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702005937. 8. Qadir F, Stewart R, Khan M, Prince M. The validity of the Parental Bonding Instrument as a measure of maternal bonding among young Pakistani women. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 2005;40(4):276–282. doi: 10.1007/s00127-005-0887-0. 9. Suzuki H, Kitamura T. The Parental Bonding Instrument: A Four-Factor Structure Model in a Japanese College Sample. Open Fam Stud J. 2011;4:89–94. doi: 10.2174/1874922401104010089. 10. Liu J, Li L, Fang F. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Parental Bonding Instrument. Int J Nurs Studies. 2011;48(5):582–589. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.008. 11. Gamsa A. A note on a modication of the Parental Bonding Instrument. British J Med Psychol. 1987;60(3):291–294. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1987.tb02745.x. 12. Kitamura T, Suzuki T. A validation study of the Parental Bonding Instrument in a Japanese population. Psych Clinical Neurosci. 1993;47(1): 29–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.1993.tb02026.x. 13. Chambers JA, Power KG, Loucks N, Swanson V. Psychometric properties of the Parental Bonding Instrument and its association with psychological distress in a group of incarcerated young offenders in Scotland. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 2000;35(7): 318–325. doi: 10.1007/s001270050245. 14. Cox B, Enns M, Clara I. The Parental Bonding Instrument: confirmatory evidence for a three-factor model in a psychiatric clinical sample and in the National Comorbidity Survey. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 2000;35(8):353–357. doi: 10.1007/s001270050250. 15. Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB. Parental Bonding Instrument. Australia (AU): Black Dog Institute; [year of publication unknown]. 16. Field A. Exploring factor analysis. In: Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. California(US): SAGE Publications Inc.; 2013. p. 665–719. 17. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Evaluat. 2005;10(7):1–9. 18. Cortina JM. What is coefcient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98. 19. Ledesma RD, Valero-Mora P. Determining the Number of Factors to Retain in EFA: an easy-to-use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis. Prac Assessment, Res Evaluat. 2007;12(2):1–11. 20. Lee SH. Constructing effective questionnaires. In Pershing JA, editor. Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practice and Potential. 3rd ed. San Francisco (US): Pfeiffer; 2006. p. 60–79. 21. Johnson JM, Bristow DN, Schneider KC. Did you not understand the question or not? An investigation of negatively worded questions in survey research. J Appl Bus Res. 2004;20(1):75–86. 22. Colosi R. Negatively worded questions cause respondent confusion. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. Minneapolis (US): American Statistical Association; 2005. p. 2896–2903.
originalfilename 5539-01-FH02-FPSK-14-01576.jpg
person UniSZA
Unisza
unisza
recordtype oai_dc
resourceurl https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=11322
spelling 11322 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=11322 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072 Restricted Document Article Journal UniSZA Unisza unisza image/jpeg inches 96 96 10 10 1406 783 2014-10-28 15:02:06 1406x783 5539-01-FH02-FPSK-14-01576.jpg UniSZA Private Access Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences Parenting behaviour is culturally sensitive. The aims of this study were (1) to translate the Parental Bonding Instrument into Malay (PBI-M) and (2) to determine its factorial structure and validity among the Malaysian population. The PBI-M was generated from a standard translation process and comprehension testing. The validation study of the PBI-M was administered to 248 college students aged 18 to 22 years. Participants in the comprehension testing had difficulty understanding negative items. Five translated double negative items were replaced with five positive items with similar meanings. Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor model for the PBI-M with acceptable reliability. Four negative items (items 3, 4, 8, and 16) and item 19 were omitted from the final PBI-M list because of incorrect placement or low factor loading (< 0.32). Out of the final 20 items of the PBI-M, there were 10 items for the care factor, five items for the autonomy factor and five items for the overprotection factor. All the items loaded positively on their respective factors. The Malaysian population favoured positive items in answering questions. The PBI-M confirmed the three-factor model that consisted of care, autonomy and overprotection. The PBI-M is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the Malaysian parenting style. Confirmatory factor analysis may further support this finding. 21 5 51-59 1. Parker G, Tupling H, Brown L. A parental bonding instrument. Brit J MedPsychol. 1979;52(1):1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x. 2. Uji M, Tanaka N, Shono M, Kitamura T. Factorial structure of the parental bonding instrument (PBI) in Japan: A study of cultural, developmental, and gender inuences. Child Psychiat Hum D. 2006;37(2):115–132. doi: 10.1007/s10578-006-0027-4. 3. Safford SM, Alloy LB, Pieracci A. A comparison of two measures of parental behavior. J Child Fam Stud. 2007;16(3):375–384. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-90 92-3. 4. Wilhelm KAY, Niven H, Parker G, Hadzi-Pavlovic D. The stability of the Parental Bonding Instrument over a 20-year period. Psychol Med. 2005;35(3):387–393. doi: 10.1017/S0033291704003538 5. Parker G. The Parental Bonding Instrument - A decade of research. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 1990;25:281–282. doi: 10.1007/BF00782881. 6. Canetti L, Kanyas K, Lerer B, Latzer Y, Bachar E. Anorexia nervosa and parental bonding: the contribution of parent–grandparent relationships to eating disorder psychopathology. J Clin Psychol. 2008;64(6):703–716. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20482. 7. Enns MW, Cox BJ, Clara I. Parental bonding and adult psychopathology: results from the US National Comorbidity Survey. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):997–1008. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702005937. 8. Qadir F, Stewart R, Khan M, Prince M. The validity of the Parental Bonding Instrument as a measure of maternal bonding among young Pakistani women. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 2005;40(4):276–282. doi: 10.1007/s00127-005-0887-0. 9. Suzuki H, Kitamura T. The Parental Bonding Instrument: A Four-Factor Structure Model in a Japanese College Sample. Open Fam Stud J. 2011;4:89–94. doi: 10.2174/1874922401104010089. 10. Liu J, Li L, Fang F. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Parental Bonding Instrument. Int J Nurs Studies. 2011;48(5):582–589. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.008. 11. Gamsa A. A note on a modication of the Parental Bonding Instrument. British J Med Psychol. 1987;60(3):291–294. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1987.tb02745.x. 12. Kitamura T, Suzuki T. A validation study of the Parental Bonding Instrument in a Japanese population. Psych Clinical Neurosci. 1993;47(1): 29–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.1993.tb02026.x. 13. Chambers JA, Power KG, Loucks N, Swanson V. Psychometric properties of the Parental Bonding Instrument and its association with psychological distress in a group of incarcerated young offenders in Scotland. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 2000;35(7): 318–325. doi: 10.1007/s001270050245. 14. Cox B, Enns M, Clara I. The Parental Bonding Instrument: confirmatory evidence for a three-factor model in a psychiatric clinical sample and in the National Comorbidity Survey. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 2000;35(8):353–357. doi: 10.1007/s001270050250. 15. Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB. Parental Bonding Instrument. Australia (AU): Black Dog Institute; [year of publication unknown]. 16. Field A. Exploring factor analysis. In: Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. California(US): SAGE Publications Inc.; 2013. p. 665–719. 17. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Evaluat. 2005;10(7):1–9. 18. Cortina JM. What is coefcient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98. 19. Ledesma RD, Valero-Mora P. Determining the Number of Factors to Retain in EFA: an easy-to-use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis. Prac Assessment, Res Evaluat. 2007;12(2):1–11. 20. Lee SH. Constructing effective questionnaires. In Pershing JA, editor. Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practice and Potential. 3rd ed. San Francisco (US): Pfeiffer; 2006. p. 60–79. 21. Johnson JM, Bristow DN, Schneider KC. Did you not understand the question or not? An investigation of negatively worded questions in survey research. J Appl Bus Res. 2004;20(1):75–86. 22. Colosi R. Negatively worded questions cause respondent confusion. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. Minneapolis (US): American Statistical Association; 2005. p. 2896–2903.
spellingShingle Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis
summary Parenting behaviour is culturally sensitive. The aims of this study were (1) to translate the Parental Bonding Instrument into Malay (PBI-M) and (2) to determine its factorial structure and validity among the Malaysian population. The PBI-M was generated from a standard translation process and comprehension testing. The validation study of the PBI-M was administered to 248 college students aged 18 to 22 years. Participants in the comprehension testing had difficulty understanding negative items. Five translated double negative items were replaced with five positive items with similar meanings. Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor model for the PBI-M with acceptable reliability. Four negative items (items 3, 4, 8, and 16) and item 19 were omitted from the final PBI-M list because of incorrect placement or low factor loading (< 0.32). Out of the final 20 items of the PBI-M, there were 10 items for the care factor, five items for the autonomy factor and five items for the overprotection factor. All the items loaded positively on their respective factors. The Malaysian population favoured positive items in answering questions. The PBI-M confirmed the three-factor model that consisted of care, autonomy and overprotection. The PBI-M is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the Malaysian parenting style. Confirmatory factor analysis may further support this finding.
title Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis
title_full Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis
title_fullStr Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis
title_full_unstemmed Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis
title_short Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis
title_sort validation of the malay version of the parental bonding instrument among malaysian youths using exploratory factor analysis

Similar Items