SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2011, 39(9), 1193-1208

© Society for Personality Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.9.1193

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A SHORT VERSION OF

THE PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

HUSSAIN ALKHARUSI, SAID ALDHAFRI, ALI KAZEM, ABDULQAWI ALZUBIADI,

AND MUNA AL-BAHRANI
Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

A short version of Buri’s (1991) 30-item Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), a widely
used measure of Baumrind’s (1971) model of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive
parenting styles, has been developed in this study. The participants were 3,025 middle and
high school students from Oman. The sample was randomly divided into 2 subsamples. The
first sample (N = 1,504) was used for the development of the short version, and the second
sample (N = 1,521) served as the validation sample. The results indicate that a reduced
20-item PAQ fit the data better than the 30-item PAQ. The short version evidenced adequate
validity and internal consistency. It was discussed and confirmed that the short version of the
PAQ utilizes Baumrind’s model of parenting styles as well as the original long version of the
PAQ, and functions appropriately. This result is consistent with previous research.

Keywords: parenting styles, Parental Authority Questionnaire, validity, reliability, scale

development, adolescents.

The construct of parenting style is used to describe parents’ practices in

socializing their children (Baumrind, 1991). It is a complex social process
that characterizes the lifespan development of individuals (Lerner, 1984). It
encompasses two dimensions of parenting: parental responsiveness and parental
demandingness (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Parental responsiveness refers to
“the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation,

Hussain Alkharusi, Said Aldhafri, Ali Kazem, Abdulqawi Alzubiadi, and Muna Al-Bahrani,
Department of Psychology, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman.
Appreciation is due to reviewers including: Nicolette Vanessa Roman, University of the Western
Cape, Bellville, South Africa, Email: nroman@uwc.ac.za
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Hussain Alkharusi, Department of Psychology,
College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 32, Al-Khod PC 123, Muscat, Sultanate
of Oman. Email: hussein5@squ.edu.om

1193
1194 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s

special needs and demands” (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Parental demandingness
refers to “the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the
family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and
willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (Baumrind, 1991, pp. 61-62).
Baumrind (1971) identified three major parenting styles, reflecting distinct
patterns of responsiveness and demandingness: authoritative, authoritarian,
and permissive. Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive.
Authoritarian parents are highly demanding, but not responsive. Permissive
parents are more responsive than demanding.
These parenting styles have been associated with differences in adolescents’
behaviors and problems. In general, adolescents with authoritative parents tend to
display more social competence and fewer psychological and behavioral problems
than those of authoritarian or permissive parents. Specifically, it has been found
that adolescents with authoritative parents tend to achieve higher grades, be more
self-reliant, less anxious, less likely to engage in delinquent behaviors, and more
likely to adopt positive coping strategies than are adolescents with parents using
other rearing styles. Also, the authoritarian parenting style has been linked to low
academic achievement, the emergence of problems related to alcohol abuse, and
high levels of frustration and criminal behavior (Assadi et al., 2007; Baumrind,
1991; Durbin, Darling, Steinberg, & Brown, 1993; Dwairy et al., 2006; Dwairy &
Menshar, 2006; Lamborn, Mants, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Nguyen, 2008;
Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996).
In an attempt to assess and quantify Baumrind’s (1971) model of parenting
styles, Buri (1991) developed the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) to
measure the three parenting styles from an adolescent’s perspective. It comprises
10 items for each parenting style and includes identical questionnaires for
the mother and for the father. Buri (1991) reported good internal consistency
coefficients ranging between .74 and .87 and two-week test-retest reliability
coefficients ranging between .77 and .92, and presented evidence of construct
and criterion-related validity.
Since its inception, interest in utilizing the PAQ to understand parenting styles
and their correlates in various societies, such as Arab countries (e.g., Dwairy et al.,
2006), East Asian countries (e.g., Chao & Tseng, 2002), Iran (e.g., Assadi et al.,
2007), USA (e.g., Collins & Steinberg, 2006), and Vietnam (e.g., Nguyen, 2008)
has increased. Despite extensive worldwide research utilizing Buri’s PAQ, little
is known about the validity and reliability of its scores when applied in different
cultures. As such, the PAQ requires further evaluation because establishing
evidence of score meaning is a continual and evolving process (Messick, 1995).
In addition, as the parenting styles of both parents are considered separately in
a single study, the length of the PAQ is a problem, especially when it is inserted
 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1195
in questionnaires containing several measures. A shortened PAQ would benefit
researchers who are conducting studies in which parenting style is one of several
constructs being measured. Therefore, our purpose in this study was to develop a
short version of Buri’s 30-item PAQ while maintaining the three-factor structure
model of Baumrind classification of parenting styles with the same degree of
precision.
Information regarding the construct validity of this version by means of factor
structure and group differences, and preliminary data regarding its concurrent
validity in terms of the correlations between the subscales’ scores on the short
and long versions, will be provided. Evidence concerning the internal consistency
reliability will also be presented.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS
The sample consisted of 3,025 middle and high school students (49% male and
51% female) from Oman. Their self-reported ages ranged between 10 and 23 with
an average of 16 years (SD = 2 years). The majority (96.8%) of the participants
were Omani and the remainder were from Arabic speaking countries. The sample
was randomly divided into two subsamples of which the first (Sample A) was
used for the construction of the short version and the second (Sample B) served
as the validation sample. The first sample (N = 1,504) consisted of 744 males
(49%) and 760 females (51%). The second sample (N = 1,521) consisted of 738
males (49%) and 783 females (51%).
Permission to collect data from the students was requested and obtained
from the Ministry of Education in Oman. The participants completed the
questionnaire anonymously during a scheduled class meeting. They were
informed that participation was voluntary, and that all data were to be handled
confidentially. They were informed about the purpose of the study. This process
took approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes.

INSTRUMENTS
Data were collected via a structured questionnaire including the following
instruments:
Parenting styles The Arabic version of Buri’s PAQ (PAQ-Arabic; Aldhafri et
al., 2010) was used to measure three parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian,
and permissive. This questionnaire consisted of two forms: one each to assess
the parental authority of the father and the mother on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each form consisted of
10 items per parenting style.
1196 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Two additional instruments were employed in this study for validation

purposes. They have been validated for use with people aged between 10 and 23
in Oman.
Adolescent problems The Omani version of the 52-item Adolescent Problems
Scale (Aldhafri et al., 2009) was used to assess the degree to which adolescents
perceive certain issues as a problem on six dimensions: academic (8 items,  =
.54); economic (7 items,  = .62); personal (10 items,  = .70); health (9 items,
 = .64); family (8 items,  = .78); and emotion (10 items,  = .78). The items
were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree).
Coping styles This part of the questionnaire included 25 items assessing
participants’ styles or strategies when they experience problems. The items were
extracted from the Omani version of the Adolescent Coping Scale (Alhashmi,
2010). Seventeen items of the scale measured positive coping strategies such
as getting help, connecting with friends, sport, and religious support. The other
8 items of the scale measured negative coping strategies related to anxiety,
loneliness, ignorance, and self-criticism. The participants rated each item on
a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The internal consistency reliability coefficients were .81 for the positive
coping subscale and .69 for the negative coping subscale, as measured by
Cronbach’s alpha.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The following statistical procedures were employed:
1. Two principal components analyses, one each for the father and the mother,
were conducted on the responses of the first sample to the 30-item PAQ. The
output from each analysis was examined, and items with complex loadings and/
or with loadings less than .35 were identified. These items were possibilities for
deletion. Items were deleted one at a time in order to study changes in the factor
solution. The objectives of this item deletion procedure were to develop a shorter,
more parsimonious PAQ while maintaining the original three-factor structure of
parenting styles, and to approximate the simple structure as closely as possible.
2. The construct validity of the short version was investigated by examining
the confirmation of the dimensionality of the PAQ using a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) on the responses of the second sample with maximum likelihood
estimation in LISREL version 8.52 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). The analysis
was conducted separately for the father and for the mother using the covariance
matrix. Each item was constrained to load only on its hypothesized factor. One
item on each factor was constrained to equal 1 in order to set a metric for the
factors. Factor covariances were left free to be estimated, but the measurement
errors were not allowed to covary. For an acceptable model fit, the ratio
 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1197
2/df should be less than 5, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) should be less than .10, the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), also called
the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), should be greater than .90, and the comparative
fit index (CFI) should be greater than .90 (Kelloway, 1998). The RMSEA, NNFI,
and CFI were chosen because they were found to be less affected by the size of
the sample when compared to the normative fit index (NFI), the goodness-of-fit
index (GFI), and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) (Schermelleh-Engel,
Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003). In addition, the fit indices for the short and the
long versions of the PAQ were compared. According to Schermelleh-Engel et al.,
the model with the smallest Akaike information criterion (AIC) is regarded as the
best fitting and most parsimonious model.
3. Further evidence of construct validity of the short version was established
via a two-step clustering technique. This was performed on the second sample
to establish meaningful clusters of students based on their levels of academic,
economic, personal, health, family, and emotional problems. Two additional
analyses were used to ensure the validity of the emergent clusters. Firstly, a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine how
the clusters differed on external criteria (i.e., positive and negative coping
styles). Secondly, a discriminant function analysis was used to test whether
each member of a particular cluster had the right configuration of the levels of
problems expected of that cluster. A MANOVA was then conducted to investigate
differences in the parenting styles between the clusters of students with different
levels of academic, economic, personal, health, family, and emotional problems.
4. Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlating the subscales of the short
and long versions of the PAQ.
5. Internal consistency reliability of the short version’s scores was evaluated
using Cronbach’s alpha.

RESULTS

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAQ – SHORT VERSION

The first sample responses pertaining to the father and to the mother
were submitted separately to principal components analyses (PCAs). An a
priori three-factor model based on the theoretical structure of the PAQ was
hypothesized, and the criterion was set to eigenvalues greater than 1 (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001). On the basis of its pattern of factor loadings, the initial unrotated
factor model was theoretically less meaningful and more difficult to interpret.
Therefore, the analyses proceeded to rotate the factor matrix orthogonally with
varimax rotation to achieve a simple and theoretically more meaningful solution.
During these analyses, 10 items were deleted, one at a time from the father and
1198 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

from the mother, because they either loaded highly on multiple factors or did not
load on any factor. The deleted items are included in the Appendix.
The analyses yielded a three-factor solution for the father and for the mother
as suggested by the eigenvalue rule and scree plot. The factor loadings for the
three-factor model of parenting styles associated with the father and the mother,
respectively, are shown in Table 1. Together, the three factors accounted for
36.78% and 33.77% of the total variance for the father and for the mother,
respectively. All items loaded ≥ .35 on their primary factor. The first factor, which
consisted of seven items pertaining to the authoritative parenting style, accounted
for 16.11% and 15.49% of the variance (eigenvalues = 3.22 and 3.10) for the
father and for the mother, respectively. The second factor, which consisted of
seven items pertaining to the authoritarian parenting style, accounted for 11.31%
and 9.52% of the variance (eigenvalues = 2.26 and 1.90) for the father and for
the mother, respectively. The third factor, which consisted of six items pertaining
to the permissive parenting style, accounted for 9.36% and 8.76% of the variance
(eigenvalues = 1.87 and 1.75) for the father and for the mother, respectively.

TABLE 1
FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF PARENTING STYLES ASSOCIATED WITH
THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER BASED ON THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS

Items Father’s Mother’s

factor loadings factor loadings
1 2 3 1 2 3

1. Once family policy had been established, my father/mother

discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children. .63 .56
2. My father/mother directed the activities and decisions of the
children through reasoning and discipline. .62 .60
3. As the children in my family were growing up, my father/
mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in
rational and objective ways. .71 .66
4. My father/mother had clear standards of behavior for the
children in our home, but he/she was willing to adjust those
standards to the needs of each of the individual children in
the family. .64 .61
5. My father/mother gave me direction for my behavior and
activities as I was growing up and he/she expected me to
follow his/her direction, but he/she was always willing to
listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me. .62 .62
6. As I was growing up, my father/mother gave me clear
direction for my behaviors and activities, but he/she was
also understanding when I disagreed with him/her. .61 .57
7. As I was growing up, if my father/mother made a decision
in the family that hurt me, he/she was willing to discuss that
decision with me and to admit it if he/she had made a
mistake. .62 .54
 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1199
Table 1 continued

Items Father’s Mother’s

factor loadings factor loadings
1 2 3 1 2 3

8. Even if his/her children didn’t agree with him/her, my

father/mother felt that it was for our own good if we were
forced to conform to what he/she thought was right. .41 .37
9. Whenever my father/mother told me to do something as I
was growing up, he/she expected me to do it immediately
without asking any questions. .38 .37
10. My father/mother has always felt that more force should be
used by parents in order to get their children to behave the
way they are supposed to. .60 .57
11. My father/mother felt that wise parents should teach their
children early who is the boss in the family. .48 .40
12. As I was growing up, my father/mother would get very
upset if I tried to disagree with him/her. .70 .70
13. As I was growing up, my father/mother let me know what
behavior he/she expected of me, and if I didn’t meet those
expectations, he/she punished me. .60 .51
14. My father/mother has always felt that most problems in
society would be solved if parents strictly and forcibly
dealt with their children when they don’t do what they are
supposed to. .53 .52
15. My father/mother has always felt that children need to be
free to make up their own minds and to do what they want
to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents
might want. .54 .49
16. As I was growing up, my father/mother did not feel that I
needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply
because someone in authority has established them. .41 .53
17. As I was growing up, my father/mother seldom gave me
expectations and guidelines for my behavior. .35 .35
18. My father/mother feels that most problems in society
would be solved if parents did not restrict their children’s
activities, decisions, and desires. .49 .49
19. My father/mother did not view herself as responsible for
directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up. .68 .62
20. My father/mother did not direct the behaviors, activities,
and desires of the children in the family. .69 .62

Note: Factor 1 = authoritative parenting style; Factor 2 = authoritarian parenting style; Factor 3 =
permissive parenting style.

VALIDITY OF THE PAQ-SHORT VERSION

Dimensionality confirmation of the PAQ-Short Version To examine the
construct validity of the short version of the PAQ, a CFA was conducted separately
for the father and for the mother on the responses of the second sample. Results
1200 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

yielded an inferential test of 2 = 509.94 (p = .00, df = 167) with the following

descriptive fit indices: RMSEA = .04 (1) 90% CI = .04-.05 (1), NNFI = .92, CFI
= .93, for the father. The results also yielded an inferential test of 2 = 449.06 (p
= .00, df = 167) with the following descriptive fit indices: RMSEA = .04 (1) 90%
CI = .03-.04 (1), NNFI = .92, CFI = .93, for the mother. These results suggest
that the three-factor models of father and mother parenting styles represent an
acceptable fit to participants’ responses. Table 2 presents standardized factor
loadings for this three-factor model with factor intercorrelations. All factor
loadings were statistically significant, ps < .05, thereby providing evidence that
Baumrind’s (1971) permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parental authority
prototypes were substantiated for the reduced version of the PAQ. As shown
in Table 2, the authoritative parenting style was not significantly correlated
with the permissive parenting style for both parents. Also, for both parents, the
authoritarian parenting style was inversely related to the authoritative parenting
style and to the permissive parenting style, ps < .05. This pattern of factor inter-
correlations is consistent with Buri’s (1991) findings and confirms Baumrind’s
prototypes of parental authority. Thus, the current findings of the correlational
analyses confirm the distinctive nature of the three parenting styles, and thereby
provide evidence of the discriminant-related validity of the short version of the
PAQ’s scores.

TABLE 2
STANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF THE PAQ-SHORT
VERSION FOR THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER WITH FACTOR INTERCORRELATIONS BASED ON
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

Items Father’s Mother’s

factor loadings factor loadings
1 2 3 1 2 3

1. Once family policy had been established, my father/mother

discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children. .70 .64
2. My father/mother directed the activities and decisions of
the children through reasoning and discipline. .71 .66
3. As the children in my family were growing up, my father/
mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in
rational and objective ways. .79 .68
4. My father/mother had clear standards of behavior for the
children in our home, but he/she was willing to adjust those
standards to the needs of each of the individual children in
the family. .71 .56
5. My father/mother gave me direction for my behavior and
activities as I was growing up and he/she expected me to
follow his/her direction, but he/she was always willing to
listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me. .53 .56
 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1201
Table 2 continued

Items Father’s Mother’s

factor loadings factor loadings
1 2 3 1 2 3

6. As I was growing up, my father/mother gave me clear

direction for my behaviors and activities, but he/she was
also understanding when I disagreed with him/her. .53 .65
7. As I was growing up, if my father/mother made a decision
in the family that hurt me, he/she was willing to discuss that
decision with me and to admit if he/she had made a mistake. .43 .40
8. Even if his/her children didn’t agree with him/her, my
father/mother felt if that this was for our own good we were
forced to conform to what he/she thought was right. .56 .45
9. Whenever my father/mother told me to do something as I
was growing up, he/she expected me to do it immediately
without asking any questions. .47 .44
10. My father/mother has always felt that more force should be
used by parents in order to get their children to behave the
way they are supposed to. .50 .37
11. My father/mother felt that wise parents should teach their
children early who is the boss in the family. .57 .60
12. As I was growing up, my father/mother would get very
upset if I tried to disagree with him/her. .66 .47
13. As I was growing up, my father/mother let me know what
behavior he/she expected of me, and if I didn’t meet those
expectations, he/she punished me. .69 .60
14. My father/mother has always felt that most problems in
society would be solved if parents strictly and forcibly
dealt with their children when they don’t do what they are
supposed to. .53 .45
15. My father/mother has always felt that children need to be
free to make up their own minds and to do what they want
to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents
might want. .35 .35
16. As I was growing up, my father/mother did not feel that I
needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply
because someone in authority has established them. .38 .35
17. As I was growing up, my father/mother seldom gave me
expectations and guidelines for my behavior. .35 .35
18. My father/mother feels that most problems in society
would be solved if parents did not restrict their children’s
activities, decisions, and desires. .49 .44
19. My father/mother did not view herself as responsible for
directing and guiding my behavior. .68 .62
20. My father/mother did not direct the behaviors, activities,
and desires of the children in the family. .67 .61
1202 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Table 2 continued

Items Father’s Mother’s

factor loadings factor loadings
1 2 3 1 2 3

Factor intercorrelations
Factor 1 - -
Factor 2 -.23 - -.28 -
Factor 3 .02 -.20 - .05 -.24 -

Note: Factor 1 = authoritative parenting style; Factor 2 = authoritarian parenting style; Factor 3 =
permissive parenting style.

Table 3 shows goodness-of-fit indices for both versions of the PAQ for the
responses of the second sample to the father and the mother items. A direct
comparison of the 2 fit indices for the 30-item PAQ and the 20-item PAQ is not
possible as the two models are not nested. However, a descriptive comparison
using the 2/df ratio for both models showed a sizable decrease, that is, 3.05
versus 6.63 for the father, and 2.69 versus 5.02 for the mother, respectively. The
fit indices likewise showed improvement. With respect to the father model, the
RMSEA changed from .06 to .04, NNFI from .87 to .92, and CFI from .87 to
.93. Similarly, for the mother model, the RMSEA changed from .06 to .04, NNFI
from .85 to .92, and CFI from .86 to .93. When considering the AIC parsimony
index, the results showed that the AIC was reduced from 2792.57 to 595.94 for
the father model and from 2144.96 to 535.06 for the mother model. The reduction
in AIC values along with the descriptive fit indices suggest that the 20-item PAQ
shows a reasonable and more parsimonious fit to the data than the 30-item PAQ.

TABLE 3
GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR THE 30-ITEM PAQ AND THE 20-ITEM PAQ FOR THE FATHER
AND THE MOTHER

Model 2 df p RMSEA NNFI CFI AIC

Father items
30-item PAQ 2666.57 402 .00 .06 .87 .87 2792.57
20-item PAQ 509.94 167 .00 .04 .92 .93 595.94

Mother items
30-item PAQ 2018.96 402 .00 .06 .85 .86 2144.96
20-item PAQ 449.06 167 .00 .04 .92 .93 535.06

Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI =
comparative fit index; AIC = Akaike information criterion.

Group differences In addition, a two-step clustering technique was performed

on the data of the second sample to establish clusters of students based on their
 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1203
levels of academic, economic, personal, health, family, and emotional problems.
Two meaningful clusters of students were identified. The means and standard
deviations for the two cluster groups on the clustering variables are displayed
in Table 4. Students in Cluster 1 had on average lower levels of academic,
economic, personal, health, family, and emotional problems than students in
Cluster 2.

TABLE 4
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE TWO CLUSTER GROUPS ON THE CLUSTERING
VARIABLES

Variable Cluster 1 Cluster 2

(n = 895) (n = 626)

M SD M SD

Academic problems 18.49 2.62 20.88 3.05

Economic problems 15.77 3.97 19.96 4.58
Personal problems 21.45 4.52 28.33 5.16
Health problems 19.03 4.08 25.04 4.58
Family problems 13.08 3.28 19.64 5.97
Emotional problems 21.47 5.01 30.09 5.44

To ensure the validity of the emergent clusters, a MANOVA was performed

to examine how the clusters differed on external criteria, that is, positive
and negative coping styles. The results indicated a statistically significant
multivariate effect, F(2, 1518) = 122.60, p < .001, 2 = .14. The univarate effects
indicated that students in Cluster 1 (M = 59.94, SD = 8.74) tended on average to
use positive coping styles more than those in Cluster 2 (M = 58.90, SD = 8.18);
F(1, 1519) = 5.50, p < .05, 2 = .01. On the other hand, students in Cluster 2 (M
= 25.74, SD = 5.03) tended on average to use negative coping styles more than
those in Cluster 1 (M = 21.96, SD = 5.01); F(1, 1519) = 208.61, p < .001, 2 = .12.
Furthermore, a discriminant function analysis was used to test whether
each member of a particular cluster had the right configuration of the levels
of problems expected of that cluster. Using the students’ levels of academic,
economic, personal, health, family, and emotional problems, it was found that
the predicted membership in Cluster 2 was 98.7% accurate, followed by a 97.9%
accuracy rate for Cluster 1. Calculation of Cohen’s kappa revealed that the
accuracy of the predicted classification was a 96.3% improvement over what
would be expected by chance. These findings provide evidence that the two
emergent clusters are unique.
Research on parenting styles has shown that the authoritative parenting style
tends to be more associated with positive and healthy adolescents’ behaviors than
permissive or authoritarian parenting styles (Baumrind, 1991; Miller, Cowan,
1204 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Cowan, & Hetherington, 1993; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996). Therefore, it seems
reasonable to hypothesize significant differences between the aforementioned
clusters of students in parenting styles. To test this hypothesis, two MANOVAs
were conducted to investigate differences in the parenting styles between the
clusters of students with different levels of academic, economic, personal, health,
family, and emotional problems.
Table 5 presents means and standard deviations for the two cluster groups
on the father and the mother parenting styles. The results indicated statistically
significant multivariate effects on the father parenting styles, F(3, 1517) =
27.03, p < .001, 2 = .05; and the mother parenting styles, F(3, 1517) = 17.30,
p < .001, 2 = .03. The univariate effects indicated that when compared to
students in Cluster 2, students in Cluster 1 tended on average to report a more
authoritative father parenting style, F(1, 1519) = 20.00, p < .001, 2 = .01; a less
authoritarian father parenting style, F(1, 1519) = 18.17, p < .001, 2 = .01; and
a less permissive father parenting style, F(1, 1519) = 39.06, p < .001, 2 = .03,
than those in Cluster 2. The univariate effects also indicated that when compared
to students in Cluster 2, students in Cluster 1 tended on average to report a more
authoritative mother parenting style, F(1, 1519) = 15.97, p < .001, 2 = .01; a
less authoritarian mother parenting style, F(1, 1519) = 7.05, p < .01, 2 = .01;
and a less permissive mother parenting style, F(1, 1519) = 25.28, p < .001, 2 =
.02; than those in Cluster 2.

TABLE 5
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE TWO CLUSTER GROUPS ON THE FATHER AND THE
MOTHER PARENTING STYLES

Parenting style Father Mother

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2
(n = 895) (n = 626) (n = 895) (n = 626)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Authoritative 25.89 4.52 24.82 4.70 25.85 4.55 24.92 4.36

Authoritarian 23.96 4.37 24.91 4.22 23.13 4.28 23.71 4.01
Permissive 15.89 3.73 17.07 3.49 15.76 3.66 16.70 3.49

Concurrent validity To evaluate concurrent validity of the scores of the

PAQ-Short Version, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients relating
the second sample’s scores on the PAQ-Short Version and their scores on the
PAQ-Long Version were calculated separately for the father and the mother.
Results indicated that the subscales of the two versions were highly and
significantly correlated (ps < .001), with an identical pattern of correlations for
the father and the mother parenting styles: permissiveness = .84, authoritarianism
= .94, and authoritativeness = .94. These results suggest that little change resulted
 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1205
from the deletion of almost one third of the PAQ items. The significance of this
finding is that the correlation was not low. Indeed, a low correlation would have
suggested that the PAQ-Short Version was measuring something different from
the long version.
Internal Consistency Reliability Internal consistency reliability as measured by
Cronbach’s alpha for the second sample’s scores on the short and long versions
of the PAQ for the father and the mother are presented in Table 6 for comparative
purposes. The short version’s reliability scores seem comparable to those of the
long Arabic version of the PAQ adapted for Omani adolescents by Aldhafri et
al. (2010), and they are acceptable. In addition, the short version’s reliability
scores parallel those found in studies of Arab parenting styles using Buri’s
(1991) 30-item PAQ (e.g., Dwairy et al., 2006; Dwairy & Menshar, 2006). This
suggests that authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles can be
effectively represented by a smaller number of items while keeping the same
degree of measurement precision as the 30-item PAQ.

TABLE 6
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY (CRONBACH’S ALPHAS) OF THE SHORT (20-ITEM) AND LONG
(30-ITEM) VERSIONS OF THE PAQ FOR THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER

Subscale Father Mother

Short version Long version Short version Long version

Authoritative .75 .71 .73 .72

Authoritarian .72 .67 .72 .63
Permissive .65 .59 .65 .55

DISCUSSION

Educators and psychologists have long recognized that parenting styles play
an important role in the development and well-being of children and adolescents.
Baumrind (1971, 1991) identified three main styles of parenting: authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive. Buri (1991) developed a 30-item PAQ based on
Baumrind’s (1971) model of parenting styles, to assess the authoritativeness,
authoritarianism, and permissiveness practiced by fathers and mothers in rearing
their children. However, the psychometric properties of the PAQ have received
little empirical psychometric evaluation. In this study, using a data-driven model
modification strategy, we aimed to develop a short version of the PAQ consisting
of 20 items.
The current findings indicate that the short version displayed a conceptually
sound factor structure and reasonable internal consistency. They are consistent
with previous literature in which an association between parenting styles and
1206 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

adolescents’ problems and coping strategies was documented (Baumrind, 1991;

Miller et al., 1993; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996), thereby providing evidence for the
construct validity of the short version’s scores. Also, the high positive correlation
between the scores of the short version and long version of the PAQ suggests
that the same information could be captured with both versions, and as such the
short version could be considered an appropriate alternative to the long version.
However, there are some limitations to this study. The findings may only be
generalizable in the Omani context. Studies are needed to further test the validity
of the short version of the PAQ using diverse samples from other ethnic and
cultural groups. Also, the short version of the PAQ, while empirically tested,
contains lengthy items, and as such might need further content examination.
Finally, the findings deserve to be further investigated in future research to better
clarify of the relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ charac-
teristics.

REFERENCES

Aldhafri, S., Kazem, A., Alzubiadi, A., Yousif, Y., Al-Bahrani, M., & Alkharusi, H. (2009).
Developmental aspects for Omani adolescents (12-18 years): Piloting instruments and initial
findings. 2009 ICET International Yearbook on Teacher Education (pp. 165-175).
Aldhafri, S., Kazem, A., Yousif, Y., Al-Bahrani, M., & Alkharusi, H. (in press). Parenting styles as
perceived by Omani children (classes 7 to 12) and their relationships with some demographic
variables. International Journal for Research in Education.
Alhashmi, Z. (2010). Adolescents’ coping strategies in relation to personality characteristics using
a sample of Omani secondary students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Sultan Qaboos University,
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman.
Assadi, S. M., Zokaei, N., Kaviani, H., Mohammadi, M. R., Ghaeli, P., Gohari, M. R., & van de
Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Effect of socioculture context and parenting style on scholastic achievement
among Iranian adolescents. Social Development, 16(1), 169-180. http://doi.org/b9w
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph,
4, 1-103. http://doi.org/b9x
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95. http://doi.org/b9z
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1),
110-119. http://doi.org/b92
Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting:
Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 59-93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In W.
Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 1003-1067). New York: Wiley. http://doi.
org/b93
Durbin, D. L., Darling, N., Steinberg, L., & Brown, B. B. (1993). Parenting style and peer group
membership among European-American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(1),
87-100. http://doi.org/b94
 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1207
Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., Farah, A., Sakhleh, A. A., Fayad, M., & Khan, H. K. (2006).
Parenting styles in Arab societies: A first cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37(3), 230-247. http://doi.org/b95
Dwairy, M., & Menshar, K. E. (2006). Parenting style, individuation, and mental health of Egyptian
adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 29(1), 103-117. http://doi.org/b96
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lamborn, S. D., Mants, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence
and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful
families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049-1065. http://doi.org/b97
Lerner, R. M. (1984). On the nature of human plasticity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child
interaction. In E. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality,
and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’
responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist,
50(9), 741-749. http://doi.org/b98
Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Hetherington, E. M. (1993). Externalizing in
preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family model. Developmental
Psychology, 29(1), 3-18. http://doi.org/b99
Nguyen, P. V. (2008). Perceptions of Vietnamese fathers’ acculturation levels, parenting styles, and
mental health outcomes in Vietnamese American adolescent immigrants. Social Work, 53(4),
337-346.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural
equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of
Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting
and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
1(1), 19-36.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents’
personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67(5),
2101-2114. http://doi.org/cbb
1208 PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX
ITEMS DELETED FROM BURI’S (1991) 30-ITEM PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE (PAQ)

Authoritative subscale
1. My father/mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family
rules and restrictions were unreasonable.
2. As I was growing up, I knew what my father/mother expected of me in my family, but I
also felt free to discuss those expectations with my father/mother when I felt that they were
unreasonable.
3. As I was growing up, my father/mother took the children’s opinions into consideration when
making family decisions, but he/she would not decide something simply because the children
wanted it.
Authoritarian subscale
1. As I was growing up my father/mother did not allow me to question any decision he/she had
made.
2. As I was growing up, my father/mother often told me exactly what he/she wanted me to do and
how he/she expected me to do it.
3. As I was growing up, I knew what my father/mother expected of me in the family and he/she
insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for his/her authority.
Permissive subscale
1. While I was growing up, my father/mother felt that in a well-run home the children should
have their way in the family as often as the parents do.
2. Most of the time as I was growing up, my father/mother did what the children in the family
wanted when making family decisions.
3. As I was growing up, my father/mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a
lot of direction from him/her.
4. As I was growing up, my father/mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family
matters and he/she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do.
5. As I was growing up, my father/mother often told me exactly what he/she wanted me to do and
how he/she expected me to do it.
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal is the property of Society for Personality
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.