Person. in&id. Difi Vol. 12,No. 12,pp. 1245-1253.1991 Ol91-8869/91 $3.00+ 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright 8 1991 Pergamon Press plc

A PARENTAL REARING STYLE QUESTIONNAJRE FOR

USE WITH ADOLESCENTS: PSYCHOMETRIC
EVALUATION OF THE EMBU-A

COBY GERLSMA, WILLEM A. ARRINDELL, NYNKE VAN DER VEEN and

PAUL M. G. EMMELKAMP
University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology, Academic Hospital, Oostersingel 59.
9713 EZ Groningen, The Netherlands

(Receired 13 March 1991)

Summary-The present study investigated whether the dimensional framework of the EMBU, a
questionnaire assessing adults’ retrospective perceptions of parental rearing styles, could be retrieved in
an EMBU version that was adapted for adolescents, the EMBU-A. Based on a sample of 1153 healthy
young adolescents (mean age i2.4 years), confirmatory factor analyses showed {hat the factors 01
Reiection. Emotional Warmth, Overprotection and Favourine, Subiect found in the new EMBU-A were
closely related to the factors originally interpreted in adult ratings. Reliability and aspects of convergent
and divergent validity of the new scale were encouraging. Implications and suggestions for future research
are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The study of the family presents a methodological challenge to the researcher. Due to ethical and
practical considerations, the primary phenomena of interest, namely the naturally occurring
parent-child interactions in the home, are not readily accessible to investigators. Consequently,
most researchers rely on self-reports to collect their data. Despite a number of potential problems
that exist with self-report data in general (e.g. Furnham & Henderson, 1982) and with surveys
concerned with parenting in particular (Holden & Edwards, 1989), no method is as easy to use,
as fast, and as economical as paper-and-pencil surveys. However, despite their popularity, most
self-report instruments regarding parent-child relationships are characterized by weak psychomet-
ric underpinnings and/or limited use (Straus & Brown, 1978; Jacob & Tennenbaum, 1988; Holden,
1990).
The EMBU* (Perris, Jacobsson, Lindstrijm, Von Knorring & Perris, 1980) is a psychometrically
sound self-report measure, intended to assess adults’ recollections of their parents’ child-rearing
behaviour. In the context of internal validity, however, it has been argued, that memory is
notoriously faulty and that data based on memories should be interpreted cautiously and
considered generally reconstructive rather than veridical (e.g. Halverson, 1988; Holden, 1990).
The problems of validity raised whenever retrospective data are concerned can, at least in part,
be counteracted in a longitudinal research-design. Assessment of childrens’ current perceptions of
parenting while living at home, and comparing these with their memories after having left home
would provide an important indication of the validity of retrospective accounts of parental rearing
styles, e.g. EMBU data. To this aim, the present investigation sought to develop an equivalent form
of the EMBU for use with adolescents (the EMBU-Adolescent).
To guarantee measurement-equivalence across adult and adolescent forms, two problems need
to be addressed. First, it is unclear whether the “readability” (i.e. the level of difficulty with which
an inventory can be comfortably read with adequate comprehension by readers at a particular
grade level) of the adult version is acceptable for adolescents (see Andrasik, Heimberg, Edlund
& Blankenberg, 1981, on the relevance of this point). Second, it cannot be assumed that
the dimensional framework obtained with one type of sample can be applied to another type;
rather than be taken for granted, this should be empirically demonstrated (e.g. Eysenck, 1973,
p. 130).

*Egna Minnen BetrSande Uppfostran (My Memories of Upbringing)

1245
1246 Cow GERLSMA~~ al

The aims of the present study were three-fold. It sought to (1) investigate whether the EMBU
dimensional framework found with adults (Arrindell, Emmelkamp, Brilman & Monsma, 1983a)
could be retrieved with adolescents; (2) analyze aspects of reliability of constructs found with the
adolescent form, and (3) examine the convergent and divergent validity of the resulting constructs.

METHOD

Subjects and procedure

Healthy (i.e. non-patient) volunteers were recruited from 30 (out of a pool of 90) different
primary and secondary schools located in five Dutch urban communities. Only pupils in the 8th
grade of primary school or first year of secondary school were asked to participate. The final sample
comprised 1153 children (545 boys and 569 girls; data on sex were missing in 39 cases) varying
in age from 10 to 15 years with mean age 12.4 (S.D. 0.76). Most (84.3%) children indicated they
were living with both parents; 10% lived with mother only and 1% with father only; 12% of the
parents were divorced. Mean family size was 4.5 persons.
The questionnaires, together with a background demographic sheet, were group-administered
during class hours. The study was introduced by either a research assistant or a member of the
school staff. Written instructions for completing the questionnaires were given. Subjects were
required to fill out their questionnaire sets anonymously so as to minimize the potential influence
of a social desirability response set. In spite of the fact that participation in the study was dependent
on approval by the parent(s), refusal occurred in only a few cases.

Measures
EMBU. Factor analysis of the original adult form of the EMBU, using data of a large sample
of non-institutionalized phobics (N = 841) revealed four first-order factors: Rejection, Emotional
Warmth, Overprotection, and Favouring Subject. Of the 81 items constituting the questionnaire,
64 are scaled across these factors, the remaining are unscaled (Arrindell et al., 1983a). In
higher-order factor analysis, this dimensional framework proved to be reducible to a three-factor
model, the higher-order factors being Care (Rejection vs Emotional Warmth), Protection and
Favouring Subject (Arrindell & Van der Ende, 1984). Subsequent analyses showed the EMBU
scales to have high internal consistency, to be cross-nationally invariant (e.g. Arrindell, Perris,
Perris, Eisemann, Van der Ende & Von Knorring, 1986a; Arrindell, Perris, Eisemann, Perris, Van
der Ende, Ross, Benjaminsen, Gaszner & Del Vecchio, 1986b; Arrindell, Perris, Denia, Van der
Ende, Perris, Kokkevi, Anasagasti & Eisemann, 1988), to distinguish between several different
psychiatric patient groups and control groups (Arrindell, Emmelkamp, Monsma & Brilman, 1983b;
Arrindell, Kwee, Methorst, Van der Ende, Pol & Moritz, 1989a; Cohen-Kettenis & Arrindell, 1990;
Emmelkamp & Heeres, 1988; Hoekstra, Visser & Emmelkamp, 1989), and to be unaffected by social
desirability and age, while being only slightly affected by the respondent’s sex (Arrindell et al.,
1983a).
EMBU-A. In designing the EMBU-A, all 81 items of the original adult EMBU were included,
and adapted for use with young adolescents (11 to 16 years). In order to achieve comparability
with the Spanish adolescent form of the EMBU (Castro, Toro, Arrindell, Van der Ende & Puig,
1990), this form was taken as the base from which to develop its Dutch equivalent. To obtain
acceptable translation equivalence across measures, conventional guidelines laid down in the
cross-cultural psychological literature (e.g. De Figueiredo & Lemkau, 1980) were followed as
closely as possible. To assess the readability of the resulting items, two educational specialists
experienced in working with subjects in the age group considered were consulted. Compared with
the adult form, the order of presentation of the items was only slightly modified; items Nos 4 and
34 were exchanged in order to avoid that two somewhat similarly formulated items would have
to be answered successively. Like the adult form, two items concerning strictness and consistency
of parental behaviour were appended to the questionnaire. The response format of the EMBU-A
was kept identical to that of its adult counterpart, with each item rated on a l-4 point Likert-type
scale for each parent separately. The 56 items maintained after the analyses and ultimately making
up the instrument, are presented in Table 2.
 EMBU-adolescent 1247

The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling & Brown, 1979). To explore the
convergent validity of the EMBU-A, the PBI was also administered. The 25-item PBI measures
the dimensions of Care and Overprotection, for which extensive reliability and validity data have
been reported (e.g. Parker, 1983, 1984). To counteract the problem of double negatives, the
originally negatively worded item No. 2 (see Parker et al., 1979, Appendix) was reworded to form
a positive statement (Arrindell, Hanewald & Kolk, 1989). Furthermore, the wording of all items
was changed from past to present tense. Otherwise, item and response formats of the PBI version
used corresponded with those of the original English version.

Statistical analyses
Several decisions were made with respect to the data-processing. First, the percentage of
item-endorsement was examined to detect highly skewed items. Following Arrindell et al. (1983a),
items with extreme P-values (i.e. P < 5% or P > 95%) were considered unacceptably skewed and
were deleted from further analyses. Next, confirmatory factor analyses were carried out to examine
the degree of similarity between the EMBU-A factor structure and its adult counterpart. These
analyses were based on the method of perfectly-congruent weights (Ten Berge, 1986). First, a binary
target matrix, based on the factor structure of the adult form of the EMBU (Arrindell et al., 1983a)
was used to examine whether this adult structure constituted a valid structure for the adolescent
form. Second, to determine the strength of the factors in the present study in comparison with the
study of Arrindell et al. (1983a), a confirmatory factor analysis was carried out with factor loadings
found in the sample of 841 phobics (Arrindell et al., 1983a) as the target matrix.
The lowest acceptable bound for a significant factor loading was set at 0.4 (compare Arrindell
et al., 1983a). However, to ensure a qualitative difference between factor loadings, the second
highest factor loading of an item was also considered. When this second loading was >0.20 and
the difference between the highest and second highest loading was < 0.20, the item was deleted from
further analyses.
The internal consistencies of the different scales were determined with Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient. To ascertain the relative independence of the EMBU scales with respect to each other,
the interscale correlations were determined. It was expected that Rejection and Overprotection
would be positively and moderately highly correlated with each other (i.e. 0.40 < r < 0.70) and that
Rejection would be negatively and highly correlated (i.e. r 2 10.701) with Emotional Warmth.
These expectations were based on the fact that in the second-order factor analysis with the EMBU
for adults, the dimensions Rejection and Emotional Warmth constituted two extremes of a single
bipolar factor (Arrindell & Van der Ende, 1984).
To examine the convergent validity of the EMBU-A, correlations between its scales and
homologous PBI scales were computed. Should the original factor structure of the adult form of
the EMBU be retrieved, it was expected that the EMBU Emotional Warmth and Rejection scales
would be substantially related to the PBI Care scale. Since Arrindell et al. (1983a) found a
moderately high positive correlation between the EMBU Overprotection and Rejection scales, a
similar relationship was expected between EMBU-A Rejection and PBI Protection. In view of these
expectations, correlations were tested one-tailed.
Finally, differences between fathers and mothers, and between boys and girls on the scales were
examined by means of Cohen’s (1988) d estimate of effect size, whereas the influence of subjects’
age was investigated by means of correlations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Because no items were endorsed by more than 95% or less than 5% of the subjects, all 81 items
were submitted to the confirmatory factor analysis.
Twenty-six of the original 81 items did not satisfy the criteria mentioned above. Of the 17
unscaled items, three items (Nos 15, 34 and 62) met the criteria. The three items were found to
load highly on the Emotional Warmth factor. Of the 25 items originally hypothesized to load on
the Rejection factor, 19 (or 76%) were found to do so in an acceptable fashion. The corresponding
figures for the Emotional Warmth, Overprotection and Favouring Subject factors were respectively
1248 COBY GERLSMA~~ al

Table I. Amount of explained variance in EMBU-A factors for

Fathers and for Mothers
EMBU-A factors

Emotional Over- Favouring

Rejection warmth protection subject
A Fathers 11.34 9.65 6.39 3.67
Mothers 11.16 IO.12 6.68 3.74
B Fathers 12.41 II.43 9.16 3.35
Mothers 12.94 12.08 9.63 3.19
Amount of explained variance was determined by means of a
confirmatory factor analysts with (A) a” a priori binary weight
matrix, and with (B) a matrix of factor loadings based on a
sample of 841 phobics (Arrindell el al., 1983a). N = 1153.

16 (89%) against 18, 11 (69%) against 16, and 5 (100%) against 5 originally scaled items. Thus,
the factor structure of the adolescent version of the EMBU was in close agreement with the pattern
yielded with its adult equivalent.
The amount of variance explained by the Rejection factor was 11.3% for fathers and 11.8% for
mothers. The Emotional Warmth factor explained 9.7% (fathers) and 10.1% (mothers). The
percentages for Overprotection were 6.4 and 6.7%, respectively, while the Favouring Subject factor
explained 3.7 and 3.7%, respectively, of the variance. These percentages are presented under A in
Table 1. The total amount of explained variance held by all factors was 23.9% for the fathers’
ratings and 24.6% for those of the mothers. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis with
the target matrix of phobic subjects are presented in Table 1 under B. From this Table, it can be
concluded that the strength of the factors pertaining to the adolescent form are comparable to those
yielded with the original adult version.

Table 2. The final scales of the EMBU-A, their specific Items and the item-factor loadings for
fathers (F) and mothers (M)
Item Factor loading
“0. Item content F M
Facror I: Rejection
4. Would your father/mother like you to be different? 0.53 0.57
5. Does it ever happen that your father/mother won’t speak
to you for a while after you’ve done something wrong? 0.44 0.48
6. Does your father/mother also punish you for little things? 0.48 0.51
9. Do you think that your father/mother would like
you to be different? 0.55 0.60
16. Do you get the feeling that your father/mother
is more fond of your brother(s) and sister(s) than of you? 0.50 0.52
17. Is your father/mother more unfau to you than
to your brother(s) and sister(s)? 0.57 0.58
19. Does your father/mother tell you off when there
are other people present? 0.47 0.44
23. Does your father/mother strike you more than
you deserve? 0.61 0.55
33. Does your father/mother treat you like the
“black sheep” or the “scapegoat” of the family? 0.46 0.50
44. Do you ever get the feeling that your father/
mother doesn’t have time for you? 0.36 0.38
55. Do you ever get punished by your father/mother
when you haven’t done anything wrong? 0.55 0.55
59. Does your father/mother say unpleasant things about
you to other people, for example that you
are lazy or difficult? 0.53 0.59
61. When something happens, does your father/mother
put the blame mainly on you? 0.57 0.59
63. Does your father/mother ever act in a harsh
and unfriendly way towards you? 0.57 0.58
64. Does your father/mother punish you a lot, eve”
for little things? 0.60 0.60
65. Does your father/mother ever give you a slap
for no reason? 0.54 0.53
68. Does your father/mother ever strike you? 0.58 0.48
71. Does your father/mother ever treat you in a
way that makes you feel small? 0.48 0.51
77. Does your father/mother ever send you to bed
without any food? 0.51 0.51
Conrinued
 EMBU-adolescent 1249

Table 2-Conrined
Item Factor loading
no. Item content F M
Factor II: Emotional Warmth
2. Does your father/mother show that he/she loves you? 0.56 0.56
13. If you’ve done something stupid, can you then
make it up to your father/mother? 0.43 0.52
15. Does your father/mother ever give you a cuddle? 0.48 0.47
21. If things aren’t going well for you, does your
father/mother try to console or help you? 0.6 I 0.61
31. Is your father/mother interested in your school grades? 0.48 0.46
32. Do you feel that your father/mother minds
helping you if you have to do something difficult? 0.58 0.56
34. Do you feel that your father/mother loves you? 0.58 0.62
39. Does your father/mother make it clear that he/
she loves you? 0.65 0.65
41. Do you think that your father/mother takes
your opinion into account? 0.51 0.52
43. Do you feel that your father/mother likes being
with you? 0.60 0.60
47. Do you feel that your father/mother is trying
to provide you with a happy youth during which
you can learn about all sorts of different
things (for example, through books and
excursions and so on)? 0.51 0.57
48. Does your father/mother ever pay you compliments? 0.56 0.56
54. Can you count on help and understanding from
your father/mother if you’re unhappy? 0.61 0.68
62. Does your father/mother accept you just the
way you are? 0.46 0.50
67. Is your father/mother interested in your
hobbies and what you like doing? 0.56 0.59
74. Do you feel that your father/mother and you
like each other? 0.63 0.63
75. Does your father/mother allow you to have
different opinions from his/her own? 0.45 0.48
78. Do you feel that your father/mother is proud of
you if you do something really well? 0.54 0.51
81. Does your father/mother show that he/she loves
you, for example by giving you a hug? 0.62 0.62

I. Does your father/mother interfere in everything you do? 0.44 0.39

7. Does your father/mother think that you have
to try and go far in the world? 0.36 0.35
14. Does your father/mother ever say which clothes
you should wear and what you should look like? 0.40 0.40
18. Does your father/mother forbid you to do things that
your class-mates are allowed to do because he/she is
afraid that something will happen to you? 0.50 0.52
20. Does your father/mother worry about what you
are doing after school has finished? 0.42 0.40
25. If you have done something which isn’t allowed
does your father/mother act so unhappy that
you start to feel guilty? 0.43 0.43
38. Does your father/mother think that you have to
be the best at everything? 0.44 0.44
46. Do you have to tell your father/mother what
you’ve been doing when you get home? 0.47 0.45
51. Do you ever feel guilty because you’re behaving
in a way that your father/mother doesn’t approve of? 0.37 0.40
52. Do you feel that your father/mother expects a
lot from you in the way of report grades,
sporting achievements and so on? 0.40 0.40
13. Do you find that your father/mother is over-
scared that something will happen to you? 0.44 0.38
Factor IV: Favouring subject
3. Compared to your brother(s) and sister(s), are
you spoiled by your father/mother? 0.65 0.65
IO. Do you get things from your father/mother that your
brother(s) and sister(s) don’t get? 0.63 0.62
29. Do you feel that your father/mother loves you
more than your brother(s) and sister(s)? 0.56 0.58
79. Does your father/mother give you preferential
treatment compared to your brother(s) and sister(s)? 0.68 0.68
80. Does your father/mother blame your brother(s)
and sister(s) when it was actually your fault? 0.52 0.54
1250 COBY GERLSMA et al.

A small number of items that did fit the criteria for one parent but not quite for the other parent,
were nevertheless added to the scales, the reason for this being that scale reliability tends to increase
with an increase in the number of items included in the scale. Thus, item 23 was added to the
Rejection scale, items 13 and 62 to the Emotional Warmth scale, and items 1 and 25 to the
Overprotection scale. Consequently, the final scales for fathers and mothers were composed of the
same items.
Following confirmatory analysis, 54 items of the original item-pool of 81 were maintained, i.e.
19 for Rejection, 19 for Emotional Warmth, 11 for Overprotection and 5 for Favouring Subject.
The theoretical range of scores for the respective scales are 19-76, 19-76, 1 l-44 and 5-20. The
different scales with their specific items and factor loadings for father and mother are presented
in Table 2.

Reliability of the EMBU-A scales

The alpha coefficients for the Rejection and Emotional Warmth scales were high (c( = 0.86 and
a = 0.88 respectively for both fathers and mothers). Compared to these values, the alpha coefficient
for Overprotection turned out to be smaller (CI = 0.62 for father and rl = 0.60 for mother). The
mean inter-item YS for the two sets of Overprotection items were 0.13 (fathers) and 0.12 (mothers),
falling just inside the range for acceptable homogeneity (see Discussion). The homogeneity figures
for the Rejection and Emotional Warmth item sets were 0.25 and 0.28 (fathers), and 0.25 and 0.29
(mothers). According to Briggs & Cheek (1986) the acceptable range for the mean inter-item r lies
somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5, with the 0.2-0.4 range offering an acceptable balance between
bandwidth and fidelity. Like with previous research with the adult EMBU, the alpha coeflicients
for Favouring Subject were moderate (i.e. a = 0.57 for fathers, and ~1= 0.58 for mothers). This may
be attributable to the small number of items which makes up this scale (i = 5); the scale had
acceptable interitem-correlations (mean r = 0.25 for both father and mother).

Inter-scale relationship of the final EMBU-A scales

A moderately high positive correlation was found between the EMBU-A Rejection and
Overprotection scales [r = 0.36 (Fathers); r = 0.35 (Mothers)]. Rejection and Emotional Warmth
were negatively related [r = -0.42 (F); r = -0.38 (M)]. Compared to Arrindell et al. (1983a) the
correlations between Rejection and Overprotection as well as between Rejection and Emotional
Warmth turned out to be smaller in the present study. Thus, the scales in the EMBU-A seem to
be less interdependent than in the EMBU for adults.

Validity of the final EMBV-A scales

In view of the large number of correlations involved with regard to the EMBU-A and PBI
(k = 16) on the one hand, and to the EMBU-A and age (k = 8) on the other hand, the Bonferroni
inequality was applied (Grove & Andreasen, 1982) to reduce the possibility of obtaining significant
correlations on the basis of chance alone. The “overall a” was set at the conventional a = 0.05
level and divided by the number of tests conducted within each family of variables to obtain the
corrected level of significance. Thus, the correlations between EMBU scales and PBI scales were
tested at u d 0.05/16 < 0.003, and correlations between EMBU scales and age at x < 0.05/S d 0.006
level.
Correlations, corrected for unreliability, between homologous EMBU and PBI scales were
substantial: the
PBI Care scale was positively related to the EMBU-A Emotional Warmth scale
[r = 0.70 (F); r = 0.64 (M)], whereas it was negatively related to the EMBU-A Rejection scale
[r = -0.65 (F); r = -0.60 (M), P -C O.OOl]. The correlation between the PBI Protection and the
EMBU Overprotection scales was r = 0.54 (F; P < 0.001) and r = 0.59 (M; P < 0.001). Substantial
correlations were also found between the EMBU Rejection scale and the PBI Protection scale
[r = 0.59 (F); r = 0.56 (M), P -C O.OOl], whereas a moderate relationship was found between the
EMBU Emotional Warmth and PBI Protection scales [r = -0.33 (F) and r = -0.34 (iw)]. On the
other hand, EMBU Overprotection was not related to PBI Care [r = -0.07 (F) and r = -0.10
(M), n.s.1. Higher-order factor analysis, entering the four EMBU scales and the two PBI scales
for fathers and mothers jointly, yielded three higher-order factors, i.e. a Care factor with the EMBU
Emotional Warmth and Rejection factors and the PBI Care factors (37.3% explained variance),
 EMBU-adolescent 1251

a Protection factor with the EMBU Overprotection and the PBI Protection factors (20.2%
explained variance) and a Favouring Subject factor with the corresponding EMBU Favouring
Subject scales (11.5% explained variance).
Correlations between subjects’ age and EMBU scales ranged from -0.07 to -0.01 (ns.). Thus,
age of the subjects did not influence the factor-scores.
The possible influence of sex of the subject on the scales was determined by means of t-tests.
Cohen’s (1988) effect size index d was computed to estimate the magnitude of the results found.
For the Emotional Warmth, Overprotection and Favouring Subject scales a significant difference
between boys and girls was found. Girls rated both fathers and mothers higher on the Emotional
Warmth scale than boys did [t(852) = - 3.39; P < 0.01, d = -0.23 and t(896) = -2.94; P < 0.01,
d = -0.20, respectively]. Boys rated both fathers and mothers as more overprotective than girls
did [t(928) = 5.8; P < 0.001, d = 0.38, and ~(969) = 4.74; P < 0.001, d = 0.301. Finally boys rated
their mothers as favouring them more than girls rated theirs [t(966) = 2.65; P < 0.01, d = 0.171.
Cohen (1988) considers d = 0.20 as a small, d = 0.50 as a moderate and d = 0.80 as a large effect.
Thus, a significant but small influence of subjects’ sex on the four scales was found.
Cohen’s effect size indices were also computed to investigate possible differences between fathers
and mothers: d = -0.03 for Rejection, d = -0.16 for Emotional Warmth, d = -0.34 for
Overprotection, and d = -0.05 for Favouring Subject, indicating that mothers were rated
somewhat higher on all scales. Only in the case of Overprotection, however, did the d-value reach
the level of “small to medium”; differences on the other scales were negligible. These findings are
in accordance with Arrindell et al. (1983a).
Finally, the correlations between the scales for fathers and the scales for mothers were computed:
r = 0.79 for Rejection, r = 0.81 for Emotional Warmth, r = 0.79 for Overprotection, and r = 0.85
for Favouring Subject. It can be concluded that children rated their parents in very much the same
way on all scales.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Based on a large sample of healthy volunteers, the results of this study demonstrate a number
of points fairly clearly.
First, confirmatory factor analyses showed that the factors of Rejection, Emotional Warmth,
Overprotection and Favouring Subject in the data of adolescents were closely related in content
to the factors originally interpreted in adult ratings (Arrindell et al., 1983a). This observation
coincides with recent findings obtained with smaller samples of Spanish and Hungarian subjects,
which showed that the first three factors are generalizable from adults to adolescents (Castro et al.,
1990; Arrindell et al., 1989b).
Second, in conjunction with results found in other Dutch groups of subjects (phobics, psychiatric
inpatients, community volunteers), and in contrast with those found outside The Netherlands, the
findings of the present study seem to suggest that Favouring Subject is a culture-specific dimension.
The factor is replicable and invariant across similar and distinct samples of Dutch individuals, but
it cannot be retrieved in countries like Japan, Singapore, Venezuela, Canada or even western-Euro-
pean countries like Denmark and Sweden (Arrindell, Perris, Eisemann, Granell de Aldaz, Van der
Ende, Kong Sim Guan, Richter, Gaszner, Iwawaki, Baron, Joubert & Prud’homme, 1991).
Third, the internal consistency reliabilities of the Emotional Warmth and the Rejection scales
were good, of the Overprotection scale moderate. The concept of Overprotection as measured in
the EMBU-A appears to be a rather broad one and as such gives credit to theoretical considerations
concerning this construct (e.g. Levy, 1943; Parker, 1983). From a psychometric point of view, future
research might examine the possibility of lengthening the scale to cover the intended concept more
reliably.
The fourth point relates to the construct validity of the EMBU-A constructs. One notable finding
in this context was the observation that the scales are not meaningfully affected by sex and age.
There was a slight tendency for girls to perceive both their mothers and their fathers as more
emotionally warm than boys did. Similar findings were found with Hungarian adolescents
(Arrindell ef al., 1989b). Boys, on the other hand, perceived both parents as more protective, and
1252 COBY GERLSMA et al.

their mothers as favouring them more than girls perceived theirs. However, these differences all
reflected small effect sizes. An important implication of this finding is that it would not be necessary
to control for the influence of age and sex when carrying out between-group comparisons in terms
of mean scores unless of course the differences between the concerning groups on those background
variables are quite extreme. However, future normative studies with the EMBU may require that
the norms are broken down for the sexes separately. Rosenthal & Rubin (1982) among others,
have warned that even when mean differences between the sexes are small, differences in the
proportions of males and females occurring at the extremes of the distribution or even the
percentages above the median may be quite substantial and thus have some practical significance.
The most marked difference on the EMBU-A between parental sex was that mothers were rated
as more protective than fathers, which is the usual finding, especially in cultures where mothers
are the most important caretakers (Rohner, 1986, p. 61).
Also in line with predictions were the substantial correlations between the EMBU-A dimensions
and theoretically-related PBI constructs. Thus, large effect-sized r’s (corrected for attenuation)
were obtained in relating the EMBU Rejection and Emotional Warmth constructs with the
corresponding bipolar PBI Care dimension. Similarly, the Protection scale of the EMBU-A and
the PBI were shown to be meaningfully associated with one another. In addition, the frequently
reported association between Protection and Rejection (e.g. Parker et al., 1979; Arrindell et al.,
1986b) was also confirmed. Importantly, the correlations between theoretically related constructs
were more marked than those involving unrelated dimensions. This was further confirmed in a
higher-order analysis which included the subscales of both instruments (both mothers’ and fathers’
ratings). Specifically, three higher-order components were interpreted after orthogonal rotation:
Care, Protection and Favouring Subject. This finding too was in close correspondence with
previous data reported in clinical and normal samples comprising adult subjects (Arrindell et a/.,
1983a, 1989a).
Fifth, the fact that predictions with respect to construct validity could be confirmed suggests that
the shortening of the original item pool from 64 scaled items to a total of 54 did not appreciably
affect domain content. That is, the shortened scales clearly measure the same psychological
variables as their originally longer equivalents derived from analysis of adults’ data.
With the availability of a reliable and construct valid adolescent form of the EMBU, longitudinal
studies into the stability (i.e. internal validity) of findings on parental rearing perceptions are now
feasible.

Acknowledgemenrs-Completion of this study was facilitated by Grant 900-560-018 from the Foundation for Medical and
Health Research MEDIGON, The Netherlands. Thanks are due to the pupils and staff members of the schools participating
in the project, and to Laura Van Bergen, Franka Groote, Henk De Jong, Jeanine Maas, Jos Ten Berge, and Janet Vos-Van
Ramshorst for their help and advice at various stages of the study.

REFERENCES
Andrasik, F., Heimberg, R. G., Edlund, S. R. & Blankenberg, R. (1981). Assessing the readability levels of self-report
assertion inventories. Journal of Consulring and Clinical Psychology, 49, 142-144.
Arrindell, W. A., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Brilman, E. & Monsma, A. (1983a). Psychometric evaluation of an inventory
for assessment of parental rearing practices; A Dutch form of the EMBU. Acfa Psychiafrica Scandinavica, 67, 163-177.
Arrindell, W. A., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Monsma, A. & Brilman, E. (1983b). The role of perceived parental rearing
practices in the aetiology of phobic disorders: A controlled study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 183%187.
Arrindell. W. A., Hanewald, G. J. F. P. & Kolk, A. M. (1989). Cross-national constancy of dimensions of parental
rearing style: The Dutch version of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). Personality and Individual Dijfkwces, /O,
949-956.
Arrindell, W. A., Kwee, M. G. T., Methorst, G. J., Van der Ende, J., Pal, E. & Moritz, B. J. M. (1989a). Perceived parental
rearing styles of agoraphobic and socially phobic in-patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, f5.5, 526-535.
Arrindell, W. A.. Perris, C., Eisemann, M., Granell de Aldaz, E., Van der Ende, J.. Kong Sim Guan, D., Richter, J.,
Gaszner, P., Iwawaki, S., Baron, P., Joubert, N. & Prud’homme, L. (1991). Cross-national transferability of the
two-factor model of parental rearing behaviour: A contrast of data from Canada, the German Democratic Republic,
Hungary, Japan, Singapore and Venezuela with Dutch target ratings on the EMBU. Personaby and Individual
Differences. (In press).
Arrindell, W. A., Perris, C., Eisemann, M., Perris, H., Van der Ende, J., Ross, M., Benjaminsen, S., Gaszner, P. & Del
Vecchio. M. (1986b). Cross-national generalizability of patterns of parental rearing behaviour: Invariance of EMBU
dimensional representations of healthy subjects from Australia, Denmark, Hungary, Italy and The Netherlands.
Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 103-I 12.
 EMBU-adolescent 1253

Arrindell, W. A., Perris, C., Perris, H., Eisemann, M., Van der Ende, J. & Von Knorring, L. (1986a). Cross-national
invariance of dimensions of parental rearing behaviour: Comparison of psychometric data of Swedish depressives and
healthy subjects with Dutch target ratings on the EMBU. British Journal 01 Psychiatry, 148, 305-309.
Arrindell, W. A., Perris, C., Van der Ende, J., Gaszner, P., Eisemann, M. & Perris, H. (1989b). Cross-national
generalizability of dimensions of perceived parental rearing practices: Hungary and The Netherlands; A correction and
repetition with healthy adolescents. Psychological Reports, 65, 1079-1088.
Arrindell, W. A., Perris, H., Denia, M., Van der Ende, J., Perris, C., Kokkevi, A., Anasagasti, J. I. & Eisemann, M. (1988).
The constancy of structure of perceived parental rearing style in Greek and Spanish subjects as compared with the Dutch.
International Journal of Psychology, 23, 3-23.
Arrindell, W. A. & Van der Ende, J. (1984). Replicability and invariance of dimensions of parental rearing behaviour:
Further Dutch experiences with the EMBU. Personality and Individual Dffirences, 5, 671-682.
Briggs, S. R. & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales.
Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148.
Castro, J., Toro, J., Arrindell, W. A., Van der Ende, J. & Puig, J. (1990). Perceived parental rearing style in Spanish
adolescents, children and parents: Three new forms of the EMBU. In Psychiatry: A world perspective. Vol. 4: Social
psychiatry; ethics and law; history of psychiatry; psychiatric education. Proceedings of the VIII World Congress of
Psychiatry, Athens, 12-19 October 1989. Stefanis, C. N., Soldatos, C. R. & Rabavilas, A. D. (Eds). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science Publishers.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. & Arrindell, W. A. (I 990). Perceived parental rearing style, parental divorce and transsexualism: A
controlled study. Psychological Medicine, 20, 613-620.
De Figueiredo, J. M. & Lemkau, P. V. (1980). Psychiatric interviewing across cultures: Some problems and prospects. Social
Psychiatry, IS, 117-121.
Emmelkamp, P. M. G. & Heeres, H. (1988). Drug addiction and parental rearing style: A controlled study. The International
Journal of the Addictions, 23, 207-216.
Eysenck, H. J. (1973). The measurement of intelligence. Lancaster: MTP.
Furnham, A. & Henderson, M. (1982). The good, the bad and the mad: Response bias in self-report measures. Personality
and Individual Differences, 3, 3 1 l-320.
Grove, W. M. & Andreasen, N. C. (1982). Simultaneous tests of many hypotheses in exploratory research. The Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, I70, 3-8.
Halverson, Jr, C. F. (1988). Remembering your parents: Reflections on the retrospective method. Journal of Personality,
56, 435-443.
Hoekstra, R. J., Visser, S. & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (1989). A social learning formulation of the etiology of
obsessive-compulsive disorders. In Annual series of European research in behavior therapy, Vol. 4: Fresh perspectives on
anxiety disorders. Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Everaerd, W. T. A. M., Kraaimaat, F. W. & Van Son, M. J. M. (Eds).
Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Holden, G. W. (1990). Parenthood. In Handbook offamily measurement techniques. Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F. & Straus,
M. A. (Eds). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Holden, G. W. & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments, issues, and implications.
Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58.
Jacob, T. & Tennenbaum, D. L. (1988). Family assessment: Rationale, methods, andfuture directions. New York: Plenum.
Levy, D. M. (1943). Maternal overprotection. New York: Columbia University Press.
Parker, G. (1983). Parental overprotection: A risk factor in psychosocial development. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Parker, G. (1984). The measurement of pathogenic parental style and its relevance to psychiatric disorder. Social Psychiatry,
19, 75-81.
Parker, G., Tupling, H. & Brown, L. B. (1979). A Parental Bonding Instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology,
52, l-10.
Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., Von Knorring, L. & Perris, H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for
assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265-274.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Newbury Park, Calif.:
Sage.
Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1982). Further meta-analytic procedures for assessing cognitive gender differences. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 74, 7088712.
Straus, M. A. & Brown, B. W. (1978). Family measurement techniques: Abstracts of published instruments, 1935-1974
(Revised Ed). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1986). Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross-validation of component weights across
populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 41-64.