Parenting Stress of Low-Income Parents of Toddlers and Preschoolers: Psychometric Properties of a Short Form of the Parenting Stress Index

Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, Catherine Ayoub, Lorraine McKelvey, Richard A. Faldowski, Andrea D. Hart, Jeffery Shears

Parenting · 2007 · 165 citations · 30 references

Concepts

Abstract

SYNOPSIS Objective. This study examines psychometric properties of 2 scales of the Parenting Stress Index—Short Form (PSI—SF) in a sample of preschool children from low-income families. Design. The factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Parental Distress and Parent—Child Dysfunctional Interaction subscales were assessed for 1122 Early Head Start parents of 15 (n = 959), 25 (n = 899), and 37-month-old (n = 845) children in a multisite study. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) compared the fit of 2-factor scales that are recommended by the developer with theoretically derived 5-factor scales. Results. CFA indicated that the 5-factor scales fit the data better than the 2-factor scales. Both 2 and 5-factor scales had high internal consistency, and the pattern of relations between the new scales and validity constructs support their usefulness. Conclusions. The PSI—SF scales can be helpful in clinical applications because the proposed scales clarify relations between parent and child outcomes and specific aspects of stress due to parenting. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Permission to use the modified version of the two scales of the Parenting Stress Index–Short Form used inthe Early Head Start Research and Evaluation may be obtained from PAR, Inc. The findings reported here are based on research conducted as part of the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project funded by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U. S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract 105–95–1936 to Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, and Columbia University's Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, in conjunction with the Early Head Start Research Consortium. The Consortium consists of representatives from 17 programs participating in the evaluation, 15 local research teams, the evaluation contractors, and ACF. Research institutions in the Consortium (and principal researchers for conducting this research through 36 months of age) include ACF (Rachel Chazan Cohen, Judith Jerald, Esther Kresh, Helen Raikes, & Louisa Tarullo); Catholic University of America (Michaela Farber, Harriet Liebow, Nancy Taylor, Elizabeth Timberlake, & Shavaun Wall); Columbia University (Lisa Berlin, Christy Brady-Smith, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, & Allison Sidle Fuligni); Harvard University (Catherine Ayoub, Barbara Alexander Pan, & Catherine Snow); Iowa State University (Dee Draper, Gayle Luze, Susan McBride, & Carla Peterson); Mathematica Policy Research (Kimberly Boller, Jill Constantine, Ellen Eliason Kisker, John M. Love, Diane Paulsell, Christine Ross, Peter Schochet, Cheri Vogel, & Welmoet van Kammen); Medical University of South Carolina (Richard Faldowski, Gui-Young Hong, & Susan Pickrel); Michigan State University (Hiram Fitzgerald, Tom Reischl, & Rachel Schiffman); New York University (Mark Spellmann & Catherine Tam-is-LeMonda); University of Arkansas (Robert Bradley, Richard Clubb, Andrea Hart, Mark Swanson, & Leanne Whiteside-Mansell); University of California, Los Angeles (Carollee Howes & Claire Hamilton); University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Robert Emde, Jon Korfmacher, JoAnn Robinson, Paul Spicer, & Norman Watt); University of Kansas (Jane Atwater, Judith Carta; & Jean Ann Summers); University of Missouri-Columbia (Mark Fine, Jean Ispa, & Kathy Thornburg); University of Pittsburgh (Beth Green, Carol McAllister, & Robert McCall); University of Washington School of Education (Eduardo Armijo & Joseph Stowitschek); University of Washington School of Nursing (Kathryn Barnard & Susan Spieker), and Utah State University (Lisa Boyce, Gina Cook, Catherine Cal-low-Heusser, & Lori Roggman). The authors thank Consortium members Stephanie Schmitz and Lixiong Gu, who reviewed and commented on an earlier draft of this article, as well as members of the Early Head Start Consortium Measurement Working Group. The content of this article does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U. S. Government.

References

30