ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This article reports on the initial validation of the Fatherhood Scale (FS), a 64-item instrument designed to measure the type of relationship a male adult had with his father while growing up. The FS was validated using a convenience sample of 311 males. The assessment packet contained a demographic form, the Conflict Tactics Scale (2), Self-Esteem Scale, and the Fatherhood Scale. A series of factor analysis resulted in 13 factors accounting for 75% of the variance. Factors with high correlations that were theoretically related to other factors were combined resulting in nine subscales measuring positive and negative paternal engagement, fatherhood roles, and paternal emotional responsiveness. The subscales attained high levels of internal consistency reliability, with alpha levels ranging from 0.80 to 0.96. The scale has an overall reliability of 0.98, and showed preliminary evidence of differentiating between groups of men on self-esteem and intimate partner violence. The FS is a new assessment tool designed for use by social work practitioners and researchers to assess an individual’s relationship with his father.
Content may be subject to copyright.
10.1177/1049731503257863ARTICLERESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE
The Fatherhood Scale
Gary L. Dick
University of Cincinnati
This article reports on the initial validation of the Fatherhood Scale (FS), a 64-item instrument designed to measure
the type of relationship a male adult had with his father while growing up. The FS was validated using a convenience
sample of 311 males. The assessment packet contained a demographic form, the Conflict Tactics Scale (2), Self-
Esteem Scale, and the Fatherhood Scale. A series of factor analysis resulted in 13 factors accounting for 75% of the
variance. Factors with high correlations that were theoretically related to other factors were combined resulting in
nine subscales measuring positive and negative paternal engagement, fatherhood roles, and paternal emotional
responsiveness. The subscales attained high levels of internal consistency reliability, with alpha levels ranging from
0.80 to 0.96. The scale has an overall reliability of 0.98, and showed preliminary evidence of differentiating between
groups of men on self-esteem and intimate partner violence. The FS is a new assessment tool designed for use by
social work practitioners and researchers to assess an individual’s relationship with his father.
Keywords: fathers; instrument; measurement; research; fatherhood
During the last decade there has been a proliferation of
scholarly research on fathers that has heightened our
interest and expanded our knowledge and understanding
of fatherhood (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000;
Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Researchers have studied
the diverse forms of fatherhood (Coles, 2001; Stone, 2002);
father involvement (Parke, 1996, 2000); paternal identity
(Pasley, Futris, & Martle, 2002; Rane & McBride, 2000);
and the ways in which fathers influence their children’s
development (Cabrera, Tamis-Lemonda, Bradley, Hofferth,
& Lamb, 2000; Lamb, 1997; Marsiglio, 1995). In response
to the paucity of social work literature on fathers, this arti
-
cle describes a new scale used to assess the type of pater
-
nal relationship male adults had with their fathers during
their formative years. Pleck and Pleck (1997) noted the
amount of time fathers spend with their children is an
important consideration for researchers and clinicians,
yet it is equally important to understand the type and qual
-
ity of the relationship a father has with his children. In the
United States there appears to be two divergent trends
emerging on fatherhood: The first is the increasing num
-
ber of children who will grow up without a father present
in their lives, yet the second trend shows an increasing
number of men who desire to be more actively involved
fathers (Cabrera et al., 2000). The Fatherhood Scale (FS)
(Dick, 2000) measures various kinds of paternal involve-
ment, the degree to which the behaviors occurred, the
roles fathers engage in, and the individual’s perceptions
about the quality of the emotional relationship with the
father.
It is now recognized that fathers offer a different kind
of parenting from mothers, and that many fathers desire to
be more involved with their children and move beyond
the traditional breadwinning role. This growing emphasis
on fatherhood in no way diminishes the important role of
women as parents. In many ways, there is a growing
cultural consensus that responsible fatherhood not only
means establishing paternity, but it supports the mother
and the child emotionally and financially. Responsible
fatherhood involves a collaborative relationship with the
mother (even if divorced or unmarried) and for the father
to remain a positive presence in the child’s life. Since the
first edition of The Role of the Father in Child Develop
-
ment (Lamb, 1976), researchers and clinicians are more
open to recognizing broader definitions of what it means
to be a good father. Children grow up in a variety of fam
-
ily types in which the social and cultural expectations are
intertwined with the life course development of the par
-
ents. Day-to-day events and the ways fathers interpret
them shape paternal roles and family processes and ulti
-
mately influence childrens psychosocial development
(Lamb, 1997).
The concept of fatherhood is evolving, and how a man
is expected to act as a father has changed dramatically
over time (Cabrera et al., 2000; Frank, 1998; Griswold,
80
Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the 13th National Sym
-
posium on Dissertations in Social Work at The Ohio State University, April 6,
2001, Columbus, Ohio. Correspondence may be addressed to Dr. Gary L. Dick,
School of Social Work, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210108, Cincinnati,
OH 45221-0108; e-mail: gary.dick@uc.edu
Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 14 No. 2, March 2004 80-92
DOI: 10.1177/1049731503257863
© 2004 Sage Publications
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1993; Lamb, 2000). Becoming a father requires an iden
-
tity shift in how a man defines himself. This has stimu
-
lated scholars’ interest in how the father role is incorpo
-
rated into a father role identity (Marsiglio, 1995; Pasley
et al., 2002; Rane & McBride, 2000). The culture of
fatherhood, which sets out expectations of how fathers
should behave, has been quicker to change than the con
-
duct of fatherhood, which is what fathers actually do
(LaRossa, 1997). Historically, fathers have served as a
bridge to the outside world. They are responsible for the
social status of the family and serve as role models for
employment and achievement. Despite the great diversity
of ways fathers carry out their roles, breadwinning has
remained the central unifying element in a father’s contri
-
butions to his male children, shaping their sense of self
and defining their manhood (Christiansen & Palkovitz,
2001; Griswold, 1993). Our ideals of fatherhood have
shifted over time and are continually being shaped by the
social and historical contexts in which fathers live out
their lives (Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000).
Scholars’ conceptualization of fatherhood has
changed over time, shifting from the colonial father as the
stern patriarch and spiritual leader in the home, to the
modern playful nurturing father role (see Griswold, 1993,
and LaRossa, 1997 for a greater detail on the history of
fatherhood). The role of the father as the breadwinner
rather than a nurturer came about largely as a result of the
industrial revolution (Pleck & Pleck, 1997). During this
time men were forced to work outside the home spending
long hours away from their children and families. As a
result, families adapted to fathers being away from the
home, and fathers became less involved in the daily care
of their children while the mother’s influence increased.
In response, scholars and experts on family development
became concerned about the father’s absence and his
unavailability as a sex role model to his children
(Griswold, 1993).
In the 1920s, paternal involvement became linked to
theories of psychosocial development. The importance of
fathers in supporting healthy personality development
was emphasized. Although this was applicable to boys
and girls, there was a special concern for the role of the
father in shaping sons’sense of manhood and masculinity
(Griswold, 1993). As fathers became more distant and
mothers spent more time with their children, experts dur
-
ing the 1930s encouraged fathers to become more
involved in the lives of their children, especially as a gen
-
der role model. In the 1970s, as more and more women
entered the work force, men lost their role as the sole
breadwinner for their families. As the roles of women
changed, so did the roles of men. Largely as a result of the
feminist movement men were challenged to share equally
in the nurture and care of their children (Griswold, 1993).
As a result, a new fatherhood emerged, a nurturing, more
emotionally available and involved father. As fathers
become more involved in home responsibilities and in the
care of their children in positive and supportive ways,
their wives and children stand to benefit; and this involve
-
ment can be rewarding and satisfying for these men.
However, one of the contemporary issues of fatherhood is
the stress experienced from balancing work and family
life, something already quite familiar to women (Berry &
Rao, 1997).
Other scholars, who view fatherhood as multidimen
-
sional, would argue that viewing men exclusively as
breadwinners or sex role models limits our understanding
of the complexity of fatherhood roles (LaRossa, 1997;
Pleck & Pleck, 1997). There has never been a single, uni
-
tary fatherhood role, and men’s changing roles in the fam
-
ily cannot be charted on a linear track from the moral
overseer to the new nurturing father (Mintz, 1998). Life-
course events shape how men enact the fatherhood role.
In addition, there are contemporary social trends that
influence family life and a father’s roles in particular.
Cabrera et al. (2000) identified four such current social
themes: An increase in cultural diversity in the United
States, an increase in women’s participation in the labor
force, the absence of many fathers from their children,
and the desire of some fathers for increased involvement
in their children’s lives.
Although economic provision has been a consistent
idea of what a father should do (Christiansen & Palkovitz,
2001), we know very little about the extent to which
fathers are engaging in the nurturing father role. It is
therefore important for social workers to examine the
degree to which men actually engage in these various
paternal roles. Little is known about male adults percep
-
tion of how their father carried out his paternal role, and
understanding the emotional responsiveness of fathers, as
perceived by the male adult, is almost nonexistent. There
are parent involvement scales that focus on how parents’
roles affect the child, but few on the male adult’s percep
-
tion of the quality of paternal involvement.
Several standardized instruments have been developed
that measure parenting and its relationship to children’s
adjustment to the parenting. Fine, Worley, and Schwebel
(1985) developed the Parent Child-Relationship Survey,
a 24-item instrument that assesses older children’s per
-
ceptions of emotional closeness, trust, parental roles, and
anger directed toward parents. The Parental Nurturance
Scale (PNS) (Buri, 1989; Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, &
Mueller, 1988) was constructed to measure parental
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 81
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
82 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
nurturance and parental authority in relations to college
students’ self-esteem. The PNS has repeatedly found a
positive relationship between mother and father nurtur
-
ance and self-esteem in adolescents (Buri, Kirchner, &
Walsh, 1987; Buri, Murphy, Richtsmeier, & Komar,
1992). The Parenting Scale (PS) (Arnold, O’Leary,
Wolff, & Acker, 1993) was developed to examine dys
-
functional parental discipline practices in young children
with the purpose of identifying parental discipline mis
-
takes that may be related to child behavior problems, such
as acting out, aggression, and oppositional disorder. One
of the unique aspects of the PS is its usefulness for early
identification of dysfunctional parenting practices, where
incorrect disciplining of young children (laxness, over
-
reactivity, and verbosity) may contribute to behavior
problems in those children. Copenhaver and Eisler
(2000) developed the Attitude Toward Father Scale
(ATFS), a 45-item self-report instrument that measures
participant’s attitudes toward their father. The ATFS, ini
-
tially tested on 225 college students, measures the emo
-
tional aspects of the relationship with the father, includ-
ing the fear of negative evaluation by the father. Giuili &
Hudson (1977) developed the Child’s Attitude Toward
Father Scale (CAF), a 25-item instrument designed to
measure the degree of contentment an individual has in
his relationship with the father. The Parental Bonding
Instrument, (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) measures
adults’ perceptions of parental care and control up to
when they were 16 years old. The instrument has been
used in studies to show a relationship between low care
and high parental control and measures on depression,
anxiety, and other psychosocial problems (Pedersen,
1994). The Swedish instrument, Egna Minnen Berorende
Uppfostram (EMBU) (Perris, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von
Knorring, & Perris, 1980), which measures adult’s mem
-
ories of the parenting behaviors of fathers and mothers,
has been used in research to study abusive men’s relation
-
ships with their fathers (Dutton, 1998). The Inventory of
Father Involvement (IVF) (Hawkins, Bradford,
Palkovitz, Christiansen, Day, & Call, 2002), a 26-item
instrument was developed to capture the multidimen
-
sional aspects of fathers’involvement with their children.
Attempting to broaden how scholars conceptualize father
involvement, the scale was developed to include support
of the mother and aspects of nurturing such as praise and
affection. The IVF is a self-report instrument for fathers
to report on their own level of involvement.
This research focuses on the design of a scale to mea
-
sure male adult children’s perceptions of their relation
-
ships with their fathers while they were growing up. It is
very likely that social workers providing treatment
services to adults will encounter individuals whose cen
-
tral issues revolve around their relationships with their
fathers. The scale is intended to assist in the following:
help social workers assess the type of paternal involve
-
ment individuals had with their fathers during childhood
and adolescence
assist social workers in treatment planning, possibly
helping individuals to sort out their unresolved issues
with their fathers, clarifying the strengths of the relation
-
ship, as well as areas of deprivation
as men examine their relationships with their fathers, so
-
cial workers can help them construct the kind of role they
want to have with their own children
provide an instrument for further research into under
-
standing levels of paternal involvement.
Father involvement is changing, and it is important for so
-
cial workers to have an instrument with which to measure
paternal involvement.
METHOD
Conceptual Framework of the Fatherhood Scale
It is important to view fathers as being involved in a
variety of roles that affect their identities, and that their
level of paternal involvement is socially constructed and
individual in nature (Marsiglio, 1995; Parke, 2000).
Therefore, all items were initially considered within the
framework that men enact their roles within a cultural and
historical context; that there is a great diversity in how
men carry out their role as a father; that men are commit
-
ted to a variety of identities, some of which will compete
with fatherhood; and that life circumstances influence the
degree to which men embrace and enact their role as
father. In the development of the FS, items were consid
-
ered if they represented a range of paternal behaviors,
including negative and positive and whether certain items
represented the subjective interpretive meaning about the
quality of the paternal emotional relationship.
Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) noted that multiple items
could be chosen to represent a hypothetical domain and
suggest the domain-sampling method. This involves
defining each construct clearly and then developing items
that fit the definition of each construct. The FS measures
four domains: (a) actual events that occurred with the
father (My father helped me with homework); (b) partici
-
pants’perceptions of their fathers (My father is mean); (c)
how they felt about their fathers (I have warm feelings
toward my father); and (d) the emotional responsiveness
of the father (My father comforted me when I was feeling
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
bad), as perceived by the individual completing the
instrument. The 64-item FS measures perceptions of the
emotional responsiveness of the father based on the sub
-
jective experience of the participants. Each item is ranked
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never)to5(always).
Higher numbers indicate positive paternal involvement,
and 11 negative items are inversely scored.
Guiding Theory for Scale Development
It is important to view fatherhood as multidimensional
and dynamic. As fathers become involved with their chil
-
dren, they enact various roles, many of which shift and
change as the family moves through time. Understanding
the degree to which fathers are emotionally available has
implications for clinical social work practice. The FS was
designed based on dimensions of paternal involvement
(Hawkins & Palkovitz, 1999; Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, &
Levine, 1985; Palkovitz, 1997); the roles of fatherhood,
or the dominant cultural images of fatherhood (Griswold,
1993; LaRossa, 1997; Pleck & Pleck, 1997), with self-
psychology, a theory of the self (Kohut, 1977). Self-
psychological theory postulates that a certain type of
paternal behaviors, such as warmth, empathy, and emo-
tional responsiveness, are critical for the development of
a self-structure. Self-psychology is synonymous with the
nurturing father role and provides a framework for under-
standing the importance of the father’s emotional avail-
ability to the child.
Social learning theory is one theoretical framework
that explains level of paternal involvement a father has
with his children. The modeling hypothesis proposes that
a man either models his own father’s level of involve
-
ment, or he compensates for a lack of his own father’s
involvement (Pleck, 1997). However, a man is more
likely to model his father’s level of involvement when his
father’s affective response to him is positive but compen
-
sate for it when the affective response is negative (Pleck,
1997). Self-psychology was integrated into the scale
because it offers a more interpretive perspective about the
quality of the relationship than modeling and imitation.
Self-psychological theory. What has been lacking in
research on fatherhood has been a theory explaining the
importance of the psychological presence of the father in
the child’s life. Rohner and Veneziano (2001), in their
analysis of approximately 100 studies on parent-child
relationships, found that children’s perceptions of their
father’s acceptance/rejection, affection/indifference was
as important as mother love in predicting the social, emo
-
tional, and cognitive development of children and young
adults. Self psychology (Kohut, 1977) postulates that a
critical component in the development of the child’s
sense of self is for the child to have an empathic relation
-
ship with the parent. Self-psychological theory, although
it has not been empirically tested, provides an explana
-
tory model of how fathers, in addition to mothers, can
shape and influence the child’s self-esteem and poten
-
tially influence how he assumes a role as a father.
Empathy in its broadest sense is a special mode of per
-
ceiving the psychological experience of another. For chil
-
dren to grow into healthy adults, they need certain empa
-
thic responses from parents. A father who is empathic is
more likely to have an instant identification, a quick and
deep understanding of the internal experience of his child
(Berger, 1987). Empathy is central to self psychology and
these empathic responses are what Kohut (1977)
described as selfobject functions. Selfobjects are not the
person, or the self of the other person, but they are the
child’s subjective experience of the relationship (Bacal,
1995), hence the importance of a retrospective design.
The formulation of the self is dependent on the caretakers
in the child’s environment (and in this case, the father)
being able to continually provide certain psychological
responses that support the emerging sense of self in the
child. These selfobjects functions are (a) mirroring, (b)
idealizing, and (c) twinship. Mirroring is the need to be
admired, recognized, feel affirmed, accepted, and appre-
ciated by a loving, emotionally responsive parent. Ideal-
izing is the need to be part of, or linked to, an admired and
respected other (Bacal, 1992). Twinship is the need to
experience alikeness with a stable, wise, and calm ideal
-
ized other. Psychologically speaking, the child needs to
feel linked to a father whom he or she admires, who is sta
-
ble, calm, and wise.
When Kohut (1977) placed the self at the core of the
personality, the quest for self-esteem became central to
personality development. The failure of the mother or the
father to provide these functions leaves the child desper
-
ately searching for the self and the missing selfobject
functions. Narcissistic rage emerges when the fragile self
is misunderstood, or when the flow of empathy is cut off.
This theory assumes that the quality of the father-child
relationship is an inevitable part of the development of a
psychological self-structure. A cold, rejecting, and indif
-
ferent father would likely contribute to low self-esteem in
his children. The ability of the father to be emotionally
responsive, to be empathic, and to serve as a calming sta
-
ble force in the child’s life will contribute to the internal
-
ization of these qualities in the child. An empathic father
can understand the child’s needs, the immediacy of those
needs, and what should be done to meet them (Rowe &
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 83
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
MacIssac, 1989). As the father protects the child from too
much frustration and stimulation, this kind of parenting
promotes the internalization of self-soothing mechanisms
and the maintenance of self-esteem (Rowe & MacIssac,
1989).
Paternal involvement. Lamb (1987) defined paternal
involvement as consisting of three major components:
engagement, accessibility, and responsibility. Engage
-
ment operationalized in the FS is the one-on-one contact a
father has with his child, such as spending time together
in activities. When a father is this positively engaged with
his child, the caregiving behaviors foster trust, provide a
model for father involvement, and facilitate a bonding
between a father and his children. On the other hand,
because some fathers engage negatively with their chil
-
dren, items were constructed for the FS to measure nega
-
tive paternal engagement. Physical abuse done by the
father (abusing the child, hitting a sibling) emotional mal
-
treatment (father says mean things, says he does not like
the child), and exposure to marital violence (child sees
father beating or hitting the mother) are items to measure
the harmful ways in which fathers negatively engage with
their children, cutting off the flow of much needed
selfobject functions.
Accessibility is the kind of involvement in which the
father is involved in a specific activity, such as cooking,
reading, cutting the grass, or performing household
chores, but is available to respond to the child. In other
words, he is there when the child needs him. In the FS,
accessibility is operationalized as the father’s availability
to also be a problem solver, and the degree to which he is
verbally engaged to help the child sort out his problems.
The third component of paternal involvement is
responsibility: the degree to which the father is account
-
able for the child’s welfare and care (Lamb, 1987).
Responsibility involves routine child-care tasks, such as
taking the child to the doctor, reading to the child, or
attending parent-teacher conferences, and other such
tasks that support and promote the growth and develop
-
ment of the child. Working fathers who provide finan
-
cially for their families make a significant contribution to
the child’s well-being. For many fathers, the good pro
-
vider role has been their most significant and responsible
contribution to their children, whereas spending high
quality individual time with the child and maintaining the
emotional bond is nonexistent.
Roles of fathers. The fatherhood role has been histori
-
cally conceptualized as a multistage model that has
shifted from the father as the moral overseer, to the good
provider, to the sex role model and to the new nurturing
father (Frank, 1998; Griswold, 1993; Pleck, 1987;
Rotundo, 1985). The dominant role as a good provider
has placed restrictions on fathers’ involvement with their
children (Griswold, 1993), and this may have limited
their ability to be emotionally involved with their chil
-
dren or at minimum, not as available as the father may
have wanted to be. As gender roles in our society have
changed, a new ideal image of fatherhood has emerged.
This is one in which the father is nurturing and sensitive,
and he is a man who shares equally with his wife in most
aspects of child care. The FS was designed to measure
paternal roles—specifically the moral father role, the
gender role model, and the good provider role. Because
gender roles influence family roles, additional items were
developed to measure the androgynous role. The nurtur
-
ing father role is synonymous with positive paternal emo
-
tional responsiveness, and therefore items developed to
capture those constructs are pooled.
Sample
A convenience purposeful sample of 311 males partic-
ipated in this study. Participants were recruited from
training seminars of child welfare workers, domestic vio-
lence groups for male spouse abusers, graduate classes in
social work, and teachers and fathers from a public Mon-
tessori high school in Ohio. The rationale to include
fathers from each of these groups was to optimize the
variance of the types of fathers the participants may have
experienced in their childhood and adolescent years. It
was hypothesized that abusive men would be more likely
to have negative and/or abusive fathers (Dutton, 1998),
and that men working in child welfare, attending graduate
school in social work, or men with children in a Montes
-
sori school that encourages a high level of paternal
involvement, would possibly have a more nurturing and
involved father.
Procedure
The researcher introduced the study to groups that the
participants were already attending, such as batterer treat
-
ment groups, training seminars, graduate classes, and
parent meetings at the Montessori school. Participants
were invited to participate in a research study about
father-son relationships. They would be asked to consider
the ways their fathers’ parenting skills may have influ
-
enced the ways they now felt about themselves and how
they currently settle conflict with their intimate partners.
The men were informed that participation was voluntary
84 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and anonymous. If the group members indicated that they
were interested in participating in the study, they received
a letter introducing the study plus the surveys. The assess
-
ment packet contained a demographic form, the Conflict
Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, &
Sugarman, 1996) (2), Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965), and the Fatherhood Scale (Dick,
2000). Because of the interest and an eagerness to partici
-
pate, the majority of members completed the surveys in
their groups and mailed them to the researcher. The
researcher attended several group meetings over the
course of 2 months to collect the data.
Because of the sensitive nature of the questions, partic
-
ipants were told that they could withdraw from the study
at any time. It was stated that some of the questions
were sensitive and might invoke strong emotions;
therefore a list of social service agencies providing
counseling was included should anyone need counsel
-
ing. The researcher’s phone number was on the letter
introducing the survey, and it was explained that the
researcher was available to answer any questions about
the research, or to discuss the use of professional help
should anyone experience emotional distress from partic-
ipating. No respondent phoned or indicated any unusual
distress as a result of participating. This research was
approved by Ohio State University’s Human Subjects
Review Board.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The mean age of the respondents (N = 311) was 34
years (SD = 10.5). Of the participants, 50% earned less
than $40,000 annually; 23% earned between $40,000 and
$60,000; and 26% had incomes in excess of $60,000. The
majority of the participants (66%) had always lived with
their fathers during childhood and adolescence, and 76%
identified the father as the primary male caretaker while
growing up. Of the participants, 40% had a college degree
or higher, and 35% of their fathers had attained a college
degree or a graduate degree. The majority of the partici
-
pants were Caucasian (76%). Although 47% reported
being currently married, almost one third (n = 107) had
experienced a parental divorce while still in childhood
(M = 10.3, SD = 7.73).
The mean score in the study on the original 75-item
Fatherhood Scale was 213 (SD = 42.15). The range was
from 75 to 250, out of a possible range from 75 to 375. Of
the participants, 40% had fathers who never or rarely
engaged with them, compared to 10% with fathers who
often or always engaged with them.
Reliability
Multiple items that measure the same construct are
expected to be internally consistent; this is to measure the
same phenomena (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used in this study to
evaluate the subscale reliabilities. Each subscale was
investigated separately, and the alpha coefficients are
shown in Table 1. It is also important in scale develop
-
ment to make a decision about the acceptability of the
magnitude of the reliability coefficient. The researcher
needs to take into consideration what decisions will be
made based on the scores, and the consequences of those
decisions (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). In the early
stages of construct validation, it is acceptable for instru
-
ments to have modest reliabilities, such as 0.70 (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 1994). When comparing groups, a reliabil
-
ity of 0.80 is adequate, whereas when important decisions
regarding tests scores (selection and placement) are made
about individuals, a reliability of 0.95 is the desirable
standard (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). For the purposes
of this study, to establish construct validity, an acceptable
level was set at 0.80.
Although the interitem correlations within each
subscale ranged from 0.80 to 0.96, seven subscales had
interitem correlations above 0.85, indicating that the
items within the subscales were highly related. Reliabil-
ity and the standard error of measurement are interre
-
lated, and it is necessary to report the standard error of
measurement. The standard error of measurement for the
subscales ranged from 0.32 to 0.83, all below the recom
-
mended 5% of the scale range score. Ongoing investiga
-
tion of the reliability of the Fatherhood Scale will con
-
tinue, but these alpha levels suggest that the scale has
strong internal consistency in its present form.
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is an appropriate statistical technique
for examining the underlying structure of a large number
of variables and for data reduction (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). For factor analysis to be mean
-
ingful, it is important that a strong theoretical foundation
underlies the development of the instrument (Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991). Interpretation of the meaning of the
factors only makes sense in terms of what is known about
the constructs under examination. The Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Test indicates that
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 85
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
underlying factors caused a significant proportion of the
variance in the variables.
A principal components analysis (PCA) was selected
because in addition to extracting common variance
among the variables, principal components extracts vari
-
ance that is unique to an indicator as well as error variance
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). A PCA was also used for
item reduction. Principal components extracts variance in
descending order, so that the first indicator extracts the
maximum variance possible; then the second indicator
extracts the maximum variance possible from what is left
from the first component. To establish order from various
domains of fatherhood, PCA was utilized to determine if
the relations among the variables reflected the constructs
on which the scale was developed. It was hypothesized
that two general factors (positive and negative fathering)
would emerge accounting for the majority of the vari-
ance, and that within these common factors would be spe-
cific variables representing the roles of fathers. In addi
-
tion, there was reason to believe that many aspects of
positive paternal involvement, (a) such as a warm, close,
and loving relationship, (b) responsible and accessible
fathering, were likely to be intercorrelated; that is, factor
analysis would likely produce a general factor. Orthogo
-
nal and oblique rotations were used during an array of
factor analysis to examine the data. The major goal in any
rotation is to obtain theoretically meaningful factors
within the simplest factor structure. Because quartimax
rotation rotates the initial factor, so that a variable loads
high on one factor and as low as possible on all the other
factors, it seemed logical to employ (Hair et al., 1995).
All items revealed a communality of 1, indicating all
the variance was explained by the common factors. After
factor extraction, the scree plot flattened at approxi
-
mately 13 components. The principal components analy
-
sis using a quartimax rotation method produced 13 fac
-
tors that possessed eigenvalues with value of at least 1,
accounting for 75% of the total variance. A factor loading
represents the correlation between the original variable
and its factor. With the sample size of 311, guidelines rec
-
ommend significant factor loadings of at least 0.33 (Hair
et al., 1995).
The factors were rather straightforward to interpret. As
indicated in Table 2, the 13 factors identified were the fol
-
lowing: the Positive Emotional Engagement; Emotional
Abuse; Physically Abusive; Breadwinner; Wife Abuser;
Responsible; Moral Role; Accessible and Verbal; Gender
Role Model; School Involvement; Emotionally Expres-
sive; Androgynous; and the Hateful Father. Factors load-
ing on more than one factor were placed with the factor
that was the most theoretically related, after examining
face validity and factor loadings. Items that failed to load
highly on any factors resulted in the elimination of 11
items. Factor 1, Positive Emotional Engagement, which
accounted for 41% of the variance, became three
subscales: the positive paternal engagement, positive
paternal emotional responsiveness, and the responsible
father. Theoretically and statistically, they are related, but
they clearly represent different types of fathering that
have practical relevance for social work practice. In
examining the component matrix, a decision was made to
combine the factors of Physically Abusive, Emotional
Abuse, and Wife Abuser into the subscale called negative
paternal engagement. The factor representing Emotion
-
ally Expressive was combined with Androgynous. Factor
13 only had one item (Hateful Father) and therefore was
eliminated from the scale. Nine subscales were developed
for the testing of the FS: Positive Engagement, Positive
Emotional Responsiveness, Negative Engagement,
Moral Father Role, Good Provider Role, Gender Role
Model, Androgynous Role, Accessible Father, and the
Responsible Father.
Content Validity
Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) indicated that defining
an appropriate domain of content is essential for estab
-
lishing content validity. The FS was designed to follow
86 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
TABLE 1:
Scale Descriptives, Alphas, and Standard Error of Measurements (SEMs)
Subscale
α
SEMs
MSD
Positive emotional responsiveness .96 1.5 57.0 18.3
Positive engagement .93 1.1 36.9 13.6
Negative engagement .85 .67 48.2 8.09
Moral father role .86 .47 14.6 5.68
Good provider role .90 .46 19.4 5.54
Gender role model .80 .44 16.1 5.29
Androgynous role .83 .45 19.9 5.51
Paternal accessibility .87 .32 10.2 3.95
Paternal responsibility .90 .83 27.8 10.0
Total fatherhood scale .98 4.5 232.9 54.3
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
the principles of the domain-sampling model, which
asserts that an infinite number of items could potentially
capture the constructs for each subscale (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). To insure breadth and depth of the con-
struct, this model assumes that when developing an
instrument, the researcher should ideally select a random
sample of items from an infinite population of items. It is
impossible to define all potential items that could be used
for each subscale in the FS, therefore content validity
must be assessed in other ways.
One approach is to use competent judges who are
experts within the domain area to determine the degree to
which the items constitute the essential features of the
concept. Experts in the field of social work, fatherhood,
and self-psychology helped establish face validity as to
which items captured the concepts. Each expert inde
-
pendently reviewed the items and made specific changes
to the wording of the items making sure each item repre
-
sented a single idea and that they were clear and direct.
They suggested that items should not be bound by a cer
-
tain level of socioeconomic status, and that those items
that may be emotionally stimulating not be placed in the
beginning of the scale. The expert on self-psychology
suggested that the items should be stated in a way that
tapped more into the unconscious. This example, “I have
warm feelings for my father, may be more representative
of the longing for twinship experiences, than the reality of
the father-child relationship.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Constructs reflect hypotheses about abstract and latent
behaviors rather than observable and concrete dimensions
of behavior (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Construct
validity is the degree to which items in a measure relate to
other items as theoretically expected (Rubin & Babbie,
2001). Construct validity consists of convergent and
discriminant validity. Convergent validity refers to the con-
vergence of different methods to measure the same con-
struct (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). One way to assess
convergent validity is to determine if the results of the new
measurement correlate with other methods of measuring
the same construct (Rubin & Babbie, 2001). However, data
from other forms of assessment measuring fatherhood was
not available on these respondents. Another way to estab-
lish convergent validity is the degree to which subscale and
item scores are correlated to those that they are theoreti
-
cally similar (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Another way
to demonstrate construct validity is to determine if there is
a correlation between variables in that are theoretically
associated (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Construct
validity was tested by examining the subscale scores with
other subscale scores that are assumed to be theoretically
related. It can be assumed that if fathers are positively
engaged with their children, they would also be accessible
and most likely be positively emotionally responsive to
them. Examination of these subscales in Table 3 indicates
that they are substantially correlated.
For a test to have discriminant validity, subscales that
are not theoretically related should not be highly corre
-
lated. To examine discriminant validity, negative paternal
involvement, in principle, should not have high correla
-
tions with Positive Emotional Responsiveness or the
Moral Father Role. Several correlations were run on indi
-
vidual test items that are in theory opposite. Table 4
shows nonsignificant low correlations between the items.
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 87
TABLE 2:
Results for the Extraction of Component Factors
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
% of Cumulative
Component Description of factor Total variance %
1 Positive emotional engagement 31.005 41.339 41.339
2 Emotional abuse 3.600 4.800 46.140
3 Physically abusive 3.005 4.073 50.213
4 Breadwinner 2.665 3.554 53.767
5 Wife abuser 2.324 3.098 56.865
6 Responsible 2.124 2.831 59.696
7 Moral role 1.998 2.264 62.360
8 Accessible and verbal 1.653 2.204 64.564
9 Gender role 1.577 2.103 66.667
10 School involvement 1.568 2.091 68.757
11 Emotionally expressive 1.533 2.044 70.801
12 Androgynous 1.312 1.749 72.550
13 Hateful 1.277 1.703 74.252
NOTE: Extraction method: principal components analysis; rotation method: quartimax with Kaiser normalization
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The results show that there are significant correlations
between all the subscales and the FS. A Cronbachs alpha
coefficient of 0.98 was obtained for the FS.
Establishing Known-Groups Validity
Criterion-related validity is based on some external
measure that is believed to be another indicator or mea
-
sure of the same variable that your instrument intends to
measure. Concurrently validity consists of two subtypes:
(a) the ability of the measure to predict a criterion will
occur in the future, and (b) how well the measure corre
-
sponds to a criterion that is concurrently known (Rubin &
Babbie, 2001). A subtype of criterion validity called
known groups validity differentiates between known
groups on specific variables being measured. It was
hypothesized that the constructs of self-esteem and inti
-
mate violence would differentiate between individuals
with positive paternal involvement and individuals with
negative paternal engagement. Prior research studies
have shown that men who abuse intimate partners have
grown up witnessing marital violence (Caeser, 1988;
Dutton, 1998) and have low self-esteem (Hotaling &
Sugarman, 1986). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965) and the Conflict Tactics Scale (2)
(Straus et al., 1996) were selected because both instru-
ments have well-established reliability and validity.
To further test the hypothesis that actively involved
empathic and emotionally available fathers help to sus-
tain self-esteem, analyses were conducted on measures of
the FS with measures on self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965).
The analyses consisted of examining the scores in the top
one third of the range (scores ranging from 102 to 162)
and comparing them to the scores constituting the lower
one third of the range (scores ranging from 33 to 79).
These two groups, which represented low and high posi
-
tive paternal emotional involvement, were analyzed for
differences in self-esteem. The analysis indicated a statis
-
tically significant difference in self-esteem scores
t (–2.134) + .035, p < .05) between the group with high
positive paternal emotional engagement and self-esteem
(M = 32.8, SD = 4.7), and the group with low positive
paternal emotional engagement and self-esteem (M =
30.6, SD = 5.07).
To further test for discriminant validity, analysis
showed a significant negative relationship between mea
-
sures of men who reported a positive emotional relation
-
ship with their fathers and scores on intimate abuse (r =
–.25, p = 0.01), and between measures of self-esteem and
measures on intimate violence (r = –.29, p = 0.01).
88 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
TABLE 3:
Correlations Between the Fatherhood Scale Subscales
Subscale 1 2 3456789
1. Positive engagement ___ .86** .43** .71** .72** .65** .88** .88** .78**
2. Positive emotional responsiveness ___ .43** .70** .79** .66** .78** .90** .91**
3. Negative engagement ___ .30* .16 .31** .43** .45** .36**
4. Moral father ___ .61** .62** .69** .68** .65**
5. Gender role model ___ .60** .64** .75** .77**
6. Good provider ___ .70** .63** .66**
7. Responsible father ___ .79** .74**
8. Accessible father ___ .85**
9. Androgynous role ___
*
p
< .05, two-tailed. **
p
< .01, two- tailed.
TABLE 4:
Item Correlations
Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. My father is caring .___ .30** .59** .53** .43** .30** .59** .23**
2. Said he didn’t like me .___ .28** .01 .42** .40** .17* .53*
3. Praised me .___ .59** .50** .28** .66** .31**
4. Said he loved me .___ .24** .39** .52** –.07
5. Mean dad .___ .51** .44** .45**
6. Hit mom .___ .26** .30*
7. Father comforted me .___ .17*
8. Hurt my feelings .___
*
p
< .05, two-tailed. **
p
< .01, two- tailed.
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION
TO SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
The FS was designed as a retrospective instrument to
measure individuals’ perceptions of their relationships
with their fathers during childhood and adolescence. The
alpha reliabilities and the interitem correlations indicate
that the instrument offers good beginning evidence of the
scale’s internal consistency. The FS has produced excel
-
lent reliabilities for theoretical purposes on all subscales
and acceptable reliabilities for comparing groups. The
strongest subscales showing acceptable reliabilities for
use with individuals are positive paternal engagement,
positive paternal emotional responsiveness, the responsi
-
ble father, and the good provider role. The lower reli
-
abilities on the constructs of roles may be, in part, due to
the limited number of items developed for those con
-
structs and clearly need further development. The FS
offers an instrument for continuing research on father
-
hood and is helpful to social work practitioners assessing
adults’ relationships with their fathers. With further vali-
dation, the FS will offer clinicians a useful tool in assess-
ing paternal involvement with regard to helping adults
who have relationship issues with their fathers.
A limitation of this study is the use of a convenience
sampling strategy, which was predominately White. The
FS scale may have cultural implications that do not take
into account issues pertaining to cultural diversity. Future
studies with a random selection from diverse groups will
allow for issues pertaining to cultural diversity to be
explored. These future studies will help in the validation
process of the FS. Another major limitation of the
research study was the exclusive use of male participants.
Future validation of the scale will include female partici
-
pants. Several factors accounted for minimal variance in
the FS scale. This may, in part, be due to the small number
of items selected to represent those constructs and/or the
wording of the items. The factor analysis assisted in item
reduction and provided preliminary evidence of construct
and content validity. In the future, to further validate con
-
tent validity, it will be important to move from this initial
exploratory analysis to a confirmatory factor analysis
using structural equation modeling.
Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results
with clients. Self psychology is a theory that has not been
empirically tested, and although it provides a framework
for understanding the importance of the father’s role in
the emotional life of his children, it needs further
research. It may be more useful for social work clinicians
to use the FS as one of many methods to explore an indi
-
vidual’s relationship with his father. Following reducing
the scale to 64 items, a score below 128 would indicate
that, overall, the father was rarely involved in positive
behaviors with his child, whereas a score above 256
would indicate a perception of a positively engaged
father. What may be most beneficial for clinicians is to
use the subscales in discussion with a client, as a spring
-
board for a deeper, more thoughtful reflection on his rela
-
tionship with their father. A multidimensional scale such
as the FS has utility for social work practice, especially in
understanding the relationship between the individual
and the social environment. Fathers, much like mothers,
have competing roles and responsibilities that may hinder
their ability to enact the kind of role as a parent they may
desire.
Conclusion
Social work has focused on the mother as a unit of
analysis in terms of her role in the attachment and bond
-
ing process, typically forsaking inquiry into the father’s
contribution to the emotional life of his children.
Although the term maternal deprivation is commonly
understood to explain the condition of the infant who is
emotionally abandoned by the mother, there exists per-
haps, in children and adults, the prevalence of paternal
deprivation, or an internal sense of being emotionally
disconnected from one’s father. As a social problem, the
lack of father involvement in a child’s life should be a
major concern for the social work profession. We have
entered a time in the United States where a common
characteristic defining childhood is growing up father
-
less (Blankenhorn, 1995). The FS has practical implica
-
tions for social work practitioners doing individual,
group, and family therapy. It also has implications for
use in early intervention programs, as a way to engage
the fathers. Social workers who have men in therapy,
especially those social workers who conduct groups for
men who batter women, often find the father factor a sig
-
nificant issue in the emotional life of these men. The FS
could be useful in bringing perspective to one’s relation
-
ship with his own father and in helping men unravel the
complexities of becoming the father he wants to be with
his own children.
Although this research will contribute to an under
-
standing of the ways that men engage in the role of father
-
hood, one key outcome may be that social workers’ inter
-
est in the topic will be stimulated, thereby leading to
further research in the field.
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 89
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
REFERENCES
Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The
parenting scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline
situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137-144.
Bacal, H. (1992). Contributions from self psychology. In R. Klein,
H. S. Bernard, & D. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary
group psychotherapy (pp. 55-85). Madison, CT: International Uni
-
versities Press.
Bacal, H. A. (1995). The centrality of self object experience in psycho
-
logical relatedness. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 5, 403-410.
Berger, D. (1987). Clinical empathy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Berry, J. O., & Rao, J. M. (1997). Balancing employment and father
-
hood: A systems perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 18(4), 386-
402.
Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most
urgent social problem. New York: Basic Books.
Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 33-49.
Buri, J. R., Kirchner, P. A., & Walsh, J. M. (1987). Familial correlates
of self-esteem in young American adults. Journal of Social Psy
-
chology, 127, 583-588.
Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988).
Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-
esteem. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-282.
90 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
APPENDIX A
Subscales of the Fatherhood Scale
Positive Engagement
3. My father took me on activities.
9. During my teen years my father and I did things together.
10. My father liked to spend time with me.
39. My father and I enjoyed time together.
49. My father and I had good times together.
Positive Paternal Emotional Responsiveness
5. My father told me that I was a good boy/girl.
6. My father is a caring person.
8. During my childhood I felt close to my father.
12. I felt close to my father as a teenager.
14. I know my father cared about me.
35. My father comforted me when I was feeling bad.
37. My father made me feel special.
40. My father was loving toward me.
45. I have warm feelings for my father.
53. My father understood me.
54. I told my father I loved him.
56. My father praised me.
62. My father showed concern when I got hurt.
Negative Paternal Engagement
11. My father spanked me.
13. My father hit my mother.
15. My father was ashamed of me as a child.
20. My father used to say things to hurt my feelings.
25. When I got in trouble my father would punish me physically.
27. I saw my father beat my mother.
41. I was abused by my father.
44. When I was a child, my father shouted at me if I did something
wrong.
57. My father is mean.
59. My father used to get angry and say he didn’t like me.
63. I saw my father hit one of my sibs.
The Moral Father Role
26. My father taught me right from wrong.
32. My father went to church with me.
50. My father instilled important values in me.
61. My dad talked to me about God.
65. My father used to say grace at mealtime.
The Gender Role Model
16. My dad taught me to fight back.
21. My father encouraged me to say what I felt.
31. I could talk to my father about anything.
46. My dad would talk to me about things going on in the world.
42. My father talked to me about sex.
47. My dad taught me what it was like to be a man.
The Good Provider Role
17. My father made sure I had the things I needed like clothing and
toys.
19. My father provided well for us financially.
29. My father was a good breadwinner for the family.
36. My dad was always employed while I was growing up.
The Androgynous Role
4. My father told me that he loved me.
23. My father hugged me.
24. My father is a good man.
28. I saw my father cry.
34. My father helped my mom clean the house.
52. My father is a kind man.
64. My dad would cook meals.
Responsible Paternal Engagement
1. My father helped me with my homework.
7. My father attended school conferences.
18. My father read to me as a child.
22. My dad showed interest in my schoolwork.
33. I remember playing sports with my father.
48. My dad attended sporting events in which I played.
51. My father took me to the doctor.
60. My dad attended school activities in which I participated.
The Accessible Father
2. My father talked to be about my personal problems.
30. My father helped me solve my problems.
38. When I got angry, I used to talk things over with my dad.
55. My father was around when I needed him.
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Buri, J. R., Murphy, P., Richtsmeier, L. M., & Komar, K. K. (1992).
Stability of parental nurturance as a salient predictor of self-
esteem. Psychological Reports, 71, 535-543.
Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., &
Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child
Development, 71, 127-136.
Caeser, L. P. (1988). Exposure to violence in the families of origin
among wife abusers and maritally nonviolent men. Violence & Vic
-
tims, 3, 49-62.
Christiansen, S. L., & Palkovitz, R. (2001). Why the good provider
role still matters: Providing as a form of paternal involvement.
Journal of Family Issues, 22, 84-106.
Coles, R. L. (2001). The parenting roles and goals of single Black full-
time fathers. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25, 101-116.
Copenhaver, M. M., & Eisler, R. M. (2000). The development and vali
-
dation of the attitude toward father scale. Behavior Modification,
24, 740-750.
Dick, G. L. (2000). The role of paternal involvement in male violence
against female intimates. Dissertation Abstracts International,
61(02), 767. (UMI No. 9962389)
Dutton, D. G. (1998). The abusive personality: Violence and control in
intimate relationships. New York: Guilford.
Fine, M. A., Worley, S. M., & Schwebel, A. I. (1985). The Parent-
Child Relationship Survey: An examination of its psychometric
properties. Psychological Reports, 57, 155-161.
Frank, S. M. (1998). Life with father: Parenthood and masculinity in
the nineteenth-century American north. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Giuili, C., & Hudson, W. (1977). Child’s attitude toward father scale.
Journal of Social Service Research, 1, 77-92.
Griswold, M. (1993). Fatherhood in America: A history. New York:
Basic Books.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 91
APPENDIX B
The Fatherhood Scale
Directions: Think about your relationship with you father during your childhood and adolescence. Thinking about that person,
answer each question by placing a number between 1 and 5 on the line before each question. Please choose a number that most accu
-
rately reflects your perceptions of the relationship with your father or the person you identify as your father while you were growing
up from the choices below.
1 = Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Always
_____ My father helped me with my homework.
_____ My father talked to me about my personal problems.
_____ My father took me on activities.
_____ My father told me that he loved me.
_____ My father told me that I was a good boy/girl.
_____ My father is a caring person.
_____ My father attended school conferences.
_____ During my childhood I felt close to my father.
_____ During my teen years my father and I did things together.
_____ My father liked to spend time with me.
_____ My father spanked me.
_____ I felt close to my father as a teenager.
_____ My father hit my mother.
_____ I know that my father cared about me.
_____ My father was ashamed of me as a child.
_____ My dad taught me to fight back.
_____ My father made sure I had the things I needed such as clothing
& toys.
_____ My father read to me as a child.
_____ My father provided well for us financially.
_____ My father used to say things that hurt my feelings.
_____ My father encouraged me to say what I felt.
_____ My dad showed interest in my school work.
_____ My father hugged me.
_____ My father is a good man.
_____ When I got in trouble, my father would punish me physically.
_____ My father taught me right from wrong.
_____ I saw my father beat my mother.
_____ I saw my father cry.
_____ My father was a good breadwinner for the family.
_____ My father helped me solve my problems.
_____ I could talk to my father about anything.
_____ My father went to church with me.
_____ I remember playing sports with my father.
_____ My father helped my mother clean the house.
_____ My father comforted me when I was feeling bad.
_____ My dad was always employed while I was growing up.
_____ My father made me feel special.
_____ When I got angry I used to talk things over with my dad.
_____ My father and I enjoyed time together.
_____ My dad would talk to me about things going on in the world.
_____ My father was loving toward me.
_____ I was abused by my father.
_____ My father talked to me about sex.
_____ My father used to say grace at mealtime.
_____ When I was a child, my father shouted at me if I did something
wrong.
_____ I have warm feelings toward my father.
_____ My talked to me about things going on in the world.
_____ My dad taught me what it was like to be a man.
_____ My dad attended sporting events in which I played.
_____ My father and I had good times together.
_____ My father instilled important values in me.
_____ My dad took me to the doctor.
_____ My father is a kind man.
_____ My father understood me.
_____ I told my father that I loved him.
_____ My father was around when I needed him.
_____ My father praised me.
_____ My father is mean.
_____ My father used to get angry and say he didn’t like me.
_____ My dad attended school activities in which I participated.
_____ My dad talked to me about God.
_____ My father showed concern when I got hurt.
_____ I saw my father hit one of my siblings.
_____ My dad would cook meals.
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Hawkins, A. J., Bradford, K. P., Palkovitz, R., Christiansen, S. L., Day,
R. D., & Call, V. R. (2002). The inventory of father involvement: A
pilot study of a new measure of father involvement. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 10, 183-196.
Hawkins, A. J., & Palkovitz, R. (1999). Beyond ticks and clicks: The
need for more diverse and broader conceptualizations and mea
-
sures of father involvement. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8, 11-32.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers
in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Vio
-
lence & Victims, 1, 101-124.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International
Universities Press.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1976). The role of the father in child development.
New York: John Wiley.
Lamb, M. E. (1987). Introductions: The emergent American father. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspective
(pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development
(3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An
overview. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 23-42.
Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985).
Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25, 883-894.
LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood. Chicago: Uni
-
versity of Chicago Press.
Marsiglio, W. (1995). Fatherhood scholarship: An overview and
agenda for the future. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contem-
porary theory, research, and social policy (pp. 1-20). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholar-
ship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage &
the Family, 62, 1173-1191.
Marsiglio, W., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Exploring father-
hood diversity: Implications for conceptualizing father involve-
ment. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 269-293.
Mintz, S. (1998). From patriarchy to androgyny and other myths: Plac
-
ing men’s family roles in historical perspective. In A. Booth & A.
C. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved?
What difference does it make? (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing involvement: Expanding con
-
ceptualizations of men’s caring in contemporary families. In A. J.
Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond
deficit perspectives (pp. 200-216). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Parke, R. D. (2000). Father involvement: A developmental psycholog
-
ical perspective. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 43-58.
Parker, G., Tupling, M., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding
instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 5, 1-10.
Pasley, K., Futris, T. D., & Martie, L. (2002). Effects of commitment
and psychological centrality on fathering. Journal of Marriage &
Family, 64(1), 130-138.
Pedersen, W. (1994). Parental relations, mental health, and delin
-
quency in adolescents. Adolescence, 29, 975-982.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and
analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., von Knorring, L., & Perris, H.
(1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of
parental rearing behavior. Acta Psychiatricia Scandinavia, 61,
265-274.
Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and conse
-
quences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child devel
-
opment (pp. 66-103). New York: John Wiley.
Pleck, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1997). Fatherhood ideals in the United
States: Historical dimensions. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the
father in child development (pp. 33-48). New York: John Wiley.
Rane, T. R., & McBride, B. A. (2000). Identity theory as a guide to
understanding fathers involvement with their children. Journal of
Family Issues, 2, 347-366.
Rohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father
love: History and contemporary evidence. Review of General Psy-
chology, 5, 382-405.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society & the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rotundo, E. A. (1985). American fatherhood: A historical perspective.
American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 7-25.
Rowe, C. E., & MacIssac, D. S. (1989). Empathic attunement: The
techniques of psychoanalytic self psychology. Northvale, NJ: Jason
Aronson.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for social work (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stone, G. (2002). Nonresidential father postdivorce well-being: The
role of social supports. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36, 139-
149.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2). Journal of Fam
-
ily Issues, 17, 283-316.
92 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016rsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... The second measure used was a life history interview. adolescence, we administered a survey which included a modified version of the fatherhood scale (Dick 2004) based on our pilot study (Ridge et al. 2017) and the results of exploratory factor analysis. 9 With regards to the methodological approach to measure father involvement, we depart from the existing research in that we use a retrospective approach to exploring father involvement based on Dick's (2004) study. ...
... adolescence, we administered a survey which included a modified version of the fatherhood scale (Dick 2004) based on our pilot study (Ridge et al. 2017) and the results of exploratory factor analysis. 9 With regards to the methodological approach to measure father involvement, we depart from the existing research in that we use a retrospective approach to exploring father involvement based on Dick's (2004) study. This approach is not common in studies on father involvement in education and has not been used in the region before. ...
... The fatherhood scale is originally a 64-item scale composed of nine subscales: positive engagement (5 items), positive paternal emotional responsiveness (13 items), negative paternal engagement (11 items), the moral father role (5 items), the gender role model (7 items), the good provider role (4 items), the androgynous role (7 items), responsible paternal engagement (8 items), and the accessible father (4 items). SeeDick (2004) for more information. Also, the results of exploratory factor analysis and the details of the final father involvement scale are presented in app. ...
Article
Drawing on original data on father involvement from a study of 1,684 respondents in 10 Middle Eastern countries, this article explores the intersection of father involvement with gender, geography (Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] vs. non-GCC), and generations, with educational attainment. To examine these relationships, we conducted a series of ANOVAs and regressions, supplemented with qualitative interview data. Overall, we find that fathers are perceived to be more encouraging of their daughters’ education than their sons’, that fathers from the GCC are perceived as less involved in their children’s education, and that younger fathers are perceived to be more involved in their children’s education than older ones. We also find that children who perceived their fathers as encouraging and good providers are associated with higher educational attainment. However, this article underscores the need for further research on the nature and impact of father involvement on education in the Middle East.
... Bu çalışmada Dick (2004) tarafından geliştirilen orijinali 64 madde ve dokuz faktör olan Babalık Ölçeği'nin (Fatherhood Scale) 14-18 yaş aralığındaki Türk çocukları için geçerlik güvenirliği test edilmiştir. Bu çerçevede ölçeğin dil geçerliği, kapsam geçerliği, yapı geçerliği ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. ...
... Türkiye'de ve dünyada son yıllarda baba çocuk ilişkisi, babanın çocuğun yaşamındaki yeri ve rolü, baba katılımı (Aydoğmuş, 2018;Gözübüyük ve Özbey, 2020;Jessee ve Adamsons, 2018;Lexman v.d., 2015;Opondo vd., 2016;Özdemir, 2018;Özgündüz, 2015;Planalp ve Braungart Rieker, 2016;Pruett vd., 2019;Turan, 2018;Uzun ve Baran, 2015, 2019 ve baba çocuk bağlanması gibi konularda (Bureu vd., 2017; Demidenko, Manion ve Lee, 2015; Fagan, 2020; Fuertes vd., 2016; Grossmann ve Grossmann, 2020) çalışmaların sayısı artmaktadır. Bu çerçevede bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'de 14-18 yaş arasındaki çocukların babaları ile olan ilişkisini nasıl değerlendirdiklerini belirleyen, tanımlayabilen ve ortaya koyan bir ölçeğe ihtiyaç olduğu noktasından hareketle Dick (2004) tarafından geliştirilen Babalık Ölçeği'nin (Fatherhood Scale) için geçerlik ve güvenirliğini test etmektir. ...
... Bu araştırmada Dick (2004) tarafından geliştirilen Babalık Ölçeği'nin (BÖ) Türkçe uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin orjinali 9 alt boyuttan ve beşli likert tipinde ((1) Hiç-(2) Nadiren-(3) Bazen-(4) Sıklıkla-(5) Her zaman, şeklinde olmak üzere) 64 maddeden oluşmaktadır. ...
Article
Full-text available
Bu çalışmada Dick (2004) tarafından geliştirilen orijinali 64 madde ve dokuz faktör olan Babalık Ölçeği'nin (Fatherhood Scale) 14-18 yaş aralığındaki Türk çocukları için geçerlik güvenirliği test edilmiştir. Bu çerçevede ölçeğin dil geçerliği, kapsam geçerliği, yapı geçerliği ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri için gereksinim duyulan verileri elde etmek için, dil geçerliği gerçekleştirilen form, çevrimiçi araçlar ve sosyal medya aracılığıyla 14-18 yaş aralığındaki 409 çocuğa ebeveynlerinden izin alınarak uygulanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, SPSS ve AMOS programları kullanılmış, KMO, Barlett Sphericity testleri, açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, iç tutarlılık katsayısı (Cronbach Alfa) gibi test teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin 14-18 yaş arası Türk çocukları için uyarlanan formu 52 madde ve 6 boyuttan oluşmuştur. Yapılan istatistiksel analizler sonucu ölçekteki maddelerin toplamı için Cronbach alpha iç tutarlılık katsayısı α=.967 olarak belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin faktörlere ait güvenirlik katsayılarının ise .702 ile .972 arasında olduğu tespit edilmiştir. In this study, the validity and reliability of the Fatherhood Scale, originally developed by Dick (2004) with 64 items and nine factors, were tested for Turkish children aged 14-18. In this context, language, content and structure validity and also reliability studies have been made. In order to obtain the data needed for the validity and reliability analysis of the scale, the language-validated form was administered to 409 children between the ages of 14-18 through online tools and social media, with the permission of their parents. In the analysis of the data, SPSS and AMOS programs were used, and test techniques such as KMO, Bartlett Sphericity tests, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) were used. The form of the scale, which was adapted for Turkish children between the ages of 14-18, consisted of 52 items and 6 factors. As a result of the statistical analysis made, it was determined that the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient for the total of the items in the scale was .967 and between .702- .972 for the sub-dimensions of the scale. Keywords: Fatherhood, Father Child Relationship, Fatherhood Scale, Validity- Reliability.
... The survey used for this study includes questions based on Rosenberg's (1965) Self-Esteem Scale and Dick's (2004) Fatherhood Scale, which are composed of a series of four-point and five-point Likert-scale questions, respectively. Rosenberg's (1965) Self-Esteem Scale is an instrument designed to evaluate an individual's self-esteem by collecting responses to ten statements about both positive and negative feelings about the self, with responses ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree. ...
... Rosenberg's (1965) Self-Esteem Scale is an instrument designed to evaluate an individual's self-esteem by collecting responses to ten statements about both positive and negative feelings about the self, with responses ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree. " Dick's (2004) Fatherhood Scale asks respondents to answer questions about the involvement and the relationships they had with their fathers during childhood and adolescence. Responses may range from 1 ("never") to 5 ("always") to statements across 64 items. ...
Article
To understand the role of Arab fathers in raising their children, which remains understudied, this study analyzed different forms of father involvement during childhood and their relationship with children’s self-esteem during adult life. Drawing on a larger study on father involvement, data were collected from 2,170 respondents across ten countries in the Arab world, consisting of questionnaires about their relationships with their fathers and life history interviews focusing on father involvement. Regression analyses indicated a statistically significant positive relationship between nurturing father involvement, socioeconomic status (SES), and self-esteem, while psychological control showed a statistically significant negative association with self-esteem. Further analysis, differentiating between Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and non-GCC countries, revealed that SES has a stronger relationship with self-esteem in non-GCC countries than in the resource-rich GCC countries.
... Fatherhood Scale (FS) [Bahasa Indonesia version] (Dick, 2004). Fathering was measured by Fatherhood Scale. ...
... In this study, the dimensions of trust and communication were in the low category, while for isolation it was in the low category where adolescents did not feel isolated. Dick (2004) categorized fathering into nine dimensions: Positive involvement, Positive emotional response, Negative involvement, Moral roles, Gender roles, Good providers, Androgynous roles, Responsibility, and Father acceptance. In this study, fathering score was collected through participants' perceptions of their father's involvement in the parenting practices experienced. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to analyze the links among peer attachment, fathering, social media use, and the perception of premarital sexual among adolescents. Two hundred and four high school (SMA) students and 114 Vocational High School (SMK) students voluntarily participated in this online survey. Results showed fathering was negatively associated with the perception of premarital sex among adolescents in which participants with positive experiences in fathering would report low score in perception of premarital sexual. On the other hand, social media use was significantly linked to the high score of perception of premarital sexual. Regression analysis indicated participants’ dating experience, lack of fathering experience and high social media use to be predictors for the perception of premarital sex among adolecscent.
... 91% of the students whose father has a master's degree also aspire to having a master's degree and 87% of students whose father has a bachelor's degree also aspire to having a bachelor's degree. This is further confirmed in our regression analysis where the 11 Our analysis included the 8 categories of father involvement shown in Figure 5, which were derived from Dick's (2004) fatherhood scale included in the survey. Although our analysis resulted in mostly non-significant relationships, this can in part be attributed to the low rates of father involvement reported by the students and we argue that this is a key finding in of itself. ...
Article
Full-text available
Education and employment are key pillars to the United Arab Emirate’s Vision 2021 and National Agenda, in part based on a competitive knowledge economy. To better support policymakers regarding the complexities surrounding education and career related topics, this study explores the roles of parents, and in particular, fathers, in their children’s education and career aspirations. Research has shown that both academic achievement and career success are influenced by the involvement of parents throughout their child’s education; in fact, quality parental involvement in a child’s academic and non-academic life can impact self-esteem, as well as learning outcomes and long-term career success. Based on existing research, and with the nation’s future in mind, this study was carried out using a survey instrument to collect responses from upper secondary students, along with semi structure interviews for additional insights from students, teachers, and school administrators. We find Emirati parents to be extremely supportive and encouraging of their child’s education, despite fathers not being regularly involved in students’ education. Other findings indicate that students are interested in pursuing careers that align with their father’s. Policy recommendations relating to these and other findings include creating father-specific events in schools; addressing barriers to parental involvement and lifelong learning; engaging families to improve the level of education amongst parents; and providing comprehensive education and career counseling guided by research.
... We also assessed the father's warmth and involvement while daughters were growing up (following DelPriore et al., 2019). First, we measured fathers' direct involvement (Dick, 2004) by asking participants to rate how often their father was involved in various activities during their first 16 years of life (e.g., "My father read to me as a child"; 1 = never; 5 = always). We averaged these eight items to create a composite score (a = .91; ...
Article
Full-text available
This research: (1) implements a genetically informed design to examine the effects of fathers’ presence–absence and quality of behavior during childhood/adolescence on daughters’ frequency of substance use during adolescence; and (2) tests substance use frequency as mediating the relation between paternal behavior and daughters’ sexual risk taking. Participants were 223 sister dyads from divorced/separated biological families. Sisters’ developmental exposure to socially deviant paternal behavior predicted their frequency of tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis (TAC) use. Older sisters who co‐resided with fathers who were more (vs. less) socially deviant reported more frequent TAC use during adolescence. More frequent TAC use predicted more risky sexual behavior for these daughters. No effects were found for younger sisters, who spent less time living with their fathers.
Article
Full-text available
This policy brief builds on a larger father involvement study that encompasses 10 countries in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region to identify some of the key challenges of father involvement in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Using mixed methods with a modified Fatherhood Scale survey and life history interviews, the study found notable differences in father involvement in education across geographic, gender, and generational factors. Overall, fathers in GCC countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) tend to be perceived as more encouraging of their children’s education, especially for their daughters, but are less engaged in the types of quality involvement that are key to educational achievement. Based on the findings of this study, this policy brief highlights some of the key challenges of GCC fathers’ involvement. We conclude by offering recommendations to create and support an education environment in the GCC that values quality father involvement.
Article
Research over the past twenty years has found that fathers play an important role in their children’s development. However, the literature on fatherhood is still limited, particularly in the Arab world. This paper uses data from a mixed-method pilot study of sixty-one Arabs residing in the United Arab Emirates to examine the nature and impact of father involvement in the Arab region. The findings indicate that Arab fathers score highly on the good provider role, but low on responsible paternal engagement, which includes father involvement in the child’s education and related activities. We also find that the more positively involved a father has been in his child’s life, the higher the child’s self-esteem tends to be. In addition, the results show that experiences of father involvement vary according to the gender of the child, socioeconomic status, and nationality. These findings have important implications for understanding the nature of Arab father involvement and serve as a prelude to a larger study of father involvement across the Arab region.
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter reviews recent research concerning the levels, origins. and consequences of paternal involvement. Its focus is restricted to adult lathers in heterosexual two-parent families, as other chapters in this volume consider other important paternal groups. Investigations conducted in the United States provide most of the data discussed here, but some research from other industrial countries is included. Several themes guide the chapter. Data on fathers' average level of involvement are of great interest to many people, but these assessments vary considerably according to many factors, not least the measures used. Descriptive results on fathers' average levels of involvement are actually far more variable than is generally realized. Nonetheless there is a tendency to think that the question "How involved are U.S. fathers?" should have a simple answer. Further conceptualization is needed of the origins and sources of paternal involvement. Lamb. Pleck, Charnov, and Levine (1985: Pleck, Lamb, & Levine 1986) proposed a four-factor model for its sources: motivation, skills and self-confidence. social supports. and institutional practices. This framework needs to be integrated with other available models for the determinants of fathering, and with more general theoretical perspectives on parental functioning. Because the construct of paternal involvement called attention to an important dimension of fathers' behavior neglected in prior research and theory. it was an important advance. However, the utility, of the construct in its original. content-free sense now needs to be reconsidered. The critical question is: How good is the evidence that fathers' amount of involvement, without taking into account its content and quality, is consequential for children, mothers, or fathers themselves?
Presentation
Full-text available
Dick, Gary, Ph.D., Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 2000, Assistant Professor, University of Cincinnati - "The Role of Paternal Involvement in Male Violence Against Female Intimates"
Chapter
Full-text available
For a variety of sociopolitical, economic, scientific, and clinical reasons, considerable interest in the study of father-child relationships has emerged in the last decade. In the last few years, the focus has narrowed to concern about the effects of increased paternal involvement. Interest in, and concern about, the latter seems to be especially prominent among social service providers and clinicians. For this reason, and also because the voluminous literature on paternal influences has been scrutinized quite extensively, we will focus in this chapter on evidence concerning the effects of increased involvement. Much less will be said, mostly in summary fashion, about paternal influences more generally, although readers will be referred to recent reviews for further discussions of the literature.
Article
The psychometric properties of the Father and Mother Scales of the Parent-Child Relationship Survey were examined. 149 undergraduate students in psychology from divorced families and 155 students from continuously intact families completed the instrument which was designed to assess the perceived quality of older children's relationships with their parents. Results suggest that the Father and Mother Scales each assess primarily a unidimensional positive affective component of perceived parent-child relationships. Normative, reliability, and validity data are also presented. These findings support the research and clinical utility of the instrument.