A Psychometric Examination of the Abbreviated Version of the Parenting Styles Scale Using a Sample of Chilean Adolescents

Abstract

Parenting styles have been related to a series of variables that contribute positively to adulthood. The maternal and paternal parenting styles scale is a measure that presents a multidimensional structure of six correlated factors. However, the version available for Chile is extensive, with 82 items measuring this latent trait. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the reliability and validity of the abbreviated version of the maternal and paternal parenting styles scale using a sample of Chilean adolescents. The sample consisted of 2131 students of both the male and female sexes (51% males and 49% females) with a mean age of 15.85 years (SD = 1.37). The results of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the six-factor correlated model, showing robust psychometric indices for both modelling approaches. In relation to the factorial invariance models, the results show factorial equivalence at the scalar invariance level for the variables of sex, age, academic achievement, and type of school. The scale showed adequate levels of reliability. This study concludes that the abbreviated version of the maternal and paternal parenting styles scale is a reliable and valid instrument for its application in Chilean adolescents.

Full text

Citation: Gálvez-Nieto, J.L.;
Polanco-Levicán, K.; Salvo-Garrido, S.;
Godoy-Bello, M.P. A Psychometric
Examination of the Abbreviated
Version of the Parenting Styles Scale
Using a Sample of Chilean
Adolescents. Children 2024,11, 716.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
children11060716
Academic Editor: Steven W. Kairys
Received: 24 April 2024
Revised: 23 May 2024
Accepted: 5 June 2024
Published: 12 June 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
children
Brief Report
A Psychometric Examination of the Abbreviated Version of the
Parenting Styles Scale Using a Sample of Chilean Adolescents
JoséLuis Gálvez-Nieto 1, Karina Polanco-Levicán2, 3, * , Sonia Salvo-Garrido 4and María Pía Godoy-Bello 5
1
Departamento de Trabajo Social, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4780000, Chile; jose.galvez@ufrontera.cl
2Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4780000, Chile
3Departamento de Psicología, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco 4780000, Chile
4Departamento de Matemática y Estadística, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4780000, Chile;
sonia.salvo@ufrontera.cl
5Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4780000, Chile;
mariapia.godoy@ufrontera.cl
*Correspondence: k.polanco01@ufromail.cl
Abstract: Parenting styles have been related to a series of variables that contribute positively to
adulthood. The maternal and paternal parenting styles scale is a measure that presents a multidimen-
sional structure of six correlated factors. However, the version available for Chile is extensive, with
82 items
measuring this latent trait. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the psychometric
properties of the reliability and validity of the abbreviated version of the maternal and paternal
parenting styles scale using a sample of Chilean adolescents. The sample consisted of 2131 students
of both the male and female sexes (51% males and 49% females) with a mean age of 15.85 years
(
SD = 1.37
). The results of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the six-factor
correlated model, showing robust psychometric indices for both modelling approaches. In relation to
the factorial invariance models, the results show factorial equivalence at the scalar invariance level
for the variables of sex, age, academic achievement, and type of school. The scale showed adequate
levels of reliability. This study concludes that the abbreviated version of the maternal and paternal
parenting styles scale is a reliable and valid instrument for its application in Chilean adolescents.
Keywords: parenting styles; parental socialization; adolescence
1. Introduction
Parenting styles continue to be the focus of attention due to their cognitive, emotional,
relational, and behavioural implications, in addition to their relevance throughout life,
particularly in adolescence, considering that they can be protective factors or risk factors at
this stage [
1
–
4
]. Parenting styles influence the socialization of children [
5
–
8
]. In adolescence,
fathers and mothers continue to have fundamental roles in parenting; although these roles
are transformed with respect to previous stages, children benefit from adults who are
affectionate, communicative, and close [
5
–
8
]. Positive parenting styles, i.e., interactions that
are beneficial for children, influence emotion regulation abilities [
7
] and life satisfaction in
adolescents, decreasing, for example, externalizing behaviours [
6
], which are associated
with the authoritative parenting style. Parenting styles of a negative nature are linked to
difficulties in different areas of children’s lives, such as problematic internet use [
9
,
10
] and
suicidal thoughts in adolescence [
11
,
12
], which are associated with a neglectful parenting
style. Therefore, it is necessary to work with parents or adults who raise and educate
adolescents [
13
], for which it is essential to have valid and reliable scales in the adolescent
population in order to make evaluations for research and intervention.
Parental socialization allows children to become adults who can perform adequately
in society based on parental role models in different experiences and situations. Thus, it is
important that children acquire habits, skills, and values, among other factors, considering
Children 2024,11, 716. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11060716 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/children

Children 2024,11, 716 2 of 13
that the family is the main context of socialization [
14
,
15
]. Now, parents have different ways
of interacting, that is, different ways of exercising control and showing affection [
14
,
16
].
Evaluating parenting styles allows us to comprehensibly organize how parents socialize
their children by considering different parental practices [
14
,
17
,
18
]. Parenting styles are the
attitudes manifested in a stable manner in the interactions between parents and their chil-
dren that generate a particular emotional climate [
19
]. Baumrind [
16
] proposed three types
of parenting: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. Later, Maccoby and Martin [
20
],
based on the study by Baumrind [
16
], proposed four parenting styles that are differentiated
according to the combination of affection and control, namely authoritative (high con-
trol/high affection), negligent (low control/low affection), permissive (low control/high
affection), and authoritarian (high control and low affection), which allow us to develop
a better understanding of the permissive style and differentiate it from relationships that
have little affection and little control on the part of the parents.
In the same line, from the typological approach that combines control and affection,
different investigations have been carried out, showing that the authoritarian style is
associated with poor school performance, since the excess of rules and demands and
the student’s lack of autonomy, affection, and parental support that is necessary to face
difficulties hinders their achievements [
21
]. In addition, this style is associated with
significant levels of aggression in the short and long term [
3
]. This can be a risk factor for
Internet addiction and addiction to online gaming [
1
]. Along the same lines, the neglectful
parenting style is related to the aggressor–victim role in bullying [
22
]. On the other hand,
authoritative parenting is indirectly linked to self-motivation for physical activity through
parental practices related to physical exercise [
23
]. Also, this parenting style is shown
to be less related to children’s internalizing or externalizing problems [
24
]. Meanwhile,
indulgent parenting is associated with lower drug use and better psychosocial adjustment
scores [
2
], and results in adolescents who are more confident, trusting, and tolerant of
their peers [
25
]. Indulgent and authoritative families have adolescents with higher self-
efficacy perceptions [
26
]. In addition, they can be considered protective factors against
Internet addiction and online gaming addiction [
1
]. When comparing parenting styles by
sex, authors such as Capano et al. [
27
] identified that daughters perceived their fathers
as less affectionate and rational compared to the perceptions held by sons; in contrast, no
significant differences were reported in sons’ nor daughters’ perceptions of mothers.
On the other hand, a dimensional approach was proposed that not only considers
affect and control as fundamental characteristics in parenting styles, but also integrates
other important variables to be evaluated in the relationship between parents and children,
allowing the possibilities of understanding this phenomenon to be broadened and making
the analysis of parenting styles more complex. The above approach aims to promote a
family environment conducive to the proper development of adolescents through positive
parenting [
28
–
30
]. In this sense, communication, psychological and behavioural control,
autonomy promotion, self-disclosure, and humour emerge as characteristics that occur in
parental relationships that influence various areas [
28
–
30
]. Consequently, styles prioritizing
affection, communication, and autonomy are related to positive parenting outcomes [
6
].
Furthermore, families that support autonomy promote engagement in learning in adoles-
cents [
31
]. Warmth and support in parenting promote behavioural safety and psychological
resilience in adolescents [
32
–
34
]. Also, self-disclosure in adolescence allows parents to
learn about their children’s experiences, activities, and behaviours [
35
,
36
], favouring the
prevention of risky behaviours [
37
]. In this sense, self-disclosure scarcely occurs in rejecting
and indifferent families, and it has been observed that victims of bullying who present
suicidal ideation do not inform their parents [38].
Regarding the dimensions related to control and its short- and long-term effects on
adolescent development, it can be noted that behavioural control decreases internet addic-
tion. In contrast, parental psychological control was a predictor of internet addiction in
adolescents in a period of over three years [
39
]. In a study that spanned two years, parental
psychological control was reported to be associated with peer victimization in adolescent

Children 2024,11, 716 3 of 13
students [
5
]. In another longitudinal study, it was observed that adolescents who report
lower levels of parental psychological control also manifest a greater sense of autonomy
during a two-year follow-up [
40
]. In cross-sectional studies, there is evidence that psycho-
logical control is associated with a frequency of panic symptoms among adolescents [
41
],
with increased internalizing and externalizing problems [
42
], affecting parent–child close-
ness [
32
]. According to Gorostiaga et al. [
43
], parental warmth, behavioural control, and
autonomy promotion are negatively related to internalizing symptoms in adolescents; in
contrast, psychological control is linked to anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies
in adolescents.
It is important to note that the parenting style may differ from the mother to the father,
as it was observed that fathers may be perceived as more authoritarian compared to moth-
ers, who are perceived as authoritative, and that both maternal and paternal authoritative
parenting styles were positively associated with life satisfaction [
44
]. Also, a father’s re-
jecting behaviour is directly and significantly associated with the tendency to react angrily
to various situations. At the same time, control on the part of the mother would influence
symptoms of depression and anxiety [
45
]. Along the same line, a mother’s authoritarian
style is associated with suicidal ideation, with this relationship being moderated by the
mother’s assertiveness [46], while a father ’s authoritarian style is related to mental health
problems in their children [
47
]. However, if the mother’s and father’s behaviours coincide
in demonstrating greater warmth and lower demands, their children show fewer mental
health problems [48].
Considering the differences between the parenting style and the dimensional approach,
Oliva et al. [
28
] proposed three parenting styles called democratic, strict, and indifferent
based on the combination of different dimensions present in parenting, such as humour,
self-disclosure, behavioural and psychological control, and affection. Consequently, he
proposed an instrument with six dimensions (affection and communication, behavioural
control, psychological control, autonomy promotion, self-disclosure, and humour). Specifi-
cally, the democratic style involves the presence of affection in interactions in addition to
parents promoting autonomy, manifesting good humour, and little psychological control
and propitiating adequate disclosure. The strict style shows a high level of psychological
and behavioural control and less affection than the democratic style, but self-disclosure,
humour, and the promotion of autonomy are present. Finally, the indifferent style is
characterized by fathers and mothers whose relationship with their children shows low
levels in the indicated dimensions; however, higher scores predominate in psychological
control [
49
]. This scale was developed and applied to a sample of adolescents in Spain [
28
];
it has
82 items
(41 items addressed to the mother and 41 items to the father). Subsequently,
the abbreviated scale was presented, and the research was carried out in a Spanish sample
whose results show six dimensions. However, the number of items was reduced to 24 [
50
],
demonstrating adequate psychometric properties.
This instrument has been used by several researchers in both its long and short formats,
showing its adequate psychometric properties [
50
–
52
]. According to
Gómez-Ortiz et al. [49]
,
the parental categories found were mostly located in the democratic style, i.e., they consider
affection and communication in parenting, behavioural control, humour, as well as autonomy
promotion, with the affection/communication variable being the most relevant for adolescent
adjustment [
28
]. Positive parenting styles are associated with participation in extracurricular
activities [
53
] and with life satisfaction [
54
,
55
], specifically affect and communication, auton-
omy promotion, self-disclosure, and humour [
30
]. In addition, characteristics that promote
autonomy, affection and communication, self-disclosure, and humour positively influence
adolescents’ sports motivation [
56
]. It was added that adequate behavioural control and disclo-
sure favour time devoted to study and academic performance [
57
]. Meanwhile, psychological
control is associated with externalizing symptomatology [
58
]. It is considered a risk factor for
internalizing problems [
59
], while greater affection, behavioural control, disclosure, and mood
are linked to lower psychopathological symptoms [
60
]. Álvarez-García et al. [
50
] pointed
out that the greater the affection, communication, autonomy, behavioural control, humour

Children 2024,11, 716 4 of 13
and disclosure, the lower the offline school aggression and antisocial behaviour. However,
there are differences between maternal and paternal styles in relation to physical and verbal
aggression, as they are influenced by the psychological control and autonomy promotion
shown by parents [61].
Given the above, it is important to point out the relevance of addressing parenting
styles considering the influence they have on different aspects of adolescents’ lives at the
social, emotional, and cognitive levels, which transcend the different stages of a person’s
life [
30
,
56
]. Therefore, assessing parenting styles is fundamental to supporting fathers
and mothers in favouring adolescents’ adaptation as it could decrease emotional and
behavioural problems [
62
]. On the other hand, it is important to mention that parenting
styles and their results in different settings may vary depending on the culture [
63
]. Thus,
in some cultures, better results of the permissive style are appreciated [
26
]. Therefore,
validating this scale in its abbreviated version in Chilean adolescents is a contribution to
the existing literature.
Given parenting styles’ theoretical and empirical relevance, the following hypotheses
are proposed: First, the scores obtained by the parenting styles scale are expected to confirm
a factorial structure of six correlated factors with adequate levels of reliability. Second,
the parenting styles scale scores will present levels of scalar invariance according to the
variables of sex, age, and academic performance. Consequently, this research examines
the psychometric properties of the reliability and validity of the abbreviated version of the
maternal and paternal parenting styles scale in a sample of Chilean adolescents.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
A population of 486,427 adolescent students from public, charter, and private high
schools in Chile (N) was investigated. A stratified multistage probability sample was
chosen with a reliability of 99.7%, a margin of error of 3%, and a variance of p = q = 0.5 [
64
].
The sample consisted of 2131 students from 32 educational institutions, with both the male
and female sexes (49% female), with an average age of 15.85 (SD = 1.37).
2.2. Instruments
A questionnaire was created to capture the demographic data of the sample. A set
of closed questions was administered, e.g., gender, age, academic performance, and type
of school.
In addition, the abbreviated parenting styles scale [
50
] was applied. This instrument
was adapted from Oliva et al.’s [
28
] parenting styles scale. The abbreviated parenting
style scale has 24 items divided into six factors: affection and communication (e.g., When I
speak with my parents, they show interest and pay attention), the promotion of autonomy
(
e.g., My
parents encourage me to think independently), behavioural control (e.g., My
parents set a curfew for me), psychological control (e.g., My parents continuously try to
monitor the way I am and think), self-disclosure (e.g., I tell my parents what I do in my
free time), and humour (e.g, My parents are almost always cheerful and optimistic people).
This instrument presents adequate psychometric properties in the Spanish population [
50
].
2.3. Procedure
School principals were contacted, and permission to administer the questionnaires
was requested. The ethical principles of the participants were safeguarded, and informed
consent was requested from mothers, fathers, or guardians and students. The study was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad de La Frontera (ethics protocol
number 034-19). Questionnaires were answered anonymously during the first period.
Regarding the scale adaptation process, it is relevant to mention that this instrument
was originally published in Spanish, as well as the abbreviated scale [
50
] applied in this
research. Therefore, it was not necessary to translate the scale. Subsequently, the instru-
ment was reviewed by experts in different areas (methodologists, theoreticians, university

Children 2024,11, 716 5 of 13
professors, and students), concluding that no changes were required since the scale items
should be adequately understood by the adolescents.
2.4. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were analysed for each item. Univariate and multivariate nor-
mality tests were evaluated to select the appropriate analysis approach. Subsequently, the
sample was randomly divided into two equivalent halves. With the first sample, an ex-
ploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using the FACTOR software version 9.2 [
65
],
using the Unweighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted (ULSMV) estimation
method, the polychoric correlation matrix, the Minimum Rank Factor Analysis extraction
method [
66
], and an oblimin rotation. Subsequently, with the second half of the sample,
using the MPLUS v.8.1 software [
67
], a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied
to evaluate the scale structure using the polychoric correlations matrix and the ULSMV
estimation method. The following goodness-of-fit indices were used to evaluate the CFA
models: ULSMV-
χ2
, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA).
For CFI and TLI, values equal to or greater than 0.90 were considered reasonable [
68
].
For RMSEA, values less than or equal to 0.080 were considered a reasonable fit [
69
]. In
addition, a factorial invariance analysis was conducted, including the following models [
70
]:
M0 configural (equal number of factors), M1 metric invariance (equal factor loadings), and
M2 scalar invariance (equal thresholds). The assessment of invariance was performed
based on the following criteria [
71
–
73
]:
∆
TLI, 0 = perfect and
≤
0.01 = acceptable, and
∆RMSEA ≤0.015
, as evidence of measurement invariance. For reliability estimation, using
JASP v.012.2 software, the following coefficients were estimated: McDonald’s
ω
and
Cronbach’s α[74,75].
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Analysis
As shown in Table 1, the descriptive statistics of the 24 items show that item 9, “My
parents try to know where I go when I go out”, presented the highest mean (M = 35.65;
SD = 0.850
). On the other hand, item 15, “My parents continuously try to control my way of
being and thinking”, presented the lowest mean (mean = 2.72; standard
deviation = 1.850
).
In addition, an assessment of univariate normality was conducted, where the results
obtained through the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated a rejection of the null hypothesis
of normality (p< 0.001). In addition, an estimation of the multivariate kurtosis test was
carried out, which agreed with the univariate tests in rejecting the hypothesis of multivariate
normality (multivariate kurtosis coefficient = 62.183; p< 0.001).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Items M SD g1 g2 KS-Test
1.—Cuando hablo con mis padres. muestran interés y atención/When I talk to my
parents, they show interest and attention. 5.20 1.09 −1.65 2.79 0.30 *
2.—Mis padres me animan a que les cuente mis problemas y preocupaciones/My
parents encourage me to tell them about my problems and worries. 4.91 1.38 −1.34 1.09 0.26 *
3.—Si tengo algún problema puedo contar con su ayuda/If I have any problems, I
can count on their help. 5.42 1.06 −2.25 5.13 0.39 *
4.—Mis padres muestran interés por mícuando estoy triste y enfadado/a/My
parents show interest in me when I am sad and angry. 5.14 1.24 −1.71 2.47 0.30 *
5.—Mis padres piensan que aunque aún no sea una persona adulta puedo tener
ideas acertadas/My parents think I can have good ideas, although I am not yet
an adult.
5.03 1.30 −1.54 1.86 0.28 *
6.—Mis padres me animan a que tome mis propias decisiones/My parents
encourage me to make my own decisions. 5.02 1.30 −1.52 1.80 0.27 *
7.—Mis padres me animan a que piense de forma independiente/My parents
encourage me to think independently. 5.13 1.21 −1.63 2.37 0.29 *
8.—Mis padres me permiten opinar cuando hay que tomar una decisión
familiar/My parents allow me to have a say when a family decision must
be made
.
4.87 1.38 −1.28 0.90 0.24 *

Children 2024,11, 716 6 of 13
Table 1. Cont.
Items M SD g1 g2 KS-Test
9.—Mis padres intentan saber a dónde voy cuando salgo/My parents try to know
where I go when I go out. 5.65 0.85 −3.26 12.10 0.45 *
10.—Si vuelvo tarde a casa, mis padres me preguntan por quéy con quién estuve/If
I come home late, my parents ask me why and who I was with. 5.58 0.95 −2.96 9.48 0.43 *
11.—Mis padres ponen límites a la hora a la que debo volver a casa/My parents set
limits on the time I have to go back home. 5.10 1.38 −1.64 1.83 0.33 *
12.—Mis padres me preguntan en quégasto el dinero/My parents ask me what I
spend my money on. 4.41 1.68 −0.86 −0.50 0.22 *
13.—Mis padres me hacen sentir culpable cuando no hago lo que quieren/My
parents make me feel guilty when I do not do what they want. 3.27 1.89 0.131 −1.46 0.18 *
14.—Mis padres me dicen que ellos tienen razón y no debo llevarles la contraria/My
parents tell me they are right and I should not contradict them. 4.02 1.76 −0.42 −1.16 0.18 *
15.—Mis padres intentan controlar continuamente mi forma de ser y de pensar/My
parents constantly try to control the way I am and the way I think. 2.72 1.85 0.58 −1.17 0.25 *
16.—Mis padres dejan de hablarme cuando se enfadan conmigo/My parents stop
talking to me when they get angry with me. 3.34 1.85 0.08 −1.42 0.16 *
17.—Les cuento a mis padres lo que hago en mi tiempo libre/I tell my parents what
I do in my free time. 4.12 1.75 −0.57 −0.97 0.19 *
18.—Les hablo a mis padres sobre los problemas que tengo con mis amigos/as/I tell
my parents about my problems with my friends. 3.90 1.88 −0.35 −1.35 0.18 *
19.—Cuando llego de la escuela, le cuento a mis padres cómo me ha ido el día/I tell
my parents how my day went when I come home from school. 4.40 1.66 −0.80 −0.58 0.21 *
20.—Aunque no me pregunten, les cuento a mis padres cómo me va en las
diferentes asignaturas/Even if they do not ask me, I tell my parents how I am doing
in different subjects.
4.04 1.82 −0.50 −1.14 0.19 *
21.—Mis padres casi siempre son personas alegres y optimistas/My parents are
almost always cheerful and optimistic people. 4.90 1.25 −1.25 1.18 0.23 *
22.—Mis padres suelen bromear conmigo/My parents often joke with me. 4.91 1.37 −1.31 1.01 0.26 *
23.—Es divertido hacer cosas con mis padres/It is fun to do things with
my parents
.
5.03 1.29 −1.48 1.73 0.28 *
24.—Mis padres se ríen mucho conmigo, My parents laugh a lot with me. 5.01 1.29 −1.41 1.40 0.28 *
M, Mean; SD, Standard Deviation; g1, Skewness; g2, Kurtosis; * p< 0.001.
3.2. Factor Structure
Once the data matrix was divided into two equivalent halves, we evaluated the
relevance of performing an exploratory factor analysis. The results of the Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin index (KMO = 0.922) and Bartlett’s statistic (
χ2
= 12159.6; p< 0.001) establish that
the data matrix is appropriate for performing an EFA. A parallel analysis [
76
] suggested
six factors that explain more variance than expected in random matrices. Together, these
six factors explain 70.83% of the estimated variance. Table 2shows the distribution of
factor loadings for each of the six factors identified; these factors coincide with the original
theoretical proposal.
Table 2. Factor loading matrix; exploratory factor analysis.
Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
It1 0.011 0.006 0.740 −0.002 0.021 −0.051
It2 −0.064 −0.022 0.921 −0.075 0.033 0.042
It3 −0.030 0.079 0.692 0.165 −0.019 −0.021
It4 0.054 −0.041 0.833 −0.022 0.022 0.013
It5 0.005 0.001 0.094 0.624 0.093 −0.056
It6 −0.012 0.001 0.061 0.824 −0.069 −0.038
It7 −0.023 0.019 −0.093 0.936 −0.033 0.039
It8 0.060 −0.049 0.109 0.582 0.045 0.070
It9 0.099 0.801 0.098 0.002 −0.155 −0.068
It10 −0.018 0.897 −0.009 0.034 −0.083 −0.033
It11 0.007 0.726 −0.056 −0.091 0.096 0.087
It12 −0.142 0.587 −0.078 0.064 0.159 0.081
It13 −0.025 0.047 −0.014 0.048 0.014 0.693
It14 0.118 0.045 0.065 −0.022 −0.120 0.766
It15 −0.098 −0.023 0.015 −0.077 0.082 0.727
It16 0.013 −0.061 −0.033 0.076 −0.027 0.664
It17 0.071 −0.006 −0.030 0.035 0.735 0.022

Children 2024,11, 716 7 of 13
Table 2. Cont.
Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
It18 −0.073 0.112 0.047 −0.017 0.713 −0.055
It19 0.070 0.003 0.135 −0.066 0.683 −0.014
It20 0.044 −0.086 −0.076 0.035 0.777 −0.010
It21 0.551 −0.036 0.110 0.039 0.092 −0.074
It22 0.917 0.004 −0.086 0.048 −0.043 0.059
It23 0.853 0.047 −0.091 0.024 0.091 −0.027
It24 0.943 −0.013 0.064 −0.083 −0.007 0.021
Note: F1: humour; F2: behavioural control; F3: affection and communication; F4: promotion of autonomy;
F5: self-disclosure; F6: psychological control. Values in bold: factor loadings greater than 0.4.
Once the scale’s factor structure was identified, we proceeded to perform a CFA using
the 24 items of the scale with the second half of the sample (Figure 1). As announced
by the EFA, the six-factor correlated model showed satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices
(ULSMV-
χ2
(df = 237) = 829.031; CFI = 0.978; TLI = 0.974; RMSEA = 0.047 (CI = 0.043–0.050)).
The results confirm that the original theoretical model of six correlated factors best fits
the data.
Children 2024, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
Figure 1. The factorial structure of the abbreviated parenting styles scale. All estimated parameters
were statistically significant (p < 0.001).
In addition to the evidence of construct validity, the average variance extracted (AVE)
was evaluated, and favourable results were obtained for all factors, namely humour (AVE
= 0.75), behavioural control (AVE = 0.56), affection and communication (AVE = 0.72), pro-
motion of autonomy (AVE = 0.67), self-disclosure (AVE = 0.63), and psychological control
(AVE = 0.52), and an adequate value was obtained for the maximum shared variance dis-
criminant validity (MSV = 0.62).
3.3. Factor Invariance
Once the factor structure of the scale was confirmed, measurement invariance anal-
yses were conducted for gender (0 = male; 1 = female), academic achievement (0 = 1.0 to
4.0; 1 = 4.1 to 7.0), age (0 = 12 to 15 years; 1 = 16 to 20 years), and type of school (1 = public,
2 = charter, and 3 = private). Table 3 shows that the parenting styles scale reached a level
of scalar invariance for all of the variables evaluated, suggesting equal thresholds.
Figure 1. The factorial structure of the abbreviated parenting styles scale. All estimated parameters
were statistically significant (p< 0.001).

Children 2024,11, 716 8 of 13
In addition to the evidence of construct validity, the average variance extracted (AVE)
was evaluated, and favourable results were obtained for all factors, namely humour
(
AVE = 0.75
), behavioural control (AVE = 0.56), affection and communication (
AVE = 0.72
),
promotion of autonomy (AVE = 0.67), self-disclosure (AVE = 0.63), and psychological con-
trol (AVE = 0.52), and an adequate value was obtained for the maximum shared variance
discriminant validity (MSV = 0.62).
3.3. Factor Invariance
Once the factor structure of the scale was confirmed, measurement invariance analyses
were conducted for gender (0 = male; 1 = female), academic achievement (0 = 1.0 to 4.0;
1 = 4.1 to 7.0
), age (0 = 12 to 15 years; 1 = 16 to 20 years), and type of school (1 = public,
2 = charter
, and 3 = private). Table 3shows that the parenting styles scale reached a level
of scalar invariance for all of the variables evaluated, suggesting equal thresholds.
Table 3. Measurement invariance.
Variable Model ULSMV
−χ2(df) TLI RMSEA SRMR ∆TLI ∆
RMSEA
∆SRMR Decision
Sex
Configural invariance 1431.050
(474) 0.961 0.044 0.035 Accepted
Metric invariance 1303.808
(492) 0.968 0.039 0.036 0.007 0.005 0.001 Accepted
Scalar invariance 1507.392
(582) 0.970 0.039 0.037 0.002 0 0.001 Accepted
Academic performance
Configural invariance 1334.245
(474) 0.962 0.043 0.035 Accepted
Metric invariance 1232.863
(492) 0.969 0.039 0.035 0.007 −0.004 <0.001 Accepted
Scalar invariance 1269.777
(582) 0.976 0.034 0.036 0.007 −0.005 0.001 Accepted
Age
Configural invariance 1302.410
(474) 0.963 0.041 0.034 Accepted
Metric invariance 1160.618
(492) 0.971 0.036 0.036 0.008 −0.005 0.002 Accepted
Scalar invariance 1178.703
(582) 0.978 0.031 0.035 0.007 −0.005 −0.001 Accepted
Type of school
Configural invariance 1498.180
(711) 0.980 0.039 0.039 Accepted
Metric invariance 1501.509
(747) 0.982 0.038 0.040 0.002 0.001 0.001 Accepted
Scalar invariance 1633.487
(879) 0.985 0.035 0.040 0.003 −0.003 0 Accepted
Note: ULSMV-
χ2
, unweighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted Chi-squared test; TLI, Tucker–Lewis
index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual.
3.4. Reliability Analysis
Table 4illustrates the results of the reliability analysis. In general, all factors showed
high reliability. The mood factor stands out with the highest level of reliability (
ω
= 0.886);
in contrast, the behavioural control factor showed a slightly lower level (ω= 0.733).
Table 4. Reliability analysis.
Factors McDonald’s ωCronbach’s α
Affection and communication 0.858 0.857
Promotion of autonomy 0.836 0.834
Behavioural control 0.733 0.724
Psychological control 0.757 0.756
Self-disclosure 0.819 0.819
Humour 0.886 0.884
4. Discussion
The general objective of this research was to examine the psychometric properties of
the reliability and validity of the abbreviated version of the maternal and paternal parenting
styles scale in a sample of Chilean adolescents. The results of this study allow us to support
the complete fulfilment of this objective.

Children 2024,11, 716 9 of 13
In relation to the evidence of validity, the results of this sample support that the
factorial structure of the scale would present six correlated factors, which are consistent
with the original proposal and have been named as follows: affect and communication,
promotion of autonomy, behavioural control, psychological control, self-disclosure, and
humour. These findings coincide with the first study that proposed this scale [
28
], which
was applied to adolescents [
50
]. Furthermore, these results are in line with those reported
by Álvarez-García et al. [
50
], who created the abbreviated version of the parenting styles
scale. With respect to the reliability indices, the results, in general, show satisfactory values
for each factor; these results are in line with previous studies [28,50,52].
Regarding the results of the measurement invariance models, the results show interest-
ing findings. The measurement invariance was analysed for the variables of sex, academic
achievement, age, and type of school. The results show that the scale is equivalent up to
the scalar invariance level and reflect that the instrument measures without bias in all of
the variables examined. This methodological contribution expands the results of previous
research, which did not evaluate the equivalence of measurement according to individual
and educational variables [28,50,52].
It is worth noting that the relevance of this research is related, firstly, to the fact that
this construct (parenting styles) has captured the interest of researchers and professionals
over time, as it has been linked to the proper development of adolescents. This research
is relevant for families and society [
1
,
3
,
4
]. Secondly, the theoretical proposal behind the
scale used in this research provides a more complex understanding and evaluation of
parenting styles [
28
,
29
]. Thirdly, this instrument constitutes a contribution to studies in
this area due to its ease of administration, encompassing various dimensions that refer to
different characteristics of the interaction between parents and their adolescent children in
a single instrument, which is psychometrically robust [
28
,
29
,
50
,
52
]. Therefore, this scale
can be useful in intervention processes, allowing for comparisons to be made between the
initial situation and possible changes at the end. It can be utilized by institutions and their
professional teams working with families in the fields of health and education, among
others. The above would allow for the development of adolescents to be promoted, bearing
in mind that negative parenting styles contribute to various mental health difficulties,
specifically internalizing and externalizing problems [5,42,46,58].
Despite the importance of this study, its results have certain limitations. The first is
that the data come from a cross-sectional design and do not consider the influence of time
on the measurement. In addition, the parenting styles scale is a self-report instrument, and
this type of instrument presents problems due to the bias of self-assessment accuracy. It is
important to note that convergent validity could not be estimated in this study through a
scale that assesses the same construct or a theoretically related construct. Finally, the ab-
breviated scale presented does not consider the distinction between maternal and paternal
parenting styles; however, the extended version for Chilean adolescents can be used [52].
Future research is expected to explore the validity and reliability of this scale in
other cultures and different socio-demographic contexts, which will allow for a broader
understanding of its psychometric characteristics across different population groups. Also,
it would be relevant that this abbreviated version of the scale includes an adaptation for both
fathers and mothers, considering that both may be perceived by their adolescent children
with a different style. On the other hand, further research may explore the role of other
variables that may mediate or moderate parenting styles and adolescent development. In
this sense, considering the frequent use of the Internet and social networks, parenting styles
could be related to Social Media Literacy (SML) by observing the association between the
different dimensions of both constructs and evaluating their influence on the aggressions
frequently occurring on the Internet.
5. Conclusions
This study demonstrates the validity and reliability of the abbreviated version of the
maternal and paternal parenting styles scale in a sample of Chilean adolescents. The results

Children 2024,11, 716 10 of 13
support the factorial structure of six correlated factors, and they are consistent with the
original proposal and with previous research. In relation to the contributions to knowledge,
this research provides an instrument that allows for the assessment of the parenting styles
construct with a shorter version than the original version of 82 items (41 for each parent),
maintaining the six dimensions of the scale [50].
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L.G.-N., K.P.-L. and M.P.G.-B.; methodology,
J.L.G.-N.
,
K.P.-L. and S.S.-G.; software, J.L.G.-N. and S.S.-G.; validation, J.L.G.-N., K.P.-L. and S.S.-G.; for-
mal analysis, J.L.G.-N. and S.S.-G.; investigation, J.L.G.-N., K.P.-L. and S.S.-G.; resources, J.L.G.-N.;
data curation, J.L.G.-N.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.G.-N., K.P.-L., S.S.-G. and
M.P.G.-B.
;
writing—review and editing, J.L.G.-N., K.P.-L. and S.S.-G.; visualization, J.L.G.-N. and K.P.-L.; super-
vision, J.L.G.-N., K.P.-L. and S.S.-G.; project administration, J.L.G.-N.; funding acquisition, J.L.G.-N.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the FONDECYT, project numbers 1190844 and 1240912. Karina
Polanco-Levicán received financial support from the National Agency for Research and Development
(ANID)/Scholarship Program/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2020—21200712.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidad de La Frontera,
(protocol code 042_24, approved on 22 April 2024).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
Data Availability Statement: The dataset for the study is available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request due to ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Serna, C.; García-Perales, J.; Martínez, I. Protective and Risk Parenting Styles for Internet and Online Gambling Addiction. Hum.
Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2023,2023, 6674541. [CrossRef]
2.
Villarejo, S.; García, O.F.; Alcaide, M.; Villarreal, M.E.; García, F. Early Family Experiences, Drug Use, and Psychosocial Adjustment
across the Life Span: Is Parental Strictness Always a Protective Factor? Psychosoc. Interv. 2023,33, 15–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Nwufo, J.; Eze, J.E.; Chukwuorji, J.; Orjiakor, C.T.; Ifeagwazi, C.M. Parenting Styles Contributes to Overt Aggression, but Age and
Gender Matters. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2023,73, 100852. [CrossRef]
4.
Marceau, K. The Role of Parenting in Developmental Trajectories of Risk for Adolescent Substance Use: A Bioecological Systems
Cascade Model. Front. Psychol. 2023,14, 1277419. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Peng, C.H.; Wang, L.X.; Guo, Z.; Sun, P.; Yao, X.N.; Yuan, M.L.; Kou, Y. Bidirectional Longitudinal Associations between Parental
Psychological Control and Peer Victimization among Chinese Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Basic Psychological Need
Satisfaction. J. Youth Adolesc. 2023,53, 967–981. [CrossRef]
6.
Ruiz-Hernández, J.A.; Moral-Zafra, E.; Llor-Esteban, B.; Jiménez-Barbero, J.A. Influence of Parental Styles and Other Psychosocial
Variables on the Development of Externalizing Behaviors in Adolescents: A Sytematic Review. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context
2019,11, 9–21. [CrossRef]
7.
Tani, F.; Pascuzzi, D.; Raffagnino, R. The Relationship between Perceived Parenting Style and Emotion Regulation Abilities in
Adulthood. J. Adult Dev. 2018,25, 1–12. [CrossRef]
8.
Lawrence, J.; Haszard, J.J.; Taylor, B.; Galland, B.; Gray, A.; Sayers, R.; Hanna, M.; Taylor, R. A Longitudinal Study of Parental
Discipline up to 5 Years. J. Fam. Stud. 2021,27, 589–606. [CrossRef]
9.
Niu, X.; Li, J.Y.; King, D.L.; Rost, D.H.; Wang, H.Z.; Wang, J.L. The Relationship between Parenting Styles and Adolescent
Problematic Internet Use: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis. J. Behav. Addict. 2023,12, 652–669. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Sun, Y.S. The Role of Family on Internet Addiction: A Model Analysis of Co-Parenting Effect. Cogent. Soc. Sci. 2023,9, 2163530.
[CrossRef]
11.
Ou, W.W.; Yang, Y.M.; Chen, Y.F.; Li, Y.J.; Yang, S.Q.; Lu, Y.M.; Li, L.; Huang, M.; Ma, M.H.; Lv, G.Y.; et al. Bridge Symptoms
between Parenting Styles and Proximal Psychological Risk Factors Associated with Adolescent Suicidal Thoughts: A Network
Analysis. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2023,17, 129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Guan, J.L.; Liu, B.J.; Ma, W.Y.; Liu, C.Z. The Relationship between Negative Parenting Styles and Suicidal Ideation among Chinese
Junior Middle School Students: The Roles of Negative Emotions and Hope. Psychol. Sch. 2024,61, 768–786. [CrossRef]
13.
He, E.L.; Ye, X.M.; Zhang, W.Y. The Effect of Parenting Styles on Adolescent Bullying Behaviours in China: The Mechanism of
Interpersonal Intelligence and Intrapersonal Intelligence. Heliyon 2023,9, e15299. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Maccoby, E.E. The Role of Parents in the Socialization of Children: An Historical Overview. Dev. Psychol. 1992,28, 1006–1017.
[CrossRef]

Children 2024,11, 716 11 of 13
15. Jorge, E.; González, M. Estilos de Crianza Parental: Una Revisión Teórica. Inf. Psicol. 2017,17, 39–66. [CrossRef]
16. Baumrind, D. Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child Behavior. Child Dev. 1966,37, 887–907. [CrossRef]
17.
Baumrind, D. The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use. J. Early Adolesc. 1991,11, 56–95.
[CrossRef]
18.
Baumrind, D. Developmental Psychology Monograph Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Dev. Psychol. 1971,4, 1–103.
[CrossRef]
19. Darling, N.; Steinberg, L. Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative Model. Psychol. Bull. 1993,113, 487–496. [CrossRef]
20.
Maccoby, E.E.; Martin, J.A. Socialization in the Context of the Family: Parent-Child Interaction. In Handbook of Child Psychology:
Formerly Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology; Hetherington, E.M., Mussen, P.H., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
21.
Tsela, D.; Tsela, R.D.; López, I.G. Relations between Parenting Style and Parenting Practices and Children’s School Achievement.
Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 5. [CrossRef]
22.
Zegarra-Chapoñan, R.; Zeladita-Huaman, J.A.; Cuba-Sancho, J.M.; Castillo-Parra, H.; Moran-Paredes, G.I.; Cárdenas-Niño, L.
Association between Parenting Styles and the Role of Peruvian Adolescents in Bullying, 2019. Rev. Cuid. 2023,14, e14. [CrossRef]
23.
Yaffe, Y.; Levental, O. Paternal and Maternal Parenting Style and Adolescents’ Physical Activity Motivation: Indirect Effects
through Parental Physical Activity Related Practices. Curr. Psychol. 2023,43, 7297–7307. [CrossRef]
24.
Vasiou, A.; Kassis, W.; Krasanaki, A.; Aksoy, D.; Favre, C.A.; Tantaros, S. Exploring Parenting Styles Patterns and Children’s
Socio-Emotional Skills. Children 2023,10, 1126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Aymerich, M.D.M.; Musitu, G.; Palmero, F. Family Socialization Styles and Hostility in the Adolescent Population. Sustainability
2018,10, 2962. [CrossRef]
26.
Reyes, M.; García, O.F.; Pérez-Gramaje, A.F.; Serra, E.; Melendez, J.C.; Alcaide, M.; Garcia, F. Which Is the Optimum Parenting
for Adolescents with Low vs. High Self-Efficacy? Self-Concept, Psychological Maladjustment and Academic Performance of
Adolescents in the Spanish Context. An. Psicol. 2023,39, 446–457. [CrossRef]
27.
Capano, Á.; González, M.D.L.; Massonnier, N. Estilos Relacionales Parentales: Estudio Con Adolescentes y Sus Padres. Rev.
Psicol. 2016,34, 413–444. [CrossRef]
28.
Oliva, A.; Parra, Á.; Sánchez-Queija, I.; López, F. Estilos Educativos Materno y Paterno: Evaluación y Relación Con El Ajuste
Adolescente. An. Psicol. 2007,23, 49–56.
29.
Oliva, A.; Parra, Á.; Arranz, E. Estilos Relacionales Parentales y Ajuste Adolescente. J. Study Educ. Dev. 2008,31, 93–106.
[CrossRef]
30.
Mercader-Rubio, I.; Oropesa-Ruiz, N.F.; Ángel, N.G.; Carrión-Martínez, J.J. Parental Educational Practices and Life Satisfaction:
The Role of Positive Affect and Agreeableness in Adolescents. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2023,16, 119–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
Park, J.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, J.; Zhou, A.Q. Trajectories of Learning Attitude Profiles in Korean Middle School Students: Examining
Developmental Patterns and the Influence of Parenting. Child Youth Care Forum 2023,53, 485–504. [CrossRef]
32.
Goagoses, N.; Bäker, N. Adolescents’ Social Goal Orientations Associations with Parenting Styles and Behavioral Outcomes. Z.
Entwicklungspsychol. Padagog. Psychol. 2023,55, 169–178. [CrossRef]
33.
Tolan, Ö.Ç.; Ugur, G.B. The Relation between Psychological Resilience and Parental Attitudes in Adolescents: A Systematic
Review. Curr. Psychol. 2023,43, 8048–8074. [CrossRef]
34.
Reparaz, C.; Rivas, S.; Osorio, A.; Garcia-Zavala, G. A Parental Competence Scale: Dimensions and Their Association with
Adolescent Outcomes. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 652884. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Laible, D.; Conover, O.; Eberly Lewis, M.; Karahuta, E.; Van Norden, C.; Stout, W.; Carlo, G.; Cruz, A. The Quality of Mother-
Adolescent Disclosure: Links with Predictors and Adolescents’ Sociomoral Outcomes. Soc. Dev. 2019,28, 782–801. [CrossRef]
36.
Rote, W.M.; Smetana, J.G. Within-Family Dyadic Patterns of Parental Monitoring and Adolescent Information Management. Dev.
Psychol. 2018,54, 2302–2315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Kapetanovic, S.; Skoog, T.; Bohlin, M.; Gerdner, A. Aspects of the Parent–Adolescent Relationship and Associations with
Adolescent Risk Behaviors over Time. J. Fam. Psychol. 2019,33, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Estévez-García, J.F.; Cañas, E.; Estévez, E. Non-Disclosure and Suicidal Ideation in Adolescent Victims of Bullying: An Analysis
from the Family and School Context. Psychosoc. Interv. 2023,32, 191–201. [CrossRef]
39.
Shek, D.T.L.; Zhu, X.; Ma, C.M.S. The Influence of Parental Control and Parent-Child Relational Qualities on Adolescent Internet
Addiction: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study in Hong Kong. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 642. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Wang, J.; Kaufman, T.; Branje, S. Longitudinal Associations of Parental Psychological Control and Friend Support with Autonomy
during Early Adolescence. J. Res. Adolesc. 2023,33, 999–1010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Bilsky, S.A.; Knapp, A.A.; Bunaciu, L.; Feldner, M.T.; Leen-Feldner, E.W. Parental Psychological Control and Adolescent Panic
Symptom Frequency. Int. J. Cogn. Ther. 2016,9, 229–243. [CrossRef]
42.
León-Del-Barco, B.; Mendo-Lázaro, S.; Polo-Del-Río, M.I.; López-Ramos, V.M. Parental Psychological Control and Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders among Spanish Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 507. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43.
Gorostiaga, A.; Aliri, J.; Balluerka, N.; Lameirinhas, J. Parenting Styles and Internalizing Symptoms in Adolescence: A Systematic
Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 3192. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Abubakar, A.; Van de Vijver, F.J.R.; Suryani, A.O.; Handayani, P.; Pandia, W.S. Perceptions of Parenting Styles and Their Associa-
tions with Mental Health and Life Satisfaction among Urban Indonesian Adolescents. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015,
24, 2680–2692
.
[CrossRef]

Children 2024,11, 716 12 of 13
45.
Shute, R.; Maud, M.; McLachlan, A. The Relationship of Recalled Adverse Parenting Styles with Maladaptive Schemas, Trait
Anger, and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety. J. Affect. Disord. 2019,259, 337–348. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Nunes, F.; Mota, C.P. Parenting Styles and Suicidal Ideation of Adolescents: The Moderating Role of Social Skills. Rev. Iberoam.
Psicol. Y Salud 2023,14, 18–25. [CrossRef]
47.
Makwana, H.; Vaghia, K.K.; Solanki, V.; Desai, V.; Maheshwari, R. Impact of Parenting Styles and Socioeconomic Status on the
Mental Health of Children. Cureus J. Med. Sci. 2023,15, e43988. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48.
Zhukova, M.A.; Li, N.; Zhukov, V.; Grigorenko, E.L. A Dimensional Approach to Discrepancy in Parenting Styles in Russian
Families. Children 2023,10, 1367. [CrossRef]
49.
Gómez-Ortiz, O.; Del Rey, R.; Romera, E.M.; Ortega-Ruiz, R. Maternal and Paternal Parenting Styles in Adolescence and Its
Relationship with Resilience, Attachment and Bullying Involvement. An. Psicol. 2015,31, 979–989. [CrossRef]
50.
Álvarez-García, D.; García, T.; Barreiro-Collazo, A.; Dobarro, A.; Antúnez, Á. Parenting Style Dimensions as Predictors of
Adolescent Antisocial Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2016,7, 1383. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
Balaguer, Á.; Benítez, E.; de la Fuente, J.; Osorio, A. Maternal and Paternal Parenting Styles as a Whole: Validation of the Simple
Form of the Parenting Style Evaluation Scale. An. Psicol. 2021,37, 77–87. [CrossRef]
52.
Gálvez-Nieto, J.L.; Polanco-Levicán, K.; Navarro, B. Psychometric Properties of the Maternal and Paternal Parenting Styles Scale
in Chilean Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 6229. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53.
Balaguer, Á.; Orejudo, S.; Rodríguez-Ledo, C.; Cardoso-Moreno, J. Actividades Extraescolares, Parentalidad Positiva y Desarrollo
Positivo Adolescente Personal. Relaciones Diferenciales a Través de La Edad y Trayectorias Académicas. Electron. J. Res. Educ.
Psychol. 2020,18, 179–206. [CrossRef]
54.
Pérez-Fuentes, M.D.C.; Molero Jurado, M.D.M.; Gazquez Linares, J.J.; Oropesa Ruiz, N.F.; Simon Marquez, M.d.M.; Saracostti, M.
Parenting Practices, Life Satisfaction, and the Role of Self-Esteem In. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 4045. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
55.
Gallego, G.; Pérez, M.; Fernández, F.; Sáez, C.; Castro Sáez, M. Life Satisfaction in Adolescents: Relationship with Parental Style,
Peer Attachment and Emotional Intelligence. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 2021,19, 51–74. [CrossRef]
56.
Klimenko, O.; Acevedo, J.E.; Ríos, J.S.; Londono, J.F. Motivación Deportiva, Autoestima, Autoeficacia y Estilo Parental En
Una Muestra de Adolescentes Deportistas Profesionales Del Inder Envigado, Colombia. Educ. Física Y Deporte 2022,41, 19–53.
[CrossRef]
57.
Hernando, Á.; Oliva, A.; Pertegal, M.-Á. Variables Familiares y Rendimiento Académico En La Adolescencia. Stud. Psychol. 2012,
33, 51–65. [CrossRef]
58.
Antón San Martín, J.M.; Seguí-Durán, D.; Antón-Torre, L.; Barrera-Palacios, A. Relación Entre Estilos Parentales, Intensidad
Psicopatológica y Tipo de Sintomatología En Una Muestra Clínica Adolescente. An. Psicol. 2016,32, 417–423. [CrossRef]
59.
Oliva, A.; Parra, Á.; Reina, M.C. Personal and Contextual Factors Related to Internalizing Problems during Adolescence. Child
Youth Care Forum 2014,43, 505–520. [CrossRef]
60.
Rosa-Alcázar, A.I.; Parada-Navas, J.L.; Rosa-Alcázar, Á. Síntomas Psicopatológicos En Adolescentes Españoles: Relación Con Los
Estilos Parentales Percibidos y La Autoestima. An. Psicol. 2014,30, 133–142. [CrossRef]
61.
García-Moral, A.T.; Sánchez-Queija, I.; Gómez-Veiga, I. Efecto Diferencial Del Estilo Educativo Paterno y Materno En La
Agresividad Durante La Adolescencia. Behav. Psychol./Psicol. Conduct. 2016,24, 497–511.
62.
Cutrín, O.; Maneiro, L.; Chowdhury, Y.; Kulis, S.S.; Marsiglia, F.F.; Gómez Fraguela, J.A. Longitudinal Associations between
Parental Support and Parental Knowledge on Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 2022,
51, 1169–1180. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Lee, B.R.; Cochran, J. The Influence of Perceived Parenting Styles on Korean Children’s Delinquent Behaviors When Accounting
for Gender Differences. Juv. Fam. Court. J. 2023,74, 53–66. [CrossRef]
64. Scheaffer, R.; Mendenhall, W.; Ott, R.L. Elementos de Muestreo; Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica: Mexico City, Mexico, 1987.
65.
Lorenzo-Seva, U.; Ferrando, P.J. FACTOR: A Computer Program to Fit the Exploratory Factor Analysis Model. Behav. Res. Methods
2006,38, 88–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Ten Berge, J.M.F.; Kiers, H.A.L. A Numerical Approach to the Approximate and the Exact Minimum Rank of a Covariance Matrix.
Psychometrika 1991,56, 309–315. [CrossRef]
67. Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed.; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.
68.
Schumacher, R.; Lomax, R. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ,
USA, 1996.
69.
Browne, M.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K., Long, J., Eds.;
Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162.
70.
Vandenberg, R.J.; Lance, C.E. A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and
Recommendations for Organizational Research. Organ. Res. Methods 2000,3, 4–70. [CrossRef]
71.
Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 2007,14, 464–504.
[CrossRef]
72. Millsap, R.E. Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
73.
Putnick, D.L.; Bornstein, M.H. Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions
for Psychological Research. Dev. Rev. 2016,41, 71–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Children 2024,11, 716 13 of 13
74.
Green, S.B.; Yang, Y. Evaluation of Dimensionality in the Assessment of Internal Consistency Reliability: Coefficient Alpha and
Omega Coefficients. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2015,34, 14–20. [CrossRef]
75.
Trizano-Hermosilla, I.; Alvarado, J.M. Best Alternatives to Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability in Realistic Conditions: Congeneric and
Asymmetrical Measurements. Front. Psychol. 2016,7, 769. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76.
Timmerman, M.E.; Lorenzo-Seva, U. Dimensionality Assessment of Ordered Polytomous Items with Parallel Analysis. Psychol.
Methods 2011,16, 209–220. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.