J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

DOI 10.1007/s10826-013-9749-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Assessing the Quality of the Parent–Child Relationship: Validity

and Reliability of the Child–Parent Relationship Test (ChiP-C)
Karl Titze • Sarah Schenck • Marina Zulauf Logoz •

Ulrike Lehmkuhl

Published online: 18 April 2013

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The ChiP-C is a clinically oriented question- screening instrument for a reliable and valid assessment of
naire for assessing the quality of the child-parent rela- strengths and disturbances of the child-parent relationship
tionship according to the child’s subjective appraisal. The according to the child’s subjective appraisal.
ChiP-C is based on family systems theory and a cumulative
vulnerability model. The questionnaire consists of 36 items Keywords Family diagnostics  Parent–child
representing three resource scales, five risk scales, and one relationship  Parenting  Questionnaire 
additional scale. This article presents the theoretical Child and adolescent psychopathology
framework and main psychometric properties of the ChiP-
C. A school-based sample of 1,377 youth (ages 10–20;
M = 14.4) and a clinic-referred consecutive sample of 197 Introduction
patients (ages 10–18, M = 14.0) were surveyed. Construct
validity was determined by confirmatory factor analyses. Through ongoing parental interaction, a child builds an
The mean of the internal consistencies was 0.79. System- increasingly complex internal representation of his or her
atic correlations between the ChiP-C scales and the Ger- experiences with each parent (parental representation) that
man EMBU confirmed the convergent and discriminant becomes relatively stable over time (e.g., Barber et al.
validity of the ChiP-C. Moreover, all ChiP-C scales were 2005). A functional parental representation is crucial for
shown to be significantly correlated with psychopatholog- developing appropriate internal regulation of emotions and
ical symptoms as measured by parent and youth ques- satisfactory social interactions. It influences the integration
tionnaires. The ChiP-C can be considered an economical of social cognitions and helps to predict and control social
interactions (Bugental and Johnston 2000). Most of the
existing self-report scales, such as the EMBU, are devel-
oped to collect the retrospective insights of adults. Com-
K. Titze (&) pared to adults, children and adolescents usually
Lutheran University of Applied Sciences in Nuernberg, experience more everyday interactions with their parents.
Baerenschanzstr. 4, 90429 Nuernberg, Germany
However, similar to adults, children’s and adolescents’
e-mail: karl-titze@web.de; karl.titze@evhn.de
current mental representations of these relationships are
S. Schenck based on their past experiences, particularly if they are
Constance, Germany burdensome or traumatic in nature.
Many studies have documented the predictive value of a
M. Z. Logoz
Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University cumulative vulnerability or risk model (e.g., Mathijssen
of Zurich, Neumuensterallee 3, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland et al. 1998). The accumulation of different stressful expe-
riences in the parent–child relationship, familial distur-
U. Lehmkuhl
bances, and missing resources decreases a child’s ability to
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics
and Psychotherapy, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, cope with the problems and increases his or her vulnera-
Germany bility to new stressors.

123
918 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

In family systems theory the distinction between cen- decision-making and for scientific purposes. Additionally,
tripetal (e.g., cohesion) and centrifugal (e.g., rejection) due to its short scales, it can be considered an economical
familial forces is well established, with a functional opti- screening instrument.
mum in the middle of the dimension (Beavers and The ChiP-C was developed and refined through various
Hampson 2000; Minuchin 1974). Additional clinically research projects in order to ensure its clinical applicability
relevant family systems concepts include the violation of (Titze et al. 2001, 2005). The third version of the ques-
generational boundaries between the parent and child such tionnaire (Titze and Lehmkuhl 2010; Titze et al. 2010)
as parent–child role reversal, parentification, coparenting, consists of 36 items and nine scales (three resource scales,
and autonomy. As general dimensions of the parent–child five risk scales and one additional scale), each used to
relationship that transcend different theoretical approaches, assess the child’s relationship to the mother and to the
investigators have focused on cohesion (vs. rejection and father separately. The ChiP-C contains two separate parts,
neglect) and parental control. A positive equilibrium one each for the mother and the father, beginning with the
between both is generally found to be most beneficial for mother. Each part starts with standard instructions and
the child (Ainsworth 1993; Baumrind 1991; Gray and having the adolescent to specify who has been his/her
Steinberg 1999; Moos and Moos 1981). mother/father figure during the last 5 years (biological,
For clinical requirements, however, assessment scales step, adoptive, male partner of the mother/female partner of
should indicate clear resources or risks. As an example, the the father, other, no mother/father). The first 34 items for
Swedish EMBU (Perris et al. 1980; German version: FEE, each parent are answered on a 5-point frequency scale
Schumacher et al. 2000) is singled out here. It is one of the ranging from never (0) to always (4), the final two items on
most frequently used questionnaires characterizing child a scale of level of agreement, from fits not at all (0) to fits
rearing and has been adapted for use in more than 25 perfectly (4). Every scale consists of 4 items except for
countries (Arrindell et al. 1994). Studies using exploratory Cohesion (5 items) and Punishment (3 items). The ChiP-C
factor analysis led to the three main scales of the EMBU provides age-and sex-specific T values based on a pre-
that also underlie its German version: (1) Rejection and liminary standardization summarized later in this paper (for
Punishment; (2) Emotional Warmth; and (3) Control and details see Titze and Lehmkuhl 2010). The normally
Overprotection. The German version consists of 24 items distributed T values minimize sex and age effects and
scored on a four-point Likert scale for each the mother and facilitate statistical procedures and the interpretation of
the father. For clinical applicability to children and ado- individual test results. Based on the T values, different
lescents the ChiP-C should meet several requirements composite index scores are provided, reflecting the overall
(Essau et al. 2006; Titze and Lehmkuhl 2010). quality of the child-parent relationships. Clinical case
studies and previous statistical analyses have shown that
The Child–Parent Relationship Test—Child Version an individual difference of one-and-a-half standard devi-
(ChiP-C; German-Language Version) ation or greater from the mean (resource scales T B 0.35,
risk scales C65) is a useful and conservative criteria to
In clinical work the individual situation of a child should be indicate clinically significant disturbances in the child-
taken into account carefully prior to any therapeutic parent-relationship. The time required to complete the
intervention. The Chip-C was constructed to: (1) assess the questionnaire is approximately 15 min. The computation
child-parent relationship according to a child’s subjective of the norm and index scores requires approximately 5 or
appraisal with great importance given to proof; (2) use 10 min, depending on whether software or paper forms
wording that is comprehensible to and appropriate for are used.
children and adolescents; (3) address a range of different The resource and risk scales and the index scores of the
risks and resources that are empirically proven to be related ChiP-C and its theoretical sources are briefly described
to mental development; (4) be as short and economical as below, with sample questions provided in parentheses. The
possible but as comprehensive as necessary to identify an questionnaire is printed in the ‘‘Appendix’’.
accumulation of risks; and (5) aid decision making based
on comparative samples regarding whether intervention is Three Resource Scales
required and if so, what interventions may be helpful.
The ChiP-C assesses the child’s subjective appraisal 1. Cohesion (’’I’ve had the feeling my mother/father
with a novel spectrum of both established and innovative really loves me’’). This scale measures parental emo-
new indicators of family risks and resources. It is appro- tional warmth and bonding, intimacy, mutual support,
priate for identifying clinically relevant topics as well as care and reliability. Across different theories, cohesion
for estimating the overall quality of the child-parent rela- is deemed to be a core construct of the familial rela-
tionship. Therefore, it is suitable to aid therapeutic tionship (e.g., Rohner 2004).

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 919

2. Identification (‘‘I want to become just like my …’’). age-appropriate needs of their children and treat them
This scale addresses an adolescent’s sense of being like adult partners or force children to meet the
like and wishing to be like a parent, as well as the parents’ emotional needs (parentification), particularly
acceptance of parents as role models. Identification if they feel somatically or psychologically burdened
with parents has long been recognized as being (Romer et al. 2002; Stein et al. 2007).
significant in the processes of socialization and 8. Overprotection (‘‘My … has been very anxious about
bonding between child and parent. It is of great me’’). This scale indicates undue and exaggerated
theoretical importance in nearly all psychotherapeutic parental fears and worries about children and overpro-
disciplines. Yet diagnostic tests are rare and heteroge- tective parenting behavior. These behaviors are
neous in the conceptualization of identification (Ber- regarded as forms of dysfunctional psychological
enson et al. 2005; Remschmidt and Mattejat 1999). control that negatively affect a child’s autonomy and
3. Autonomy (‘‘My … has allowed me to decide for emotional self-regulation (Ainsworth 1993; Arrindell
myself’’). This scale assesses the granting of appro- et al. 1994; Parker et al. 1979; Verhoeven et al. 2012).
priate autonomy and mutual influence between ado-
lescents and parents. This is essential for a respectful
One Additional Scale
relationship and positive control by the parents (Gray
and Steinberg 1999) and a child‘s positive feeling of
9. Help for the Parents (‘‘I have had to relieve my … of
control over events in his/her life (Nanda et al. 2012).
tasks’’). This scale indicates how often a child feels
that his or her parents need help for everyday
responsibilities. This scale, however, was disregarded
Five Risk Scales
for the computation of the cumulative index score
because it was not empirically and theoretically clearly
4. Conflict (‘‘My … has argued with me’’). This scale
connected to the psychological maladaptation of chil-
shows how often the youth has experienced conflict
dren (Stein et al. 2007; Titze et al. 2001).
with his or her parents. Chronic or very frequent
conflict usually results from underlying difficulties in
the parent–child relationship and a lack of adequate Index Scores (Based on Sex-and Age-Specific T Scale
family coping strategies, causing considerable family Values)
distress (Steinberg and Morris 2001).
5. Punishment (‘‘My … has punished me too hard’’). The 1. Parent Discrepancy Score (PDS). Children tend to
negative consequences of physical or inappropriately evaluate their relationships with their parents as similar,
severe punishment for a child’s development are well despite role-specific differences (Titze and Lehmkuhl
documented (e.g., Gershoff 2002). This scale shows 2010). However, under certain circumstances the per-
how often the child has experienced excessive or ception of the relationship with each parent can differ
unreasonable punishment by his or her parents. considerably. For instance, a child may experience
6. Rejection and Indifference (‘‘My … has rejected me,’’ conflict in trying to maintain loyalty to one parent
‘‘I have been of no importance to my … ‘‘). This scale (Gardner 1998; Minuchin 1974) and therefore evaluate
covers a child’s feelings of being openly or covertly the other parent considerably differently. Similarly, low
neglected or rejected by a parent. Perceived parental familial cohesion, educational differences and a lack of
rejection is of major clinical significance. Evidence coparenting practices may result in highly discrepant
from clinical and cross-cultural studies strongly sup- perceptions of the parents (Titze and Lehmkuhl 2010).
ports the conclusion that children who experience The PDS is computed by the sum of the absolute dif-
rejection in their relationships with their parents ferences between the T values of the corresponding
generally report different forms of psychological mother and father scales (risks and resources).
maladjustment (e.g., Rohner 2004). 2. Quality-of-Relationship Index (QRI). Summary index
7. Emotional Burden (‘‘I had to console my …’’). This scores facilitate estimating the quality of child-parent
scale addresses personal fears, sorrows and problems relationships in general and of each child-parent
shared by a parent with a child and perceived by the relationship in particular. Based on a cumulative
child to be a burden. A child may assume responsi- resource and vulnerability model it is assumed that
bility for the psychological well-being of the parent the probability of emotional and behavioral maladap-
and this may result in emotional overcharge (parent– tation increases with the frequency and amount of
child role reversal). It is a frequently observed negative experiences with a parent. Resources of the
phenomenon in clinical contexts that parents ignore child-parent-relationship like coherence and autonomy

123
920 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

are assumed to buffer the impact of these risks and The Present Study
increase psychological well being. Therefore, the
quality of the relationship is defined as the sum of The present study intends to confirm the following: (1) the
the positive experiences with the parents minus the factorial validity of the Chip-C; (2) the reliability and
risks. The quality of the relationship should predict temporal stability of the scales; (3) the construct validity by
psychological symptoms equal or better than every analyzing the intercorrelations of the scales; (4) the con-
single risk or resource. In the Chip-C the Quality-of- vergent and divergent associations between the ChiP-C and
Relationship Index for each parent (QRI-m/-f) was the EMBU; and (5) the associations to psychological
computed by subtracting the sum of the T values of the maladjustment; as well as to control for variables such as
parent’s risk scales from the sum of the same parent’s sex, age and social desirability. The specified assumptions
resource scales. Finally, the Quality-of-Relationship are formulated in the end of the method section.
Index—total score (QRI-ts) is computed by an anal-
ogous procedure but for both the mother and the father
scales combined, and additionally by subtracting the T Method
values of PDS for a further risk factor.
Participants and Procedures

Similarities and Differences Between the ChiP-C Data were collected from a sample of families using a school-
and the EMBU based self-report survey in three different German-speaking
countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland; Table 1) and
The ChiP-C assesses some dimensions that are similar to from patients from a consecutive sample collected at the
those of the EMBU such as Cohesion (EMBU: Emotional Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychoso-
Warmth), (low) Autonomy and Overprotection (Control matic and Psychotherapy, Charité–CVK, Universitätsmedizin
and Overprotection) and Rejection and Punishment Berlin. The studies were granted by the ethics commissions of
(Rejection & Punishment). But in contrast to the EMBU, the University of Zurich and the Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
the ChiP-C differentiates between Rejection and Punish- Informed volunteer consent was obtained by each participant
ment as well as between the absence of Autonomy and his or her parents. The students were assessed during their
(restrictive control) and Overprotection. This was done classes; standard instructions were given orally. The patients
because these problems in child-parent relationships are were assessed as part of the regular diagnostic procedures of
related to different parental behaviors, underlying conflicts the center at the beginning of their consultations.
and consequences and may thus have different implications The sample for the normalization of the ChiP-C (n = 1,377)
for treatment (e.g., a parent may punish a child without the was randomly selected from 26 schools (grades 5 to 13) in three
child feeling rejected by the parent). Furthermore, the German language cities: Berlin, Germany; Vienna, Austria; and
ChiP-C includes some more clinically relevant scales like Zurich, Switzerland. Additionally, a small number of the par-
Conflicts, Emotional Burden and Identification. ticipants (n = 85) were selected by graduate students in a
A further distinction between the questionnaires concerns family assessment course at the University of Zurich. The
the form of presentation of the items. The EMBU presents EMBU data were gathered from a randomly selected sub-
each item only once, so the mother and father must be rated at sample of classes from the Berlin schools (n = 239).
the same time (parallel presentation). The ChiP-C presents Participants came from all types of standard elementary
each item first for the mother and then on a separate page for and secondary schools; however, junior high schools (Hau-
the father (separate presentation). Although this procedure is ptschulen) and vocational schools (Berufsschulen) were
more time consuming, it seeks to prevent direct comparison underrepresented. Participants (hereafter also ‘‘adoles-
of the ratings of the parents and supports the adolescent in cents’’) ranged in age from 10 to 20. Demographic data about
generating an individual image of each parent (see Statistical family background were obtained from a parent question-
Analyses section below). Because of the similar core con- naire (school-based study, n = 1,073) and includes marital
structs of both questionnaires, the EMBU seems most suit- status, sibling order, migration background, religious ori-
able for validating the corresponding scales of the ChiP-C entation, parent and adolescent education, and parent ages
and its underlying factorial structure. Although the EMBU and occupations.)
was originally developed for adults 18 years of age and Data on the sex and age of the children and the types of
older, pilot studies have shown that the items are equally parents were collected with the Chip-C (n = 1,377). Detailed
comprehensible and appropriate for children and adolescents demographic information came from one or both parents
and the internal consistencies in the entire study sample were (n = 1,073) by an additional questionnaire. This data was not
only slightly lower than those for adults (range: 0.67–0.87). available for students from Vienna due to privacy rules.

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 921

Table 1 Sample characteristics by subsamples (n, %)

Recruitment Schools-Berlin Schools-Vienna Schools-Zurich via university Normalizing Clinic-Berlin Clinic-Berlin,
Zurich sample retest

ChiP-C: N 649 138 505 85 1,377 197 47

Age: M 14.9 11.2 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.0 13.7
(range) (10–20) (10–13) (12–20) (11–20) (10–20) (10–18) (11–17)
Girls: n 366 72 304 49 793 93 16
(%) (56.6) (51.8) (39.8) (57.6) (58) (47.2) (34.0)
Boys: 281 67 200 36 583 104 31
(%) (43.4) (48.2) (60.2) (42.4) (42) (52.8) (66.0)
Mothers: 647 139 504 85 1,373 192 47
(%) (99.7) (100) (100) (100) (99.7) (97.5) (100)
Biol. 628 138 495 85 1,344 179 42
Mother (%) (97.1) (99.3) (98) (100) (98) (93.2) (89.4)
Father 611 131 488 85 1,358 169 41
(%) (94.1) (94.2) (97) (100) (98.6) (85.8) (87.2)
Biol. 531 117 451 81 1,179 138 36
Father (%) (86.9) (89.3) (92.4) (95) (86) (81.7) (87.8)

Seventy-eight percent of the students lived in two-parent in children and adolescents (ages 4–18 Achenbach 1991a).
intact families, 8 % lived in stepfamilies with other fathers, The Youth Self-Report (YSR), developed for 11–18 year
1 % lived in stepfamilies with other mothers, and 12 % lived olds, has roughly the same format as the CBCL and was used
in single-parent families (1 % other). In terms of ethnic origin, to obtain adolescent self reports (Achenbach 1991b). In the
12 % of respondents from Berlin and 17 % of respondents present study, the parent and adolescent reports of the total
from Zurich had at least one parent born in a foreign country. Internalizing score, the total Externalizing score and the
The participation rate was 41 %. Despite the fact that the four total Problem score (T values, German standardization) of
urban samples were not precisely representative in terms of the German versions of the CBCL and YSR were used (YSR,
educational and migration background, only negligible dif- Döpfner et al. 1994a; CBCL, Döpfner et al. 1994b).
ferences were found between the three countries. Therefore,
the data were combined to compute age-and sex-specific T Statistical Analyses
values (preliminary norms). In the Berlin student sample the
data addressing psychopathological maladjustment (self and Structure of Factors
parent report, n = 372/356, combined = 397) and the
EMBU (n = 229) were collected from two different ran- First, it was expected that the postulated nine scales of the
domly selected subsamples. The data on social desirability ChiP-C can be confirmed by confirmatory factorial analy-
came from all Berlin student participants (n = 606). For ses (CFA, LISREL, 8.71, covariance matrixes, Maximum
detailed information about the normalization and the sample Likelihood Estimation). According to the theoretical
characteristics, see Titze and Lehmkuhl (2010). assumptions, the factors were allowed to be intercorrelated.
Clinical data were collected from patients consecutively The model fits were estimated in the Berlin school sample
during their regular initial diagnostic examinations. Sub- by indices (for abbreviations see Table 2) that are supposed
jects included 30 inpatients, 14 day patients, and 153 out- to be largely independent of sample size and robust against
patients of the above-mentioned clinic. Forty-nine patients oblique-angled distributions (Kelloway 1998). Second, it
were assessed a second time after an average of 7.1 weeks has to be examined whether this nine-factor model fits the
(SD = 5.9 weeks) during their subsequent psychological data at least as well as the emulated factorial structure of
diagnostic evaluation. the EMBU. To verify these assumptions, the CFA model
was modified (see Table 2). The competing ChiP-C seven
factor model combines four scales into two, analogous to
Measures the scales used in the EMBU (e.g., ChiP-C ‘‘Punishment’’
and ‘‘Rejection’’ scales *EMBU ‘‘Rejection and Punish-
Psychopathological Maladjustment ment’’ scale; ChiP-C ‘‘Overprotection’’ and reverse-scored
‘‘Autonomy’’ scales * EMBU ‘‘Control and Overprotec-
The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) is a parent report tion’’ scale). The other scales remained unchanged. The
questionnaire to assess behavioral and emotional problems two models were compared using the Parsimony Normed

123
922 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

Fit Index (PNFI) and the Chi Square-Difference-Test presentation items of the ChiP-C than for the parallel-
(CDT; X2dif). presentation items of the EMBU.

Temporal Stability and Internal Consistency of the Index ChiP-C and Psychological Maladjustment
Scores
All scales of the ChiP-C are expected to be associated with
In accordance with the conception of the ChiP-C, the items measures of mental health such as internalizing and
should show sufficient temporal stability. Concerning the externalizing psychopathological symptoms and general
summarizing index scores, which are compounds of widely psychological problems. The associations between the
uncorrelated risk and resource scales, low internal consis- measures of mental health and the index scores of the
tencies are expected. However, the test–retest reliabilities ChiP-C are stronger than with any of the single scales.
should be above 0.70. For all assumptions based on correlations, Pearson0 s
correlations were used to determine the associations between
the ChiP-C scales and target variables (EMBU, YSR, CBCL,
Intercorrelation of the ChiP-C Constructs
all standardized T values). In order to emphasize general
trends in the present data, the corresponding scales for father
The risks and resources measured by the ChiP-C should be
and mother of the Chip-C and the EMBU were summarized
statistically as independent as possible to minimize
with mean T scores, as well as the corresponding scale T
redundant information. On the other hand, it is clear that
values of the YSR and the CBCL.
systematic patterns of moderate intercorrelations can be
expected between the different elements. In general, the
Demographic Control Variables (C)
risk scales should negatively correlate with the resource
scales of the ChiP-C. For example, Overprotection should
For this study the effects of the sex of the child (C1) and the
be negatively associated with Autonomy. However, this
parents (C2) and the age of the child (C3) were analyzed in
simple model has an exception. The risk scales for Over-
order to control their effects on the other dependent vari-
protection and Emotional Burden can be attributed to
ables. It also should be noted that answers to the private and
dysfunctional centripetal familial forces, and therefore they
intimate items of the ChiP-C could be biased by social
are assumed to be positively correlated with the resource
desirability (C4). This potential effect was controlled for
scale for Cohesion. Altogether, despite some associations
using a well-established ten-item Social desirability scale
between the scales, the intercorrelations between ChiP-C
(AFS-SE) from a German anxiety questionnaire for school
constructs should be below an absolute value of ± 0.70.
children (AFS, Wieczerkowski et al. 1981). All analyses
regarding sex and age effects were calculated from the scale
Convergent and Divergent Associations Between the ChiP- raw data. Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA,
C and the EMBU Hottelings-trace) were computed to analyze the overall
effects of sex and age (10–12, 13–15, and 16–20 years of
Corresponding scales of the ChiP-C and the EMBU show age) on the ChiP-C, whereas differences between the mother
higher correlations than noncorresponding scales of both and the father items were analyzed as an in-between factor.
instruments. The correlations between corresponding All analyses regarding sex and age effects were calculated
mother and father scales are lower for the separate- from the scale raw data. Subsequent Analyses of Variance

Table 2 Confirmatory factor analyses of chip-c data, separately for mother (m) and father (f) scales (n = 649), and comparison between the
ChiP-C nine-factor model and the ChiP-C seven-factor model based on EMBU scale combinations by Chi Square difference test (CDT; X2dif)
Model data df x2 SRMR RMSEA NFI PNFI CDT
X2dif df

ChiP-C 9-factor model m 558 1,916 0.065 0.061 0.92 0.82

f 2,002 0.068 0.065 0.92 0.81
ChiP-C 7-factor model m 573 3,554 0.095 0.090 0.87 0.80 -1,551** 15
f 4,575 0.110 0.110 0.84 0.76 -1,061**
All computations are based on raw scores. Absolute fit indices: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, good fit B 0.08); Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, moderate fit B 0.10, good fit: B 0.05). In addition, x2/df. Comparative fit-index: Normed fit index
(NFI, good fit: C0.90), Parsimonious normed fit-index (PNFI, good fit C0.60)
** p \ .01 (2-tailed)

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 923

Table 3 Statistical item and scale characteristics of the ChiP-C: standard error of the scale mean (SE), internal consistency (Chronb-
range of item difficulty (M), item selectivity (rXX), Item factor achs alpha, a), and Test–Retest-Reliability (rtt)a
loading (CFA), standard deviation of the scale raw scores (SD),
Sample School (n = 1,377) Clinic (n = 197)a
Scale Difficulty (M) Selectivity CFA-loading SD SE a a ratt

1. Cohesion m 2.3–3.5 0.52 to 0.70 0.64–0.73 0.80 0.029 0.81 0.84 0.75
f 1.8–3.0 0.54 to 0.68 0.63–0.80 0.96 0.035 0.83 0.87 0.81
2. Identification m 1.6–2.8 0.58 to 0.72 0.66–0.85 0.83 0.030 0.82 0.80 78
f 1.7–2.6 0.61 to 0.77 0.72–0.86 0.93 0.034 0.85 0.85 0.90
3. Autonomy m 2.0–2.9 0.51 to 0.58 0.59–0.67 0.65 0.023 0.72 0.76 0.78
f 2.1–2.8 0.54 to 0.62 0.66–0.72 0.76 0.028 0.78 0.81 0.69
4. Conflict m 1.1–1.9 0.55 to 0.66 0.64–0.77 0.72 0.026 0.81 0.84 0.69
f 1.0–2.0 0.53 to 0.77 0.61–0.81 0.79 0.029 0.83 0.83 0.65
5. Punishment m 0.1–0.5 0.34 to 0.46 0.57–0.61 0.41 0.015 0.57 0.73 0.77
f 0.1–0.5 0.38 to 0.58 0.45–0.75 0.47 0.017 0.62 0.74 0.91
6. Rejection m 0.1–0.8 0.59 to 0.79 0.67–0.88 0.40 0.014 0.84 0.87 0.78
f 0.1–0.2 0.51 to 0.79 0.53–0.90 0.48 0.018 0.82 0.90 0.81
7. Emotional Burden m 1.0–1.1 0.55 to 0.67 0.67–0.75 0.74 0.026 0.80 0.78 0.84
f 0.4–0.7 0.57 to 0.70 0.61–0.81 0.64 0.023 0.82 0.78 0.81
8. Overprotection m 1.7–2.4 0.49 to 0.74 0.57–0.88 0.93 0.033 0.81 0.80 0.69
f 1.4–2.1 0.56 to 0.80 0.62–0.90 1.02 0.038 0.87 0.81 0.69
9. Help m 0.8–1.6 0.33 to 0.46 0.53–0.62 0.61 0.022 0.61 0.70 0.70
f 0.6–1.0 0.36 to 0.45 0.49–0.62 0.64 0.023 0.63 0.68 0.72
PDS 50 0.23 to 0.47 9.7 0.269 0.70 0.80 0.77
QRI-ts 50 -0.03 to 0.52 10 0.363 0.75 0.77 0.84

All computations are based on raw scores (ranging from never = 0 to always = 4), except for PDS and QRI-ts (T values)
m mother, f father, PDS parent discrepancy score, QRI-ts quality-of-relationship index-total score
a
rtt = clinical sample (n = m: 46/f: 37), mean test–retest interval = 7,2 weeks (range: 5–155 days)

(ANOVA) were used to assess the effects on the different compared to the primary nine-factor model. Likewise,
ChiP-C scales, and the results were confirmed by the non- every other alternative model tested showed significantly
parametric Kruskal–Wallis H-test and the Wilcoxon-test. worse model fit than the postulated nine-factor model of
Subsequently, Post-Scheffé tests were run in order to reveal the ChiP-C (criterium: PNFI). For detailed information
differences among the three age groups. about the factor analyses see Titze and Lehmkuhl (2010).
For the present data analyses, a maximum of 10 percent
missing values (one per scale) was admitted. The selec- Item and Scale Characteristics
tivity of the items was evaluated by part-whole corrected
item-total correlations. The item difficulty was stated by Table 3 shows the characteristic values of the ChiP-C.
the mean item score. Most of the risk scale items indicating more severe dis-
turbance in the child-parent relationship showed an
extreme item difficulty. However, the extreme item diffi-
Results culty does not cause methodological problems if the
respective items show sufficient selectivity. Analyses
Structure of the ChiP-C Factors confirmed good selectivity of above 0.50 for most items.
Only the items of the Help and Punishment scales showed
The postulated nine-factor model of the ChiP-C showed a moderate selectivity of 0.33–0.58.
good model fit (Table 2). The factor loadings of the items
were sufficiently homogeneous and were above 0.60, Reliability
except for the scales for Punishment and Help (Table 3).
The seven factor EMBU model showed a significantly In general, the mean internal consistencies (Cronbachs
worse model fit (CDT) and a lower PNFI (Table 2) alpha) of the resource and risk scales indicated sufficient

123
924 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

Table 4 ChiP-C scale intercorrelations (pearson correlations (n = 1,377); CFA estimates (n = 649) in parentheses)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) M-F

(1) Cohesion 0.63** 0.33** -0.36** -0.33** -0.39** 0.25** 0.11** -0.11** 0.57**
(0.81) (0.55) (-0.45) (-0.48) (-0.59) (0.30) (0.21) (-0.18)
(2) Identification 0.62** 0.25** -0.49** -0.32** -0.39** 0.22** 0.04 -0.13** 0.40**
(0.74) (0.39) (-0.54) (-0.41) (-0.44) (0.25) (0.10) (-0.17)
(3) Autonomy 0.32** 0.34** -0.30** -0.33** -0.28** 0.10* -0.14** -0.18** 0.52**
(0.52) (0.45) (-0.47) (-0.61) (-0.52) (0.14) (-0.15) (-0.19)
(4) Conflict -0.31** -0.41** -0.41** 0.48** 0.43** 0.04 0.13** 0.30** 0.40**
(-0.42) (-0.46) (-0.59) (0.66) (0.54) (0.06) (0.11) (0.45)
(5) Punishment -0.30** -0.28** -0.42** 0.57** 0.48** -0.01 0.14** 0.25** 0.52**
(-0.50) (-0.38) (-0.66) (0.79) (0.69) (0.05) (0.16) (0.49)
(6) Rejection -0.47** -0.37** -0.31** 0.39** 0.39** 0.01 0.07 0.25** 0.32**
(-0.61) (-0.44) (-0.46) (0.41) (0.46) (-0.02) (-0.06) (0.30)
(7) Emotional Burden 0.23** 0.21** 0.10* -0.06 -0.06 -0.12** 0.26** 0.39** 0.47**
(0.21) (0.14) (0.11) (-0.07) (-0.04) (-0.13) (0.26) (0.56)
(8) Overprotection 0.26** 0.20** -0.04 0.05 0.07 -0.21** 0.23*** 0.22** 0.55**
(0.35) (0.22) (-0.02) (0.02) (-0.02) (-0.27) (0.27) (0.26)
(9) Help 0.06 0.05 -0.06 0.24** 0.24** 0.07 0.45** 0.64** 0.46**
(0.02) (0.06) (-0.07) (0.28) (0.33) (0.03) (0.59) (0.26)
Mother scales: upper half, father scales: lower half. M-F = correlations between mother and father scales
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01 (2-tailed)

consistency (0.79) in both the school and the clinic samples Identification. As expected, boys identified themselves
(0.82). Only in the school sample did the Punishment and more with their fathers and girls more with their mothers.
Help scales register an insufficient alpha of around 0.60 Multivariate differences were found between the three
(Table 3). The test–retest coefficients of 0.77/0.91 (mother/ age groups. Post Scheffé tests showed that the 10–12 year-
father ratings), however, proved sufficient temporal sta- old children reported significantly more positive relation-
bility of the Punishment scale. The total ChiP-C index ships with their parents than the adolescents (less Conflict,
(QRI-ts) scores showed good test–retest reliability (0.84), Punishment and Rejection and more Cohesion and Identi-
while the internal consistencies were lower, as expected fication). The younger participants reported slightly higher
(for school sample = 0.75, for clinic sample = 0.77), due Autonomy than did the 15–20 year olds. However, the
to the intended low intercorrelations of the included scales. effect sizes were small.

Demographic Control Variables Bias by Social Desirability

Sex differences in the ChiP-C were found between the The correlation between the ChiP-C Quality-of-Relation-
scores of boys and girls (F = 15.5., df = 9, p \ .000, ship Index–total score and Social Desirability was low
g2 = 10) and between the scores of mothers and fathers (0.20, Table 5). The Social Desirability scale correlated
(F = 136.9, df = 9, p \ .000, g2 = 49). Subsequent uni- with a value above 0.20 only with two of the eighteen
variate analyses showed that girls reported significantly ChiP-C scales.
more Cohesion, Conflict, and Help than boys. Both boys
and girls rated their mothers significantly higher than their Intercorrelations Among the Constructs of the ChiP-C
fathers on Emotional Burden, Help, Cohesion, and Over-
protection; fathers obtained higher scores only on the As expected, risk scales of the ChiP-C expressing clearly
Rejection and Indifference scale. negative aspects of the child-parent relationship (Conflict,
The MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate Punishment and Rejection) correlated negatively and sig-
interaction between sex of the participants and sex of their nificantly with the resource scales (Table 4). As expected,
parents (F = 15.6, df = 9, p \ .000, g2 = 10), and the the Overprotection and Emotional Burden risk scales pos-
univariate analyses showed that this was primarily true for itively correlated with the Cohesion resource scale.

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 925

Table 5 Correlations (Pearson) in the Berlin School samplea Between the ChiP-C Scales and the EMBU Scales, Social Desirability (AFS-SE),
and Psychopathological Symptoms (YSR/CBCL)
ChiP-C EMBU AFS-SE YSR/CBCL
(n = 229) (n = 606) (n = 397)

EW C&O R&P SE Total Int. Ext.

Cohesion 0.76b** -0.19** -0.39** 0.17** -0.17** -0.10 -0.21**

Identification 0.56** -0.12 -0.33** 0.24** -0.14** -0.09 -0.19**
Autonomy 0.27** -0.40b** -0.37** 0.11** -0.17** -0.10 -0.18**
Conflict -0.41** 0.30** 0.52** -0.28** 0.33** 0.24** 0.36**
Punishment -0.45** 0.35** 0.72b** -0.11** 0.24** 0.14** 0.27**
Rejection -0.47** 0.33** 0.53b** -0.12** 0.37** 0.28** 0.38**
Emotional burden 0.11 -0.03 -0.11 0.03 0.17** 0.16** 0.15**
Overprotection 0.12 0.42b** -0.01 0.08** 0.23** 0.16** 0.25**
Help -0.17** 0.26** 0.20** -0.03 0.25** 0.20** 0.23**
Parent discrepancy score -0.27** 0.10** 0.22 -0.13** 0.32** 0.25** 0.32**
Quality-of-relationship index—total score 0.60** -0.47** -0.57** 0.20** -0.40** -0.29** -0.44**

EMBU: EW emotional warmth, C&O control & overprotection, R&P rejection and punishment. ChiP-C and EMBU scales for mother and father were
pooled. YSR/CBCL Averaged T values, Int. internalizing score, Ext. externalizing score
a
Correlations of the clinic sample are not presented. They are similar and can be requested from the author
b
Textually related scales of the EMBU and the ChiP-C
* p \ .05. ** p \ .01 (2-tailed)

Overprotection correlated negatively with Autonomy, but correlations between the ChiP-C resource scales and psy-
the correlations reached significance only for the mother chological maladjustment were negative. In particular, the
scales. Altogether, the intercorrelations were prevailingly positive correlations between psychopathological symp-
below an absolute value of 0.70. Only the correlations toms and Overprotection and Emotional Burden support
between Cohesion and Identification were high (r = .62/ the construct validity of both scales. Altogether the risk
.65, CFA 0.74/0.81 for mother/father). scales of the ChiP-C were more closely correlated to the
psychological problems of the youth than were the resource
Convergence and Divergence with the EMBU scales. Additionally, within the student sample, external-
izing behavioral problems were more closely related to a
The convergent validity of the ChiP-C was confirmed by negative parental relationship than were internalizing
significant and high correlations between the corresponding problems (ChiP-QoRe-TS, Fishers z-Test: p \ .000); this
scales of the ChiP-C and the EMBU. The coefficients correlation difference was not found in the clinic sample
between corresponding scales were higher than between (p = .375).
noncorresponding scales (Table 5). These differences As postulated, the correlation between the Quality-of-
between the correlation coefficients were statistically sig- Relationship Index (QRI-ts) and psychopathological
nificant for three scales of the ChiP-C (Cohesion, Auton- symptoms (as measured by the sum of YSR and CBCL
omy, and Punishment; Fisher’s Z-test). As expected, the total Problem scores) was higher than between the every
correlation coefficients between the corresponding mother ChiP-C subscale and the YSR/CBCL total Problem score.
and father scales were much lower for the separate item The differences between the correlation coefficients of the
presentation of the ChiP-C (m = 0.47, Table 4) than for QRI-ts and most subscales were significant (Fisher’s
the parallel item presentation of the EMBU (m = 0.70, Z-Test, p \ .05); exceptions were Rejection and Conflict.
p \ .000).

ChiP-C and Associations with Psychopathological Discussion

Symptoms
The ChiP-C includes approved and well-established con-
Positive significant correlations were found between each structs like Cohesion, Rejection, Punishment and aspects of
of the ChiP-C risk scales and psychological maladjustment psychological control, as well as new, less-established
of the adolescents as measured by the combined total constructs like Identification, Psychological Burden, Help
scores of the CBCL and YSR (Table 5); conversely, for the Parents and Parent Discrepancy. This paper presents

123
926 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

the theoretical background of the ChiP-C and its psycho- construct validity. In particular, the Parent Discrepancy
metric properties based on the study of 1,574 children and score seems to indicate a substantial additional psycho-
adolescents and their parents. logical risk and may be associated with systemic distur-
The objectivity in assessment, scoring and numerical bances of the parent/parent and parent/child triad.
interpretation can be reasonably assumed because of the Consistent with other findings (Barber et al. 1994;
use of standardized instructions, scoring and preliminary Mathijssen et al. 1998; Reitzle et al. 2001), externalizing
norms. The items of the ChiP-C showed good selectivity problems were more closely related to the quality of the
despite the fact that the difficulties of some items were very child-parent relationship than were internalizing problems.
high. Both the resource and the risk scales showed good to This difference was not found in the clinical sample. One
satisfactory internal consistency according to the criteria reason for this could be that children and adolescents who
outlined by Cicchetti (1994). Only the Punishment scale, visit a psychiatrist often have extended and severe prob-
consisting of merely three items, showed low internal lems that are, even in the case of internalizing problems,
consistency in the school sample; it showed high test–retest probably also related to the child-parent relationship (e.g.,
reliability in both samples. school phobia).
Confirmatory factor analyses verified the factorial In contrast to most other questionnaires in this field, the
validity of the full nine-factor model of the ChiP-C, even in ChiP-C provides a total score to estimate the quality of the
comparison to more general factor structures like those of child-parent relationship based on the child’s subjective
the EMBU. The clear intercorrelations between the corre- appraisal. It uses preliminary sex-and age-specific norms to
sponding scales of the ChiP-C and the well-established determine when the risks or the resources vary from the
EMBU (Arrindell et al. 1994) confirm the construct average. The comprehensive clinical experience with the
validity of the ChiP-C. Chip-C showed that a criterion of ± 1 ‘ SD is useful to
Statistically, the scales were sufficiently independent; evaluate significant disturbances in parent–child-relation-
only Cohesion and Identification were highly intercorre- ships. In accordance with the postulated cumulative vul-
lated. The empirical intercorrelations represent the postu- nerability model (e.g., Mathijssen et al. 1998), the QRI
lated theoretical relationships between the constructs of the total score of the ChiP-C showed stronger associations with
ChiP-C. In terms of the construct validity, Overprotection an individual’s psychopathological symptoms than did any
and Emotional Burden tended to be positively associated single risk or resource scale. Furthermore, these differences
with negative psychological symptoms experienced by the in the strengths of the correlations were statistically sig-
youth and concurrently, as expected and in spite of being nificant for the most scales. However, the total score of the
risk scales, were positively associated with Cohesion. Chip-C cannot and should not replace a thorough analysis
Similar results were reported by Barber et al. (1994) of the underlying scales.
between Acceptance (Cohesion), Psychological Control Regarding gender differences, girls reported more
(Overprotection) and externalizing problems of youth. Cohesion, Conflict and Help for the Parents than boys;
Moreover, adolescents with subjectively negative rela- mothers were rated higher in the scales for Emotional
tionships with their parents tended to exhibit more symp- Burden, Help, Overprotection and Cohesion than were
toms of emotional and behavioral maladjustment as fathers. These results are consistent with other findings. For
measured by self and parental reports. Confirming the example, girls tend to show stronger social engagement and
assumptions of an underlying cumulative vulnerability sensitivity than boys (e.g., Maccoby 1990) and mothers
model, every scale of the ChiP-C contributed significantly generally spend more time parenting than fathers (Dwairy
to the indicators of psychological maladaptation. Further- 2010; Milevsky et al. 2007; Tamis-LeMonada and Cabrera
more, participants with good relationships with their par- 1999). However, future research is planned to analyze
ents (i.e., high resources and low risks) had a below- these findings in more detail and to relate them to psy-
average probability of experiencing internalizing or exter- chological adjustment during adolescence.
nalizing problems. Thus the ChiP-C indices seem to indi- The age of the participants influenced the representation
cate not only risk relationships but also protective of the parental relationships. However, the effects were
relationships. However, and in accordance with the find- small except for with Conflict. Conflict between adoles-
ings of Barber et al. (1994) and Maccoby and Martin cents and parents seems to increase during the early ado-
(1983), in absolute terms the ChiP-C risk scales were more lescent years and remain high into late adolescence
closely associated with psychological maladjustment than (Allison 2000; Laursen et al. 1998; Steinberg and Morris
were the resource scales. In the latter scales, the correla- 2001).
tions were rather modest. The new, less-established con- The responses to the ChiP-C items were only slightly
structs like Identification, Psychological Burden and Parent biased by social desirability despite the intimate questions
Discrepancy showed good psychometric values and addressing some very negative aspects of the child-parent

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 927

relationship (e.g., Punishment). This supports the discrim- and resources measured are specific to particular psychi-
inant validity of the questionnaire. However, the results of atric diagnoses. As a caveat, it should be noted that a single
the ChiP-C may be biased by unconscious or intended abnormal test result of one family member is not sufficient
dishonest responses, or the tendency of children to evaluate proof of a disturbed child-parent relationship. Besides the
both parents equally out of a sense of fairness. The results usual diagnostic considerations, multiperspective and
show that the ChiP-C reduces this tendency significantly multimethod approaches are appropriate. The results of a
compared to the EMBU because it presents the items multiperspective study comparing the child (Chip-C) and
separately for mother and father. the parental perspectives with an analogous parent ques-
tionnaire (ChiP-P) are currently being prepared for
Further Limitations and Prospects of the Study publication.

Though subjects from three European countries were

included, the present preliminary norms are not represen- Conclusion
tative across the three countries in which studies were
conducted, particularly for nonurban regions. Data from The results discussed above demonstrate that the ChiP-C is
rural areas and from participants with lower educational a reliable and valid instrument for both clinical application
levels are underrepresented. The ChiP-C has been trans- and research. The ChiP-C can be considered an economical
lated into four languages (English, Italian, Greek and screening instrument for a differentiated assessment of the
Serbian) but validation studies from these countries have quality of the child-parent relationship. It provides both
not yet been published. Initial results show that the Chip-C proven and new indicators of family risks and resources
is sensitive to cultural differences und thus may be an that are relevant to adolescent mental development. The
interesting instrument for cultural-comparative studies. A ChiP-C offers support for therapeutic decision making
further step is to analyze in more detail whether the risks concerning children and adolescents and their parents.

123
928 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

Appendix

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 929

123
930 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 931

123
932 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933

References Gray, M., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting:

Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage
Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Check and the Family, 61, 574–587.
List/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation
Department of Psychiatry. modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousands Oaks: Sage.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual of the Youth Self Report and 1991 Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. A. (1998). Reconsidering
profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of changes in parent-child conflict across adolescence: A meta-
Psychiatry. analysis. Child Development, 69, 817–832.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1993). Attachment as related to mother-infant Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relations: A developmental
interaction. In C. Rovée-Collier & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.), Advances account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.
in infant research (pp. 1–50). New York: Ablex. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialisation in the context of
Allison, B. N. (2000). Parent-adolescent conflict in early adolescence: the family: Parent–child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Research and implications for middle school programs. Journal Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4 Socialisation, personality,
of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 18, 1–9. and social developmet (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.
Arrindell, W. A., Perris, C., Eisemann, M., van der Ende, J., Gazner, P., Mathijssen, J. J. J. P., Koot, H. M., Verhulst, F. C., De Bruyn, E. E. J.,
Iwawaki, S., et al. (1994). Parental rearing behavior from a cross- & Oud, J. H. L. (1998). The relationship between mutual family
cultural perspective: A summary of data optained in 14 nations. In relations and child psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychol-
C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell, & M. Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and ogy and Psychiatry, 39, 477–487.
psychopathology (pp. 145–171). New York: Wiley. Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S., & Keehn, D. (2007).
Barber, B. K., Maughan, S. L., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Patterns of Maternal and paternal parenting styles in adolescents: Associ-
parenting across adolescence. New Directions for Child and ations with self-esteem, depression and life-satisfaction. Journal
Adolescent Development, 108, 5–16. of Child and Family Studies, 16, 39–47.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA:
between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth Harvard University Press.
internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, Moos, R., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family environment scales and
1120–1136. preliminary manual. Paolo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In Nanda, M. M., Kotchick, B. A., & Grover, R. L. (2012). Parental
R. M. Lerner, A. C. Petersen, & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), psychological control and childhood anxiety: The mediating role
Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746–758). New York: Garland of perceived lack of control. Journal of Child and Family
Publisher. Studies, 21, 637–645.
Beavers, W. R., & Hampson, R. B. (2000). The Beavers systems Parker, G., Tulping, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding
model of family functioning. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10.
128–143. Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindström, H., von Knorring, L., & Perris,
Berenson, K. R., Crawford, T. N., Cohen, P., & Brook, J. (2005). H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing
Implications of identification with parents and parents’ accep- memories of parental rearing behavior. Acta Psychiatrica
tance for adolescent and young adult self-esteem. Self and Scandinavica, 61, 265–274.
Identity, 4, 289–301. Reitzle, M., Winkler Metzke, C., & Steinhausen, H.-C. (2001). Eltern
Bugental, D. B., & Johnston, C. (2000). Parental and child cognitions und kinder: Der zürcher kurzfragebogen zum erziehungsverhal-
in the context of the family. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, ten (ZKE). Diagnostica, 47, 196–207.
315–344. Remschmidt, H. & Mattejat, F. (1999). Familien-identifikations-test
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for (FIT). Manual. [The family identification test. manual]. Göttin-
evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in gen, Germany: Hogrefe.
psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. Rohner, R. P. (2004). The ‘‘parental acceptance-rejection syndrome’’:
Döpfner, M., Melchers, P., Fegert, J., Lehmkuhl, G., Lehmkuhl, U., Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychol-
Schmeck, K., et al. (1994a). Deutschsprachige konsensusversion ogist, 59, 830–840.
der child behavior checklist CBCL 4–18, der teacher report form Romer, G., Barkmann, C., Schulte Markwort, M., Homalla, G. T., &
(TRF) und der youth self report form (YSR). Kindheit und Riedesser, P. (2002). Children of somatically iII parents: A
Entwicklung, 3, 54–59. methodological review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychi-
Döpfner, M., Plück, J. & Berner, W. (1994). Elternfragebogen über atry, 7, 17–38.
das verhalten von kindern und jugendlichen. For- Schumacher, J., Eisemann, M., & Brähler, E. (2000). Fragebogen zum
schungsergebnisse zur deutschen fassung der child behavior erinnerten elterlichen Erziehungsverhalten [Handbuch]. Göttin-
checklist (CBCL/4-18). Handbuch, Köln: Arbeitsgruppe Kinder-, gen: Huber.
Jugend- und Familiendiagnostik (KJFD). Stein, J. A., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Lester, P. (2007). Impact of
Dwairy, M. (2010). Parental acceptance-rejection: A fourth cross- parentification on long-term outcomes among children of parents
cultural research on parenting and psychological adjustment of with HIV/AIDS. Family Process, 46, 317–333.
children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 30–35. Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development.
Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Psychometric Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.
properties of the Alabama parenting questionnaire. Journal of Tamis-LeMonada, C. S., & Cabrera, N. (1999). Perspectives on father
Child and Family Studies, 15, 597–616. involvement: Research and policy. Social Policy Report, 8,
Gardner, R. A. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome. A guide for 2–28.
mental health and legal professionals. Creskill, New Jersey: Titze, K., Koch, S., Lehmkuhl, U., & Rauh, H. (2001). Psychische
Creative Therapeutics, Inc. und familiäre belastungen bei kindern von müttern mit epilepsie.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Punishment by parents and associated child Kindheit und Entwicklung, 10, 114–123.
behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical Titze, K., & Lehmkuhl, U. (2010). Der Elternbildfragebogen für Kinder
review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579. und Jugendliche (EBF-KJ) [Manual]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

123
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:917–933 933

Titze, K., Wiefel, A., Assheuer, J., Biermann, M., Führer, D., & Verhoeven, M., Bögels, S. M., & van der Bruggen, C. C. (2012).
Lehmkuhl, U. (2010). Der elternbildfragebogen für kinder und Unique roles of mothering and fathering in child anxiety;
jugendliche (EBF-KJ). Faktorielle validität und reliabilität. moderation by child’s age and gender. Journal of Child and
Diagnostica, 56, 68–81. Family Studies, 21, 331–343.
Titze, K., Wollenweber, S., Nell, V., & Lehmkuhl, U. (2005). Wieczerkowski, W., Nickel, H., Janowski, A., Fittkau, B. & Rauer,
Elternbeziehung aus sicht von kindern, jugendlichen und W. (1981). Angstfragebogen für Schüler (AFS). Handanweisung
klinikern. entwicklung und klinische validierung des elternbild- für die Durchführung, Auswertung und Interpretation. Braun-
fragebogens (EBF-KJ). Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kin- schweig: Georg Westermann.
derpsychiatrie, 54, 126–143.

123