Cited by 98Counseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFamily Dynamics and Relationships

The Parentification Inventory: Development, Validation, and Cross-Validation

Hooper, Lisa, Doehler, Kirsten, Wallace, Scyatta, Hannah, Natalie·2011·The American Journal of Family Therapy

Abstract

Despite the ubiquitous nature of parentification, few instruments allow for the empirical study of the roles, responsibilities, and processes that undergird this construct. To fill this need, the researchers developed and refined a new instrument, the Parentification Inventory (PI; Hooper, 2009 Hooper, L. M. 2009. Parentification Inventory, Edited by: Hooper, L. M. Tuscaloosa, AL: Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, The University of Alabama. 35487 [Google Scholar]). A sample of 847 college students was split into two random, non-overlapping samples. For these initial survey development and cross-validation studies, the factor structure and psychometric properties of the PI were examined. To assess the PI's reliability, the researchers conducted an exploratory factor analysis (Study 1) using the first sub-sample of 431 students (mean age = 20.86, SD = 3.55). The researchers used the results to refine the PI and conducted a subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (Study 2) using the second, non-overlapping sample of 416 students (mean age = 20.89, SD = 3.83). The best fitting and most parsimonious model resulted in 22 items that cohered into three unique, replicable factors that were found to be fairly stable and associated, although small in magnitude, with mental health constructs and psychopathology in theoretically expected directions. Implications and directions for future research on the measurement of parentification are considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01926187.2010.531652

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hooper, L., Doehler, K., Wallace, S., & Hannah, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Elon University (US)
  • St. John's University (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Family Therapy
Published
2011-05
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
226-241
ISSN
0192-6187 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157734497
Cited by
95
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Journal of Family Therapy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
parentification, instrument development, psychometric validation, factor structure, university students, mental health, psychopathology, parent-child relationship

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review