Cited by 28Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and ValidationFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Validity of the Parenting Stress Index Short Form in a sample of at-risk mothers.

Pérez-Padilla, Javier, Menéndez, Susana, Lozano, Oscar·2015·Evaluation Review

Abstract

Background: The Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF) is a widely used instrument in scientific literature to evaluate the levels of stress a parent feels when facing parenting-related tasks. Despite the potential usefulness of the PSI-SF with at-risk families, no validation studies have been carried out on this population in Spain. Objectives: The main objective of this study is to report evidences of the reliability and validity of PSI-SF with a sample of at-risk mothers. Specifically, (1) to examine the discriminative capacity of PSI-SF to differentiate between a community sample and another sample composed of families with various levels of risk and (2) to analyze the relationships with general health indicators and parental sense of competence. Results: Analyses reported in this article show satisfactory results regarding appropriate internal consistency coefficients for the scale. With respect to the evidences of validity, results reported here suggest that the total PSI-SF score, but not the two subscales, could be useful to differentiate between different groups of mothers with different levels of risk. The Childrearing stress subscale was associated with a poorer perception as a mother as well as with an external locus of control, and the Personal distress subscale was related to all the general health indicators, explaining a high percentage of variance. Conclusion: The results reported show that the total score or the subscales should be used in a differentiated way according to the professional’s objectives. Hence, PSI-SF may be a useful instrument for researchers and practitioners who work with at-risk families.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0193841x15600859

Cites

54 of 54 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pérez-Padilla, J., Menéndez, S., & Lozano, O.
Affiliations
  • Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain
  • Universidad de Huelva (ES)
Venue
Evaluation Review
Published
2015-08
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
428-446
ISSN
  • 0145-4692 (ISSN-L)
  • 0193-841X
  • 1552-3926
OpenAlex
W1837678771
Cited by
28
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evaluation Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
Parenting Stress Index-Short Form, parental stress, high-risk mothers, high-risk families, psychometric validation, reliability statistics, discriminant validity, personal distress, parental sense of competence, locus of control, maternal health, Spanish adaptation
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Child, Child Rearing, Child, Preschool, Family Characteristics, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Internal-External Control, Mother-Child Relations, Mothers, Poverty, Psychometrics, Self-Assessment, Spain, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment

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