A short presentation on the psychometrics properties of the parenting stress index.

1. Parenting Stress Index (3rd Ed)
John G. Kuna, PsyD and Associates
www.johngkunapsydandassociates.com
www.facebook.com/JohnGKuna.PsyD.Associates

2. Introduction
• Developed in 1995 by Richard Abidin
• Designed to gauge the perceived degree of stress
within a parent-child system
• Purports to identify dysfunctional parenting styles,
assessment of child abuse risk, forensic evaluation
for child custody, as well as prediction of possible
behavioral and developmental difficulties within the
family system.
• Thus, the PSI is not a child diagnostic tool; rather it
assesses the degree of stress manifested within the
parent-child relationship.

3. Theoretical basis
• Assumes basic reciprocal deterministic system,
• Wherein a parent’s total stress is a function of
the intersection of situational and
environmental factors of parenthood, child
temperament and parent temperament

4. Instrument Description
• Six child subscales:
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
Adaptability
Acceptability
Distractibility/ Hyperactivity
Demandingness
Mood
Reinforces Parent

5. Description, cont.
• Seven Parental subscales:
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
Competence,
Social Isolation,
Attachment,
Parent Health,
Role Restriction,
Depression,
Relationship with Spouse.

6. Description, cont.
• Optional Life Stress Scale:
▫
▫
▫
▫
19 Questions
Non-normed
No evaluative validity,
Useful as a prompt for further consultation and
analysis

7. Reliability
• The total reliability of the instrument is reported
to be .95
• Domain reliability: .93 for parents and .89 for
children.
• Reliability of the 13 sub scales ranges from .55 to
.80 for parents, and .62 to .70 for children
(Abidin, 1995).
▫ Sub Scale reliability is variable. Must be calculated
according to child’s age.

8. Validity
• Copious bibliography of PSI used as a measure
of Parental Dysfunction
• PSI has shown to be highly correlated with other
psychometric tests of parental anxiety, lack of
spousal support (Adamakos et al., 1986), and
marital dissatisfaction (Cowan & Cowan, 1983).

9. Validity, cont.
• The application of the PSI to special populations
(including those with developmental disabilities
and those within the autistic spectrum) reveal
the sensitivity of the PSI in accounting for the
increased stress present in those family systems
(Hayes & Watson, 2013).

10. Standardization
• Abidin was a clinician in Virginia at the time he
constructed the PSI.
• Standardized on 534 predominantly white
mothers from central Virginia.
• Children’s ages ranged from 1 month to 19 years,
although 95% of the sample children were under
5 years of age.

11. Format
• Inherent difficulty in Self-report data
• PSI attempts to compensate for this
▫ Deliberately worded to assess a parents’ subjective
experience while simultaneously capturing their
objective assessment
▫ Each item of the PSI is worded to include a
descriptive statement of the child’s behavior as
well an evaluative statement

12. Format, cont.
• Example, Item 77: “When my child misbehaves
or fusses too much, I feel responsible, as if I
didn’t do something right.”
• After the descriptive statement of the child’s
behavior (“when my child misbehaves…”),
comes the evaluative statement (“I feel
responsible…”).
• PSI attempts to capture both the experiential
and perceived component of stressors.

13. Format, cont.
• McKinney and Peterson (1984) argue that this
intermingling of evaluative and descriptive
statements yields less than objective results, and is
an obvious deficit of the PSI.
• Argument seems to neglect the reciprocal
relationship of interpersonal relationships—namely,
that a stress response itself may actually serve to be
a future stressor.
• An example: stress may cause a parent to feel
frustration more quickly towards their child, but
then guilt over that anger may contribute to future
stress.

14. Subject Analysis
• The present subject is
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
28 years old,
Caucasian female,
Middle class,
Stay at home mother of a 2.5 year old son.
The subject has a BA in Psychology,
Subject has been married for only three months,
but has been cohabitating with her now husband
for the last six years.

15. Data Presentation: Child domain scores
:
Domain
Raw Score
Distractability/Hyperac
tive
Adaptability
Reinforces Parent
Demandingness
Mood
Acceptability
(Totals)
15
Corresponding
Percentile
15
20
8
13
7
8
71
20
45
15
25
15
70

16. Data Presentation: Parent domain
scores
Domain
Raw score
Competence
Isolation
Attachment
Health
Role Restriction
Depression
Spouse
(Totals)
21
10
10
10
14
16
13
94
Corresponding
Percentile
10
25
25
35
20
20
25
15

17. Evaluation
• The subject’s overall stress score is 165
• Well within acceptable limits.
• Abidin recommends further evaluation with any
parent scoring 260 or above.
• The subject scored 15 on the Life Stress analysis.
• The manual recommends referral for professional
services to clients with scores of 17 or above on the
Life Stress analysis.
• Present subject had experienced recently the death
of her father, her husband’s job loss, and a marriage.

18. Defensive Responding
• No indication of defensive responding was
detected.
• During pre-administration instructions as well
as post-test debriefing the client presented with
a high degree of internal motivation towards
completion of the PSI.
• Since the subject is in fact my wife, I’d like to
think she was forthright in her self-report.

19. Conclusion
• The PSI is at a notable disadvantage to other
diagnostic instruments currently available. The use
of the instrument for declaring diagnostic labels to
children is not recommended,
• The Life Stress Domain has no evaluative validity,
except as a prompt for further consultation and
analysis.
• The PSI would be highly valuable as part of a
screening inventory to identify parents most in need
of further intervention or to plan specific issues to
address in a parenting intervention.

20. Conclusion
• PSI could be highly compatible with school
psychological practice.
• Applicable in the evaluation of preschool
children population.
• The strength of the PSI lies in its ability as a
predictive instrument for preventative measures,
as well as a tool for further investigation.