Parenting Stress Index (3rd Ed)

John G. Kuna, PsyD and Associateswww.johngkunapsydandassociates.com

www.facebook.com/JohnGKuna.PsyD.Associates

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.

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

Instrument Description

•Six child subscales: ▫Adaptability▫Acceptability▫Distractibility/ Hyperactivity ▫Demandingness ▫Mood ▫Reinforces Parent

Description, cont.

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

Description, cont.

•Optional Life Stress Scale: ▫19 Questions▫Non-normed▫No evaluative validity, ▫Useful as a prompt for further consultation

and analysis

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.

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).

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Data Presentation: Child domain scores

Domain Raw Score Corresponding Percentile

Distractability/Hyperactive

15 15

Adaptability 20 20Reinforces Parent 8 45Demandingness 13 15Mood 7 25Acceptability 8 15(Totals) 71 70

:

Data Presentation: Parent domain scores

Domain Raw score Corresponding Percentile

Competence 21 10Isolation 10 25Attachment 10 25Health 10 35Role Restriction 14 20Depression 16 20Spouse 13 25(Totals) 94 15

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.

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.

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.

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.