548647

research-article2014

CCRXXX10.1177/1069397114548647Cross-Cultural ResearchGomez and Suhaimi

Article

Malaysia Parent Ratings

of the ParentParental
AcceptanceRejection
Questionnaire:
Invariance Across Ratings
of Malay, Chinese, and
Indian Children

Cross-Cultural Research
2015, Vol. 49(1) 90105
2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1069397114548647
ccr.sagepub.com

Rapson Gomez1 and Aida Farhana Suhaimi2

Abstract
This study used multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis procedure to
examine the measurement and structural invariance across Malaysian Malay
(n = 724), Chinese (n = 372), and Indian (n = 259) parent ratings of their
children on the short version of the ParentParental AcceptanceRejection
Questionnaire (Parent-PARQ/S). The Parent-PARQ/S measures parents
perceptions of their rejection of their children and has scales for coldness/lack
of affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated
rejection. Results provided strong support for the measurement and
structural invariance of the Parent-PARQ/S. In addition, the three ethnic
groups did not differ for all four latent mean scores.
Keywords
Parental AcceptanceRejection Questionnaire, measurement and structural
invariance, invariance for ethnic groups, Malaysia
1University
2University

of Ballarat, Australia
of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Rapson Gomez, School of Health Science, University of Ballarat, University Drive, Mt Helen,
P.O. Box 663, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia.
Email: rapson.gomez@ballarat.edu.au

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

Gomez and Suhaimi

91

The Parental AcceptanceRejection Questionnaire (PARQ; Rohner, 2005)

comprises a group of self-rating questionnaires that measure parental rejection. Among these measures is the short version of the Parent-PARQ (ParentPARQ/S). The Parent-PARQ/S asks parents to assess the way they now treat
their children in terms of rejection. Like all the PARQ measures, this questionnaire is assumed to be valid for cross-cultural studies of parental rejection
(Rohner, 2005). If so, this questionnaire needs to demonstrate measurement
invariance across different cultural groups in the first instance. To date, this
has not been examined. The primary aim of the current study was to use
multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure to examine
measurement invariance of the Parent-PARQ/S across Malaysian Malay,
Chinese, and Indian parents ratings of their children.
Based on several cross-cultural studies, Rohner and coworkers developed
their parent acceptancerejection (PAR) theory that suggests the children and
adults organize their perceptions of their parental acceptancerejection
around the same four groups of behavior or constructs: coldness/lack of
affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated
rejection (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002a; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer,
2005). Coldness/lack of affection relates to perceptions of very low levels of
parental warmth, affection, and love. Hostility/aggression relates to perceptions of parental behaviors associated with anger, bitterness, resentfulness,
and physical and/or verbal harm. Indifference/neglect relates to perceptions
of parental behaviors reflecting being unconcerned and uninterested.
Undifferentiated rejection relates to perceptions of parental behaviors reflecting rejection, but where the expression of rejection is not clearly unaffectionate, aggressive, or neglecting. To measure these constructs, Rohner (2005)
developed a number of questionnaires that are collectively referred to as the
PARQ.
Currently, there are three versions of the PARQ: Adult-PARQ, ChildPARQ, and Parent-PARQ. The Adult-PARQ assesses adults perceptions of
their mothers or fathers treatment of them when they were about 7 through
12 years old. The Child-PARQ asks youths to respond about the way they feel
that their parents (mothers or fathers) now treat them; and the Parent-PARQ
asks parents to assess the way they now treat their children. All three versions
have a long form (60 items) and a short form (24 items). The short forms
were developed from items from the long counterparts. In line with the PAR
theory, the theoretical model of all PARQ measures is a four-factor oblique
model, with scales for coldness/lack of affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection.
To date, most of the psychometric data for the PARQ come from the
Adult-PARQ. The Adult-PARQ assesses adults perceptions of their mothers

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

92

Cross-Cultural Research 49(1)

or fathers treatment of them when they were about 7 through 12 years old.
Meta-analysis of this measure for its internal consistency across many countries has shown homogeneity in the effect size (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002a,
2002b), and factor analytic studies have yielded the same factor structure
across many countries (e.g., Comunian & Gielen, 2001; Rohner & Cournoyer,
1994). These findings raise the possibility of, but do not guarantee, measurement equivalency or measurement invariance of the PARQ across different
cultural groups. For a rating scale, measurement invariance deals with
whether the items in the rating scale have the same scale properties when
completed by individuals from different groups, such as boys and girls
(Brown, 2006). If there is weak or no support for invariance, then it follows
that the individuals from the different groups examined cannot be justifiably
compared on the raw scores as the raw scores are confounded by differences
in measurement and scaling properties that are group specific. The opposite
is the case when there is support for measurement invariance.
A powerful method for testing invariance is multiple-group CFA. This
procedure can test invariance for the measurement and structural components
of a model. For the measurement model, it can test for configural invariance
(equality for form across groups), metric invariance (equality for factor loadings across groups), thresholds invariance (equality for responses to response
categories across groups), and error variances invariance (equality for uniqueness across groups). For the structural model, it can test for invariance for
factor variances and covariances across groups, and compare the groups for
latent mean scores. To date, only one study has examined invariance across
national groups for the PARQ (Gomez & Rohner, 2011). The study found
support for all types of measurement and structural invariance across ratings
of the Adult-PARQ provided by Australian and U.S. adults. Despite this and
in view of the limited cross-cultural data for the PARQ, it seems prudent to
conduct more studies in this area, involving other versions of the PARQ and
for other cultures.
Among the group of PARQ measures is the short version of the ParentPARQ or Parent-PARQ/S (Rohner, 2005). As noted previously, this measure
asks parents to assess the way they now treat their children, and it provides
scales for measuring coldness/lack of affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. A recent study examined the factor structure, reliability, and validity of this measure (Gomez & Suhaimi,
2014). It also examined its measurement invariance for parent ratings of boys
and girls, and mothers and fathers ratings of their children. Findings based
on CFA indicated only marginal fit for the original four-factor model. There
was excellent fit for an alternate four-factor model in which Item 13, which
loads in the original model on the indifference/neglect factor, was loaded on

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

93

Gomez and Suhaimi

Item # 1
Item # 3
Item # 9
Item # 12
Item # 13
Item # 17

Coldness/
lack of affection

Item # 19
Item # 22
Item # 24
Item # 2
Item # 7
Item # 11

Hostility/
Aggression

Item # 15
Item # 23
Item # 4
Item # 6
Item # 10
Item # 14

Indifference/
Neglect

Item # 18
Item # 20
Item # 5
Item # 8
Item # 16

Undifferentiated
rejection

Item # 21

Figure 1. Path diagram of the adjusted four-factor PARQ model used in the
multiple-group CFA analyses.

Note. For clarity, error variances are not shown. Error variances were not correlated. PARQ
= Parental AcceptanceRejection Questionnaire; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

the coldness/lack of affection factor instead. Figure 1 shows the path diagram
of the revised model (henceforth referred to as the adjusted four-factor
model). The adjusted model showed acceptable internal consistencies
(Cronbachs coefficients) for all factors (ranging from .77 to .65), with all

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

94

Cross-Cultural Research 49(1)

factors correlating significantly and positively with childhood emotional and

behavioral problems. Also, the study found measurement and structural
invariance across parent ratings of boys and girls; mothers and fathers ratings of their children. Taken together, these findings indicate good support
for the psychometric properties of the Parent-PARQ/S. It is to be noted that
apart from the study just described, no other study has reported on the psychometric properties of the Parent-PARQ/S. This means that unlike the
Adult-PARQ, we do have any information on the measurement equivalency
of the PARQ/S across different cultural groups.
Culture has been defined by Hofstede (1980) in terms of the collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group of
people from another group. Central to this distinction are values, attitudes,
beliefs, and practices. Such a view recognizes cultural homogeneity of different groups within the same nation, as well as cultural heterogeneity of
different groups within the same nation. As pointed out by Hofstede, nations
can have many cultures, and cultures can bridge more than one nation.
Malaysia is a good example of a nation with multiple cultures. The Malaysian
population includes 50.5% Malays, 24.2% Chinese, and 7.1% Indians
(Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2010). The Malaysian Government recognizes these groups as distinct ethniccultural groups (emic).
Although there are similarities in these groups, such as being collectivistic, there are also differences. The value system of the Malays is embedded in
the budi complex, which is central to Malay values, attitudes, and behaviors
toward the self and others. According to Dahlan (1991), these include being
polite, generous, respectful, sincere, righteous, discrete, feeling shame at the
individual level, and knowing that stresses intuitive feelings. Together, they
interact to provide norms of individual and social behaviors that lead to
approval from others (Dahlan, 1991). The value system of Malaysian Chinese
is primarily Confucianism fused with Buddhism and Taoism. According to
Tu (1979), the core values of Confucianism are derived from the concept of
ren (goodness, humanity) that relates to the highest human achievement
reached through moral self-cultivation. In terms of Hofstedes (1980) cultural
dimensions, Idris (2011) found that Malaysian Malays were more individualistic and more uncertainty avoiding than Malaysian Chinese. They did not
differ for masculinity, power distance, and time orientation. Based on liberal
interpretations of studies involving other related attitudes and practices,
Lrong (1998) concluded that relative to Malaysian Chinese, Malaysian
Malays have lower masculinity and higher uncertainty avoidance and power.
Zawawi (2008) examined the similarities and differences of cultural values
among Malaysian Malays, Chinese, and Indians. Findings showed that all
three groups were similar in terms of politeness. The Malays and the Chinese

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

Gomez and Suhaimi

95

were similar for ambition, filial piety, honesty, knowledge, and trustworthiness, whereas the Malays and Indians were similar for piousness. The Chinese
and Indians were similar for rituals and traditions. Overall, therefore, based
on Hofstedes definition of culture, Malaysian Malays, Chinese, and Indians
can be viewed as culturally distinct groups.
The different cultural values of Malays, Chinese, and Indians can be
expected to influence their attitudes and behaviors differently, including parenting style and interactions with their children (Keshavarz & Baharudin,
2009). Consistent with this, Ang (2006) found different effects for parenting
styles on Malay and Chinese adolescents personal and social behaviors. Bao
and Xu (2006) found that Malaysian Malay adolescents were more attached
to their parents and peers, compared with Malaysian Chinese adolescents.
Quah (2004) examined differences in parenting styles and expectations
across Malay, Chinese, and Indian parents in Singapore (Malaysias neighbor). She found that in comparison with Indian and Malay parents, Chinese
parents were more likely to consider physical punishment (in contrast to reasoning and rules) as being effective for disciplining children and were less
likely to demonstrate their affection by hugging, kissing, and holding their
children. Between Indian and Malay parents, Indian parents were less indulgent, stricter, and had higher expectation of behavior discipline and standards
from their children. Consistent with the findings for Chinese parents, Chi,
Baharudin, & Hossain, 2012) showed that Malaysian Chinese parents use
relatively more authoritative parenting styles (characterized by high control
over children and emphasizing conformity, discipline, and obedience from
children) than authoritarian (parenting that display democratic and negotiated
interactions and warmth, and encouragement of independence in children)
and permissive (non-demanding, non-controlling) parenting styles. Indeed,
Confucianism, which is central to Chinese values, requires Chinese children
to be obedient, self-disciplined, hard-working, and achievement-oriented,
and for Chinese parents to train (guan) their children directly through high
levels of control and very close monitoring. Given such cultural differences
(including ethnic and parenting differences), it is conceivable that they would
differentially affect parental perceptions and acceptability of their childrens
behaviors. In brief, Chinese parents can be expected to require better child
behavior standards and are likely to be less tolerant of their childrens misbehaviors than Indian and Malay parents. Also, Indian parents can be
expected to require better child behavior standards and are likely to be less
tolerant of their childrens misbehaviors than Malay parents. Given these
differences, it is conceivable that Chinese, Malay, and Indian parents could
have different interpretations of comparable parenting behaviors that could
differentially influence their responses on the Parent-PARQ. This could, in
turn, contribute to lack of measurement invariance across their ratings.
Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

96

Cross-Cultural Research 49(1)

The aim of this study was to use multiple-group CFA to test measurement
and structural invariance across Malaysian Malay, Chinese, and Indian parent
ratings of their children for the Parent-PARQ/S. As our previous study involving the same sample as in this study showed strong support for the adjusted
four-factor model, we used this model in all our analyses. It was speculated
that as there is evidence of parenting differences across Malay, Chinese, and
Indian parents, there will be some degree of non-invariance across their
ratings.

Method
Participants
The participants were 1,382 caregivers (primarily parents, and henceforth
referred to as parents) of primary schoolchildren from 12 schools in Klang
Valley of the State of Selangor in Malaysia. This state was selected as it is
highly representative of the ethnic distribution of West Malaysia. The respondents provided ratings for 603 (43.6%) boys and 779 (56.4%) girls, aged
between 5 and 13 years. The mean age (SD) for boys was 9.79 years (1.78),
and it was 9.92 years (1.81) for girls. There was no significant difference for
age between boys and girls, t(1,380) = 1.25, ns. In terms of ethnicity, 729
(52.4%) were Malays, 372 (26.9%) were Chinese, 259 (18.7%) were Indians,
and 27 (2.0%) belonged to the other categories. For Malaysia as a whole, the
figures are 61.5% Malays, 26.4% Chinese, and 10.5% Indian (Department of
Statistics Malaysia, 2010). The distribution of the ethnic groups in the study
sample did not differ significantly from the Malaysian population, 2(2) =
3.03, ns. In terms of educational attainment, most parents completed primary
and secondary education, and the majority of fathers were in skilled/semiskilled (e.g., technicians and associated technicians, 25%) and service-related
(e.g., service workers in shops and markets; 40%) occupations. Professionals
(e.g., teachers, nurses, doctors, etc.) constituted around 10%. Mothers completed 1,101 (79.7%) of all the parental ratings. Father completed 222 (16.1%)
ratings.

Measure
The measure of relevance in this article is the Parent-PARQ/S. The ParentPARQ/S, completed by parents, has 24 items that measure parental acceptance and rejection of their children and adolescents. It has four scales:
coldness/lack of affection (eight items), hostility/aggression (six items),
indifference/neglect (six items), and undifferentiated rejection (four items).

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

Gomez and Suhaimi

97

All items in the coldness/lack of affection scale are worded to measure

warmth/affection. When they are reversed scored, they indicate coldness/lack
of affection. Sample items in the Parent-PARQ/S include the following: I
say nice things about my child (original warmth/affection); I hit my child
even when she/he may not deserve it (hostility/aggression); I pay no attention to my child (indifference/neglect); and, I see my child as a big nuisance (undifferentiated rejection). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type
scale, from 4 (almost always true) to 1 (almost never true). For scoring,
all the eight items in the coldness/lack of affection scale, and one of the items
(Item 13, I pay a lot of attention to my child) on the indifference/neglect
scale, which is positively worded, are reverse-scored. For the current sample,
the Cronbachs coefficient was .73 for all the full scales. The Cronbachs
coefficients were .74, .69, .72, and .65 for the coldness/lack of affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection scales,
respectively.
Parents were provided both English and Malay versions of the ParentPARQ, with instructions to select any one version. The Parent-PARQ was
translated to Malay for this study via forward and backward translation by
experts in both languages. A bilingual university professor made the forward
translation from English to the Malay language, whereas a graduate professional officer made the backward translation for the translated Malay version
to English. Following this, the differences between the backward translated
English version and the original English version as they related to the translated Malay version were resolved by discussion involving both the individuals involved in the translation process and a trainee clinical psychologist
competent in both Malay and English. This resulted in the final Malay version that was used in the study. In all, 831 parents completed the Malay
version and 577 parents completed the English version. Our previous study
has shown equivalency across the Malay and English language versions
(Gomez & Suhaimi, 2014).

Procedure
Prior to data collection, ethical approval for the study was obtained from the
University of Tasmania Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee.
Following this, approvals were sought from the relevant authorities for distributing the relevant documents, including the dissemination of the ParentPARQ/S to parents through schools. Initially, approval was obtained from the
Research Promotion and Coordination Committee, Economic Planning Unit
(EPU), Prime Ministers Department, Malaysia, to conduct the research
through the primary schools in Klang Valley in the State of Selangor in

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

98

Cross-Cultural Research 49(1)

Malaysia. Following this approval, additional approvals were obtained from

State Department of Education for both Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur
and Selangor.
According to the Department of Statistics Malaysia (2010), the 2010 midyear population census showed the Klang Valley population had 26% of the
total Malaysian population of 28.5 million. Schools in this region were
selected for participations using the multi-stage random sampling technique
(Calmorin & Calmorin, 2007). Accordingly, the schools were divided into a
hierarchy of units and random sampling, with probability proportional to
size, applied to select schools. Briefly, the districts and zones located in the
Klang Valley region were divided into two first stage units: the State of
Selangor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Two out of the four
Selangor districts and one of the four Federal Territory zones were randomly
chosen to be included in the study. The units were the Petaling districts, Hulu
Langat districts, and Bangsar zone. There were a total of 269 schools in these
units (50% from Petaling district; 32% from Hulu Langat district; 18% from
Bangsar Zone). Based on the list of the school postcodes, nine schools from
Petaling district, six schools from Hulu Langat district, and three schools
from Bangsar zone were selected using a random number generator. Eighteen
primary schools in the Klang Valley region made up the ultimate units.
Principals of the selected schools were contacted to further determine their
interest in participating in the study. Out of the 18 schools contacted, 14
agreed to receive information regarding the study. Finally, 12 schools agreed
to participate.
Following approvals from the school principals of the 12 schools, classroom teachers were issued with the appropriate number of large sealed envelopes to be forwarded to parents, through their students. Each envelope
included a plain language statement providing the background of the study
and the Parent-PARQ/S. To minimize bias in ratings, the letter to parents
indicated that the study was examining aspects of childhood behavior. Parents
were requested to participate in the study by completing the Parent-PARQ/S.
They were also asked to provide the childs age, gender, and ethnic background. Parents were requested to return the completed questionnaires to the
teachers through their children. The researcher then collected the completed
envelopes from the schools.
About 2,500 parents of primary schoolchildren were invited to take part in
the study. In all, 1,407 parents responded, giving a response rate of 56.3%. Of
these, 1,382 parents provided usable Parent-PARQ/S ratings. Mothers completed 1,101 (79.7%) of all parental ratings. Father completed 222 (16.1%)
ratings. Of the 1,382 ratings, 59 (4.3%) did not provide this information. In
terms of language versions, 561 parents completed the original English

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

Gomez and Suhaimi

99

version of the Parent-PARQ/S, and 811 parents completed the translated

Malay version of the Parent-PARQ/S.

Statistical Procedures
All the CFA analyses in the study were conducted using Mplus (Version 6.1)
software (Muthen & Muthen, 2010), and they used the mean and variance
adjusted weighted least squares (WLSMV). This is a robust estimator for
ordered-categorical scores. According to Brown (2006), the WLSMV estimator provides the best option for modeling categorical data.
Multiple-group CFA measurement invariance was tested using the procedure proposed by Millsap and Yun-Tein (2004) for the WLSMV estimator
with theta parameterization. In brief, this procedure involves comparing progressively more constrained models that test for measurement invariance:
configural invariance (equality for form), metric invariance (equality for factor loadings), thresholds invariance (equality for responses to response categories), and error variances invariance (equality for uniqueness). According
to Millsap and Yun-Tein, for baseline model identification, the following
restrictions are necessary: (a) The factor loadings of the scaling indicators
must be set to 1 for all group; (b) the thresholds of these scaling
indicators must be constrained to be equal across all groups; (c) for all
other indicators, their first threshold and additional thresholds (if needed)
need to be constrained equal across groups; and (d) residual variances need to
be constrained to 1 in the first group and to be freely estimated in the other
groups. When there is some support for measurement invariance (full or partial), structural invariance (equivalency for factor variances and covariances)
can be examined. Also, when there is some support for measurement invariance, the groups can be compared for latent mean scores, taking into account
the non-invariance in the measurement model.
The goodness-of-fit of the CFA models was examined using WLSMV2.
Like all other 2 values, WLSMV2 values are also inflated by large sample
sizes. In addition to the WLSMV2, Mplus also provides approximate (or
practical) fit indices. These are the root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the TuckerLewis Index
(TLI). These approximate fit indices were also used in this study to evaluate
the goodness-of-fit of models. The guidelines suggested by Hu and Bentler
(1998) are that RMSEA values close to 0.06 or below be taken as good fit,
0.07 to <0.08 as moderate fit, 0.08 to 0.10 as marginal fit, and >0.10 as poor
fit. For the CFI and TLI, values of 0.95 or above are taken as indicating good
model-data fit, and values of 0.90 and <0.95 are taken as marginally acceptable fit. The various CFA invariance models were compared using the

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

100

Cross-Cultural Research 49(1)

WLSMV2 difference test that was computed using the option available in
Mplus. An value of .01 was used to allow for more stringent Type 2 error
control in models compared.

Results
Single Group CFA of the Adjusted Four-Factor Model for the
Different Ethnic Groups
Initially, the fit values of the adjusted four-factor model were examined separately for ratings provided by Malay (n = 724), Chinese (n = 372), and Indian
(n = 259) parents. The fit indices of Malay ratings were 2(df = 246) = 536.24,
p < .001, RMSEA = 0.040, CFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.965. The fit indices of
Chinese ratings were 2(df = 246) = 395.63, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.040, CFI
= 0.971, TLI = 0.967; and the fit indices of Indian ratings were 2(df = 246) =
392.76, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.048, CFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.954. The RMSEA,
CFI, and TLI values for all three cultural groups indicated good fit, thereby
supporting the construct validity of the adjusted four-factor model of the
Parent-PARQ/S for all three ethnic groups.

Multiple-Group CFA for Invariance Across the Different Ethnic

Groups
Table 1 shows the results of the analyses for invariance testing across Malay,
Chinese, and Indian parent ratings. In these analyses, the Malay group served
as the reference group. As shown, the goodness-of-fit values for the configural model (M1) were WLSMV2(df = 788) = 1363.87, p < .001; RMSEA =
0.040; CFI = 0.967; and TLI = 0.965. Thus, the RMSEA, CFI, and TLI values
indicated good fit for the configural model. These values provide sufficient
support for configural invariance. Table 1 shows that there was no difference
between (a) the configural model (M1 in Table 1) and the metric invariance
model (M2 in Table 1), WLSMV2(df = 40) = 48.57, ns; and (b) the thresholds invariance model (M3 in Table 1) and the metric invariance model (M2
in Table 1), WLSMV2(df = 38) = 37.42, ns. These findings indicate support
for equivalence for all factor loadings and thresholds across the three groups.
The error variances invariance model (M4 in Table 1) differed from the metric invariance model (M2), WLSMV2(df = 86) = 135.84, p < .001. This
finding indicates lack of support for equivalence for one or more error variances across the groups. Additional analysis indicated non-invariance for
error variances of only one item, and this being for Item 16 (I make my child
feel unloved if he/she misbehaves), which is part of the undifferentiated

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

101

Gomez and Suhaimi

Table 1. Results of Tests for Invariance Across PARQ Ratings of Malay, Chinese,
and Indian Parents.
Model fit
Models (M)
M1: Configural invariance
M2: Metric invariance
M3: Thresholds invariance
M4: Error variances invariance
M4A: M4 with error variances
for Item 16 free
M5: Invariance for the all latent
factor variances
M6: Invariance for the
covariances between latent
factors
M7: Invariance for the means of
the latent factors

Model difference

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

df

1363.87
1369.00
1375.37
1431.12
1405.71

788
828
866
914
913

0.040
0.038
0.036
0.035
0.035

0.967
0.969
0.971
0.970
0.972

0.965
0.969
0.972
0.973
0.974

M2 M1
M3 M2
M4 M2
M4A M2

40
38
86
85

48.57
37.42
135.84***
113.48

1356.69

874

0.035

0.972

0.974

M5 M3

8.74

1307.85

878

0.033

0.975

0.977

M6 M3

12

7.93

1378.71

874

0.036

0.971

0.973

M7 M3

14.40

Note. All WLSMV2 values were significant (p < .001). PARQ = Parental AcceptanceRejection
Questionnaire; 2 = weighted least square with mean and varianceadjusted chi square (WLSMV2);
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = TuckerLewis
Index.
***p < .001.

rejection factor. For this item, Indians had lower error variance than the
Malay and Chinese groups (completely standardized values: Malay = .720,
Chinese = .705, Indian = .587). Taken together, however, these results provide quite good support for the measurement invariance of the PARQ across
the ratings provided by Malay, Chinese, and Indian parents.
As also shown in Table 1, for the structural model, there was support for
invariance for all factor variances and covariances (M5 and M6, respectively,
in Table 1) as these models did not differ significantly from the thresholds
invariance model (M3 in Table 1), WLSMV2(df = 8) = 8.74, ns; and
WLSMV2(df = 12) = 7.93, ns, respectively. As shown in Table 1, the analysis showed support for invariance for the factor mean scores model (M7 in
Table 1), as this model did not differ from the thresholds invariance model
(M3 in Table 1), WLSMV2(df = 8) = 14.40, ns.

Discussion
The aim of the current study was to use multiple-group CFA analyses to
examine measurement and structural invariance for Malaysian Malay,
Chinese, and Indian parent ratings of their children on Parent-PARQ/S. For
the measurement model, the findings showed support for the configural

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

102

Cross-Cultural Research 49(1)

model (same pattern of factor structure), and for full measurement invariance
for the metric (same factor loadings), and thresholds (same response categories) models. Of the 24 items in this questionnaire, 23 items showed invariance for error variances (same unique variances). The item that did not show
invariance was Item 16 (I make my child feel unloved if he/she misbehaves), which is part of the undifferentiated rejection factor. For this item,
Indians had lower error variance than the Malay and Chinese groups.
Although the test for error variances is often included during invariance testing, most methodologists consider this test as overly stringent and unnecessary (Brown, 2006). Taken together, therefore, the results can be taken as
providing very good support for the measurement invariance of the ParentPARQ/S across the ratings provided by Malaysian Malay, Chinese, and
Indian parents. This means that the ratings provided by these groups of parents have the same measurement and scaling properties, and therefore, their
observed scores can be compared directly.
For the structural model, the findings showed invariance for all factor
variances and covariances. This means that the scores for the four latent factors (hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and indifference/neglect) in
the adjusted four-factor model do not differ for ratings provided by Malaysian
Malay, Chinese, and Indian parents in terms of their variability and intercorrelations, respectively. The findings for the structural model also showed no
difference between Malay, Chinese, and Indian parent ratings for the latent
scores for coldness/lack of affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/
neglect, and indifference/neglect. All the invariance findings suggest that the
cultural differences of Malays, Chinese, and Indians that influence the way
parents treat and interact with their children (Ang, 2006; Bao & Xu, 2006;
Quah, 2004) appear not to differentially influence the way they rate their
children on the Parent-PARQ/S. However, this does not imply that cultural
factors are irrelevant for understanding parenting behaviors and attitudes. It
may be that such factors are relevant for understanding other issues, such as
the processes in play that lead to similar parenting behaviors and attitudes
across different cultural groups.
At a general level, the findings support the use of the Parent-PARQ/S for
cross-cultural studies of parental rejection (Rohner, 2005). However,
because this study only involved three cultural groups in one nation, more
studies are needed to establish whether this can be generalized to cultures
in other countries. Furthermore, although the findings in this study have
been interpreted in terms of cross-cultural invariance for the ParentPARQ/S, this interpretation is based on the assumption that the Malay,
Chinese, and Indian communities in Malaysia are culturally distinct.
However, if this assumption is incorrect to start with, then it is

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

Gomez and Suhaimi

103

inappropriate to interpret the findings as clear evidence of equivalence

across the cultural groups. Culturally, Malay, Chinese, and Indian communities are all collectivist groups. In addition, as proposed by Tu (2003), as
traditional non-Western communities modernize, their traditional values
undergo a transformation that represents a mixture of both the traditional
and modern Western values. Because Malaysia is an industrialized modern
society, influenced by Western values and institutions, it can be expected
that both modern Western and culture-specific values exist in Malaysia,
with Chinese, Malays, and Indians sharing a common set of the core modern Western values. It is possible that these common core Western values as
they relate to parenting practices (rather than their specific culture values)
play the dominant role in influencing their parenting practices and attitudes. This means that in reality, the different cultural groups compared in
the current study may not be as distinct as suspected in terms of parenting
practices. However, it is unlikely that this is the case as there is evidence of
different cultural values among Malays, Chinese, and Indians (Zawawi,
2008), and also different parenting styles among these groups (Chi et al.,
2012; Keshavarz & Baharudin, 2009; Quah, 2004)
In concluding, the findings and interpretations made in this study have
limitations. First, it is possible that factors such as age, gender, and other
characteristics such as parental psychopathology could influence findings.
The failure to control for these effects in this study could have confounded
the results. Second, because the Malaysian culture is embedded in collectivist
values, the findings here could be unique to countries with these values and
may not be to more individualist cultures. It would be useful if future studies
examine invariance of the Parent-PARQ/S across more diverse cultural and
national groups. Third, we only examined one version of the PARQ measures. Thus, it is not certain whether other versions of the PARQ would demonstrate findings similar to that reported here. Despite these limitations, we
believe that the findings in the current study and previous study (Gomez &
Suhaimi, 2014) do provide adequate psychometric basis for the use of the
Parent-PARQ/S in applied and research settings.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

104

Cross-Cultural Research 49(1)

References
Ang, P. R. (2006). Effects of parenting style on personal and social variables for
Asian adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 503-511.
Bao, K. B., & Xu, Q. M. (2006). A comparison of attachment in adolescents in mainland China and Malaysia. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14, 172-174.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Calmorin, L. P., & Calmorin, M. A. (Ed.). (2007). Research methods and thesis writing (2nd ed.). Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store.
Chi, Y. H., Baharudin, R., & Hossain, Z. (2012). Fathers parenting styles in Chinese
families in urban Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanities,
20, 1019-1034.
Comunian, A. L., & Gielen, U. P. (2001). An Italian study of parental acceptancerejection. In R. Roth & S. Neil (Eds.), A matter of life: Psychological theory,
research, and practice (pp. 166-175). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science
Publishers.
Dahlan, H. M. (1991). Local values in intercultural management. Malaysian
Management Review, 1, 45-50.
Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2010). Vital statistics: Malaysia 2010. Putrajaya:
Author.
Gomez, R., & Rohner, R. P. (2011). Tests of factor structure and invariance in the
US and Australia using the adult version of the Parental AcceptanceRejection
Questionnaire. Cross-Cultural Research, 45, 267-285.
Gomez, R., & Suhaimi, A. F. (2014). Malaysian parent ratings of the short version
of the Parent Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire: Factor structure and
invariance across sex, and mother and father. Parenting: Science and Practice,
14, 195-214.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
Methods, 3, 424-453.
Idris, A. (2011). Ethnicity and cultural values: Am empirical study of Malay and
Chinese entrepreneurs in Peninsular Malaysia. Sarjana, 26, 22-40.
Keshavarz, S., & Baharudin, R. (2009). Parenting style in a collectivist culture of
Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10, 66-73.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002a). Perceived parental acceptancerejection and
psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural
studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 54-64.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002b). Reliability of measures assessing the relation
between perceived parental acceptancerejection and psychological adjustment:
Meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 33, 87-99.

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016

Gomez and Suhaimi

105

Lrong, Y. L. (1998). Cultural attributes of Malays and Malaysian Chinese: Implications

for research and practice. Malaysian Management Review, 33, 81-88.
Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479-511.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus users guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Author.
Quah, S. R. (2004). Ethnicity and parenting styles among Singapore families.
Marriage & Family Review, 35, 63-83.
Rohner, R. P. (2005). Parental AcceptanceRejection Questionnaire (PARQ): Test
manual (pp. 43-106). In R. P. Rohner & A. Khaleque (Eds.), Handbook for the
study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed.). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research
Publications.
Rohner, R. P., & Cournoyer, D. E. (1994). Universals in youths perceptions of parental acceptance and rejection: Evidence from factor analyses within eight sociocultural groups worldwide. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, 371-383.
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2010). Testing central postulates of parental acceptancerejection theory (PARTheory): A meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies.
Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 73-87.
Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2005). Parental acceptance
rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence and implications. ETHOS,
33, 299-334. doi:10.1525/eth.2005.33.3.299
Tu, W. M. (1979). Humanity and self cultivation: Essays in Confucian thought.
Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press.
Tu, W. M. (2003). Multiple modernities: A preliminary inquiry into the implications
of East Asian modernity. In L. E. Harrison & S. P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture
matters: How value shape human process (pp. 256-267). New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Zawawi, D. (2008). Cultural dimensions among Malaysian employees. International
Journal of Economics and Management, 2, 409-426.

Author Biographies
Rapson Gomez is professor of clinical psychology at Federation University, Ballarat,
Australia. His major research interests are on child and adolescent psychopathology,
and personality.
Aida Farhana Suhaimi is a clinical psychologist, currently practicing in Malaysia.

Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on April 7, 2016