The American Journal of Family Therapy

ISSN: 0192-6187 (Print) 1521-0383 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaft20

The Parentification Inventory: Development,

Validation, and Cross-Validation

Lisa M. Hooper , Kirsten Doehler , Scyatta A. Wallace & Natalie J. Hannah

To cite this article: Lisa M. Hooper , Kirsten Doehler , Scyatta A. Wallace & Natalie J. Hannah
(2011) The Parentification Inventory: Development, Validation, and Cross-Validation, The American
Journal of Family Therapy, 39:3, 226-241

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2010.531652

Published online: 14 Apr 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 598

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaft20
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 39:226–241, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online
DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2010.531652

The Parentification Inventory: Development,

Validation, and Cross-Validation

LISA M. HOOPER
Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling,
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
KIRSTEN DOEHLER
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Elon University, Elon, North Carolina, USA
SCYATTA A. WALLACE
Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York, USA

NATALIE J. HANNAH
Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling,
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Despite the ubiquitous nature of parentification, few instruments

allow for the empirical study of the roles, responsibilities, and pro-
cesses that undergird this construct. To fill this need, the researchers
developed and refined a new instrument, the Parentification Inven-
tory (PI; Hooper, 2009). 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, repli-
cable 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

Address correspondence to Lisa M. Hooper, Associate Professor, Box 870231, Department

of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, The University
of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487. E-mail: [email protected]

226
 Parentification Inventory 227

and directions for future research on the measurement of paren-

tification are considered.

INTRODUCTION

At least 4 of every 100 children living in the United States, the United King-
dom, or Australia will fulfill a caregiving role in their families (Becker, 2007).
These rates are likely much higher in developing countries such as Africa,
where the AIDS virus is widely prevalent (Becker, 2007). A survey conducted
in the United States in 2005 estimated that there are around 1.3 to 1.4 million
caregiving children just between ages 8 and 18 (Barber & Siskowski, 2008).
Young caregiving is an important clinical and research issue because it can
affect the health and development of young caregivers from cradle to grave
(i.e., during their childhood and adolescence as well as adult years) (Barber
& Siskowski, 2008). Although most children give care to another family mem-
ber in some form during their childhood years (Becker, 2007; Boszormenyi-
Nagy & Spark, 1973; Minuchin, 1974), some children take on adult roles and
responsibilities not normally entrusted to children or to a degree that is con-
sidered developmentally inappropriate and excessive (Boszormenyi-Nagy &
Spark, 1973; Locke & Newcomb, 2004; Winton, 2002). This excessive level
of caregiving in childhood is known as parentification, and it is a common
clinical condition experienced in a range of demographic populations that
can be measured as it is occurring and retrospectively.
Although instruments have been used to measure parentification, these
instruments—we believe—were not developed with three current and rel-
evant issues in mind. More specifically, we contend that absent from the
literature base are parentification measures that consider the implications
of culture and the perceived benefits of parentification and how they may
interact with the roles and processes that undergird the construct of paren-
tification. Additionally, we believe that current measures fail to capture both
to whom the parentified processes are directed (e.g., sibling or parent) and
the multi-factorial nature of the parentification processes. Thus, our primary
rationale for the development of a new measure buttressed by systems the-
ory was to create an instrument that captured the multidimensional roles
and processes (e.g., inverted processes of emotionally focused behaviors
and instrumentally focused behaviors) of parentification that considered the
familial, cultural, and ecological context in which these parentified roles and
behaviors take place.
The primary aim of the current project, the Childhood Roles and Re-
sponsibilities and Adult Functioning study (Project Chores), was to develop
and validate an instrument that assessed for retrospective parentification in
adults. This process was conducted using two non-overlapping samples.
Specifically, the full convenience sample was split into two random sam-
ples (i.e., separate non-overlapping samples) for exploratory factor analysis
228 L. M. Hooper et al.

(Study 1) and confirmatory factor analysis (Study 2). The remainder of this
article discusses the types and prevalence of parentification, the develop-
ment of the PI, and the design and outcome of the two studies that assessed
reliability and validity.

TYPES OF PARENTIFICATION

Parentified children differ from nonparentified children by the types of tasks

they perform, the roles they take on, the amounts of time they spend on these
tasks, and the lack of supervision and praise provided to them for completing
these tasks (Becker, 2007; Hooper, 2007; Jurkovic, 1997). Some tasks per-
formed by young caregivers but not other children may include bathing and
helping a family member use the restroom (Becker, 2007), cooking meals,
and handling the household finances (Diaz, Siskowski, & Connors, 2007).
Some scholars have theorized that parentification can occur on two levels:
emotional and instrumental (Byng-Hall, 2008; Jurkovic, Thirkield, & Morrell,
2001). Emotional parentification refers to the expressive support that a paren-
tified child may offer to his or her parent or sibling (e.g., serve as confidante,
peacemaker) (Jurkovic, 1997, 1998). Instrumental parentification refers to the
physical help that a child may provide to his or her parent by completing
tasks around the home that are typically reserved for adults (e.g., grocery
shopping, doing the laundry, and cleaning the house) (Hooper, 2007). Of the
two types of parentification, it has been proposed that instrumental paren-
tification is less harmful to children than emotional parentification (Jurkovic,
1997; Hooper, Marotta, & DePuy, 2009; McMahon & Luthar, 2007; Minuchin,
Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, & Schumer, 1967). Byng-Hall (2008) suggests
that instrumental roles are easier for children to adopt than emotional roles
and that emotional roles may be more stressful for children to perform.

PREVALENCE

Aldridge (2006) reported that approximately 175,000 children were caring

for parents with illnesses or disabilities of some type. A survey conducted in
the United States in 2005 estimated that there are around 1.3 to 1.4 million
caregiving children ages 8 to 18 (Barber & Siskowski, 2008) and that those
children from homes with lower incomes and only one parent are impacted
by parentification in the most negative ways (Becker, 2007; Diaz et al., 2007;
Minuchin et al., 1967). The large difference between the aforementioned fig-
ures could be due to the less restrictive definition of caregiving—a child who
“provides unpaid help or care to any person” (Becker, 2007, p. 28)—used in
the collection of the latter figures. Data from a national census in the United
Kingdom made public in May 2003 showed that 114,000, or 1.4%, of children
 Parentification Inventory 229

ages 5 to 15 were providing care in some form to at least one family mem-
ber (Doran, Drever, & Whitehead, 2003). The figures revealed that 18,000
of those young caregivers cared for family members 20 or more hours per
week and that almost 9,000 provided care more than 50 hours per week.
Mayseless, Bartholomew, Henderson, and Trinke (2004) found that 13%
of 128 adult Canadian participants (contacted via random-digit dialing) in
their study on parentification reported facing large amounts of role rever-
sal during their childhood years. They found that those who reported role
reversal in their study were more likely to be women than men and were
more likely to have reversed roles with their mothers than with their fathers
(Mayseless et al., 2004).
In summary, parentification is a ubiquitous construct and a common
clinical condition that is often experienced in a range of demographic popu-
lations (Byng-Hall, 2008; Hooper, 2007). Establishing instruments that allow
for the empirical study and clinical measurement of parentification is an im-
portant area of study. Currently, there are only a few instruments that meet
this need.

STUDY 1: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION

OF THE PARENTIFICATION INVENTORY

The purpose of Study 1 was to develop the Parentification Inventory. The

initial phase of the development and item generation of the Parentifica-
tion Inventory (PI) was informed by the survey development literature base
(Worthington & Whitaker, 2006), a comprehensive review of family systems
theory, and other instruments that have captured elements of childhood
parentification retrospectively (Jurkovic & Thirkield, 1998; Mika, Bergner,
& Baum, 1987). We also constructed items for the PI based on definitions
and descriptions put forward by seminal researchers Boszormenyi-Nagy and
Spark (1973), Jurkovic (1997), and Minuchin et al. (1967). Finally, in the
development of the PI, we noted criticisms and limitations evinced in the
literature regarding current measures of parentification. Primarily, we noted
that in the literature, some have concluded that current measures fail to cap-
ture competence or the possible “perceived benefits” of taking on roles and
responsibilities usually reserved for adults in early childhood (Byng-Hall,
2008; McMahon & Luthar, 2007).
Additionally, as previously described, we attempted to create an instru-
ment that captured the multidimensional roles (e.g., role reversal of child
parenting sibling and child parenting parent) and processes (e.g., inverted
processes of emotionally focused behaviors and instrumentally focused be-
haviors with family members) of parentification and that considered the
familial, cultural, and ecological context in which these parentified roles
230 L. M. Hooper et al.

and behaviors take place. Like those who developed other assessments of
parentification, we chose an initial development and validation sample of
college-aged participants.
Following preliminary item construction, we conferred with several ex-
pert family systems clinicians, researchers, and scholars to garner consensus
on the content and face validity (i.e., the extent to which the instrument
appears to be assessing the desired qualities based on a review of the in-
strument by one or more experts) of the PI. The pool of items was reviewed
for clarity, appropriateness, and representativeness of the parentification
construct. Finally, the PI was piloted with graduate-level students for clar-
ity and comprehensiveness. The resultant newly developed measurement of
parentification consisted of 32 items and asked participants to respond to
questions about various roles and responsibilities of parentification and to
whom (e.g., parent, sibling, etc.) these responsibilities were directed/offered.
Additionally, in an attempt to capture the perceived benefits attached to the
multidimensional nature of parentification and thus the psychological se-
quelae associated with parentification, the PI allowed for perceived benefit
finding that may be associated with childhood parentification. The initial
self-report PI took approximately 10 minutes to complete.
For Study 1, we had two aims: (1) to conduct an exploratory factor
analysis to determine the factor structure of the PI and (2) to evaluate the
internal consistency of the PI scores with Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.

Method
PARTICIPANTS
The convenience sample consisted of 431 student volunteers recruited from
12 undergraduate classes in a southeastern university. Participants’ ages
ranged from 19 to 48 (mean = 20.86, SD = 3.55). The sample primarily
consisted of White Americans (82.13%, n = 354) and females (76.10%, n =
328). Self-reported races of the remaining participants included American
Indian (0.46%, n = 2), Asian American (0.70%, n = 3), African American
(12.30%, n = 53), Hispanic/Latino (0.70%, n = 3), mixed race (3.25%, n =
14), and failed to report (0.46%, n = 2).

MEASURES
Sociodemographic Information Sheet. This questionnaire, created for
the study, asks survey participants to respond to several background ques-
tions. Questions covered the participant’s year in school, academic discipline,
age, gender, racial and ethnic background, and religious affiliation.
Parentification Inventory. The initial PI used in Study 1 was a ret-
rospective, 32-item, self-report measure that captured caregiving roles and
responsibilities and the perceived benefits of performing caregiving roles in
 Parentification Inventory 231

the family of origin. Participants responded to 32 items using a five-point

Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true).

PROCEDURE
Following Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited undergraduate
student participants to take part in a study investigating the link between
childhood roles and responsibilities and adult psychological functioning.
With the permission of university professors, we approached participants in
undergraduate-level classrooms and then later by email. We administered the
survey packet online using a web-based survey methodology. Specifically,
we sent participants an electronic invitation to participate in the study, which
included a description of the study, a direct link to the electronic survey, and
an informed consent form.

DATA ANALYTIC PROCESS AND RATIONALE

Using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) and SAS PROC CALIS,
version 9.1.3 software, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis with
varimax rotation to determine the factor structure of the PI (Aim 1). We
also reviewed the results of Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) to
clarify the factorability of the data and Kaiser-Meyer-Okin (Kaiser, 1958) to
measure the sampling adequacy, which was favorable at a level of .90. Other
analyses were conducted to determine the internal consistency (Aim 2) of
the PI’s underlying constructs. Several factors influenced our rationale for
this data analytic approach. First, we used an exploratory factor analysis
because this is the first study to examine the psychometric properties and
the factorial validity of the PI. Second, we selected principal component
analysis to identify a few coherent constructs that best reflect the roles and
responsibilities of parentified children and the perceived benefits of carrying
out these roles. To inform the retention of the components and to avoid
under- and over-factoring, we used several methods: scree plot, eigenvalue
of 1, and parallel analysis. For transformation, we used the varimax rotation.

Results
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Preliminary estimates of communalities were set to 1. We established an a
priori criterion for the inclusion of items: only those with a loading of .4 or
higher would be considered in the development of the PI. The participants’
responses from the Project Chores study produced six eigenvalues that were
greater than 1, although a visual interpretation of the Cattel’s (1966) scree
plot showed that a large portion of the variance—a break at the elbow—was
232 L. M. Hooper et al.

explained by three factors. As a result, a three-factor model was established,

accounting for 45.28% of the variation.
As stated earlier, the initial PI contained 32 items. However, if an item
did not load at .4 or higher, it was not retained. Our preliminary analysis
showed that three candidate items did not have significant loadings and
therefore were discarded. We then ran a second exploratory factor analysis
with the remaining 29 items, which cohered into three unique factors. We
used the same criteria as described above. The resulting three-factor model
accounted for 47.98% of the variation.
Finally, components were established based on the participants’ re-
sponses (n = 439). Based on the 29-item PI, the exploratory factor analysis
produced three factors, and they were labeled in the following way: Factor
1, Parent-Focused Parentification (PFP), consists of 15 items and captures
adult-like roles and responsibilities primarily directed toward one’s parents.
Factor 2, Sibling-Focused Parentification (SFP), consists of 9 items and cap-
tures adult-like roles and responsibilities primarily directed toward one’s
sibling(s). Factor 3, Perceived Benefits of Parentification (PBP), consists of
5 items and captures positive thoughts and feelings related to carrying out
adult-like roles and responsibilities in one’s family of origin.

RELIABILITY ESTIMATES
We used Cronbach’s alpha to examine the internal consistency estimates of
the empirically constructed factors/subscales (Aim 2). Consistent with the
survey development literature base (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), we
established an a priori criterion that an alpha equal to or greater than .70
was satisfactory. Results suggested adequate reliability for two of the three
PI subscale scores (.88 for PFP, .83 for SFP, and .37 for PBP) and the PI total
scale score (.87) for Study 1. Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation,
and reliability of the study factors in the context of the current sample.

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the
Parentification Inventory Factor Scores

No. of Alpha
Factors M SD Items Coefficient

Study 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis

1. Factor 1: Parent-Focused Parentification 2.06 .66 13 .88
2. Factor 2: Sibling-Focused Parentification 1.44 .51 9 .83
3. Factor 3: Perceived Benefits of Parentification 3.54 .54 5 .37
4. Total Parentification Inventory Score 2.33 .48 29 .87
Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
1. Factor 1: Parent-Focused Parentification 2.02 .52 12 .86
2. Factor 2: Sibling-Focused Parentification 2.53 .38 7 .84
3. Factor 3: Perceived Benefits of Parentification 4.06 .87 3 .79
4. Total Parentification Inventory Score 2.47 .33 22 .84
Note: Study 1 sample: n = 431; Study 2 sample: n = 416.
 Parentification Inventory 233

STUDY 2: CROSS VALIDATION OF THE PARENTIFICATION

INVENTORY

The purpose of Study 2 was to establish preliminary evidence of the validity

of the PI. We had three specific aims: (1) to examine the factor structure of
the PI based on the findings from the exploratory factor analysis (Study 1)
and using the confirmatory factor analytic procedure, (2) to evaluate the
concurrent validity of the PI based on the relations between the PI subscale
scores and psychological symptomatology, and (3) to evaluate the psycho-
metric properties (e.g., construct validity and reliability) of the PI subscale
scores and the PI total score.

Method
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
The convenience sample for Study 2 consisted of 416 student volunteers
recruited from 12 undergraduate classes in a southeastern university. Partici-
pants’ ages ranged from 19 to 48 (mean = 20.89, SD = 3.83). The sample pri-
marily consisted of White Americans (79.57%, n = 331) and females (75.00%,
n = 312). Self-reported races of the remaining participants included Ameri-
can Indian (0.48%, n = 2), Asian American (0.48%, n = 2), African American
(15.14%, n = 63), Hispanic/Latino (1.20%, n = 5), and mixed race (2.64%,
n = 11), and failed to report (0.48%, n = 2). We used the identical procedures
employed in Study 1.

MEASURES
Sociodemographic Information Sheet. This questionnaire, created for
the study, asks survey participants to respond to several background ques-
tions. Questions covered the participant’s year in school, academic discipline,
age, gender, racial and ethnic background, and marital status.
Parentification Inventory. The modified PI in Study 2 was a retro-
spective, 29-item, self-report measure that captured caregiving roles and
responsibilities and the perceived benefits of performing caregiving roles in
the family of origin. Participants responded to 29 items on the PI using a
five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true).
Depression Symptomatology. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI;
Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) consists of 21 self-report items that capture
depressive symptomatology. Scores for each item range from 0 to 3. The
maximum possible total score is 63, and higher scores reflect greater severity
of depression symptomatology and a greater likelihood of major depres-
sion. The BDI is one of the most widely used instruments that measures
depression, and scores from this instrument have been shown to have good
reliability and validity (Beck et al., 1996). Consistent with other studies, the
234 L. M. Hooper et al.

obtained reliability in the current study was more than adequate; Cronbach’s
alpha was .92 for the current study sample.
General Psychological Symptoms. The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)
is a 53-item, self-report inventory designed to reflect the psychological symp-
tom patterns of psychiatric and general community populations. The BSI
reports nine symptom scores and three broad scores measuring distress
(Derogatis, 1993). The three broad scores (or “global indices”) include global
severity index, positive symptom distress index, and positive symptom total.
The psychometric properties of the BSI and subscale scores are excellent
(Derogatis & Spencer, 1982). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient has yielded scores
on the nine symptom categories in the range of .71 to .85. Test-retest relia-
bility yielded .69 to .91 for the nine subscales and .80 to .90 for the global
indices (Derogatis & Spencer, 1982). Cronbach’s alphas for the global indices
were in the range of .87 to .97 for the current study sample.
Parentification Questionnaire. Parentification was also assessed using
the Parentification Questionnaire (PQ; Jurkovic & Thirkield, 1998), which
is a self-report instrument that measures both instrumental and emotional
parentification. Participants rate how true the statements are on a five-point
Likert scale, where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree.” Subscale
scores can fall in the range of 10 to 50, with higher scores indicative of greater
parentification. The PQ has a reported Spearman-Brown split half reliability
of .85 (Burt, 1992). Research has documented convergent validity for the
PQ, indicating that scores on the instrument are related to variables such
as features of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptomatology (Hooper &
Wallace, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha for the PQ was .88 for the current study
sample.

Results
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
We examined missing data, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability as
measured by Cronbach’s alpha. All analysis models included subjects with
nonmissing values for the appropriate scales. Only observed values were
used; no imputation was performed. An initial confirmatory factor analysis
was conducted on the 29 items of the PI inventory using the CALIS pro-
cedure in SAS. The maximum likelihood estimation method was used. We
used several fit indices to evaluate the confirmatory factor analysis models
produced by the data in Study 2.
The goodness-of-fit index and nonnormed fit index were used to evalu-
ate the fit of these models. Stevens (2002) suggested that models with these
indices above .90 were considered a good fit, with values closer to 1 indi-
cating a better fit. In addition, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) and its 90% confidence interval were used to evaluate the model
 Parentification Inventory 235

fit. Values below .08 are considered to indicate moderately good model fit,
while values above .10 indicate poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the 29-item, three-
factor model shows an unacceptable model fit, as reflected in the following
fit statistics. The RMSEA value of .085 was above the upper limit of moderate
model fit for this index. The goodness-of-fit index and nonnormed fit index
results of .76 and .76, respectively, were below the recommend cut-off of .90
for these indices. The resultant X2/df ratio was 2.97. The CAIC was −1343.05,
and the AIC was −356.49, which is reported for the purposes of comparisons
with our attempts to iteratively improve model fit.
Items with large residuals, low communality, and low factor loadings
were then removed iteratively to improve the model fit, resulting in a 22-
item, three-factor model. By iteratively removing items with the poorest fit, as
recommended by Hagger and Orbell (2005), we achieved a slightly better fit,
using only 22 of the 29 items. The goodness-of-fit index (.81), RMSEA (.07),
X2/df ratio (3.37), and nonnormed fit index (.77) reflect this improvement.
The decreased values of the CAIC (−671.22) and AIC (−282.80) also indicate
that this model has a slightly improved fit. Therefore, we concluded that
the three-factor, 22-item model produced the optimal fit in this study. We
also tested other models, but the fit indices revealed findings in the poor
range.
Based on the final confirmatory factor analysis model, 12 items were
assigned to Factor 1 (Parent-Focused Parentification), 7 items were assigned
to Factor 2 (Sibling-Focused Parentification), and 3 items were assigned to
Factor 3 (Perceived Benefits of Parentification) (see Table 2). Therefore, a
total of 22 items were retained for the final, three-factor, theory-based model.
None of the items in the final model loaded on more than one factor. The
factor loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis, presented in Table 2,
were similar to the loadings from the exploratory factor analysis. Therefore,
we retained the labels put forward in the exploratory factor analysis.

RELATIONS WITH PSYCHOPATHOLOGY CORRELATES

Evidence of validity is often established when scores of a scale or instrument
are a good predictor of or related to an outcome or criterion with which
they are expected to relate (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Cronbach & Meehl,
1955; Messick, 1980). Thus, we examined the relations between the empiri-
cally constructed factors/subscales and psychological functioning (Aim 2 of
Study 2). The correlation matrix (see Table 3) reveals statistically significant
associations between the PI subscales and the hypothesized correlates. This
result suggests that higher levels of parentification are associated with higher
levels of psychopathology, as often reported in the literature.
For example, as shown in Table 3, higher PFP scores are associated with
higher BDI scores (r = .156; p < .001), AUDIT scores (r = .147; p < .001), and
236 L. M. Hooper et al.

TABLE 2 Final Rotated Component Factor Analysis, Factor Loadings, and Communalities for
the 22-Item Parentification Inventory

Factor Loadings
PI Item # Text I II III h2

Factor I: Parent-Focused Parentification (28.83% of variance)

PI 2 My parent(s) often shared secrets with me .465 .69
about other family members. made
sacrifices that went unnoticed.
PI 3 Most children living in my community .404 .72
contributed to their finances.
PI 5 I helped my parents make important .508 .68
decisions.
PI 6 Most children my age did not have the same .542
roles and responsibilities that I did.
PI 10 I worked and contributed to the family .556 .72
finances.
PI 15 I was the first person family members turned .692 .57
to when there was a family disagreement.
PI 20 I often helped solve problems between my .752 .54
parents (or adult caregivers in my family).
PI 21 I was expected to comfort my parents when .671 .70
they were sad or having emotional
difficulties.
PI 23 I serve in the role of referee in my family. .746
PI 29 I was the person with whom family members .614
shared their secrets.
PI 31 I was asked to complete the grocery shopping .500
more than any other family member.
PI 32 I served in the role of translator for family .481
members.
Factor II: Sibling-Focused Parentification (13.40% of variance)
PI 7 I had no time to be happy or sad because I .766 .64
had to care for family members.
PI 8 I was responsible for making sure that my .802 .71
siblings went to bed every night.
PI 11 I had no time for play or school work .526 .62
because of my family responsibilities.
PI 13 I was responsible for helping my siblings .659 .43
complete their work.
PI 18 I was the primary person who disciplined my .672 .65
siblings.
PI 25 I was expected to comfort my siblings when .490
they were sad or having emotional
difficulties.
PI 27 I was in charge of doing the laundry for the .503
family most days of the week.
Factor III: Perceived Benefits of Parentification (6.49% of variance)
PI 22 I really enjoyed my role in the family. .707 .70
PI 24 I felt appreciated by my family. .866 .68
PI 30 I felt like our family was a team and worked .718 .62
well together.
EIGENVALUES 6.83 3.08 1.49
Note. n = 416; Factor I = Parent-Focused Parentification (PFP); Factor II = Sibling-Focused Parentification
(SFP); Factor III = Perceived Benefits of Parentification (BFP); h2 = communality estimates.
 Parentification Inventory 237

TABLE 3 Zero-Order Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

Study Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. PI: PFP 1
2. PI: SFP .377∗∗∗ 1
3. PI: PBP −.243∗∗∗ −.168∗∗∗ 1
4. AUDIT .147∗∗∗ .097∗ −.146∗∗∗ 1
∗∗∗
5. BDI .156 .088∗∗ −.364∗∗∗ .235∗∗∗ 1
6. GSI .212∗∗∗ .096∗∗ −.303∗∗∗ .277∗∗∗ .746∗∗∗ 1
∗∗∗
7. PQ: IP .437 .534∗∗∗ −.384∗∗∗ .108∗∗ .210∗∗∗ .242∗∗∗ 1
8. PQ: EP .622∗∗∗ .319∗∗∗ −.479∗∗∗ .099∗∗ .263∗∗∗ .260∗∗∗ .610∗∗∗ 1
Mean 2.02 2.53 4.06 6.83 8.51 2.09 17.87 22.56
SD .52 .38 .87 6.25 8.50 2.55 6.66 7.20
Note. PI = Parentification Inventory; PFP = Parent-Focused Parentification; SFP = Sibling-Focused Par-
entification; PBP = Perceived Benefits of Parentification; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification
Test; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; GSI = Global Severity Index (of the Brief Symptom Inventory);
PQ = Parentification Questionnaire; IP = Instrumental Parentification; EP = Emotional Parentification.
∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001

GSI scores (r = .212; p < .001). Similarly, participants with higher SFP scores
also report higher BDI scores (r = .088; p < .01), AUDIT scores (r = .097;
p < .05), and GSI scores (r = .096; p < .01). Finally, as expected, there was
an inverse relationship with regard to the PBP scores and the hypothesized
correlates; participants who reported higher levels of perceived benefits from
engaging in roles and responsibilities of parentification had lower BDI scores
(r = −.364; p < .001), AUDIT scores (r = −.146; p < .001), and GSI scores
(r = −.303; p < .001).

RELIABILITY ESTIMATES AND SCORE VALIDITY

Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, and reliability of the study
factors in the context of the Study 2 sample. To evaluate reliability of the PI,
we computed Cronbach’s alpha on the 22 items of the PI: for the Factor 1
subscale, α = .86; for the Factor 2 subscale, α = .84; for the Factor 3 subscale,
α = .79; and for the total PI, α = .84. The reliability coefficients more than
met the conventional standard (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) for adequate reliability
(i.e., Cronbach’s alpha should be .70 or greater).
Construct validity is established when an assessment is shown to corre-
spond to, or be associated with, another established measure that has been
used and accepted in the field (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Messick, 1980). In
this case, we included the PQ (Jurkovic & Thirkield, 1998) in Study 2. As
evidenced in Table 3, there were statistically significant relations between
the PI scores and the PQ subscale scores, all in the expected directions; cor-
relations between the PI subscale scores and the PQ subscales scores yielded
associations ranging from .319 to .622. Taken together, these findings offer
some preliminary support for the reliability and construct validity of the PI.
238 L. M. Hooper et al.

DISCUSSION

The current empirical investigation, Project Chores, consisted of two studies.

After developing and piloting the original, 32-item PI, we conducted Study 1
to examine the initial factor structure and reliability of the scores. The results
of Study 1 helped us to refine the measure, and the resulting revised 29-item
PI was examined in Study 2. We established that the final revised PI was a
reliable and valid measure of retrospective, self-reported parentification in
the current sample. This initial evidence suggests that the PI gives researchers
and clinicians another measure from which to choose when assessing for
parentification.
Consistent with the long-held view of the multidimensional nature of
the parentification construct (Jurkovic et al., 2001), the PI data produced
three cohered factors in both Study 1 and Study 2. However, we believe
that there is room for improvement on the factorial validity of the PI. For
example, Subscale 3, PBP, consisted of three items. A revised PI could add
items for this subscale. Also, although Study 1 Subscale 3 (PBP) demonstrated
unacceptable reliability, Study 2 Subscale 3 (PBP) produced an acceptable
Cronbach alpha score of .79. Thus, the stability of this subscale needs to be
further examined in other samples in future studies. Also, a revised PI could
incorporate the obvious-seeming assumption that types of parentification
engender or lead to disparate outcomes (i.e., instrumental parentification
is less deleterious than emotional parentification) (Byng-Hall, 2002, 2008;
Hooper, Marotta, & Lanthier, 2008). The PI’s current lack of differentiation
between types of parentification is a limitation.
Concurrent and construct validity of the PI was established by its pre-
dicted relations with psychopathology and similar statistically significant find-
ings to another widely used measure of parentification, the PQ (Jurkovic &
Thirkield, 1998). It was hypothesized in our study that the PI would be re-
lated to psychopathology constructs in a manner similar to other valid and
reliable measures of parentification (e.g., PQ). In general, our study results
support this hypothesis. Consistent with family systems theory and the long-
held assertions put forward regarding the deleterious effects of parentification
(Aldridge, 2006; Locke & Newcomb, 2004), we found a strong positive re-
lationship between parentification and depression symptomatology, alcohol
use, and general psychological distress. Importantly, the strength of these
relations was differentiated by the person to whom the parentification roles
and responsibilities were directed. For example, persons who participated
in parentification with siblings experienced fewer negative outcomes than
persons who participated in parentification with parents. Moreover, persons
in the current study who experienced higher levels of perceived benefits
of the roles and responsibilities of parentification experienced lower levels
of psychopathology. This finding—that adults who experienced childhood
parentification are not fated to negative aftereffects in adulthood—is also
 Parentification Inventory 239

consistent with theoretical discussions and empirical studies evidenced in

the family systems literature base (Aldridge, 2006; Hooper, 2007; McMahon
& Luthar, 2007; Minuchin et al., 1967).
A number of limitations must be considered in conjunction with the re-
search findings. First, some racial and ethnic groups were underrepresented
in the current studies’ samples. The generalizability of the study’s findings
to other groups must be further examined and clarified. Other limitations
related to our sample include the fact that the samples were voluntary and
of convenience. It is possible that the resultant samples were uniquely mo-
tivated; thus, we cannot rule out the potential for selection bias. Moreover,
we did not assess for social desirability among the study participants. Finally,
we recognize that we attempted to combine several theoretical lines of un-
derstanding in our conceptualization, development, and operationalization
of the items on the PI; therefore, this inclusive effort could have diffused the
benefits and power of understanding the reliability clinical utility, and con-
struct, discriminant, and incremental validity of the PI. Moreover, examining
the validity of instruments’ scores is not a one-time event, but an ongoing
process.
The PI offers a psychometrically sound measure of retrospective par-
entification, although improvements are needed. It captures the perceived
benefits related to parentification that may coexist with the psychological
sequelae evinced from roles and responsibilities engendered by the paren-
tification process. These studies support family systems scholars’ long-held
assertions and assumptions that higher levels of parentification in childhood
relate to greater levels of psychological distress in adulthood.

REFERENCES

Aldridge, J. (2006). The experiences of children living with and caring for parents
with mental illness. Child Abuse Review, 15, 79–88. doi:10.1002/car.904
Barber, M., & Siskowski, C. (2008). Youth caregivers: Unrecognized providers of
care. Pediatrics, 121, 873–874. doi:10.1542/peds/2008-0093
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A further note on the multiplying factors for various X 2 approx-
imations in factor analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16, 296–298.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory manual
(2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Becker, S. (2007). Global perspectives on children’s unpaid caregiving in the family:
Research and policy on “young carers” in the UK, Australia, the USA and Sub-
Saharan Africa. Global Social Policy, 7, 23–50. doi:10.1177/1468018107073892
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G. (1973). Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergen-
erational family therapy. Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
240 L. M. Hooper et al.

Byng-Hall, J. (2002). Relieving parentified children’s burden in families with insecure

attachment patterns. Family Process, 41(3), 375–388.
Byng-Hall, J. (2008). The significance of children fulfilling parental roles: Implications
for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 147–162.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discrimination vali-
dation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–
105.
Cattel, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245–276.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, scoring, and pro-
cedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems, Inc.
Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. (1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). Balti-
more, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Diaz, N., Siskowski, C., & Connors, L. (2007). Latino young caregivers in the United
States: Who are they and what are the academic implications of this role? Child
Youth Care Forum, 36, 131–140.
Doran, T., Drever, F., & Whitehead, M. (2003). Health of young and elderly
informal carers: Analysis of UK census data. BMJ, 327, 1388. doi:10.1136/
bmj.327.7428.1388
Hagger, M. S., & Orbell, S. (2005). A confirmatory factor analysis of the revised illness
perception questionnaire (IPQ-R) in a cervical screening context. Psychology &
Health, 20, 161–173.
Hooper, L. M. (2007). The application of attachment theory and family systems
theory to the phenomena of parentification. The Family Journal, 15, 217–223.
doi:10.1177/1066480707301290
Hooper, L. M. (2009). Parentification Inventory (Available from L. M. Hooper, De-
partment of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and
Counseling, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487).
Hooper, L. M., Marotta, S. A., & DePuy, V. (2009). A confirmatory factor analytic
study of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory among a sample of racial minority
college students. International Journal of Mental Health, 18, 335–343.
Hooper, L. M., Marotta, S. A., & Lanthier, R. P. (2008). Predictors of growth and
distress following childhood parentification: A retrospective exploratory study.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 693–705. doi:10.1007/s10826-007-
9184-8
Hooper, L. M., & Wallace, S. A. (2010). Evaluating the Parentification Questionnaire:
Psychometric properties and psychopathology correlates. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 32, 52–68.
Jurkovic, G. J. (1997). The plight of the parentified child. New York, NY: Brunner
Mazel.
Jurkovic, G. J. (1998). Destructive parentification in families: Causes and conse-
quences. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Family psychopathology (pp. 237–255). New York,
NY: Guilford.
 Parentification Inventory 241

Jurkovic, G. J., & Thirkield, A. (1998). Parentification Questionnaire (Available from

G. J. Jurkovic, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, University
Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303).
Jurkovic, G. J., Thirkield, A., & Morrell, R. (2001). Parentification of adult chil-
dren of divorce: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Youth Adolescence,
30, 245–257.
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.
Mayseless, O., Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A., & Trinke, S. (2004). “I was more
her Mom than she was mine”: Role reversal in a community sample. Family
Relations, 53, 78–86.
McMahon, T. J., & Luthar, S. S. (2007). Defining characteristics and potential conse-
quences of caretaking burden among children living in urban poverty. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 267–281.
Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist,
35, 1012–1027.
Mika, P., Bergner, R. M., & Baum, M. C. (1987). The development of a scale for the
assembly of parentification. Family Therapy, 14, 229–235.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B., Rosman, B., & Schumer, F. (1967). Families
of the slums. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winton, C. A. (2002). Children as caregivers: Parental and parentified children.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Worthington, R. L., & Whitaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content
analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 806–838.