INTRODUCTION

“Parenting style” is one of the concepts frequently used in the researches about the influences of parents on child/adolescent development. Parenting styles have emerged through a macro level approach considered to reflex typical responses to child-rearing situations. The approach is based on two major dimensions: responsiveness and demandingness (1).

Responsiveness refers to the level of help that parents make available for their children to acquire individuality as well as the traits necessary to express themselves, by responding to their demands and adopting supportive attitudes. It encompasses warmth, autonomy support and reasoned communication. On the other hand, demandingness refers to parents’ demands towards children with the aim of their integration into the society through such methods as behavioral control and direct confrontation (2).

Furthermore, those two dimensions are closely related with the concepts of warmth and control, many references to which can be found in the literature on parenting styles. While responsiveness suggests the existence of warmth in the parent-child relationship, demandingness refers to parental tendency towards establishing control over the kids (3-5).

Based on the different combinations of responsiveness and demandingness, in other words warmth and control in parent-child relationship, four types of parenting style are defined: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive/indulgent, and neglecting/indifferent (6).

Parents having authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles are inclined to control the children’s behaviors. Those parents establish rules and standards for directing the children’s behaviors. Firm controls, power assertion, and one-way communication stand out in the authoritarian parenting style. Nevertheless, in the authoritative parenting style, the communication is rather open and democratic for persuasion and explanation purposes. Besides, parents are responsive to the children’s needs and demands; they even show the flexibility to adjust their own behaviors, if necessary (3).

On the other hand, there are some studies pointing to the drawbacks of examining parenting styles with a typological approach. In this approach, parental behaviors are dealt with as a whole and a parenting style per se is assumed to incorporate several parental behaviors at the same time. This assumption may lead to some problems with respect to identifying the elements, which contribute to adolescent development. Therefore, lately the concept of “parental behaviors” has been introduced instead of the parenting styles. It is evaluated in terms of such dimensions as parental support, parental approval, monitoring, autonomy granting, and punishment (7).

Researches in favor of this view bring out three dimensions as the backbone of parenting: Responsiveness, behavioral control and psychological control. Another dimension related with psychological control is autonomy granting. Autonomy support and psychological control are considered as the opposing ends of parental control behavior, and it is argued that absence of autonomy granting results in psychological control (8). Later Silk et.al. (9), in opposition to the view that psychological control and autonomy granting constitute opposite ends of a continuum, have identified by means of structural equity models that they are distinct constructs; and in this context have defined autonomy granting as the fourth dimension of parenting styles.

Responsiveness represents the degree to which children and adolescents are having a loving relationship with their parents. Responsive parents care about kids’ emotional and psychological needs. This dimension of parenting styles is regarded universally with a positive consideration. It is also named as parental support and embodies behaviors such as touching, kissing, hugging, approving, spending quality time with adolescents (7).

Barber (8) has defined psychological control as the socialization pressure that is not receptive to the child’s psychological and emotional needs. Psychological control involves behaviors, which hinder the child’s psychological and emotional development and interfere with thinking processes, independent expression, and emotions. It is seen in the parents who exert pressure to their children so as to force them to behave and think in the framework of norms and aims that they set. Such parents often display behaviors of guilt induction, shaming, and conditional acceptance.

To the contrary, behavioral control pertains to parental behaviors with a view to monitoring the child’s behaviors, teaching him/her the proper ones, and hence, through the use of communication channels, constructing the child’s behaviors (8). Autonomy granting refers to parental encouragement of the adolescent towards independent expression and decision-making. Promoting autonomy helps to raise adolescents who are able to decide independently and to manage their own lives without emotional support from their parents (10). In the literature abroad, inventories are produced for measuring parental behaviors and are utilized in relevant researches.

There are several inventories in Turkey as well, that are used for evaluating parental behaviors. “Parental Attitude Inventory” developed by Kuzgun (11) has been utilized in several researches in the literature. It includes three dimensions (democratic, authoritarian and indifferent). Later this inventory has been revisited and revised by Kuzgun and Eldeklioğlu (12).

Another scale widely used in the country is the “Family Life and Child-Rearing Attitude Scale”. It is adapted by LeCompte et al. (13) from the “Parental Attitude Research Instrument – PARI” developed by Schaefer and Bell in 1958. On the other hand, “Child-Rearing Styles Scale”, developed by Sümer and Güngör (14), has two dimensions, namely acceptance and control; and aims to identify four child-rearing styles by cross-multiplying two dimensions. Another scale to assess child-rearing styles is “Parental Attitude Scale” adapted to the Turkish culture by Yılmaz (15) from “The Parenting Style Scale” developed by Lamborn et al. in 1991. In addition, Soygut, Cakir and Karaosmanoglu (16), have examined validity and reliability of cognitive approach based “Young Parenting Scale” on a Turkish university sample.

LAPPS focuses on certain features of parental behaviors as suggested by Darling and Steinberg (17), rather than assess them with a typological approach. Furthermore, it accommodates all of the four dimensions (responsiveness, behavioral control, psychological control and autonomy granting) significance of which in the adolescent development have been recognized in the international literature. In this regard, LAPPS parent and adolescent versions are chosen to be adapted to the Turkish culture; reliability and validity studies are done to that end.

METHOD

In this study, to examine validity and reliability of LAPPS parent and adolescent versions:

- Confirmatory factor analysis has been done to determine its compatibility with the original scale’s factor structure.

- Criterion validity of LAPPS parent and child versions has been investigated.

- Cronbach Alfa coefficients have been calculated and item total correlation analysis has been conducted in order to test internal consistency reliability.

Sample 1

Necessary data for the study to examine factor construct and internal consistency of LAPPS adolescent version have been gathered from 643 participants whose ages varied between 14-23, attending Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Bolu Abant University, Faculty of Education as well as several high schools in Istanbul, Ankara, Nigde, Kahramanmaras and Siirt. The schools and faculties were not selected upon a specific consideration; they were the ones which have given consent for data gathering process. 278 of the participants were male, 364 were female. Average age was 18.26.

On the other hand, the data necessary to test its validity as well as to determine the correlation between LAPPS adolescent version and depression and stress coping were gathered respectively from 100 and 75 students from Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences.

Sample 2

That sample was formed by the parents who have children at adolescence age. 90 of total participants were father, while 160 were mother. Average age was 41.16. 8 of them were literate, 120 were primary or secondary school graduate, 51 were high school graduate, 39 were university graduate, and 32 had master degree. The average number of the kids the group had was 3,24.

Measures

LAPPS Adolescent Version (LAPPS/a): In this study, LAPPS developed by Soenens et al. (18) has been adapted to Turkish culture. It consists of four dimensions, namely responsiveness, behavioral control, psychological control and autonomy granting, and 28 items in total. Each dimension comprises 7 of them. The dimensions are assessed separately, each item being scored between 1 to 5. The scale is composed of two versions, one for parents, one for adolescents. On the adolescent version, an adolescent can assess her/his mother and father independently.

LAPPS’s validity and reliability was tested on a sample composed of 1883 people between the ages 15 and 22. Responsiveness points to the degree of intimacy and support that adolescents get from their parents. Behavioral control denotes the active control exerted by parents through rules and principles. Psychological control refers to parents’ use of control in a coercive and intrusive way, particularly in matters related with adolescents’ psychological experiences. The items in the last dimension, autonomy granting, are connected with the support they get from their parents in relation to their independent decisions and plans. The dimensions’ internal consistency coefficients vary between 0.76 and 0.90 for the adolescent-mother version, and 0.71 and 0.91 for the adolescent-father version.

Four-factor-model has been confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis for adolescents’ both mothers and fathers. The goodness of fit indices for adolescents’ mothers (χ2=1.96, the standardized root mean square residual: SRMR=0.06, confirmatory fit index: CFI=0.96, the root mean square error of approximation: RMSEA=0.06) and fathers (χ2=2.15, SRMR=0.07, CFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.07), obtained at the end of the test of standardized CFA model, points to a fit at a satisfactory level (19). Scale’s validity has also been supported by other researches (20-22).

The study for adaptation of LAPPS Adolescent Version has been done upon the permission of the researchers who have developed the Scale. The Scale has been translated into Turkish by two experts on the field of developmental psychology and a graduate from Faculty of English Language and Literature. After the control of the translations by the researchers, expert opinion has been sought and, in line with the recommendation, the Scale in its final form has been applied to a small group in order to have a feedback about the degree how well the items are understood.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): Kocayoruk (23) adapted IPPA to the Turkish culture. 18 items in the Inventory for separately evaluating adolescents’ attachment with their mothers and fathers are scored from 1 to 5. It includes three sub-dimensions: trust, communication and alienation. Confirmatory factor analysis has verified the consistency of its three-dimension construct with the original one. Internal consistency coefficient has been found 0.91 for mothers and 0.92 for fathers.

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): The Inventory was adapted to the Turkish culture by Hisli (24). There are 21 items in the Inventory, and they are scored from 0 to 3. Cronbach Alpha and split-half reliability coefficients are 0.80 and 0.74. Its correlation with MMPI’s depression sub-scale is 0.63 in the sample of psychiatry patients, 0.50 in the sample of university students, and 0.47 in the sample of the secondary school students.

Coping with Stress Scale (CSS): The scale developed by Turkum (25) comprises 23 items of 5-point Likert-type scale. There are three factors in the scale that account for the 47% of the total variance. Internal consistency coefficient for the scale in its entirety is calculated 0,78, and for the sub-scales it is calculated 0.85, 0.80 and 0.65. A high score from the Scale denotes one’s inclination to apply ways to cope with stress.

LAPPS Parent Version (LAAPS/p): The Scale is also utilized for enabling the parents to review their attitudes towards their kids; hence to assess their relationships with them. In the first place, the questions were subject to transformation so as to be suitable for use for parents, and then necessary analyses were held for reliability and validity.

Consistency coefficients of the original scale were calculated through a study on a sample of 336 parents. According to the results, dimensions’ internal consistency coefficients are found 0.82 for sensitiveness, 0.74 for behavioral control, 0.73 for psychological control, and 0.52 for autonomy granting.

Coping with Problem Behaviors Scale (CPBS): The Scale has been developed to identify that parents choose which ways for coping with the kids’ problem behaviors and how often they use those ways (26). It encompasses 25 items of 4-point Likert-type scale, brought together on 3 factors: effective coping with, negative coping with and preventive coping with. The accumulative percentage of those three factors’ contribution to total variance is 55.276. According to the results of analysis, internal consistency is found 0.71 for the first factor (effective coping with), 0.89 for the second one (negative coping with), and 0.66 for the last one (preventive coping with). Internal consistency coefficient for all the items in the scale is calculated as 0.85.

Family Guidance Needs Questionnaire (FGNQ): In the study, Family Guidance Needs Questionnaire, developed by Hamamcı and Koksal-Akyol (27), is administered to find out what sort of information parents need on which subjects while they raise their kids. It consists of two sections, namely parents with kids in primary schools and parents with kids in high schools. It covers 40 topics about child development for primary school children and 31 topics for high school children. Participants express their information needs filling in one of the four options: “very much”, “much”, “some”, and “none”. A high score points to a good deal of need of information on specific subjects for parents. In this study, high school form of the questionnaire is used.

RESULTS

LAPPS Adolescent Version (LAAPS/a)

Validity Findings

Factor Construct: Analysis of scale’s construct validity is started with explanatory factor analysis. At the end of the analysis items are seen to belong to different dimensions and to distribute among the dimensions in a mixed manner. During the development of the original scale, the confirmatory factor analysis has been utilized to analyze its construct validity.

Confirmatory factor analysis is chosen for evaluating how much 28 items are in harmony with the four-factor construct in the original form, since the scale consists of four different dimensions and each dimension is examined separately.

According to the results of the initial analyses, items 4, 13, 16, 17, 21, 25 and 28 of the adolescent-mother version, and items 4, 5, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 28 of the adolescent-father version are taken out from the scale because of the low values in the factor loadings they account for. Besides, The connections among the faults of the items are defined taking into consideration correction indicators produced by LISREL program concerning some items found in both versions. Thus the model is finalized. According to the results of the analysis done in the final phase, fit indices for adolescent-mother and adolescent-father versions are found significant. Please see Table 1 for fit indices.

After the analysis, the values for the goodness of fit indices are seen to be on an acceptable level. The construct of the original scale with four factors is confirmed for both mothers and fathers. However, while the number of the items in the original scale is 28, the adolescent-mother version has 21 and adolescent-father version has 19 items.

Criterion Validity: The correlations between LAPPS adolescent version’s four sub-dimensions and the IPPA, developed by Armsden and Greenberg, and adapted to the Turkish culture (23) were examined. Results are shown on Table 2.

The results yielded that correlation between LAPPS adolescent version’s sensitiveness dimension and IPPA’s trust dimension was significant at 0.001 for both mother (r=0.553) and father (r=0.519) versions. A similar significance was observed as to the correlation (for mother version r=0.878, for father version r=0.708, p<0.01) between the LAPPS adolescent version’s sensitiveness dimension and IPPA’s communication dimension. On the other hand, correlation between behavioral control and IPPA’s trust dimension was found to be non-significant for both mother and father versions. The relation between LAPPS adolescent version’s behavioral control and IPPA’s communication dimensions was significant (r=0.388, p<0.01) in mother version, while non-significant in father version. LAPPS adolescent version’s psychological control dimension was not found to relate significantly with the IPPA’s trust and communication dimensions in either mother or father versions. Furthermore, IPPA’s alienation dimension was negatively correlated with LAPPS sensitiveness (r=-0.416, p<0.01) and autonomy granting (r=-0.372, p<0.01) dimensions for mothers; however, the correlation was non-significant for fathers. Based on the statistical results that LAPPS adolescent version’s dimensions were, as expected, mostly positively correlated with IPPA’s dimensions, we have come to the conclusion that the adapted scale has had criterion validity.

Besides, LAPPS adolescent version’s correlations with BDI (24) and CSS (25) have also been investigated. Correlation results are shown on Table 3.

The scores displayed that adolescent-father version’s psychological control dimension was positively correlated with depression (r=0.306, p<0.01), the autonomy granting dimension was positively correlated with problem-focused coping with stress dimension (r=0.256, p<0.05), adolescent-mother version’s sensitiveness dimension was positively correlated with problem-focused coping with stress dimension (r=0.322, p<0.001), and the psychological control was, as expected, negatively correlated with problem-focused coping with stress dimension (r=-0.404, p<0.001). The correlation coefficients showed that LAPPS adolescent version had criterion validity.

Reliability Findings

Internal Consistency Coefficient: Internal consistency coefficients were calculated in order to examine the scale’s reliability. The internal consistency coefficients regarding the scale’s adolescent-mother and adolescent-father versions can be seen at Table 4.

It was found that adolescent-mother version’s behavioral control and adolescent-father version’s autonomy granting had lower internal consistency coefficients when compared with the other dimensions.

Item-Total Correlations: Item-total correlation of the items in the adolescent-mother version’s sensitiveness dimension changed between 0.55-0.77; in behavioral control dimension between 0.30-0.56; in psychological control between 0.53-0.67; in autonomy granting between 0.33-0.59. As to the adolescent-father version’s sensitiveness dimension, it varied between 0.67-0.81, behavioral control between 0.52-0.70, psychological control between 0.47-0.55, and autonomy granting between 0.30-0.55. In general, LAPPS adolescent version’s scores of validity and reliability were evaluated as sufficient in regard to psychometric features.

LAPPS Parent Version (LAPPS/p)

Validity Findings

Factor Construct: Confirmatory factor analysis has been performed to examine the construct validity. In the first model, items’ goodness of fit indices were below the acceptable values. Therefore, item 13, 16, and 25 were discarded. Then, the indices were calculated as RMSEA=0.068, CFI=0.90, IFI=0.90, SRMR=0.099, GFI=0.84, AGFI=0.81, χ2=569.53 (df=269, p<0.001). Although the results didn’t point to a ideal fit, all but RMSEA were within acceptable limits. According to the results, three items having been discarded on the basis of the outcomes of confirmatory factor analysis, the scale with its four-factor construct was confirmed for the Turkish sample.

Criterion Validity: Various inventories were used for assessing the criterion validity of the scale’s parent version. Among them were CPBS (26), BDI (24) and FGNQ (27) (Table 5).

The results demonstrated that parent version’s behavioral control dimension was positively correlated with CPBS (r=0.240, p<0.05), psychological control dimension was also positively correlated with CPBS (r=0.377, p<0.01). In other words, those parents who have adopted behavioral control as a parenting style indicated that they coped with the adolescents’ problem behaviors. Moreover, parent version’s sensitiveness dimension was negatively correlated with parent education needs (r=-0.282, p<0.05). This means that as the parents display more behaviors of affection and care towards their kids, their education needs become less.

Internal Consistency Coefficient: Internal consistency coefficients were used to examine the reliability of parent version as well. They were calculated as 0.75 for sensitiveness, 0.66 for behavioral control, 0.82 for psychological control, and 0.63 for autonomy granting.

Item-Total Correlations: All items except only one had item-total correlation scores over 0.25. Item-total correlations of the items in sensitiveness dimension changed between 0.40-0.55; in behavioral control between 0.25-0.53; in psychological control between 0.53-0.63; in autonomy granting between 0.30-0.42. Four items were deleted from the scale due to their low item-total correlation scores, all under 0.15.

In the final construct the scale contains four dimensions. There are 7 items in sensitiveness dimension, 4 items in behavioral control, 7 items in psychological control, 6 items in autonomy granting.

DISCUSSION

The research was done to analyze the validity and reliability of Leuven Adolescent Perceived Parenting Scale’s adolescent and parent version with a view to adapting it to Turkish culture. For this purpose, necessary data were gathered from the youth of the age from 14 to 22, and from the parents who had children of the same ages.

Both versions’ factor constructs were examined by means of confirmatory factor analysis. Goodness of fit indices for adolescent version were slightly higher than those for parent version. Nevertheless, the indices for parent version were within acceptable limits as well. Comparison of the scores of RMSEA, SRMR and CFI for the original scale’s adolescent-mother and adolescent-father versions with the ones calculated in this study made it clear that they are very close to each other (20).

In light of the internal consistency coefficients and item-total correlations calculated in the research for the dimensions in both adolescent and parent forms, it can be said that the scale is reliable.

Internal consistency coefficients of the adolescent version in this study was found to be lower than the ones of the original scale. The biggest difference was in the adolescent-mother version’s behavioral control dimension (0.58). This may be stemming from the dimensions’ relation with culture. In the original study, a positive correlation was found between behavioral control and psychological control dimension. However, the correlation found in this study between those dimensions was negative; that is, the adolescents who thought that their parents were monitoring themselves stated that their parents display less behaviors towards psychological control. In Turkish culture parents usually display behavioral control, and this is considered normal by the youth. It was found that the Belgian Turkish adolescents with parents displaying more controlling behaviors didn’t have less satisfaction from their relationships with their parents (28). The fact that behavioral control was positively correlated with the communication dimension of IPPA also pointed to that cultural characteristic. Although internal consistency coefficients of the adolescent-father version’s autonomy granting dimension was low, they were quite close to the ones of original score (0.71 and 0.67 respectively).

As to the correlations of adolescent version’s with various inventories, most findings were as expected and consistent with theoretical views. Sensitiveness dimension of the scale was found to be significantly related to safe parent attachment, which was in line with theoretical information. The adolescents who indicated that their parents were sensitive and caring towards themselves displayed a safe attachment pattern. Likewise, as sensitiveness and autonomy granting increased, alienation type of attachment decreased. Furthermore, in this adaptation study a significant correlation was observed between psychological control and depression, which meant that depression levels of the adolescents with fathers demonstrating psychological control behaviors were high. These outcomes suggested that there were enough findings towards the adolescent version’s validity.

Similarly, findings of parent version’s criterion validity signified a significant association between behavioral control and coping with problem behavior. That is, the parents who have monitored their kids and who have been aware of their kids’ whereabouts coped better with the kids’ problem behaviors. This was consistent with other findings acquired in the studies abroad, and at the same time with theoretical framework. Besides, as parent’s behaviors towards psychological control increased, they better coped with their kids’ problem behaviors; however, this wasn’t something expected. Psychological control is known to have a negative influence on child development. Parents’ positive approach to applying psychological control can be a cultural phenomenon. For example, Kagitcibasi (29) argued that Asian culture has allowed more family control and this was accepted by the society. Furthermore, there was found a negative association between parental education needs about adolescent development and parental behaviors of care towards the kids.

The criterion validity results of the parent version yielded useful information about parental behaviors and family atmosphere. One noteworthy result regarding validity was that the parents who used behavioral control towards their kids had high levels of depression. Likewise, the adolescents who referred to frequent use of psychological control behaviors by their fathers had high levels of depression. Whereas, parents hold a positive consideration of psychological control. The pattern of behavior which was considered normal, or even effective in coping with kid’s problem behaviors lead to depression among adolescents. Suar (30) indicated that parental control was perceived in a negative manner by the adolescents as a sign of lack of care and as an attempt to limit their autonomy. The finding that psychological control is associated with depression is significant for the future preventive studies which will be held in order to inform parents. Parents need to gain insight regarding the effects of control behaviors on adolescents. Because they have a general perception that psychological control is positive.

It is a common understanding that parenting styles and hence interaction processes differ in collectivist and individualist cultures. Kagitcibasi (31) has emphasized this point as well and has argued that parental control as opposed to parental warmth has diversified more cross-culturally. The findings of this adaptation study have also demonstrated that in both adolescent and parent versions, all items in the dimension related with parental warmth, sensitiveness, have attained sufficient and satisfactory scores at the end of confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analyses. However, some drawbacks have been encountered especially with regard to the items in the control dimension. Therefore, several items have been discarded from the scale. Those discarded items were the items affected by the culture.

This study has adapted LAPPS adolescent and parent versions to Turkish. At the end of this study, it was found that both versions had a satisfactory degree of validity and reliability.

On the other hand, this study has its limitations. Regarding the adolescent version, it was possible to gather data from many adolescents attending high schools and universities from several different regions. However, when collecting data for parent version, it was not possible to reach that many parents (n=250). In the adolescent version, two different samples were used for factor analysis and reliability studies, and for criterion validity studies. Again, it was not possible to do the same in the parent version. Hence, conducting reliability and validity examinations on the same sample during adaptation of the parent version was one of the limitations. That it was not within the realms of possibility to analyze the coefficients of stability was another limitation. Further studies utilizing the LAPPS will definitely contribute to the reliability and validity findings of the scale.

REFERENCES

1. Baumrind D. The discipline controversy revisited. Fam Relat 1996; 45:405-414.

2. Baumrind D. Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 2005; 108:61-69.

3. Coplan RJ, Hastings DG, Lagace-Seguin DG, Moulton CE. Authoritative and authoritarian mothers’ parenting goals, attributions, and emotions across different childrearing contexts. Parent Sci Prac 2002; 2:1-26.

4. Darling N. Parenting style and its correlates. ERIC Digest, ERIC Identifier: ED427896, March 1999 http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED427896.pdf.

5. Garcia F, Gracia E. Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence 2009; 44:101-131.

6. Steinberg L. Adolescence. Cok F. (Translation Editor) First ed. Ankara: Ä°mge 2007; 158-159. (Turkish)

7. Peterson GW. Family influences on adolescent development. Gullotta TP, Adams GR, Ramos JM (editors). Handbook of Adolescent Behavioral Problems. Springer US 2005; 27-55.

8. Barber BK. Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct. Child Dev 1996; 67:3296-3319.

9. Silk JS, Morris AS, Kanaya T, Steinberg L. Psychological control and autonomy granting: Opposite ends of a continuum or distinct constructs? J Res Adolescence 2003; 13:113-128.

10. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M. A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Dev Rev 2010; 30:74-99.

11. Kuzgun Y. Influences of parental attitudes on individual’s level of self-actualization. Hacettepe Journal of Social and Human Sciences 1973; 5:57-70. (Turkish)

12. Kuzgun Y, Eldeklioğlu J. Parental Attitude Inventory. In: Kuzgun Y, Bacanlı F. (Editors). Clinical Scales for Psychological Counseling and Guidance. First ed. Ankara: Nobel, 2005, 67-76. (Turkish)

13. LeCompte G, LeCompte A, Ozer S. et al. Child-rearing attitudes of mothers in Ankara in high socio-economic level. An inventory adaptation. Turkish Journal of Psychology 1978; 1:5-8. (Turkish)

14. Sumer N, Gungor D. The effects of child-rearing styles on attachment patterns, self-evaluation and intimate relationships. Turkish Journal of Psychology 1999; 14:35-60. (Turkish)

15. Yilmaz A. Reliability and validity study of parental attitude scale. Turk J Child Adolesc Ment Health 2000; 7:160-172. (Turkish)

16. Soygut G, Cakir Z, Karaosmanoglu, A. The evaluation of parenting styles: an assesment about the psychometric characteristics of the young parenting scale. Turkish Journal of Psychology 2008; 11:17-30. (Turkish)

17. Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychol Bull 1993; 113:487-496.

18. Soenens B, Beyers W, Goossens L. Leuven adolescent perceived parenting scale. 2004; Unpublished research report.

19. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Luyten P, Duriez B, Goossens L. Maladaptive perfectionistic self-representations: the mediational link between psychological control and adjustment. Pers Indiv Dif 2005; 38:487-498.

20. Soenens B, Beyers W, Vansteenkiste M, Sierens E, Luyckx K, Goossens L. The ‘‘gross anatomy’’ of parenting styles in adolescence: three or four dimensions? Paper presented at the 18th biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development (ISSBD) Ghent Belgium 2004: July.

21. Soenens B, Vanteenskiste M. Luyckx K, Duriez B, Goossens L. Clarifying the link between parental psychological control and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: Reciprocal versus unidirectional models. Merrill Palmer Q 2008; 54:411-444.

22. Beyers W, Goossens L. Dynamics of perceived parenting and identity formation in late adolescence. J Adolesc 2008; 31:165-184.

23. Kocayoruk E. A Turkish adaptation of the IPPA: The reliability and validity study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 2010; 40:133-151.

24. Hisli N. Reliability and validity of beck depression inventory for the university students. Turkish Journal of Psychology 1989; 7:3-13. (Turkish)

25. Turkum S. Developing coping with stress scale: Validity and reliability studies. Turkish Journal of Psychological Counseling and Guidance 2002; 18:25-34. (Turkish)

26. Kaner S. Teachers’ and parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, sense of burnout and evaluation of problem behaviors of children. Ankara University Scientific Research Projects Final Report. 2007; 47-48. (Turkish)

27. Hamamci Z, Koksal-Akyol A. Identifying the parent training needs of parents having children in elementary or high schools. Cukurova University Journal of Education Faculty 2005; 29:37-49. (Turkish)

28. Gungor D. The meaning of parental control in migrant, sending and host communities: adaptation or persistence? Applied Psychology 2008; 57:397-416.

29. Kagitcibasi C. Autonomous-related self: A new sythentes. Turkish Journal of Psychology 1996; 11:36-44. (Turkish)

30. Suar D. Kentli Turk annelerin uc neslinde annelerin, babaların cocuk yetistirme pratikleri ve benlik saygisi. Bekman S. ve Aksu-Koc A. (Editors). Insan Gelisimi, Aile ve Kultur: Farkli Bakis Acilari. First ed. Istanbul: Koc University, 2013:173-187. (Turkish)

31. Kagitcibasi C. Kultur ve ana babalik: Kuram ve uygulama cikarsamalari. Sayil M, Yagmurlu B (Editors). Ana Babalik: Kuram ve Arastirma. First ed. Istanbul: Koc University, 2012:61-80. (Turkish)