The short-EMBU in Australia, Spain, and Venezuela: Factorial invariance, and associations with sex roles, self-esteem, and eysenckian personality dimensions

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 56-66

  Arrindell, W A ^a   Akkerman, Alma ^a   Bagés, Nuri ^b   Feldman, Lya ^b   Caballo, Vicente E ^c   Oei, Tian P S ^d   Torres, Bárbara ^e   Canalda, Gloria ^f   Castro, Josefina ^f   Montgomery, Lain ^g   Davis, Maryanne ^g   Calvo, Manuel G ^h   Kenardy, Justin A ⁱ   Palenzuela, David L ^j   Richards, Jeffrey C ^k   Leong, C C ^l   Simón, Miguel A ^m   Zaldívar, Flor ⁿ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSIDAD SIMÓN BOLÍVAR   (Venezuela)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^h UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^j UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA   (Spain)

^k CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^l CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^m UNIVERSITY OF A CORUÑA   (Spain)

ⁿ UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

more..

Author keywords

Cross cultural comparison; EMBU; Factorial invariance; Parenting; Personality; s EMBU; Sex roles; psychometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 14544298366     PISSN: 10155759     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.1.56     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Arrindell, W.A., & van der Ende, J. (1984). Replicability and invariance of dimensions of parental rearing behavior: Further Dutch experiences with the EMBU. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 671-682.
2. Arrindell, W.A., & Engebretsen, A.A. (2000). Convergent validity of the Short-EMBU and the Parental Bonding Instrument (FBI): Dutch findings. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 262-266.
3. Arrindell, W.A., Gerlsma, C., Vandereycken, W., Hageman, W.J.J.M., & Daeseleire, T. (1998). Convergent validity of the dimensions underlying the Parental Bonding Instrument and the EMBU. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 341-350.
4. Arrindell, W.A., Methorst, G.J., Kwee, M.G.T., van der Ende, J., Pol, E., & Moritz, B.J.M. (1989). Expanding the validity of a measure of reported parental rearing practices with psychiatric inpatients: Further Dutch experiences with the EMBU. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 493-500.
5. Arrindell, W.A., Perris, C., Eisemann, M., van der Ende, J., Gaszner, P., Iwawaki, S., Maj, M., & Zhang, J.-E (1994). Parental rearing behaviour from a cross-cultural perspective: A summary of data obtained in 14 nations. In C. Perris, W.A. Arrindell, & M. Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and psychopathology. Chichester: Wiley.
6. Arrindell, W.A., Richter, J., Eisemann, M., Gärling, T., Rydén, O., Hansson, S.B., Kasielke, E., Frindte, W., Gillholm, R., & Gustafsson, M. (2001). The Short-EMBU in East Germany and Sweden: A cross-national factorial validity extension. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 157-160.
7. Arrindell, W.A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M., Recinos, L.A., Gaszner, P., Peter, M., Battagliese, G., Kállai, J., & van der Ende, J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 613-628.
8. Barrett, P., & Eysenck, S. (1984). The assessment of personality factors across 25 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 615-632.
9. Barrett, P.T., Petrides, K.V., Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H.J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 805-819.
10. Bem, S.L. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
11. Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1990). Cross-cultural assessment of personality: The case for replicatory factor analysis. In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment, volume 8. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Brand-Koolen, M.J.M. (1972). Factoranalyse in het sociologisch onderzoek: Explicatie en evaluatie van enige modellen [Factor analysis in sociological research: Explication and evaluation of some models]. Leiden, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese.
13. Briggs, S.R., & Cheek, J.M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148.
14. Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W.J. Lonner & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Cicchetti, D.V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284-290.
16. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
17. Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1983). Recent advances in the cross-cultural study of personality. In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment, volume 2. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
18. Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
19. Francis, L.J., Brown, L.B., & Philipchalk, R. (1992). The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A): Its use among students in England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 443-449.
20. Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
21. Hemphill, J.F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78-79.
22. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
23. Humphreys, L.G. (1978). Differences between correlations in a single sample: A correction and amplification. Psychological Reports, 43, 657-658.
24. Ironson, G.H., & Subkoviak, M.J. (1979) A comparison of several methods of assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 209-225.
25. Kiers, H.A.L. (1990). SCA: A program for simultaneous components analysis of variables measured in two or more populations; user's manual. Groningen, The Netherlands: iec Pro-Gamma.
26. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L.B. (1979). A Parental Bonding Instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
29. Perris, C., Arrindell, W.A., & Eisemann, M. (Eds.) (1994). Parenting and psychopathology. Chichester: Wiley.
30. Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindström, H., Von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265-274.
31. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32. ten Berge, J.M.F. (1986a). Some relationships between descriptive comparisons of components from different studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 29-40.
33. ten Berge, J.M.F. (1986b). Rotation to perfect congruence and the cross-validation of component weights across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 41-64.
34. ten Berge, J.M.F. (1996). The Kaiser, Hunka and Bianchini factor similarity coefficients: A cautionary note. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, 1-6.
35. Van de Vijver, F. & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.