Development and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Parenting Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of brief self-report parenting measures validated for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We developed the Brief Parenting Questionnaire (BPQ), a 24-item self-report measure for use with parents of children ages 3-12. OBJECTIVE: We describe the development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the BPQ, which was designed to include two subscales: warm and responsive parenting (WRP) and harsh parenting (HP). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The sample included an equal number of male and female caregivers (n = 480) from 240 families in North Lebanon that took part in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the Caregiver Support Intervention. Study participants were primarily Syrian (95.2%); others were Lebanese (4.2%) and Palestinian (0.6%). METHODS: The development of the BPQ is described. To assess its psychometric properties, we used data from the RCT for which the instrument was developed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the factor structure of the BPQ. The reliability of the BPQ and its potential subscales was assessed by examining the internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Multi-group CFA was conducted to identify if the same two constructs were being measured across mothers and fathers. RESULTS: A two-factor model best fit the data, with 16 items loading on WRP and seven items on HP, corresponding to the two parenting dimensions the scale was designed to assess. Internal consistency was good: full scale ɑ=0.83, WRP ɑ=0.86, and HP ɑ=0.76. One item not loading on either subscale was retained for theoretical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The BPQ is a brief culturally grounded self-report measure of parenting validated for use with Middle Eastern Arabic speaking parents. The data for this paper come from a pre-registered trial: ISRCTN33665023.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".