kay wilhelm_reliability of the parental bonding instrument and intimate bond measure scales

8/19/2019 Kay Wilhelm_Reliability of the Parental Bonding Instrument and Intimate Bond Measure Scales

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kay-wilhelmreliability-of-the-parental-bonding-instrument-and-intimate-bond 1/5

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20759070

Reliability of the Parental BondingInstrument and Intimate Bond Measure

Scales

ARTICLE in AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY · JULY 1990

Impact Factor: 3.41 · DOI: 10.3109/00048679009077683 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

121

READS

1,217

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Kay A Wilhelm

University of New South Wales

240 PUBLICATIONS 7,737 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Kay A Wilhelm

Retrieved on: 16 March 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kay_Wilhelm2?enrichId=rgreq-ef54128d-2361-402e-9425-65b73026c592&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIwNzU5MDcwO0FTOjk4NzY2MTQ1MTk2MDM5QDE0MDA1NTkwOTI0Nzc%3D&el=1_x_4

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_New_South_Wales?enrichId=rgreq-ef54128d-2361-402e-9425-65b73026c592&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIwNzU5MDcwO0FTOjk4NzY2MTQ1MTk2MDM5QDE0MDA1NTkwOTI0Nzc%3D&el=1_x_6


https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-ef54128d-2361-402e-9425-65b73026c592&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIwNzU5MDcwO0FTOjk4NzY2MTQ1MTk2MDM5QDE0MDA1NTkwOTI0Nzc%3D&el=1_x_1





https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-ef54128d-2361-402e-9425-65b73026c592&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIwNzU5MDcwO0FTOjk4NzY2MTQ1MTk2MDM5QDE0MDA1NTkwOTI0Nzc%3D&el=1_x_1

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20759070_Reliability_of_the_Parental_Bonding_Instrument_and_Intimate_Bond_Measure_Scales?enrichId=rgreq-ef54128d-2361-402e-9425-65b73026c592&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIwNzU5MDcwO0FTOjk4NzY2MTQ1MTk2MDM5QDE0MDA1NTkwOTI0Nzc%3D&el=1_x_3

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20759070_Reliability_of_the_Parental_Bonding_Instrument_and_Intimate_Bond_Measure_Scales?enrichId=rgreq-ef54128d-2361-402e-9425-65b73026c592&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIwNzU5MDcwO0FTOjk4NzY2MTQ1MTk2MDM5QDE0MDA1NTkwOTI0Nzc%3D&el=1_x_2



RELIABILITY OF THE PARENTAL

BONDING INSTRUMENT AND INTIMATE

BOND MEASURE SCALES

Kay W ilhelm and Gordon Parker

The long-term rel iabi l ity

o

the Parental Bon ding Instrum ent PBI) and

of

the

Int imate Bon d Measure IBM) are examined in a n on-cl in ical grou p, wi th data

being examined over eleven and f ive years for th e two respect iv e measures.

Such rel iabi l i ty data are com pared with rel iabi l i ty data on a nu mb er o per-

sonal i ty m easures within the same coh ort . Results demo nstrate considerable

stabi l i ty in the PBI over an extended per io d and m oderate stabi l i ty in

IBM

scores.

Au stralian and New Zealand Jou rnal of Ps ych iatry 1990; 24:199-202

The Pa ren ta l Bond ing In s t rumen t PBI) w as

developed to measure fundam ental parental dimen-

sions of care and protection control) and to allow

quantification of any parental contribution to sub-

sequent psychiatric disorder. Reliability aspects inter-

nal consistency and short-term test-retest reliability)

were exa min ed in the initial paper [

11

and its validity,

both as a measure of perceived and actual parenting,

has been examined in several studies [ 2 ]

If the PBI is a reliable and valid measure of subjects’

retrospective memories of their parents in their first

sixteen years, then adult subjects should return consis-

ten t scores ove r time ie show high tes t -re tes t

reliability).

The short-term reliability of the PBI has been ex-

amined in several studies.

In

the initial developm ent

paper [11, test-retest reliability in a non-clinical s am ple

was 0.76 for the car e scale and 0.63 for the protection

scale over a three-week interval. Subsequently, in

a

sample of depressives initially depressed and then

Division

o

Psychiatry Prince Henry Hospital Little Bay

NSW

Kay Wilhelm, FR ANZC P, Staff Psychiatrist

Gordon Parker, MD, PhD, FRANZCP, Professor of Psychiatry

Correspond with Dr Wilhelm

significantly im prov ed, much higher correlation coef-

ficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.92) were returned over

a nine-week interval

[ 2 ]

he higher coefficients in this

group, comp ared to the initial sam ple, were judged to

reflect the greater motivation of patients in com -

parison to volunteer or importuned non-clinical

groups) to return questionnaire data conscientiously.

Subsequently, in a

US

study [3] of depressed out-

patients attending the Yale Depression Research unit,

48

depressives scored the PBI when depressed and

some four-six weeks later when significantly im-

proved. PBI scores showed

no

significant change o ver

time and the coefficients of agreement ranged from

0.90 to 0 .96 across the four scales, slightly superior to

the Australian depressed sample. Test-retest reliability

in a group of patients with schizophrenia has been

examined [4] when the coefficients of agreement

ranged from 0.58 to 0.77. This less impressive result

was judged to be a reflection of the sample initially

scoring the PBI shortly after admission to hospital with

an exacerbation of their schizophrenia, with their

judgem ent and ability to complete the self-report ques-

tionnaire impaired. T his interpretation is supported by

a n

A m e r i c a n s t u d y [5] o f 26 s u b j e c t s w i t h

schizophrenia who completed the PBI form on two

occasions a few weeks apart, with correlation coeffi-

A u s t N Z J

P s y c h i a t r y D o w n l o a d e d f r o m i n f o r m a h e a l t h c

a r e . c o m b y U n i v e r s i t y N e w S o u t h W a l e s o n

1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3

F o r p e r s o n a

l u s e o n l y .



2

RELIABILITY OF THE PBI

AND

IBM SCALES

cients ranging from 0.79 to 0.88, with this sample

being distinguished by the sa mp le being selected from

those attending a comm unity mental health centre, and

not assessed during a relapse.

Medium-term reliability data have been provided

[6], with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.79 to

0.81 on the PB I for a non-clinical U.S. sam ple tested

seven months ap art. In the only published study [7] of

the long-term reliability of the PBI, women were

studied in the post-partum period and then two to fou r

years mean 30 months) later. Only the maternal PBI

form was completed by subjects, and the authors

reported that PBI scores were “remarkably stable over

time” for different sub-groups of mothers who were

either depressed on both occasions of testing, initially

depressed and then recovered, or not depressed on

either occasion.

In this paper w e ex amin e the test-retest reliability of

the PBI over a decade. The sam ple has been described

elsewhere [8] and so details only will be sum marized

here. In Septemb er 19 78,38 0 students who had under-

taken a basic Arts or Science university course, and

who were then complet ing a one-year t raining

programme at the Sydney Teachers’ College were

approached in class and invited to participate in a

longitudinal study. While our key objective was to

examine for sex differences in dep ressive experience

over time, the students were not informed about the

specific hypothesis, but were given details on the

range of topics including depression) and develop-

mental issues that would be assessed longitudinally.

Tho se subjects completed PB I data and 1 70 agreed to

take part in the longitudinal study, and so formed the

study cohort, then having a mean age of 23.1 years.

Those taking part and those declining d id not differ in

PBI scores returned for each parent. Sub sequ ently, we

sought to interview the coho rt serially, and self-report

data were obtained from 164 in 1 983 and 163 in 1988 .

On each occasion the subjects were requested to com-

plete the orthodox PBI forms assessing parenting over

the first 16 years), allow ing

us

to compare PBI data

collected ove r extended periods.

The authors have also developed a measure of fun-

damental dimens ions under lying adul t in t imate

relationship s [9]. Th e test-retest reliability of that self-

report, the Intimate Bond Measure or IBM) was as-

sessed in the initial paper, with a non-clinical sa mp le

returning data on two occasions o ver a three-six w eek

interval, with reliability coefficients being very high

at 0.80 and 0.89. That measure was given to our

present cohort in 1983 and in 1988 and w e now report

the test-retest reliability over a five-year interval. It

must be kept in mind, however, that subjects would

not necessarily b e scorin g the sam e “intimate” o n both

occasions, so that we report consistency data for the

whole sam ple and for a sub-sample of those who were

married in 1988 and had rated the sam e “intimate” in

198 3 a fairer test of the mea sure’s reliability. On each

occasion, subjects w ere aske d to score characteristics

of the intimate “in recent times”, the IBM b eing more

a measure of state or current characteristics.

We also take the opportunity to report test-retest

reliability ov er the sa me extend ed period for a number

of other measures. We do that for several reasons.

Firstly, such reports are rare and, more importantly,

those data provide som e basis for comp arison against

the PBI and IBM. It is generally suggested that per-

sonality is constant and w e might therefore expect that

high test-retest reliability would be demonstrated for

personality measures a nd give a base quantitative es-

timate of reliability against which we cou ld jud ge PBI

data, in particular. Th at is, if personality is immutable,

then self-report measures of personality should show

a high level of cons tancy , being weaken ed o nly by

response biases and state effects eg depre ssion) which

are generally accepted to influence self-report scoring.

Thus, we would expect that if the PBI is a reliable

measure, reliability coefficients should be similar to

those returned on personality measures. The per-

sonality measures considered were the Eysenck Per-

sona l i ty Inven to ry neuro t i c i sm sca le [

101, the

Rosenberg self-esteem scale, [111 the dependency

scale from the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire

[

121, the Costello-Comrey trait depression scale

[

131

which was designed to me asure a “person’s tendency

to experience a depressive mood ”, and the Bem sex

role inventory

[

141 with masculinity, femininity and

social desirability sub-scales), the last being ad-

ministered in 1983 and 1988 only. Finally, we report

data on the Wilson-Lovibond state measure of depres-

sion [151 to again allow com parison against the “trait”

measures, anticipating that much lower levels of

agreeme nt should be demonstrated on a state measure

ove r time.

Results

Table 1 reports the mean data returned for the

several measures, and the level of constancy ove r time,

with three intervals 1978-1983, 198 3-1988, and

A u s t N Z J



1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3

F o r p e r s o n a

l u s e o n l y .



KAY WILHELM AND GORDON PARKER

2 1

Table

I

Consistency in scores examined

over time

Mean score Consistenc y

coeff icients r)

1978 1983 1988

A A

with wi th wi th

A ) (6) C) c c

PBI

Aaternal care

26.3 26.2

26.3 0.72 0.82

0.6:

inaternal protection

14.8

13.8 13.8

0.74

0.76 0.61

’aternal care

21.9

21.7 21.4

0 80

0.82 0.7;

sternal protection

13.0

12.1 11.9 0.69

0.67 0 5

B M

ntimate care

wholegroup N/A* 30.6 29.5 N/A 0.50 N/A

ntimate control

wholegroup N/A 6.7 6.9 N/A 0.49 N/A

ntirnate ca re

sub-group ”

N/A 31.5 30.2 N/A 0.48 N/A

ntimate control

sub-group N/A 6.5 7.0 N/A 0.49 N/A

Personality

qeuroticism

9.0 8.7

8.7 0.54

0.68 0.5

Self-esteem’”* 1.6

1.0

0.9 0.43

0.61 0.4

lependency

52.6

52.8

53.7 0.64 0.64

0.5

rraitdepression

31.3

31.2 29.4 0.64 0.65 0.4

Sex ro le Inventor y

Masculinity

N/A

4.6 4.7 N/A

0.56 NII

Femininity N/A 4.7

4.8 N/A

0.62 N/I

Socialdesirability

N/A 5.2 5.3 N/A

0.57

N/I

Statedepression

57.0

55.2

55.3 0.25 0.23 0.1

N/A =

not assessed

’*

’** Higher scores indicate lower self-esteem

Those nominating the same intimate in 1983 and

1988 (N=96)

1978- 1988) being exam ined. Mean scale scores were

generally stable for most measu res apart from self-es-

teem, which showed a distinct improvement from

1978 to 1983 t = 4.80, P<O.OOI) and from 1978 to

1988 t = 5.82, P< 0.001 but

no

change from 1983 to

1988 t = 0.87,

ns).

In a similar, but less distinct

fash ion, depression scores decreased from 1978 to

1988, both

on

the trait t = 2.03, PcO.05) and state t =

2.21, P<0.05) measures.

Presumab ly because of the large samp le size for

mean scores were very similar), two significant dif-

ferences were established for the PBI and the IBM

measures. T hu s paternal protection scores dropped

from 1978 to 1988 t = 2.12, p<0.05) while IBM care

scores decreased fr om 1983 to 1988 t=2.86, p<0.05 .

Scores were generally more consistent in the interval

198 3-19 88, when the cohort had left university and

most were in full-time employ ment. The data for the

I-year interval 1978-198 8) show slightly less con-

sistency, presumably reflecting changes in attitudes

over the lengthier assessment period. The test-retest

consistency in PBI scores is extremely impressive for

all three test intervals. Thus, the mean correlation

coefficients were 0.74 1978-198 3), 0.77 1983-198 8)

and

0.65

197 8-19 88), contrasting with the four per-

sonality measures which returned m ean correlations of

0.56, 0.64 and 0.50 respectively. Additionally, the

correlation coefficients for the PBI were superior to

each individual personality test. Stability in IBM

scores both for the whole samp le and for the sub-

group scoring the same partner) was m oderate from

1983 to 1988 and clearly less stable than PBI scores,

as might be anticipated for a state measure. F inally, the

test-retest reliability of the state depression measure

was lo w, as anticipated.

Discussion

Th e sam ple allows a “best estimate”

of

reliability,

in that it involved a non-clinical group, comprising

volunteers who were prepared to take part in a

lon-

gitudinal study and who were, at each review period,

judg ed to be generous in givin g their time for extended

interviews and op en in their discussion with the inter-

viewers. Thus, we judge that sample members were

likely to have completed self-report measures con-

scientiously and as accurately a s possible. Additional-

ly, being a non-clinical sam ple, it is unlikely that mood

disturbance or related factors weakening reliability

estimates would have been over-represented in the

sample. T he data set therefore offers a “best estimate”

potential for any examination of reliability and i t

would be unlikely that non-volunteer or certain clini-

cal group s would return su ch high levels of agreeme nt.

Thus, we acknowledge the unique characteristics of

A u s t N Z J



1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3

F o r p e r s o n a

l u s e o n l y .



202

RELIABILITY OF THE PBI AND IBM SCALES

the cohort but suggest that such a group is the ap-

propriate one for such an exam ination.

The test-retest reliability of the PB I is clearly im-

pressive, both intrinsically when the correlation coef-

ficients are examined and, seco ndly, in com parison to

the “personality” tests which we used a s our compara-

tive base. Jorm

[

161 consid ered the test-re test co nsis-

tency of trait anxiety/neuroticism measures, and

referenced work giving a correlation of 0.54 over the

four-six years and

0.40

over

30

years, with lower

levels for state measures of anxiety. Those data are

compatible with our neu roticism score data, and there-

fore supp ort the likely accu racy of the latter.

The test-retest data for the IBM are so mewhat less

impressive and, as we undertook a separate analysis

on

those in stable relationships with similar results,

findings cannot reflect a sub-sam ple scoring different

intimates over time. As the IBM is a measure of current

intimate relationships, some chang e in the perception

of the spouse or intimate would be anticipated over

time, particularly in such a sample of young adults.

While change in parenting over the years might also

be theoretically anticipated, the PBI, by contrast, is

designed deliberately to obtain an overall gestalt of the

parent or “product moment of innumerable experien-

ces” so that the instructions effectively force some

overall judgement in an attem pt to minimise variation

at different developmental stages.

Each of the “personality” measures returned similar

levels of consistency over time despite some of them

eg trait de pression) conceivably being more likely to

be influenced by mood state and therefore potentially

unstable over an extended period. The extent to which

they necessarily reflect intrinsic personality, however,

cannot be addressed by such a study design.

We conclude then that the PBI is a highly reliable

measure over an extended period, suppo rting its claim

to be accurate measure of perceived parenting, and so

useful in quantifying any parental risk to subsequent

psychiatric disorder in adulthood.

We thank our colleagues at the Mood Disorders Unit

for comments on this paper, the

NH MRC

and NSW

Institute of Psychiatry for funding the cohort study,

and Mrs Sandra Evans for typing of the m anuscript.

I .

Parker

G.

A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medi-

cal Psychology 1979;52:1-10.

2. Parker

G.

Parental overprotection: a risk factor in psychosocial

development. New York: Grune Stratton, 1983.

3. Plantes

MM

Prusoff BA, Brennan J, an d Parker G . Parental repre-

sentations of depressed outpatients from a U.S. sample. Journal of

Affective Disorders

1988;15:149-155.

4. Parker G, Fairley M , Greenwood J, Jurd

S,

and S ilove D. Parental

representations of schizophrenics and their association with

onset

and course of schizophrenia. British Journal

of

Psychiatry

1982;141573-581.

schizophrenic patients’ perceptions of their parents and the course

of their illness. British Journal of Psychiatry 1988; 153:344-35 3.

depressive mood over time: Effects of internalized childhood at-

tachments. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1987; 175:703 -

712.

7. Gotlib IH Mount JH Cordy NI and Whiffen V E. Depression and

perceptions of early parenting: A longitudinal investigation.

British Journal of Psychiatry 1988; 152:24-27 .

8. Wilhelm K and Parker G. Are sex differences in depression really

necessary? Psychological M edicine 1989;19:401-414..

9. Wilhelm

K

and Parker G. The dev elopmen t of a measure of in-

timate bonds. Psychological Medic ine 19 88;18:225-234.

10.Eysenck HJ and Eysenck SB. Manual of the Eysenck Personality

Inventory. Lond on: Hodder and Stoug hton, 1964.

11. Rosenberg M .

The

measurement of self-esteem. Society and the

adolescent self-image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press,

1965.

12. Blatt SJ, D’Affliti JP and Quinlan DM. Depressive Experiences

Questionnaire. Unpublished report, Department of Psychology,

Yale University, 1975.

13.

Costello CG and Comrey AL. Scales

for

measurin g depression

and anxiety. Journal of Psychology 1 967;66:3 03-313.

14. Bern SL. Th e measurement

of

psychological androgyny. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1974;42 :155-162.

15. Wilson PH. Behavioural and pharmacological treatment of

depression. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of New South

Wales, 1979.

16. Jorm AF. M odifiability of trait anxiety and neuroticism: A meta-

analysis of the literature. Australian and

New

Zealand Journal

of

Psychiatry 1989;23:21-29.

5

Warner R, and Atkinson

M.

The relationship between

6 Richman, JA, and Flaherty JA. Adult psychosocial assets and

A u s t N Z J



1 2 / 1 0 / 1 3

F o r p e r s o n a

l u s e o n l y .

kay wilhelm_reliability of the parental bonding instrument and intimate bond measure scales

Documents