_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

24 March 2013 22:09 _______________________________________________________________

24 March 2013

ProQuest

Daftar isi
1. A structural model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence: Connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency......................................................................................................................................................

24 March 2013

ii

ProQuest

Dokumen 1 dari 1

A structural model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence: Connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency
Pengarang: Beyers, Wim; Goossens, Luc; Vansant, Ilse; Moors, Els. Info publikasi: Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32. 5 (Oct 2003): 351+. Link dokumen ProQuest Abstrak: This study presents a comprehensive 4-factor model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence. Partially overlapping sets of scales on adolescent individuation and family functioning were correlated with each other in 2 independent studies. Data for the first study were taken from a sample of high school students in Grades 9-12 (N D 601), whereas the data for the second study were derived from a sample of 1st-year university students (N D 374). Confirmatory factor analysis on all of the scales and derivative subscales in both studies revealed a model that comprised 4 different but related factors, that is, Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, and Agency, all of which occupy a central place in different theories of adolescent autonomy. Connectedness and Detachment, and to a lesser extent Connectedness and Separation, were inversely related to one another. Correlations between Agency and the 3 other factors were much lower. Results are discussed with respect to the different views on autonomy that exist in the literature, and with respect to the term "autonomy," which should be used as an umbrella term only. Implications for the conceptual basis of the Emotional Autonomy Scale are also outlined. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Teks lengkap: Headnote Received April 17, 2002; revised July 10, 2002; accepted November 6, 2002 This study presents a comprehensive 4-factor model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence. Partially overlapping sets of scales on adolescent individuation and family functioning were correlated with each other in 2 independent studies. Data for the first study were taken from a sample of high school students in Grades 9-12 (N D 601), whereas the data for the second study were derived from a sample of 1st-year university students (N D 374). Confirmatory factor analysis on all of the scales and derivative subscales in both studies revealed a model that comprised 4 different but related factors, that is, Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, and Agency, all of which occupy a central place in different theories of adolescent autonomy. Connectedness and Detachment, and to a lesser extent Connectedness and Separation, were inversely related to one another. Correlations between Agency and the 3 other factors were much lower. Results are discussed with respect to the different views on autonomy that exist in the literature, and with respect to the term "autonomy," which should be used as an umbrella term only. Implications for the conceptual basis of the Emotional Autonomy Scale are also outlined. KEY WORDS: autonomy; adolescence; connectedness; separation; detachment; agency. INTRODUCTION Autonomy as Separation During the last decades, autonomy was defined and operationalized in a variety of ways (Hill and Holmbeck, 1986). Generally speaking, 2 different but related views of autonomy underlie much of the available research in adolescence. The first of these views is largely based on psychoanalytic and neoanalytic thinking, and influenced the major part of modern theorizing on autonomy in adolescence. In this view, autonomy is defined as separation from parents. This definition strongly emphasizes the interpersonal distance between the adolescent and his or her parents, as perceived by the adolescent. Moreover, a discontinuity is assumed in the development of the adolescent. Specifically, a drive towards separation and independence is believed to emerge at the onset of adolescence, that is, at puberty. In classical psychoanalytical writings (Blos, 1962; Freud, 1958), adolescents' increased distance from parents, in its most extreme form, is seen as radical and conflictual detachment or disengagement from earlier infantile representations of parents. Therefore, autonomy or separation is viewed as the opposite of, or a move away from, connectedness or relatedness to parents. These earlypsychoanalytic views were considerably modified in later theorizing, especially by Blos (1979). Neoanalytic theorizing de-emphasized the storm and stress of 24 March 2013 Page 1 of 15 ProQuest

adolescence, and rather concentrated on the peaceful and healthy process of separation from parents during adolescence. Autonomy as Agency The previous view on adolescent autonomy must be contrasted with another and more popular view. Autonomy in this perspective is defined as self-governance or agency (Ryan, 1993). Adherents of this view (e.g., Kagit cibasi, 1996; Ryan, 1993; Ryan and Deci, 2000) use notions like nonconformity, internal locus of control, resistance to persuasion by parents or peers, instrumentality, selfdetermination, and competence. This view on adolescent autonomy is usually preferred to the former because it emphasizes what is striven for, rather than what is abandoned. Many authors also prefer this view on autonomy because it tends to be more in line with the observation that the development of self-governance or autonomy for most adolescents does not include a breaking away from their families (Hill and Holmbeck, 1986). In short, adherents of this view state that connectedness in the relationship with parents is much more important for adolescents' adjustment than is separation from parents. Contrary to psychoanalytic thinking, autonomy in this view is seen as largely independent from connectedness or relatedness to parents (e.g., Grotevant and Cooper, 1986). Conceptual Confusion Despite the clear differences between these two views on adolescent autonomy, adherents of both views all used the concept of autonomy to refer to what they were examining. Not surprisingly, this conceptual confusion has occasionally led to lively debates. A good example of such a debate is the "detachment debate" (Silverberg and Gondoli, 1996), which concentrates on the Emotional Autonomy Scale (EAS; Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986). Although the authors of this scale were clearly inspired by the neoanalytic writings of Blos (1979) on adolescent separation from parents, they presented their instrument as being a measure of adolescent autonomy. Many authors (e.g., Feiring and Lewis, 1993; Ryan and Lynch, 1989; Turner et al., 1993), however, claimed that this instrument actually measures detachment from parents. The EAS indeed taps a more radical form of adolescents' distancing from parents, because higher scores on the scale were associated with all kinds of negative developmental processes (e.g., Beyers and Goossens, 1999; Chen and Dornbusch, 1998; Garber and Little, 2001; Papini and Roggman, 1992; Turner et al., 1991, 1993) and with lower levels of parental support in particular (Ryan and Lynch, 1989). Yet, simply describing the EAS as a measure of detachment overlooks the multidimensional nature of the instrument. Inspired by the theoretical underpinnings of the EAS that were briefly mentioned above (Blos, 1979), it could be hypothesized that "separation" is a better label for what the scale or some part of it is measuring (e.g., Bray et al., 2001a,b). In sum, it was the undifferentiated use of the concept of autonomy by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) that has caused many of the discussions inherent to the detachment debate. Towards Conceptual Clarity This conceptual confusion and the debates that arise from it call for a clear differentiation between the contrasting theoretical views on adolescent autonomy that were presented above. Frank et al. (1988) provided an initial examination of these different aspects of autonomy and their interrelationships, using a sample of young adults in their middle to late 20s. Interviews with participants were coded to provide scores on 10 rating scales assessing aspects of autonomy and relatedness in the relationship with parents. Exploratory principalcomponents analysis with varimax rotation reduced these 10 scores to 3 independent relationship dimensions. The first dimension, called connectedness versus separateness (Frank et al., 1988), refers to high levels of concern about parents' well-being, high levels of empathy, strong and pervasive emotional ties with parents, and openness and reciprocity in the communication with parents. At the same time, this dimension was defined by low levels of separateness, that is, young adults did not yet separate from parents or developed investments outside the parent-child dyad. Young adults scoring high on the second dimension, competence, were able to make important decisions and life choices without undue influence from parents, had a strong sense of confidence, and were able to function independently. Finally, a third and somewhat unclear dimension assessed aspects of affect regulation and was called emotional autonomy (Frank et al., 1988). Young adults who were in control of, rather than controlled by, their feelings towards parents and who considered themselves, rather than their parents, to be the best evaluator of their own values, needs, and self-worth showed high scores on the latter dimension. However, they also evidenced high levels of respect for their parents, that is, they 24 March 2013 Page 2 of 15 ProQuest

acknowledged and felt proud of their parents' strengths. Significant associations with gender, age, and marital status supported the construct validity of these relationship dimensions. The Present Study Contrary to Frank et al. (1988), data for the present study come from two samples of adolescents, rather than young adults. It is precisely in adolescence that various aspects of the separation-individuation process that were referred to above take a central position in the parent-adolescent relationship. Study 1 used a sample of middle adolescents and Study 2 provides insight into late adolescence, using a sample of 1st-year university students. Rather than interview-based rating scales completed by experts (Frank et al., 1988), standardized self-report measures of autonomy and family functioning that have been used in contemporary studies of adolescent individuation and are available in the international literature were used in the present study. We hypothesize that all of these measures would reflect the 4 dimensions described above, that is, connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency. So, contrary to Frank et al. (1988), we assume that separation and connectedness should be modeled as two different dimensions of adolescent family functioning and individuation, rather than modeling them as a single bipolar factor. Nevertheless, in line with the theoretical perspectives outlined earlier, we expect that connectedness will evidence a strong, though far from being perfect, negative correlation with separation. However, we hypothesize that detachment, a possible descriptor of a negative family climate that was not mentioned in Frank et al. (1988), will show an even higher negative correlation with connectedness than separation does. This would support our interpretation of detachment as an extreme or radical way of separating from parents. Finally, and in line with the literature on this topic (Kagit cibasi, 1996), we assume that agency (termed "competence" by Frank et al., 1988) will be largely independent from separation and therefore also largely independent from both connectedness and detachment. To test all of these hypotheses, distinguishing between 4, rather than 3, latent factors seemed most appropriate to us. Specific hypotheses about which observed measures are indicators of which latent factors are outlined in the Measures and Hypotheses section of this paper. Finally, and again contrary to Frank et al. (1988), confirmatory rather than exploratory factor analysis was used to put these hypotheses to an empirical test. Moreover, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) allowed us to estimate the hypothesized relationships among the latent factors, rather than assuming that they are independent from one another (Frank et al., 1988). Except for minor differences in the correlations among the latent factors, we expect the overall measurement model to be essentially the same in both studies, that is, connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency adequately summarize the associations among a broad set of measures of adolescent autonomy and family functioning. STUDY 1: MIDDLE ADOLESCENCE Participants and Procedure The sample for this study comprised 601 middle adolescents (371 girls and 230 boys) in Grades 9-12 from the academic track of 2 secondary schools in the Dutchspeaking part of Belgium. These schools mainly attract Caucasian students with a middle-class background. Mean age for this sample was 16 years and 4 months (SD D 16 months). A large majority of these adolescents (88.5%) came from intact families (i.e., both parents present). Questionnaires were administered during regular school time at the start of the second term (January). Data collection took place in small group sessions under the supervision of 2 undergraduate students in psychology and took no longer than 50 min. Of all participants, 557 (92.7%) provided complete data on the variables listed below, whereas the data of the remaining 44 participants were partially missing at random, resulting in 1.95% of all data that were missing. The values of these missing data were estimated through a procedure of multiple imputation using the EM algorithm, as available in Prelis 2.51(R) (du Toit and du Toit, 2001) and fully described in Schafer (1997). Measures and Hypotheses A variety of measures was selected to reflect the 4 latent variables we wanted to assess, that is, Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, and Agency. Only measures that were standardized and validated to some extent and that were published in the international literature on adolescent development were selected. When selecting the measures, we also looked for a sufficient number of indicators for each latent construct (at least 3) to define a fully identified factor model that could be put to an empirical test. Psychometric and substantive information on the various measures used in this study is provided below. When reported, 24 March 2013 Page 3 of 15 ProQuest

Cronbach's alpha refers to the internal consistency of measures as obtained in this study. Unless indicated otherwise, adolescents rated their degree of agreement with all items on a 5-point scale, ranging from don't agree at all to agree completely. Some of the instruments used were initially developed in English, and were translated into Dutch for this study. The 4 authors of this paper each made an independent translation of these scales and agreed upon a common version, following discussion. This preliminary version was then doublechecked by a fifth person with a PhD in developmental psychology. Headings under which measures are subsumed below reflect the hypothesized factor structure that will later be put to an empirical test. Descriptives for and correlations among all variables in this study can be found in Appendix A. Connectedness The Differentiation in the Family System Scale (DIFS; Anderson and Sabatelli, 1992) consists of 11 items and assesses adolescents' perception of family interaction. According to Anderson and Sabatelli (1992), high scores indicate greater tolerance for individuality in the context of intimacy and support.Within a well-differentiated family, individuals can experience and express their individuality while remaining intimately connected to the other members of the family. In this view, mutuality or reciprocity rather than differentiation might be more accurate descriptions of the scale's content. Therefore, scores on the DIFS were hypothesized to be indicators of the level of Connectedness the adolescent experiences within the family. Initial studies using the DIFS indicated that high levels of differentiation within the family were associated with lower levels of conflict and more mature identity statuses (Bartle and Sabatelli, 1989) and with higher levels of family support and lower levels of depression and anxiety (Sabatelli and Anderson, 1991). In the present study, 2 forms of the scale were administered to the adolescents, one in which the adolescent describes how she or he interacts with her or his parents (adolescent reciprocity; Cronbach's [alpha] D 0:79), the other describing the way parents interact with the adolescent (parental reciprocity; [alpha] D 0:88). Sample items are "I show respect for my parents' viewpoints even when they differ from my own" (adolescent reciprocity) and "My parents encourage me to express my feelings, bad or good" (parental reciprocity). Two subscales of the Relationship with Father/ Mother Questionnaire (RFMQ; Mayseless et al., 1998) were also hypothesized to be positive indicators of the level of Connectedness within the family. Emotional closeness (10 items; [alpha] D 0:88) and mutuality (7 items; [alpha] D 0:72) conceptually refer to the dimension of warmth (e.g., Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Sample items are "We get along really well between ourselves" (emotional closeness), and "When we talk, my parents consider my point of view" (mutuality). The Kerns Security Scale (KSS; Kerns et al., 1996; Lieberman et al., 1999) is a 15item questionnaire that assesses attachment security.As noted byKerns et al. (1996), items tap the degree to which adolescents believe parents are responsive and available, adolescents' tendency to rely on the attachment figure in times of stress, and adolescents' reported ease and interest in communicating with their parents. In line with Lieberman et al. (1999), 2 subscales were distinguished in the present study. Dependency (9 items; [alpha] D 0:83) reflected whether adolescents themselves sought or valued parental help. The second subscale, availability (6 items; [alpha] D 0:70), reflected whether adolescents perceived parents as available. Sample items are "I find it easy to count on my parents for help" (dependency) and "I wish my parents could help me more with my problems" (availability; reverse-scored). Separation Three subscales of the Emotional Autonomy Scale (EAS; Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986) were supposed to be measures of Separation. Deidealization (5 items; [alpha] D 0:64) assessed whether adolescents perceive their parents as people who can make mistakes, and therefore do not simply copy the opinions and behaviors of their parents. Nondependency (4 items; [alpha] D 0:52) reflected whether adolescents try to solve problems themselves or with the help of peers, before asking their parents for help. Individuation (5 items; [alpha] D 0:62) reflects the establishment of an individuated and private sense of self, separate from parents. Sample items are "My parents hardly ever make mistakes" (reverse-coded; deidealization), "It's better for kids to go to their best friend than to their parents for advice on some things" (nondependency), and "There are some things about me that my parents don't know" (individuation). Unlike other measures in this study, adolescents rated all items on a 4point scale, ranging from don't agree at all to agree completely. Agency The items and subscales of the 24 March 2013 Page 4 of 15 ProQuest

Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire (AAQ; Bekker, 1991; adapted by Noom et al., 2001) were supposed to reflect adolescents' levels of Agency. The AAQ consists of 15 items about the ability to exercise control over one's life. Three subscales are distinguished, each consisting of 5 items. Attitudinal autonomy ([alpha] D 0:74) refers to the cognitive process of listing one's possibilities and making a choice between different options. Emotional autonomy ([alpha] D 0:70) refers to confidence and trust in defining goals independent of the wishes of parents and peers. Finally, functional autonomy ([alpha] D 0:72) describes the process of developing a strategy to achieve one's goals by means of self-regulation and selfcontrol. Sample items include "I can make a choice easily" (attitudinal autonomy), "I have a strong tendency to comply with the wishes of others" (reversecoded; emotional autonomy) and "I go straight for my goal" (functional autonomy). Detachment Two other subscales of the RFMQ (Mayseless et al., 1998) were supposed to be indicators of Detachment. Coolness/rejection (10 items; [alpha] D 0:84) refers to low levels of warmth in the relationship with parents, whereas open confrontation (10 items; [alpha] D 0:91) taps the issue of open conflict. Sample items are "I feel that my parents don't understand me" (coolness/rejection) and "We fight and argue a lot" (open confrontation). Finally, the fourth subscale of the EAS (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986), that is, perceiving one's parents as people (6 items; [alpha] D 0:62), was also supposed to be an indicator of Detachment. Although this scale originally was meant to reflect the perception of parents as people with functions and roles outside of their parental status (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986), subsequent studies (e.g., Frank et al., 1990) described the items of this scale as having a pejorative and somewhat paranoid tone that suggests alienation and distrust in the relationship with parents. Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) already found that this subscale showed very low correlations with the other 3 subscales of the EAS. A sample item is "I have often wondered how my parents act when I'm not around." Results and Discussion The hypotheses outlined earlier were tested by means of CFA on the matrix of covariances among the 15 observed variables in this study. CFA was performed using the Lisrel 8.30(R) software and the maximum likelihood method of estimation (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993). All tests used the Satorra-Bentler Scaled chi-square (SBS-[not sign]2; Satorra and Bentler, 1994) to correct for the clear nonnormality of the observed data that was evidenced by tests of univariate and multivariate normality. Overall fit indices for all models are presented in Table I. Given the relatively large sample size for this study, models were deemed to indicate good overall fit when the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom varied between 2 and 3 (Loehlin, 1992), when values of the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) were lower than 0.05, and when the value of the goodnessoffit index (GFI) equals or exceeds 0.95 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Finally, lower values of the expected crossvalidation index (ECVI) and Akaike's information criterion (AIC) indicate better fit. Initially, the clearly identified congeneric model with 4 latent factors outlined previously was tested. Maximum likelihood estimation of the initial confirmatory model with 84 df resulted in relatively poor overall fit indices (Table I, Model 1). The descriptive ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom clearly exceeded all of the commonly accepted cutoffcriteria, as did the RMSEA. The GFI in turn was too low to consider Model 1 as being acceptable. However, the relatively adequate value of SRMR indicated that it was not so much the latent structure or the factor correlations that were misspecified (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Rather, the factor loadings might be misspecified or incomplete to some degree, as was primarily indicated by the relatively high value of RMSEA (Hu and Bentler, 1999). On the basis of these findings and the modification indices as provided by Lisrel 8.30(R), the initial model was extended slightly in 2 steps. First, a model was tested in which 2 observed variables, that is, emotional closeness and availability, were allowed to load on a second latent factor, that is, Separation. This Model 2 (Table I) clearly resulted in better overall fit indices than the previously tested Model 1. The SBS-[not sign]2 difference test (SBS-[not sign]21; Satorra, 2000) of these 2 hierarchically nested models clearly favored the unrestricted Model 2 (SBS-[not sign]21 D 77:09; dfD2; p <0:0001). Moreover, both ECVI and AIC clearly favored this less restrictive model, although both of these information criteria take parsimony into account. As expected, the additional cross-loadings of emotional closeness and availability on Separation were negative 24 March 2013 Page 5 of 15 ProQuest

and nonnegligible. For availability this additional loading was even more substantial than the primary loading on the Connectedness factor. These cross-loadings support the interpretation of the Separation factor in this study. In addition to high levels of deidealization, nondependency and individuation, as measured by the EAS subscales, high levels of Separation are also indicated by feeling less close to parents in the emotional sense, and by perceiving parents as less available. Second, some of the error terms in the model were allowed to be correlated, indicating that these observed variables shared some extra variance that was not accounted for by the factor structure (Schumacker and Lomax, 1996). This is particularly true for subscales stemming from the same instrument or subscales with similarlyworded items. Specifically, error covariances were allowed between individuation and parents as people (EAS), between parental reciprocity (DIFS) and open confrontation (RFMQ), and finally also between attitudinal and functional autonomy (AAQ). Model 3, which incorporates all of the abovementioned modifications and which fulfills the condition of an independent clusters basis (McDonald, 1999) and therefore is sufficiently identified, is displayed in Fig. 1. Fit indices (Table I; Model 3) indicated good overall fit. Chi-square, RMSEA, SRMR, and GFI all were acceptable. Moreover, Model 3 fitted significantly better to the data than did Model 2 (SBS-[not sign]21 = 225.67; df D 3; p <0:0001), and showed lower values of both ECVI and AIC than did the previously tested models. Standardized factor loadings (Fig. 1) varied in absolute size between 0.36 and 0.96 (mean D 0:65; SD D 0:19), supporting the construct validity of this model. Standardized residuals of this model are shown in Appendix A. Careful inspection of these residuals revealed that they indicate a normal distribution without outliers. Therefore, the value of the SRMR of Model 3 (Table I) provides an adequate summary of these residuals (McDonald and Ho, 2002). Finally, carefully performed tests of invariance across gender showed that both the measurement part (compared to the multigroup model in which all parameters were freely estimated [not sign]21 D 12:22; df D 16; ns) and the structural part of Model 3 (i.e., the correlations between latent factors; [not sign]21 D 2.48; df D 6; ns) are invariant and equal for girls and boys in the present study. Invariance across grade could not be tested because some of the grade groups contained too few participants to provide reliable estimates. As expected, high correlations were found between Connectedness and Detachment (r D [degrees]0:92; p <0:0001), between Connectedness and Separation (r D [degrees]0:72; p <0:0001), and between Separation and Detachment (r D 0:81; p <0:0001). Agency was relatively independent from the other latent factors in the model, Connectedness, Separation, and Detachment, r D 0:13 (p <0:01), 0.17 (p <0:001), and [degrees]:03 (ns), respectively. Correlations between these latent factors were highly stable across the three models tested so far. Finally, inspired by the very high and negative correlation thatwas found between Connectedness and Detachment in Model 3, an alternative model was tested which involved only 3 latent factors, collapsing the indicators of Connectedness and Detachment to a single bipolar latent factor. No other changes were made to Model 3; therefore, the test of this alternative model is equivalent to fixing the correlation between Connectedness and Detachment in Model 3 at [degrees]1. Fit indices of this Model 4 are shown in Table I (bottom row). Although more parsimoniously, one can easily see that all fit indices evidenced worse fit, as compared to the previously tested Model 3 with 4 latent factors. Given this finding, it was no surprise that tests of other alternative models which collapsed pairs or triads of constructs with lower correlations (e.g., Connectedness and Separation, Separation, and Detachment, or Connectedness, Separation, and Detachment) again favored Model 3. STUDY 2: LATE ADOLESCENCE Participants and Procedure The sample for this study comprised 374 first-year students from a large university in the Dutchspeaking part of Belgium. Mean age for this group was 18 years and 8 months (SD D 10 months). The majority of students were female (80.5%) and came from intact families (81.0%) with a White and middle-class background. During their studies, most of these students were living in the city where the university is located, but they returned home at least every weekend (79.7%). Data were gathered during a large group session that took no longer than 1 h. Students received course credit for their participation and were fully aware of the consequences of nonparticipation before the study started. All students provided complete data on the variables listed below. Measures and Hypotheses Although the latent constructs we aimed to assess in this study were 24 March 2013 Page 6 of 15 ProQuest

the same as those in the previous study, the measures used to indicate these latent constructs were only partially overlapping. For Separation and Agency, multiple marker variables were included, that is, measures that were already used in Study 1, to ensure that we assessed the same latent constructs. All indicators of Connectedness and most indicators of Detachment were different from those in Study 1. However, careful inspection of the items used to assess these constructs in both studies showed substantial overlap. This overlap is illustrated in the sample items presented below and suggests that both sets of measures used in Studies 1 and 2 were all indicators of the same latent constructs, that is, Connectedness or Detachment. Psychometric and substantive information on the various measures used in this study is provided below. When reported, Cronbach's alpha refers to the internal consistency of measures as obtained in this study. Some of the instruments used were initially developed in English, and were translated into Dutch for this study, following the same procedure as outlined in Study 1. The headings that subsume the measures below again reflect the hypothesized factor structure that will later be put to an empirical test. Descriptives for and correlations among all variables in this study can be found in Appendix B. Connectedness Two subscales of the Mannheim Individuation Questionnaire (MIQ; Hofer et al., 1992; Noack and Puschner, 1999) were hypothesized to be measures of Connectedness in the relationship with parents during late adolescence. Connection (6 items; [alpha] D 0:78) describes the perceived quality of the emotional bond linking parents and adolescents. Five items describe the perception of reciprocity ([alpha] D 0:72) in the communication with parents. Sample items include "I get along well with my parents" (connection) and "Even when I do not agree with my parents, I try to understand and respect their feelings" (reciprocity). Students rated all items of the MIQ on a 4-point scale, ranging from don't agree at all to agree completely. A total of 23 items ([alpha] D 0:91) from the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES; Olson et al., 1982; adapted and translated into Dutch by Buurmeijer and Hermans, 1984) assessed the level of cohesion the adolescent experiences within the family. High scores indicate that adolescents perceive their family as a tight unit. A sample item is "In our family, we call on each other for help a lot." These items were also rated on the same 4-point scale, ranging from don't agree at all to agree completely. Finally, 2 subscales of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPAParents; Armsden and Greenberg, 1987) were also hypothesized to be indicators of Connectedness. The IPPA assesses the perceived quality of attachment to parents, or the degree to which parents serve as sources of psychological security. Ten items assess the degree of mutual trust ([alpha] D 0:89) between parents and the adolescent. Ten other items describe the quality of communication ([alpha] D 0:89) between parents and the adolescent. Sample items include "When we discuss things, my parents consider my point of view" (trust) and "My parents encourage me to talk about my difficulties" (communication). Students rated all items of the IPPA on a 5-point scale, ranging from don't agree at all to agree completely. Separation As was the case in Study 1, 3 subscales of the EAS (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986) were supposed to be measures of Separation from parents, that is, deidealization ([alpha] D 0:68), nondependency ([alpha] D 0:58), and individuation ([alpha] D 0:66). Together with these subscales of EAS, a third subscale of the MIQ (Hofer et al., 1992; Noack and Puschner, 1999) was hypothesized to be an indicator of Separation. Six items of the MIQ assess the perception of separatedness ([alpha] D 0:57) between parents and the adolescent, the extent to which the adolescent can live a self-directed life in his or her family. A sample item is "It's not my parents' business how my room looks." Finally, secrecy, as assessed with the SelfConcealment Scale (SCS; Larson and Chastain, 1990; adapted and translated into Dutch by Finkenauer et al., 2002) was also hypothesized to be an indicator of Separation from parents. High scores on the SCS indicate the tendency to have secrets for parents, and were shown to be associated with high scores on the EAS (Finkenauer et al., 2002). Only 9 items ([alpha] D 0:82) were used in this study because 1 item correlated negatively with all other items and therefore influenced reliability negatively. A sample item is "I have an important secret for my parents." Students rated all items of the SCS on a 5-point scale, ranging from don't agree at all to agree completely. Agency The AAQ (Bekker, 1991; adapted by Noom et al., 2001) was again used as a measure of adolescents' level of Agency. All subscales displayed 24 March 2013 Page 7 of 15 ProQuest

adequate levels of internal consistency, [alpha] D 0:79; 0:69; and 0.75, for attitudinal, emotional, and functional autonomy, respectively. Students rated all items of the AAQ on a 5-point scale, ranging from don't agree at all to agree completely. Like the AAQ, a subscale of the Psychological Maturity Inventory (PMI; Greenberger et al., 1974) was supposed to assess adolescents' self-governance or Agency. Self-reliance (10 items; [alpha] D 0:65) measured an absence of excessive dependency on unidentified others and a sense of control over one's life. A sample item is "Luck decides most things that happen to me" (reverse-coded). These items were also rated on the same 4-point scale. Detachment In addition to the remaining subscale of the EAS, that is, perceiving one's parents as people ([alpha] D 0:63), 2 other measures were supposed to be indicators of the adolescent's feelings of Detachment in the relationship with parents. First, 8 items of the IPPA (Armsden and Greenberg, 1987) measure the extent of anger and alienation ([alpha] D 0:82) an adolescent experiences in the relationship with parents. A sample item is "I feel angry with my parents." Second, students rated the amount of disagreement or conflict with parents. A total of 15 daily topics known to be potentially conflictual in child-parent relationships, for instance appearance, friends, and going out, were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from never to always (Bosma et al., 1996; adapted by Dekovi c et al., 1997). The internal consistency of this rough-andready measure was adequate ([alpha] D 0:79). Results and Discussion Fit indices for all models tested in this study, using exactly the same methodology as was used in Study 1, are presented in Table II. Criteria for accepting a model were adjusted to the smaller sample size of the present study, that is, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom now needs to be smaller than 2 in order to indicate good fit (Loehlin, 1992). Initially, the clearly identified congeneric model with four latent factors was tested using CFA on the matrix of covariances between the 17 observed variables in this study. This initial confirmatory model with 113 df (Table II, Model 1) resulted in a pattern of overall fit indices that was very similar to the one obtained in Study 1. All indices indicated poor fit, except the SRMR. This pattern again indicated that this model did not misspecify the latent structure or the factor correlations, but rather misspecified some of the factor loadings estimated. Based on these results, slight modifications were made to this model. These included cross-loadings and correlated error variances. First, a model was tested in which secrecy (SCS) and individuation (EAS) were allowed to load on a second latent factor, that is, Agency. This Model 2 (Table II) resulted in better overall fit indices than did Model 1. A comparison of these 2 hierarchically nested models clearly favored the unrestricted Model 2 (SBS-[not sign]21 D 123:93; df D 2; p <0:0001). Moreover, both ECVI and AIC clearly favored the less restrictive model. The additional loadings of secrecy and individuation on the Agency factor were nonnegligible, but they were less substantial than the primary loadings of the observed variables on Separation. Somewhat unexpectedly, these additional loadings were negative. Seemingly, Agency in late adolescent females, the large majority of the present sample, also implies that one does not have secrets for one's parents. The second set of modifications made to the initial model included correlated error terms, which primarily indicate shared method variance that was not accounted for by the hypothesized factor structure (Schumacker and Lomax 1996). This is the case for subscales stemming from the same instrument. Connection and reciprocity from the MIQ (Hofer et al., 1992; Noack and Puschner, 1999) and attitudinal and functional autonomy from the AAQ (Noom et al., 2001) are in that case. Communication (IPPA; Armsden and Greenberg, 1987) and nondependency (EAS) also showed a substantial and negative error covariance. This can probably be explained by very similar item wordings in these scales. Illustrative items are "I tell my parents about my problems and troubles" in the communication scale, and "If I was having a problem with one of my friends, I would discuss it with my mother or father before deciding what to do about it" (reversecoded) in the nondependency scale. The same rationale holds for the positive error covariance found for individuation (EAS) and secrecy (SCS; Larson and Chastain, 1990; Finkenauer et al., 2002). Items such as "There are many things my parents don't know about me" in the secrecy scale (SCS) and "There are some things about me that my parents don't know" in the individuation scale of the EAS clearly share additional variance that is not reflected by the positive correlation between Separation and Detachment. Finally, the error terms of secrecy (SCS) and the conflict scale that was used in this study also 24 March 2013 Page 8 of 15 ProQuest

were positively correlated. Probably, some of the issues that were listed in the conflict measure (e.g., sexual relationships and substance use) are topics adolescents tend to keep for themselves, or tend to have secrets about for their parents. Model 3, which again fulfills the sufficient conditions for identification (McDonald, 1999), is displayed in Fig. 2. Fit indices (Table II; Model 3) indicated good overall fit. Chi-square, RMSEA, SRMR, and GFI all were highly acceptable. Moreover, Model 3 fits significantly better to the data than does Model 2, as indicated by the chi-square difference test (SBS-[not sign]21 D59.74; df D 5; p <0:0001), and the lower values of both ECVI and AIC. Standardized residuals of this model are shown in Appendix B. Careful inspection of these residuals again indicated that the value of SRMR of Model 3 (Table II) provides an adequate summary of these residuals. Finally, tests of invariance across grade or gender were not performed because only freshman students participated in this study, and for the large majority these were female. Primary standardized factor loadings (Fig. 2) varied in absolute size between 0.44 and 0.89 (mean D 0.69; SD D 0:16), supporting the construct validity of this model. As was the case in Study 1, high correlations were found between Connectedness and Detachment (r D [degrees]0:94; p <0:0001), between Connectedness and Separation (r D [degrees]0:82; p <0:0001), and between Separation and Detachment (r D 0:73; p <0:0001). Correlations between Agency and the other latent factors in the model were much lower, r D 0:23 (p <0:001); 0:17 (p <0:05), and [degrees]0:44 (p <0:0001), for Connectedness, Separation, and Detachment, respectively. The correlations between these latent factors were relatively stable over the 3 models tested so far. As was the case in Study 1, an obvious alternative modelwas tested in which the indicators of Connectedness and Detachment were collapsed to form a single bipolar factor. Fit indices of this Model 4 are shown in Table II (bottom row), and again show that the fit of this model is significantly worse than the fit of Model 3. As expected, the same was true for other alternative models which collapsed pairs or triads of constructs with lower correlations. GENERAL DISCUSSION Two independent CFA studies with samples varying in age from middle to late adolescence yielded very similar findings. With some slight modifications that did not change the overall factor pattern or the correlations among the latent factors, the confirmatory model of Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, and Agency fitted the data in both studies. By incorporating a broad range of measures in these studies, we managed to bring together and to differentiate between various perspectives on separation and individuation processes in adolescence. The first and most prominent relationship dimension found in this study is Connectedness, describing close parent-adolescent relationships, characterized by mutual reciprocity, trust, and dependency. Adolescents scoring high on this factor also describe their parents as being available and can easily talk and communicate with their parents. Separation reflects the psychoanalytic dimension of interpersonal distance between the adolescent and his or her parents. This developmental process involves deidealization of the parents and subsequently being not too dependent on parents when encountering problems. An interesting aspect of this process is that adolescents also have secrets for their parents, this way stressing their own individuality. Detachment describes feelings of disengagement from parents due to feelings of mistrust and alienation towards parents. Coolness, rejection, and perceiving one's parents as ordinary people, the remaining subscale of the EAS, are the core indicators of this factor, in both the middle and late adolescent sample. Not surprisingly, Detachment is associated with high levels of conflict between the adolescent and his or her parents. Finally, Agency, or competence in Frank et al.'s terminology (Frank et al., 1988), refers to the more social-cognitive theorizing that defines autonomy as competence and self-governance. In this sense, Agency reflects the possibility of self-directed behavior. This involves attitudinal, emotional, as well as functional aspects (Noom et al., 2001), and is associated with high self-reliance in the adolescent. This clear differentiation of Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, and Agency in the description of separationindividuation and family functioning in adolescence does not imply that these 4 dimensions are unrelated. On the contrary, they show a complex pattern of relationships among each other. In line with psycho- and neoanalytic views (Blos, 1979), Separation is associated negatively with Connectedness in both middle and late adolescence. In the Frank et al. (1988) study, these 2 constructs were even supposed to define a bipolar 24 March 2013 Page 9 of 15 ProQuest

dimension (separateness vs. connectedness). Although the relatively high correlations among these 2 latent constructs in our two studies ([degrees]0.72 and [degrees]0.82 respectively) are explained in part by the disattenuation for measurement error in the CFAs, they seem to confirm that hypothesized bipolarity of Connectedness and Separation. However, even after controlling for measurement error, these correlations only reflect something of 50-65% of shared common variance and therefore do not suggest a lack of discriminant validity between Connectedness and Separation in adolescence. Moreover, the test of the 4-factor model and comparison with alternative models indicated that Separation and Connectedness should be treated as different dimensions when describing adolescent family functioning and individuation. If anything at all is the bipolar opposite of Connectedness, then it is not Separation, but rather Detachment. As expected, Detachment showed even more negative correlations with Connectedness in our study than Separation did. Although statistical model comparison clearly indicated that Detachment and Connectedness should be treated as different dimensions, we should move beyond this merely statistical finding because factor analysis might not be the appropriate way to test bipolarity of concepts (van Schuur and Kiers, 1994). The very high correlation between Connectedness and Detachment implies, at the conceptual level, that we will find very few instances where they would differentially predict an outcome. Moreover, at the statistical level, we might not be able to use them as predictors simultaneously because of multicollinearity. Contrary to psychoanalytic theorizing (e.g., Blos, 1962; Freud, 1958) in which Detachment and conflict are the keys to true independence and Agency, Detachment in our study was not or even negatively related to Agency. Separation on the other hand showed a modest but significant positive correlation with Agency in both middle and late adolescence. In line with other studies (e.g., Grotevant and Cooper, 1986), the same was true for Connectedness. Therefore, ongoing high levels of Detachment, rather than of Separation, probably are indicators of highly problematic family relationships that call for professional help. The very strong and negative relationship between Detachment and Connectedness found in both studies supports this idea. Although Separation and Agency thus emerged as 2 relatively independent dimensions of adolescent individuation (Kagit cibasi, 1996, 2000), their moderate positive correlation supports the hypothesis that there might be a substantial relationship between these 2 dimensions over time. If we agree that individuation in adolescence implies a movement from a closely connected relationship with parents in early adolescence towards a relationship in which there is a balance between Connectedness and Agency or self-governance (Grotevant and Cooper, 1998), increases in Separation at the onset of adolescence might serve as a kind of stepping stone towards this healthy form of autonomy. In this sense, Separation may be a measure of the process of autonomy development, rather than the actual outcome of this process, which is better reflected by Agency. Although merely cross-sectional, the pattern of correlations between Connectedness, Separation, and Agency observed in this study definitely does not reject these hypotheses. As expected, the overall measurement model of Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, and Agency was essentially the same for both middle adolescents (Study 1) and late adolescents (Study 2). Also, girls and boys in Study 1 evidenced the same overall structure of the abovementioned constructs. Moreover, no differences were found between Studies 1 and 2 in the direction of the relationships between the latent variables, and only slight differences were observed in the size of these relationships. The single exception to the latter conclusion was found for the relationship between Agency and Detachment, which was significantly negative in the late adolescent sample and not significant in the middle adolescent sample. Probably, Detachment is a much more negative experience for girls, who make up the large majority of the older sample, than it is for boys. Even when we take into account the common background of the participants in both studies and the relatively small age difference between both studies (i.e., 2 years and 4 months on average), this high degree of consistency across studies and across boys and girls in the first study clearly supports the validity of this general model of adolescent autonomy and family functioning. This similarity in the structure of autonomy and family functioning across middle and late adolescence does not imply that we do not expect age differences in the mean levels of Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, or Agency. For instance, several studies (e.g., 24 March 2013 Page 10 of 15 ProQuest

Beyers and Goossens, 1999; Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986) indicated that Separation shows slight increases across the age range of middle adolescence while Connectedness slightly decreases. On the basis of what was mentioned before, Agency is believed to develop gradually from middle adolescence on. However, Detachment probably will show no development at all. Detachment is not a part of normal adolescent development but rather an indication of highly problematic family relationships, which are not typical for any age group but rather for some families. However, testing these hypothesized age differences falls outside the scope of this study, and therefore calls for subsequent research. In labeling the relationship dimensions of Separation, Agency, and Detachment, we consciously avoided the use of the concept of "autonomy." This was done to illustrate that autonomy as a concept in the adolescent literature is an umbrella term, referring to a set of relatively independent variables with a different theoretical background. It is precisely this undifferentiated use of the concept of autonomy that caused many of the discussions (e.g., the detachment debate; Silverberg and Gondoli, 1996) about adolescent individuation during the last decades. Regarding the EAS (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986), which was at the center of these recent discussions, some recommendations might be derived from the present studies. First, some of the subscales of the EAS evidenced very low alphas in the present studies. Although the small number of items in these scales might partially explain this lack of internal consistency, it could have blurred some of the findings in the present studies. Therefore, separate use of these subscales in future research with adolescents should be avoided, with the deidealization subscale being the exception to this general recommendation (Frank et al., 1990). However, the EAS should not be used as a unidimensional measure of autonomy in adolescence. Clearly some of the items reflect Detachment, rather than healthy separation. The use of a short version, from which the items referring to Detachment are excluded, will help to prevent further conceptual discussions about individuation in adolescence. In line with the findings of this study, this short version of the EAS then might be labeled Separation (e.g., Bray et al., 2001a,b), because it clearly reflects the interpersonal distance between the adolescent and his or her parents. One must keep in mind the limitations of these studies. First, the unbalanced distribution of gender in the older sample possibly creates a confound between age and gender in trying to interpret the findings from the 2 age samples, as was already suggested earlier. A more balanced sample in terms of gender, particularly in late adolescence, might allow us to generalize our results more broadly and would enable a systematic investigation of gender differences in individuation during adolescence. The fact that only middle and late adolescents were included in this study also limits the value of its conclusions. A study about individuation in adolescence should at least cover the entire age range of adolescence. Early adolescence and puberty in particular might be the period in which Separation has its most prominent meaning (Steinberg, 1987, 1988). Finally, the cross-sectional design of the present study did not allowfor a full dynamic or even causal interpretation of the relationships between the latent factors that were found. Longitudinal research across a broad age range is recommended for future studies to fully explore these relationships, and to test the hypotheses about age differences that were mentioned before. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors are greatly indebted to the students and staff of the Heilig Graf Institute and the Sint-Pieters Institute, Turnhout, and the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, for their participation in this study. Funding was provided through Research Grant No. 1.5.150.99 of the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (Belgium). Special thanks go to Alfons Marcoen for his help in translating the measures into Dutch, and to Bart Soenens and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Sidebar Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 351-365 ((C) 2003) References REFERENCES Anderson, S. A., and Sabatelli, R. M. (1992). The Differentiation In the Family System Scale (DIFS). Am. J. Fam. Ther. 20: 77-89. Armsden, G. C., and Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological wellbeing in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 16: 427-454. Bartle, S. E., and Sabatelli, R. M. (1989). Family system dynamics, identity development, and adolescent alcohol use: Implications for family treatment. Fam. Relat. 38: 258-265. Bekker,M. H. J. (1991). De bewegelijke grenzen van het vrouwelijke ego [The movable boundaries of 24 March 2013 Page 11 of 15 ProQuest

the female ego]. Eburon, Delft, The Netherlands. Beyers,W., and Goossens, L. (1999). Emotional autonomy, psychosocial adjustment, and parenting: Interactions, moderating, and mediating effects. J. Adolesc. 22: 753769. Blos, P. (1962). On Adolescence: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation. Free Press, New York. Blos, P. (1979). The AdolescentPassage. International Universities Press, Madison, CT. Bosma, H. A., Jackson, S. E., Zijsling, D. H., Zani, B., Cicognani, E., Xerri, M. L., Honess, T. M., and Charman, L. (1996). Who has the final say? Decisions on adolescent behavior within the family. J. Adolesc. 19: 277-291. Bray, J. H., Adams, G. J., Getz, J. G., and Baer, P. E. (2001a). Developmental, family, and ethnic influences on adolescent alcohol usage: A growth curve approach. J. Fam. Psychol. 15: 301-314. Bray, J. H., Adams, G. J., Getz, J. G., and Stovall, T. (2001b). Interactive effects of individuation, family factors, and stress on adolescent alcohol use. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 71: 436-449. Buurmeijer, F. A., and Hermans, P. C. (1984). Gezins Dimensie Schalen [Family Dimension scales]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. Chen, Z., and Dornbusch, S. M. (1998). Relating aspects of adolescent emotional autonomy to academic achievement and deviant behavior. J. Adolesc. Res. 13: 293-319. Dekovi c, M., Noom, M. J., and Meeus, W. H. J. (1997). Expectations regarding development during adolescence: Parental and adolescent perceptions. J. Youth Adolesc. 26: 253272. du Toit, M., and du Toit, S. (2001). Interactive LISREL: User's Guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago. Feiring, C., and Lewis, M. (1993). Do mothers know their teenagers' friends? Implications for individuation in early adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 22: 337-354. Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., and Meeus, W. (2002). Keeping secrets from parents: Advantages and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 31: 123-136. Frank, S. J., Avery, C. B., and Laman, M. S. (1988). Young adults' perceptions of their relationships with their parents: Individual differences in connectedness, competence, and emotional autonomy. Dev. Psychol. 24: 729-737. Frank, S. J., Pirsch, L. A., and Wright, V. C. (1990). Late adolescents' perceptions of their relationships with their parents: Relationships among deidealization, autonomy, relatedness, and insecurity and implications for adolescent adjustment and ego identity status. J. Youth Adolesc. 19: 571588. Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. In Freud, A. (ed.), The Writings of Anna Freud: Research at the Hampstead Child-Therapy Clinic and Other Papers (1956-1965) (Vol. 5). International Universities Press, New York, pp. 136-166. Garber, J., and Little, S. A. (2001). Emotional autonomy and adolescent adjustment. J. Adolesc. Res. 16: 355-371. Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., and Knerr, B. (1974). The measurement and structure of psychosocial maturity. J. Youth Adolesc. 4: 127-143. Grotevant, H. D., and Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A perspective on individual differences in the development of identity and role-taking skill in adolescence. Human Dev. 29: 82-100. Grotevant, H. D., and Cooper, C. R. (1998). Individuality and connectedness in adolescent development: Review and prospects for research on identity, relationships, and context. In Skoe, E. E. A., and von der Lippe, A. L. (eds.), Personality Development in Adolescence. A Cross National and Life Span Perspective. Routledge, London, pp. 3-37. Hill, J. P., and Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In Whitehurst, G. (ed.), Annals of Child Development (Vol. 3). JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 145-189. Hofer, M., Pikowsky, B., and Spranz-Fogasy, T. (1992). Argumente in Konfliktgesprachen zwischen Eltern and Jugendlichen [Argumentation in adolescentparent conflict discourse]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Mannheim, Germany. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Eq. Model. 6: 1-55. Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL??8: Structural Equation Modeling With the SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Software International, Chicago. Kagit cibasi, C. (1996). The autonomous-relational self:Anewsynthesis. Eur. Psychol. 1: 180-186. Kagit cibasi, C. (2000). Cultural mediation of autonomy-relatedness dynamics in adolescence. Keynote address delivered at the Seventh Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Adolescence (EARA), Jena, Germany. Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., and Cole, A. K. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents' perceptions of security in the mother-child relationship. Dev. Psychol. 32: 457-466. Larson, D. G., and Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: Conceptualization, measurement, and health implications. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 9: 24 March 2013 Page 12 of 15 ProQuest

439-455. Lieberman, M., Doyle, A., and Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental patterns in security of attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer relations. Child Dev. 70: 202-213. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent Variable Models: An introduction to Factor, Path and Structural Analysis (2nd edn.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Maccoby, E. E., and Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In Mussen, P. H. (Series ed.), and Hetherington, E. M. (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development (4th edn.). Wiley, New York, pp. 1-101. Mayseless, O., Wiseman, H., and Hai, I. (1998). Adolescents' relationships with father, mother, and same-gender friend. J. Adolesc. Res. 13: 101-123. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. McDonald, R. P., and Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods 7: 64-82. Noack, P., and Puschner, B. (1999). Differential trajectories of parent-child relationships and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence. J. Adolesc. 22: 795-804. Noom, M. J., Dekovi c, M., and Meeus, W. (2001). Conceptual analysis and measurement of adolescent autonomy. J. Youth Adolesc. 30: 577-595. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., and Bell, R. Q. (1982). FACES II: Family Adaptibility and Cohesion Evaluation Scales. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Papini, D. R., and Roggman, L. A. (1992). Adolescent perceived attachment to parents in relation to competence, depression, and anxiety: A longitudinal study. J. Early Adolesc. 12: 420-440. Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the self in psychological development. In Dienstbier, R., and Jacobs, J. E. (eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Developmental Perspectives on Motivation (Vol. 40). University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 1-56. Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55: 68-78. Ryan, R. M., and Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Dev. 60: 340-356. Sabatelli, R. M., and Anderson, S. A. (1991). Family system dynamics, peer relationships, and adolescents' psychological adjustment. Fam. Relat. 40: 363-369. Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In Heijmans, R. D. H., Pollock, D. S. G., and Satorra, A. (eds.), Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis: A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker. Kluwer Academic, London, pp. 233-247. Satorra, A., and Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von Eye, A., and Clogg, C. C. (eds.), Latent Variable Analysis: Applications in Developmental Research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 399-419. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, 72). Chapman and Hall, London. Schumacker, R., and Lomax, R. (1996). A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Silverberg, S. B., and Gondoli, D. M. (1996). Autonomy in adolescence: A contextualized perspective. In Adams, G. R., Montemayor, R., and Gullotta, T. P. (eds.), Psychosocial Development During Adolescence. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 12-61. Steinberg, L. (1987). Impact of puberty on family relations: Effects of pubertal status and pubertal timing. Dev. Psychol. 23: 451-460. Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parent-child distance and pubertal maturation. Dev. Psychol. 24: 122-128. Steinberg, L., and Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Dev. 57: 841-851. Turner, R. A., Irwin, C. E., and Millstein, S. G. (1991). Family structure, family processes, and experimenting with substances during adolescence. J. Res. Adolesc. 1: 93-106. Turner, R. A., Irwin, C. E., Tschann, J. M., and Millstein, S. G. (1993). Autonomy, relatedness, and the initiation of health risk behaviors in early adolescence. Health Psychol. 12: 200-208. van Schuur, W. H., and Kiers, H. A. L. (1994). Why factor analysis is often the wrong model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to use instead. Appl. Psychol. Measur. 18: 97-110. AuthorAffiliation Wim Beyers,1 Luc Goossens,2 Ilse Vansant,3 and Els Moors4 1Postdoctoral researcher for the Fund of Scientific Research-Flanders (Belgium). Received PhD in developmental psychology from the Catholic University Leuven, Belgium, 2001. Current research focuses on adolescent autonomy, parenting, and mediators of parenting effects on individuation and identity formation in late adolescence. To whom correspondence should be addressed at Center for Developmental Psychology, 24 March 2013 Page 13 of 15 ProQuest

Catholic University Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; e-mail: wim.beyers@psy.kuleuven.ac.be. 2Assistant Professor of Developmental Psychology, Center for Developmental Psychology, Catholic University Leuven, Belgium. Received PhD in developmental psychology from the Catholic University Leuven, Belgium, 1988. Current research interests include adolescent identity, autonomy, and loneliness. 3BAin Psychology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Current research interests include adolescent autonomy and depressive symptoms. 4BA in Psychology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Current research interests include adolescent autonomy and self-esteem. 00472891/03/1000-0351/0 (C) 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation Subjek: Child psychology; Independence; Teenagers Judul: A structural model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence: Connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency Pengarang: Beyers, Wim; Goossens, Luc; Vansant, Ilse; Moors, Els Judul publikasi: Journal of Youth and Adolescence Volume: 32 Edisi: 5 Halaman: 351+ Tahun publikasi: 2003 Tanggal publikasi: Oct 2003 Tahun: 2003 Penerbit: Springer Science & Business Media Tempat publikasi: New York Negara publikasi: Netherlands Publication subject: Children And Youth - About ISSN: 00472891 CODEN: JYADA6 Jenis sumber: Scholarly Journals Bahasa publikasi: English Jenis dokumen: Feature Fitur dokumen: references ID dokumen ProQuest: 204646380 URL Dokumen: http://search.proquest.com/docview/204646380?accountid=148614 Hak cipta: Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers Oct 2003 Terakhir diperbarui: 2012-01-28 Basis data: ProQuest Research Library

_______________________________________________________________

24 March 2013

Page 14 of 15

ProQuest

Hubungi ProQuest

Hak cipta 2012 ProQuest LLC. Semua hak cipta dilindungi. - Syarat dan Ketentuan

24 March 2013

Page 15 of 15

ProQuest