Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract. Three studies aimed at developing the Spanish version of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA;
Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) and at analyzing its factor structure are reported. In Study 1, the Spanish translation of
items and their content analysis was carried out via cognitive interviews. In Study 2, the three-factor structure proposed
by authors was tested in a sample of 417 adolescents (270 girls and 147 boys) using confirmatory analysis, and indexes
showed a suboptimal fit. A principal component analysis yielded one-dimensional structures in father, mother and peer
versions, explaining 54.3%, 50.8%, and 50.8% of the variance respectively. On the basis of the factor loadings and of the
item-total correlations, a shortened version of the inventory was created. Convergent validity was tested with measures
of family climate, parenting socialization and self-esteem. In Study 3, the one-dimension structure was confirmed in
a new sample of 604 adolescents (335 girls and 269 boys). Based on all factor analyses and convergent validity indices
obtained, we conclude that the Spanish IPPA questionnaire reliably and validly assesses adolescent attachment using
only a dimension of attachment security.
Received 29 July 2011; Revised 31 January 2012; Accepted 24 May 2012
Keywords: attachment, adolescence, test adaptation, factor structure.
Dimensionality of Ippa
factor in both father and in mother versions. After
doing this, they tested to see whether the selection of
14 items actually fit the three-factor structure with a
confirmatory analysis in a different sample.
Johnson and associates (2003) work also deserves a
mention. These authors developed from IPPA a version
to be completed by the parents themselves (referred to
as Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment or R-IPA)
in order to gain a wider, or circular, perspective of relationships between adolescents and their parents. From
their results, they concluded that the original threefactor factor structure does not fit with data of R-IPA.
By using a confirmatory analysis with the IPPA, they
observed that its structure did not fit the three-factor
model either. After conducting exploratory factor analyses (both with R-IPA and IPPA), the authors concluded
that the underlying structure is two-dimensional
(i.e., on the one hand, alienation, and on the other hand, a
positive aspect linking both trust and communication).
Finally, two efforts made to give rise to a shortened
version of the questionnaire may be mentioned. Raja,
McGee, and Stanton (1992) reduced each scale of IPPA
(parents and peers) to 12 items. Reliability indexes of
two factors of this short version of communication
and trust are adequate; those of alienation factors are
not. In a more recent study with Turkish students,
Gnaydin and colleagues (2005) could not replicate the
three-dimensional structure proposed by Raja and collaborators, because the results pointed out a one-factor
structure of the questionnaire. This one-factor structure has also been mentioned as the most optimal in a
work with the long IPPA version with a Spanish sample of Basque-speaking adolescents geographically
closer to the samples examined in our study (AlonsoArbiol et al., in press).
In short, the evidence as to which attachment
elements are covered by IPPA is still inconclusive. The
three-dimensional structure had to be corroborated
before further research in adolescence attachment with
this instrument, understood as fitting three attachment
features, might be done. In this work, we conducted
several studies with two aims in mind. First and foremost, we tried to pinpoint the underlying factor structure of the IPPA questionnaire. A second aim involved
the development of its Spanish version by analyzing
its psychometric properties. We first adapted the questionnaire into Spanish and analyzed content validity of
items using cognitive interviews. In a second study, first
we examined the three-dimensional structure of IPPA,
and, since the factor structure was not confirmed, in a
second phase we used principal component analysis
yielding a one-dimensional structure. Convergent validity and internal consistency of the scale were also examined. Finally, a third study was conducted in order to
corroborate the structure observed in the second study.
Study 1
The aim of this study was to evaluate the content validity of the IPPA questionnaire and its understandability
in the target sample. First, we define the process
involving the translation of items. Second, we describe
the examination of content validity.
The translation of IPPA into Spanish was carried out
independently by a team made up four people, including
two linguists and two psychologists who are familiarized with research on emotional bonding. This first step
of the adaptation process was conducted using a
back-translation design, and in accordance with the
milestones suggested by Balluerka, Gorostiaga, AlonsoArbiol, and Haranburu (2007). Each of the 75 items of
the original version 25 items on each scale (mother,
father, and peers) was translated into Spanish independently by two people (a psychologist and a linguist).
Once both translations had been compared and analyzed, an agreed version was obtained for each item.
Stemming from this version, a further two members of
the translation team (a psychologist and a linguist)
independently translated into Spanish the items of the
Spanish version back to English and obtained an agreed
version of it. Finally, all participants in the process
compared each item of the original version and the
inversely adapted English version in order to examine the possible non-equivalence in meaning, so as
to make any modifications accordingly in the final
Spanish version later.
Cognitive interviews were conducted for the examination of content analysis of items. With the aim of
evaluating the understanding level of items of the
Spanish adapted version, 24 adolescents of both genders (not using randomization) were drawn from a
school selected and they answered the 75 items of IPPA.
After completing the questionnaire, they also answered
some questions in order to analyze the meaning they
had derived from some words and expression in some
items that may be confusing. Some of the questions are
as follows: Would you use another word (or words)
instead of the word disgustado/a (distressed) in this
sentence? (If so, which one?), Could you think of
another way in which you would say tiene en cuenta
(take into account) in this sentence?, What do you
understand by siento enfado (I feel angry) in this sentence?, or What do you think the sentence Mi madre
no me presta mucha atencin (My mother does not pay
too much attention to me) means? Participants were
also given the opportunity to say that they did not clearly
understand the meaning of a word. There were two
aims in this phase: (a) to see whether the proposed
items of the Spanish version keep the semantic content
of the original English version; and (b) to check whether
items fit the understanding level of the sample in which
Dimensionality of Ippa
(Arbuckle, 2008). The fit of the model was tested in a
multiple-group structural equation model, using maximum likelihood estimates, and where girls and boys
were taken as two different groups. An unconstrained
model in which all parameters were allowed to vary
formed the baseline. From here, subsequent analyses
were made by constraining parameters to being invariant so that the most parsimonious model that still
showed an acceptable fit was chosen.
The sample size of this study was large enough so
as to ensure that the conventional chi-square statistic
would not appear as an optimal good index for the
model (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Instead, other
indexes to test the goodness of fit of the model were
used. The relative chi-square is the chi-square fit index
divided by its degrees of freedom (2/df); here values of
three or less are considered as indications of a good
fit (Kline, 1998). Based on Hoyles (1995) suggestion,
adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI) fit-indexes
greater than .90 would be considered as indicating a good
fit. Values of root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) lower than .05, and values of root-mean-square
(RMR) residual lower than .08 would be acceptable
(Byrne, 2010). None of the fitness indexes were adequate. Thus, the three-dimensional structure proposed
by the authors seems to not adequately fit the data (see
Table 1), in any of the three scales (mother, father and
peers).
Phase 2
This second phase derives from the impossibility of
obtaining an optimal fit for the three-dimensional factor
structure of the questionnaire. Therefore, we analyzed
the dimensional structure of IPPA-S with an exploratory factor analytic strategy, examined the internal
consistency of the subscale(s), and analyzed the construct validity of the questionnaire.
Construct validity was examined calculating Pearson
correlations with three different measures tapping
constructs related to attachment. Specifically, family
climate, parental bonding and self-esteem variables
were used for this analysis. Regarding the links of
our instrument to family climate, we expected to find:
(a) moderate to high positive correlations with Cohesion
and Expressiveness dimensions of family climate,
and (b) moderate to high negative correlations with
Conflict dimension of family climate. As for the relationship with parental bonding, we hypothesized
moderate to high positive correlations between Care
dimension and IPPA, and moderate to high negative
correlations between Overprotection dimension and
IPPA. Finally, we expected to find positive correlation
with self-esteem.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Model no.
Unconstrained
Measurement weights
Structural covariances
Measurement residuals
Unconstrained
Measurement weights
Structural covariances
Measurement residuals
Unconstrained
Measurement weights
Structural covariances
Measurement residuals
Model description
1142.9
1162.4
1172.1
1306.5
1289.2
1326.8
1342.4
1382.6
1276.3
1305.8
1317.0
1342.4
544
566
572
597
544
566
572
597
544
566
572
597
df
2.10
2.05
2.05
2.19
2.37
2.34
2.35
2.32
2.35
2.31
2.30
2.25
/df
.790
.795
.794
.779
.747
.751
.753
.758
.759
.765
.766
.774
AGFI
.861
.867
.868
.850
.864
.866
.866
.869
.843
.847
.848
.854
TLI
Note: IPPA-M = IPPA Mother version; IPPA-F = IPPA Father version; IPPA-P = IPPA Peer version.
IPPA-P
IPPA-F
IPPA-M
Scales
Table 1. Fit Indexes for the Three Subscales of IPPA-S in the Three-Dimensional Model
.051
.050
.049
.053
.057
.057
.057
.056
.056
.056
.055
.054
RMSEA
.874
.875
.874
.851
.876
.874
.872
.870
.857
.856
.855
.855
CFI
.060
.065
.069
.073
.091
.104
.132
.136
.075
.085
.124
.125
RMR
1354.87
1330.44
1328.07
1412.46
1501.17
1494.75
1498.38
1488.61
1488.28
1473.81
1473.03
1448.35
AIC
2-1
3-2
4-3
2-1
3-2
4-3
2-1
3-2
4-3
Nested models
19.5
9.7
134.4
37.6
15.6
40.2
29.5
11.2
25.4
22
6
25
22
6
25
22
6
25
df
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
p level
6
M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol
Dimensionality of Ippa
Table 2. Factor Loadings of Mother, Father and Peer Scale Items
from the Principal Component Analysis
Item
IPPA-M
IPPA-F
Item
IPPA-P
1 (T)
2 (T)
3 (R/T)
4 (T)
5 (C)
6 (R/C)
7 (C)*
8 (A)*
9 (R/T)*
10 (A)*
11 (A)*
12 (T)
13 (T)
14 (R/C)*
15 (C)
16 (C)
17 (A)*
18 (A)*
19 (C)
20 (T)
21 (T)
22 (T)
23 (A)*
24 (C)
25 (C)
.73
.74
.62
.68
.62
.62
.51
.42
.19
.64
.52
.72
.62
.55
.73
.68
.58
.58
.76
.81
.75
.75
.41
.79
.59
.75
.78
.64
.71
.61
.62
.73
.49
.23
.68
.61
.76
.63
.58
.78
.71
.69
.66
.76
.82
.80
.76
.40
.78
.70
1 (C)*
2 (C)
3 (C)
4 (A)*
5 (R/T)*
6 (T)
7 (C)
8 (T)
9 (A)*
10 (A)*
11 (A)*
12 (T)
13 (T)
14 (T)
15 (T)
16 (C)
17 (C)
18 (A)*
19 (T)
20 (T)
21 (T)
22 (A)*
23 (A)*
24 (C)
25 (C)
.44
.66
.70
.37
.54
.73
.68
.64
.10
.36
.59
.69
.69
.68
.71
.67
.77
.52
.72
.78
.71
.34
.60
.78
.68
Table 3. Factor Loadings of Mother and Father Scale Items from the Principal Component Analysis
Item
IPPA-M
IPPA-F
.751
.736
.758
.784
.600
.697
.607
.634
.723
.638
.603
.620
.745
.772
.645
.753
.660
.797
.676
.669
.773
.768
.816
.762
.828
.817
.755
.806
.768
.794
.615
.719
Table 4. Factor Loadings of Peers Scale Items from the Principal Component Analysis
Item
IPPA-P
2. Mis amigos/as pueden saber cundo estoy disgustado/a por algo (My friends can tell when Im upset about something)
3. Cuando hablamos de cosas, mis amigos/as tienen en cuenta mi punto de vista (When we discuss things, my friends care
about my point of view)
6. Mis amigos/as me entienden (My friends understand me)
7. Mis amigos/as me animan a hablar de mis preocupaciones (My friends encourage me to talk about my difficulties)
8. Mis amigos/as me aceptan tal y como soy (My friends accept me as I am)
12. Mis amigos/as prestan atencin a lo que digo (My friends listen to what I have to say)
13. Creo que mis amigos/as son buenos/as amigos/as (I feel my friends are good friends)
14. Es bastante fcil hablar con mis amigos/as (My friends are fairly easy to talk to)
15. Cuando estoy enfadado/a por algo, mis amigos/as intentan ser comprensivos/as (When I am angry about something,
my friends try to be understanding)
16. Mis amigos/as me ayudan a entenderme mejor (My friends help me to understand myself better)
17. Mis amigos/as se preocupan por cmo me siento (My friends care about how I am feeling)
19. Puedo contar con mis amigos/as cuando necesito desahogarme (I can count on my friends when I need to get
something off my chest)
20. Confo en mis amigos/as (I trust my friends)
21. Mis amigos/as respetan mis sentimientos (My friends respect my feelings)
24. Les puedo contar mis problemas y preocupaciones a mis amigos/as (I can tell my friends about my problems and troubles)
25. Si mis amigos/as saben que estoy molesto/a por algo, me preguntan por ello (If my friends know something is
bothering me, they ask me about it)
.667
.702
.733
.706
.639
.675
.680
.684
.718
.689
.768
.712
.776
.717
.802
.712
Dimensionality of Ippa
Table 5. Correlations among IPPA-S Three Versions and FES, PBI and RSES Scales
IPPA-M
Scales
Family Climate
FES C/E
FES CN
Parental Bonding
Mother PBI-C
Mother PBI-O
Father PBI-C
Father PBI-O
Self-Esteem
RSES
IPPA-F
IPPA-P
Girls
Boys
Total
Girls
Boys
Total
Girls
Boys
Total
.600**
.442**
.462**
.319**
.561**
.394**
.548**
.389**
.463**
.266**
.521**
.344**
.284**
.204**
.121
.164*
230**
.172**
.703**
.265**
.414**
.105
.769**
.215**
.202**
.180*
.723**
.250**
.330**
.239**
.360**
.259**
.788**
.025
.266**
.221**
.738**
.293**
.330**
.239**
.774**
.101
.262**
.017
.204**
.057
.208**
.082
.131
.001
.236**
.056
.171*
.044
.210**
.328**
.225**
.302**
.279**
.282**
.072
.112
.179**
Note: IPPA-M = IPPA Mother version; IPPA-F = IPPA Father version; IPPA-P = IPPA Peer version; FES C/E = Family Environment
Scale - Cohesion/Expressiveness; FES CN = Family Environment Scale - Conflict; PBI-C = Parental Bonding Instrument - Care;
PBI-O = Parental Bonding Instrument - Overprotection; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Results
Like in Study 2, structural equation modeling was used
here (Arbuckle, 2008) and the fit of the model was
tested in multiple-group structural equation models
(using maximum likelihood estimates), considering girls
and boys as two different groups. For the evaluation of
the fit of the model, we relied on the same indexes as in
Study 2: The relative chi-square (2/df), AGFI, TLI, CFI,
RMSEA, RMR, and AIC.
As can be seen in Table 6, all fitness indexes were
adequate in all of the three scales (mother, father and
peers), and so one-dimensional structure seems to fit
the data adequately. The measurement weights model
showed the most adequate fit statistics and was the
most parsimonious one for all three versions. This
finding indicates that the one-factor structure was
common for the two groups, and that equal parameter
estimates and error variances for males and females
are acceptable. The standardized coefficients for the
item loadings in each scale are displayed in Figure 1
(mother and father versions) and Figure 2 (peer version).
Cronbach alpha coefficients were all good: .87 for mother
scale, .88 for father scale, and .93 for peer scale.
Discussion
This study had the dual aim of: (a) adapting IPPA into
Spanish (IPPA-S), and (b) examining its factor structure.
The empirical examination of the structure with both
exploratory and confirmatory analyses has revealed a
one-factor structure of IPPA, refuting a long tradition
of suggested three-dimensionality. We may conclude
that the IPPA-S has 16 items in each of the three scales
or versions mother, father, and peers grouped into
one factor. When the three versions are used, three
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Model no.
Unconstrained
Measurement weights
Structural residuals
Measurement residuals
Unconstrained
Measurement weights
Structural residuals
Measurement residuals
Unconstrained
Measurement weights
Structural residuals
Measurement residuals
Model description
362.2
380.9
383.3
611.9
372.6
394.8
405.0
466.5
419.1
439.9
441.2
520.3
184
199
200
228
174
189
190
223
174
189
190
223
df
Note: IPPA-M = IPPA Mother; IPPA-F = IPPA Father; IPPA-P = IPPA Peer.
IPPA-P
IPPA-F
IPPA-M
Scales
1.97
1.91
1.92
2.68
2.14
2.09
2.13
2.09
2.41
2.33
2.32
2.33
/df
Table 6. Fit Indexes for the Three Subscales of IPPA-S in the One-Dimensional Model
.895
.899
.899
.861
.886
.889
.888
.892
.876
.881
.881
.882
AGFI
.954
.957
.957
.921
.952
.954
.952
.954
.930
.934
.934
.933
TLI
.040
.039
.039
.053
.044
.043
.043
.043
.048
.046
.046
.046
.965
.964
.964
.924
.965
.964
.962
.957
.949
.948
.948
.938
RMSEA CFI
.029
.039
.049
.062
.044
.061
.137
.138
.043
.057
.068
.067
RMR
538.18
526.93
527.31
699.95
568.59
560.76
569.04
564.54
615.13
605.96
605.25
618.27
AIC
2-1
3-2
4-3
2-1
3-2
4-3
2-1
3-2
4-3
Nested models
15.7
2.4
228.6
22.2
10.2
61.5
20.8
1.3
79.1
15
1
28
15
1
33
15
1
33
df
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
p level
10
M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol
Dimensionality of Ippa
11
12
girls scores of the three IPPA scales are correlated to selfesteem, in boys only attachment to father is correlated
with self-esteem. These results go in the same direction
as those obtained in previous studies (e.g., Gullone &
Robinson, 2005; Raja et al., 1992), where it seemed that
peer attachment is more relevant for girls, because
girls development of identity is more related to the
establishment of intimate relationships than boys.
Another difference can be found regarding correlations between IPPA and PBI. Although taking into
account the values of the total sample, we obtained
similar results as those reported by Gullone and Robinson
(2005) care positively associated with IPPA, and
overprotection negatively associated, when we differentiated between boys and girls, on one hand, and
mothers and fathers, on the other hand, the results
change. While in girls none of the IPPA scales was significantly correlated with fathers overprotection, in boys
attachment to mother and specially attachment to father
were significantly and negatively correlated with
this subscale. This finding may indicate that in boys
an overprotective father would be associated with a
higher perception of insecurity. A possible explanation
could be that this is so because boys development is
more closely linked to individuation and to a higher
distance towards others (Raja et al., 1992); an overprotective father does not resemble this identification pattern.
One limitation of this study is the lack of more specific measures for the analysis of convergent validity of
attachment peer scale. Our results have shown considerable differences between parent two scales and peer
scale when these were correlated with the other measures. The use of other measures to assess the quality
of friendship quality might have resulted in better
comparison indexes.
On another issue, the factor structure has been
analyzed here with a Spanish version. Therefore, results
should be taken with caution before they can be generalized to include non-Spanish adolescents. For this
reason, future research may address the replicability
of the structure of the questionnaire in different cultures. The examination of factor structures in different
languages/cultures has been indirectly analyzed here.
However, it should be noted that not all the versions
revised here contain the same items, some being shorter
or modified versions with different wording of items.
A more rigorous procedure involving an examination
of structure equivalence of the same (adapted) version
should be conducted before we can confirm or reject that
the dimensionality across language/cultures is comparable (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Based on this
analysis and design, we could more confidently study
whether the underlying one-dimensional structure
of the Spanish IPPA is culture-dependent or reflects
a more universal pattern.
Dimensionality of Ippa
In conclusion, the Spanish IPPA or IPPA-S is a valid
and reliable measure for the assessment of the perceived
security (or insecurity) of attachment to parents and
peers in adolescence. IPPA-S, therefore, may be a good
assessment tool to be confidently used with Spanish
populations both in applied and research domains.
References
Allen J. (2008). The attachment system in adolescence.
In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment:
Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 419435).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Allen J., & Miga E. (2010). Attachment in adolescence:
A move to the level of emotion regulation. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 27, 181190. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0265407509360898
Alonso-Arbiol I., Balluerka N., Gorostiaga A., Aritzeta A., &
Gallarin M., & Haranburu M. (in press). Dimensiones del
apego en la adolescencia: Adaptacin al Euskera del
Inventario de Apego de Progenitores y Pares (IPPA)
[Attachment dimensions in adolescence: Basque
adaptation of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(IPPA)]. Estudios de Psicologa.
Armsden G., & Greenberg M. (1987). The inventory of
parent and peer attachment: Individual differences
and their relationship to psychological well-being in
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939
Arbuckle J. L. (2008). AMOS 17 Users guide. Chicago, IL:
SPSS Inc.
Baiocco R., Laghi F., & Paola M. (2009). La scala per
lattaccamento nei confronti dei genitori (IPPA-G) e del grupo dei
pari (IPPA-P) in adolescenza: Un contributo alla validazione
italiana. [Attachment Scale to Parents (IPPA-G) and to Peers
(IPPA-P) in Adolescence: A contribution to the Italian
validation]. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 13, 355383.
Balluerka N., Gorostiaga A., Alonso-Arbiol I., &
Haranburu M. (2007). La adaptacin de instrumentos de
medida de unas culturas a otras: Una perspectiva prctica
[Test adaptation to other cultures: A practical approach].
Psicothema, 19, 124133.
Balls-Creus C. (1991). Adaptaci del parental bonding
instrument [Adaptation of the parental bonding
instrument]. Barcelona, Spain: Escola Profesional de
Psicologa Clnica.
Bowlby J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Byrne B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Cassidy J., & Shaver P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dykas M., Ziv Y., & Cassidy J. (2008). Attachment and peer
relations in adolescence. Attachment & Human Development,
10, 123141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730802113679
Gallarin M., & Alonso-Arbiol I. (2012). Parenting practices,
parental attachment and aggressiveness in adolescence:
13
14