Spanish Journal of Psychology (2013), 16, eX, 1–14.

© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid

doi:10.1017/sjp.2013.47

Dimensionality of the Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment: Evaluation with the Spanish Version

Miriam Gallarin and Itziar Alonso-Arbiol

Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU (Spain)

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.

Since Bowlby’s (1969) first formulation of attachment
theory in childhood, much research has been conducted
in different developmental stages, and so nowadays it
is an unquestionable fact that individuals of all ages
benefit from the development of secure bonds with
other significant ones (Allen, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2008). Specifically in adolescence, the perception of a
secure attachment with parents has been associated
with higher levels of self-esteem (Gomez & McLaren,
2007), higher emotional and social competence (Laible,
2007), higher emotion regulation (Allen & Miga, 2010),
and lower levels of aggressiveness and shyness (Dykas,
Ziv, & Cassidy, 2008). Individuation and identity
formulation processes also take place during adoles-
cence; adolescents start becoming differentiated
from their parents and being closer to their peers
(Shaffer & Kipp, 2007). Quality of both types of rela-
tionships, with parents and with peers, will be relevant
for adolescents’ development and adjustment (Allen,
2008).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Miriam Gallarin or Itziar Alonso-Arbiol. Faculty of Psychology,
Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU. Avenida de Tolosa 70. E-20018
San Sebastian (Spain).
E-mail: miriam.gallarin@ehu.es or itziar.alonso@ehu.es
This study was supported by a pre-doctoral grant awarded by the
Gobierno Vasco (BFI06/211) to the first author under the supervision
of the second author, and by a grant from the Research Bureau of the
Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU (General Funding for Research
Groups, GIU08/09). Parts of this article were presented at the 12th
Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on
Adolescence, May 2010, Vilnius, Lithuania.
In Spain, there are few valid and reliable assessment
tools of the quality of emotional bonds. One of them is
the Parental Bonding Instrument (Parker, Tupling, &
Brown, 1979; Spanish version: Ballús-Creus, 1991),
which assesses the perception of parents’ behavior
and attitudes through Care (Affect vs. Rejection) and
Overprotection (Overprotection vs. Stimulation of
Autonomy) dimensions. Although this questionnaire
enables the assessment of attachment towards parents,
it is not applicable for the assessment of the quality of
the bonds developed towards friends/peers. There are
also some studies in which instruments targeted to assess
the attachment towards friends or peers have been used
(e.g., Sanchez-Queija & Oliva, 2003). Unfortunately, as
relevant and informative the studies have revealed,
these questionnaires have not undergone a thorough
psychometric analysis, and neither do they inform
about the adaptation process carried out before the
administration. Therefore, no valid and reliable mea-
sure of adolescents’ attachment to parents and peers
are available in Spanish.
One of the most widely used methods for the assess-
ment of attachment in adolescence is the Inventory
of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA), developed by
Armsden and Greenberg (1987). Even though IPPA
adequately incorporates the theoretical underpinning
of attachment theory and, therefore, evaluates the
perceived bonds with parents and peers in adolescence
in a valid way, its factor structure still remains unclear,
with one-factor (e.g., Günaydin, Selçuk, Sümer, & Uysal,
2005), two-factor (e.g., Johnson, Ketring, & Abshire,
2 M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol
2003), and three-factor (e.g., San Martini, Zavattini, &
Ronconi, 2009) structures having been observed. Thus,
in this study we responded to the need to: (a) develop
the Spanish version of the IPPA, since there is not a
single measure for the assessment of the attachment
toward parents and peers in adolescence; and (b) eluci-
date whether its factor structure is actually three-
dimensional, as proposed by the authors, or whether
other underlying structures would apply instead. For
that purpose, we first adapted IPPA into Spanish,
and afterwards we analyzed the structure of IPPA in
a series of studies with different community samples of
adolescents.
Content Validity of IPPA
Based on Bowlby’s (1969) seminal work, Armsden and
Greenberg (1987) suggested that it is possible to eval-
uate internal working models of attachment figures. It
would be necessary to evaluate the core of the internal-
ized experience of attachment. Two elements are men-
tioned: One, the positive affective/cognitive experience
deriving from the trust in attachment figures (i.e., in
their accessibility and response); two, the negative
affective/cognitive experience deriving from the anger
and loss of hope due to the lack of response or incon-
sistency of responses from attachment figures. Capturing
these elements, Armsden and Greenberg established
that the quality of perceived attachment towards par-
ents and peers may be inferred with IPPA from the
scores of three independent factors referred to as ‘com-
munication’, ‘trust’, and ‘alienation’. Although in an
initial version of the questionnaire, both parents were
assessed together with a total of 28 items, in the revised
version of IPPA the authors divided the parents’ scale
into two: mother version and father version. Then both
scales were reduced to 25 items each, with equal
wording but with the only exception of the parental
figure.
Since the development of IPPA, the studies conducted
to evaluate its construct validity have suggested that
the questionnaire satisfactorily taps the contents of at-
tachment bonds. Armsden and Greenberg (1987) found
that IPPA correlated positively with levels of family
self-concept, support, expressivity and family cohesion,
and negatively with conflict and control. They also
observed that IPPA scores could predict self-esteem,
life satisfaction, depression, anxiety, resentment and
alienation. In more recent studies, other authors have
also found empirical support for similar relationships.
IPPA scores have been positively associated with self-
esteem (Gomez & McLaren, 2007), expressivity and
family cohesion (Gullone & Robinson, 2005), and care
(Pardo, Pineda, Carrillo, & Castro, 2006); and nega-
tively associated with aggression (Gomez & McLaren),
depression and social anxiety (Papini, Roggman, &
Anderson, 1991), and overprotection (Pardo et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, a doubt cast over the structural fea-
tures of IPPA since the existence of the three factors
suggested by Armsden and Greenberg (1987) has not
been sufficiently corroborated hitherto. The authors
themselves acknowledged the need to carry out a fur-
ther in-depth study of the structure of the question-
naire because they observed that, due to the high
inter-correlations among the three subscales, the
independence of these subscales may not be clear
(M. Greenberg, personal communication, August 23,
2008). Moreover, the suggestion of taking a composite
of the three factors for the calculation of the total score
of attachment also helps to call into question the inde-
pendence of these factors.
Factorial Structure of IPPA in Different Versions
Over the last 20 years, the IPPA has been adapted into
other cultures in several studies, enabling the suitability
of the three-factor model proposed by Armsden and
Greenberg (1987) to be examined. For instance, IPPA
has been adapted into Spanish in a sample of Colombian
students (Pardo et al., 2006). In that study, the proposed
three-factor structure seemed to emerge when an analysis
of principal components was conducted. However, the
subscale of alienation had low reliability indexes and
the loadings for each factor are not offered. Moreover,
since different possible structures are not compared,
nor even examined, it is unclear as to what extent the
observed factors structure is such because it is the only
one analyzed.
The underlying structure of IPPA has been also exam-
ined in several studies in Italy. Conducted analyses,
however, do not enable unequivocal conclusions to be
drawn. For example, San Martini and colleagues’ (2009)
findings show, on the one hand, that the exploratory
factor analysis conducted in an initial stage suggests a
one-factor structure for each scale (father, mother, and
peer versions). However, on the other hand, the fit
indexes support the three-factor structure proposed by
the authors of the original American version, although
the alienation factor shows low reliability indexes.
Another study seems to identify one only factor for
each scale (parents and peers) in a sample of 1,000
Italian adolescents (Baiocco, Laghi, & Paola, 2009).
Recently, also in Italy, Pace, San Martini, and Zavattini
(2011) have found that the three-factor structure has
the best fit, although the three dimensions are strongly
interrelated.
Vignoli and Mallet (2004) adapted the original version
of 28 items in a sample of French adolescents. Using an
analysis of principal components, they selected the
items that loaded highly in their theoretically expected

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 rela-
tionships between adolescents and their parents. From
their results, they concluded that the original three-
factor 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 ana-
lyses (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,
Günaydin and colleagues (2005) could not replicate the
three-dimensional structure proposed by Raja and col-
laborators, because the results pointed out a one-factor
structure of the questionnaire. This one-factor struc-
ture has also been mentioned as the most optimal in a
work with the long IPPA version with a Spanish sam-
ple of Basque-speaking adolescents —geographically
closer to the samples examined in our study— (Alonso-
Arbiol 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 fore-
most, we tried to pinpoint the underlying factor struc-
ture of the IPPA questionnaire. A second aim involved
the development of its Spanish version by analyzing
its psychometric properties. We first adapted the ques-
tionnaire 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 valid-
ity and internal consistency of the scale were also exam-
ined. Finally, a third study was conducted in order to
corroborate the structure observed in the second study.
Dimensionality of Ippa 3
Study 1
The aim of this study was to evaluate the content valid-
ity 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 familiar-
ized 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, Alonso-
Arbiol, 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 inde-
pendently by two people (a psychologist and a linguist).
Once both translations had been compared and ana-
lyzed, 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 exam-
ine 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 exami-
nation of content analysis of items. With the aim of
evaluating the understanding level of items of the
Spanish adapted version, 24 adolescents of both gen-
ders (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 sen-
tence?’, or ‘What do you think the sentence “Mi madre
no me presta mucha atención” (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
4 M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol
they would be used. To ensure that both objectives
were met, the students who participated in this pilot
phase were at an academic level lower (i.e., 14–15 years
old) than the ones who would be included in the sam-
ple of the subsequent empirical phase.
The first author, a researcher expert in adolescent
attachment, analyzed the responses given by the par-
ticipants to the questions designed for clarification of
items. The qualitative analysis of the content of these
answers led to the conclusion that the understanding
level was adequate, and the semantic level of items were
according to attachment theory postulates. Therefore,
all items remained unchanged from the first formula-
tion agreed by members of the translation team.
Study 2
This study has two different phases. The aim of the
first phase was to test the three-dimensional structure
proposed initially by authors of the IPPA (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987). Since the three-dimensional struc-
ture was not corroborated, the aims of the second
phase were: (a) to analyze the dimensional structure
of IPPA-S using an exploratory factor analysis;
(b) to examine the internal consistency of the possible
subscale(s); and (c) to analyze the construct validity
of the questionnaire based on the extracted factor(s).
The Spanish version described in Study 1 was used for
these purposes.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 417 secondary school students
and of first four semesters at university (270 girls and
147 boys). Mean age (in years) was 17.9 (SD = 1.64).
Although ethnicity was not recorded, not more than
5% of the sample was presumably different from the
mainstream (Caucasian) Spanish group.
Procedure
Students filled in the Spanish IPPA (which we will call
IPPA-S) in their classrooms during class time. They
were informed about the aim of the study, the way
they had to answer the questions, and their free choice
of taking part in the study, as it is specified in ethical
regulations of the Spanish Psychologists’ Board (COP).
Instruments
Family Environmental Scale (FES; Moos & Trichett,
1974; in its Spanish version, Moos, Moos, & Trichett,
1984). This self-report instrument assesses the main
socio-environmental features of family. The com-
plete scale comprises a total of 90 dichotomous items
(true-false), grouped into 10 subscales of 9 items
each; they tap three main dimensions: Relationships,
Personal Development or Personal Growth, and
Family Structure or Organization. In this study, we
only used the Relationships dimension, whose sub-
scales are: cohesion, expressiveness and conflict. Based
on a previous factor analysis, we decided to unify the
subscales of cohesion and expressiveness, because such
analysis did not show the existence of three factors
in our sample. Therefore, a composite was created
for communication and family cohesion (Cohesion/
Expressiveness) from the total sum of 18 items
(e.g., “In my family there is a strong feeling of union”),
and the score for Conflict was calculated from the total
sum of 9 items (e.g., “In our family we quarrel a lot”).
In our study Cronbach’s alphas were acceptable: .80 for
Cohesion/Expressiveness; and .62 for Conflict.
Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker et al., 1979;
in its Spanish version, Ballús-Creus, 1991). This self-
report instrument assesses the perception children
have of their parents’ behavior and attitudes to them in
childhood and adolescence. The adolescent is asked
about the recollection s/he has about her/his relation-
ships with her/his father and her/his mother during
childhood with 25 Likert-type items ranging from
1 ( never) to 5 ( always). Two dimensions derive from
this: Care (Affect vs. Rejection) and Overprotection
(Overprotection vs. Stimulation of Autonomy). Care
includes 12 items related to care, love, closeness, and
perceived attention (e.g. “S/he often smiled at me”),
whereas Overprotection refers to the perception of
control related to the lack of fostering individuation
with 13 items (e.g. “S/he tried to make me dependent
on her/him”). In our study Cronbach’s alphas were all
acceptable: .90 and .83 for Care (father and mother
respectively), and .82 and .76 for Overprotection (father
and mother respectively).
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1989;
in its Spanish version, Martin-Albo, Núñez, Navarro, &
Grijalvo, 2007). The RSES is a self-report instrument
made up of 10 items that assesses self-respect or accep-
tance. The scale rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree) in
which there are 5 positively worded items (e.g. “I feel
that I have a number of good qualities”), and 5 nega-
tively worded items (e.g. “All in all, I am inclined to
feel that I am a failure”). The scale gives a total score
for self-esteem. In our study Cronbach’s alpha was
good: .80.
Results
Phase 1
Structural equation modeling was used to test the
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model with AMOS

(Arbuckle, 2008). The fit of the model was tested in a
multiple-group structural equation model, using max-
imum 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 in-
variant 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 (χ2/df); here values of
three or less are considered as indications of a good
fit (Kline, 1998). Based on Hoyle’s (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 ade-
quate. 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 explor-
atory factor analytic strategy, examined the internal
consistency of the subscale(s), and analyzed the con-
struct 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 rela-
tionship 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.
Dimensionality of Ippa 5
Exploratory Factor Analysis and Internal
Consistency
For the examination of the general structure of IPPA-S,
a principal component analysis with oblimin rotation
was conducted. Prior to the analysis, we calculated the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index as well as a sphe-
ricity test for each scale (mother, father and peers). All
KMO indexes were .95 which can be considered good.
Bartlett test was statistically significant for all scales:
χ2(120) = 4093.55 p < .0001, in mother scale; χ2(120) =
4488.89 p < .0001, in father scale; and χ2(120) = 3870.27
p < .0001, in peer scale.
In order to establish how many factors to extract,
two criteria were considered: (a) The sedimentation
graph with its scree-plot was examined; and (b) the
semantic and psychological content were taken into
account in the search for clearly interpretable factors.
We considered these criteria for three-, two- and one-
factor solutions, and we concluded the one-factor solu-
tion to be the most optimal. The solution for three
factors was not easily interpretable because there were
many cross-loadings with most items loading high not
just in one factor, but in two or even three. On the other
hand, although the two-factor solution showed good
factor loadings, after evaluating each item in each factor,
we realized that the two-factor solution involved
separating positive from negative items, more than
distinguishing between different attachment-related
concepts. Therefore, we decided to take the one-factor
as the most optimal solution, also supported by the
scree-plot figure.
Taking into account that the one-factor structure was
the most optimal (see Table 2 to see factor loadings of
25 items in one factor structure), we decided to reduce
it in order to optimize the questionnaire (in terms of
applicability and reliability). We considered these
criteria in order to decide which items will be retained
for a shorter version: (a) items with |.50| or higher
loading in the factor; and (b) items with |.50| or higher
scores in the corrected element-total correlation were
kept.
Thus, some items were eliminated for loading lower
than |.50|: #8 (“Talking over my problems with my
mother/father makes me feel ashamed or foolish”), #9
(“My mother/father expects too much from me”), and
#23 (“My mother/father doesn’t understand what I’m
going through these days”). The following items were
dropped for having scores lower than |.50| in the
corrected element-total correlation: #7 (“My mother/
father can tell when I’m upset about something”), #10
(“I get upset easily around my mother/father”), #11
(“I get upset a lot more than my mother/father knows
about”), #14 (“My mother/father has her/his own
problems, so I don’t bother her/him with mine”), #17
 6

Table 1. Fit Indexes for the Three Subscales of IPPA-S in the Three-Dimensional Model
M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol

Scales Model no. Model description χ² df χ²/df AGFI TLI RMSEA CFI RMR AIC Nested models Δχ ² Δdf p level

IPPA-M
1 Unconstrained 1276.3 544 2.35 .759 .843 .056 .857 .075 1488.28
2 Measurement weights 1305.8 566 2.31 .765 .847 .056 .856 .085 1473.81 2-1 29.5 22 .001
3 Structural covariances 1317.0 572 2.30 .766 .848 .055 .855 .124 1473.03 3-2 11.2 6 .001
4 Measurement residuals 1342.4 597 2.25 .774 .854 .054 .855 .125 1448.35 4-3 25.4 25 .001
IPPA-F
1 Unconstrained 1289.2 544 2.37 .747 .864 .057 .876 .091 1501.17
2 Measurement weights 1326.8 566 2.34 .751 .866 .057 .874 .104 1494.75 2-1 37.6 22 .001
3 Structural covariances 1342.4 572 2.35 .753 .866 .057 .872 .132 1498.38 3-2 15.6 6 .001
4 Measurement residuals 1382.6 597 2.32 .758 .869 .056 .870 .136 1488.61 4-3 40.2 25 .001
IPPA-P
1 Unconstrained 1142.9 544 2.10 .790 .861 .051 .874 .060 1354.87
2 Measurement weights 1162.4 566 2.05 .795 .867 .050 .875 .065 1330.44 2-1 19.5 22 .001
3 Structural covariances 1172.1 572 2.05 .794 .868 .049 .874 .069 1328.07 3-2 9.7 6 .001
4 Measurement residuals 1306.5 597 2.19 .779 .850 .053 .851 .073 1412.46 4-3 134.4 25 .001

Note: IPPA-M = IPPA Mother version; IPPA-F = IPPA Father version; IPPA-P = IPPA Peer version.
 Dimensionality of Ippa 7

Table 2. Factor Loadings of Mother, Father and Peer Scale Items Analysis of Construct Validity
from the Principal Component Analysis
Construct validity of IPPA-S was examined through the
correlations with the Relationships dimension of FES,
Item IPPA-M IPPA-F Item IPPA-P
with PBI, and with RSES, with a distinction being drawn
1 (T) .73 .75 1 (C)* .44 between girls and boys in all cases. All correlations are
2 (T) .74 .78 2 (C) .66 shown in Table 5. As expected, scores of mother and
3 (R/T) −.62 −.64 3 (C) .70 father scales of IPPA-S are highly and positively corre-
4 (T) .68 .71 4 (A)* −.37 lated with the Cohesion/Expressiveness subscale of
5 (C) .62 .61 5 (R/T)* −.54 FES, whereas the size of the correlations are medium
6 (R/C) −.62 −.62 6 (T) .73 and negative with the Conflict subscale. All these correla-
7 (C)* .51 .73 7 (C) .68 tions were higher for girls than for boys. Correlations
8 (A)* −.42 −.49 8 (T) .64 of these FES subscales with the peer version are low,
9 (R/T)* −.19 −.23 9 (A)* .10
and almost non-existent in boys.
10 (A)* −.64 −.68 10 (A)* −.36
On the other hand, and also according to what could
11 (A)* −.52 −.61 11 (A)* −.59
be expected, both the mother and father Care dimen-
12 (T) .72 .76 12 (T) .69
13 (T) .62 .63 13 (T) .69 sion of PBI correlated highly with girls’ and boys’
14 (R/C)* −.55 −.58 14 (T) .68 scores of IPPA-S, whereas Overprotection dimension
15 (C) .73 .78 15 (T) .71 correlated negatively and to a lower extent (correla-
16 (C) .68 .71 16 (C) .67 tions of small size). Moreover, in the specific case of
17 (A)* −.58 −.69 17 (C) .77 father overprotection, only boys’ attachment to father
18 (A)* −.58 −.66 18 (A)* −.52 was considerably related to it, albeit of small size
19 (C) .76 .76 19 (T) .72 again. Lastly, the relationship between IPPA-S scores
20 (T) .81 .82 20 (T) .78 and self-esteem with RSES was observed, although
21 (T) .75 .80 21 (T) .71 correlations were not as high as could be expected.
22 (T) .75 .76 22 (A)* −.34
For this variable, scores are positively, but not to a
23 (A)* −.41 −.40 23 (A)* −.60
major extent, correlated with perceived attachment
24 (C) .79 .78 24 (C) .78
25 (C) .59 .70 25 (C) .68
to mother, father, and peers in girls (somewhat higher
for father); however, in boys, such positive correla-
Note: IPPA-M = IPPA Mother; IPPA-F = IPPA Father; tion can only be observed in relation to perceived
IPPA-P = IPPA Peer. T = Trust subscale in the original American attachment to father, and are even of small magni-
version; C = Communication subscale in the original tude in that case.
American version; A = Alienation subscale in the original
American version. R = Reverse item.*Dropped out items. Study 3

The objective if this last study was to confirm the factor

(“I feel angry with my mother/father”), and #18
(“I don’t get much attention from my mother/father”).
Therefore, and taking into account the four criteria
mentioned above, (the same) 16 items in each version
(mother, father, and peer) were selected, which accounted
for 50.8%, 54.3%, and 50.8% of the variance in mother,
father, and peer scales respectively. The specific weights
for each scale of the 16 items retained are given in Table 3
(father and mother versions) and Table 4 (peer version).
Following the deletion of the items mentioned, internal
consistency values were calculated for the three scales
(mother, father and peers). Cronbach alpha coefficients
were all good and somehow higher than with 25 items:
.88 for mother scale (.77 with 25 items), .91 for father
scale (.77 with 25 items), and .93 for peer scale (.79 with
25 items). Since the items for the shorter version
have been selected based on the factor analysis, one
would assume that there may be somewhat inflated.
structure observed in Study 2. Thus, here we intended
to analyze the goodness of fit of the one-dimensional
model of IPPA-S.
Method
Participants
The sample comprised 604 adolescents (335 girls and
269 boys), studying in secondary schools or at univer-
sity in the first four semesters. Mean age (in years) was
17.8 (SD = 1.49)1. Although ethnicity was not recorded,
like in the sample used for Study 2 and Study 3, here
too no more than 5% of the sample was presumably
different from the mainstream (Caucasian) Spanish.
The procedure for the administration of the question-
naire followed here was the same as in Study 2.
1Due to circumstances such as bereavement or divorce (and therefore,

Therefore, for unbiased estimates, the alpha coefficients because of the lack of relationship with that parent), some adolescents
were again calculated with a new sample in Study 3. decided not to fill in one of the scales: either mother or father.
8 M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol

Table 3. Factor Loadings of Mother and Father Scale Items from the Principal Component Analysis

Item IPPA-M IPPA-F

1. Mi madre/padre respeta mis sentimientos (My mother/father respects my feelings) .751 .758
2. Creo que mi madre/padre está haciendo un buen trabajo como madre/padre (I feel my mother/father does .736 .784
a good job as a mother/father)
3. Desearía tener una/un madre/padre diferente (I wish I had a different mother/father) (R) .600 .634
4. Mi madre/padre me acepta tal y como soy (My mother/father accepts me as I am) .697 .723
5. Me gusta saber el punto de vista de mi madre/padre sobre las cosas que me preocupan (I like to get my .607 .638
mother’s/father’s point of view on things I’m concerned about)
6. Creo que no sirve de nada mostrar mis sentimientos delante de mi madre/padre (I feel it’s no use letting .603 .620
my feelings show around my mother/father) (R)
12. Cuando hablamos, mi madre/padre tiene en cuenta mi punto de vista (When we discuss things, my .745 .772
mother/father cares about my point of view)
13. Mi madre/padre se fía de mi buen juicio (My mother/father trusts my judgment) .645 .660
15. Mi madre/padre me ayuda a entenderme mejor (My mother/father helps me to understand .753 .797
myself better)
16. Le cuento a mi madre/padre mis problemas y preocupaciones (I tell my mother/father about my .676 .669
problems and troubles)
19. Mi madre/padre me ayuda a hablar de mis problemas (My mother/father helps me to talk about my .773 .768
difficulties)
20. Mi madre/padre me entiende (My mother/father understands me) .816 .828
21. Cuando estoy enfadado/a por algo, mi madre/padre intenta ser comprensiva/o (When I am angry about .762 .817
something, my mother/father tries to be understanding)
22. Confío en mi madre/padre (I trust my mother/father) .755 .768
24. Puedo contar con mi madre/padre cuando necesito desahogarme (I can count on my mother/father when .806 .794
I need to get something off my chest)
25. Si mi madre/padre sabe que estoy molesto/a por algo, me pregunta por ello (If my mother/father knows .615 .719
something is bothering me, she/he asks me about it)

Note: IPPA-M = IPPA Mother; IPPA-F = IPPA Father. R = Reverse item.

Table 4. Factor Loadings of Peers Scale Items from the Principal Component Analysis

Item IPPA-P

2. Mis amigos/as pueden saber cuándo estoy disgustado/a por algo (My friends can tell when I’m upset about something) .667
3. Cuando hablamos de cosas, mis amigos/as tienen en cuenta mi punto de vista (When we discuss things, my friends care .702
about my point of view)
6. Mis amigos/as me entienden (My friends understand me) .733
7. Mis amigos/as me animan a hablar de mis preocupaciones (My friends encourage me to talk about my difficulties) .706
8. Mis amigos/as me aceptan tal y como soy (My friends accept me as I am) .639
12. Mis amigos/as prestan atención a lo que digo (My friends listen to what I have to say) .675
13. Creo que mis amigos/as son buenos/as amigos/as (I feel my friends are good friends) .680
14. Es bastante fácil hablar con mis amigos/as (My friends are fairly easy to talk to) .684
15. Cuando estoy enfadado/a por algo, mis amigos/as intentan ser comprensivos/as (When I am angry about something, .718
my friends try to be understanding)
16. Mis amigos/as me ayudan a entenderme mejor (My friends help me to understand myself better) .689
17. Mis amigos/as se preocupan por cómo me siento (My friends care about how I am feeling) .768
19. Puedo contar con mis amigos/as cuando necesito desahogarme (I can count on my friends when I need to get .712
something off my chest)
20. Confío en mis amigos/as (I trust my friends) .776
21. Mis amigos/as respetan mis sentimientos (My friends respect my feelings) .717
24. Les puedo contar mis problemas y preocupaciones a mis amigos/as (I can tell my friends about my problems and troubles) .802
25. Si mis amigos/as saben que estoy molesto/a por algo, me preguntan por ello (If my friends know something is .712
bothering me, they ask me about it)

Note: IPPA-P = IPPA Peer.

 Dimensionality of Ippa 9

Table 5. Correlations among IPPA-S Three Versions and FES, PBI and RSES Scales

IPPA-M IPPA-F IPPA-P

Scales Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total

Family Climate
FES C/E .600** .462** .561** .548** .463** .521** .284** .121 230**
FES CN −.442** −.319** −.394** −.389** −.266** −.344** −.204** −.164* −.172**
Parental Bonding
Mother PBI-C .703** .769** .723** .360** .266** .330** .262** .208** .236**
Mother PBI-O −.265** −.215** −.250** −.259** −.221** −.239** −.017 −.082 −.056
Father PBI-C .414** .202** .330** .788** .738** .774** .204** .131 .171*
Father PBI-O −.105 −.180* −.239** −.025 −.293** −.101 .057 .001 .044
Self-Esteem
RSES .282** .072 .210** .328** .225** .302** .279** .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 independent scores may be obtained which are always

referred to in terms of (in)security of attachment per-
Like in Study 2, structural equation modeling was used
ceived by the adolescent and in relation to mother,
here (Arbuckle, 2008) and the fit of the model was
father and peers. IPPA-S shows good indexes of valid-
tested in multiple-group structural equation models
ity and reliability.
(using maximum likelihood estimates), considering girls
Our results point to a one-dimensional structure of
and boys as two different groups. For the evaluation of
IPPA-S. This finding responds to the authors’ demand
the fit of the model, we relied on the same indexes as in
of analyzing the structure of the questionnaire more
Study 2: The relative chi-square (χ2/df), AGFI, TLI, CFI,
in-depth, and it sheds light into the question of how
RMSEA, RMR, and AIC.
many factors could be distinguished, as one, two and
As can be seen in Table 6, all fitness indexes were
three factors had been claimed. On the one hand, our
adequate in all of the three scales (mother, father and
results go in the direction recently pointed out by
peers), and so one-dimensional structure seems to fit
Günaydin and colleagues (2005), by Baiocco and
the data adequately. The measurement weights model
colleagues (2009), and by Alonso-Arbiol and associates
showed the most adequate fit statistics and was the
(in press), who anticipated such one-factor structure in
most parsimonious one for all three versions. This
Turkish, Italian and Basque versions of IPPA. On the
finding indicates that the one-factor structure was
other hand, our findings do not match those of Johnson
common for the two groups, and that equal parameter
and associates (2003), who distinguished two factors
estimates and error variances for males and females
called trust and alienation, nor the ones linked to the
are acceptable. The standardized coefficients for the
Italian adaptation (2009, 2011), which had three factors.
item loadings in each scale are displayed in Figure 1
As for the structure observed by Johnson and col-
(mother and father versions) and Figure 2 (peer version).
leagues (2003), a closer examination of factor loadings
Cronbach alpha coefficients were all good: .87 for mother
of 25 items of IPPA in the two factors suggests that
scale, .88 for father scale, and .93 for peer scale.
other circumstances than just separate constructs may
also explain the underlying structure. In fact, all items
Discussion
with positive meaning (referred to both trust and
This study had the dual aim of: (a) adapting IPPA into communication, as in the original formulation) (i.e. “My
Spanish (IPPA-S), and (b) examining its factor structure. mother respects my feeling” or “I like to get my mother’s
The empirical examination of the structure with both point of view on things I’m concerned about”) fall within
exploratory and confirmatory analyses has revealed a the first factor, whereas the second factor gathers all
one-factor structure of IPPA, refuting a long tradition items capturing a sense of alienation as well as four
of suggested three-dimensionality. We may conclude reversed items referring to trust and communication
that the IPPA-S has 16 items in each of the three scales (i.e. “I get upset easily around my mother” and “I feel it’s no
or versions —mother, father, and peers— grouped into use letting my feelings show around my mother”). Therefore,
one factor. When the three versions are used, three more than distinguishing between trust and alienation,
 10

Table 6. Fit Indexes for the Three Subscales of IPPA-S in the One-Dimensional Model
M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol

Scales Model no. Model description χ² df χ²/df AGFI TLI RMSEA CFI RMR AIC Nested models Δχ ² Δdf p level

IPPA-M
1 Unconstrained 419.1 174 2.41 .876 .930 .048 .949 .043 615.13
2 Measurement weights 439.9 189 2.33 .881 .934 .046 .948 .057 605.96 2-1 20.8 15 .001
3 Structural residuals 441.2 190 2.32 .881 .934 .046 .948 .068 605.25 3-2 1.3 1 .001
4 Measurement residuals 520.3 223 2.33 .882 .933 .046 .938 .067 618.27 4-3 79.1 33 .001
IPPA-F
1 Unconstrained 372.6 174 2.14 .886 .952 .044 .965 .044 568.59
2 Measurement weights 394.8 189 2.09 .889 .954 .043 .964 .061 560.76 2-1 22.2 15 .001
3 Structural residuals 405.0 190 2.13 .888 .952 .043 .962 .137 569.04 3-2 10.2 1 .001
4 Measurement residuals 466.5 223 2.09 .892 .954 .043 .957 .138 564.54 4-3 61.5 33 .001
IPPA-P
1 Unconstrained 362.2 184 1.97 .895 .954 .040 .965 .029 538.18
2 Measurement weights 380.9 199 1.91 .899 .957 .039 .964 .039 526.93 2-1 15.7 15 .001
3 Structural residuals 383.3 200 1.92 .899 .957 .039 .964 .049 527.31 3-2 2.4 1 .001
4 Measurement residuals 611.9 228 2.68 .861 .921 .053 .924 .062 699.95 4-3 228.6 28 .001

Note: IPPA-M = IPPA Mother; IPPA-F = IPPA Father; IPPA-P = IPPA Peer.

Figure 1. Standardized regression coefficients of IPPA
mother and IPPA father scales. IPPA father scale indexes are
in brackets; values without brackets refer to mother scale. All
the parameters are significant at the level p < .001.
one may wonder to what extent this structure does
not resemble a classical phenomenon of factor analysis
procedures which involve ending up separating items
whose contents are located in two extremes of a con-
tinuum (Marsch, 1996).
Regarding San Martini and associates’ (2009) obser-
vation of a three-dimensional structure, neither the
exploratory analysis conducted first, nor the confirma-
tory factor analysis carried out later seem to support such
structure unequivocally. First, the sedimentation graph of
the exploratory analysis shows a one-dimensional struc-
ture. Second, the goodness-of-fit indexes of the confir-
matory analyses were not sufficiently good for any of
the three options analyzed. Although the indexes for
the three-factor models are better than the other com-
peting ones for all versions (mother, father, peer), GFI
and AGFI are not over .90, and RMSEA is not under
.05. On the other hand, in the recent study also carried
out in Italy (Pace et al., 2011) the authors concluded
Dimensionality of Ippa 11
Figure 2. Standardized regression coefficients of IPPA peer
scale. All the parameters are significant at the level p < .001.
that the three-factor structure shows the best fit in all
three forms (mother, father and peers). However, for
all versions of IPPA (mother, father, peer), CFI is not
over .90, and RMSEA is not under .05. Furthermore, in
the EFA carried out initially, the one-factor structure
showed good levels of accounted variance and high
loadings for almost all the items. Moreover, due the
high correlations between the three factors, authors
warned about the weak differentiation of the factors,
and therefore, about the usefulness of the segmenta-
tion of the inventory on a practical level.
Therefore, so far only Vignoli and Mallet (2004) have
been able to more rigorously corroborate the three-
factor structure originally proposed. However, a closer
inspection of the correlation indices between socializa-
tion styles and three factors of IPPA reveals that those
12 M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol
indexes are very similar for trust and communication.
In fact, in that study correlations between these two
factors are of .72 for mother scale and of .68 for father
scale, which denotes a high correspondence between
them. Furthermore, it seems that authors needed to link
some errors in order for the three-factor model to obtain
acceptable indexes, because without those covariances
only the father scale would get close to being acceptable.
For these reasons, this three-dimensional observation
claimed by Vignoli and Mallet should be interpreted
with caution.
Consequently, although the initial objective of
Armsden and Greenberg (1987) was to assess elements
of positive experience deriving from closeness and trust
in attachment figures, as well as negative experience
deriving from the attachment figures’ lack of (or incon-
sistent) response; it seems that such a distinction is not
completely defined or captured by respondents’ answers
to the instrument. In this study, the final 16 items
deriving from the adaptation process into Spanish retain
the main feature of attachment, namely, the perceived
security established in relationships with the most impor-
tant figures. Bowlby (1969) explained how the funda-
mental function of attachment behavior is to seek and
maintain proximity with attachment figures. This search
for proximity is a device used to regulate emotion
designed with the aim of protecting the individual
from possible external threats. If these strategies work
out—i.e., they accomplish their regulatory role— a
feeling of security in relation to attachment figures is
developed, based on which the world and people
living in it are perceived as secure (see Cassidy & Shaver,
2008; and Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for reviews).
Therefore, it makes sense that a main underlying dimen-
sion of attachment security vs. insecurity emerges here.
On another issue, and as expected, high positive
correlations between IPPA scores and the FES cohesion/
expressiveness subscale, PBI care subscale, and self-
esteem were observed. Besides, although not sought in
the validity analysis, negative correlations with the PBI
overprotection subscale, and to less extent with the
FES conflict subscale, were also found. This last result
would be in keeping with the observation that adoles-
cent aggressiveness is related to insecure attachment to
parents (e.g., Gallarin & Alonso-Arbiol, 2012; Gomez &
McLaren, 2007).
Moreover, unlike previous studies (Armsdem &
Greenberg, 1987; Gullone & Robinson, 2005; Günaydin
et al., 2005; Pardo et al., 2006), in this work boys and
girls’ scores have been taken into account separately,
which allows for a more detailed analysis of inter-cor-
relations between IPPA and the other variables. While
Günaydin and colleagues found that self-esteem and
attachment to father and to mother were associated,
our study allows for a finer observation. Whereas in
girls scores of the three IPPA scales are correlated to self-
esteem, 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 correla-
tions 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 dif-
ferentiated 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 sig-
nificantly correlated with father’s 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 overprotec-
tive father does not resemble this identification pattern.
One limitation of this study is the lack of more spe-
cific measures for the analysis of convergent validity of
attachment peer scale. Our results have shown consid-
erable differences between parent two scales and peer
scale when these were correlated with the other mea-
sures. 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 gener-
alized to include non-Spanish adolescents. For this
reason, future research may address the replicability
of the structure of the questionnaire in different cul-
tures. 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 com-
parable (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.

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. 419–435).
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, 181–190. 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: Adaptación 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 Psicología.
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, 427–454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939
Arbuckle J. L. (2008). AMOS 17 User’s guide. Chicago, IL:
SPSS Inc.
Baiocco R., Laghi F., & Paola M. (2009). La scala per
l’attaccamento 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, 355–383.
Balluerka N., Gorostiaga A., Alonso-Arbiol I., &
Haranburu M. (2007). La adaptación de instrumentos de
medida de unas culturas a otras: Una perspectiva práctica
[Test adaptation to other cultures: A practical approach].
Psicothema, 19, 124–133.
Ballús-Creus C. (1991). Adaptació del parental bonding
instrument [Adaptation of the parental bonding
instrument]. Barcelona, Spain: Escola Profesional de
Psicología Clínica.
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, 123–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730802113679
Gallarin M., & Alonso-Arbiol I. (2012). Parenting practices,
parental attachment and aggressiveness in adolescence:
Dimensionality of Ippa 13
A predictive model. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1601–1610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.07.002
Gomez R., & McLaren S. (2007). The inter-relations of
mother and father attachment, self-esteem and aggression
during late adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 160–169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20181
Gullone E., & Robinson K. (2005). The inventory of parent
and peer attachment-revised (IPPA-R) for children:
A psychometric investigation. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 12, 67–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
cpp.433
Günaydin G., Selçuk E., Sümer N., & Uysal A. (2005).
Ebeveyn ve arkadaslara baglanma envanteri kisa formunun
psikometrik acidan degerlendirilmesi [The psychometric
evaluation of the short form of inventory of parent and
peer attachment]. Türk Psikoloji Yazilari, 8, 13–23.
Hoyle R. H. (Ed.), (1995). Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson L., Ketring S., & Abshire C. (2003). The revised
inventory of parent attachment: Measuring attachment
in families. Contemporary Family Therapy 25, 333–349.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024563422543
Kline R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of Structural Equation
Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Laible D. (2007). Attachment with parents and peers in late
adolescence: Links with emotional competence and social
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
1185–1197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.010
Marsch H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-
esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or
artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
810–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810
Martin-Albo J., Núñez J., Navarro J., & Grijalvo F. (2007).
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Translation and
validation in university students. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 10, 458–467.
Mikulincer M., & Shaver P. (2007). Attachment in adulthood:
Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Mikulincer M., & Shaver P. (2008). Adult attachment and
affect regulation. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook
of Attachment. Theory, research and Clinical Applications (2nd ed.)
(pp. 503–531). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Moos R., & Trickett E. (1974). Classroom environment scale
manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Moos R., Moos B., & Trickett E. (1984). Escalas de Clima
Social [Social Climate Scales]. Madrid, Spain: TEA.
Pace C. S., San Martini P., & Zavattini G. C. (2011). The
factor structure of the inventory of parent and peer
attachment (IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 83–88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.006
Papini D., Roggman R., & Anderson J. (1991). Early-
adolescent perceptions of attachment to mother and
father: A test of the emotional-distancing and buffering
hypotheses. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 258–275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431691112006
Pardo M., Pineda S., Carrillo S., & Castro J. (2006). Análisis
psicométrico del inventario de apego con padres y pares en una
muestra de adolescents colombianos [Psychometric analysis of
14 M. Gallarin and I. Alonso-Arbiol
the inventory of parent and peer attachment in a sample of
Colombian adolescents]. Revista Interamericana de
Psicología, 40, 289–302.
Parker G., Tupling H., & Brown B. (1979). A parental
bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology,
52, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.
tb02487.x
Raja S., McGee R., & Stanton W. (1992). Perceived
attachments to parents and peers and psychological
well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 21, 471–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF01537898
Rosenberg M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image
(Rev. Ed.). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Sanchez-Queija I., & Oliva A. (2003). Vínculos de apego con
los padres y relaciones con los iguales durante la adolescencia
[Attachment to parents and peer relationships during
adolescence]. Revista de Psicología Social, 18, 71–86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/02134740360521796
Shaffer D., & Kipp K. (2007). Developmental psychology:
Childhood and adolescence (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsword.
San Martini P., Zavattini G., & Ronconi S. (2009).
L’inventario per l’attaccamento ai genitori ed ai pari:
Un’indagine psicometrica su un campione italiano di adolescenti
[The inventory of parent and peer attachment: A
psychometric investigation of an Italian sample of
adolescents]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 36, 199–225.
Schumacker R. E., & Lomax R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide
to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van de Vijver F. J. R., & Leung K. (1997). Methods and data
analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vignoli E., & Mallet P. (2004). Validation of a brief measure
of adolescents’ parent attachment based on Armsden and
Greenberg’s three-dimension model. Revue Européenne de
Psychologie Apliquée, 54, 251–260. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.erap.2004.04.003