See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249681367
The Fatherhood Scale
Article in Research on Social Work Practice · March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1049731503257863
CITATIONS
READS
47
8,221
1 author:
Gary L. Dick
University of Cincinnati
12 PUBLICATIONS 121 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Gary L. Dick on 20 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
ARTICLE
RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRA
10.1177/1049731503257863
CTICE
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE
The Fatherhood Scale
Gary L. Dick
University of Cincinnati
This article reports on the initial validation of the Fatherhood Scale (FS), a 64-item instrument designed to measure
the type of relationship a male adult had with his father while growing up. The FS was validated using a convenience
sample of 311 males. The assessment packet contained a demographic form, the Conflict Tactics Scale (2), SelfEsteem Scale, and the Fatherhood Scale. A series of factor analysis resulted in 13 factors accounting for 75% of the
variance. Factors with high correlations that were theoretically related to other factors were combined resulting in
nine subscales measuring positive and negative paternal engagement, fatherhood roles, and paternal emotional
responsiveness. The subscales attained high levels of internal consistency reliability, with alpha levels ranging from
0.80 to 0.96. The scale has an overall reliability of 0.98, and showed preliminary evidence of differentiating between
groups of men on self-esteem and intimate partner violence. The FS is a new assessment tool designed for use by
social work practitioners and researchers to assess an individual’s relationship with his father.
Keywords:
fathers; instrument; measurement; research; fatherhood
During the last decade there has been a proliferation of
scholarly research on fathers that has heightened our
interest and expanded our knowledge and understanding
of fatherhood (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000;
Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Researchers have studied
the diverse forms of fatherhood (Coles, 2001; Stone, 2002);
father involvement (Parke, 1996, 2000); paternal identity
(Pasley, Futris, & Martle, 2002; Rane & McBride, 2000);
and the ways in which fathers influence their children’s
development (Cabrera, Tamis-Lemonda, Bradley, Hofferth,
& Lamb, 2000; Lamb, 1997; Marsiglio, 1995). In response
to the paucity of social work literature on fathers, this article describes a new scale used to assess the type of paternal relationship male adults had with their fathers during
their formative years. Pleck and Pleck (1997) noted the
amount of time fathers spend with their children is an
important consideration for researchers and clinicians,
yet it is equally important to understand the type and quality of the relationship a father has with his children. In the
United States there appears to be two divergent trends
emerging on fatherhood: The first is the increasing number of children who will grow up without a father present
in their lives, yet the second trend shows an increasing
number of men who desire to be more actively involved
Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the 13th National Symposium on Dissertations in Social Work at The Ohio State University, April 6,
2001, Columbus, Ohio. Correspondence may be addressed to Dr. Gary L. Dick,
School of Social Work, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210108, Cincinnati,
OH 45221-0108; e-mail: gary.dick@uc.edu
Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 14 No. 2, March 2004 80-92
DOI: 10.1177/1049731503257863
© 2004 Sage Publications
fathers (Cabrera et al., 2000). The Fatherhood Scale (FS)
(Dick, 2000) measures various kinds of paternal involvement, the degree to which the behaviors occurred, the
roles fathers engage in, and the individual’s perceptions
about the quality of the emotional relationship with the
father.
It is now recognized that fathers offer a different kind
of parenting from mothers, and that many fathers desire to
be more involved with their children and move beyond
the traditional breadwinning role. This growing emphasis
on fatherhood in no way diminishes the important role of
women as parents. In many ways, there is a growing
cultural consensus that responsible fatherhood not only
means establishing paternity, but it supports the mother
and the child emotionally and financially. Responsible
fatherhood involves a collaborative relationship with the
mother (even if divorced or unmarried) and for the father
to remain a positive presence in the child’s life. Since the
first edition of The Role of the Father in Child Development (Lamb, 1976), researchers and clinicians are more
open to recognizing broader definitions of what it means
to be a good father. Children grow up in a variety of family types in which the social and cultural expectations are
intertwined with the life course development of the parents. Day-to-day events and the ways fathers interpret
them shape paternal roles and family processes and ultimately influence children’s psychosocial development
(Lamb, 1997).
The concept of fatherhood is evolving, and how a man
is expected to act as a father has changed dramatically
over time (Cabrera et al., 2000; Frank, 1998; Griswold,
80
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 81
1993; Lamb, 2000). Becoming a father requires an identity shift in how a man defines himself. This has stimulated scholars’ interest in how the father role is incorporated into a father role identity (Marsiglio, 1995; Pasley
et al., 2002; Rane & McBride, 2000). The culture of
fatherhood, which sets out expectations of how fathers
should behave, has been quicker to change than the conduct of fatherhood, which is what fathers actually do
(LaRossa, 1997). Historically, fathers have served as a
bridge to the outside world. They are responsible for the
social status of the family and serve as role models for
employment and achievement. Despite the great diversity
of ways fathers carry out their roles, breadwinning has
remained the central unifying element in a father’s contributions to his male children, shaping their sense of self
and defining their manhood (Christiansen & Palkovitz,
2001; Griswold, 1993). Our ideals of fatherhood have
shifted over time and are continually being shaped by the
social and historical contexts in which fathers live out
their lives (Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000).
Scholars’ conceptualization of fatherhood has
changed over time, shifting from the colonial father as the
stern patriarch and spiritual leader in the home, to the
modern playful nurturing father role (see Griswold, 1993,
and LaRossa, 1997 for a greater detail on the history of
fatherhood). The role of the father as the breadwinner
rather than a nurturer came about largely as a result of the
industrial revolution (Pleck & Pleck, 1997). During this
time men were forced to work outside the home spending
long hours away from their children and families. As a
result, families adapted to fathers being away from the
home, and fathers became less involved in the daily care
of their children while the mother’s influence increased.
In response, scholars and experts on family development
became concerned about the father’s absence and his
unavailability as a sex role model to his children
(Griswold, 1993).
In the 1920s, paternal involvement became linked to
theories of psychosocial development. The importance of
fathers in supporting healthy personality development
was emphasized. Although this was applicable to boys
and girls, there was a special concern for the role of the
father in shaping sons’sense of manhood and masculinity
(Griswold, 1993). As fathers became more distant and
mothers spent more time with their children, experts during the 1930s encouraged fathers to become more
involved in the lives of their children, especially as a gender role model. In the 1970s, as more and more women
entered the work force, men lost their role as the sole
breadwinner for their families. As the roles of women
changed, so did the roles of men. Largely as a result of the
feminist movement men were challenged to share equally
in the nurture and care of their children (Griswold, 1993).
As a result, a new fatherhood emerged, a nurturing, more
emotionally available and involved father. As fathers
become more involved in home responsibilities and in the
care of their children in positive and supportive ways,
their wives and children stand to benefit; and this involvement can be rewarding and satisfying for these men.
However, one of the contemporary issues of fatherhood is
the stress experienced from balancing work and family
life, something already quite familiar to women (Berry &
Rao, 1997).
Other scholars, who view fatherhood as multidimensional, would argue that viewing men exclusively as
breadwinners or sex role models limits our understanding
of the complexity of fatherhood roles (LaRossa, 1997;
Pleck & Pleck, 1997). There has never been a single, unitary fatherhood role, and men’s changing roles in the family cannot be charted on a linear track from the moral
overseer to the new nurturing father (Mintz, 1998). Lifecourse events shape how men enact the fatherhood role.
In addition, there are contemporary social trends that
influence family life and a father’s roles in particular.
Cabrera et al. (2000) identified four such current social
themes: An increase in cultural diversity in the United
States, an increase in women’s participation in the labor
force, the absence of many fathers from their children,
and the desire of some fathers for increased involvement
in their children’s lives.
Although economic provision has been a consistent
idea of what a father should do (Christiansen & Palkovitz,
2001), we know very little about the extent to which
fathers are engaging in the nurturing father role. It is
therefore important for social workers to examine the
degree to which men actually engage in these various
paternal roles. Little is known about male adults’ perception of how their father carried out his paternal role, and
understanding the emotional responsiveness of fathers, as
perceived by the male adult, is almost nonexistent. There
are parent involvement scales that focus on how parents’
roles affect the child, but few on the male adult’s perception of the quality of paternal involvement.
Several standardized instruments have been developed
that measure parenting and its relationship to children’s
adjustment to the parenting. Fine, Worley, and Schwebel
(1985) developed the Parent Child-Relationship Survey,
a 24-item instrument that assesses older children’s perceptions of emotional closeness, trust, parental roles, and
anger directed toward parents. The Parental Nurturance
Scale (PNS) (Buri, 1989; Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, &
Mueller, 1988) was constructed to measure parental
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
82
RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
nurturance and parental authority in relations to college
students’ self-esteem. The PNS has repeatedly found a
positive relationship between mother and father nurturance and self-esteem in adolescents (Buri, Kirchner, &
Walsh, 1987; Buri, Murphy, Richtsmeier, & Komar,
1992). The Parenting Scale (PS) (Arnold, O’Leary,
Wolff, & Acker, 1993) was developed to examine dysfunctional parental discipline practices in young children
with the purpose of identifying parental discipline mistakes that may be related to child behavior problems, such
as acting out, aggression, and oppositional disorder. One
of the unique aspects of the PS is its usefulness for early
identification of dysfunctional parenting practices, where
incorrect disciplining of young children (laxness, overreactivity, and verbosity) may contribute to behavior
problems in those children. Copenhaver and Eisler
(2000) developed the Attitude Toward Father Scale
(ATFS), a 45-item self-report instrument that measures
participant’s attitudes toward their father. The ATFS, initially tested on 225 college students, measures the emotional aspects of the relationship with the father, including the fear of negative evaluation by the father. Giuili &
Hudson (1977) developed the Child’s Attitude Toward
Father Scale (CAF), a 25-item instrument designed to
measure the degree of contentment an individual has in
his relationship with the father. The Parental Bonding
Instrument, (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) measures
adults’ perceptions of parental care and control up to
when they were 16 years old. The instrument has been
used in studies to show a relationship between low care
and high parental control and measures on depression,
anxiety, and other psychosocial problems (Pedersen,
1994). The Swedish instrument, Egna Minnen Berorende
Uppfostram (EMBU) (Perris, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von
Knorring, & Perris, 1980), which measures adult’s memories of the parenting behaviors of fathers and mothers,
has been used in research to study abusive men’s relationships with their fathers (Dutton, 1998). The Inventory of
Father Involvement (IVF) (Hawkins, Bradford,
Palkovitz, Christiansen, Day, & Call, 2002), a 26-item
instrument was developed to capture the multidimensional aspects of fathers’ involvement with their children.
Attempting to broaden how scholars conceptualize father
involvement, the scale was developed to include support
of the mother and aspects of nurturing such as praise and
affection. The IVF is a self-report instrument for fathers
to report on their own level of involvement.
This research focuses on the design of a scale to measure male adult children’s perceptions of their relationships with their fathers while they were growing up. It is
very likely that social workers providing treatment
services to adults will encounter individuals whose central issues revolve around their relationships with their
fathers. The scale is intended to assist in the following:
• help social workers assess the type of paternal involve-
ment individuals had with their fathers during childhood
and adolescence
• assist social workers in treatment planning, possibly
helping individuals to sort out their unresolved issues
with their fathers, clarifying the strengths of the relationship, as well as areas of deprivation
• as men examine their relationships with their fathers, social workers can help them construct the kind of role they
want to have with their own children
• provide an instrument for further research into understanding levels of paternal involvement.
Father involvement is changing, and it is important for social workers to have an instrument with which to measure
paternal involvement.
METHOD
Conceptual Framework of the Fatherhood Scale
It is important to view fathers as being involved in a
variety of roles that affect their identities, and that their
level of paternal involvement is socially constructed and
individual in nature (Marsiglio, 1995; Parke, 2000).
Therefore, all items were initially considered within the
framework that men enact their roles within a cultural and
historical context; that there is a great diversity in how
men carry out their role as a father; that men are committed to a variety of identities, some of which will compete
with fatherhood; and that life circumstances influence the
degree to which men embrace and enact their role as
father. In the development of the FS, items were considered if they represented a range of paternal behaviors,
including negative and positive and whether certain items
represented the subjective interpretive meaning about the
quality of the paternal emotional relationship.
Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) noted that multiple items
could be chosen to represent a hypothetical domain and
suggest the domain-sampling method. This involves
defining each construct clearly and then developing items
that fit the definition of each construct. The FS measures
four domains: (a) actual events that occurred with the
father (My father helped me with homework); (b) participants’perceptions of their fathers (My father is mean); (c)
how they felt about their fathers (I have warm feelings
toward my father); and (d) the emotional responsiveness
of the father (My father comforted me when I was feeling
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 83
bad), as perceived by the individual completing the
instrument. The 64-item FS measures perceptions of the
emotional responsiveness of the father based on the subjective experience of the participants. Each item is ranked
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Higher numbers indicate positive paternal involvement,
and 11 negative items are inversely scored.
Guiding Theory for Scale Development
It is important to view fatherhood as multidimensional
and dynamic. As fathers become involved with their children, they enact various roles, many of which shift and
change as the family moves through time. Understanding
the degree to which fathers are emotionally available has
implications for clinical social work practice. The FS was
designed based on dimensions of paternal involvement
(Hawkins & Palkovitz, 1999; Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, &
Levine, 1985; Palkovitz, 1997); the roles of fatherhood,
or the dominant cultural images of fatherhood (Griswold,
1993; LaRossa, 1997; Pleck & Pleck, 1997), with selfpsychology, a theory of the self (Kohut, 1977). Selfpsychological theory postulates that a certain type of
paternal behaviors, such as warmth, empathy, and emotional responsiveness, are critical for the development of
a self-structure. Self-psychology is synonymous with the
nurturing father role and provides a framework for understanding the importance of the father’s emotional availability to the child.
Social learning theory is one theoretical framework
that explains level of paternal involvement a father has
with his children. The modeling hypothesis proposes that
a man either models his own father’s level of involvement, or he compensates for a lack of his own father’s
involvement (Pleck, 1997). However, a man is more
likely to model his father’s level of involvement when his
father’s affective response to him is positive but compensate for it when the affective response is negative (Pleck,
1997). Self-psychology was integrated into the scale
because it offers a more interpretive perspective about the
quality of the relationship than modeling and imitation.
Self-psychological theory. What has been lacking in
research on fatherhood has been a theory explaining the
importance of the psychological presence of the father in
the child’s life. Rohner and Veneziano (2001), in their
analysis of approximately 100 studies on parent-child
relationships, found that children’s perceptions of their
father’s acceptance/rejection, affection/indifference was
as important as mother love in predicting the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children and young
adults. Self psychology (Kohut, 1977) postulates that a
critical component in the development of the child’s
sense of self is for the child to have an empathic relationship with the parent. Self-psychological theory, although
it has not been empirically tested, provides an explanatory model of how fathers, in addition to mothers, can
shape and influence the child’s self-esteem and potentially influence how he assumes a role as a father.
Empathy in its broadest sense is a special mode of perceiving the psychological experience of another. For children to grow into healthy adults, they need certain empathic responses from parents. A father who is empathic is
more likely to have an instant identification, a quick and
deep understanding of the internal experience of his child
(Berger, 1987). Empathy is central to self psychology and
these empathic responses are what Kohut (1977)
described as selfobject functions. Selfobjects are not the
person, or the self of the other person, but they are the
child’s subjective experience of the relationship (Bacal,
1995), hence the importance of a retrospective design.
The formulation of the self is dependent on the caretakers
in the child’s environment (and in this case, the father)
being able to continually provide certain psychological
responses that support the emerging sense of self in the
child. These selfobjects functions are (a) mirroring, (b)
idealizing, and (c) twinship. Mirroring is the need to be
admired, recognized, feel affirmed, accepted, and appreciated by a loving, emotionally responsive parent. Idealizing is the need to be part of, or linked to, an admired and
respected other (Bacal, 1992). Twinship is the need to
experience alikeness with a stable, wise, and calm idealized other. Psychologically speaking, the child needs to
feel linked to a father whom he or she admires, who is stable, calm, and wise.
When Kohut (1977) placed the self at the core of the
personality, the quest for self-esteem became central to
personality development. The failure of the mother or the
father to provide these functions leaves the child desperately searching for the self and the missing selfobject
functions. Narcissistic rage emerges when the fragile self
is misunderstood, or when the flow of empathy is cut off.
This theory assumes that the quality of the father-child
relationship is an inevitable part of the development of a
psychological self-structure. A cold, rejecting, and indifferent father would likely contribute to low self-esteem in
his children. The ability of the father to be emotionally
responsive, to be empathic, and to serve as a calming stable force in the child’s life will contribute to the internalization of these qualities in the child. An empathic father
can understand the child’s needs, the immediacy of those
needs, and what should be done to meet them (Rowe &
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
84
RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
MacIssac, 1989). As the father protects the child from too
much frustration and stimulation, this kind of parenting
promotes the internalization of self-soothing mechanisms
and the maintenance of self-esteem (Rowe & MacIssac,
1989).
Paternal involvement. Lamb (1987) defined paternal
involvement as consisting of three major components:
engagement, accessibility, and responsibility. Engagement operationalized in the FS is the one-on-one contact a
father has with his child, such as spending time together
in activities. When a father is this positively engaged with
his child, the caregiving behaviors foster trust, provide a
model for father involvement, and facilitate a bonding
between a father and his children. On the other hand,
because some fathers engage negatively with their children, items were constructed for the FS to measure negative paternal engagement. Physical abuse done by the
father (abusing the child, hitting a sibling) emotional maltreatment (father says mean things, says he does not like
the child), and exposure to marital violence (child sees
father beating or hitting the mother) are items to measure
the harmful ways in which fathers negatively engage with
their children, cutting off the flow of much needed
selfobject functions.
Accessibility is the kind of involvement in which the
father is involved in a specific activity, such as cooking,
reading, cutting the grass, or performing household
chores, but is available to respond to the child. In other
words, he is there when the child needs him. In the FS,
accessibility is operationalized as the father’s availability
to also be a problem solver, and the degree to which he is
verbally engaged to help the child sort out his problems.
The third component of paternal involvement is
responsibility: the degree to which the father is accountable for the child’s welfare and care (Lamb, 1987).
Responsibility involves routine child-care tasks, such as
taking the child to the doctor, reading to the child, or
attending parent-teacher conferences, and other such
tasks that support and promote the growth and development of the child. Working fathers who provide financially for their families make a significant contribution to
the child’s well-being. For many fathers, the good provider role has been their most significant and responsible
contribution to their children, whereas spending high
quality individual time with the child and maintaining the
emotional bond is nonexistent.
Roles of fathers. The fatherhood role has been historically conceptualized as a multistage model that has
shifted from the father as the moral overseer, to the good
provider, to the sex role model and to the new nurturing
father (Frank, 1998; Griswold, 1993; Pleck, 1987;
Rotundo, 1985). The dominant role as a good provider
has placed restrictions on fathers’ involvement with their
children (Griswold, 1993), and this may have limited
their ability to be emotionally involved with their children or at minimum, not as available as the father may
have wanted to be. As gender roles in our society have
changed, a new ideal image of fatherhood has emerged.
This is one in which the father is nurturing and sensitive,
and he is a man who shares equally with his wife in most
aspects of child care. The FS was designed to measure
paternal roles—specifically the moral father role, the
gender role model, and the good provider role. Because
gender roles influence family roles, additional items were
developed to measure the androgynous role. The nurturing father role is synonymous with positive paternal emotional responsiveness, and therefore items developed to
capture those constructs are pooled.
Sample
A convenience purposeful sample of 311 males participated in this study. Participants were recruited from
training seminars of child welfare workers, domestic violence groups for male spouse abusers, graduate classes in
social work, and teachers and fathers from a public Montessori high school in Ohio. The rationale to include
fathers from each of these groups was to optimize the
variance of the types of fathers the participants may have
experienced in their childhood and adolescent years. It
was hypothesized that abusive men would be more likely
to have negative and/or abusive fathers (Dutton, 1998),
and that men working in child welfare, attending graduate
school in social work, or men with children in a Montessori school that encourages a high level of paternal
involvement, would possibly have a more nurturing and
involved father.
Procedure
The researcher introduced the study to groups that the
participants were already attending, such as batterer treatment groups, training seminars, graduate classes, and
parent meetings at the Montessori school. Participants
were invited to participate in a research study about
father-son relationships. They would be asked to consider
the ways their fathers’ parenting skills may have influenced the ways they now felt about themselves and how
they currently settle conflict with their intimate partners.
The men were informed that participation was voluntary
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 85
and anonymous. If the group members indicated that they
were interested in participating in the study, they received
a letter introducing the study plus the surveys. The assessment packet contained a demographic form, the Conflict
Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, &
Sugarman, 1996) (2), Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965), and the Fatherhood Scale (Dick,
2000). Because of the interest and an eagerness to participate, the majority of members completed the surveys in
their groups and mailed them to the researcher. The
researcher attended several group meetings over the
course of 2 months to collect the data.
Because of the sensitive nature of the questions, participants were told that they could withdraw from the study
at any time. It was stated that some of the questions
were sensitive and might invoke strong emotions;
therefore a list of social service agencies providing
counseling was included should anyone need counseling. The researcher’s phone number was on the letter
introducing the survey, and it was explained that the
researcher was available to answer any questions about
the research, or to discuss the use of professional help
should anyone experience emotional distress from participating. No respondent phoned or indicated any unusual
distress as a result of participating. This research was
approved by Ohio State University’s Human Subjects
Review Board.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The mean age of the respondents (N = 311) was 34
years (SD = 10.5). Of the participants, 50% earned less
than $40,000 annually; 23% earned between $40,000 and
$60,000; and 26% had incomes in excess of $60,000. The
majority of the participants (66%) had always lived with
their fathers during childhood and adolescence, and 76%
identified the father as the primary male caretaker while
growing up. Of the participants, 40% had a college degree
or higher, and 35% of their fathers had attained a college
degree or a graduate degree. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (76%). Although 47% reported
being currently married, almost one third (n = 107) had
experienced a parental divorce while still in childhood
(M = 10.3, SD = 7.73).
The mean score in the study on the original 75-item
Fatherhood Scale was 213 (SD = 42.15). The range was
from 75 to 250, out of a possible range from 75 to 375. Of
the participants, 40% had fathers who never or rarely
engaged with them, compared to 10% with fathers who
often or always engaged with them.
Reliability
Multiple items that measure the same construct are
expected to be internally consistent; this is to measure the
same phenomena (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used in this study to
evaluate the subscale reliabilities. Each subscale was
investigated separately, and the alpha coefficients are
shown in Table 1. It is also important in scale development to make a decision about the acceptability of the
magnitude of the reliability coefficient. The researcher
needs to take into consideration what decisions will be
made based on the scores, and the consequences of those
decisions (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). In the early
stages of construct validation, it is acceptable for instruments to have modest reliabilities, such as 0.70 (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 1994). When comparing groups, a reliability of 0.80 is adequate, whereas when important decisions
regarding tests scores (selection and placement) are made
about individuals, a reliability of 0.95 is the desirable
standard (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). For the purposes
of this study, to establish construct validity, an acceptable
level was set at 0.80.
Although the interitem correlations within each
subscale ranged from 0.80 to 0.96, seven subscales had
interitem correlations above 0.85, indicating that the
items within the subscales were highly related. Reliability and the standard error of measurement are interrelated, and it is necessary to report the standard error of
measurement. The standard error of measurement for the
subscales ranged from 0.32 to 0.83, all below the recommended 5% of the scale range score. Ongoing investigation of the reliability of the Fatherhood Scale will continue, but these alpha levels suggest that the scale has
strong internal consistency in its present form.
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is an appropriate statistical technique
for examining the underlying structure of a large number
of variables and for data reduction (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). For factor analysis to be meaningful, it is important that a strong theoretical foundation
underlies the development of the instrument (Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991). Interpretation of the meaning of the
factors only makes sense in terms of what is known about
the constructs under examination. The Kaiser-MeyerOlkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Test indicates that
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
86
RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
TABLE 1:
Scale Descriptives, Alphas, and Standard Error of Measurements (SEMs)
Subscale
α
SEMs
M
SD
Positive emotional responsiveness
Positive engagement
Negative engagement
Moral father role
Good provider role
Gender role model
Androgynous role
Paternal accessibility
Paternal responsibility
Total fatherhood scale
.96
.93
.85
.86
.90
.80
.83
.87
.90
.98
1.5
1.1
.67
.47
.46
.44
.45
.32
.83
4.5
57.0
36.9
48.2
14.6
19.4
16.1
19.9
10.2
27.8
232.9
18.3
13.6
8.09
5.68
5.54
5.29
5.51
3.95
10.0
54.3
underlying factors caused a significant proportion of the
variance in the variables.
A principal components analysis (PCA) was selected
because in addition to extracting common variance
among the variables, principal components extracts variance that is unique to an indicator as well as error variance
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). A PCA was also used for
item reduction. Principal components extracts variance in
descending order, so that the first indicator extracts the
maximum variance possible; then the second indicator
extracts the maximum variance possible from what is left
from the first component. To establish order from various
domains of fatherhood, PCA was utilized to determine if
the relations among the variables reflected the constructs
on which the scale was developed. It was hypothesized
that two general factors (positive and negative fathering)
would emerge accounting for the majority of the variance, and that within these common factors would be specific variables representing the roles of fathers. In addition, there was reason to believe that many aspects of
positive paternal involvement, (a) such as a warm, close,
and loving relationship, (b) responsible and accessible
fathering, were likely to be intercorrelated; that is, factor
analysis would likely produce a general factor. Orthogonal and oblique rotations were used during an array of
factor analysis to examine the data. The major goal in any
rotation is to obtain theoretically meaningful factors
within the simplest factor structure. Because quartimax
rotation rotates the initial factor, so that a variable loads
high on one factor and as low as possible on all the other
factors, it seemed logical to employ (Hair et al., 1995).
All items revealed a communality of 1, indicating all
the variance was explained by the common factors. After
factor extraction, the scree plot flattened at approximately 13 components. The principal components analysis using a quartimax rotation method produced 13 factors that possessed eigenvalues with value of at least 1,
accounting for 75% of the total variance. A factor loading
represents the correlation between the original variable
and its factor. With the sample size of 311, guidelines recommend significant factor loadings of at least 0.33 (Hair
et al., 1995).
The factors were rather straightforward to interpret. As
indicated in Table 2, the 13 factors identified were the following: the Positive Emotional Engagement; Emotional
Abuse; Physically Abusive; Breadwinner; Wife Abuser;
Responsible; Moral Role; Accessible and Verbal; Gender
Role Model; School Involvement; Emotionally Expressive; Androgynous; and the Hateful Father. Factors loading on more than one factor were placed with the factor
that was the most theoretically related, after examining
face validity and factor loadings. Items that failed to load
highly on any factors resulted in the elimination of 11
items. Factor 1, Positive Emotional Engagement, which
accounted for 41% of the variance, became three
subscales: the positive paternal engagement, positive
paternal emotional responsiveness, and the responsible
father. Theoretically and statistically, they are related, but
they clearly represent different types of fathering that
have practical relevance for social work practice. In
examining the component matrix, a decision was made to
combine the factors of Physically Abusive, Emotional
Abuse, and Wife Abuser into the subscale called negative
paternal engagement. The factor representing Emotionally Expressive was combined with Androgynous. Factor
13 only had one item (Hateful Father) and therefore was
eliminated from the scale. Nine subscales were developed
for the testing of the FS: Positive Engagement, Positive
Emotional Responsiveness, Negative Engagement,
Moral Father Role, Good Provider Role, Gender Role
Model, Androgynous Role, Accessible Father, and the
Responsible Father.
Content Validity
Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) indicated that defining
an appropriate domain of content is essential for establishing content validity. The FS was designed to follow
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 87
TABLE 2:
Results for the Extraction of Component Factors
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Description of factor
Positive emotional engagement
Emotional abuse
Physically abusive
Breadwinner
Wife abuser
Responsible
Moral role
Accessible and verbal
Gender role
School involvement
Emotionally expressive
Androgynous
Hateful
Total
% of
variance
Cumulative
%
31.005
3.600
3.005
2.665
2.324
2.124
1.998
1.653
1.577
1.568
1.533
1.312
1.277
41.339
4.800
4.073
3.554
3.098
2.831
2.264
2.204
2.103
2.091
2.044
1.749
1.703
41.339
46.140
50.213
53.767
56.865
59.696
62.360
64.564
66.667
68.757
70.801
72.550
74.252
NOTE: Extraction method: principal components analysis; rotation method: quartimax with Kaiser normalization
the principles of the domain-sampling model, which
asserts that an infinite number of items could potentially
capture the constructs for each subscale (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). To insure breadth and depth of the construct, this model assumes that when developing an
instrument, the researcher should ideally select a random
sample of items from an infinite population of items. It is
impossible to define all potential items that could be used
for each subscale in the FS, therefore content validity
must be assessed in other ways.
One approach is to use competent judges who are
experts within the domain area to determine the degree to
which the items constitute the essential features of the
concept. Experts in the field of social work, fatherhood,
and self-psychology helped establish face validity as to
which items captured the concepts. Each expert independently reviewed the items and made specific changes
to the wording of the items making sure each item represented a single idea and that they were clear and direct.
They suggested that items should not be bound by a certain level of socioeconomic status, and that those items
that may be emotionally stimulating not be placed in the
beginning of the scale. The expert on self-psychology
suggested that the items should be stated in a way that
tapped more into the unconscious. This example, “I have
warm feelings for my father,” may be more representative
of the longing for twinship experiences, than the reality of
the father-child relationship.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Constructs reflect hypotheses about abstract and latent
behaviors rather than observable and concrete dimensions
of behavior (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Construct
validity is the degree to which items in a measure relate to
other items as theoretically expected (Rubin & Babbie,
2001). Construct validity consists of convergent and
discriminant validity. Convergent validity refers to the convergence of different methods to measure the same construct (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). One way to assess
convergent validity is to determine if the results of the new
measurement correlate with other methods of measuring
the same construct (Rubin & Babbie, 2001). However, data
from other forms of assessment measuring fatherhood was
not available on these respondents. Another way to establish convergent validity is the degree to which subscale and
item scores are correlated to those that they are theoretically similar (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Another way
to demonstrate construct validity is to determine if there is
a correlation between variables in that are theoretically
associated (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Construct
validity was tested by examining the subscale scores with
other subscale scores that are assumed to be theoretically
related. It can be assumed that if fathers are positively
engaged with their children, they would also be accessible
and most likely be positively emotionally responsive to
them. Examination of these subscales in Table 3 indicates
that they are substantially correlated.
For a test to have discriminant validity, subscales that
are not theoretically related should not be highly correlated. To examine discriminant validity, negative paternal
involvement, in principle, should not have high correlations with Positive Emotional Responsiveness or the
Moral Father Role. Several correlations were run on individual test items that are in theory opposite. Table 4
shows nonsignificant low correlations between the items.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
88
RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
TABLE 3:
Correlations Between the Fatherhood Scale Subscales
Subscale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Positive engagement
2. Positive emotional responsiveness
3. Negative engagement
4. Moral father
5. Gender role model
6. Good provider
7. Responsible father
8. Accessible father
9. Androgynous role
___
.86**
___
.43**
.43**
___
.71**
.70**
.30*
___
.72**
.79**
.16
.61**
___
.65**
.66**
.31**
.62**
.60**
___
.88**
.78**
.43**
.69**
.64**
.70**
___
.88**
.90**
.45**
.68**
.75**
.63**
.79**
___
.78**
.91**
.36**
.65**
.77**
.66**
.74**
.85**
___
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two- tailed.
TABLE 4:
Item Correlations
Subscale
1. My father is caring
2. Said he didn’t like me
3. Praised me
4. Said he loved me
5. Mean dad
6. Hit mom
7. Father comforted me
8. Hurt my feelings
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.___
.30**
.___
.59**
.28**
.___
.53**
.01
.59**
.___
.43**
.42**
.50**
.24**
.___
.30**
.40**
.28**
.39**
.51**
.___
.59**
.17*
.66**
.52**
.44**
.26**
.___
.23**
.53*
.31**
–.07
.45**
.30*
.17*
.___
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two- tailed.
The results show that there are significant correlations
between all the subscales and the FS. A Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.98 was obtained for the FS.
Establishing Known-Groups Validity
Criterion-related validity is based on some external
measure that is believed to be another indicator or measure of the same variable that your instrument intends to
measure. Concurrently validity consists of two subtypes:
(a) the ability of the measure to predict a criterion will
occur in the future, and (b) how well the measure corresponds to a criterion that is concurrently known (Rubin &
Babbie, 2001). A subtype of criterion validity called
known groups validity differentiates between known
groups on specific variables being measured. It was
hypothesized that the constructs of self-esteem and intimate violence would differentiate between individuals
with positive paternal involvement and individuals with
negative paternal engagement. Prior research studies
have shown that men who abuse intimate partners have
grown up witnessing marital violence (Caeser, 1988;
Dutton, 1998) and have low self-esteem (Hotaling &
Sugarman, 1986). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965) and the Conflict Tactics Scale (2)
(Straus et al., 1996) were selected because both instruments have well-established reliability and validity.
To further test the hypothesis that actively involved
empathic and emotionally available fathers help to sustain self-esteem, analyses were conducted on measures of
the FS with measures on self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965).
The analyses consisted of examining the scores in the top
one third of the range (scores ranging from 102 to 162)
and comparing them to the scores constituting the lower
one third of the range (scores ranging from 33 to 79).
These two groups, which represented low and high positive paternal emotional involvement, were analyzed for
differences in self-esteem. The analysis indicated a statistically significant difference in self-esteem scores
t (–2.134) + .035, p < .05) between the group with high
positive paternal emotional engagement and self-esteem
(M = 32.8, SD = 4.7), and the group with low positive
paternal emotional engagement and self-esteem (M =
30.6, SD = 5.07).
To further test for discriminant validity, analysis
showed a significant negative relationship between measures of men who reported a positive emotional relationship with their fathers and scores on intimate abuse (r =
–.25, p = 0.01), and between measures of self-esteem and
measures on intimate violence (r = –.29, p = 0.01).
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 89
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION
TO SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
The FS was designed as a retrospective instrument to
measure individuals’ perceptions of their relationships
with their fathers during childhood and adolescence. The
alpha reliabilities and the interitem correlations indicate
that the instrument offers good beginning evidence of the
scale’s internal consistency. The FS has produced excellent reliabilities for theoretical purposes on all subscales
and acceptable reliabilities for comparing groups. The
strongest subscales showing acceptable reliabilities for
use with individuals are positive paternal engagement,
positive paternal emotional responsiveness, the responsible father, and the good provider role. The lower reliabilities on the constructs of roles may be, in part, due to
the limited number of items developed for those constructs and clearly need further development. The FS
offers an instrument for continuing research on fatherhood and is helpful to social work practitioners assessing
adults’ relationships with their fathers. With further validation, the FS will offer clinicians a useful tool in assessing paternal involvement with regard to helping adults
who have relationship issues with their fathers.
A limitation of this study is the use of a convenience
sampling strategy, which was predominately White. The
FS scale may have cultural implications that do not take
into account issues pertaining to cultural diversity. Future
studies with a random selection from diverse groups will
allow for issues pertaining to cultural diversity to be
explored. These future studies will help in the validation
process of the FS. Another major limitation of the
research study was the exclusive use of male participants.
Future validation of the scale will include female participants. Several factors accounted for minimal variance in
the FS scale. This may, in part, be due to the small number
of items selected to represent those constructs and/or the
wording of the items. The factor analysis assisted in item
reduction and provided preliminary evidence of construct
and content validity. In the future, to further validate content validity, it will be important to move from this initial
exploratory analysis to a confirmatory factor analysis
using structural equation modeling.
Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results
with clients. Self psychology is a theory that has not been
empirically tested, and although it provides a framework
for understanding the importance of the father’s role in
the emotional life of his children, it needs further
research. It may be more useful for social work clinicians
to use the FS as one of many methods to explore an indi-
vidual’s relationship with his father. Following reducing
the scale to 64 items, a score below 128 would indicate
that, overall, the father was rarely involved in positive
behaviors with his child, whereas a score above 256
would indicate a perception of a positively engaged
father. What may be most beneficial for clinicians is to
use the subscales in discussion with a client, as a springboard for a deeper, more thoughtful reflection on his relationship with their father. A multidimensional scale such
as the FS has utility for social work practice, especially in
understanding the relationship between the individual
and the social environment. Fathers, much like mothers,
have competing roles and responsibilities that may hinder
their ability to enact the kind of role as a parent they may
desire.
Conclusion
Social work has focused on the mother as a unit of
analysis in terms of her role in the attachment and bonding process, typically forsaking inquiry into the father’s
contribution to the emotional life of his children.
Although the term maternal deprivation is commonly
understood to explain the condition of the infant who is
emotionally abandoned by the mother, there exists perhaps, in children and adults, the prevalence of paternal
deprivation, or an internal sense of being emotionally
disconnected from one’s father. As a social problem, the
lack of father involvement in a child’s life should be a
major concern for the social work profession. We have
entered a time in the United States where a common
characteristic defining childhood is growing up fatherless (Blankenhorn, 1995). The FS has practical implications for social work practitioners doing individual,
group, and family therapy. It also has implications for
use in early intervention programs, as a way to engage
the fathers. Social workers who have men in therapy,
especially those social workers who conduct groups for
men who batter women, often find the father factor a significant issue in the emotional life of these men. The FS
could be useful in bringing perspective to one’s relationship with his own father and in helping men unravel the
complexities of becoming the father he wants to be with
his own children.
Although this research will contribute to an understanding of the ways that men engage in the role of fatherhood, one key outcome may be that social workers’ interest in the topic will be stimulated, thereby leading to
further research in the field.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
90
RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
APPENDIX A
Subscales of the Fatherhood Scale
The Gender Role Model
Positive Engagement
3. My father took me on activities.
9. During my teen years my father and I did things together.
10. My father liked to spend time with me.
39. My father and I enjoyed time together.
49. My father and I had good times together.
Positive Paternal Emotional Responsiveness
5. My father told me that I was a good boy/girl.
6. My father is a caring person.
8. During my childhood I felt close to my father.
12. I felt close to my father as a teenager.
14. I know my father cared about me.
35. My father comforted me when I was feeling bad.
37. My father made me feel special.
40. My father was loving toward me.
45. I have warm feelings for my father.
53. My father understood me.
54. I told my father I loved him.
56. My father praised me.
62. My father showed concern when I got hurt.
Negative Paternal Engagement
11. My father spanked me.
13. My father hit my mother.
15. My father was ashamed of me as a child.
20. My father used to say things to hurt my feelings.
25. When I got in trouble my father would punish me physically.
27. I saw my father beat my mother.
41. I was abused by my father.
44. When I was a child, my father shouted at me if I did something
wrong.
57. My father is mean.
59. My father used to get angry and say he didn’t like me.
63. I saw my father hit one of my sibs.
The Moral Father Role
26. My father taught me right from wrong.
32. My father went to church with me.
50. My father instilled important values in me.
61. My dad talked to me about God.
65. My father used to say grace at mealtime.
REFERENCES
Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The
parenting scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline
situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137-144.
Bacal, H. (1992). Contributions from self psychology. In R. Klein,
H. S. Bernard, & D. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary
group psychotherapy (pp. 55-85). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Bacal, H. A. (1995). The centrality of self object experience in psychological relatedness. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 5, 403-410.
Berger, D. (1987). Clinical empathy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
16. My dad taught me to fight back.
21. My father encouraged me to say what I felt.
31. I could talk to my father about anything.
46. My dad would talk to me about things going on in the world.
42. My father talked to me about sex.
47. My dad taught me what it was like to be a man.
The Good Provider Role
17. My father made sure I had the things I needed like clothing and
toys.
19. My father provided well for us financially.
29. My father was a good breadwinner for the family.
36. My dad was always employed while I was growing up.
The Androgynous Role
4. My father told me that he loved me.
23. My father hugged me.
24. My father is a good man.
28. I saw my father cry.
34. My father helped my mom clean the house.
52. My father is a kind man.
64. My dad would cook meals.
Responsible Paternal Engagement
1. My father helped me with my homework.
7. My father attended school conferences.
18. My father read to me as a child.
22. My dad showed interest in my schoolwork.
33. I remember playing sports with my father.
48. My dad attended sporting events in which I played.
51. My father took me to the doctor.
60. My dad attended school activities in which I participated.
The Accessible Father
2. My father talked to be about my personal problems.
30. My father helped me solve my problems.
38. When I got angry, I used to talk things over with my dad.
55. My father was around when I needed him.
Berry, J. O., & Rao, J. M. (1997). Balancing employment and fatherhood: A systems perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 18(4), 386402.
Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most
urgent social problem. New York: Basic Books.
Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 33-49.
Buri, J. R., Kirchner, P. A., & Walsh, J. M. (1987). Familial correlates
of self-esteem in young American adults. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 583-588.
Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988).
Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on selfesteem. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-282.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
Dick / THE FATHERHOOD SCALE 91
APPENDIX B
The Fatherhood Scale
Directions: Think about your relationship with you father during your childhood and adolescence. Thinking about that person,
answer each question by placing a number between 1 and 5 on the line before each question. Please choose a number that most accurately reflects your perceptions of the relationship with your father or the person you identify as your father while you were growing
up from the choices below.
_____ My father helped me solve my problems.
_____ I could talk to my father about anything.
1 = Never
_____ My father went to church with me.
2 = Rarely
_____ I remember playing sports with my father.
3 = Sometimes
_____ My father helped my mother clean the house.
4 = Often
_____ My father comforted me when I was feeling bad.
5 = Always
_____ My dad was always employed while I was growing up.
_____ My father made me feel special.
_____ My father helped me with my homework.
_____ When I got angry I used to talk things over with my dad.
_____ My father talked to me about my personal problems.
_____ My father and I enjoyed time together.
_____ My father took me on activities.
_____ My dad would talk to me about things going on in the world.
_____ My father told me that he loved me.
_____ My father was loving toward me.
_____ My father told me that I was a good boy/girl.
_____ I was abused by my father.
_____ My father is a caring person.
_____ My father talked to me about sex.
_____ My father attended school conferences.
_____ My father used to say grace at mealtime.
_____ During my childhood I felt close to my father.
_____ When I was a child, my father shouted at me if I did something
_____ During my teen years my father and I did things together.
wrong.
_____ My father liked to spend time with me.
_____ I have warm feelings toward my father.
_____ My father spanked me.
_____ My talked to me about things going on in the world.
_____ I felt close to my father as a teenager.
_____ My dad taught me what it was like to be a man.
_____ My father hit my mother.
_____ My dad attended sporting events in which I played.
_____ I know that my father cared about me.
_____ My father and I had good times together.
_____ My father was ashamed of me as a child.
_____ My father instilled important values in me.
_____ My dad taught me to fight back.
_____ My father made sure I had the things I needed such as clothing _____ My dad took me to the doctor.
_____ My father is a kind man.
& toys.
_____ My father understood me.
_____ My father read to me as a child.
_____ I told my father that I loved him.
_____ My father provided well for us financially.
_____ My father was around when I needed him.
_____ My father used to say things that hurt my feelings.
_____ My father praised me.
_____ My father encouraged me to say what I felt.
_____ My father is mean.
_____ My dad showed interest in my school work.
_____ My father used to get angry and say he didn’t like me.
_____ My father hugged me.
_____ My dad attended school activities in which I participated.
_____ My father is a good man.
_____ My dad talked to me about God.
_____ When I got in trouble, my father would punish me physically.
_____ My father showed concern when I got hurt.
_____ My father taught me right from wrong.
_____ I saw my father hit one of my siblings.
_____ I saw my father beat my mother.
_____ My dad would cook meals.
_____ I saw my father cry.
_____ My father was a good breadwinner for the family.
Buri, J. R., Murphy, P., Richtsmeier, L. M., & Komar, K. K. (1992).
Stability of parental nurturance as a salient predictor of selfesteem. Psychological Reports, 71, 535-543.
Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., &
Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child
Development, 71, 127-136.
Caeser, L. P. (1988). Exposure to violence in the families of origin
among wife abusers and maritally nonviolent men. Violence & Victims, 3, 49-62.
Christiansen, S. L., & Palkovitz, R. (2001). Why the good provider
role still matters: Providing as a form of paternal involvement.
Journal of Family Issues, 22, 84-106.
Coles, R. L. (2001). The parenting roles and goals of single Black fulltime fathers. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25, 101-116.
Copenhaver, M. M., & Eisler, R. M. (2000). The development and validation of the attitude toward father scale. Behavior Modification,
24, 740-750.
Dick, G. L. (2000). The role of paternal involvement in male violence
against female intimates. Dissertation Abstracts International,
61(02), 767. (UMI No. 9962389)
Dutton, D. G. (1998). The abusive personality: Violence and control in
intimate relationships. New York: Guilford.
Fine, M. A., Worley, S. M., & Schwebel, A. I. (1985). The ParentChild Relationship Survey: An examination of its psychometric
properties. Psychological Reports, 57, 155-161.
Frank, S. M. (1998). Life with father: Parenthood and masculinity in
the nineteenth-century American north. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Giuili, C., & Hudson, W. (1977). Child’s attitude toward father scale.
Journal of Social Service Research, 1, 77-92.
Griswold, M. (1993). Fatherhood in America: A history. New York:
Basic Books.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
92
RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
Hawkins, A. J., Bradford, K. P., Palkovitz, R., Christiansen, S. L., Day,
R. D., & Call, V. R. (2002). The inventory of father involvement: A
pilot study of a new measure of father involvement. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 10, 183-196.
Hawkins, A. J., & Palkovitz, R. (1999). Beyond ticks and clicks: The
need for more diverse and broader conceptualizations and measures of father involvement. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8, 11-32.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers
in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence & Victims, 1, 101-124.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International
Universities Press.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1976). The role of the father in child development.
New York: John Wiley.
Lamb, M. E. (1987). Introductions: The emergent American father. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspective
(pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development
(3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An
overview. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 23-42.
Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985).
Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25, 883-894.
LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marsiglio, W. (1995). Fatherhood scholarship: An overview and
agenda for the future. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social policy (pp. 1-20). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage &
the Family, 62, 1173-1191.
Marsiglio, W., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Exploring fatherhood diversity: Implications for conceptualizing father involvement. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 269-293.
Mintz, S. (1998). From patriarchy to androgyny and other myths: Placing men’s family roles in historical perspective. In A. Booth & A.
C. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved?
What difference does it make? (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing involvement: Expanding conceptualizations of men’s caring in contemporary families. In A. J.
Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond
deficit perspectives (pp. 200-216). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Parke, R. D. (2000). Father involvement: A developmental psychological perspective. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 43-58.
Parker, G., Tupling, M., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding
instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 5, 1-10.
Pasley, K., Futris, T. D., & Martie, L. (2002). Effects of commitment
and psychological centrality on fathering. Journal of Marriage &
Family, 64(1), 130-138.
Pedersen, W. (1994). Parental relations, mental health, and delinquency in adolescents. Adolescence, 29, 975-982.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and
analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., von Knorring, L., & Perris, H.
(1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of
parental rearing behavior. Acta Psychiatricia Scandinavia, 61,
265-274.
Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 66-103). New York: John Wiley.
Pleck, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1997). Fatherhood ideals in the United
States: Historical dimensions. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the
father in child development (pp. 33-48). New York: John Wiley.
Rane, T. R., & McBride, B. A. (2000). Identity theory as a guide to
understanding fathers’ involvement with their children. Journal of
Family Issues, 2, 347-366.
Rohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father
love: History and contemporary evidence. Review of General Psychology, 5, 382-405.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society & the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rotundo, E. A. (1985). American fatherhood: A historical perspective.
American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 7-25.
Rowe, C. E., & MacIssac, D. S. (1989). Empathic attunement: The
techniques of psychoanalytic self psychology. Northvale, NJ: Jason
Aronson.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for social work (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stone, G. (2002). Nonresidential father postdivorce well-being: The
role of social supports. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36, 139149.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on January 20, 2016
View publication stats