





































Microsoft Word - Vol10_DonovickRodrig#2AF7DC.doc


52

Graduate Student Journal of Psychology                                                                            Copyright 2008 by the Department of Counseling & Clinical Psychology
2008, Vol. 10                                                                                                                        Teachers College, Columbia University                         ISSN 1088-4661

Parenting Practices Among First Generation
Spanish-Speaking Latino Families:

A Spanish Version of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

Melissa R. Donovick
Utah State University

Melanie M. Domenech Rodríguez
Utah State University

The present study examined the applicability of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire to a Spanish-
speaking Latino population. Results of the reliability and concurrent validity testing suggest that the
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire may be a valuable tool for use with Spanish-speaking Latino families.
The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire in Spanish assessed parenting practices among 50 first-generation
Spanish-speaking Latino families of primarily Mexican origin with a child between 4 and 9 years of age
(n = 96 parents, n = 50 children). Mothers and fathers completed questionnaires in Spanish to assess
parent and child behaviors. Results show that over 80% of parents included in the sample endorsed high
levels of monitoring; they also reported using physical affection as a way to praise their child and fre-
quent engagement in conversation with their children about school activities. Few parents used time-out
or ignoring as methods of discipline, and very few reported using corporal punishment. Parental in-
volvement, positive parenting, and monitoring significantly predicted externalizing and total behavioral
problems among Latino children.

The parent-child relationship is critical to early sociali-
zation and the development of the child’s social system.
The U.S. is becoming increasingly multicultural and has
experienced a recent growth in the Latino population. A
recent report indicated that over the past three decades, the
Latino population has become the largest ethnic minority
population, comprising 12.5% of the population in the
United States of America (Takeuchi, Alegría, Jackson, &
Williams, 2007). Yet, there are few empirically supported
culturally appropriate parenting intervention and prevention
programs available to serve the mental health needs of La-
tino populations. Furthermore, the theoretical frameworks
that guide parenting theories are based on empirical data on
White families. There is a growing literature supporting
cultural adaptations of interventions, which involve taking
into account cultural values so that the intervention is rele-
vant, easily understood, and feasible to implement (Dome-
nech Rodríguez & Wieling, 2004; Lau, 2006). Cultural
adaptations can include changes in the structure, process,
and language of the intervention (Bernal, Bellido, &
Bonilla, 1995). A recent meta-analysis shows that cultur-
ally adapted interventions are significantly more effective
than non-adapted ones (Griner & Lambert, 2006). Surpris-
ingly, however, little is known about the specific cultural
values,  beliefs,  and  parenting  practices of Latino families

This research was supported by NIMH grant KO1-MH066297
and Utah State University New Faculty Grant to the second
author. Correspondence to: Melissa Donovick, 2810 Old Main
Hill, Logan, UT 84321. Email: Melissa.d@aggiemail.usu.edu

(Hill, Bush, & Roosa, 2003), which may be used to reliably
and consistently make culturally appropriate adaptations to
interventions. Therefore, further research is needed to ex-
amine common parenting practices among Latino families
and to better understand their relationship to child out-
comes among Latino families. This examination can con-
tribute to the development and implementation of culturally
appropriate parenting programs. It is essential that mental
and health care providers gain a better understanding of
parenting among Latino families for both research and
clinical purposes, and most importantly to better serve the
mental health needs of the growing Latino population. The
current study examines parenting practices and their rela-
tion to child outcomes among first generation Spanish-
speaking Latino families of primarily Mexican origin. The
parenting practices are examined using the Alabama Par-
enting Questionnaire based on the Social Interaction
Learning theory framework in an effort to provide basic
reliability data and examine its applicability to Latino
families.

Social Interaction Learning Theory

Social Interaction Learning (SIL) states that individu-
als influence each other in the transactions of everyday life,
mainly through modeling, punishments, and rewards that
comprise social interaction (Patterson, 1982). Forgatch and
Martinez (1999) describe the social interaction learning
model as the process in which parents directly influence
their child’s development by means of parental practices
and indirectly by contextual factors that surround the fam-



LATINO PARENTING

53

ily environment. SIL incorporates social interaction and
social learning theories, and conceptualizes the parent and
child relationship from one integrated approach that can be
understood by examining the two contributing theories.
First, SIL, also known as coercion theory, describes the
negative parent-child interaction processes that lead to
negative outcomes for the child. For example, a parent may
use nagging, scolding, and yelling in response to the child’s
misbehavior, and the child responds by continuing to mis-
behave with increased aggression. The parent eventually
concedes and does not follow through with disciplining the
child. The child thus learns that she can get what she wants
by not minding her parent. Coercion theory posits that
negative parent-child processes are learned over repeated
trials and become over-learned (Dishion, Patterson, &
Kavanagh, 1992). These negative interactions escalate over
time as the result of (negative) reinforcement from previous
trials, creating a coercive pattern that becomes automatic.
Coercion theory places child conduct problems in the con-
text of the parent-child relationship, thus underscoring the
importance of parenting processes (Dadds, Maujean, &
Fraser, 2003).

The second component to the SIL theory is the social
learning perspective, which states that behavior is regulated
by consequences one anticipates for performing the be-
havior (Bandura, 1965). When applied to parenting, the
social learning perspective explains how parent-child inter-
action patterns are maintained over time and function
within family systems (Forgatch & Bank, 2002). Positive
parenting practices stem from this theoretical framework,
and are those that have been found to be related to positive
child outcomes. According to SIL theory, there are five
core positive parenting practices: positive involvement,
monitoring, effective discipline, problem solving, and skills
encouragement. To successfully change the problem be-
havior of a child, one must change how the social environ-
ment reacts to the child (Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002),
ideally increasing the positive parent-child interactions,
while decreasing the coercive interactions to create a “bal-
ance” of five positive parent-child interactions for every
negative one.

The third component to the SIL theory involves con-
textualizing parenting processes. The SIL theory provides
an integrated view of the parent-child interaction that takes
into account the context in which that relationship is em-
bedded. SIL stresses the importance of contextual factors
such as culture, family transitions, socioeconomic status,
stress, social support, and neighborhood as influences on
child behavior. According to the theory, the contextual
variables exert their influence upon parents, whose parent-
ing then impacts the child. For example, a parent who has
recently lost her job may feel extremely stressed and con-
cerned about the financial impact of her loss for her family;
her distress may lead to poor choices in parenting (e.g.,
yelling instead of giving a good direction). This media-
tional model has been supported empirically (Forgatch &
Bank, 2002).

 The five core positive parenting practices are related
and the skills used to build one, also build others. Positive
involvement involves doing pleasant things together as a
family and providing positive parental attention. Monitor-
ing refers to knowing where the child is, with whom, and
what the child is doing. Effective discipline refers to devel-
opmentally appropriate rule setting with mild consequences
for violations; consistency and immediacy are critical to
effective discipline.  Problem solving incorporates skills
that parents use to resolve family disagreements, negotiate
rules, and establish positive and negative consequences for
behavior. Finally, skills encouragement refers to parents’
success in promoting children’s desired behaviors through
positive reinforcement. The core parenting practices out-
lined above have been integrated into a parent management
intervention which has been effective in reducing problem
behaviors in White families and children (Kazdin &Weisz,
1998).

Culture and the Social Interaction Learning Model

The focus on context is a strength of the Social Inter-
action Learning model. Culture is one larger context in
which parent-child learning processes takes place. Cultural
values and beliefs have been shown to play a role in the
way parents socialize their children (Harwood, Schol-
merich, Schulze, & Gonzalez, 1999; Zayas, 1992). Re-
searchers have suggested that the socialization goals of a
cultural group influence parenting cognitions and practices
(Bronstein & Cote, 2003). Therefore, it is possible that La-
tino parents socialize their children differently than White
children. Normative parenting practices and optimal child
outcomes for White children may not generalize to Latino
families. Few studies to date have included the role of cul-
ture in parenting and even fewer studies have examined
parenting practices among Latino families. The remaining
challenge is to apply the SIL model of parenting to other
cultures, and examine the core parenting practices (i.e.,
skills encouragement, effective discipline, monitoring,
problem solving, and positive involvement) and their rela-
tionship to child outcomes among Latino families. This
knowledge will enable the development of culturally ap-
propriate intervention and prevention methods for Latino
families.

Latinos and Parenting

Some research suggests that Latina mothers’ parenting
practices are different than White mothers’ and reflect
Latina cultural values (e.g., Harwood, 1992). Harwood’s
findings in the area of infant attachment provide evidence
that Latina mothers perceive and interpret infant behavior
differently than White mothers. More specifically, Har-
wood’s study finds that Puerto Rican mothers are more
likely to control and structure the parent-child interaction
as compared to White mothers. The higher structure and
control is a caregiving activity thought to be in line with



DONOVICK & DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ

54

Puerto Rican cultural values of proper demeanor and inter-
dependence (Harwood, 1992).
    Very few studies have examined the SIL five core par-
enting practices among Latino families. However, research
in the area of child development among Latino families has
provided information for similar parenting constructs.
Some studies have described Latino parenting as more
authoritarian (Knight, Virdin, & Roosa, 1994), controlling,
and relying on physical punishment (Gutierrez, Sameroff,
& Karrer, 1988), when compared to White families. Alter-
natively, Escovar and Lazarus (1982) found that Latino
parents expressed high levels of open verbal and physical
expressions of affection and nurturance. Finkelstein,
Donenberg, and Martinovich (2001) described Latino par-
ents as more permissive, as compared to White middle
class and African American parents. Yet another study
suggested that Latino families are not overwhelmingly
authoritarian, as portrayed in past research findings and the
media. Instead, Latino fathers were found to be warm and
responsive and exerted minimal to low amounts of control
(Staples & Miranda, 1980). More recently, an observational
study to examine Latino parenting styles with 4 to 9 year
old children found uniformly high levels of warmth among
both mothers and fathers regardless of the child’s gender
(Domenech Rodríguez, Donovick, & Crowley, 2008).
However, levels of autonomy-granting and demandingness
varied across gender, with parents of girls exhibiting lower
autonomy-granting and higher demandingness than boys.
These authors found that, when all three parenting dimen-
sions are taken into account, Latino parents do not fit neatly
into the mainstream categories of permissive, neglectful,
authoritative, or authoritarian. It is clear that findings re-
garding a comprehensive characterization of Latino par-
enting are inconsistent and fail to reach agreement at this
time.

The purpose of the current study is to examine parent-
ing practices among first generation Spanish-speaking La-
tino families of primarily Mexican origin, in an effort to
determine common parenting practices and report basic
validity data on the Spanish version of the APQ. We also
examine the relationship between self-reported parenting
practices and child outcomes among primarily Mexican
origin Spanish-speaking Latino families.

Method

Participants

Fifty Spanish-speaking Latino families of Mexican
origin (83%) or other Latin American countries (e.g., Co-
lumbia, El Salvador; 17%) were recruited from a rural
community in the western United States. Intact families
(two biological parents), single parent, and stepparent
families with at least one child between 4 and 9 years of
age participated in the study. If a family had more than one
child between the ages of 4 and 9, then the parent had the
option to select which child to focus on for the study. Of

the total sample, 44 families (88%) were two-parent intact
families, two (4%) were two-parent stepfamilies, and four
(8%) were single parents with three single mothers and one
single father. A total of 47 fathers and 49 mothers partici-
pated in the study. The average age of children who par-
ticipated in the study was 7 years old. Thirty (60%) chil-
dren were female. All parents were first generation Latinos
(i.e., foreign-born). Although language ability was not as-
sessed formally, nearly all parents reported to be primarily
Spanish-speaking with a few parents demonstrating mini-
mal bilingual (Spanish/English) skills. Most families (96%)
reported a yearly income of $19,000-$35,000, and about
4% reported earning more than $35,000. Based on the Ac-
culturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA-
II; Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), most of the par-
ticipants (80%) were categorized as traditional or sepa-
rated, meaning that they retained their culture of origin and
reported not being particularly integrated into mainstream
American culture. Some participants (18%) were bicultural
(i.e., similar degree of functioning in culture-of-origin and
mainstream culture) with two participants (1%) indicating
assimilated or marginalized status.

Procedure

The research study described here is part of a larger
study to culturally adapt a parenting intervention for Span-
ish-speaking Latino families. As part of the protocol, par-
ents completed a variety of self-report questionnaires on
demographic characteristics, developmental expectations,
parenting practices, and child outcomes during a single
appointment at a University laboratory. Although all meas-
ures were available in Spanish and English, all participants
chose to complete all measures in Spanish. The question-
naires used that are relevant to this study are the Alabama
Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) and the Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL).

The sample was recruited through local churches, an-
nouncements at schools and community parent support
groups, flyers placed throughout the community, personal
face-to face recruitment by bicultural research assistants,
and word of mouth by participants. Media outreach was
also utilized, including a radio advertisement on a local
station during Spanish-language programming and a web
posting. Visiting Latino neighborhoods, door to door so-
licitation, and utilization of personal networks have proven
to be successful in recruiting Latino families into research
studies (Harachi, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1997). However,
for this study, word-of-mouth was the most powerful re-
cruitment method with 46% (n = 23) of participants en-
rolling in the study after being approached by a friend or
relative (Domenech Rodríguez, Rodriguez & Davis, 2006).

Interested families made initial contact with a bicul-
tural, bilingual researcher via telephone. Participants were
informed of the study procedures, duration, location, and
incentives. Families were included in the study that had
parents who were Spanish-speaking, and had at least one



LATINO PARENTING

55

child between the ages of 4 and 9. Special efforts were
made to ensure cultural sensitivity during the research
study. For example, appointments were arranged at the
convenience of the family members, including evening and
weekend appointments. Childcare was provided for fami-
lies and, when needed, transportation was also provided.
Bilingual, bicultural staff was present for all research as-
sessment procedures.

The data collection visit lasted about 1.5 hrs.  A brief
introduction to the protocol was provided, first showing
parents the room where data would be collected and where
the target child would remain for child care (during survey
data collection). Informed consent was read to participants
if they desired; otherwise, participants were given time to
read through the informed consent and ask any questions.
Special emphasis was made to assure participants that sen-
sitive information would be kept confidential. Information
regarding legal status was not obtained to avoid any data
collection activities that might cause a distressing environ-
ment. We know anecdotally, however, that most of the
families were undocumented. Families were paid for their
participation, $25 per parent and a small gift ($5 or under)
for the child. This amount equals about $10 per hour for
participation, which is consistent with payment in similar
studies.

Measures

Socioeconomic variables. Socioeconomic and demo-
graphic information were obtained from a self-report ques-
tionnaire. The inventory assessed age, household annual
income, marital status, postal code, educational status, and
number of persons and children currently living in the
household.

Acculturation. Level of acculturation was assessed
using Cuellar, Arnold, and Maldonado’s (1995) Accultura-
tion Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II).
This 30 item, self-report, 5-point Likert scale assesses for
level of acculturation status with scores indicating two ori-
entation scores, Mexican and Anglo, which are then used to
determine acculturation status: integrated, separated, as-
similated, and marginalized. The Spanish version of the
ARSMA-II was administered. The ARSMA-II in Spanish
has good internal reliabilities for both the Mexican Orien-
tation scale (Cronbach alpha = .88) and the Anglo Orienta-
tion scale (Cronbach alpha = .86). The ARSMA-II in
Spanish also shows good test-retest reliability (.96) and
good concurrent validity with the original ARSMA in
Spanish (.89; Cuellar et al., 1995). The ARASMA-II in
Spanish is appropriate for use with other Latino popula-
tions (Schwartz, Zamboanga, & Jarvis, 2007). Consistent
with Schwartz et al.’s research, participants were instructed
to substitute the name of their country of origin where the
form indicated Mexico.

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ). The APQ is
a self-report measure assessing the five core parenting
processes of SIL theory that are conceptualized to be im-

portant parental practices related to child outcomes: in-
volvement, positive parenting, poor monitor-
ing/supervision, inconsistent discipline, and corporal pun-
ishment. This measure was developed using the Oregon
Social Learning Center (OSLC) Parent Management
Training system and SIL theory, and includes questions on
discipline practices (Shelton, Frick, & Wooton, 1996). The
APQ has 42 items, which are answered on a Likert scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The APQ demon-
strated good psychometric properties in the original scale
development (Shelton et al., 1996). Internal consistency
reliability alphas for the involvement scale (.80) and the
positive parenting (.80) scales were strongest. Poor super-
vision/monitoring (.67) and inconsistent discipline (.67)
had marginally acceptable reliabilities. The corporal pun-
ishment (.46) did not yield an acceptable reliability. The
reliability coefficients of the normative sample suggest that
the APQ’s most reliable subscales are the involvement and
positive parenting sub scales. The normative sample did not
respond consistently to the poor supervision/monitoring
and inconsistent discipline subscales, and the corporal
punishment scale did not reach adequate levels of internal
consistency reliability. The low reliability coefficient of the
corporal punishment scale is most likely due to the limited
number of items included in the scale (n = 3), and the nor-
mative sample demonstrated limited range of responses
(Shelton, Frick, & Wooton, 1996). The normative sample
was based on a clinically referred and community sample
in the United States, and we predicted that given that our
sample consists of a community sample, we may find
similar reliability coefficients. The APQ was well suited for
research in the current study because the APQ has previ-
ously shown good psychometric properties both within the
U.S. and internationally with parents of children between
the ages of 4-10 (Dadds, Maujean, & Fraser, 2003; Dhaule,
Bhagat, & Thakkar, 2005; Hawes & Dadds, 2006).

The APQ was not available in Spanish. The measure
was translated using back translation and a bilingual com-
mittee (Marin & Marin, 1991). Measures were first trans-
lated into Spanish, then back-translated into English by an
independent translator unfamiliar with the measure. Fi-
nally, differences were resolved through a bilingual com-
mittee. Equivalence and conceptual understanding was
examined and resolved. A complete list of the translated
items is found in the Appendix at the end of this article.
The items are rated on a five point scale from never to al-
ways. In Spanish, the anchors are nunca (never), no mucho
(not so much), algunas veces (sometimes), frecuentemente
(frequently), and siempre (always).

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Childhood behav-
ioral problems were assessed using Achenbach and Res-
corla’s (2000) Child Behavior Checklist. The CBCL has
two forms, one for children ages 1.5 to 5 years old, and
another for children ages 6 to18 years old. This is a self-
report measure that is completed by parents or caregivers to
assess behavioral, emotional, and social functioning (for
children 1.5 to 18 years old) and competence (for children



DONOVICK & DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ

56

6 to 18 years old). The CBCL is available in English and
Spanish. The Spanish version was administered to partici-
pants.

The CBCL generates scores representing two broad
groupings of symptoms. One grouping is the internalizing
domain, which consists of symptoms of anxiety and de-
pression, somatic complaints, and withdrawal. For children
1.5 to 5, emotional reactivity is also assessed in the inter-
nalizing domain. The second grouping is the externalizing
domain, which consists of attention problems and aggres-
sive behavior. A total problem score can also be derived,
and is an indication of the total sum of scores on the 99
specific problem behavior items of the CBCL. Scores can
range from 0 to 200. The CBCL for ages 1.5 to 5 years old
shows excellent test-retest alpha reliabilities for the inter-
nalizing scale (.90) externalizing (.87) and total problems
(.90). The CBCL for children ages 6-18 years old also has
good psychometric properties, with excellent test-retest
alpha reliabilities for the internalizing (.91), externalizing
(.92) and total problems (.94) scales. The CBCL has been
standardized and normed utilizing a sample that included
Latino children. The CBCL also possesses adequate con-
struct, content, and criterion-related validity (Achenbach &
Rescorla, 2000). The CBCL in Spanish also demonstrated
excellent test-retest alpha reliabilities for the internalizing
scale (.90) externalizing scale (.94) and total problems (.97)
(Gallo, Muñoz, Vargas, Cardenas, Perez, & Villanueva,
2005).

Results

The purpose of this study was to describe common
parenting practices of first generation Spanish-speaking
Latino families with a child between the ages of 4 and 9
years old, and report basic reliability data for the Spanish
version of the APQ. Additionally, we examined the rela-
tionship between self-reported parenting practices and child
outcomes. An analysis of frequencies was used to deter-
mine common parenting practices. Alpha coefficient esti-
mates were calculated to determine basic APQ reliability
data. Regression analyses were preformed to examine the
relationship between self-reported parenting practices and
child outcomes.

Common Parenting Practices

Common parenting practices were calculated by ex-
amining the response pattern to each APQ individual item.
Those items that participants endorsed as occurring “al-
ways” and “frequently” – and on the reversed scored items,
those that participants endorsed as “never” and not “so
much” – by 80% of the sample were considered common
parenting practices. The current examination of common
parenting practices is modeled after research carried out by
Calzada and Eyberg (2002), who examined parenting prac-
tices of Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers with a child
between the ages of 2 and 6 years old. Of the APQ’s 42

items, 12 seemed to tap common parenting practices for the
current sample. When analyzed by parent gender, the
common parenting practices stay fairly stable with the ex-
ception of three items.

Positive parenting. Two items were highly endorsed
by both fathers and mothers. Over 80% of fathers and
mothers reported letting their child “know when he or she
is doing a good job with something” and hugging or kissing
their child “when he or she has done something well,” ei-
ther “always” or “most of the time.” Fathers reported high
endorsement (over 80% of the time reporting “frequently”
or “always”) for two additional items: “You praise your
child if he or she behaves well,” and “You tell your child
that you like it when he or she helps around the house.”
Mothers endorsed these items 73.5% and 77.1% of the
time, respectively.

Involvement. Only one item in this 10-item subscale
was highly endorsed by parents. Most mothers (87.5%)
reported “frequently” or “always” to the item “You ask
your child about his or her day at school.” Fathers endorsed
the item frequently as well, but did not reach the 80% cut-
off to be considered highly endorsed.

Poor monitoring. The monitoring scale had the highest
number of common parenting practices. In other words,
Latino families reported monitoring their children very
closely. Of the 12 items, 7 tapped common parenting prac-
tices for the current sample. Eighty percent of parents re-
ported “not so much” or “never” to the following parental
monitoring items: “Your child stays out in the evening past
the time he/she is supposed to be home,” “Your child is out
with friends you don’t know,” “Your child goes out with-
out a set time to be home,” “Your child is out after dark
without an adult with him/her,” “You get so busy you for-
get where your child is and what he/she is doing,” “Your
child comes home from school more than an hour past the
time you expect him/her home,” and “Your child is at home
without supervision.”

Other discipline practices. Eighty percent of parents
responded “not so much” or “never” to the following disci-
pline items: “You use time-out (make him/her sit or stand
in a corner) as punishment,” and “You ignore your child
when he or she is misbehaving.”

Corporal punishment. Over 80% of parents in the cur-
rent sample responded “not so much” or “never” to the
following APQ items: “You hit your child with a belt,
switch, or other object when he/she has done something
wrong,” and “You slap your child when he or she has done
something wrong.”

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)

Results of child mental health among Latino families in the
current study did not reveal clinically significant levels of
internalizing or externalizing disorders. Based on the crite-
ria set forth in the CBCL manual, T scores above 67 indi-
cate a clinically significant child behavioral problem
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Both mothers’ and fathers’



LATINO PARENTING

57

responses on the internalizing subscale (e.g., withdrawn,
depressed) yielded t-scores below this cutoff (M = 58.04,

SD  = 8.94, and M  = 55.17, S D = 10.10, respectively).
Likewise, mothers’ and fathers’ responses on the external-
izing subscale (e.g., acting out, aggression) did not yield
clinically significant t-scores (M = 54.63, SD = 9.80, and M
= 53.64, SD = 9.43, respectively). Finally, mothers’ and
fathers’ responses on the total behavior problems subscale,
again yielded t-scores below the clinical cutoff (M = 56.33,
SD = 9.52, and M = 54.38, SD = 9.25, respectively). While
these results suggest that Latino parents did not report
clinically significant symptoms of child emotional and be-
havioral problems, an informal trend is worth noting. Both
mothers and fathers reported slightly more internalizing
problems, compared to externalizing and total behavior
problems.

APQ Reliabilities

The original APQ contains 42 items and five parental
constructs, plus a group of discipline questions. The entire
scale was administered to each parent in the study. Of the
five scales, two scales worked well with our sample in their
original form: positive parenting and involvement. A third
scale, poor monitoring, showed good reliability in a revised
form. Findings for each of the scales follow.

Positive parenting scale. Six items contained in this
scale reflect the use of positive reinforcement. Sample
items are: “You compliment your child when he or she has
done something well,” and “You reward or give something
extra to your child for obeying you or behaving well.”
Cronbach’s alpha for parents’ scores on the APQ scale for
positive parenting was .72 (M = 24.91; SD = 3.22). The
possible range for the positive parenting scale was 6-30.

Involvement scale. Ten items included in this scale re-
flected parental involvement. Sample items are: “You ask
your child about his/her day at school,” and “You play
games with your child or do other fun things with your
child.” Cronbach’s alpha for parents’ score on the involve-
ment scale was .77 (M = 35.99; SD = 6.11). The possible
range for the involvement scale was 10-50.

 Poor monitoring scale, revised. Items in this scale re-
flect the lack of monitoring and supervision of the child.
The original APQ Monitoring Scale has 10 items. The
original version of the Poor Monitoring Scale showed poor
reliability with the current sample, with a Cronbach’s alpha
of .55. Upon further examination of common parenting
practices it became evident that 7 of the 10 items repre-
sented common parenting practices for parents in our sam-
ple. As such, the items did not provide enough variability
to be viable for inclusion in this scale. When the highly
endorsed parenting practices items were removed, only
three items remained: “Your child fails to leave a note or to
let you know where he or she is going,” “You don’t check
that your child comes home from school when he or she is
supposed to,” and “You don’t tell your child where you are
going.” Despite the sparse number of items, Cronbach’s

alpha for parents’ score on the modified scale was .73 (M =

9.33, SD = 4.10). The possible range of scores for the APQ
revised poor monitoring scale was 3-15.

Inconsistent discipline scale. This scale contains six
items that reflect lack of consistency in applying discipline.
Sample items include: “You threaten to punish your child
and then do not actually punish him/her,” and “Your child
is not punished when he or she has done something
wrong.” Cronbach’s alpha for the Inconsistent Discipline
scale was .58 (M = 13.72, SD = 3.45). The Inconsistent
Discipline scale yielded a rather low alpha due to lack of
variability of responses and the wide range of severity of
the items. The range for the inconsistent discipline scale
was 6-30.

Corporal punishment scale. This scale contains three
items that assess for the use of corporal punishment. Sam-
ple items include: “You slap your child when he or she has
done something wrong,” and “You hit your child with a
belt, switch, or other object when he or she has done
something wrong.” The Cronbach’s alpha of parents’ re-
ported scores on the Corporal Punishment Scale was .41 (M
=  4.57, SD = 1.46). The Corporal Punishment Scale
yielded a low alpha due to the limited number of items in-
cluded in the subscale, the lack of variability of responses,
and the wide range of severity of the items. The range of
items on the Corporal Punishment Scale was 3-15.

Concurrent Validation

Parenting practices such as ineffective discipline and
poor monitoring have been shown to be correlated with
children’s externalizing behavior problems among White
families (Bank, Forgatch, Patterson, & Fetro, 1993). Parent
interventions that encourage and develop parents’ moni-
toring and discipline skills have been effective in reducing
antisocial child behavior (e.g., Bank, Marlowe, Reid, Pat-
terson, & Weinrott, 1991; Chamberlain & Reid, 1991; For-
gatch, 1991; Patterson, Chamberlain, & Reid, 1982). In
another study, elevations on the APQ parenting scales
showed correlations with disruptive behavioral disorders
among children (Shelton, Frick, & Wootton, 1996).  Based
on previous literature findings, it was expected that APQ
parental practices would correlate with CBCL scores, and
thus provide a concurrent validity check.

Correlations were calculated for mothers and fathers in
order to examine the relationship between self-reported
parenting practices and child outcomes. Correlations of
self-reported parental practices and internalizing behavior
problems were in the expected directions (see Table 1).
Fathers’ parental involvement (r = -.43, p < .01) and posi-
tive parenting (r = -.40, p < .01) were significantly related
to externalizing behavior problems, wherein increased en-
dorsement of involvement and positive parenting was asso-
ciated with fewer externalizing behavior problems. Based
on a previous study, Williams (2003) found that White fa-
thers’ self-reported parental involvement was correlated
with child externalizing behavioral disorders. Mothers’



DONOVICK & DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ

58

poor monitoring was significantly correlated with exter-
nalizing problems (r = .37, p < .05). Mothers’ scores on the
original version of the Poor Monitoring Scale were used in
the analysis. Thus, mothers who endorsed higher levels of
poor monitoring were more likely to report increased child
externalizing behavioral problems. When examining total
behavior problems, fathers’ (r = -.42, p < .01) and mothers’
(r = -.36, p < .05) involvement, and fathers’ positive par-
enting (r = -.46, p < .01) emerged as statistically significant
correlations. The correlations indicate a significant rela-
tionship between increased involvement and positive par-
enting, and decreased total behavioral problems. Caution
must be taken regarding clinical significance given the
small correlation coefficients. Based on the basic reliability
data and concurrent validity checks, it seems likely that the
Spanish APQ is a promising scale that can be used with
first generation Spanish-speaking Latino families of pri-
marily Mexican origin. However, continued research is
needed to further demonstrate reliability and validity with
other Latino populations.

In an effort to further examine the relationship between
self-reported parenting practices and internalizing, exter-
nalizing, and total behavior problem scores on the CBCL,
regression analyses were conducted. Given the complexity
of using parents’ ratings on the same child, mothers’ and
fathers’ scores were analyzed separately. Regression analy-
ses included mothers’ and fathers’ scores on the following
APQ scales: involvement, positive parenting, and the origi-
nal poor monitoring scale. Only these three scales were
used as predictors because the others did not have accept-
able levels of internal consistency. Although the original
poor monitoring scale yielded low reliability, it was in-
cluded in the analysis due to the strong response pattern
indicating common parenting practices around monitoring.

Table 1
Correlations among parenting practices and child internalizing,

externalizing, and total problems for mothers and fathers

Parenting Practice INT EXT TOT

Mother

Involvement -.28 -.29 -.36*

Positive parenting -.14 .12 .01

Poor monitoring -.10 .37* .03

Father

Involvement -.25 -.43** -.42**

Positive parenting -.29 -.40** -.46**

Poor monitoring -.08 -.08 -.12

** p < .01, * p < .05

Therefore, including the full scale (original poor monitor-
ing scale) in the analysis could provide conceptually
meaningful data regarding common parenting practices and
their relationship with child mental health. The outcome
variables were mother and father reported scores on the
internalizing, externalizing, and total problem subscales of
the CBCL.

Preliminary analyses were conducted to determine if
background factors were associated with primary study
variables. Socioeconomic status among Spanish-speaking
Latino families of primarily Mexican origin was examined
by analyzing frequencies for income and educational at-
tainment. For the current sample, 96% (n = 92) of Latino
parents reported earning less than $35,000 per year, and 4%
(n = 4) reported earning more than $35,000. Given the lack
of variability in socioeconomic status, these variables were
dropped from further analyses. Educational attainment was
generally low with 83% (n = 80) of participants having a
high school diploma or less, 7% (n = 7) having some col-
lege education, and 6% (n = 6) having a college degree.
Since the majority of parents fell into one category, the
educational status variable was dropped from further analy-
ses. Acculturation status was examined by analyzing the
frequencies of categorical constructs. For the current sam-
ple, 80% (n = 77) of parents were categorized as tradi-
tional/separated, 18% (n = 17) were classified as bicultural,
1% (n = 1) was classified as assimilated, and 1% (n = 1)
was categorized as marginalized. Given that the assimilated
and marginalized categories only included one parent, the
acculturation variable was dropped from further analyses.

Mothers’ scores of positive parenting, parental in-
volvement, and the original version of poor monitoring
together significantly predicted externalizing child behav-
ioral problems, F (3, 33) = 4.4, p = .01, and the model ac-
counted for 28% of the variance. All predictors made a
significant contribution to the model (see Table 2). The
model for fathers’ scores of positive parenting, parental
involvement, and poor monitoring (original) predicted ex-
ternalizing child behavioral problems, F (3, 37) = 2.9, p =

.05, accounting for 19% of the variance. However, none of
the individual predictors had significant independent con-
tribution. The fathers’ model predicting total behavioral
problems was also significant, F (3, 37) = 3.6, p = .02, ac-
counting for 22% of the variance. However, none of the
individual predictors had significant independent contribu-
tion (see Table 3). None of the self-reported parenting
practices significantly predicted internalizing behavior
problems.

Discussion

One of the primary goals of this research was to ex-
amine the applicability of the Spanish version of the APQ
with a sample of first generation Spanish-speaking Latino
families. Based on the current study’s reliability and con-
current   validity   findings,   the   Spanish  version   of   the



LATINO PARENTING

59

Table 2
Simultaneous Multiple Regression of mother’s positive

parenting, parental involvement, and poor monitoring pre-

dicting externalizing behavioral problems on the CBCL

B SE t p

Intercept 36.13 11.39 4.05 .00

Positive Parenting .90 .46 1.96 .06

Parental Involvement -.58 .23 -2.50 .02

Poor Monitoring .78 .35 2.24 .03

R_ = .28

Table 3
Simultaneous Multiple Regression of father’s positive par-

enting, parental involvement, and poor monitoring pre-

dicting externalizing behavioral problems and total be-

havioral problems on the CBCL

B SE t p

Externalizing Behavior
Problems

Intercept 82.80 12.59 6.57 .00

Positive parenting -.69 .54 -1.28 .20

Parental involvement -.48 .35 -1.37 .18

Poor monitoring .32 .34 .96 .34

Total Behavioral Problems

Intercept 89.10 12.15 7.33 .00

Positive parenting -1.00 .52 -1.92 .06

Parental involvement -.35 .34 -1.04 .30

Poor monitoring .15 .33 0.47 .64

R_ = .19 for externalizing behavioral problems, and R_ = .22 for
total behavioral problems

APQ appears acceptable for use with first generation
Spanish-speaking Latino families. Results indicate accept-
able levels of internal consistency and reliability for the
positive parenting and involvement scales of the APQ in
Spanish. Although the poor monitoring scale demonstrated
low reliability in its original form, a revised poor monitor-
ing scale demonstrated acceptable reliability with the cur-
rent sample. Future studies with older children may want to
include the full scale, as these findings may be develop-
mentally bound. The inconsistent discipline scale and cor-

poral punishment scale revealed low reliability alphas in
the current sample. This finding is most likely due to the
limited amount of items included in the scales and the wide
range of severity of the items.

The second goal of this research was to examine the
common parenting practices among Spanish-speaking La-
tino families utilizing a parenting questionnaire. Results
indicate a number of parenting practices that could be con-
sidered common parenting practices among Spanish-
speaking Latino parents of young children (4-9 years of
age) primarily of Mexican origin. Over 80% of the sam-
ple’s parents endorsed “frequently” or “always” to hug or
kiss their child when he or she has done something well
and to ask their child about their day at school. Interest-
ingly, a previous study (Calzada & Eyberg, 2002) found
similar results with a different Latino sample consisting of
Puerto Rican and Dominican mothers. Calzada and Eyberg
found that over 85% of first generation Puerto Rican and
Dominican mothers in their sample endorsed “always” for
the item “I express affection by hugging, and kissing my
child.” Both studies highlight a similar common positive
parenting practice; both Latino samples reported frequently
expressing physical warmth with their children. It may be
that positive parenting practices such as parental warmth
may be related to Latino cultural values common among
first generation Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Mexican
parents.

More than 80% of parents reported “not so much” or
“never” using time-out as a punishment when their children
misbehave. Additionally, 80% of parents reported “not so
much” or “never” hitting their children with a belt or
switch or other object when they have done something
wrong. These findings are consistent with previous re-
search carried out by Calzada and Eyberg (2002), who
found that over 80% of their Latino sample of mothers re-
ported “seldom” or “never” using physical punishment,
criticism, or argument as discipline. Thus, both studies
found that parents tended to not use physical punishment as
a discipline method despite both samples representing het-
erogeneous Latino countries, again suggesting that this
might not be common parenting practice among parents
across various Latino countries. Interestingly, these results
differ from previous research, which found that Latina
mothers did not tend to use positive parenting techniques
(Garcia Coll, 1990; Laosa, 1980), and rather tended to use
physical punishment as discipline (Fracasso, Busch-
Rossnagel, & Fisher, 1994; Knight, Virdin, & Roosa,
1994). Thus, it seems that there might be heterogeneous
methods of discipline common among Latino families. Al-
ternately, there may be other important factors such as ac-
culturation that play a significant role in common parenting
practices. The current study utilized a sample of first gen-
eration Latino families, while other studies utilized second
generation or more acculturated samples (Garcia Coll,
1990; Laosa, 1980; Fracasso et al., 1994; & Knight et al.,
1994), and some studies failed to mention acculturation
status of Latino parents.



DONOVICK & DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ

60

In terms of discipline practices, over 80% of the Span-
ish-speaking Latino families of primarily Mexican origin
included in the sample reported that they do not ignore
their children’s misbehavior. This finding is also consistent
with Calzada and Eyberg (2002), who found that 92% of
Puerto Rican and Dominican mothers denied ignoring their
children’s misbehavior. In addition, Spanish-speaking La-
tino parents of primarily Mexican origin in the current
study reported consistently following through with disci-
pline and consequences when their children misbehave.
This finding is in line with Calzada and Eyberg (2002),
who describe Puerto Rican and Dominican mothers as
highly consistent with discipline following children’s mis-
behavior.  In cross-cultural studies, evidence suggests that
consistent follow-through with discipline is congruent with
raising a child who is well-behaved or bien educado; being
well-behaved (e.g., proper behavior, interdependence) has
been documented as important to Latino parents (Carlson
& Harwood, 2003). This suggests that Latino parents so-
cialize their children in ways that may be consistent with
their cultural values.

The corporal punishment and inconsistent discipline
scales did not reach conventional standards of reliability.
Domenech Rodríguez and Villatoro (2004) used the Span-
ish-language APQ presented herein with a sample of Mexi-
can parents living in Mexico City, and the discipline scales
reliably assessed parenting practices. It may be possible
that parents living in the United States are reluctant to re-
port their discipline practices. For example, based on focus
group data, Domenech Rodríguez (2004) found that first-
generation parents reported fear of Child Protective Serv-
ices involvement as a result of differences in parenting
practices between Latinos and “Americans.” Related to
this, it may be that parents’ responses reflect a social desir-
ability bias. The original validity studies on the APQ did
not include social desirability measures. Or, it may be that
given the scale’s limited number of items, it is difficult to
consistently reach acceptable high alphas across different
samples, particularly for the corporal punishment scale,
which only contained three items.

The current sample of Spanish-speaking Latino fami-
lies primarily of Mexican origin reported common parent-
ing practices that are mainly consistent with previous stud-
ies with other Latino families. The SIL model conceptual-
izes Latino culture as part of the context that surrounds the
parent and child relationship. SIL hypothesizes that con-
textual factors such as culture impact parenting practices.
This study provided evidence that the use of the APQ with
theoretical underpinnings of the SIL model can be applied
to Latino families to further understand Latino child so-
cialization.

The investigation of self-reported parenting practices
on the APQ and their relationship with child outcomes on
the CBCL revealed that none of the self-reported parenting
practices for mothers and/or fathers predicted internalizing
behavior problems. It is possible that this finding is related
to a measurement issue, wherein the APQ is based on a

theoretical model of observed parenting practices related to
externalizing behavioral problems. On the other hand,
mothers’ and fathers’ parental involvement, positive par-
enting, and poor monitoring predicted externalizing be-
havioral problems. These findings are consistent with the
literature on White majority families (Bank, Marlowe,
Reid, Patterson, & Weinrott, 1991; Chamberlain & Reid,
1991; Forgatch, 1991; Patterson, Chamberlain, & Reid,
1982). Fathers’ parental involvement, positive parenting,
and poor supervision predicted total child behavioral prob-
lems.

In summary, these findings have important implica-
tions for prevention and intervention efforts with Latino
families. It seems likely that the SIL model and the use of
self-reported parenting practices on the APQ can be applied
to the understanding of parenting among Latino parents of
primarily Mexican origin. Thus, clinical interventions that
incorporate and encourage parental involvement, positive
parenting skills, and monitoring may be beneficial and use-
ful in decreasing overall behavioral problems among Latino
children.

Exploring preferred discipline methods among first-
generation Latino families may be beneficial to researchers
and clinicians. Time-out and selectively ignoring misbe-
havior have been found to be effective methods of disci-
pline among majority White families (Patterson, Dishion,
& Bank, 1984; Wells & Rankin, 1988); yet, over 80% of
the current sample reported to not use time-out as a method
of discipline. This finding may represent a potential op-
portunity for a new tool in intervention and prevention ef-
forts. It may be possible that parents have not learned how
to use time-out, have never tried using time-out, or may
have learned an incorrect way. Further exploration is
needed to clarify if there is a cultural misalignment be-
tween Latino parenting and the use of time-out. Then again,
it may be that the use of time-out is a parenting construct
adapted from White Western culture and may not be an
appropriate form of discipline for Latino parents.

Limitations to the current study should be noted. First,
the data included in the current study are based on self-
report surveys. Even though this method is useful and fea-
sible, it may be subject to social desirability bias and may
not provide an accurate picture of parenting practices (Va-
rela, Vernberg, Sanchez-Sosa, Riveros, Mitchell, &
Mashunkashey, 2004). Secondly, since the data was ana-
lyzed for each parent separately, limitations may exist. For
example, it may be possible that weaknesses in one par-
ent’s parenting practices were strengths in the other’s, to-
gether leading to positive child outcomes. Thus analyzing
data from parents separately would not capture this dy-
namic parenting process. Thirdly, caution must be taken
when evaluating the study’s findings, given that the APQ
was based on parenting constructs originally developed
with majority Western culture notions of parenting. It may
be possible that the APQ did not include important aspects
of Latino parenting. It would be beneficial for future stud-
ies to examine Latino parenting behaviors at multiple levels



LATINO PARENTING

61

of specificity (e.g., styles, dimensions, practices) and their
relation to child outcomes. Qualitative and observational
methods may be fruitful in increasing scientific knowledge
regarding the socialization processes of Latino parenting
and their relation to child outcomes. Longitudinal and ex-
perimental studies are needed to clarify the developmental
trajectory of Latino parenting and its implications for child
development.

Overall, basic reliability results suggest that the Span-
ish version of the APQ is acceptable for use with first gen-
eration Spanish-speaking Latino parents. In the current
sample of Spanish-speaking, first generation, Latino fami-
lies of primarily Mexican origin several themes emerge
concerning common parenting practices. The first theme
highlights positive parenting practices. Over 80% of par-
ents reported to endorse positive parenting practices such
as parental involvement and positive reinforcement for
appropriate behavior. The second theme points out that
Latino parents do not report using harsh discipline parent-
ing practices. Over 80% of the current sample endorsed not
using corporal punishment. The third theme reveals that
Latino parents tend to be protective. Over 80% of the cur-
rent sample reported engaging in high levels of monitoring
and supervision with their children. In addition, our find-
ings indicate that mothers’ and fathers’ scores on the APQ
(parental involvement, positive parenting, and monitoring)
predicted child behavior problems, a finding that is consis-
tent with the SIL model of parenting. Therefore, it seems
likely that the SIL model which incorporates core parenting
practices such as positive parenting practices, involvement,
monitoring/supervision, and limit setting would be applica-
ble to Latino families.
In sum, the current study’s sample of fist generation Span-
ish-speaking Latino parents of primarily Mexican origin
reported common parenting practices including engaging in
high levels of parental involvement, positive parenting
skills, and monitoring. Parents’ self-report of child behav-
ioral problems were below the clinical range, perhaps indi-
cating that Latino common parenting practices may be a
protective factor for prevention of future child behavioral
problems.

References

Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the

ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, and
Youth.

Albores-Gallo, L., Lara-Muñoz, C., Esperón-Vargas, C.,
Cárdenas, J., Pérez, A., & Villaneuva, G. (2005). Validity
and reliability of the CBCL 6-18. Includes DHS scales.
Actas Esp Psiquiatry, 35, 393-399.

Bank, L., Marlowe, J. H., Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., &
Weinrott, M. R. (1991). A comparative evaluation of par-
ent training interventions for families of chronic delin-
quents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 15-33.

Bernal, G., & Bellido, C., & Bonilla, J. (1995). Ecological
validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: Is-
sues for the cultural adaptation and development of psy-
chological treatment with Hispanics. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 23, 67-82.
Bronstein, M. H. & Cote, L. R. (2003). Culture and parent-

ing cognitions in acculturating cultures: Two patterns of
prediction and structural coherence. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 34, 350-373.
Calzada, E. J. & Eyberg, S. (2002). Self-reported parenting

practices in Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers of
young children. Journal of Clinical and Child Adolescent

Psychology, 31, 354-363.
Carlson, V. J. & Harwood, R. L. (2003). Attachment, cul-

ture, and the caregiving system: The cultural patterning of
everyday experiences among Anglo and Puerto Rican
mother-infant pairs. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 53-
73.

Chamberlain, P. & Reid, J. B. (1991). Using a specialized
foster care community treatment model for children and
adolescents leaving the state mental hospital. Journal of

Community Psychology, 19, 266-276.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Accultura-
tion Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of
the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behav-

ioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.
Dadds, M. R., Maujean, A., & Fraser, J. (2003). Parenting

and conduct problems in children:  Australian data and
psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Ques-
tionnaire. Australian Psychologist, 38, 238-241.

Dharale, H. S., Bhagat, V., & Tacar, P. (2005). A compara-
tive study of behavior problems between adopted and non
adopted children in India. Journal of Child and Adolescent

Mental Health, 17, 27-32.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. P., & Kavanagh, K.A. (1992).

An experimental test of the coercion model: Linking the-
ory, measurement, and intervention. In J. McCord, & R.
Trembley (Eds.), The Interaction of Theory and Practice:

Experimental Studies of Interventions (pp. 253-282). New
York: Guilford Press.

Domenech Rodríguez, M. (2004, July). Use of "consejos" as

a problem-solving tool in Spanish-speaking Latino fami-

lies. Poster presented at the Summer Institute of the Fam-
ily Research Consortium, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Domenech Rodríguez, M., Davis, M. R., Rodríguez, J., &
Bates, S. C. (2006). Observed parenting practices of first-
generation Latino families. Journal of Community Psy-

chology, 34, 133-148.

Domenech Rodríguez, M., Donovick, M., & Crowley, S. (in
press). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observations
of “protective parenting” in first generation Latinos. Fam-

ily Process.
Domenech Rodríguez, M., Rodriguez, J. & Davis, M.R.

(2006). Recruitment of first generation Latinos in a rural
community: The essential nature of personal contact.
Family Process, 45, 87-100.



DONOVICK & DOMENECH RODRÍGUEZ

62

Domenech Rodríguez & Villatoro, J. (2004, October). Mexi-

cans’ parenting practices and child outcomes: Compari-

son between parents residing in Mexico and the US. Paper
presented at the national conference of the National His-
panic Science Network on Drug Abuse, San Antonio, TX.

Domenech Rodríguez, M. & Wieling, E. (2004). Developing
culturally appropriate evidence based treatments for inter-
ventions with ethnic minority populations. In M. Rastogi
& E. Wieling (Eds.), Voices of Color: First Person Ac-

counts of Ethnic Minority Therapists (pp. 313-333). Thou-
sand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Escovar, P. & Lazarus, P. J. (1982). Cross-cultural child-
rearing practices: Implications for school psychologists.
School Psychology International, 3, 143-148.

Finkelstein, J. S., Donenberg, G. R., & Martinovich, Z.
(2001). Maternal control and adolescent depression:
Ethnic differences among clinically referred girls. Journal

of Youth & Adolescence, 30, 155-171.
Forgatch, M. S. (1991). The clinical science vortex: Devel-

oping a theory for antisocial behavior. In D. Pepler (Ed.),
The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression

(pp. 291-315). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Forgatch, M. S. & Martinez, C. (1999). Parent management

training: A program linking basic research and practical
application. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 36,
923-937.

Fracasso, M. P., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Fisher, C. B.
(1994). The relation between maternal behavior and ac-
culturation to the qualities of attachment in Hispanic in-
fants living in New York City. Hispanic Journal of Be-

havioral Sciences, 16, 143-154.
Garcia-Coll, C. T. (1990). Developmental outcome of mi-

nority infants: A process-oriented look into our begin-
nings. Child Development, 61, 270-289.

Gutierrez, J., Sameroff, A. J., & Karrer, B. M. (1988). Ac-
culturation and SES effects on Mexican-American par-
ents’ concepts of development. Child Development, 59,

250-255.
Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F. & Hawkins, J. D. (1997).

Effective recruitment for parenting programs within ethnic
minority communities. Child and Adolescent Social Work

Journal, 14, 23-29.
Harwood, R. L. (1992). The influence of culturally derived

values on Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers’ perceptions of
attachment behavior. Child Development, 63, 822-839.

Harwood, R. L., Scholmerich, A., Schulze, P. A., & Gon-
zalez, Z. (1999). Cultural differences in maternal beliefs
and behaviors: A study of middle-class Anglo and Puerto
Rican mother-infant pairs in four everyday situations.
Child Development, 70, 1005-1016.

Hawes, D. J. & Dadds, M. R. (2006). Assessing parenting
practices through parent-report and direct observation
during parent-training. Journal of Child and Family Stud-

ies, 15, 555-568.
Hill, N. E., Bush, K. R., & Roosa, M. W. (2003). Parenting

and family socialization strategies and children’s mental
health: Low income Mexican-American and Euro-

American mothers and children. Child Development, 74,

189-204.
Kazdin, A. E. & Weisz, J. R. (1998). Identifying and devel-

oping empirically supported child and adolescent treat-
ments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,

19-36.
Knight, G. P., Virdin, L. M., & Roosa, M. (1994). Sociali-

zation and family correlates of mental health outcomes
among Hispanic and Anglo American children: Consid-
eration of cross ethnic scalar equivalence. Child Develop-

ment, 65, 212-224.
Laosa, L. (1980). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano

and Anglo-American families: The influence of culture
and education on maternal behavior. Child Development,

65, 212-224.
Lau, A. (2006). Parent management training: Evidence

outcomes, and issues. Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1349-1356.
Lew, B., Forgatch, M. R, Patterson, G. R., & Fetrow, R. A.

(1993). Parenting practices of single mothers: Mediators
of negative contextual factors. Journal of Marriage & the

Family, 55, 371- 415.
Marin, G. & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic

Populations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). A Social Learning Approach to

Family Intervention (vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Castalia Pub-
lishing.

Patterson, G. R., Chamberlain, P. C., & Reid, J. B. (1982). A
comparative evaluation of a parent training program. Be-

havior Therapy, 13, 638-650.
Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family

interaction: A process model for deviancy training. Ag-

gressive Behavior, 10, 253-267.
Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Synder, J. (2002). Antisocial

Behavior in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental

Analysis and Model for Intervention. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Jarvis, L. H. (2007).
Ethnic identity and acculturation in Hispanic early adoles-
cents: Mediated relationships to academic grades, proso-
cial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms. Cultural Di-

versity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 364-373.
Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wooten, J. (1996). Assess-

ment of parenting practices in families of elementary
school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-

ogy, 25, 317-329.
Staples, R. & Miranda, A. (1980). Racial and cultural varia-

tions among American families: A decennial review of the
literature on minority families. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 42, 887-903.
Stromshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., & Len-

gua, L. J. (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive
behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 17-27.
Takeuchi, D. T., Alegria, M., Jackson, J. S., & Williams, D.

R., (2007). Immigration and mental health: Diverse find-



LATINO PARENTING

63

ings in Asian Black and Latino populations. American

Journal of Public Health, 97, 11-112.
Varela, R. E., Vernberg, E. M., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Riveros,

A., Mitchell, M., & Mashunkashey, J. (2004). Parenting
style of Mexican, Mexican American, and Caucasian-non-
Hispanic families: Social context and cultural influences.
Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 651-657.

Williams, S. K. (2003). Paternal Attachment and Involve-

ment: Relationships to Children's Behavior. (Doctoral dis-

sertation, The Florida State University). Abstracts Inter-
national: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 64(2-
B), 987.

Wells, L. E. & Rankin, J. H. (1998). Direct parental control
and delinquency. Criminology, 26, 263-285.

Zayas, L. H. (1992). Childrearing, social stress and child
abuse: Clinical considerations with Hispanic families.
Journal of Social Distress & the Homeless, 1, 291-309.

Appendix

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire - Spanish Version

Item
1 Tiene una plática (conversación) amigable con su hijo.
2 Le dice a su hijo cuando él o ella está haciendo un buen

trabajo con algo.
3 Amenaza a su hijo con que lo va a castigar, pero no lo

castiga.
4 Se presta de voluntario para ayudar con actividades en las

que su hijo está involucrado (como deportes, niños escucha,
grupos de niños de la iglesia).

5 Premia o le da cosas extras a su hijo por obedecerlo o por
portarse bien.

6 Su hijo no le deja recado o no le deja saber a donde va.
7 Juega juegos divertidos o hace otras cosas divertidas con su

hijo.
8 Su hijo le convence de que no lo castigue después de que ha

hecho algo malo o incorrecto.
9 Le pregunta a su hijo acerca de como estuvo su día en la

escuela.
10 Su hijo se queda fuera de la casa en las noches pasada la

hora de regresar a casa.
11 Ayuda a su hijo con sus tareas escolares.
12 Se siente que el lograr que su hijo le obedezca es más

problema del que desea enfrentar.
13 Halaga a su hijo cuando hace algo bien.
14 Le pregunta a su hijo cuales son sus planes para el próximo

día.
15 Lleva a su niño en auto a una actividad especial.
16 Halaga a su hijo si se porta bien.
17 Su hijo sale con amigos que usted no conoce.
18 Le da abrazos o besos a su hijo cuando hace algo bien

hecho.
19 Su hijo sale sin tener hora fija para regresar.
20 Habla con su hijo acerca de sus amigos.
21 Su hijo está fuera de la casa al llegar la noche, sin compañía

de un adulto.

22 Le quita castigos a su hijo antes de tiempo (o sea, lo deja
salir más temprano de lo que originalmente dijo).

23 Su hijo ayuda a planear actividades familiares.
24 Usted se pone tan ocupado que se le olvida donde está su

hijo o qué está haciendo.
25 Su hijo no recibe castigo cuando hace algo malo o

incorrecto.
26 Asiste a reuniones de la asociación de padres y maestros

(PTA), conferencias de padres, u otras reuniones en la
escuela de su hijo.

27 Usted le dice a su hijo que le gusta cuando él o ella ayuda en
la casa.

28 Usted no chequea que su hijo haya llegado a casa cuando se
supone que llegue.

29 Usted no le dice a su hijo a donde va.
30 Su hijo llega a casa de la escuela más de una hora después

de lo que usted espera.
31 El castigo que le da a su hijo depende de su estado de

ánimo.
32 Su hijo está en la casa sin supervisión de un adulto.
33 Le da nalgadas con la mano a su hijo cuando ha hecho algo

malo o incorrecto.
34 Ignora a su hijo cuando se está portando mal.
35 Le da cachetadas a su hijo cuando ha hecho algo malo o

incorrecto.
36 Le quita privilegios o dinero a su hijo como castigo.
37 Manda a su hijo a su cuarto como castigo.
38 Le pega a su hijo con un cinto (cinturón, correa), u otro

objeto cuando él o ella ha hecho algo malo o incorrecto.
39 Le grita a su hijo cuando él o ella ha hecho algo malo o

incorrecto.
40 Calmadamente le explica a su hijo por que su

comportamiento está mal cuando él o ella se porta mal.
41 Usa el “tiempo fuera” (se sienta o para en la esquina) como

un castigo.
42 Le da a su hijo quehaceres adicionales como castigo.


