Reliability of the PCGD Scale (First Test)

In the world, the issue of parental PCGD has been studied by authors since the second half of the 20th century such as: D. Baumrind (1966, 1971), Maccoby and Martin (1983), Kellerhals and Montandon (1991), John. R. Buri (1991), Steinberg et al. (1994)...

To measure parental parenting styles, the thesis is based on the division of D. Baumrind (1966, 1971). She built 3 parental parenting styles ( Authoritarian, Authoritative and Permissive) based on two criteria: level of demand (control, supervision, growth needs) and level of response (warmth, acceptance, participation) [cited in 54, p.8].

Inheriting the research of D. Baumrind on the assessment and classification of parental education, John. R. Buri (1991) of the Department of Psychology of St Thomas University designed the Parental Authority Questionnaire . Based on the classification of parental education styles: authoritarian, democratic and liberal. D. Buri designed a questionnaire including descriptive statements according to each educational style. First, he proposed 48 statements describing three parental education styles. These statements are the opinions of children describing their parents. From this set of 48 statements, he asked 21 experts in related fields to see if his statements were suitable to describe the three parenting styles. The result was Buri's questionnaire consisting of 30 statements: 10 statements describing the authoritarian parenting style, 10 statements describing the democratic parenting style, and 10 statements describing the liberal parenting style. Buri conducted a pilot study on different samples of subjects and all showed that the questionnaire had high reliability. This set of questions was taken from the statements of children evaluating their parents' parenting style and was only used to measure children's evaluation of their parents' parenting style [46, pp. 110-119].

The thesis uses the scale of parental PCGD by author Buri (1991). The author has translated and edited some sentences to make it easier to understand for Vietnamese audiences.

The issue of self-assessment has been studied for a long time in the world, originating from the research of W. James (1890). Over the past 100 years, many self-assessment measurement tools have been born such as: the scale of Rosenberg (1965), Coopersmith (1967), S. Harter (1986), Sordes - Ader and colleagues (1998) ...

In this study, the thesis uses Sorder's self-assessment scale.

- Ader et al. This group of authors built the scale based on an overview of previous research on personal self-assessment such as the works of Coopersmith (1967), Rosenberg (1965), Harter (1985, 1988) to measure the level of self-assessment of adolescents in specific areas with the name of the Toulouse self-assessment scale (échelle d' Estime de soi Toulousaine - ETES). The original scale has five aspects of self-assessment: self-assessment of the physical area, self-assessment of the emotional area, self-assessment of the school area, self-assessment of the social area and self-assessment of the future area [cited in 26, pp.65-75].

When using this scale on Vietnamese adolescents, author Dang Hoang Minh (2006) [73] added the aspect of self-assessment of the family field. The survey results showed that adding the family aspect was suitable for Vietnamese subjects. The reason why the thesis chose this scale is because the scale has been used by a number of Vietnamese authors in different versions such as Van Thi Kim Cuc (2003) [4], Trinh Thi Linh (2009) [71], Tran Huu Luyen, Tran Thi Minh Duc and Bui Thi Hong Thai (2015) [31] and this scale has self-assessment of the family aspect related to the thesis's research. From the references of studies by French and Vietnamese authors, the thesis uses a shortened scale and only uses it on 3 areas: self-assessment of the emotional aspect, self-assessment of the future aspect and self-assessment of the family aspect including 33 propositions. The thesis selectively uses the ETES scale based on social network research by the group of authors Tran Huu Luyen, Tran Thi Minh Duc and Bui Thi Hong Thai (2015).

3.3.3.3. How to proceed

a. Trial investigation

- Purpose

Before conducting an official investigation, the thesis conducted a pilot survey to:

+ Determine the time for answering a questionnaire.

+ Determine the reliability of the questionnaire.

+ Proceed to edit the clauses that do not meet the requirements.

- Content: The thesis conducts a pilot investigation of the toolkit based on the established evaluation criteria.

- Subjects: survey of 132 students from two 6th and two 9th grades of TK Secondary School and XP Secondary School.

- Data processing method:

In this pilot survey, the thesis only tests the length, difficulty and reliability of the questionnaire. The thesis does not use factor rotation in the pilot survey but will use it in the official survey because when conducting a pilot survey on a small sample, if using factor rotation, inappropriate propositions will be eliminated, then when conducting an official survey on a large sample, the thesis is afraid that propositions will be wasted.

Measuring the length and difficulty of the questionnaire: Let students answer the designed questionnaire. During the process of students answering the questionnaire, the thesis recorded any questions that were unclear to them (questions that they asked for explanations). These questions were then revised with the participation of experts. The time to answer the questionnaire was also recorded by the thesis to consider whether the length of the questionnaire was appropriate or not. After a pilot investigation with students from the two schools mentioned above, the thesis found that the average time students could complete the questionnaire was 45 minutes. Thus, the length of the questionnaire is appropriate for a period as prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Training: 45 minutes. This is the time when students can focus actively without being too stressed or tired.

Reliability of the questionnaire : After collecting the data, the thesis used the mathematical statistical method for social sciences (SPSS version 20.0) to process the data. The thesis is only interested in the validity of the entire questionnaire, so the thesis used the Cronbach Alpha coefficient calculation method. According to the convention, a set of questions used to measure and evaluate is good if the coefficient (Alpha) is greater than or equal to 0.65 and the items all have content suitable for the measurement domain and have an acceptable correlation. The results are shown in Table 3.2 below:

Table 3.2: Reliability of the PCGD scale (first pilot survey)

Content

Coefficient α
Democratic PCGD	0.515
PCGD authoritarian	0.690
Free PCG	0.459
Self assessment	0.826

Maybe you are interested!

Thus, the reliability of the scale on parents' PCGD is quite low, so the thesis's questionnaire was adjusted, re-localized and used "plain" words, easier for students to understand. For example: Proposition 1: "Parents think that the best thing for their children in the family is to force them to do what they think is right " was edited to: " My parents force their children to do what they think is right because according to them, that is the best thing for their children ".

After adjusting the questionnaire and consulting with experts, the thesis was conducted a second pilot survey on 156 students of two secondary schools TK and XP. The specific results obtained are as follows:

Table 3.3: Reliability of the PCGD scale (second pilot survey)

Content

Coefficient α
Democratic PCGD	0.799
PCGD authoritarian	0.813
Free PCG	0.789
Self assessment	0.817

The above analysis results show that the contents of the questionnaire ensure statistical reliability, allowing use in the official survey of the topic.

Contents of the official questionnaire

In the process of designing the questionnaire, the thesis closely followed the results of theoretical research, inherited from domestic and foreign authors. The structure of the questionnaire consists of 3 parts:

Part 1 : Information on students' socio-demographic characteristics such as: Class, school, gender, academic performance, and family order to find out the differences in students' assessments of their parents' PCGD as well as their self-assessment.

Part 2 : Research on the current status of students' assessment of their parents' PCGD and their self-assessment. This part includes:

Question 2: Scale of parental PCGD (30 items)

- Democratic parenting style (10 items, questions: 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27 and 30) : this is a parenting style characterized by paying close attention to children's behavior, giving clear and firm instructions while adjusting children's behavior but also being warm and flexible, giving principles with explanations for children to voluntarily follow. For example: My parents always encourage me to discuss family rules if I think they are unreasonable; When setting rules, my parents discuss with me the reasons why they make such rules...

- Authoritarian parenting style (10 items, questions: 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 29) : shows the style of parents who always control their children's behavior excessively and always require their children to obey absolutely without further explanation. These parents often do not use friendly, affectionate behaviors with their children and prefer to use punishment to control inappropriate behaviors. For example: My parents are willing to use power to force their children to behave according to their wishes; My parents require me to follow their expectations because that is a manifestation of respect for my parents...

- Liberal/permissive parenting style (10 items, 1, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24 and 28): represents the style of parents who do not make many demands or regulations to control their children's behavior, giving their children as much freedom to decide their actions as possible. These parents tend to meet all of their children's demands unconditionally and do not use punishment for their children's inappropriate behaviors. For example: My parents let me decide everything for myself; My parents do not force me to follow their parents' regulations...

The original scale was evaluated at 5 levels: 1. Completely disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Neither agree nor disagree; 4. Agree and 5. Completely agree. However, in this study, the thesis changed the evaluation scale to 4 levels to avoid the "center effect", that is, to avoid students often evaluating at the middle level (not good - not bad). The purpose of the study is to find out whether students evaluate their parents' behavior as correct or incorrect as the given propositions. The thesis divides the 4 levels for students to evaluate as follows: 1/ Completely incorrect; 2/ A little correct; 3/ Mostly correct and 4/ Completely correct.

Question 3: Self-assessment scale

In the evaluation criteria section, the thesis has determined to measure self-assessment in only 3 areas: self-assessment of emotional aspects, self-assessment of future aspects and self-assessment of family aspects including 33 propositions. Specifically as follows:

- Self-assessment of the emotional domain (11 items: Affirmative statements: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; Negative statements: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11): Statements related to the child's emotional aspect (for example: even when I want to cry, I still know how to control my emotions, I am not afraid of doing difficult things, I get upset easily if others disagree with me...).

- Self-assessment of the future area (11 items: Affirmative statements: 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17; Negative statements: 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22): The above statements are related to children's self-assessment of the future (e.g. I think that

I will be successful in life, I think my children will be proud of me, I wish I was still a child or teenager...)

- Self-assessment of the family domain (11 items: Affirmative statements: 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28; Negative statements: 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33): Statements related to the child's family (e.g.: I have an important position in the family, in general everyone in the family understands me, I often feel like I am an extra person in the family...).

This scale is also rated on 4 levels: 1/ Completely incorrect; 2/ Somewhat correct; 3/ Mostly correct and 4/ Completely correct for students to evaluate.

Part 3 : Research on factors affecting students' assessment of their parents' PCGD and their self-assessment, including questions: 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Question 4: Find out students' assessment of the level of parents' concern for their children, including 12 statements also evaluated on a 4-level scale: 1/ Never, 2/ Sometimes, 3/ Often and 4/ Always.

Question 5 : Find out whether students' assessment of their parents' PCGD is consistent with their children's or there are differences depending on age.

Question 6 : Find out the average daily time parents spend with their children.

Question 7 : Find out if students rate themselves as introverts or extroverts.

Question 8 : Find out what kind of education the child wants to receive.

Question 9 : Open question for children to freely write their opinions about themselves, about their parents, about the things they want.

b. Official investigation

- Purpose

Determine the current status of parents' PCGD, the current status of students' self-assessment, the relationship between parents' PCGD and self-assessment and influencing factors.

- Content

The survey content according to the questionnaires was completed after the pilot investigation.

Content requirements: must ensure that subjects fully answer the required content stated in the questionnaire.

- Research object

Survey of 593 subjects who were students of 2 secondary schools in 2 urban and rural areas.

- Principles of investigation

To obtain accurate information, the thesis introduces in advance the purpose and method of answering the questions in the questionnaire, and at the same time notes to the subjects that their personal information is guaranteed to be kept confidential.

Each participant answered the questionnaire independently and objectively according to their own thinking.

The author of the thesis will explain to the students any questions or propositions that the subjects do not clearly understand, but will not give any directional suggestions because they may affect the survey results.

3.3.4. In-depth interview method

3.3.4.1. Purpose

In-depth interviews aim to collect information to supplement, verify and clarify information obtained from surveys on the current status of parents' education and students' self-assessment that cannot be thoroughly investigated by questionnaires, and at the same time, to deeply understand the factors that influence students' self-assessment.

3.3.4.2. Interview principles

In the in-depth interview, the thesis designed open-ended questions, which the subjects could answer quite freely. This helped the thesis clarify the questions as well as the issues related to parents' PCGD and students' self-assessment.

Comment