Psychometric Properties of the Parental Alienation Scale - EAPAbstract:
Parental alienation is a phenomenon characterized by one parent engaging in behaviors that hinder and denigrate the other parent, thus affecting the child’s relationship with them. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the reformulated Parental Alienation Scale (PAS). The sample included 432 families involved in litigation, with information collected through an evaluator-administered interview script. Following data collection, the evaluator completed both the parent and child versions of the PAS. The parent version assessed three constructs: contact difficulties, exclusion of the other parent, and parenting behaviors during the assessment. The child version focused on behaviors related to rejecting the target parent and forming an alliance with the alienating parent. Results identified five factors in the parent version and two in the child version. The PAS provided evidence of content validity and internal consistency, supporting its use in assessing parental alienation in litigation cases.
Keywords:
psychological assessment; forensic psychology; psychometrics; psychological tests
Resumo:
Alienação parental é um fenômeno que envolve comportamentos de impedimento e difamação por parte de um dos genitores, interferindo na relação do filho com o outro genitor. Neste estudo objetivou-se avaliar as propriedades psicométricas da Escala de Alienação Parental - EAP reformulada. A amostra foi composta por 432 famílias em litígio, as informações são obtidas pelo avaliador por meio de um roteiro de entrevista. Após a coleta o avaliador preencherá a EAP versão genitores e versão filhos. A versão genitores avaliou três construtos: dificultar o contato, desqualificar o outro genitor e o comportamento do genitor durante a avaliação. A versão dos filhos avaliou comportamentos de rejeição ao genitor alvo e aliança ao genitor alienador. Os resultados revelaram cinco fatores na versão genitores e dois para os filhos. A EAP apresentou evidências de validade de conteúdo e consistência interna adequadas para auxiliar profissionais na avaliação da alienação parental em processos litigiosos.
Palavras-chave:
avaliação psicológica; psicologia forense; psicometria; testes psicológicos
Resumen:
La alienación parental es un fenómeno que implica un comportamiento obstaculizador y difamatorio de un progenitor que interfiere en la relación del niño con el otro progenitor. Este estudio se objetivo evaluar las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Alienación Parental reformulada. La muestra fue 432 familias en litigio, la información se obtiene por el evaluador con una entrevista. Recogida la información, el evaluador cumplimentó la versión para padres y hijos del EAP. La versión de los padres evaluaba tres constructos: dificultar el contacto, descalificar al otro progenitor y comportamiento del progenitor durante la evaluación. La versión de los niños evaluaba comportamientos de rechazo del progenitor y la alianza con el progenitor alienante. Los resultados revelaron cinco factores para versión de padres y dos para los hijos. El EAP presentó pruebas de validez de contenido y consistencia interna adecuadas para ayudar los profesionales a evaluar la alienación parental en litigios.
Palabras clave:
evaluación psicológica; psicología forense; psicometría; pruebas psicológicas
Parental alienation (PA) is a multidisciplinary phenomenon that occurs at the intersection of law and psychology, especially in situations of custody disputes (Baker, 2020 ; McCartan, 2022 ; Oliveira & Williams, 2021 ). The main studies on the subject define PA as occurring when one of the parents, for no real reason, disqualifies and seeks to prevent the child’s relationship with the other parent (Baker, 2020 ; Darnall, 2011 ; Gardner, 1985 ; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ; Marques et al., 2020 ). The criteria for evaluating PA are based on the alienating behavior of one of the parents, which aims to limit the child’s contact with one of the guardians, as well as conducting a derogatory campaign against the alienated person (Bernet et al., 2018 ; Gomide et al., 2016 ; Sîrbu et al., 2021 ). The criteria used for forensic evaluation pointed out in the literature are: (1) disqualification, (2) impediment of contact, (3) the child’s refusal to live together, (4) the absence of just cause, (5) occurrence after marital separation, (6) existence of a positive parental relationship before separation and (7) refusal to live together with the extended family (Gomide et al., 2016 ). These inappropriate behaviors of the parent are part of the PA construct and their careful assessment during the course of the evaluation process can be decisive for a differential diagnosis of the phenomenon (Gomide et al., 2016 ; Ramires, 2020 ; Whitcombe, 2017 ). The assessment must be associated with verifying the absence of real reasons justifying the child’s refusal to live with the target parent (Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ; Oliveira & Williams, 2021 ; Ramires, 2020 ).
The Brazilian law (Law No. 12.318, 2010 ), known as the Parental Alienation Law, was amended by Law No. 14.340/22 to include procedures relating to parental alienation and to amend Law No. 8.069 of the Statute of the Child and Adolescent with regard to establishing additional procedures for suspending family power. This law seeks to prevent divorced parents or those in litigation who have custody of their children from trying to prevent the child/adolescent from having contact with the other parent. This behavior is detrimental to the emotional and psychological development of children and requires forensic evaluation in the legal context (Gardner, 1985 ; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ). The lack of knowledge, misinformation and tools for assessing parental alienation make it difficult to correctly identify its occurrence, making it impossible for magistrates to make better decisions. Critics of the phenomenon claim that parental alienation has been used by aggressors to disqualify reports of violence, whether physical, sexual or psychological (Oliveira & Williams, 2021 ; Ramires, 2020 ). They believe that the courts, instead of investigating the primary causes of child resistance (e.g. abuse), end up labeling rejection as parental alienation (Clemente & Padilha-Racero, 2021 ; Milchman et al., 2020 ).
From this perspective, it should be noted that the behavior of the alienating parent is similar to the behavior of the parent who aims to protect their child from the possible violence to which they may be exposed (Gomide et al., 2016 ; Marques et al., 2020 ; Ramires, 2020 ). Both alienators and protective parents try to prevent access to the child and disqualify the image of the target parent (Gardner, 1985 ; Gomide et al., 2016 ; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ). However, the protective parent is based on real reasons, while refusal without justification indicates possible parental alienation (Oliveira & Williams, 2021 ; Ramires, 2020 ; Whitcombe, 2017 ). A detailed assessment of the reasons for rejection should be carried out by an expert in order to distinguish between protection and parental alienation. Just cause or real reasons (estrangement), such as ill-treatment, neglect or alcohol/drug use, can justify the child’s rejection of living with a parent, and do not constitute parental alienation (Bernet et al., 2022 ; Gomide, 2016 ; Whitcombe, 2017 ). The investigation of these reasons precedes the analysis of parental alienation.
The process of expert evaluation of PA has motivated several researchers to develop instruments to identify the alienating behaviors of parents. The systematic review by Gomes et al. ( 2020 ) identified 11 instruments for assessing PA in different countries, three of which were developed for the national context, namely the Parental Alienation Scale (PAS), the Inventory of Alienating Maternal Practices (IAMP) and the Parental Alienation Signs Screening Scale (PASSS). Of these, the PAS is the instrument that stands out for presenting evidence of validity based on content and internal structure, through exploratory and/or confirmatory factor analyses (Gomes et al., 2020 ).
The first version of the Parental Alienation Scale was made up of four factors, namely hindering/hindering; defaming/disqualifying; emotional manipulation and parental behavior during the evaluation/visit. Although the principal component analysis selected the best items with acceptable adjustments, the reliability indices showed low values for the emotional manipulation factor (Gomide et al., 2016 ). These factors led to the need to construct new items that more accurately covered the alienation behaviors used by the parent, especially to assess the inappropriate behaviors presented during the evaluation, as well as the obstacles that the parent causes during the process and the aggressive behaviors of the parent towards the expert. In addition, for this reformulated version of the scale, it was considered that the assessment of parental alienation with children should investigate the refusal of contact/hostility with the target parent and alliance with the alienating parent and negative emotions (Gomide et al., 2016 ), so that new items were also formulated.
Considering that any suitable measuring instrument must have validity, precision, standardization and empirical studies that prove its technical characteristics and the interpretation of the scores (Cortez & Otoni, 2022 ). The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the reformulated Parental Alienation Scale - PAS.
Method
Participants
This study assessed 132 families who were in the process of litigation, whose sample consisted of parents and/or guardians and children. Therefore, 264 parents and/or guardians took part, 49.6% of whom called themselves mothers ( n = 131), 47.3% fathers ( n = 125) and 3% guardians. Of the couples, 75.8% had only one child ( n = 100), 21.2% had two children ( n = 28) and only 3% had three children ( n = 4). A total of 168 children aged between 3 and 17 ( M = 8.70, SD = 3.50) took part, 52.4% girls ( n = 88) and 47.6% boys ( n = 80).
The reasons listed in the cases for the litigation were generally aimed at custody and visitation disputes, namely 83% of the actions involved Custody Disputes and Regulation of Visits ( n = 108); 2.30% were for Recognition and Dissolution of Stable Union with Custody and Visits ( n = 3), 0.76% for Denial of Paternity ( n = 1); 0. 76% of Recognition of Socio-affective Parenthood ( n = 1); 0.76% of Declaratory Action for Parental Alienation ( n = 1); 1.53% of Search and Seizure of Minors ( n = 2); 1.53% of Protection Measures ( n = 2) and; 11.53% were cases involving some form of violence against children and adolescents ( n = 15). The custody arrangements for the children at the time of collection were: 57.70% maternal unilateral custody ( n = 75); 18.45% paternal unilateral custody ( n = 24); 13.07% shared custody ( n = 17); 5.39% custody for the extended family (uncles, grandparents) ( n = 7) and seven cases with no information.
Instruments
The Parental Alienation Scale (PAS), developed by Gomide, aims to measure parental alienation behaviors in parents and children during the judicial process. The PAS is a heterorelated instrument, made up of a semi-structured interview script that covers 7 factors: (1) Prevent/difficulty (20 items, e.g.: Prevents or makes it difficult for the child to visit the other parent); (2) Defame/disqualify (16 items, e.g.: Refers to the other parent with derogatory words in front of the child); (3) Inadequate behavior by the parent in the evaluation (4 items, e.g. tries to convey an image of him/herself that is too correct, without flaws); (4) Parent hinders the evaluation (3 items, e.g. provides unsolicited reports or evidence); (5) Aggressive behavior by the parent towards the expert (3 items, e.g. questions the type of evaluation and the competence of the evaluator); (6) Refusal of contact with the target parent/hostility (7 items, e.g. presents only the faults of the non-guardian parent) and (7) Alliance of support for the alienating parent and negative emotions (5 items, e.g. reveals that he/she needs permission from the guardian to speak to the non-guardian). The interview is made up of 58 items, 46 of which relate to the parent’s behavior (parent version, made up of the first five factors described) and 12 of which relate to the child’s behavior (child version, made up of the last two factors described). The instrument was constructed using a three-point Likert scale, namely always, sometimes, never. The instrument’s score can vary between zero and 116 points. The normalization of the results shows four levels of PA severity, with scores between zero and 40 points = no signs of PA; 41 - 60 points = signs of Mild PA; 61 - 80 points = signs of Moderate PA; and 81 - 116 signs of Severe PA.
Procedures
Data collection . After authorization from the REC, a research team was formed, made up of technicians from the Family Courts, whose judges agreed to the research, and master’s students from the PPGPFOR. The team received four hours of training, via the online system, from the authors of the study, with the following syllabus: the concept of the phenomenon of PA based on scientific literature; legal definition and understanding of Law No. 12.318 (2010); categories of the theoretical construct of PA; behavior of the child victim; real reasons for removal/rejection; differences between the alienating and protective behavior of the parent and how to respond to the PAS. Families in litigation who had been referred for psychological assessment were invited and informed that the study was assessing parents and children from families in custody or maintenance disputes. Those who agreed to take part signed an informed consent form. The interviews were scheduled in advance with the families, parents and children or other members of the extended family (uncles, grandparents) who were claiming custody of the children. The total interview time was approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes.
Data analysis. The analyses were carried out using the JASP 0.15 software . Initially, descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample in terms of simple frequency and percentage. For factor analysis, the KMO index (0.845) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were checked, which proved to be significant ( p < 0.01). Exploratory factor analysis was then carried out. The Kaiser root criterion and parallel analysis were used to extract the number of factors in the measurement scales. After the exploratory factor analysis, the confirmatory factor analysis was applied and the fit indices were checked, including the ratio of χ 2 /gl < 0.05; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08 with a Confidence Interval (CI) of 90%, Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), values between ≥ 0.90 (Brown, 2006 ). The internal consistency indices, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega, were calculated, with a value equal to or greater than 0.70 qualified as adequate (Dunn et al., 2014 ). An analysis of invariance (ANOVA) was carried out to compare whether there were differences in the factors defaming/disqualifying, preventing/hindering contact, the child’s refusal to live together, absence of just cause and occurrence after marital separation for the groups of mothers and fathers. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the scores of the five factors of the Parental Alienation Scale (PAS) between the parents who showed alienating and non-alienating behaviors. The same analysis was carried out to see if there were differences in the responses to the factors Refusal of contact with the alienated and Alliance or support with the alienator between children from families with and without signs of parental alienation. This test was chosen due to the non-parametric nature of the data assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests (K-S(524) = 0.128, p < 0.001; S-W(524) = 0.945, p < 0.001).
Ethical Considerations
Initially, the project was presented to the judges of the Family Courts in two southern Brazilian states. After the judges agreed, the project was submitted to the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Tuiuti do Paraná (CAAE No. 56651322.8.0000.8040). All participants were included after reading and accepting the informed consent form.
Results
The results of the analysis of the two versions of the PAS were made separately. The results of the parent version of the PAS will be presented first, followed by the child version.
PAS parent version
Firstly, the KMO index (0.87) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( χ2 (gl = 946) = 8820.73; p < 0.01) were checked, which showed that the database was suitable for factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was then carried out, which indicated the retention of five factors using the Kaiser root criterion and parallel analysis. The instrument had a total explained variance of 53.80%, considered adequate, with factor loadings of more than 0.41 for all the items in all the factors, with the exception of items 27 (0.22) and 38 (0.24), which had factor loadings of more than 0.20 and were retained due to theoretical indications about the importance of the content assessed.
Once the five factors had been identified by the exploratory factor analysis, a new analysis of the scale’s internal structure was carried out. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied, and the fit indices were adequate (CFI = 0.99; TLI = 1.11; GFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.01; p < 0.01; SRMR = 0.09) (Brown, 2006 ). Confirmatory factor analysis of the PAS parent version showed adequate factor loadings for all five factors ( Table 1 ).
The PAS parent version identified five factors in the exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 = Preventing/Hindering contact (with 20 items, from 1 to 20); Factor 2 = Defaming/Disqualifying (with 16 items, 21 to 35 and 38); Factor 3 = Inappropriate behavior by the parent (with 4 items: 36, 40, 43 and 46); Factor 4 = Hindering the assessment (with 3 items, 37, 39 and 44); Factor 5 = Aggressive behavior towards the expert (with 3 items: 41, 42 and 45).
The factor loadings for the “Prevent/Hinder contact” factor ranged from 0.47 to 0.82, considered adequate, indicating that they have good information value. In the “Defame/disqualify” factor, the factor loadings ranged from 0.35 to 0.71, considered adequate. Except for items 27 and 38, which had factor loadings of 0.22 and 0.24, respectively. Despite the lower than expected factor loading, the content of these items was considered to have a high predictive value for alienating behavior, since they refer to allegations of sexual abuse by the other parent against the child without providing evidence or reports. According to Gomide et al. ( 2016 ) this is one of the allegations that the alienating parent can raise in litigation aimed at shared custody. In the “Inappropriate behavior of the parent” factor, the factor loadings ranged from 0.44 to 0.79, considered to be factor loadings with good information value. In the Factor “Difficulty in evaluation”, the factor loadings were between 0.48 and 0.56, considered adequate. Finally, the factor “Aggressive behavior towards the expert” had factor loadings between 0.43 and 0.99, also considered adequate.
The internal consistency indices, measured by Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients, were considered adequate according to the criteria established by Dunn et al. ( 2014 ). Factor 1 showed excellent internal consistency with an alpha and omega of 0.96. Factor 2 also showed good internal consistency, with an alpha of 0.85 and an omega of 0.83. However, Factor 3 showed moderate internal consistency, with an alpha of 0.68 and an omega of 0.65. Factor 4, on the other hand, showed lower internal consistency indices, with an alpha of 0.64 and an omega of 0.59, suggesting lower reliability. Factor 5, on the other hand, showed acceptable internal consistency with an alpha of 0.83 and an omega of 0.67. Overall, the Parental Alienation Scale (PAS) showed excellent internal consistency, with both the alpha and omega indices reaching 0.94. These results indicate that, although some factors are less consistent, the scale as a whole is reliable for the intended assessment.
Non-parametric hypothesis tests were run to compare the five Factors between the parents (mother and father) ( Table 2 ), considering groups 1 (with an indication of PA) and group 2 (without an indication of PA) ( Table 3 ).
The comparison of the five factors between the parents ( Table 2 ) showed a significant difference for Factor 1 (preventing/hindering contact) and the overall PAE at a significance level of p <0 .01. In other words, in relation to the sample collected, the mothers seem to have practiced more behaviors to prevent contact with the other parent than the group of fathers evaluated. The general analysis of the PAS found differences between the parents, indicating a higher incidence of behaviors considered alienating by the mothers than by the participating fathers.
The comparison of the five factors between groups 1 (with a PA allegation) and 2 (without a PA allegation) showed significant differences for all the factors, as well as for the overall PSS result. This indicates that the PAS was able to effectively discriminate the occurrence of PA practice between the groups evaluated, based on the factors listed. The mean and standard deviations were calculated for each of the five factors in the overall sample. For Factor 1 - Preventing/hindering, the mean was 7.38 ( SD = 8.74); for Factor 2 - Defaming/disqualifying, the mean was 6.79 ( SD = 5.20); for Factor 3 - Inappropriate behavior by the parent, the mean was 1. 55 ( SD = 1.77); for Factor 4 - Making evaluation difficult the mean was 0.73 ( SD = 1.17) and for Factor 5 - Aggressive behavior towards the expert the mean was 0.14 ( SD = 0.53). The overall mean of the PAS was 16.58 ( SD = 14.49).
PAS Children Version
Firstly, the KMO index (0.84) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( χ2 (66) = 1828.61; p < 0.01) were checked, showing that the database was suitable for factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was then carried out to check the factorization of the measurement scale. The exploratory factor analysis indicated the retention of two factors using the Kaiser root criterion and parallel analysis. The instrument had a total explained variance of 47.50%, considered adequate, with factor loadings of over 0.40 for all items in all factors.
Note. *p < 0.05; **p = 0.01; ***p < 0.01.
Note. r pb = biserial point correlation; p < 0.05; **p = 0.01; ***p < 0.01; For the Mann-Whitney test, effect size is given by the rank biserial correlation; For all tests, the alternative hypothesis specifies that group with PA is greater than group without PA ; Mann-Whitney U test.
Once the two factors had been identified by the exploratory factor analysis, a new analysis of the scale’s internal structure was carried out. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied, with adequate fit indices (CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98; GFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.04; p < 0.01; SRMR = 0.06) (Brown, 2006 ). Confirmatory factor analysis of the PAS children’s version showed adequate Factor loadings for the two Factors ( Table 4 ).
The child version of the PAS identified two factors in the exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 = “Refusal of contact with the target parent/hostility”, with seven items (47, 48, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57) and Factor 2 = “Alliance or support for the alienating parent/negative emotions”, with five items (49, 50, 52, 53, 58) ( Table 4 ). Factor loadings for Factor 1 ranged from 0.44 to 0.92. Factor loadings for Factor 2 ranged from 0.45 to 0.74. The factor loadings of all the items were considered adequate, indicating that the scale has informative power in relation to what it sets out to assess. The internal consistency indices, Cronbach ‘s alpha and Mc Donalds ’ omega, by factor and overall were adequate (Dunn et al., 2014 ). Factor 1 showed alpha = 0.91 and omega = 0.90 and Factor 2 showed alpha = 0.69 and omega = 0.69. The general consistency index of the PAS children’s version showed alpha = 0.84 and omega = 0.83.
Non-parametric hypothesis tests were run to compare the two factors between the children according to gender.
The scores found indicate that there was no significant difference between the genders of the children in any of the factors analyzed (Refusal of contact with the target, p = 0.31; rpb = 0.06; Alliance or support with the alienator, p = 0.42; rpb = -0.05). Refusals to live together and alliances and expressions of negative feelings occurred equally in both sexes. This may indicate that the gender factor is not relevant to the influence of the alienating acts committed by the parents, whose consequences may be more linked to other characteristics of the children and the established family situation. The same analysis was carried out considering groups 1 (with an indication of PA) and group 2 (without an indication of PA) ( Table 5 ).
Note. r pb = biserial point correlation. For the Mann-Whitney test, effect size is given by the rank biserial correlation; *** p < 0.01; Mann-Whitney U test.
The comparison of the results of the children’s version of group 1 (with allegations of PA) and group 2 (without allegations of PA) indicated significant inter-group differences for all factors. This means that the PAS was able to effectively discriminate, on both factors, between the group of children who had been subjected to alienating behavior from one of their parents and those who had not witnessed alienating conditions.
Discussion
This study presents the psychometric characteristics of a parental alienation scale (PAS), the organization of the items in relation to the factors that make up the PA theory, evidence of validity based on internal structure, as well as evidence of validity based on the relationship with external criteria, predictive type. Analyses of the PAS, both in the parent and child versions, showed adequate psychometric parameters (Brown, 2006 ; Dunn et al., 2014 ). The items in the parent version were reorganized into five factors: Factor 1, preventing/hindering contact; Factor 2, defaming/disqualifying; Factor 3, inappropriate behaviour by the parent; Factor 4, hindering the assessment; and Factor 5, aggressive behaviour towards the expert. The literature points to seven criteria used for forensic evaluation, namely (1) defaming/disqualifying; (2) preventing/hindering contact; (3) the child’s refusal to live together, (4) absence of just cause, (5) occurrence after marital separation, (6) existence of a positive parental relationship before separation and (7) refusal to live together with the extended family (Baker, 2020 ; Bernet et al., 2018 ; Clemente & Padilha-Racero, 2021 ; Darnall, 2011 ; Gardner, 1985 ; Law No. 14.340, 2022 ; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ; McCartan, 2022 ; Rowlands, 2019 ). The PAS assesses most of them through its items.
The acts of limiting contact, interfering in verbal communication, forcing rejection and not informing the alienated person’s personal contacts in the child’s daily life are behaviors that aim to prevent or hinder the child’s relationship with the target parent (Factor 1) (Darnall, 2011 ; Gardner, 1985 ; Gomide et al., 2016 ; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ). Law No. 14.340 ( 2022 ) states that actions aimed at impeding the exercise of parental authority, through hindering the right to cohabitation, omitting information or filing false reports, up to unjustified change of domicile, are aspects to be considered in the PA process. PA is considered a form of violence (Bernet et al., 2022 ; Clemente & Padilha-Racero, 2021 ; Oliveira & Williams, 2021 ; Sîrbu et al., 2021 ), as children are manipulated by the alienator to develop a negative image of the target parent, which can deteriorate their relationship. Factor 2 “defame/disqualify” is a fundamental part of the construct, as it reflects a derogatory campaign against the alienated person (Baker, 2020 ; Gomide et al., 2016 ; Marques et al., 2020 ; McCartan, 2022 ).
Studies indicate that the inappropriate behaviors of the parent in the evaluation are part of the PA construct (Gardner 1985; Gomide et al., 2016 ; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ; Marques et al., 2020 ; Milchman et al., 2020 ). The factor analysis subdivided the category “behaviors of the parent in the evaluation” into three factors: the inappropriate behaviors of the parent (Factor 3), the behavior of hindering the evaluation (Factor 4) and the aggressive behaviors towards the expert (Factor 5). The alienating parent behaves with the aim of hindering the process and tends to make it impossible to schedule times for interviews and/or visitation, providing unsolicited reports or evidence, as well as frequently petitioning the courts for visitation regulations (Factor 4) (Clemente & Padilha-Racero, 2021 ; Milchman et al., 2020 ; Oliveira & Williams, 2021 ). In addition, several studies have indicated that the alienating parent may act aggressively and manipulatively towards the expert (Factor 5), showing a lack of interest in the negative effects that the conflictual process or the exclusion/removal of the other parent can have on the children (Baker, 2020 ; Bernet et al., 2018 ).
Only in factor 1 and in the general PAS was there a difference between the parents for the two groups. Mothers had a higher frequency of behaviors that prevented/hindered contact than fathers. Alienating behaviors occurred for parents of both sexes, indistinctly, in the other Factors. Gardner’s ( 1985 ) misogynistic arguments that PA only occurred in women, or preferentially in women, are not supported by the analyses in this study. The children’s version of the PAS identified two Factors: Factor 1, refusal of contact with the target parent/hostility and Factor 2, alliance with the alienating parent/negative emotions. In the expert evaluation process, the refusal to live with one of the parents has been pointed out as the main criterion for the court to reverse custody in favor of the target parent (Gomide et al., 2016 ; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020 ; McCartan, 2022 ; Oliveira & Williams, 2021 ). The parent uses strategies such as punishment, manipulation and emotional blackmail, demanding loyalty and complicity from the child and causing suffering (Baker, 2020 ; Rowlands, 2019 ). As a result, children who are victims of alienation break off or hinder their relationship with the target parent, considering them to be completely bad and, on the other hand, evaluate the alienating parent as being completely good (Bernet et al., 2018 , 2022 ; Gardner, 1985 ). The child’s lack of affective ambivalence can be a crucial point in the assessment.
Evidence of validity based on the relationship with external criteria, predictive type, was verified for both versions of the PAS, indicating that the instrument can discriminate between alienating and non-alienating parents. The instrument showed evidence of validity based on internal structure, evidence of validity based on internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity that were adequate for the required psychometric parameters (Cortez & Otoni, 2022 ). The study’s limitations refer to access to the forensic sample needed to carry out the research. These are families in litigation, who are reluctant to take part in studies of this nature, fearing that their data could jeopardize the process in which they are involved. Despite this, the psychometric standards of the Parental Alienation Scale - PAS were satisfactory, indicating that it is a parental assessment instrument that measures what it sets out to measure, and can be replicated reliably in assessments carried out in the forensic context. It is the only instrument validated for the Brazilian population that assesses both parents and children, using the PA assessment criteria indicated in the literature. Therefore, it can be considered that the use of the PAS is promising and could help courts make more assertive and reliable decisions in cases involving suspected parental alienation. In this respect, it is also important to recommend that future research replicates the analyses carried out in this study on independent samples in order to check and accumulate evidence of validity based on internal structure. This replication could ensure that the proposed model is generalizable to other populations
References
-
Baker, A. J. L. (2020). Reliability and validity of the four-factor model of parental alienation. Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 100-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12253
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12253 -
Bernet, W., Baker, A. J. L., & Adkins, K. L. (2022). Definitions and terminology regarding child alignments, estrangement, and alienation: A survey of custody evaluators. Journal of Forensic Science, 67(1), 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14868
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14868 -
Bernet, W., Gregory, N., Reay, K. M., & Rohner, R. P. (2018). An objective measure of splitting in parental alienation: The parental acceptance-rejection questionnaire. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(8), 776-783. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13625
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13625 - Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford.
-
Clemente, M., & Padilha-Racero, D. (2021). Obey the justice system or protect children? The moral dilemma posed by false parental alienation syndrome. Children and Youth Services Review, 120, 105728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105728
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105728 - Cortez, P. A., & Otoni, F. (2022). Fundamentos em psicometria [Fundamentals in psychometrics]. In P. A. Cortez & M. C. Antunes (Orgs.), Medidas de saúde mental em pandemias [Mental health measures in pandemics] (pp. 17-30). Juruá.
-
Darnall, D. C. (2011). The psychosocial treatment of parental alienation. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20(3), 479-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2011.03.006
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2011.03.006 -
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
» https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046 -
Gardner, R. A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29(2), 3-7. http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gardnr85.htm
» http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gardnr85.htm -
Gomes, Q. S., Silva, L. D. P., Silveira, J. F., Cruz, R. M., & Vieira, M. L. (2020). Instrumentos de avaliação sobre alienação parental: Uma revisão sistemática da literatura. [Assessment instruments for parental alienation: A systematic literature review]. Contextos Clínicos, 13(3), 945-966. https://doi.org/10.4013/ctc.2020.133.11
» https://doi.org/10.4013/ctc.2020.133.11 -
Gomide, P. I. C., Camargo, E. B., & Fernandes, M. G. (2016). Analysis of the psychometric properties of a parental alienation scale. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 26(65), 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272665201602
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272665201602 -
Lei No. 12.318, de 26 de agosto de 2010 [Law No. 12.318 of August 26, 2010]. (2010, 27 de agosto). Dispõe sobre a alienação parental [Provides for parental alienation]. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1. https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?jornal=1&pagina=3&data=27/08/2010
» https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?jornal=1&pagina=3&data=27/08/2010 -
Lei No. 14.340, de 18 de maio de 2022 [Law No. 14.340 of May 18, 2022]. (2022, 19 de maio). Altera a Lei No. 12.318, de 26 de agosto de 2010, para modificar procedimentos relativos à alienação parental, e a Lei No. 8.069, de 13 de julho de 1990 (Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente), para estabelecer procedimentos adicionais para a suspensão do poder familiar [Changes Law No. 12,318 of August 26, 2010, to modify procedures related to parental alienation, and Law No. 8,069 of July 13, 1990 (Child and Adolescent Statute), to establish additional procedures for the suspension of parental authority]. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1. https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?jornal=515&pagina=1&data=19/05/2022
» https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?jornal=515&pagina=1&data=19/05/2022 - Lorandos, D., & Bernet, W. (2020). Parental alienation: Science and law. Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
-
Marques, T. M., Narciso, I., & Ferreira, L. C. (2020). Empirical research on parental alienation: A descriptive literature review. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105572
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105572 - McCartan, D. (2022). Parental alienation: An evidence-based approach. Routledge.
-
Milchman, M. S., Geffner, R., & Meier, J. S. (2020). Ideology and rhetoric replace science and reason in some parental alienation literature and advocacy: A critique. Family Court Review, 58(2), 340-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12476
» https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12476 -
Oliveira, R. P., & Williams, L. C. A. (2021). Estudos documentais sobre alienação parental: Uma revisão sistemática [Documentary studies on parental alienation: A systematic review]. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 41, e222482. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-3703003222482
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-3703003222482 - Ramires, V. R. R. (2020). Avaliação psicológica de crianças que resistem ao contato parental [Psychological assessment of children who resist parental contact]. In C. S. Hutz, D. R. Bandeira, C. M. A. Trentini, S. L. R. Rovinski, & V. M. Lago (Orgs.), Avaliação psicológica no contexto forense [Psychological assessment in the forensic context] (pp. 229-246). Artmed.
-
Rowlands, G. A. (2019). Parental alienation: A measurement tool confirmatory factor analysis validation study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 61(2), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2019.1627162
» https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2019.1627162 -
Sîrbu, A. G., Vintila, M., Tisu, L., Stefanut, A. M., Tudorel, O. I., Maguran, B., & Toma, R. A. (2021). Parental alienation-development and validation of a behavioral anchor scale. Sustainability, 13(1), 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010316
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010316 -
Whitcombe, S. (2017). Powerless to parent; powerless to protect: The experiences of alienated parents in the UK. Maltrattamento e Abuso All’Infanzia: Rivista Interdisciplinare, 19(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.3280/MAL2017-001004
» https://doi.org/10.3280/MAL2017-001004
-
How to cite this article:
Gomide, P. I. C., Paleari, C. N., Cortez., P. A., & Otoni, F. (2024). Psychometric properties of the parental alienation scale - EAP. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 34, e3430. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3430
-
This article is derived from the second author’s master’s dissertation, supervised by the first author and defended in 2023 in the Postgraduate Program in Forensic Psychology at Tuiuti University of Paraná.
Edited by
-
Associate editor:
Vanessa Barbosa Romera Leme
