Panukat ng Kabataan ng Ugaling Pagkamapagkalinga ng Ama
(A Paternal Nurturance Scale for Filipino Adolescents)
[This test manual is a shortened version of my doctoral dissertation in Counseling Psychology at De La Salle University - Manila. Request to use the instrument must be forwarded to junrayx@gmail.com.]
by Domingo R. Rayco, Jr.
April 2007
I. Rationale
Children have inborn needs for bonding with both parents (Bowlby, 1988; Pruett, 2000). Traditionally, mother (maternal nurturance) primarily and almost exclusively took care of children’s physical and psychological needs while father was mainly responsible for the material support of the family. The industrial revolution in the 18th century perpetrated this arrangement when father had to leave the family farm to go to work in the factory in the city away from his family.
However, the women’s liberation movement in the 60’s began to question rigid gender- and parent-roles. Moreover, the advent of technological advancement in the 19th century as epitomized by the computer shook these traditional roles.
The importance of the father’s involvement in their children’s development has been studied by social scientists under such terms as “father hunger” (Berry in Jarema, 1994; Herzog, 2001; Herzog in Nicolosi, 1991; Rohr & Martos, 1997), “wounded father image” (Osherson, 1986), “father thirst” (Abelin in Nicolosi), “father wound’ (Pleck in Osherson; Bly, Keen, & Lee in Levant, 1996; Rohr & Martos), and “fatherneed” (Pruett, 2000).
Pruett (2000) defines “fatherneed” bi-directionally as the child’s inborn drive to find and connect with their fathers and the father’s internal instinctual capacity to respond accordingly (p. 2). “Involved fathering” for him is “male behavior beyond insemination that promotes the well-being and healthy development of one’s child and family in active ways” which should include: (a) “feeling and behaving responsibly toward one’s child, (b) being emotionally engaged, (c) being physically accessible, (d) providing material support to sustain the child’s needs, and (e) exerting influence in child rearing decisions” (p. 19).
Nurturance has been defined by experts in the parenting field as a non-gender specific trait. Nicolosi (1991, p. 33) defines it descriptively as involving “warmth, acceptance, presence and availability, caring and physical display of affection.” The difference between the genders is that maternal nurturance is unconditional while paternal nurturance is conditional according to Nicolosi. For Pruett (2000, p. 18), its essence is “the ability to be selfless and patient, loving yet consistent, tolerant but expectant, and, above all, the capacity to share and make sacrifices of one’s own emotional, spiritual, material, intellectual assets which ultimately transcends gender”. Locally, Somera (2000, p. 21) defined pagkalinga as “pagbibigay ng karampatang pagpapahalaga at pagmamahal sa isang taong kadugo, kasambahay, at kakwentuhan”. In short, nurturance may be conveniently equated with emotional caretaking (Osherson, 1986) or affective nourishment or emotional nurturance (Miller as cited in Weinstein, 1995).
More specifically, Biller (in Lamb, 1981, p. 329) defined paternal nurturance as “the father’s affectionate, attentive encouragement of his child”.
The main scientific impulse towards a re-examination of traditional parenting roles, without negating its positive contributions, is the ever mounting evidence confirming the hypothesis that involved fathering has positive psychosexual, cognitive, psychosocial, and moral-spiritual outcomes on his children’s development (Biller, 1991; Biller & Trotter, 1994; Dubeau, 2002; Lamb, 1976, 1981, 1997; Jarema, 1994). This is in addition to and in the context of an equally healthy mother-child relationship and father-mother relationship – the foundation of family life.
Being a collectivistic and family-oriented culture, this concept would not be alien to Filipinos except for the observation that the traditional male and father role socialization tends to be biased towards the more exclusively male role expectation of being primarily breadwinner as a father (Bernardo, Cacho, & Gomez, 2002; Chua, Garcia, & Bilela, 1998; Go, Imperio, & Juan, 1998). Moreover, our machismo culture tends to frown upon combining nurturance traits with masculinity (Aguiling-Dalisay, Mendoza, Mirafelix, Yacat, Sto. Domingo, & Bambico, 2000).
Thus, the challenge of exploring the Filipino concept of paternal nurturance.
Though not traditional and ideal, the instrument was developed from the viewpoint of the children in general and of late adolescents in particular for two reasons: (a) the practical difficulty of getting fathers as respondents, and (b) the unique position children have in having firsthand knowledge in assessing the quality of paternal nurturance as a recipient of the trait. “… no one can tell us about who fathers are, or what having a father means, and say it with more passion or conviction than kids” (Pruett, 2000, p. 15). Late adolescents were chosen because they belong to the last stage before young adulthood and eventual independence from family and preparation for married life. As such, they are expected to have greater realism vis-à-vis their parents (Gould in Rathus & Nevid, 1988) and it is most probably the last chance to heal the father-adolescent relationship which has transgenerational implications (Osherson, 1986).
II. Use
The main intended use of the instrument is to assess the current parent-late adolescent (defined here as ages 16 to 19) bonding, which can be a focus of counseling for the adolescent. “The relationship one has with one’s parents is a huge therapy issue, though women raise it more often than men” (Carrell, 2001, p. 172). Villar’s (2001) 30 years of counseling and psychotherapy experience in the Philippines has convinced her that the past is an important factor in the healing process, which includes interpersonal issues with significant others. This is especially so since Philippine society is family-oriented (Miranda, 1992; Jocano in Perez, 1995; Jocano in Tiglao-Torres in Teh & Macapagal, 1999; Lapuz, 1997; Ramirez, 1993), relational (Calpotura in Salazar-Clemeña, 2000), other-oriented, and person-oriented (Salazar-Clemeña, 1993).
In the context of Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory, significant relationships in the early years of life will tend to form the templates for adult interpersonal relationships, making the issue of parent-child relationship of prime importance.
The scale and its accompanying concepts may also be conveniently used in parenting enhancement programs such as “Filipino Paternal Nurturance Skills Enhancement Workshop”, “Parenting Adolescents Program for Fathers”, “Father-Adolescent Dialogue Program”, and “The Mother’s Role in Enhancing Father-Adolescent Relationship”.
III. Description
The
Panukat ng Kabataan ng Ugaling Pagkamapagkalingang Ama or
PKUPA for short, is a 25-item unidimensional scale in the Filipino language that purports to measure the level of paternal nurturance of a Filipino father from the viewpoint of Filipino adolescents aged 16 to 19 from intact families.
PKUPA is empirically unidimensional, but conceptually multi-dimensional, i.e., composed of nine (9) themes, with an average of 2.8 items each. Borrowing the qualitative content analysis’ themes to classify the final 25 items based on quantitative factor analysis, the final test construct may be represented in figure form below (Figure 1). The themes are arranged in descending order of items included in the final test, as represented by the enclosed numbers beside them.
Ugaling Pagkamapagkalinga ng Ama
Mabait at Maunawain (7)
Matulungin (5)
Mapag-alaga (3)
Responsable (3)
Mapaggabay (2)
Mapagtugon sa Pangangailangan (2)
Magalang sa Pagkatao (1)
Mapagmahal (1)
Mapagtalastas (1)
Figure 1. The test construct as defined by content analysis themes representing the final 25 items
Connecting the final 25 items (quantitative analysis) back to their original content analysis themes (qualitative analysis), thematically, paternal nurturance may be descriptively defined, using the eleven (11) “global” items that made it through the factor analytic sifting process in descending order of item factor loadings, as follows: Ang isang mapagkalingang ama ay matulugin (item 3), mapagmalasakit (item 19), mapag-alaga (item 25), mapaggabay (item 2), maunawain (item 29), mabait (item 26), maalalahanin (item 28), tumutugon sa pangangailangan (item 15), magalang (item 10), nakikipag-ugnay (item 17) sa anak, at mabuting tagapamahala sa tahanan (item 22).
IV. The PKUPA
A. PKUPA Answer Sheet
Pangalan: ___________________________________ Petsa: _____________________
Pakibilugan ang numero o letra na naaangkop sa iyo:
EDAD: 16, 17, 18, 19
KASARIAN: B = babae, L = lalaki
MGA MAGULANG: M = magksasama, H = hiwalay, Y1 = yumao (ama), Y2 = yumao (ina), A1 = abroad (ama),
A2 = abroad (ina)
LAHI: P = pilipino, T = tsino, PT = pilipino-tsino, I = iba pa (ano?): ____________
TRABAHO (ama): M = may hanapbuhay (ano?) ___________________________, W = wala
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUNTUNIN: Gamitin ang mga pagpipiliang sagot sa ibaba para ipahayag and dalas ng pagpapakita ng IYONG AMA (tatay/ itay/ papa/ daddy/ dad) ng mga sumusunod na pag-uugali sa yo at sa pamilya mo ngayon sa iyong kabataan:
Hindi = Hindi o Hindi Ginagawa
Bihira = Bihira o Bihirang Ginagawa
Minsan = Paminsan-minsan o Paminsan-minsan Ginagawa
Madalas = Madalas o Madalas Ginagawa
Palagi = Palagi o Palaging Ginagawa
Paki-bilugan ang iyong mga sagot sa ibaba.
1. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
2. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
3. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
4. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
5. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
6. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
7. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
8. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
9. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
10. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
11. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
12. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
13. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
14. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
15. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
16. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
17. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
18. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
19. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
20. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
21. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
22. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
23. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
24. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
25. Hindi Bihira Minsan Madalas Palagi
B. PKUPA Questionnaire
MGA KATANUNGAN
1. Kinukumusta ni Tatay ang aking pag-aaral.
2. Mapaggabay sa akin si Tatay.
3. Matulungin sa akin si Tatay sa oras ng pangangailangan ko.
4. Ipinapadama sa akin ni Tatay na ako ay mahalaga sa kanya.
5. Marunong makisama sa akin si Tatay.
6. Inaalam ni Tatay ang aking mga pangangailangan.
7. Maaasahan si Tatay bilang ama.
8. Nakikinig si Tatay sa aking mga opinyon.
9. Magalang ang pakikitungo sa akin ni Tatay.
10. Nagiging panatag ang aking kalooban kapag kapiling ko si Tatay.
11. Pinapalakas ni Tatay ang aking loob.
12. Masayahin si Tatay sa pakikitungo sa akin.
13. Tumutugon si Tatay sa aking mga pangangailangan.
14. Tinitingala ko si Tatay bilang isang huwaran o modelo.
15. Nakikipag-ugnay sa akin si Tatay.
16. Mapagmalasakit sa akin si Tatay.
17. Matulungin sa akin si Tatay.
18. Nauunawaan ni Tatay ang aking mga pangangailangan bilang kabataan.
19. Mabuting tagapamahala si Tatay ng aming tahanan.
20. Pinapakinggan ni Tatay ang aking mga hinaing.
21. Mapag-alaga sa akin si Tatay.
22. Mabait sa akin si Tatay.
23. Nakikinig si Tatay sa aking mga problema.
24. Maalalahanin sa akin si Tatay.
25. Maunawain sa akin si Tatay.
____________________________________________________________________
All the conceptual themes in the concept explication phase (Cf.: Figure 1 above) were represented in the final instrument after factor analysis except for mapagdisiplina and nadarama ang katauhan. With a factor loading absolute score cut-off of 0.70, 25 of the 182 items were retained with a factor loading range of 0.702 to 0.836 based on 1,161 Metro Manila-based adolescents aged 16 to 19 (M = 17.59, SD = 1.07).
V. Administration
PKUPA may be conveniently administered either individually or in groups. Though it is designed to be simple and clear enough to be self-administered, the following steps and scripts below may be used:
A. Introduction
“The instrument you are about to answer is a simple 25-item scale titled ‘Panukat ng Kabataan ng Ugaling Pagkamapagkalinga ng Ama’ or PKUPA. It is intended to measure the level of paternal nurturance manifested by your father to you now as an adolescent.
“Your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for the purpose for which this exercise is given. Only a qualified counselor or psychologist will handle the data professionally. Any disclosure of any part of your test results to any third party will require your written consent.”
B. Distribution of Answer Sheets
The psychometrician goes through each demographic data, reading the instructions verbatim, and seeing to it that all questions are appropriately answered.
C. Distribution of Questionnaires
“In answering each item, please make sure that the questionnaire item number corresponds to the answer sheet item number. Moreover, please ensure that you mark only one answer per item.”
D. Questions or Clarifications
At this point, the psychometrician asks for any questions or clarifications. Moreover, the psychometrician adds: “Should you have any further questions or clarifications, after we start, please just silently raise your hand and I will approach you. You may now start.”
VI. Scoring
The responses to the 25 questions are simply summed up using the following numerical equivalences:
Hindi = 1, Bihira = 2, Minsan = 3, Madalas = 4, Palagi = 5
Then, based on Table 1 below, the raw scores are converted to stanine scores with their corresponding qualitative interpretations (Cf.: Appendix A for Stanine Score Frequency Tabulation).
Table 1
PKUPA Stanine Score Norms (N = 169)
Raw Score Stanine Interpretation
123 -125 9 Very High
117 - 122 8 High
109 - 116 7 Above Average
103 - 108 6 High Average
96 - 102 5 Average
89 - 95 4 Low Average
75 - 88 3 Below Average
65 - 74 2 Low
25 - 64 1 Very Low
VII. Standardization Sample
The normative sample was composed of 169 Metro Manila-based late adolescents aged 16 to 19 from intact families, accessed through 3 public and private high schools and 2 private colleges. There were 126 females (75%), 39 males (23%), and 4 (2%) who did not indicate their sex. The mean age was 16.71 (SD = 0.93).
VIII. Scale Development Samples
The item generation phase was composed of 513 Metro Manila-based late adolescents aged 16 to 19 (M = 17.59, SD = 1.07).with 316 females (61%), 183 males (36%), and 18 who did not indicate their sex (4%). Thirty-four percent (34%) were public high school and college students and 66% were private college students.
The construct validity phase involved 1,161 Metro Manila-based late adolescents aged 16 to 19 (M = 17.59, SD = 1.07) composed of 664 females (57%) and 497 males (43%). Forty-nine percent (49%) were public high school and college students and 37% were private high school and college students.
The convergent validity study was participated in by 60 Metro Manila-based late adolescents aged 17 to 19 (M = 17.55, SD = 0.59) composed of 47% females and 53% males, with a mean age of 17.55.
IX. Psychometric Properties
Table 2 below presents in summary form PKUPA’s psychometric properties.
Table 2
Psychometric Properties of PKUPA
Psychometric Property Measure N Result
Construct Validity Factor Analysis 1,161 Factor Loading: M = 0.764,
(cut off = 0.7) range = 0.702 - 0.836
Variance Explained: 58%
Convergence: 60 r = 0.798, p < .001
Pearson r with
PBI* Care Scale
Internal Consistency Coefficient α** 169 r = 0.952
Test-Retest Reliability+ Pearson r 58 r = 0.923, p < .01
*PBI = Parental Bonding Instrument (Cf. Appendix B)
**Cf.: Appendix C: Reliability Analysis
+14 and 17 days interval
X. Research
Filipino Metro Manila-based late adolescents’ (n = 169) ratings of their fathers’ level of paternal nurturance was compared with their own fathers’ (n = 169) self-rating on the same construct using a first-person adaptation of the PKUPA, the PUPA (Cf.: Attachment D) as well as the late adolescents’ own mothers’ (n = 169) ratings of their husbands’ level of paternal nurturance towards their son or daughter, using a third person adaptation of PKUPA, the PIUPA (Cf.: Appendix E).
The paternal nurturance total mean scores of the application phase participants are as follows: (a) late adolescents: M = 97.67, SD = 15.90, (b) fathers: M = 105.72, SD = 12.99, and (c) mothers: M = 106.43, SD = 13.19, as represented by the graph below.
Figure 2. Graph of Means
Repeated measures ANOVA using within-subjects data with one independent variable yielded significant rater effect [F (2, 336) = 40.340, MSE = 99, p = .00], as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Repeated Measures Within-Subjects ANOVA (N =169)
Effect SS df MS F p
Intercept 5407022 1 5407022 13630.61 0.000000
Error 66642 168 397
RATER 8012 2 4007 40.34 0.000000
Error 33377 336 99
In order to determine which raters differ, Tukey HSD post hoc multiple comparisons was used. It revealed no significant total mean differences between fathers’ and mothers’ paternal nurturance ratings, but a significant total mean difference between parents’ and their late adolescents’ paternal nurturance ratings, with late adolescents giving a lower paternal nurturance rating of their fathers, as laid out in Table 4 below. The Bonferroni post-hoc multiple comparison test yielded the same results.
Table 4
Tukey HSC Post-Hoc Multiple Comparison Tests (N = 507)
Cell No. RATER Mean 1 2
1 Adolescents 97.6627 ***
2 Fathers 105.716 ***
3 Mothers 106.432 ***
Homogenous Groups, alpha = .05000
Error: Within MS = 99.336, df = 336.0
The results confirm related literature pointing to perceptual discrepancies between adolescents and their parents (Hamid & Wylie in Hamner & Turner, 1996), adolescents’ more pessimistic view of family life compared to those of their parents (Callan & Noller in Hamner & Turner), and the general decline in conformity among late adolescents (Costanzo & Shaw in McKinney et al., 1982). Specifically, “adolescents tend to perceive lower levels of intimacy … and slightly higher levels of conflict with their parents than parents themselves perceive …. adolescents possibly overestimate negative features of family life, whereas parents overestimate socially desirable aspects” (Hamner & Turner, p. 87).
In regard to comparing self- (father) versus others’- (late adolescents and mothers) ratings, social psychologists tell us that we tend to attribute underlying causes of others’ behavior on their traits. On the other hand, we tend to attribute our own behaviors to situations (Jones & Nisbett in Pervin, 1984). This means that self-raters (fathers) have a tendency to excuse their behaviors by using surrounding circumstances.
Table 5 below presents the item-level mean score rankings of the different raters. Using Kendall’s tau-b, the rankings of the three raters positively correlated in descending order as follows: (a) adolescents and mothers, T = .738, p < .01, (b) fathers and mothers, T = .723, p < .01, and (c) adolescents and fathers, T = .626, p < .01. Interestingly, all three raters unanimously agreed only in rank ordering both the highest and the lowest items. Just by looking at these two items reveals a lot about the Filipino father’s strengths and weaknesses in terms of paternal nurturance. “Maaasahan si Tatay bilang ama” was ranked first unanimously. This suggests that the father takes his responsibility to the family seriously, both as self-perceived and as rated by adolescent and mother. This item seems to be further elaborated by the next two top ranking items: “Ipinapadama sa akin ni Tatay na ako ay mahalaga sa kanya” and “Tumutugon si Tatay sa aking mga pangangailangan”, i.e., by showing love through valuing and by concretely responding to the adolescent’s needs. However, the father seems to feel that he is not as responsive to his adolescent’s needs as the adolescent and the mother feel since he rated this item only as seventh (7th) compared to mother (2.5th) and adolescent (3rd).
Table 5
Item-Level Group Mean Rankings (N = 169)
Total Adolescent Father Mother (Item No.) Item
r* μ** r μ r μ r μ
1 4.57 1 4.48 1 4.58 1 4.64 (7) Maaasahan…
2 4.37 4 4.15 2.5 4.46 2.5 4.49 (4) Ipinapadama …(halaga)
3 4.35 3 4.18 7 4.39 2.5 4.49 (13) Tumutugon …(pangangailangan)
4 4.34 2 4.20 8 4.37 4.5 4.44 (10) Nagiging panatag…(loob)
5.5 4.32 7 4.08 2.5 4.46 7 4.43 (16) Mapagmalasakit…
5.5 4.32 5.5 4.11 5 4.42 7 4.43 (22) Mabait…
7 4.31 5.5 4.11 6 4.40 7 4.43 (19) Mabuting tagapamahala…
8 4.30 11 4.05 4 4.44 9.5 4.40 (24) Maalalahanin…
9.5 4.27 12.5 4.02 9.5 4.36 4.5 4.44 (3) Matulungin…(specific)
9.5 4.27 9 4.06 11.5 4.34 9.5 4.40 (21) Mapag-alaga…
11 4.23 14 3.98 9.5 4.36 12 4.34 (17) Matulungin…(general)
12 4.14 9 4.06 13 4.24 18 4.13 (9) Magalang…
13 4.16 15 3.91 15 4.20 11 4.38 (2) Mapaggabay…
14 4.13 17 3.78 11.5 4.34 13 4.28 (25) Maunawain…
15 4.12 9 4.06 18.5 4.08 15.5 4.22 (14) Tinitingala… (huwaran)
16 4.04 19 3.66 14 4.21 14 4.24 (11) Pinapalakas … ang loob
17 4.06 12.5 4.02 18.5 4.08 19 4.08 (12) Masayahin…
18 3.99 18 3.70 16 4.13 17 4.14 (5) Marunong makisama…
19 4.02 16 3.82 22 4.03 15.5 4.22 (6) Inaalam… (pangangailangan)
20.5 3.88 22 3.60 17 4.10 24 3.95 (18) Nauunawaan…(pangangailangan)
20.5 3.88 23 3.55 21 4.04 20 4.05 (20) Pinapakinggan… (hinaing)
22 3.86 20 3.64 24 3.91 21 4.04 (1) Kinukumusta… (pag-aaral)
23 3.83 24 3.41 20 4.05 22 4.02 (23) Nakikinig… (problema)
24 3.86 21 3.62 23 3.96 23 4.01 (15) Nakikipag-ugnay
25 3.64 25 3.39 25 3.78 25 3.75 (8) Nakikinig… (opinyon)
Σ = 103.3 97.64 105.7 106.4
* r = rank
**μ = mean
The item unanimously ranked last by all rates is “Nakikinig si Tatay sa aking mga opinion”. This is probably a reflection of the continuous growing need of the late adolescent to assert his individuality and independence which can be a major conflict issue between parent and adolescent as mentioned by such authors as Bigner, 1998, Hamner & Turner, 1996, and Lamb, 1997. A look into the third and second to the last ranked items further confirm the need for fathers to listen and connect: “Nakikinig si Tatay sa aking mga problema” and “Nakikipag-ugnay sa akin si Tatay’. These are probably the reasons why adolescents describe their fathers as distant, uninvolved, inaccessible, and unapproachable (Aguiling-Dalisay, et. al., 2000; Decaesstecker in Tan, 1989; McCann-Erickson Philippines, 2001) and why they crave for deeper intimacy and more time with their parents (Youth Study, 2001). These last three items have in common the call for fathers to improve his communication skills with his adolescent children, especially in the aspect of listening. And this requires respect for the opinions of his adolescent children, no matter how opposed they may seem from his own views and values as well as the need to “waste” time in order to listen to what his children may be keeping inside them. It is precisely this communication that will help ease up present and possible future conflicts among parents and adolescents, as taught by parent effectiveness training programs like the Parenting Effectiveness Training by Dr. Thomas Gordon (2000). Given the above, it is no wonder that Hamner & Turner (1996) consider the role of parents of adolescents as that of a counselor.
Reference
Aguiling-Dalisay, G., Mendoza, R. M., Mirafelix, E. J. L., Yacat, J. A., Sto.
Domingo, M. R., & Bambico, P. R. (2000). Pagkalalake: Men in control? Filipino male views on love, sex and women. University of the Philippines – Diliman, Quezon City: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikilohiyang Pilipino.
Bernardo, J. P. H., Castro, K. T. A., & Gomez, M. M. C. L. (2002). Work demands and perceived family roles of Filipino male doctors: Positive and negative consequences. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, De La Salle University –Manila.
Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child development. Westport, CT: Auburn.
Biller, H. B., & Trotter, R. J. (1994). The father factor: What you need to know
to make a difference. NY: Pocket.
Bowlby, J. (1988). ). Secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Carrell, S. E. (2001). The therapit’s toolbox: 26 tools and an assortment of
implements for the busy therapist. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chua, J. T., Garcia, R. L. C., & Vilela, M. V. C. (1998). Beliefs used to justify
child sexual abuse among child sexual abusers. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, De La Salle University – Manila.
Dubeau, D. (2002). Contemporary family trends: Portraits of fathers. Quebec,
Canada: The Vanier Institute of the Family.
Go, S. L. Y., Imperio, D. S., & Juan, M. D. (1998, March). A comparative study of the concept of paternal role and satisfaction of young and middle aged Filipino fathers. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, De La Salle University – Manila.
Gordon, T. (2000). Parent effectiveness training: The proven program for raising responsible children. NY: Three Rivers.
Herzog, J. M. (2001). Father Hunger: Explorations with adults and children.
Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Jarema, W. J. (1994). Fathering the next generation: Men mentoring men. NY: Crossroad.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1976). The role of the father in child development. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1981). The role of the father in child development (2nd ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lapuz, L. V. (1977). Filipino marriages in crisis. QC: New Day.
Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 27(3), 259-265.
Miranda, D. M. (1992). Buting Pinoy: Probe essays on value as Filipino. Manila:
Logos.
Nicolosi, J. (1991). Reparative therapy of male homosexuals: A new clinical approach. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Osherson, S. (1986). Finding our fathers: How a man’s life is shaped by his
relationship with his father. NY: Ballantine.
Perez, A. E. (Ed.). (1995). The Filipino family: A spectrum of views and issues. Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
Pruett, K. D. (2000). Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for
your child. NY: Broadway.
Ramirez, M. M. (1993). Understanding Philippine social realities through the
Filipino family: A phenomenological approach. Malate, Manila: Asian Social Institute.
Rathus, S. A. & Nevid, J. S. (1999). Adjustment and growth: The challenges of life
(7th ed.). Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Rohr, R., & Martos, J. (1997). The wild man’s journey: Reflections on male
spirituality. Diliman, Quezon City: Claretian.
Salazar-Clemeña, R. M. (1993). Counseling psychology in the Philippines:
Research and practice (2nd ed.). De La Salle University - Manila.
Salazar-Clemeña, R. M. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling in Asia: Integrating cultural
perspectives. Makati City: APECA.
Somera, R. D. (2000, Pebrero 21). Kalinga, kuwento at kaltura: Ang Antropolohiya ng pagkalinga at konteksto ng mga dukhang pamilya sa Kamaynilaan. Ikalawang Panayam Propesyonal na ginanap sa Ortigas Seminar Room, Pamantasang De La Salle – Manila.
Teh, L. A. & Macapagal, M. E. J. (Eds.) (1999). Readings in general psychology.
QC: Ateneo de Manila University, Department of Psychology.
Villar, I. V. G. (2001). Brief psychodynamic strategies for counseling and
psychotherapy. Manila: De La Salle University – Manila.
Weinstein, S. (1995). Family beyond family: The surrogate parent in school
and other community agencies. NY: Haworth.
Appendix A
PKUPA Stanine Score Frequency Distribution (N = 169)
Raw Stanine Actual Theoretical
Score f Score n n Difference
125 5 9 8 6.8 1.2
124 3 [4.7%] [4%]
123 0
122 2 8 10 11.8 - 1.8
121 1 [5.9%] [7%]
120 2
119 3
118 2
117 0
116 5 7 22 20.3 1.7
115 2 [13%] [12%]
114 2
113 3
112 2
111 2
110 5
109 1
108 4 6 29 28.7 0.3
107 4 [17.2%] [17%]
106 5
105 3
104 5
103 8
102 3 5 33 33.8 - 0.8
101 3 [19.5%] [20%]
100 4
99* 6
98 6
97 8
96 3
95 5 4 29 28.7 0.3
94 7 [17.2%] [17%]
93 3
92 4
91 4
90 3
89 3
88 2 3 21 20.3 0.7
87 1 [12.4%] [12%]
86 0
85 3
84 5
83 3
82 0
81 0
80 1
79 2
78 2
77 0
76 0
75 2
74 2 2 12 11.8 0.2
73 0 [7.1%] [7%]
72 2
71 0
70 1
69 2
68 0
67 4
66 0
65 1
64 1 1 5 6.8 - 1.8
63 0 [2.9%] [4%]
62 0
61 0
60 1
59 0
58 1
57 0
56 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
49 1
48 1
47 0
46 0
45 0
44 0
43 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
38 0
39 0
37 0
36 0
35 0
34 0
33 0
32 0
31 0
30 0
29 0
28 0
27 0
26 0
25 0
Total 169
*Median
Appendix B
Parental Bonding Instrument (For Fathers)
Code Number: _______
Instruction: This questionnaire lists various attitudes and behaviors of parents. As you remember your FATHER in your first 16 years would you place a check in the most appropriate brackets next to each question.
Very Moderately Moderately Very
Like Like Unlike Unlike
1. Spoke to me with a warm and friendly voice.
2. Did not help me as much as I needed.
3. Let me do those things I liked doing.
4. Seemed emotionally cold to me.
5. Appeared to understand my problems and worries.
6. Was affectionate to me.
7. Liked me to make my own decisions.
8. Did not want me to grow up.
9. Tried to control everything I did.
10. Invaded my privacy.
11. Enjoyed talking things over with me.
12. Frequently smiled at me.
13. Tended to baby me.
14. Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted.
15. Let me decide things for myself.
16. Made me feel I wasn't wanted.
17. Could make me feel better when I was upset.
18. Did not talk with me very much.
19. Tried to make me dependent on him.
20. Felt I could not look after myself unless he was around.
21. Gave me as much freedom as I wanted.
22. Let me go out as often as I wanted.
23. Was overprotective of me.
24. Did not praise me.
25. Let me dress in any way I pleased.
Thank you very much!
May the good Lord bless you and your family!
--------------------------
Note. Permission to use the instrument for research was requested from the principal author, Gordon Parker, who responded through e-mail in a letter dated March 18, 1999 by saying "The PBI is not held under copyright. Therefore, clinicians and researchers are free to use the measure without obtaining permission".
Appendix C
Reliability Analysis – Scale (Alpha)
A. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
ITEM_1 ITEM_2 ITEM_3 ITEM_4 ITEM_5
ITEM_1 1.0000
ITEM_2 .4165 1.0000
ITEM_3 .2733 .4565 1.0000
ITEM_4 .4099 .3919 .2695 1.0000
ITEM_5 .2057 .3216 .3951 .3669 1.0000
ITEM_6 .4234 .4285 .4552 .4825 .3684
ITEM_7 .2994 .4790 .4821 .4979 .3749
ITEM_8 .3855 .3408 .4341 .3577 .5191
ITEM_9 .2850 .3770 .3099 .4324 .5724
ITEM_10 .3471 .3350 .2304 .3684 .4665
ITEM_11 .4138 .4180 .3818 .4159 .4779
ITEM_12 .3300 .4359 .2641 .4238 .4425
ITEM_13 .2821 .3354 .4656 .3150 .3263
ITEM_14 .2818 .4856 .2643 .5125 .4110
ITEM_15 .4881 .4001 .4427 .4184 .5093
ITEM_16 .4312 .4918 .4932 .4105 .4173
ITEM_17 .3431 .4364 .5151 .3129 .4135
ITEM_18 .2059 .2969 .3378 .3140 .4669
ITEM_19 .1971 .3730 .3567 .4507 .4760
ITEM_20 .3060 .4178 .4766 .3279 .5182
ITEM_21 .3304 .4823 .4316 .3909 .4239
ITEM_22 .2964 .4400 .3074 .4427 .4398
ITEM_23 .4158 .3815 .3588 .3537 .4933
ITEM_24 .2976 .4412 .4323 .4739 .4434
ITEM_25 .2921 .5100 .3660 .3895 .4221
ITEM_6 ITEM_7 ITEM_8 ITEM_9 ITEM_10
ITEM_6 1.0000
ITEM_7 .4882 1.0000
ITEM_8 .4491 .3921 1.0000
ITEM_9 .3885 .5083 .3944 1.0000
ITEM_10 .3586 .4041 .4454 .4856 1.0000
ITEM_11 .5206 .4327 .5474 .4932 .5008
ITEM_12 .3828 .5227 .4187 .4820 .4628
ITEM_13 .5105 .5303 .3782 .4266 .3437
ITEM_14 .4983 .5508 .4050 .5088 .5158
ITEM_15 .5631 .4433 .5846 .4714 .4364
ITEM_16 .5830 .5813 .5211 .4431 .4838
ITEM_17 .4935 .5290 .5584 .4824 .4699
ITEM_18 .4363 .3985 .5056 .4149 .2769
ITEM_19 .4609 .5341 .4998 .4637 .4101
ITEM_20 .4552 .4564 .6924 .4207 .3934
ITEM_21 .4756 .4251 .4444 .4855 .5121
ITEM_22 .4383 .4209 .4501 .4554 .4663
ITEM_23 .4693 .3707 .6470 .3676 .3566
ITEM_24 .5334 .4422 .3344 .4893 .3624
ITEM_25 .4321 .3758 .4334 .3793 .3575
ITEM_11 ITEM_12 ITEM_13 ITEM_14 ITEM_15
ITEM_11 1.0000
ITEM_12 .4417 1.0000
ITEM_13 .3845 .3602 1.0000
ITEM_14 .4640 .5042 .4423 1.0000
ITEM_15 .5973 .4408 .5020 .4897 1.0000
ITEM_16 .6300 .4153 .5252 .4821 .5954
ITEM_17 .4979 .4287 .4935 .4869 .5373
ITEM_18 .4330 .3226 .3130 .4992 .5258
ITEM_19 .5101 .4945 .3006 .5259 .4991
ITEM_20 .5348 .4463 .3724 .4061 .5689
ITEM_21 .5196 .3976 .4648 .3637 .5140
ITEM_22 .5326 .5689 .3264 .3736 .5222
ITEM_23 .4705 .3970 .2868 .3964 .5955
ITEM_24 .5007 .4259 .4281 .3827 .4813
ITEM_25 .5493 .4412 .3081 .3937 .4601
ITEM_16 ITEM_17 ITEM_18 ITEM_19 ITEM_20
ITEM_16 1.0000
ITEM_17 .6858 1.0000
ITEM_18 .3844 .4786 1.0000
ITEM_19 .5244 .4747 .5245 1.0000
ITEM_20 .5578 .6613 .5806 .5371 1.0000
ITEM_21 .5790 .5461 .3578 .4126 .5044
ITEM_22 .5157 .5123 .3743 .5467 .5263
ITEM_23 .4621 .5489 .4890 .4634 .7014
ITEM_24 .5619 .5809 .4237 .4271 .5012
ITEM_25 .5042 .5231 .4809 .4979 .5830
ITEM_21 ITEM_22 ITEM_23 ITEM_24 ITEM_25
ITEM_21 1.0000
ITEM_22 .5106 1.0000
ITEM_23 .4926 .4458 1.0000
ITEM_24 .6240 .5971 .4116 1.0000
ITEM_25 .5740 .5655 .5634 .6296 1.0000
N of Cases = 169.0
Reliability Coefficients 25 items
Alpha = .9519 Standardized item alpha = .9525
B. Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
ITEM_1 94.0178 237.6247 .4813 .4526 .9518
ITEM_2 93.7515 233.6522 .5977 .5089 .9506
ITEM_3 93.6450 236.4089 .5560 .4942 .9510
ITEM_4 93.5148 235.3822 .5752 .4899 .9508
ITEM_5 93.9586 233.8257 .6270 .5372 .9502
ITEM_6 93.8402 232.7898 .6757 .5433 .9497
ITEM_7 93.1834 237.1269 .6623 .5950 .9500
ITEM_8 94.2722 229.8421 .6839 .6337 .9496
ITEM_9 93.6036 234.2764 .6390 .5342 .9501
ITEM_10 93.4615 234.6548 .5929 .5175 .9506
ITEM_11 94.0000 229.0952 .7137 .5815 .9492
ITEM_12 93.6391 236.5297 .6210 .5092 .9503
ITEM_13 93.4793 237.4892 .5667 .4982 .9508
ITEM_14 93.6036 233.4312 .6455 .6234 .9500
ITEM_15 94.0414 231.1947 .7427 .6323 .9490
ITEM_16 93.5799 233.3165 .7507 .6785 .9490
ITEM_17 93.6805 231.7782 .7345 .6704 .9491
ITEM_18 94.0592 232.8536 .5999 .5292 .9506
ITEM_19 93.5562 233.7483 .6676 .5646 .9498
ITEM_20 94.1124 229.6480 .7356 .7005 .9490
ITEM_21 93.6036 231.6097 .6869 .5926 .9495
ITEM_22 93.5562 234.1412 .6749 .5881 .9497
ITEM_23 94.2485 229.7950 .6721 .6471 .9498
ITEM_24 93.6095 232.7513 .6826 .6501 .9496
ITEM_25 93.8876 232.8623 .6761 .6137 .9497
Appendix D
Panukat ng Ugaling Pagkamapagkalingang Ama (PUPA)
Pangalan: ______________________________________ Petsa: _____________ Edad: _____
TUNTUNIN: Gamitian ang mga numero sa ibaba sa pagsagot sa mga patlang para ipahayag ang dalas ng pagpapakita ninyo ng mga sumusunod na paguugali sa iyong binata o dalagang anak na nagpapasagot nito at sa pamilya ninyo ngayon:
1 = Hindi o Hindi Ginagawa
2 = Bihira o Bihirang Ginagawa
3 = Paminsan-minsan o Paminsan-minsan Ginagawa
4 = Madalas o Madalas na Ginagawa
5 = Palagi o Palaging Ginagawa
___ 1. Kinukumusta ko ang kanyang pag-aaral.
___ 2. Mapaggabay ako sa kanya.
___ 3. Matulungin ako sa kanya sa oras ng kanyang pangangailangan.
___ 4. Ipinapadama ko sa kanya na ako ay mahalaga sa kanya.
___ 5. Marunong akong makisama sa kanya.
___ 6. Inaalam ko ang kanyang mga pangangailangan.
___ 7. Maaasahan ako bilang ama.
___ 8. Nakikinig ako sa kanyang mga opinyon.
___ 9. Magalang ang pakikitungo ko sa kanya.
___ 10. Nagiging panatag ang kanyang kalooban kapag kapiling niya ako.
___ 11. Pinapalakas ko ang kanyang loob.
___ 12. Masayahin ako sa pakikitungo sa kanya.
___ 13. Tumutugon ako sa kanyang mga pangangailangan.
___ 14. Tinitingala niya ako bilang isang huwaran o modelo.
___ 15. Nakikipag-ugnay ako sa kanya.
___ 16. Mapagmalasakit ako sa kanya.
___ 17. Matulungin ako sa kanya.
___ 18. Nauunawaan ko ang kanyang mga pangangailangan bilang kabataan.
___ 19. Mabuting tagapamahala ako ng aming tahanan.
___ 20. Pinapakinggan ko ang kanyang mga hinaing.
___ 21. Mapag-alaga ako sa kanya.
___ 22. Mabait ako sa kanya.
___ 23. Nakikinig ako sa kanyang mga problema.
___ 24. Maalalahanin ako sa kanya.
___ 25. Maunawain ako sa kanya.
_______________________
Lagda ng Ama
Maraming, maraming salamat po!
Appendix E
Panukat ng Ina ng Ugaling Pagkamapagkalingang Ama (PIUPA)
Pangalan: ______________________________________ Petsa: _____________ Edad: _____
TUNTUNIN: Gamitian ang mga numero sa ibaba sa pagsagot sa mga patlang para ipahayag ang dalas ng pagpapakita ng inyong ASAWA ng mga sumusunod na paguugali sa inyong BINATA o DALAGANG ANAK na nagpapasagot nito at sa pamilya ninyo ngayon:
1 = Hindi o Hindi Ginagawa
2 = Bihira o Bihirang Ginagawa
3 = Paminsan-minsan o Paminsan-minsan Ginagawa
4 = Madalas o Madalas na Ginagawa
5 = Palagi o Palaging Ginagawa
___ 1. Kinukumusta niya ang pag-aaral ng aming anak.
___ 2. Mapaggabay siya sa aming anak.
___ 3. Matulungin siya sa aming anak sa oras ng pangangailangan nito.
___ 4. Ipinapadama niya sa aming anak na siya ay mahalaga sa kanya.
___ 5. Marunong siyang makisama sa aming anak.
___ 6. Inaalam niya ang mga pangangailangan ng aming anak.
___ 7. Maaasahan siya bilang ama.
___ 8. Nakikinig siya sa mga opinyon ng aming anak.
___ 9. Magalang ang pakikitungo niya sa aming anak.
___ 10. Nagiging panatag ang kalooban ng aming anak kapag kapiling siya.
___ 11. Pinapalakas niya ang loob ng aming anak.
___ 12. Masayahin siya sa pakikitungo sa aming anak.
___ 13. Tumutugon siya sa mga pangangailangan ng aming anak.
___ 14. Tinitingala siya ng aming anak bilang huwaran o modelo.
___ 15. Nakikipag-ugnay siya sa aming anak.
___ 16. Mapagmalasakit siya sa aming anak.
___ 17. Matulungin siya sa aming anak.
___ 18. Nauunawaan niya ang mga pangangailangan ng aming anak bilang kabataan.
___ 19. Mabuting tagapamahala ang aking asawa ng aming tahanan.
___ 20. Pinapakinggan niya ang mga hinaing ng aming anak.
___ 21. Mapag-alaga siya sa aming anak.
___ 22. Mabait siya sa aming anak.
___ 23. Nakikinig siya sa mga problema ng aming anak.
___ 24. Maalalahanin siya sa aming anak.
___ 25. Maunawain siya sa aming anak.
_______________________
Lagda ng Ina
Maraming, maraming salamat po!
