%0 Journal Article %T 父母权威合法性问卷中文修订及其信效度检验
The Revision of the Chinese Version of the Parental Authority Questionnaire and Its Reliability and Validity Test %A 朱骞 %J Advances in Psychology %P 326-332 %@ 2160-7281 %D 2025 %I Hans Publishing %R 10.12677/ap.2025.156381 %X 目的：修订父母权威合法性问卷(Legitimacy of Parental Authority Scale, LPAS)，检验其在中国青少年中的信效度。方法：对1154名青少年施测中文版LPAS，随后进行项目分析、相关分析、探索性和验证性因素分析、内部一致性分析。并在3个月后对其中525名被试实施重测，进行重测信度分析。选取父母情感温暖、亲子关系亲密度和行为自主决策作为效标工具，进行效标效度分析。结果：探索性因素分析和验证性因素分析均支持中文版LPAS的双因素模型；问卷总分与父母情感温暖、亲子关系亲密度呈显著正相关，与行为自主决策呈显著负相关；问卷的内部一致性系数为0.734，分半信度为0.713，三个月后的重测信度为0.705。结论：中文版LPAS具有良好的信效度和测量等值性，可以作为测量中国青少年父母权威合法性的有效工具。
Objective: To revise the Legitimacy of Parental Authority Scale (LPAS) and examine its reliability and validity among Chinese adolescents. Methods: A total of 1154 adolescents were administered the Chinese version of LPAS. Subsequently, item analysis, Relevant analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency analysis were conducted. After three months, 525 participants were retested to assess the test-retest reliability. Parental emotional warmth, parent-child relationship closeness, and behavioral autonomy decision-making were selected as criterion measures for criterion validity analysis. Results: Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the two-factor model of the Chinese version of LPAS. The total score of the questionnaire was significantly positively correlated with parental emotional warmth and parent-child relationship closeness, and significantly negatively correlated with behavioral autonomy decision-making. The internal consistency coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.734, the split-half reliability was 0.713, and the test-retest reliability after three months was 0.705. Conclusion: The Chinese version of LPAS has good reliability and validity and measurement invariance, and can be used as an effective tool for measuring the legitimacy of parental authority among Chinese adolescents. %K 父母权威合法性， %K 信度， %K 效度
Parental Authority Legitimacy %K Reliability %K Validity %U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=118598