See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342750627

Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale: Urdu Translation and

Validation

Article in Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research · July 2020

DOI: 10.33824/PJPR.2020.35.2.18

CITATIONS READS

2 1,355

2 authors:

Sana Bukhari Sobia Masood

Quaid-i-Azam University Rawalpindi Women University
5 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 213 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sobia Masood on 06 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 2020, Vol. 35, No. 2, 337-354

https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2020.35.2.18

Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict

Scale: Urdu Translation and Validation

Sana Bukhari and Sobia Masood

Quaid-i-Azam University

Based on the Cognitive Contextual framework, the Children’s

Perception of Interparental Conflict (CPIC; Grych, Seid, & Fincham,
1992) scale was developed to measure perception of children about
interparental conflict. This paper presents a valid and reliable Urdu
translation of CPIC scale, using a sample of 521 adolescents, to
make available an instrument that can be used on Pakistani
adolescents. The guidelines of Brislin (1970) were used for the
translation of CPIC, followed by cross-language validation, which
showed significant correlations (p< .01) between original and Urdu-
version of CPIC. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and follow-up model
fit indices showed a good fit on its original four factor structure (GFI
= .90; IFI = .91; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .03), after deletion of certain
items. Cronbach’s coefficient indicated sound internal consistency
of all subscales. It is concluded that the Urdu-translated version of
CPIC is a reliable and valid measure to assess different aspects of
interparental conflict in a sample of Pakistani adolescents. Uses and
potential implications of an Urdu-translated version of CPIC are
discussed.

Keywords. Interparental conflict, cognitive contextual framework,

children’s perception, CPIC scale, Urdu translation, validation,
adolescents

Many adolescents have the misfortune of experiencing parents'

separation or are a part of intact households that have a high or at least
some degree of interparental conflict (Escapa, 2017; Slater & Haber,
1984; Wierson, Forehand, & McCombs, 1988; Zinzow et al., 2009).
Studies across the globe have shown that exposure to such conflict is
associated with a number of negative consequences (DeBoard-Lucas
& Grych, 2011; Khaleque, Uddin, Shirin, Aktar, & Himi, 2016;
McCloskey & Lichter, 2003). Similarly a study conducted in Pakistan

Sana Bukhari and Sobia Masood, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-

Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sana Bukhari,
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Email: sana.b.jaleel@gmail.com.pk
338 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

reported that adolescents exposed to higher interparental conflict at

home had lower levels of parental attachment and poor peer relations
(Azam, 2006). Saeed (2001) also noted a positive relationship
between perceived interparental conflicts and self-reported
delinquency in adolescents. Additionally, when studying aggression
among young adults, Feroz, Jami, and Masood (2015) established that
exposure to domestic violence and interparental conflict result in long
lasting consequences. However, more recently, research efforts have
shifted from investigating the existence of a relationship between
exposure to interparental conflict and negative outcomes for
adolescents, to understanding the underlying mechanism responsible
for it (Fisher, 2012).
Majority of the studies that look into the influence of parental
discord on the children mostly examine reports of the conflict given
by the parents, while few take into account the perception of children
about the said conflict (Moura, dos Santos, Rocha, & Matos, 2010). It
can be argued that children’s appraisals are actually more relevant to
their wellbeing and functioning, since these appraisals or perceptions
mirror their processing (both emotional and cognitive) of the discord
(Grych & Fincham, 1990). Therefore, logic entails that children’s
appraisals are better predictors of the influences of parental discord
upon child related outcomes, as compared to parental accounts (Emery
& O’Leary, 1982).
In 1990,Grych and Fincham proposed a cognitive-contextual
framework for understanding the association between interparental
conflict and child adjustment. In this framework the authors identify
the underlying mechanism of the relationship between interparental
conflict and its negative consequences for children. According to
them, children’s appraisals of threat, self-blame and triangulation into
interparental conflict act as mediators of the said relationship. The
threat appraisal represents the child’s perception of the destructive
outcomes of conflict between parents, these outcomes may be related
to the child or the whole structure of the family. An example of this
can be when a child witnesses a fight between his/her parents, he/she
would start to fear that this would harm his/her relationship with one
or both parents, or that the parents may end up divorced (Grych, 1998;
Grych & Cardoza-Fernandez, 2001). It is natural for a child to attempt
to understand the reasoning behind parental discord, and even try to
resolve it. The threat appraisal of a child is decreased if the child
believes that he/she can handle or deal with the discord between
parents. When threatening aspect of the conflict is lowered the child
can feel confident in responding effectively. But an increased threat
appraisal renders the child incapable of coping (Grych & Fincham,
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 339

1990). Studies show that interparental conflict can be perceived by the

adolescents as a threat to their emotional and overall wellbeing, and
such adolescents are likely to develop externalizing and internalizing
behaviour problems (Fisher, 2012; Khaleque et al., 2016).Whereas the
self-blame appraisal represents a view of the child that he/she is
responsible for the parental discord and it is his/her job to make peace
(Grych & Fincham, 1993). Research suggests that a child’s distress
increases when they are of the view that they have caused their parents
to fight (Ablow, Measelle, Cowan, & Cowan, 2009). The self-blame
appraisal is increased if the child attempts to comprehend the reasons
underlying the conflict between their parents, which leads to the
children getting tangled in the conflict both in an emotional and
physical way. Children that are convinced that they are the cause
behind the interparental conflict are drowned in feelings of guilt and
shame, and thus try their hardest to somehow resolve it (Grych,
Fincham, Jouriles, & McDonald,2000; Khaleque et al., 2016).
Numerous studies have put forth evidence that suggest that in reality,
these appraisals link interparental conflict to children’s behaviour
problems (Buehler, Lange, & Franck, 2007; Grych, Harold, & Miles,
2003).
According to the family systems theorists, triangulation is “the
involvement of a third person in a dyadic conflict” (Fosco & Grych,
2008, p. 844). Triangulation can exist in various forms. In the context
of the present study, triangulation refers to the child getting involved
in interparental discord. Children may be triangulated into
interparental conflict by their own will or they may be forced by one
or both parents. A child could try to make peace or may be pressured
into choosing sides with either parent, a child may even try to divert
attention to him/herself (by misbehaving) in order to stop the parents
from fighting with each other (Buchanan & Waizenhofer, 2001).
Research show that couples in high conflict marriages are likely to
involve the kids in the arguments they are having with their spouses
(Kerig, 1995; Lindahl, Clements, & Markman, 1997).
Based on this frame-work, the Children’s Perception of
Interparental Conflict (CPIC)scale was developed. The said scale was
constructed using an American sample, however, since then it has also
been used on samples from Europe (Bringhenti, 2005); Italy (Godde
& Walper, 2001); Germany (Iraurgi et al., 2008); Spain (Ulu &
Fisiloglu, 2004); Turkey (Vairami & Vorria, 2007); Asia (Chi &Xin,
2003); and Portugal (Moura et al., 2010). Researches on the factor
similarity of this scale across different countries and cultures can shed
light on the cultural sensitivity of this phenomenon and the theory
upon which CPIC scale is based, which would allow more inclusive,
340 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

generalizable, and comparative discussion of findings. Cultural

context could actually be an important element when measuring
interparental conflict as it is a phenomenon likely to be influenced by
culture, such as the socialization process, values, and parenting styles,
which warrants the need to validate instruments across cultures
(Moura et al., 2010). Therefore, this study intends to examine CPIC’s
factor structure in a culture different from the one where it was
originally developed. To accomplish this, the present research
translates and then examines the validity of the CPIC factor structure,
using a sample of Pakistani adolescents.

The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale

This instrument was developed by Grych, Seid, and Fincham
(1992) based on the cognitive contextual framework (Grych &
Fincham, 1990), to measure particular dimensions or aspects of
parental conflicts from the perspective of the children. This scale
contains 48 items divided into four subscales: Conflict properties
(item example: I often see my parents arguing), threat (item example:
I get scared when my parents argue), self-blame (item example: It’s
usually my fault when my parents argue), and triangulation (item
example: I feel like I have to take sides when my parents have a
disagreement).
The subscale of Conflict Properties has a total of 19 items; the
Threat subscale contains 12 items: the Self-blame subscale contains 9
items and lastly, the Triangulation subscale contains 8 items (see
Table 1). All items have three response options ranging from 2 = True,
1 = Sort of or Sometimes True and 0 = False. Pertaining to their
content, items number 1, 2, 6, 9, 13, 17, 20, 27, 28, 30, 32, 36, 39 and
47 were reverse coded. The scale does not have a composite score.
Originally developed to be used on young children, this scale has also
been tested for psychometric properties on adolescents and emerging
adults with reliability of subscales ranging from .76 to .92 (Moura et
al., 2010).
Based on the arguments and rationale presented previously,
highlighting the importance of studying children’s perception of
interparental conflict, and the lack of a suitable instrument to measure
it in the Pakistani population, this study takes on the task to translate
and adapt the CPIC scale into Urdu language, in order to make
available an Urdu language, reliable and valid instrument to measure
perceptions of interparental conflicts in Pakistani adolescents.
Therefore, the aims of this study include:
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 341

1. Translation and adaptation of Children’s Perception of

Interparental Conflict scale into Urdu language.
2. Establishing validity of the Urdu-translated version of
Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict scale.

Method

To fulfill the aforementioned objectives, the current study was

divided into three phases:
Phase I: Translation and adaptation of CPIC
Phase II: Cross-language validation
Phase III: Structural validation through Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Phase I: Translationand adaptation of CPIC

Previous studies in Pakistan measuring the influence of parental
discord on the exposed children and adolescents used various Urdu-
translated instruments such as Marital Conflict Scale, originally
developed by Lopez (1991) and translated into Urdu by Azam (2006),
and Childhood Exposure to Domestic Violence Scale, originally
developed by Edleson, Johnson, and Shin (2007), and translated into
Urdu by Masood (2014). However, these instruments merely address
the exposure and not the perceptions and appraisals of the adolescent
about the conflict. Therefore, a need was identified to translate the
CPIC scale into Urdu language for its use on a Pakistani sample. After
seeking permission from the original author of the scale, the
translation and adaptation of CPIC scale was done by following the
guidelines of Brislin (1970). Translation was carried out in the
following steps:

Step 1: Forward-translation of items into targeted language

Step 2: Selection of most suitable item through committee approach
Step 3: Back-translation of items into source language
Step 4: Selection of most suitable item through committee approach

In Step 1, Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict (CPIC)

scale was translated from the source language, English, into Urdu. The
translation was done by following the guidelines recommended by
Brislin (1970) which included making sure there was maximum
similarity of the content of the source and the target language scale;
there should also be no replacement or deletion of any item.
342 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

Translation was carried out by bilingual translators; five people

participated in the forward-translation process. Among them three had
a background in Psychology and all five were fluent in both the source
and target languages.
The translators fulfilled the criteria noted by Brislin (1970)
according to which all translators need a clear understanding of the
source and target language of the scale. Also, should produce items in
the target language that can be easily understood by respondents. They
were instructed to translate the items as correctly as possible and also
pinpoint items that are irrelevant to the Pakistani culture and to
suggest suitable alternatives for such items.
After receiving the translations from all participating translators,
in Step 2 a committee was gathered to select the most appropriate and
accurate translation. The committee consisted of two Psychology
PhDs, one MPhil scholar and the researcher. Each and every item of
the scale was thoroughly examined by the committee and out of the
five translations, the one that conveyed the exact or closest meaning to
the original text was selected. The translated items were also
evaluated on the basis of context and grammatical soundness while
emphasizing on the conceptual equivalence between the original text
and translation. Some of the items were rephrased for better
comprehension. It was also made sure that the translation should not
comprise of such words that would be hard to understand by the target
sample.
In Step 3 of the translation process, the items that the committee
selected were taken to another set of five bilingual translators for
back-translation who were unfamiliar with the original scale in the
English language. Out of these five, four translators had a background
of psychology and all were fluent in both the source and target
language. All the translators were instructed to back-translate the
items in English by trying to keep content equivalence between both
the versions.
In Step 4, back-translated items were taken to the committee for
final selection. The committee consisted of two psychology PhDs and
the researcher. Committee received the original and back-translated
items and assessed the concordance between the back-translations and
original English version of each item. Items that were closest in
meaning with the original items were retained. After consultation with
the original author, modifications were made in those items which had
some problem in their back-translation.
Finally, the translated version of the scale that emerged after the
said procedure was administered on 50 adolescent students and was
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 343

reviewed by subject matter experts. Participants were asked to give

feedback on the comprehension, language difficulty and statement
clarity of instruments. They were requested to give suggestions
regarding the response format of the questionnaire. Participants were
also asked to tell about any confusion they may have faced while
reading the items. According to the feedback received after the tryout,
it was found that participants understood all the translated items.

Phase II: Cross-Language Validation

Cross-language validation was conducted in order to statistically
determine the similarity between the original English language version
and the Urdu-translated version of CPIC.

Sample
The sample for cross language validation of CPIC scale
comprised of 26 students from private schools of Islamabad and
Rawalpindi. It consisted of 13 boys and 13 girls, with an age range of
13-17 years (M = 14.38, SD = 1.09), belonging to grades 8 to 10
(M = 8.46, SD = 0.86).

Procedure
Following the translation process, in order to establish cross
language validation of the translated scale, both the translated version
and original source language version of questionnaire were
administrated on 26 students with a gap of 15 days. Results of Phase II
are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Cross-Language Validation of CPIC Scale Urdu-Version with CPIC
Scale English Version (N = 26)
Subscales k r
1. Conflict 19 .74**
2. Threat 12 .74**
3.Self-blame 9 .72**
4.Triangulation 8 .79**
**
p <.01.
As shown in the Table 1 the English and Urdu versions of the
CPIC scale have high significant correlations on all the subscales
ranging from .72-.79, which displays sound cross language validity.
344 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

Phase III: Structural Validation through Confirmatory Factor

Analysis

The CPIC scale was developed by Grych et al. (1992) based on

the cognitive contextual framework (Grych & Fincham, 1990), and
was specifically designed to assess particular aspects of interparental
conflict as perceived by the witnessing children. Itsfactor structure has
been validated across different studies (e.g., Bickham & Fiese, 1997;
Grych et al., 1992; Moura et al., 2010; Reese-Weber & Hesson-
McInnis, 2008). However, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was
performed to determine if the established factor structure is equally
applicable and valid on a sample of Pakistani adolescents.

Sample
A total of 620 questionnaire booklets were distributed out of
which 593 were returned. The response rate was 95.6%. 72 booklets
were discarded due to similar pattern responses and unanswered
questionnaires. As a result, the sample comprised 521 participants out
of which 388 were boys (64.9%) and 183 were girls (35.1%). Their
age ranged between 13 to 19 years (M = 15.25, SD = 1.75), and they
belonged to grades 8 to 12 (M = 9.35, SD = 1.46).

Procedure
The goodness of fit of all the models was determined using
multiple fit indices, which include: Chi-square (χ2) and relative
normed Chi-square (χ2/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental
Fit Index (IFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), And Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA).The statistic of Chi-square is used
to assess if the model holds in the population, the nonsignificant value
of chi-square, measured at the threshold of .05, indicates a good model
fit (Barrett, 2007). Chi-square statistic is extremely sensitive to sample
size, even though it is popularly used for determining model fit. In
large samples χ2 statistic is more inclined to show the model as a poor
fit, on the other hand if the sample size is too small χ2may fail to
distinguish between goodness and badness of model fits (Hooper,
Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008).
According to Brown (2006) in order to determine the fit of model
in population, RMSEA is also a famous statistic. RMSEA is an index
based on population which is not affected by sample size, although it
is affected by parameter count. Various researchers have proposed
different values of RMSEA, as acceptable model fit. According to
Roberts (1999) RMSEA less than .05 indicates a good model fit for
the data. Similarly, a value of less than or equal to .05 is also
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 345

considered a good model fit, and values of less than or equal to .08
indicate reasonable error of approximation (Byrne, 2013). However, it
is recommended by Brown (2006) in case of small sample size, if
other fit indices indicate a good model fit, the value of RMSEA at .08
is also acceptable.
GFI is another fit index which measures variance proportion that
is accounted for the estimated covariance of population. GFI can
range in its value from 0 to 1, the value closer to 1 indicates good fit
(Hooper et al., 2008). CFI and IFI compare hypothesized model with a
restrictive baseline model, which is an independent model with all
variables mutually uncorrelated; to measure the goodness and
improvement in model (Yu, 2002). If CFI and IFI values fall in the
between .90 to .95 range, this is considered to be acceptable (Bentler,
1990).
The confirmatory factor analysis for the translated CPIC scale,
was done in order to determine if it was a psychometrically sound
instrument for Pakistani population. Items with low factor loadings
were deleted after qualitative analysis of the content of those items
and after expert opinion and permission of the original author of the
scale. Covariances between the errors of the items were added to
obtain model fit.
Results

Results of Phase III, including model fit indices, factor loadings,

squared multiple correlations are noted in Table 2 and Table 3.
Following that, alpha reliability coefficients of the final version of the
Urdu CPIC along with correlation coefficients between subscales are
noted in Table 4.

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Children’s Perception of
Interparental Conflict (N = 521)
χ2(df) GFI IFI CFI RMSEA ∆χ2 (∆df)
Model 1 2722.31(1076) .58 .69 .69 .05
Model 2 1649.49(696) .84 .79 .051 .05 1072.82(380)
Model 3 1072.80(652) .90 .91 .91 .03 576.69(424)
Note. GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; CFI = Comparative
Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; Model 1 = Default
model of CFA; Model 2 = Model 1 after deleting items with low factor loadings;
Model 3 = Model 2 after adding error covariances.

Table 2 represents the model fit indices for the CPIC Scale’sfour
factor structure. It shows that model fit χ2(df) = 2.53(1070) with
346 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

values of CFI = .69, IFI = .69 and RMSEA = .054. The value of CFI
and IFI were low, therefore, in order to get better fit, error covariances
were added on basis on content overlapping. The value of CFI and IFI
got raised to .91 and .91 respectively which is considered as good fit.

Table 3
Factor Loadings and Squared Multiple Correlations for Children’s
Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale Urdu-Version (N = 521)
Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict (CPIC) Scale Four Factor
Structure
Item λ SMCs Item λ SMCs Item λ SMCs
No. No. No.
1 .30 .10 18 .61 .37 35 .54 .29
2 .38 .14 19 .52 .27 36 .07 .01
3 .38 .14 20 .47 .22 37 .53 .28
4 .37 .13 21 .60 .35 38 .60 .36
5 .44 .20 22 .68 .46 39 .42 .17
6 -.04 .00 23 -.11 .01 40 .61 .37
7 .51 .26 24 .61 .37 41 .57 .33
8 .47 .22 25 .51 .26 42 .61 .37
9 .25 .06 26 .65 .42 43 .60 .36
10 .51 .26 27 .36 .13 44 .33 .11
11 .52 .28 28 .52 .27 45 .42 .17
12 .11 .01 29 .66 .44 46 .50 .25
13 .47 .22 30 .05 .00 47 .19 .04
14 .46 .21 31 .65 .42 48 .40 .16
15 .59 .34 32 .13 .02
16 .47 .21 33 .42 .18
17 -.17 .03 34 .48 .23
Note. λ = Factor Loading; SMC = Squared Multiple Correlation; Boldface numbers
indicate low λ and low SMCs; Bold faces indicate problematic values.

Table 3 shows factor loadings and squared multiple correlations

for CPIC scale four-factor structure. All the items of CPIC show
acceptable values of factor loadings and squared multiple correlations
(SMCs) except item no. 6 (λ = -.04), 9 (λ = .25), 12 (λ = .11), 17 (λ = -
.17), 23 (λ = -.11), 30 (λ = .05), 32 (λ = .13), 36 (λ = .07) and 47(λ =
.19). The SMCs of these items are also below the acceptable rage of
.20; 6 (SMC = .00), 9(SMC = .06), 12 (SMC = .01), 17 (SMC = .03),
23 (SMC = .01), 30 (SMC = .00), 32 (SMC = .02), 36 (SMC = .01)
and 47 (SMC = .04). Thus, based on the criteria given by Bian,
(2011), the factor loadings of these items are < .30 and, SMCs of the
same items are below the threshold of .20. As per the criteria given by
Hooper et al. (2008) these items were excluded after consultation with
the original author. Excluding these items significantly improved the
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 347

reliability and fit indices. Factor loadings ranged from .30 to .68,
SMCs ranged from .10 to .44.

Table 4
Reliability and Correlation Coefficients of the Sub-Scales of CPIC
(N = 521)

Variables k α M SD 1 2 3 4
1.Interparental Conflict 18 .85 8.38 6.51 - .36** .35** .48**
2.Threat 9 .72 8.17 3.80 - .33** .38**
3.Self-Blame 7 .77 1.89 1.85 - .46**
4.Triangulation 5 .60 2.37 2.11 -
**
p < .01.
According to the table above, the α values of the subscales of the
translated version after CFA, show that all the subscales of the CPIC
have an acceptable reliability coefficient (Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt,
2010). In addition to that, Table 4 reports the correlation coefficients,
showing significant positive correlation between all subscales
indicating interrelatedness of the factors.

Discussion

Often times, researchers opt to translate and adapt an existing

scale to make it usable on a new population sample, as this process is
faster and more economical in comparison to the process of
developing a new instrument from scratch. However, since many
psychological variables are culturally sensitive it is important to
determine the validity of the translated instrument. Thus the objective
of this study was to translate and validate the CPIC scale, adapting it
for use on samples of Pakistani adolescents. The translation process,
adhering to the guidelines of Brislin (1970), was followed by tests
assessing the validation of the translated version. Exploratory Factor
Analysis is a data driven technique and is recommended to be used
when there is little or no preconception about how the items will
factor (Levine, 2005),whereas Confirmatory Factor Analysis(CFA) is
a statistical procedure used to assess a predefined model to fit an
observed set of data (Shafique, Khalily, & Mchugh, 2017). The CPIC
scale has a substantial theoretical base (Cognitive Contextual
framework; Grych & Fincham, 1990) and the validity of the factor
348 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

structure of the original version of CPIC scale has been well

established in past studies (e.g., Bickham & Fiese, 1997; Grych et al.,
1992; Mouraet al., 2010; Reese-Weber & Hesson-McInnis, 2008).Due
to these reasons and following the precedence of various other
translation studies (e.g., Fatima, Masood, Ahmad, & Bukhari, 2019;
Loas et al., 2010; Shafique et al., 2017) this study deems the use of
CFAsufficient to analyze the factor structure of the Urdu-translated
version of CPIC scale, in order to determine the validity of the
established factor structure for a sample of Pakistani adolescents.
The CPIC scale has a nine-factor structure as well as a four-factor
structure. On the recommendation of the authors of CPIC, the four-
factor was adopted in this study due to its superior psychometric
properties. The recommended predefined factor structure of CPIC
consists of four-interrelated factors including: Conflict Properties,
Threat, Self-blame and Triangulation. Upon initial analysis, it was
found that some items had low factor loadings; below the
recommended range of .30 (Bian, 2011), those items included: Item
36 of Conflict Properties subscale, items 6, 23 and 32 of the Threat
subscale, items 9 and 47 of the Self-blame subscale, items 12, 17 and
30 of the Triangulation subscale. The mentioned items also had values
of Squared Multiple Correlations (SMCs) below acceptable range of
.20 (Hooper et al., 2008; see Table 3). Therefore, after subjective
evaluation of these items, consultation with experts and original
authors of the scale, these items were excluded. Exclusion of the items
improved the model to some extent. In order to achieve model fit,
error covariances were added, keeping in mind the theoretical integrity
of the scale. After adding the error covariances the fit indices stretched
up to an acceptable range implying that the current model fitted the
data well (see Table 2). Hence in the present study the above-
mentioned items were deleted and a final version of 39-item of CPIC
Urdu Version was retained instead of the 48-item version, for the
present sample. However, it is important to note that the items
excluded in this study should not be excluded from subsequent studies
without first conducting CFA of all 48 items.
In Table 4 the results of the reliability analysis indicate that all
four subscales of the CPIC scale have an acceptable reliability.
Furthermore, the presence of significant correlation coefficients
between the subscales supports the postulate of the cognitive
contextual framework that interparental conflict is linked to appraisals
of threat, self-blame and triangulation in those exposed to it. This
suggests that the construct of children’s perception of interparental
conflict in Pakistani culture matches the operationalization of the
framework given by Grych and Fincham (1990).
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 349

Implications

Exposure of children to parental conflict is a prevalent

phenomenon in Pakistan that has been reported in various indigenous
studies and has been linked to a number of psychological issues
(Azam & Hanif, 2011; Feroz et al., 2015, Khatoon, Maqsood, Qadir,
& Minhas, 2014).However, due to a lack of instruments, the
underlying mechanism of this link remained under researched in
Pakistan. The present study makes available a reliable and valid
instrument that can be used to measure this underlying mechanism
that associates this exposure to child behavior problems and overall
adjustment of children. In addition, this scale has been used chiefly for
research purposes so far, however, given the well-argued relationship
of parental conflict with child adjustment problems; the clinical
usefulness of this instrument is worth exploring. It can very well prove
to be helpful to professionals in research, clinical and public health
sectors.

Limitations and Suggestions

This study dealt with the translation and validation of the CPIC
scale showing that the Urdu-translated version is a reliable and valid
measure to assess interparental conflict and its different aspects in a
sample of Pakistani adolescents. At the same time, it should be kept in
mind that in the process of confirming its factor structure someof the
items were excluded due to their low factor loadings. However,
through qualitative evaluation of those items and expert opinion it was
decided that removing these items for this study, did not compromise
the structural integrity of the scale. Still, it is suggested that
exploratory factor analysis should be done on the Urdu-translated
version of CPIC and that items deleted in this study should be
qualitatively analyzed in light of the cultural context. Furthermore, the
sample of adolescents used in this study all belonged to intact
families, given the contextual sensitivity of the construct of
interparental conflict, it is suggested that future researches compare
CPIC’s factor structure across intact, separated and divorced families.

Conclusion

Most researches in Pakistan studying effects of exposure to

interparental conflicts on children and adolescents failed to take into
account the perceptions of the children and the underlying mechanism
that is supposedly responsible for the relationship between such
350 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

exposure and its negative consequences, in part due to lack of suitable

instruments. Therefore, to help address this gap in indigenous
literature, the present study makes available a reliable and valid Urdu
language version of Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict
Scale, which can help researchers better explore and understand the
prevalent phenomenon of exposure to interparental conflict in the
country.

References

Ablow, J. C., Measelle, J. R., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2009).

Linking marital conflict and children’s adjustment: The role of
young children’s perceptions. Journal of Family Psychology,
23(4), 485-499.
Azam, A. (2006). Impact of parent’s marital conflicts on adolescents’
parental attachment and social competence (Unpublished MPhil
Dissertation), National Institution of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Azam, A., & Hanif, R. (2011).Impact of parents' marital conflicts on
parental attachment and social competence of adolescents.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 157-170.
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
Bian, H. (2011). Structural equation modeling with Amos 2. Retrieved
from http://core.ecu.edu/ofe/StatisticsResearch/SEM%20with%A
MOS%2011.pdf
Bickham, N. L., & Fiese, B. H. (1997). Extension of the Children's
Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale for use with late
adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 246-250.
Bringhenti, F. (2005). Contribution to the validation of an
interparental conflict measure: The Children’s Perception of
Interparental Conflict (CPIC) scale. Bollettinodi Psicologia
Applicata, 247, 35-51.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied
research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 351

Buchanan, C. M., & Waizenhofer, R. (2001). The impact of

interparental conflict on adolescent children: Considerations of
family systems and family structure. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, &
M. Clements (Eds.), Couples in conflict (pp.149-160). Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Buehler, C., Lange, G., & Franck, K. L. (2007).Adolescents' cognitive
and emotional responses to marital hostility. Child Development,
78(3), 775-789.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Chi, L., & Xin, Z. (2003).The revision of Children’s Perception of
Marital Conflict scale. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 17, 554-
556.
DeBoard-Lucas, R. L., & Grych, J. H. (2011). Children’s perceptions
of intimate partner violence: Causes, consequences, and coping.
Journal of Family Violence, 26(5), 343-354.
Edleson, J. L., Johnson, K. K., & Shin, N. (2007). Children’s
Exposure to Domestic Violence scale: User manual. Minnesota
center against domestic violence, University of Minnesota, USA.
Emery, R. E., & O'Leary, K. D. (1982). Children's perceptions of
marital discord and behaviour problems of boys and girls. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10(1), 11-24.
Escapa, S. (2017). Effects of post-divorce parental conflict on
children’s educational achievement. Spanish Journal of
Sociological Research, 158, 41-58.
Fatima, N., Masood, S., Ahmad, M., & Bukhari, S. (2019).
Translation and adaptation of Tolerance for Disagreement Scale
among Pakistani married couples. Foundation University Journal
of Psychology, 3(1), 56-79.
Feroz, U., Jami, H., & Masood, S. (2015). Role of early exposure to
domestic violence in display of aggression among university
students. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 30(2) 323-
342.
Fisher, S. D. (2012). Mediators of interparental conflict and
adolescent internalizing/externalizing behaviors (Doctoral
Dissertation). Retrieved from ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art
icle3294&contextetd
352 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2008). Emotional, cognitive, and family

systems mediators of children's adjustment to interparental
conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(6), 843-854.
Godde, M., &Walper, S. (2001). The German short version of the
Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict scale. Diagnostica,
47, 18-26.
Grych, J. H. (1998). Children's appraisals of interparental conflict:
Situational and contextual influences. Journal of Family
Psychology, 12(3), 437-453.
Grych, J. H., & Cardoza-Fernandes, S. (2001). Understanding the
impact of interparental conflict on children: The role of social
cognitive processes. In J. Grych & F. Fincham (Eds.),
Interparental Conflict and Child Development: Theory, Research,
and Application (pp. 157-187). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's
adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological
Bulletin, 108(2), 267-290.
Grych, J. H., Fincham, F. D., Jouriles, E. N., & McDonald, R. (2000).
Interparental conflict and child adjustment: Testing the mediational
role of appraisals in the cognitive-contextual framework. Child
Development, 71(6), 1648-1661.
Grych, J. H., Harold, G. T., & Miles, C. J. (2003).A prospective
investigation of appraisals as mediators of the link between
interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development,
74(4), 1176-1193.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital
conflict from the child's perspective: The Children's Perception of
Interparental Conflict scale. Child Development, 63(3), 558-572.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation
modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Dublin Institute
of Technology ARROW, 6(1), 53-60.
Iraurgi, I., Mart´ınez-Pampliega, A., Sanz, M., Cosgaya, L.,
Gal´ındez, E., & Munoz, A. (2008). Escala de Conflicto
Interparental desde la Perspectiva de los Hijos (CPIC): Estudio de
validaci´on de unaversi´onabreviada de 36 items [Children’s
Perception of Interparental Conflict Scales (CPIC): Validation
study of a short version of 36 items]. RevistaIberoamericana de
Diagn´ostico e Avaliac¸ ˜aoPsicol´ogica, 25, 9-34.
 URDU TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF CPIC SCALE 353

Kerig, P. K. (1995). Triangles in the family circle: Effects of family

structure on marriage, parenting, and child adjustment. Journal of
Family Psychology, 9(1), 28-43.
Khaleque, A., Uddin, M. K., Shirin, A., Aktar, R., & Himi, S. A.
(2016). Cognitive and contextual factors mediating the relation
between interparental conflict and adolescents’ psychological
maladjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(2), 669-
677.
Khatoon, H., Maqsood, A., Qadir, F., & Minhas, F. A. (2014).
Prevalence of anxiety among children exposed to inter-parental
domestic violence: Proportional ratio between community sample
and shelter home sample. Journal of Pakistan Psychiatric
Society, 11(13), 14-17.
Levine, T. R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis and scale
validation in communication research. Communication Research
Reports, 22(4), 335-338.
Lindahl, K. M., Clements, M., & Markman, H. (1997). Predicting
marital and parent functioning in dyads and triads: A longitudinal
investigation of marital processes. Journal of Family Psychology,
11(2), 139-151.
Loas, G., Dugré-Lebigre, C., Fremaux, D., Verrier, A., Wallier, J.,
Berthoz, S., & Corcos, M. (2010). The Alexithymia Questionnaire
for Children (AQC): French translation and validation study in a
convenience sample of 80 children. L'Encephale, 36(4), 302-306.
Lopez, F. G. (1991). Patterns of family conflict and their relation to
college student adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development,
69(3), 257-260.
Masood, S. (2014). The prevalence and nature of exposure to intimate
partner violence as reported by Pakistani young adults
(Unpublished PhD dissertation). The University of Warwick,
United Kingdom.
McCloskey, L. A., & Lichter, E. L. (2003). The contribution of
marital violence to adolescent aggression across different
relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 390-412.
Moura, O., dos Santos, R. A., Rocha, M., & Matos, P. M. (2010).
Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC):
Factor structure and invariance across adolescents and emerging
adults. International Journal of Testing, 10(4), 364-382.
Reese-Weber, M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2008). The children's
perception of interparental conflict scale: Comparing factor
 354 BUKHARI AND MASOOD

structures between developmental periods. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 68(6), 1008-1023.
Roberts, J. K. (1999). Basic concepts of confirmatory factor analysis.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest
Educational Research Association. San Antonio, TX: Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/? id=ED427091
Saeed, B. (2001). Perceived maternal violence and relationship with
delinquency (Masters Research Report). National Institute of
Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2010). Assessment: In special
and inclusive education. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Shafique, N., Khalily, M. T., & Mchugh, L. (2017). Translation and
Validation of Symptom Checklist-90.Pakistan Journal of
Psychological Research, 32(2) 545-561.
Slater, E. J., & Haber, J. D. (1984).Adolescent adjustment following
divorce as a function of familial conflict.Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 52(5), 920-931.
Ulu, I. P., & Fisiloglu, H. (2004). A validity and reliability study of
the Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict scale. T¨urk
Psikoloji Yazilari, 7, 61-75.
Vairami, M., & Vorria, P. (2007). Interparental conflict and
(pre)adolescent’s peer relationships. Hellenic Journal of
Psychology, 4, 257-280.
Wierson, M., Forehand, R., & McCombs, A. (1988). The relationship
of early adolescent functioning to parent-reported and adolescent-
perceived interparental conflict. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 16(6), 707-718.
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for
latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Vol.
30). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
Zinzow, H. M., Ruggiero, K. J., Resnick, H., Hanson, R., Smith, D.,
Saunders, B., & Kilpatrick, D. (2009). Prevalence and mental
health correlates of witnessed parental and community violence in
a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 50(4), 441-450.

Received 6th March, 2019

Revision received 28thFebruary, 2020

View publication stats