Objetivo. Explorar el desempeño psicométrico de la forma abreviada del Parental-Caregivers Perceptions Questionnaire en padres mexicanos. Métodos. Estudio transversal realizado en una muestra de 214 participantes. Se examinó la validez de contenido del P-CPQ-16 y dos escalas alternativas de 14 ítems mediante análisis factorial exploratorio. Se calcularon medidas de bondad de ajuste de tres modelos en el análisis factorial confirmatorio. Se calcularon medidas de confiabilidad (alfa de Cronbach y Omega de McDonald). La consistencia interna y poder discriminante se evaluaron mediante coeficiente de Spearman y porcentajes de éxito. Resultados. El P-CPQ-16 con cuatro factores explicó el 57,88% de la varianza. Sin embargo, los ítems “tardado en comer” y “tímido o avergonzado” no resultaron satisfactorios. La escala P-CPQ-14 trifactorial explicó el 50,22% de la varianza con mejor interpretabilidad de la estructura en comparación con P-CPQ-16. La confiabilidad del P-CPQ-16 fue aceptable (alfa=0,70; omega=0,70) así como del P-CPQ-14 trifactorial (alfa= 0,71; omega=0,72). El análisis confirmatorio reveló indicadores de ajustes similares entre los modelos: modelo (16 ítems-4 factores): X2=43,765 (gl 62) p=[0,961], GFI=0,98, CFI=0,98, RMSEA=0,036, TLI=0,96, AIC=508,26, modelo (14 ítems-4 factores): X2=24,43 (gl 41) [p=0,981], GFI =0,99, CFI=0,99, RMSEA=0,029, TLI=0,98, AIC=423,702, modelo (14 ítems-3 factores): X2=40,183 (gl 52) [p=0,883], GFI=0,98, CFI=0,98, RMSEA=0,035, TLI=0,97, AIC=365,38. Conclusiones. Las tres versiones del P-CPQ mostraron un desempeño psicométrico aceptable. La versión P-CPQ-14 trifactorial presentó mejor estructura, cargas factoriales altas, buen ajuste del modelo, adecuada parsimonia y plausibilidad teórica. Se debe evaluar psicométricamente esta versión alternativa en una muestra mayor.
Objective. To explore the psychometric performance of the Parent-Caregiver Perceptions Questionnaire short-form in Mexican parents. Methods. Cross-sectional study performed in a sample of 214 participants. The content validity of the P-CPQ-16 and two alternative 14-item scales was examined using exploratory factor analysis. The goodness-of-fit measures of three models were calculated in the confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability measures (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) were calculated. Internal consistency and discriminant power were evaluated using Spearman’s coefficient and success percentages. Results. The P-CPQ-16 with four factors explained 57.88% of the variance. However, the items ‘slow eating’ and ‘shy or embarrassed’ were not satisfactory. The P-CPQ-14 three-factor scale explained 50.22% of the variance with better interpretability of the structure compared to the P-CPQ-16. Reliability of P-CPQ-16 was acceptable (alpha=0.70; omega=0.70) as well as the trifactorial P-CPQ-14 (alpha=0.71; omega=0.72). Confirmatory analysis between models revealed similar goodness-of-fit indicators: model (16 items-4 factors): X2=43.765 (df 62) p=[0.961], GFI=0.98, CFI=0.98, RMSEA=0.036, TLI=0.96, AIC=508.26, model (14 items-4 factors): X2=24.43 (df 41) [p=0.981], GFI=0.99, CFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.029, TLI=0.98, AIC=423.702, model (14 items-3 factors): X2=40.183 (df 52) [p=0.883], GFI=0.98, CFI=0.98, RMSEA=0.035, TLI=0.97, AIC=365.38. Conclusions. The three versions of the P-CPQ showed an acceptable psychometric performance. The three-factor version P-CPQ-14 presented better structure, high factor loads, good model fit, adequate parsimony, and theoretical plausibility. This alternative version needs to be psychometrically tested on a larger sample.
© 2001-2026 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados