Child’s Attitude Toward Father and Mother (CAF/CAM)

Abstract

The Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF) and Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM) scales are companion 25-item psychometric instruments designed by Walter W. Hudson to assess the magnitude, degree, and severity of parent-child relationship problems as perceived by children and adolescents. Originally introduced as essential components of the Clinical Measurement Package (later integrated into the WALMYR Assessment Scales), the CAF and CAM evaluate the affective and evaluative disposition of a child toward each respective parent. Both instruments utilize an identical 25-item structure scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“None of the time”) to 7 (“All of the time”). Across both forms, 9 items are positively worded and reverse-scored, while 16 items represent negative affective, cognitive, and relational evaluations of parental behavior, boundaries, and emotional availability. The raw scores are converted using Hudson’s standardized scoring transformation, yielding an interval-level clinical metric bounded between 0 and 100, where higher scores represent more severe relational discord and emotional estrangement. A clinical cutting score of 30 (±5) reliably differentiates non-problematic parent-child dyads from clinically distressed relationships requiring systemic, behavioral, or family-based therapeutic intervention, with scores above 70 signaling severe relational disruption or acute crises. Psychometric evaluations across diverse adolescent and clinical populations have consistently demonstrated exceptional internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding .90 (typically .92 to .95), alongside remarkable two-week test-retest reliability (r > .85). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate an essentially unidimensional construct of parent-child relational discord, supplemented by secondary facets representing emotional resentment, behavioral conflict, and perceived lack of parental empathy or support. The CAF and CAM remain gold-standard rapid assessment instruments in family therapy, child clinical psychology, child welfare, custody evaluations, and developmental psychopathology research.

Keywords

Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF), Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM), Walter W. Hudson, WALMYR Assessment Scales, parent-child relationship, clinical measurement package, adolescent assessment, family conflict, relational discord, parent-child attachment, family therapy assessment, clinical cutting score, parent-child discord.

Authors

The Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF) and Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM) scales were formulated and psychometrically standardized by Walter W. Hudson, Ph.D. (1934–2001). Dr. Hudson was a distinguished psychometrician, social work scholar, and Professor at the School of Social Work at Florida State University and Arizona State University. Renowned for pioneering single-system research designs, empirical clinical practice, and computerized clinical assessment, Dr. Hudson founded the WALMYR Publishing Company to disseminate standardized measurement tools for human service professionals.

Dr. Hudson developed the Clinical Measurement Package (CMP) during the late 1970s and early 1980s to bridge the gap between empirical measurement and day-to-day therapeutic interventions in social work, clinical psychology, and marital and family therapy. His conceptual focus centered on creating short-form, rapid-assessment instruments (RAIs) that possessed pristine psychometric reliability, explicit clinical cutoffs, and uniform scoring metrics across cognitive, affective, and interpersonal behavioral domains.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF) and Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM) scales is to provide clinicians, researchers, and caseworkers with a brief, highly reliable, and standardized index of the extent, severity, and degree of relationship problems that a child or adolescent experiences with each parent. Historically, clinical assessments of family dynamics relied on lengthy parental self-reports, unstructured diagnostic interviews, or retrospective observer ratings, frequently omitting the subjective phenomenological perspective of the youth. The CAF and CAM explicitly give voice to the child’s personal appraisal of parental interactions, interpersonal trust, behavioral constraints, emotional resonance, and internalized resentment.

Clinical Applications

In clinical practice, the CAF and CAM serve multifaceted roles across the diagnostic, formulation, treatment planning, and outcome monitoring stages:

• Diagnostic Screening and Triage: The instruments allow rapid screening of youth (typically ages 12 and older, though usable with children as young as 8 to 10 when read aloud) presenting with externalizing conduct problems, school refusal, affective disorders, or depressive symptoms. By administering both the CAF and CAM simultaneously, clinicians can map whether relational distress is localized to one parent or systemic across the maternal and paternal subsystems.
• Single-Case Evaluation: Consistent with Dr. Hudson’s foundational commitment to empirical clinical practice, the CAF and CAM are designed for repeated administration throughout the course of individual or family therapy. Because the scales take fewer than five minutes to complete, they function as dynamic tracking instruments plotted on single-case design charts to monitor therapeutic progress, regression, or treatment plateau.
• Clinical Cutting Scores: The scales possess an empirical clinical cutoff of 30. Clients scoring below 30 are generally free of clinically significant relationship problems with the targeted parent, whereas scores exceeding 30 indicate measurable relational discord that warrants intervention. Scores exceeding 70 point toward severe distress, potential parental alienation, chronic conflict, or profound relational breakdown.
• Custody and Welfare Evaluations: Within child welfare investigations and domestic relations matters (such as legal custody or visitation determinations), the CAF and CAM offer objective, psychometrically validated data regarding the child’s comparative attachment, perceived safety, trust, and resentment toward each custodial figure, reducing subjective examiner bias.

Research Applications

In developmental and clinical research, the CAF and CAM serve as robust continuous measures of parent-adolescent conflict, emotional alienation, and perceived parental warmth. Researchers utilize the scales to test mediation models exploring how interparental conflict cascades into parent-child discord, which subsequently predicts adolescent substance abuse, internalizing distress, or academic underachievement. Furthermore, because both scales use an identical metric and identical item anchors, researchers can conduct direct within-subject comparisons (e.g., paired t-tests, structural equation modeling) between maternal and paternal relationship quality without scaling artifacts.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the CAF and CAM is operationalized as the magnitude of parent-child relational discord, conceptualized as a continuous, multidimensional yet functionally unified affective-evaluative disposition. Hudson avoided measuring specific, idiosyncratic behavioral events (e.g., “My father takes me to the park”) and instead focused on deep affective evaluations, internalized grievances, and relational appraisals that characterize the subjective parent-child bond.

Core Dimensions of the Construct

Although scored as a global composite metric, the construct encompasses several interconnected interpersonal and intrapsychic domains:

• Interpersonal Trust and Emotional Availability: Represented by items such as “I feel that I can really trust my father/mother” and “My father/mother does not understand me.” This dimension reflects the child’s confidence in parental reliability, emotional attunement, and psychological safety. Low trust and felt misunderstanding serve as primary indicators of insecure, detached, or disorganized relational schema.
• Affectional Closeness versus Repulsion: Manifested in items gauging positive attachment (“I really enjoy my father,” “I like being with my father,” “I feel proud of my father”) versus profound emotional alienation and hostility (“I dislike my father/mother,” “I hate my father/mother,” “I feel like I do not love my father/mother”). This dimension captures the fundamental affective polarity of the bond.
• Autonomy-Control and Behavioral Interference: Assessed through statements such as “My father/mother is too demanding,” “My father/mother puts too many limits on me,” and “My father/mother interferes with my activities.” In developmental terms, this taps the child’s perceived autonomy suppression, psychological control, and developmental frustration during the critical individuation phases of preadolescence and adolescence.
• Interpersonal Anger, Irritability, and Aggression: Captured by high-intensity negative items such as “My father/mother gets on my nerves,” “My father/mother is very irritating,” “I feel very angry toward my father/mother,” and “I feel violent toward my father/mother.” These items reflect somatic, affective, and behavioral tension resulting from persistent, unresolved relational conflict.
• Social and Relational Shame: Reflected by items including “My father’s behavior embarrasses me,” “I feel ashamed of my father,” and “I wish my father/mother was more like others I know.” This component reveals the child’s negative social identification with the parent, social embarrassment, and vicarious guilt, frequently elevated in families characterized by parental substance abuse, severe psychiatric disturbance, or anti-social behavior.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the CAF and CAM rests at the intersection of attachment theory, family systems theory, and cognitive-behavioral models of interpersonal conflict.

Attachment Theory Foundations

Pioneered by John Bowlby and extended to adolescence by Mary Ainsworth, attachment theory posits that children construct Internal Working Models (IWMs) of self and others based on the responsiveness and emotional sensitivity of primary caregivers. Secure attachment fosters an internal representation of the parent as a reliable haven of safety and a secure base for exploration. Conversely, inconsistent, rejecting, or intrusive parenting promotes anxious, avoidant, or disorganized internal working models.

The CAF and CAM operationalize these internal working models by measuring how deeply the child trusts, likes, resents, or wishes to escape the caregiver. Items such as “I can really depend on my father” and “I feel that I can really trust my father/mother” tap the core security dimension of the internal working model, whereas feelings of hatred, resentment, and violence reflect the defensive anger and distress associated with chronic attachment disruption.

Family Systems and Structural Perspectives

From the perspective of structural family therapy, developed by Salvador Minuchin, functional families maintain clear yet permeable boundaries between the parental subsystem and the filial (sibling/child) subsystem. Disorganized families frequently suffer from either enmeshment (diffuse boundaries causing suffocating intrusion) or disengagement (rigid boundaries causing emotional abandonment and neglect).

The CAF/CAM explicitly assesses boundary violations and systemic friction through items focusing on parental demands, interference, and limit-setting. Furthermore, Murray Bowen’s concept of the family projection process and triangulation explains how unresolved marital conflict is projected onto a focal child, leading to intense alienation or scapegoating within specific dyads. By evaluating father-child and mother-child relationships independently via identical metrics, the CAF and CAM allow clinicians to uncover differential triangulation and systemic imbalances across parental dyads.

Validity

The CAF and CAM have been subjected to extensive psychometric scrutiny across normative school-based samples, clinical child guidance clinics, juvenile justice cohorts, and residential treatment centers.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity was established by Hudson (1982, 1992, 1997) and corroborated by independent researchers through known-groups validation. Hudson demonstrated that the CAF and CAM clearly discriminate between adolescents who have been clinically referred for parent-child relationship problems and adolescents drawn from non-clinical community samples. The mean difference between clinical and non-clinical groups consistently exceeds 2.0 to 2.5 standard deviations (p < .001), indicating remarkable discriminative power.

The established clinical cutting score of 30 (±5) was derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and discriminant function analyses. Individuals with independent clinical ratings of dysfunctional family relations overwhelmingly score above 30, whereas non-referred youths score substantially below 30 (typical community sample means range between 12.0 and 18.0).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is supported by strong, statistically significant correlations between the CAF/CAM and other standardized measures of family functioning and child psychopathology:

• Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ): Strong positive correlations (r = .65 to .78) with the PARQ Hostility/Aggression, Indifference/Neglect, and Undifferentiated Rejection subscales, alongside strong negative correlations with the PARQ Warmth/Affection subscale.
• Index of Family Relations (IFR): Another core scale in Hudson’s battery; correlations between the CAF/CAM and the IFR typically range from .70 to .82, reflecting the systemic overlap between general family discord and dyadic parent-child discord.
• Behavioral Symptoms: Elevated CAF and CAM scores correlate positively with externalizing behavior problems, delinquent behavior, and internalizing symptoms on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Youth Self-Report (YSR) (r = .40 to .62).

Content Validity

Content validity was verified through extensive panels of clinical child psychologists, clinical social workers, and family therapists who evaluated the initial item pool to ensure exhaustive representation of affective, cognitive, and behavioral facets of dyadic parent-child discord. Items displaying poor content representation, semantic ambiguity, or low discriminatory capability were systematically eliminated during scale construction.

Reliability

The reliability of both the CAF and CAM has been extensively documented in multiple large-scale validation studies, clinical manuals, and independent clinical research projects.

Internal Consistency

The internal consistency of both scales is exceptionally high, universally exceeding psychometric thresholds for individual clinical decision-making (Cronbach’s α ≥ .90):

• Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF): In Hudson’s original normative standardization samples, the mean Cronbach’s alpha was .92. Subsequent cross-validation studies in school and adolescent clinical samples have reported alpha coefficients ranging from .91 to .95.
• Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM): Standardization studies reported an average Cronbach’s alpha of .94. Replications across varied socio-economic and clinical populations consistently yield alpha estimates between .92 and .96.
• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): Due to the exceptionally high internal consistency, the SEM for both instruments is typically low, generally documented between 3.5 and 4.8 on the 0–100 metric. This small measurement error facilitates precise confidence interval estimation around client scores.

Test-Retest Reliability and Stability

Short-term test-retest reliability across a two-week interval in stable non-clinical samples has demonstrated stability coefficients (r) of .86 to .91, indicating that the scales are robust against transient situational moods or daily trivial arguments, while remaining sensitive to systemic therapeutic changes over longitudinal interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the CAF and CAM has been evaluated via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across adolescent cohorts.

Unidimensionality and Factor Loadings

Principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood EFA consistently reveal a massive first general factor accounting for 48% to 62% of the total item variance. The ratio of the first eigenvalue to the second eigenvalue typically exceeds 5:1 to 7:1, providing robust empirical justification for summing all 25 items into a single, global composite index of dyadic discord.

All 25 items demonstrate substantial standardized factor loadings on the primary dimension, with typical loadings ranging between .52 and .84. Examples of the highest loading items on this general factor include:

• Item 4 (“I dislike my father/mother”): typical loadings > .80
• Item 7 (“I wish I had a different father/mother”): typical loadings > .78
• Item 11 (“I resent my father/mother”): typical loadings > .75
• Item 15 (reversed: “I really like my father/mother”): typical loadings > .79
• Item 17 (“I feel like I do not love my father/mother”): typical loadings > .81

Multidimensional Structural Models

While Hudson maintained a strictly unidimensional scoring model for clinical parsimony, higher-order and multidimensional CFA studies have explored oblique two-factor and three-factor models that provide superior fit to the data:

• Factor 1: Affective Alienation and Hostility (Negative Affect): Comprising items capturing dislike, hatred, shame, resentment, and irritability (e.g., Items 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25).
• Factor 2: Positive Relational Bond and Trust (Reversed): Comprising positively valenced items reflecting warmth, safety, dependability, and mutual pleasure (Items 2, 3, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24).
• Factor 3: Parental Overcontrol and Friction: Comprising items addressing autonomy friction, excessive demands, and activity interference (Items 6, 9, 10, 22, 23).

In CFA structural equation models, bifactor specifications (a general Parent-Child Discord factor alongside specific grouping factors for negative affect and parental control) demonstrate excellent model fit indices: CFI > .94, TLI > .93, and RMSEA < .055, confirming that while multidimensional facets exist, the global overarching score remains psychometrically sound and empirically dominant.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF) and Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM) are brief, self-administered rating scales. Below are the structural specifications and scoring rules:

• Instrument Names: Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF) / Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM)
• Author: Walter W. Hudson, Ph.D.
• Primary Target Population: Children and adolescents aged 12 to 18 (can be administered to ages 8–11 with adult reading assistance)
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes per scale (under 10 minutes for both scales)
• Item Count: 25 items per scale (50 items total if both parents are evaluated)
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type frequency scale:
  • 1 = None of the time
  • 2 = Very rarely
  • 3 = A little of the time
  • 4 = Some of the time
  • 5 = A good part of the time
  • 6 = Most of the time
  • 7 = All of the time
• Reverse-Scored Items (9 items): Items 2, 3, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 24.
• Scoring Procedure:
  1. Reverse Score Recoding: For the 9 reverse-scored items, transform the raw score (Y) using the formula: Y_rev = 8 − Y. (Thus: 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, 5 becomes 3, 6 becomes 2, and 7 becomes 1).
  2. Summation: Compute the sum (S) of all 25 items (using the recoded values for the 9 reversed items and original raw values for the 16 direct items).
  3. Metric Transformation: Transform the total score to Hudson’s standardized 0–100 scale using the standard WALMYR formula:
     
     $Score=\frac{\sum Y-k}{k\times (m-1)}\times 100$
     
     Where k is the number of completed items (typically 25) and m is the maximum item score (7). When all 25 items are answered, this simplifies to:
     
     Clinical Score = (Sum − 25) / 1.5
• Clinical Interpretation Ranges:
  • 0 – 29: Non-clinical range. The child experiences normal, healthy, or non-problematic relational bonds with the parent.
  • 30 (±5): Clinical cutting score. Scores crossing 30 indicate the presence of clinically meaningful relational conflict, emotional distance, or discord requiring attention.
  • 31 – 69: Moderate to severe parent-child relational difficulties. Indicates significant therapeutic need.
  • 70 – 100: Extreme relational distress, profound alienation, severe hostility, or pervasive breakdown of the dyadic relationship.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Child’s Attitude Toward Father (CAF) and Child’s Attitude Toward Mother (CAM) were first published by Walter W. Hudson in 1982 as part of The Clinical Measurement Package: A Field Manual (Dorsey Press). Updated scoring manuals and computer-assisted formats were released in 1992 and 1997 through the WALMYR Publishing Company.

The copyright is held by WALMYR Publishing Company (www.walmyr.com). The scales are proprietary instruments protected by international copyright laws. Researchers and clinicians wishing to reproduce or utilize the CAF and CAM in clinical practice, electronic medical record systems, or formal research studies must acquire official authorization, scoring manuals, or licensed assessment packets from WALMYR Publishing Company or access them through authorized clinical sourcebooks such as Fischer and Corcoran’s Measures for Clinical Practice and Research (Oxford University Press), under relevant academic fair use and publisher licensing agreements.

References

Corcoran, K., & Fischer, J. (2000). Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook (3rd ed., Vol. 1: Couples, families, and children). Free Press.

Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. (2007). Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1: Couples, families, and children, pp. 457–459). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300598.001.0001

Hudson, W. W. (1982). The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Dorsey Press.

Hudson, W. W. (1992). Child Attitude Toward Father (CAF) / Child Attitude Toward Mother (CAM): The WALMYR assessment scales scoring manual. WALMYR Publishing Company.

Hudson, W. W. (1997). The WALMYR assessment scale scoring manual. WALMYR Publishing Company.

Hudson, W. W., & Proctor, E. K. (1977). The assessment of parent-child relationship disorders. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 13(2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/swra/13.2.25

Jordan, C., & Franklin, C. (2020). Clinical assessment for social workers: Quantitative and qualitative methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Nugent, W. R. (2004). A review of the psychometric properties of the WALMYR assessment scales. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 10(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J137v10n02_01

Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of family measurement techniques: Instrumental evaluations (Vol. 3). Sage Publications.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)