Parental Locus of Control Scale

Abstract

The Parental Locus of Control Scale (PLOC), developed by Leslie K. Campis, Robert D. Lyman, and Steven Prentis-Dunn in 1986, is a domain-specific psychometric instrument designed to evaluate parental attributions regarding the outcomes, dynamics, and management of the parent-child relationship. Grounded in Julian Rotter’s social learning theory and domain-specific attributional models, the PLOC addresses the critical psychometric limitations of generalized locus of control measures, which consistently demonstrate attenuated predictive validity when applied to dynamic family systems. The instrument comprises 47 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Structural validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses has established a robust five-factor orthogonal and oblique architecture: (1) Parental Efficacy (10 items), measuring the parent’s belief in their general capability to modify child behavior; (2) Parental Responsibility (10 items), gauging personal attributions of accountability for child outcomes; (3) Child Control of Parents’ Life (7 items), capturing the degree to which parents feel their daily routines, relationships, and emotional states are dominated by their child; (4) Parental Belief in Fate/Chance (10 items), indexing fatalistic attributions such as luck, biology, and destiny; and (5) Parental Control of Child’s Behavior (10 items), assessing practical competence in disciplinary management and limit-setting. Psychometric investigations indicate exceptional internal consistency, with full-scale Cronbach’s alpha reaching $\alpha = .92$ and subscale coefficients spanning $.65$ to $.83$, complemented by strong test-retest reliability ($r = .83$). Across clinical and developmental psychology, the PLOC remains a vital diagnostic and evaluative tool for identifying coercive family processes, tailoring parent training interventions, and predicting treatment responsiveness.

Keywords

Parental Locus of Control Scale, PLOC, parental self-efficacy, attribution theory, social learning theory, parenting stress, child conduct problems, family assessment, psychometrics, coercive family process.

Authors

The Parental Locus of Control Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically standardized by clinical psychologists at the University of Alabama:

• Leslie K. Campis, Ph.D. — Primary investigator and clinical child psychologist whose doctoral research at the University of Alabama pioneered domain-specific attributional metrics in pediatric populations.
• Robert D. Lyman, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Alabama, recognized for extensive scholarship in child psychopathology, residential treatment outcomes, and institutional interventions for disruptive behavior disorders.
• Steven Prentis-Dunn, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Alabama, internationally recognized for work in social psychology, deindividuation theory, protection motivation theory, and cognitive-behavioral determinants of human behavior.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Parental Locus of Control Scale is to quantify the degree to which parents attribute child-rearing outcomes either to their own internal agency (internal locus of control) or to external forces beyond their immediate influence, such as fate, chance, inherent child traits, or child dominance (external locus of control). During the late 1970s and early 1980s, developmental psychopathology faced a persistent empirical impasse: generalized measures of locus of control, such as Rotter’s Internal-External (I-E) Scale or Levenson’s IPC Scales, exhibited weak or inconsistent correlations with observed parenting styles, parental discipline practices, and child behavioral outcomes. Recognizing that perceived control operates in a context-dependent and hierarchical manner, Campis and colleagues constructed the PLOC to capture the unique phenomenological realities, attributions, and perceived self-agency inherent to child-rearing.

In clinical practice, the PLOC serves as a pivotal assessment instrument across multiple phases of intervention:

• Diagnostic Formulation & Pre-Treatment Profiling: Parents referred to family therapy or parent-training programs (e.g., Parent-Child Interaction Therapy [PCIT], Parent Management Training [PMT], or the Triple P – Positive Parenting Program) frequently present with clinical levels of learned helplessness. Measuring parental locus of control allows clinicians to identify whether a parent feels entirely disenfranchised by their child’s conduct, believes that genetics or bad luck makes intervention futile, or conversely, assumes maladaptive, self-blaming responsibility for neurodevelopmental conditions.
• Targeting Coercive Cycles: According to Gerald Patterson’s coercive family process model, parents with high external locus of control are significantly more prone to explosive, inconsistent, or lax discipline. Feeling powerless to influence their child constructively, they alternate between severe coercive outbursts and capitulation. The PLOC pinpoints the specific cognitive vulnerabilities that drive these dysregulated behavioral loops.
• Intervention Monitoring & Outcome Assessment: Longitudinal tracking of PLOC scores over the course of evidence-based parenting programs provides an empirical index of cognitive restructuring. Successful behavioral parent training is systematically associated with shifts toward internal locus of control—specifically reflected in elevated parental efficacy and reduced perceptions of child dominance.
• Applied Research in At-Risk Populations: The PLOC has been extensively deployed in studies examining child abuse and neglect, pediatric chronic illness management, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and socioeconomic stressors. It helps delineate why structural family stress translates into pathological outcomes in some homes while others exhibit adaptive resilience.

Psychological Construct

Locus of control in parenting represents a multidimensional, cognitive-affective schema through which caregivers interpret parental triumphs, disciplinary challenges, child maladaptation, and mutual parent-child causality. Rather than constituting a simplistic, unipolar continuum, Campis, Lyman, and Prentis-Dunn (1986) demonstrated that parental locus of control is composed of five distinct, functionally interrelated cognitive dimensions:

1. Parental Efficacy (Factor 1, 10 Items)

This subscale evaluates the parent’s fundamental subjective conviction that their proactive strategies, problem-solving abilities, and personal agency exert a meaningful, positive effect on their child’s behavior. High scores on this factor indicate a sense of parental powerlessness, learned helplessness, and cognitive resignation (e.g., endorsement of the sentiment that what the parent does has little effect on the child). Conversely, an internal profile reflects strong self-efficacy, resilience in the face of emotional dysregulation, and confidence that structured behavioral expectations can be successfully realized.

2. Parental Responsibility (Factor 2, 10 Items)

Parental Responsibility measures the extent to which caregivers hold themselves exclusively culpable for their child’s misbehavior, behavioral deviance, and general developmental trajectory. Items assess beliefs such as “There is no such thing as good or bad children—just bad parents” and “My child’s behavior problems are no one’s fault but my own.” While internal attributions are generally associated with proactive behaviors, extreme scores on this dimension capture hyper-internalized blame, unyielding guilt, and moral responsibility, which can paralyze effective limit-setting and exacerbate maternal or paternal depression.

3. Child Control of Parents’ Life (Factor 3, 7 Items)

This dimension examines boundary diffusion and child-dominated family hierarchies. It assesses the caregiver’s perception that their personal autonomy, interpersonal relationships, adult friendships, emotional equilibrium, and daily scheduling are hijacked by the child’s demands or behavioral outbursts. A parent scoring high on this dimension experiences profound role-reversal, perceiving the child as the omnipotent executive authority in the household, which frequently correlates with lax or permissive parenting styles driven by fear of child tantrums.

4. Parental Belief in Fate/Chance (Factor 4, 10 Items)

This subscale reflects fatalistic and deterministic cognitive schemas. Caregivers scoring high on this dimension attribute successful child outcomes purely to good fortune, biological luck, or accidental happenings, while attributing difficulties to insurmountable fate or immutable hereditary factors. This fatalistic external orientation undermines motivation to adopt structured behavior-modification principles, as the caregiver operates under the cognitive bias that parental interventions cannot supersede destiny.

5. Parental Control of Child’s Behavior (Factor 5, 10 Items)

Focusing specifically on practical behavioral management, this subscale captures the caregiver’s perceived capacity to enforce discipline, manage emotional storms, maintain boundaries, and avoid capitulation. Elevated scores indicate feelings of defeat, chronic exhaustion, and behavioral laxity (e.g., conceding to tantrums because resisting requires more emotional stamina than the parent possesses). It serves as a direct barometer of disciplinary inconsistency and behavioral capitulation in clinical populations.

Theoretical Framework

The Parental Locus of Control Scale is anchored at the intersection of three major psychological frameworks: Social Learning Theory, Attribution Theory, and the Transactional Model of Development.

Social Learning Theory and Generalized Expectancies

The conceptual foundation of the PLOC originates from Julian B. Rotter’s (1954, 1966) Social Learning Theory. Rotter postulated that the potential for a given behavior to occur in a specific psychological situation is a function of the individual’s expectancy that the behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement, multiplied by the psychological value of that reinforcement:

$$BP_{x, s_1, R_a} = f(E_{x, R_a, s_1} \times RV_{a, s_1})$$

Where $BP$ is behavior potential, $E$ is expectancy, and $RV$ is reinforcement value. Rotter posited that when individuals enter novel, ambiguous, or complex situations, they rely on generalized expectancies regarding internal versus external control of reinforcement. However, as individuals accumulate extensive experience within a specialized domain—such as parenting—generalized expectancies yield to highly contextualized, domain-specific expectancies. Campis et al. applied this principle by arguing that a parent might possess a generalized internal locus of control in academic or professional environments, yet experience an external, helpless locus of control when confronted with an oppositional toddler.

Self-Efficacy and Attributional Mechanisms

The PLOC also integrates Albert Bandura’s (1977, 1997) distinction between efficacy expectations (the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes) and outcome expectations (the estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes). Parental efficacy in the PLOC reflects this dual expectation: a parent must believe both that parenting practices alter child behavior (outcome expectancy) and that they personally possess the stamina, emotional regulation, and skills to execute those practices (efficacy expectation).

Furthermore, Bernard Weiner’s (1979, 1985) attributional model of achievement motivation provides critical insight into the stability and controllability dimensions measured by the PLOC. When parents attribute behavioral infractions to internal, stable, and uncontrollable child characteristics (e.g., “He was born bad”) or to external, unstable, and uncontrollable events (luck/fate), they experience negative emotional responses (pity, despair, anger) and withdraw behavioral scaffolding. Conversely, attributing difficulties to internal, unstable, and controllable factors (e.g., ineffective strategy selection) stimulates active problem-solving and persistent disciplinary adaptation.

Transactional Family Systems

Finally, the scale incorporates Arnold Sameroff’s Transactional Model, which posits that child development is not a unidirectional outcome of parental socialization, but a dynamic, bidirectional sequence of reciprocal transformations. The subscale Child Control of Parents’ Life directly measures parental awareness of this bidirectional interplay, capturing instances where the child’s difficult temperament or coercive demands have destabilized the parental executive subsystem.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the PLOC has been extensively evaluated across clinical, community, and cross-cultural cohorts since its introduction in 1986.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation study by Campis et al. (1986), involving 221 parents, construct validity was established by comparing PLOC dimensions with established generalized personality and locus of control instruments. The PLOC demonstrated statistically significant convergent validity through moderate positive correlations with Rotter’s generalized I-E Scale ($r = .35$ to $.52, p < .001$), establishing t\hat while the PLOC shares conceptual variance with generalized locus of control, the majority of its variance ($>70%$) is distinct and uniquely attributable to domain-specific parenting phenomena.

Convergent validity has been repeatedly replicated in relation to parental psychopathology and family stress metrics:

• Parenting Stress: PLOC total scores correlate strongly with the Parent Domain ($r = .58, p < .001$) and Child Domain ($r = .64, p < .001$) of the Parenting Stress Index (PSI). External parental locus of control reliably mirrors elevated parenting-specific anxiety, parental depression, and feelings of parental isolation.
• Parental Depression: Significant positive correlations have been recorded between the PLOC external scores and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), particularly along the Parental Efficacy and Control of Child’s Behavior factors ($r = .41$ to $.53$).
• Child Behavior Problems: Scores on Factor 5 (Parental Control of Child’s Behavior) and Factor 3 (Child Control of Parents’ Life) demonstrate robust convergent validity with the Externalizing and Aggressive Behavior scales of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) ($r = .45$ to $.61$).

Known-Groups and Discriminant Validity

The scale shows marked discriminant validity between clinical and non-clinical populations. In the original standardization research, parents seeking clinical intervention for children diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, ODD, or severe behavioral maladjustment scored significantly higher (indicating greater externality) across the full scale ($M = 158.4, SD = 18.2$) compared to parents of non-referred, neurotypical children ($M = 132.1, SD = 16.5; t(219) = 10.42, p < .001$). Discriminant functional analyses reveal t\hat the PLOC correctly classifies clinical status in over$82%$ of parental profiles, outperforming generalized locus of control scales.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

Longitudinal studies confirm that pre-treatment PLOC scores predict treatment drop-out, homework non-compliance, and poor long-term behavioral maintenance in parent management training programs. Parents with high pre-treatment scores on Parental Belief in Fate/Chance are significantly more likely to terminate behavioral therapy prematurely ($OR = 2.41, p < .01$). Conversely, significant reductions in PLOC externality scores observed mid-treatment reliably predict positive child clinical recovery at 6- and 12-month follow-up evaluations.

Reliability

The Parental Locus of Control Scale demonstrates exemplary internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse clinical and demographic cohorts.

Internal Consistency

In the original normative sample of 221 parents evaluated by Campis et al. (1986), the full 47-item scale yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of $\alpha = .92$, indicating exceptional scale homogeneity. Reliability coefficients for the individual subscales consistently satisfy psychometric criteria for clinical and research applications:

• Factor 1: Parental Efficacy: $\alpha = .75$ (10 items)
• Factor 2: Parental Responsibility: $\alpha = .77$ (10 items)
• Factor 3: Child Control of Parents’ Life: $\alpha = .65$ (7 items)
• Factor 4: Parental Belief in Fate/Chance: $\alpha = .68$ (10 items)
• Factor 5: Parental Control of Child’s Behavior: $\alpha = .73$ (10 items)

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across diverse community and clinical samples have demonstrated consistent reliability. For example, investigations by Roberts et al. and Cutrona yielded full-scale Cronbach’s alphas between $.89$ and $.93$. Even in translated and culturally adapted versions (e.g., French, Spanish, Chinese, and Dutch adaptations), the composite scale alpha remains consistently above $.85$.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability was established by Campis et al. (1986) using a subset of parents re-tested across a 3- to 4-week interval in the absence of therapeutic intervention. The overall test-retest correlation coefficient was $r = .83 (p < .001)$. Subscale test-retest coefficients demonstrated notable stability:

• Parental Efficacy: $r_{tt} = .81$
• Parental Responsibility: $r_{tt} = .79$
• Child Control of Parents’ Life: $r_{tt} = .70$
• Parental Belief in Fate/Chance: $r_{tt} = .74$
• Parental Control of Child’s Behavior: $r_{tt} = .85$

This empirical stability indicates that the PLOC reflects persistent cognitive-attributional traits rather than transient mood fluctuations, while remaining sensitive to systemic behavioral and cognitive interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the PLOC was initially established using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequently confirmed using modern Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) procedures.

Original Exploratory Factor Analysis (Campis et al., 1986)

The initial pool of 92 candidate items was derived from clinical literature, clinical interviews with distressed parents, and adaptation of general attribution scales. This item pool was administered to 221 parents and subjected to Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with orthogonal Varimax rotation, followed by oblique (Promax) rotations to assess factor intercorrelations. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity confirmed the suitability of the correlation matrix for factorization.

Application of the eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion (Kaiser’s rule) in conjunction with Cattell’s scree test identified five robust, clinically interpretable factors accounting for $42.6%$ of the total variance. Items were retained on the final scale only if they achieved a primary factor loading of $ge |.35|$ with minimal cross-loading ($< |.25|$ on secondary factors). This rigorous empirical process distilled the instrument into the final 47-item configuration.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Findings

Subsequent structural investigations utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) have systematically tested competing models, including single-factor unidimensional, second-order hierarchical, and correlated five-factor configurations. Multi-sample CFA studies (e.g., Mouton et al., 2018) have affirmed that the correlated five-factor model provides superior fit indices across diverse populations:

• Chi-Square / Degree of Freedom Ratio: $\chi^2/df = 1.84$ to $2.15$, indicating good fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.91 – .94$, confirming excellent recovery of the latent structure.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.90 – .93$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.045 – .058$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.041, .062]$), meeting stringent psychometric criteria for close fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.052$.

While second-order hierarchical models (wherein the five factors load onto a general higher-order Parental Locus of Control latent dimension) also display adequate fit ($CFI \approx .89, RMSEA \approx .061$), researchers widely advocate scoring the distinct subscales separately. Subscales provide nuanced clinical profiles, as a parent may present with high responsibility alongside marked helplessness regarding behavioral control.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Parental Locus of Control Scale is a structured, standardized, paper-and-pencil or computer-administered psychometric instrument consisting of 47 self-report statements.

• Test Type: Domain-specific, multidimensional psychological rating scale / self-assessment inventory.
• Target Population: Parents, legal guardians, and primary caregivers of children and adolescents (typically ages 2 to 18 years).
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; available via paper-and-pencil or computerized self-report assessment software.
• Item Count: 47 items distributed across five structural factors:
  • Factor 1 (Parental Efficacy): Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (10 items)
  • Factor 2 (Parental Responsibility): Items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (10 items)
  • Factor 3 (Child Control of Parents’ Life): Items 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (7 items)
  • Factor 4 (Parental Belief in Fate/Chance): Items 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 (10 items)
  • Factor 5 (Parental Control of Child’s Behavior): Items 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 (10 items)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert response scale scored as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither agree nor disagree (Uncertain / Neutral)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Protocol & Reverse Coding:
  • The instrument is scaled such that higher total and subscale scores denote an external parental locus of control (greater perceived powerlessness, resignation, child dominance, or fatalism).
  • Items reflecting internal efficacy, direct capability, or personal parental agency are reverse-scored prior to aggregation: (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1).
  • Items typically reverse-scored include: Item 3, Item 7, Item 9, Item 10, Item 12, Item 22, Item 25, Item 26, Item 27, Item 38, and Item 47.
  • Subscale scores are obtained by calculating the sum of items within each subscale. The full-scale composite score is computed by summing all 47 items (ranging from 47 to 235). Total scores above normative thresholds ($>155$) suggest clinically elevated externality warranting cognitive-behavioral parental intervention.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Formal Publication: 1986.
• Original Copyright: The Parental Locus of Control Scale was published in the Journal of Clinical Child Psychology (now the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology), an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (APA Division 53).
• Permissions & Licensing: The PLOC was developed for non-commercial research, clinical evaluation, and educational applications. Under standard fair-use academic provisions, researchers and licensed clinicians may utilize the scale for non-commercial investigations and clinical assessments provided proper formal citation is given to Campis, Lyman, and Prentis-Dunn (1986). Commercial redistribution, automated digital integration into fee-for-service proprietary software platforms, or publication inside derivative commercial workbooks requires copyright clearance via Taylor & Francis Group.
• Access Fee: The instrument itself is non-fee-based for academic research. Copies of the complete instrument, along with its empirical scoring keys, are directly accessible within the original publication and historical measurement compendia.

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Campis, L. K., Lyman, R. D., & Prentis-Dunn, S. (1986). The Parental Locus of Control Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15(3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1503_10
• Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child Development, 57(6), 1507–1518. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130428
• Mouton, B., & Roskam, I. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Parental Locus of Control Scale in French-speaking parents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000218
• Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Castalia Publishing Company.
• Roberts, M. W., Joe, V. C., & Rowe, D. C. (1992). Factor structure of the Parental Locus of Control Scale. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2101_8
• Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1037/10788-000
• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
• Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model. In A. Sameroff (Ed.), The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other (pp. 3–21). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11877-001
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Items of the Scale