Psychological Empowerment Scale (PES)

Abstract

The Psychological Empowerment Scale (PES) is an established psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the multidimensional construct of psychological empowerment among parents and primary caregivers of children with disabilities or chronic health conditions. Developed initially by Teresa M. Akey (1996) and formally validated by Akey, Marquis, and Ross (2000) in collaboration with the Beach Center on Disability at the University of Kansas, the PES translates Marc A. Zimmerman’s ecological theory of psychological empowerment into a targeted, family-centered operationalization. The instrument comprises 32 items distributed across four empirically and theoretically distinct dimensions: (a) Attitudes of Control and Competence, (b) Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge, (c) Formal Participation in Organizations, and (d) Informal Participation in Social Systems and Relationships. Responses are captured via a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Extensive confirmatory psychometric evaluations indicate that the PES possesses high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values across subscales ranging from .78 to .89, with full-scale coefficients regularly exceeding .90), well-established convergent validity against related family empowerment and self-efficacy measures, robust discriminant validity against socially desirable responding, and excellent factorial validity as evidenced by both exploratory and structural confirmatory factor analyses. The PES serves as a premier assessment mechanism in clinical psychology, pediatric health systems, special education research, and community-based intervention science, offering professionals an objective methodology for gauging parental agency, service navigation capacity, and systemic self-advocacy.

Keywords

Psychological Empowerment Scale, PES, parental empowerment, family empowerment, developmental disabilities, Marc A. Zimmerman, Beach Center on Disability, self-efficacy, special education advocacy, psychometrics, participatory behavior, caregiver competence.

Authors

The Psychological Empowerment Scale was developed and validated through a programmatic line of psychometric research led by educational and developmental psychologists affiliated with Auburn University and the Beach Center on Disability at the University of Kansas:

• Teresa M. Akey, Ph.D. — Primary investigator and developer; conducted the foundational exploratory factor analytic and item-reduction studies at Auburn University (1996) and subsequent field trials at the Beach Center on Disability, University of Kansas.
• Janet G. Marquis, Ph.D. — Research methodologist, statistician, and senior scientist at the Beach Center on Disability, University of Kansas; specialized in structural equation modeling, psychometric measurement models, and longitudinal family research.
• Michael E. Ross, Ph.D. — Psychometrician and measurement specialist, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, Auburn University; co-author of the seminal confirmatory validation study.
• Institutional Affiliation & Inquiries: Beach Center on Disability, Life Span Institute, University of Kansas, 1200 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045; Email contact: [email protected].

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Psychological Empowerment Scale is to systematically assess the psychological empowerment that parents experience as they negotiate the complex medical, educational, psychological, and social service systems required by their children with disabilities. Historically, service delivery models for families facing developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, and chronic health challenges were organized around a medical-paternalistic paradigm. In this legacy approach, professionals functioned as sole arbiters of diagnostic interventions, while parents were relegated to passive recipients of expert recommendations. The paradigm shift toward family-centered service delivery, accelerated by legislative milestones such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States and the worldwide adoption of family support philosophies, created an acute psychometric need for standardized instruments capable of capturing family empowerment as an outcome, a process, and a mediating psychological mechanism.

Psychological empowerment in this context is neither an abstract personality trait nor an isolated cognitive belief; rather, it is an active, evolving constellation of personal efficacy, navigational competence, critical awareness, and behavioral participation across micro- and macro-level service environments. The PES addresses this phenomenon directly by measuring the extent to which a parent feels capable of exerting control over life decisions affecting their family, assesses their internal knowledge of how to access resources, and records their actual behavioral involvement in mutual support networks and organizational policymaking bodies.

In clinical, community, and educational settings, the PES serves multiple distinct operational functions:

• Baseline Clinical Assessment and Needs Identification: Clinicians, school psychologists, and family navigators utilize the PES during intake and diagnostic planning to ascertain whether a parent possesses sufficient perceived competence and systemic knowledge, or conversely, exhibits feelings of powerlessness and service-system isolation that require targeted psychosocial intervention.
• Program Evaluation and Intervention Science: Longitudinal intervention trials evaluating family support programs, parent-to-parent mentoring programs, special education advocacy training, and pediatric medical home initiatives employ the PES as a sensitive primary or secondary outcome measure to quantify programmatic efficacy in fostering caregiver agency.
• Systemic and Organizational Advocacy Research: Policy researchers utilize the PES to examine how different organizational structures (e.g., bureaucratic and centralized vs. collaborative and family-led) impact parental empowerment, exploring the correlation between parent advisory board participation and family quality of life.
• Theoretical Modeling of Caregiver Adaptation: Within behavioral science research, the scale is deployed to elucidate structural relationships between empowerment, parental stress, caregiver depression, family coping strategies, and developmental outcomes in children.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the PES is psychological empowerment—defined as an active, multidimensional process through which individuals gain mastery over their affairs, participate critically within their sociopolitical environments, and develop the requisite skills and psychological agency to navigate systemic challenges. In alignment with ecological empowerment theory, the construct is conceptualized as comprising intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral dimensions. Rather than treating empowerment as a global, unidimensional index, the PES delineates four interrelated operational dimensions:

1. Attitudes of Control and Competence (Intrapersonal Component)

This subscale captures the internal psychological orientation of the caregiver, specifically their perceived locus of control, self-determination, and personal efficacy regarding their family and child. It assesses whether parents view themselves as active agents capable of shaping the destiny of their family unit, rather than remaining helpless victims of external circumstances. Theoretical underpinnings draw from Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and Julian Rotter’s internal-external locus of control formulation. Exemplified by items such as “I feel in control of my life” and “Regardless of what other people do, I have control over how my family’s needs are met,” this dimension represents the foundational cognitive-affective substrate required for sustained advocacy.

2. Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge (Interactional Component)

The second dimension reflects the parent’s intellectual and analytical understanding of their social and institutional environment. In Zimmerman’s model, interactional empowerment involves critical awareness—the capacity to comprehend the social norms, bureaucratic structures, legal rights, and systemic pathways necessary to accomplish personal and familial goals. In the PES, this dimension gauges the parent’s subjective confidence in communicating their ideas, making complex decisions, learning challenging new technical skills, and effectively advocating for their child with multidisciplinary professionals (e.g., developmental pediatricians, speech pathologists, special education committees). Items such as “I advocate effectively for my child with professionals” and “I am able to explain myself until I make myself clear” highlight the operationalization of critical communication and advocacy self-efficacy.

3. Formal Participation in Organizations (Behavioral Component: Institutional)

Empowerment requires concrete behavioral manifestation in the community. The formal participation subscale measures observable involvement in established, structured organizations, specialized service agencies, and governance mechanisms. It encompasses roles extending beyond the boundaries of one’s own household into civic and policy domains, including serving on parent advisory committees, holding leadership positions within non-profit disability organizations, assisting in the administrative governance of service programs, and leading formal support groups. Representative items include “I hold a leadership role in a parent organization or service program” and “I am actively involved in a formal parent organization.” This dimension reflects the transformation of individual parental experience into institutional policy influence.

4. Informal Participation in Social Systems and Relationships (Behavioral Component: Relational)

The fourth dimension captures non-institutional, mutual-aid behaviors, informal peer support, and communal social capital. Ecological models recognize that sustained parental resilience relies heavily on organic, peer-based networks of solidarity. This subscale measures the frequency with which a parent interacts with other families facing parallel challenges, exchanges informal information regarding medical or educational resources, offers and receives reciprocal emotional validation, and participates in natural support clusters. Captured by items such as “I informally share information with other parents,” “There is at least one other parent I can go to for emotional support,” and “I feel a sense of community with other parents who have a child with a disability,” this dimension anchors psychological empowerment in communal connectedness and solidarity.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Psychological Empowerment Scale is rooted in three complementary psychological traditions: Zimmerman’s Ecological Theory of Psychological Empowerment, Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, and Turnbull’s Family Systems Theory in Disability.

Zimmerman’s Ecological Model of Psychological Empowerment

The primary theoretical foundation is derived from the pioneering work of community psychologist Marc A. Zimmerman (1990, 1995, 2000), who conceptualized empowerment as a dynamic, context-specific construct operating at individual, organizational, and community levels. Zimmerman delineated individual-level psychological empowerment (PE) into three mutually reinforcing, triadic components:

• Intrapersonal Component: Refers to how individuals view themselves relative to their capacity to influence sociopolitical environments. It incorporates domain-specific self-efficacy, perceived personal control, motivation to control, and perceived competence. Within the PES, this is operationalized directly by the Attitudes of Control and Competence subscale.
• Interactional Component: Pertains to the transactional understanding people develop regarding their sociopolitical environment. It encompasses critical awareness, knowledge of resource systems, understanding decision-making processes, and mastering the requisite problem-solving skills to mobilize resources. In the PES, this manifests as Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge.
• Behavioral Component: Refers to active, observable actions executed to exert influence, solve problems, and effect change in the environment through participation in organizations, collective action, and collaborative problem-solving. Akey, Marquis, and Ross (2000) refined Zimmerman’s behavioral dimension by empirically bifurcating it into two ecologically distinct pathways: Formal Participation (structured, institutional involvement) and Informal Participation (interpersonal, mutual-aid networking).

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

The scale integrates core postulates from Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997), specifically the construct of perceived self-efficacy—the judgment of one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce designated levels of performance. Bandura posited that self-efficacy beliefs determine how much effort individuals will expend, how long they will persevere in the face of obstacles, and how resilient they remain in adverse situations. In the PES, self-efficacy is conceptualized not as a generalized global trait, but as a domain-linked behavioral appraisal regarding the management of complex bureaucratic systems, communication with interdisciplinary healthcare and educational professionals, and the navigation of developmental crises.

Turnbull’s Family Systems Model

Finally, the scale is contextualized within the disability and special education framework articulated by H. Rutherford Turnbull and Ann P. Turnbull at the Beach Center on Disability. Their family systems model asserts that a disability affects every subsystem of the family (marital, parental, sibling, and extra-familial). Consequently, family empowerment requires equipping parents not merely to cope internally, but to serve as the primary decision-makers, system collaborators, and legislative advocates for their children. The PES operationalizes this theoretical stance by evaluating empowerment within real-world advocacy contexts, recognizing that parental self-efficacy is inextricably linked to collective community participation and systemic navigation.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Psychological Empowerment Scale has been established across multiple validation samples, beginning with Akey’s (1996) development study and culminating in the comprehensive confirmatory investigation published by Akey, Marquis, and Ross (2000). These studies provide extensive empirical evidence supporting the construct, convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity of the instrument.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially verified through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a national sample of parents receiving family support services. The resulting four-factor structure accounted for substantial common variance and aligned precisely with ecological theoretical models. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted on an independent cross-validation sample of 382 parents of children with developmental disabilities confirmed that the four-factor correlated model provided an acceptable fit to the data, outperforming unidimensional and orthogonal alternative models. Standardized factor loadings across all 32 items exceeded .45, with the vast majority falling between .55 and .82, confirming that each item functions as a robust indicator of its hypothesized latent construct.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by examining bivariate correlations between the PES subscales and established legacy scales assessing family functioning, parental competence, and empowerment:

• Family Empowerment Scale (FES; Koren, DeChillo, & Friesen, 1992): Statistically significant positive correlations (ranging from $r = .52$ to $r = .74, p < .001$) were observed between corresponding subscales of the PES and the FES, demonstrating strong conceptual convergence while confirming that the PES captures unique variance related to informal networking and critical self-efficacy.
• Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC): The Attitudes of Control and Competence subscale correlated significantly with the PSOC Efficacy subscale ($r = .61, p < .001$), supporting the premise that intrapersonal empowerment is closely tethered to perceived parental self-efficacy.
• General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE): The Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge subscale demonstrated moderate-to-strong positive associations with generalized self-efficacy ($r = .56, p < .001$), confirming that systemic navigational competence shares variance with global agency while retaining its domain specificity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established through several analytical approaches:

• Social Desirability: Administration alongside the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale revealed non-significant or weak correlations ($r < .15$), demonstrating that respondents’ endorsements of empowerment items reflect authentic psychological agency rather than a desire to present themselves favorably.
• Parental Depression and Stress: Divergent associations were demonstrated against standardized measures of parental stress (e.g., Parenting Stress Index) and caregiver depression (e.g., CES-D). Subscales of the PES correlated negatively with parent-related stress ($r = -.42$ to $-.58, p < .001$) and depressive symptoms ($r = -.38$ to $-.51, p < .001$), confirming that empowerment is functionally distinct from, and inversely related to, emotional distress.

Known-Groups and Criterion-Related Validity

The PES demonstrates criterion-related validity through its ability to differentiate between systematically divergent caregiver populations. In known-groups comparisons, parents who had completed formal special education advocacy curricula or who had actively participated in “Parent-to-Parent” mentor training scored higher across all four PES subscales—particularly on Formal Participation ($t = 6.82, p < .001$) and Cognitive Appraisals ($t = 5.44, p < .001$)—compared to newly diagnosed parents who had not yet engaged with family support organizations. Furthermore, longitudinal intervention research indicated that PES subscale scores showed significant increases following parental participation in intensive community-based family leadership programs, verifying the scale’s sensitivity to change over time.

Reliability

The reliability of the Psychological Empowerment Scale has been evaluated through classical test theory metrics, including internal consistency, item-total correlations, and test-retest stability coefficients.

Internal Consistency

In the primary validation study by Akey, Marquis, and Ross (2000), internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were computed for each of the four 8-item subscales as well as the total composite instrument across multiple representative cohorts:

• Attitudes of Control and Competence: $\alpha = .86$ to $.89$ (demonstrating high homogeneity among items assessing personal mastery, family decision-making, and perceived locus of control).
• Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge: $\alpha = .82$ to $.85$ (reflecting cohesive measurement of critical problem-solving, communication clarity, and advocacy self-efficacy).
• Formal Participation in Organizations: $\alpha = .84$ to $.88$ (indicating robust internal consistency across varying levels of structured institutional and advisory engagement).
• Informal Participation in Social Systems: $\alpha = .78$ to $.83$ (demonstrating solid consistency for items capturing natural peer networking, reciprocal aid, and communal connectedness).
• Full Composite Instrument (32 items): Total scale Cronbach’s alpha values consistently range between $\alpha = .91$ and $.94$, indicating high overall measurement precision for broad psychological empowerment.

Item-total correlations across the subscales generally range from $.48$ to $.76$, with no single item falling below the psychometric threshold of $.35$. Corrected item-total analyses indicated that removing any single item would not result in a significant increase in the respective subscale alpha, confirming balanced internal structure across all dimensions.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability was evaluated across a four-week test-retest interval among a stable cohort of parents ($N = 84$) not undergoing concurrent psychosocial interventions. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficients demonstrated high stability over time:

• Attitudes of Control and Competence: $r_{tt} = .84$
• Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge: $r_{tt} = .81$
• Formal Participation in Organizations: $r_{tt} = .87$
• Informal Participation in Social Systems: $r_{tt} = .79$
• Total PES Composite Score: $r_{tt} = .88$

These coefficients confirm that the PES measures a stable psychological orientation over the short-to-medium term, while remaining responsive to significant educational, psychosocial, or community-based interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the PES was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures conducted during its development and cross-validation phases.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the exploratory phase conducted by Akey (1996), an initial candidate pool of 48 items derived from theoretical literature and parent focus groups was administered to a developmental sample. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with oblique rotation (Promax) was selected due to the theoretical assumption that dimensions of psychological empowerment are correlated rather than orthogonal. Inspection of the scree plot, eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser-Guttman criterion), and parallel analysis supported a four-factor solution accounting for 54.6% of the total variance.

Iterative item reduction was executed based on strict psychometric criteria: (a) primary factor loadings required to exceed $.40$, (b) cross-loadings on secondary factors required to remain below $.30$, and (c) conceptual coherence within the theoretical model. This process retained 32 items, evenly distributed with exactly 8 items per factor. The resulting four factors mapped cleanly onto: (1) Attitudes of Control and Competence, (2) Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge, (3) Formal Participation, and (4) Informal Participation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm this structural architecture, Akey, Marquis, and Ross (2000) conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis using structural equation modeling software on an independent validation cohort of parents of children with disabilities ($N = 382$). The hypothesized four-factor correlated model was evaluated against competing alternative specifications, including a single-factor unidimensional model and a four-factor orthogonal model.

The four-factor correlated model demonstrated an acceptable fit to empirical data, evidenced by a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of $.055$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.050, .060]$), a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of $.93$, a Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of $.92$, and a Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) of $.058$. Moderate-to-strong inter-factor correlations were observed (ranging from $r = .34$ between Formal Participation and Attitudes of Control, to $r = .68$ between Attitudes of Control and Cognitive Appraisals), demonstrating that while these constructs share common variance as facets of empowerment, they remain empirically distinguishable entities. A second-order hierarchical model (wherein the four first-order factors load onto a general “Psychological Empowerment” construct) also yielded acceptable fit indices, supporting the operational practice of reporting both individual subscale scores and a full composite empowerment score.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Psychological Empowerment Scale (PES)
• Authors: Teresa M. Akey, Janet G. Marquis, and Michael E. Ross
• Target Population: Parents, primary caregivers, and legal guardians of children with disabilities, chronic medical conditions, or special educational needs
• Administration Format: Self-report paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized survey, or structured clinical interview
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Total Item Count: 32 items
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale scored as:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Attitudes of Control and Competence (8 items): Items 1, 8, 11, 14, 17, 24, 27, and 32
  • Cognitive Appraisals of Critical Skills and Knowledge (8 items): Items 4, 7, 10, 13, 20, 23, 26, and 29
  • Formal Participation in Organizations (8 items): Items 2, 5, 12, 15, 18, 21, 28, and 30
  • Informal Participation in Social Systems and Relationships (8 items): Items 3, 6, 9, 16, 19, 22, 25, and 31
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Directionality: All 32 items are positively worded in the standard validation version; no reverse scoring is required.
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by summing the raw item responses within each subscale (range: 8 to 40 per subscale) or by computing the mean score across the 8 items (range: 1.0 to 5.0 per subscale), where higher scores indicate greater empowerment.
  • Total Composite Score: Calculated by summing all 32 items (range: 32 to 160) or taking the grand mean across all items (range: 1.0 to 5.0).
• Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Mean Subscale Scores 1.00 – 2.49: Low psychological empowerment; indicates persistent feelings of powerlessness, low perceived advocacy self-efficacy, and marked social or institutional isolation.
  • Mean Subscale Scores 2.50 – 3.49: Moderate/emerging empowerment; reflects emerging competence and sporadic informal support, with potential room for growth in formal organizational participation and system-level advocacy.
  • Mean Subscale Scores 3.50 – 5.00: High psychological empowerment; indicates robust perceived internal control, well-developed critical advocacy and navigational skills, and active participation in peer support and formal community governance.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Psychological Empowerment Scale was developed across research initiatives spanning 1996 to 2000, with its definitive validation study published in 2000 in Educational and Psychological Measurement (Akey, Marquis, & Ross, 2000). The instrument is maintained within the public research and academic domain through the Beach Center on Disability at the University of Kansas. The PES is available free of charge for non-commercial research, educational scholarship, and clinical program evaluation purposes. Researchers, psychologists, and clinical organizations wishing to administer the instrument are encouraged to properly cite the foundational validation publication (Akey et al., 2000) and may communicate with the Beach Center on Disability at [email protected] for administrative guidelines, historical manuals, or electronic administration permissions.

References

• Akey, T. M. (1996). Exploratory factor analysis and item analysis of the Psychological Empowerment Scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation/manuscript). Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
• Akey, T. M., Marquis, J. G., & Ross, M. E. (2000). Validation of scores on the Psychological Empowerment Scale: A measure of empowerment for parents of children with a disability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970628
• Akey, T. M., & Turnbull, H. R. (1996). Effects of family support programs on parental empowerment. Teacher Education and Practice, 12(2), 26–42.
• Akey, T. M., Marquis, J. G., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Psychological Empowerment Scale. In C. A. Simmons & P. Lehmann (Eds.), Tools for Strengths-Based Assessment and Evaluation (pp. 371–373). Springer Publishing Company.
• 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.
• Koren, P. E., DeChillo, N., & Friesen, B. J. (1992). Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37(4), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079106
• Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A structural analysis of participation and empowerment. Journal of Research in Personality, 24(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(90)90007-S
• Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983
• Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Community Psychology (pp. 43–63). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2

Items of the Scale