Child Development, January/February 2001, Volume 72, Number 1, Pages 207219

The Vicissitudes of Measurement: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis

of the Emotional Autonomy Scale
Mark F. Schmitz and Judith C. Baer

This study examined the factor structure of the Emotional Autonomy Scale (EAS) as proposed by Steinberg
and Silverberg. Participants were from three independent samples of adolescents in grades 6 (n  1,842), 8 (n 
1,769), and 10 (n  1,232), with each sample consisting of three ethnic groups: African American, European
American, and Mexican American. None of the conrmatory factor analyses for these samples supported the
factor structure proposed by Steinberg and Silverberg. From the three models tested, the EAS is best described
by the four originally proposed factors, combined with two method factors, one consisting of the positively
worded scale items and one consisting of the negatively worded scale items. Results show that the EAS exhibits poor construct validity and behaves quite differently for the different grade and ethnic groups. The strong
impact of method variance on the factor structure is discussed. Although various alternative solutions to the
psychometric problems in the EAS are proposed, the most credible solution may be to reexamine the conceptual foundations of emotional autonomy and develop better measures of those concepts for adolescents.

INTRODUCTION
The Emotional Autonomy Scale (EAS) constructed by
Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) has been the impetus
for a number of cross-sectional studies about the development of autonomy during adolescence. At the
time of its inception, the EAS addressed an important
void, because there were few empirical studies that
measured the process-oriented and developmental
aspects of attachment and autonomy (Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). Autonomy had been conceptualized as a
multidimensional construct involving affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains; however, research
prior to the EAS was often conceptually vague and
consisted of a variety of sparsely measured operational denitions. The result was empirical investigations driven by disparate theoretical foci,
including psychoanalytic, social learning, and relational perspectives (Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). There
was a great need to interrelate aspects of autonomy
and tie theory to investigations of transformations in
family relationships.
Steinberg and Silverberg partially addressed these
concerns in their construction of the EAS. Subsequent
studies using the EAS have made important contributions by identifying some of the complex interrelations involved in the dynamic emotional bonds between adolescents and their parents (Fuhrman &
Holmbeck, 1995; Lamborn & Steinberg, 1993; Ryan &
Lynch, 1989; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Unfortunately, the psychometric properties of the EAS have
never been presented beyond the original ndings reported by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986), which
noted that exploratory factor analysis had been used

to examine the proposed four-factor structure of the

scale. No other studies have published anything
about the psychometric properties of the EAS, other
than coefcient . In this study, conrmatory factor
analytic techniques were used to examine the factor
structure of the EAS in three independent samples of
adolescents.
Previous use of the EAS. The EAS consists of a 20item Likert scale composed of four subscales developed from Bloss (1979) theoretical perspective on individuation. The subscales are perceives parents as
people, parental deidealization, nondependency
on parents, and individuation (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Although the EAS has been used in a variety of studies during the past decade, a number of
important controversies about the scale have arisen.
The primary debate stems from the interpretation of
the EAS as either a form of autonomy or unhealthy
detachment. Central to the controversy are competing theories about whether emotional distancing
from the parents by the adolescent leads to healthy
self reliance and individuation or poor developmental outcomes.
The emotional distancing model is based on the
work of Douvan and Adelson (1966) and Blos (1962,
1979), theorists who view development as a process
wherein the adolescent reduces parental dependency
and relinquishes omnipotent ideas about parents in
favor of more mature and balanced ones (Blos, 1962,
1979; Douvan & Adelson, 1966). The opposing position articulated by Ryan and Lynch (1989) is that ado 2001 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2001/7201-0013

208

Child Development

lescent development is facilitated by parental attachment and involves emotional closeness and a sense of
support. Ryan and Lynch argue that the EAS measures emotional detachment and is not an indicator of
self-regulation and self-reliance as originally operationalized by Steinberg and Silverberg. This detachment, according to Ryan and Lynch, actually is a maladaptive reluctance by the adolescent to rely on
parents. Studies of adolescent autonomy using the
EAS have yielded equivocal ndings that are often interpreted according to one of these two competing
positions.
The work of Ryan and Lynch (1989) showed that
adolescents who had higher EAS scores felt less secure and were less willing to use parental resources
for support. Ryan and Lynch (p. 353) concluded that
their ndings were consistent with the attachment
perspective and suggested that emotional autonomy
as indexed by the EAS was a measure of negative
family functioning. The more emotional autonomy
teenagers or young adults express, the less connected
or secure they feel within the family, the less they experience their parents as conveying love and understanding, and the less they report willingness to draw
upon parental resources.
Subsequent studies by Lamborn (1990) and Lamborn and Steinberg (1993) examined the relationship
between the EAS and adolescent adjustment. These
authors posited that the correlations between emotional autonomy and adjustment are moderated by
parental support. Lamborn (1990) found that adolescents whose parental relationships were characterized as avoidant or anxious were better adjusted
when they also had high EAS scores. Lamborns conclusion was that emotional autonomy is adaptive for
adolescents in stressful family environments. In a
subsequent study by Lamborn and Steinberg (1993),
however, just the opposite conclusion was made, in
that emotional autonomy was found to be more functional in the context of a supportive family.
A recent study of the EAS by Fuhrman and Holmbeck (1995) indicated results similar to Ryan and
Lynchs (1989) in that adolescents (1018 years old)
having high EAS scores were also less securely attached and did not use parents for emotional support.
Importantly, their study showed the role of context on
the adaptiveness of emotional autonomy for developmental outcomes. Fuhrman and Holmbeck, however,
concluded that it is unclear whether the EAS measures earlier relational (attachment) patterns or adaptive strategies arising as a function of adolescent
development. Given that we have very little understanding of the psychometric properties of the EAS,
basic measurement theory tells us that we really have

very little knowledge about what the EAS actually

measures (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Factor analytic issues and the EAS. Conceptualization and measurement have long been issues of great
concern for social scientists (Blalock, 1979), yet as the
literature cited earlier indicates, they remain curiously neglected in the examination of adolescent autonomy. One of the most important stages in the development of a measure is to examine the impact of
random and systematic errors on the measurement of
the concept being studied. Systematic errors can be
particularly devastating in their potential to confound substantive associations of the concept of interest with other variables (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994)
while not being correctable with techniques for handling the effects of random errors (Bollen & Paxton,
1998).
The method of measurement represents possible
systematic error, and so researchers have called for
the use of multiple methods for assessing substantive
concepts (Bank, Dishion, Skinner, & Patterson, 1990).
The most well known approach for dealing with these
issues has been the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM)
research design of Campbell and Fiske (1959), an approach typically involving the use of multiple reporters of multiple substantive traits. Because the data requirements for the classic MTMM design are quite
demanding, Bollen and Paxton (1998) have shown the
suitability of using a similar approach that uses more
relaxed conditions for assessing the biases resulting
from systematic measurement error. Their approach
essentially involves the inclusion of method-specic
factors within the factor structure of the measure being examined. The inuence of method factors is examined by comparing two models, one with method
factors and one without. If there are no method factors in the measure of interest, then the t of the simpler model should essentially be the same as the
model with method factors.
One potentially problematic method effect comes
from the standard practice of using oppositely
worded items within a scale to reduce acquiescent response bias (e.g., I am happy and I am sad in a
measure of affect). A signicant body of literature has
begun to examine the pitfalls of this approach (Green,
Goldman, & Salovey, 1993; Levin & Montag, 1989;
Marsh, 1986, 1996; Russell, 1996). The main assumption when using both positively and negatively
worded items in a single scale is that they all measure
the same construct; yet, this assumption is rarely
tested (Marsh, 1996). Factor analyses that reveal separate factors for positively and negatively worded
items indicate that the validity of this assumption is
questionable for that particular scale. In addition,

Schmitz and Baer

Carmines and Zeller (1979) reasoned that the distinction between method factors is substantively meaningful if they relate differently to external constructs.
The greater the degree to which the method factors
relate to substantively interesting variables, the
greater the danger for spurious effects within the
model being tested (Bollen & Paxton, 1998).
Of particular concern for users of the EAS is empirical evidence indicating that negatively worded items
may be differentially interpreted by younger respondents and by respondents having weaker reading
skills (Marsh, 1986). These respondents may have
greater difculty understanding and responding to
negatively worded items, especially if the items involve the use of double negative logic. The oppositely
worded items in the EAS do not follow the doublenegative logic that Marsh found most problematic;
however, Steinberg and Silverberg clearly identied
specic items as positive and negative measures of
the four subscales of the EAS. For example, a positively worded item from the individuation subscale is
There are some things about me that my parents
dont know. A negatively worded item from that
subscale is My parents know everything there is to
know about me. A serious difculty arises in attempting to differentiate the effects due to cognitive
development of the adolescent from the substantive
effects of change in adolescent autonomy and its correlates. How this methodology inuences the factor
structure of the EAS remains untested.
The most glaring inadequacy of the previous EAS
literature is the lack of any reported examination of
the originally proposed factor structure. Several basic
questions arise: Do the EAS items load on their proposed factors? Given the use of both positively and
negatively worded items within the scale, what are
the inuences of the corresponding method factors?
Finally, given that emotional autonomy is supposed
to evolve over time, is this factor structure consistent
for different age groups of adolescents?
METHOD
Sample and measure. Participants in the study were
surveyed in ve school districts in a large metropolitan area in the southwestern United States. Three cohorts of adolescents beginning in the sixth, seventh
and eighth grades were tracked for 3 years. Survey instruments were administered during regular school
hours to all students present at the time of data collection; no compensation was given for participation in
the study. There was an absenteeism rate of 12% during the data collection; the response rate of students
who were actually in the classroom was 95%. The

209

three samples used in this study for testing the EAS

factor structure are the sixth-grade cohort at wave 1
(Grade 6 in tables and discussion), the seventhgrade cohort at wave 2 (Grade 8), and the eighthgrade cohort at wave 3 (Grade 10). Demographic
characteristics of the samples are shown in Table 1.
The version of the EAS used in the present study is
identical to the version used by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986), except that a 5-point Likert response set
was used, rather than the original 4-point set. The rationale for this modication was that more scale
points generally increase variability in response and
that it made the EAS consistent with the other 5-point
Likert scales in the survey instrument (P. E. Baer, personal communication, June 17, 1996). Because the
original scale was an attempt to operationalize Bloss
model, which had not been empirically tested with
nonclinical populations, adding the neutral response
option gave respondents an opportunity to indicate
that ideas within the model did not apply to their experience. The items of the EAS, along with the originally proposed factor structure, are presented in the
Appendix.
Analytical procedures. Conrmatory factor analyses of a series of models were conducted by using
maximum likelihood estimation procedures of Amos
3.61 (Arbuckle, 1997) after listwise deletion of missing
data. (Analyses using the raw data and full information maximum likelihood estimation procedures
available in Amos produced results equivalent to
those obtained by using listwise deletion of missing
data and maximum likelihood estimation.) In these
analyses, the resultant parameters consist of factor
loadings, factor variances and covariances, errors for
the measured variables, and correlations among errors. The factor loadings are of primary interest and
are indicative of the validity of each measured variable relative to the given construct (Bollen, 1989). The
error terms for the measured variables consist of both
random and systematic variance not accounted for by
the underlying factor structure. Correlations among
the measured variable error terms are indicative of
systematic covariation between measured variables
that cannot be explained in terms of the proposed factor structure. A more extensive discussion of conrmatory factor analysis is beyond the scope of this paper but is widely available elsewhere (Bollen, 1989;
Byrne, 1989; Hayduk, 1987; Long, 1983; McDonald,
1985; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Three proposed models were tested. These were
M1, the 4 subscales originally proposed by Steinberg
and Silverberg (1986); M2, two method factors, one
for the positively worded items and one for the negatively worded items; and M3, the two method factors

210

Child Development

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Grade 6 (n  1,842)
Gender
Male
Female
Race
African American
European American
Mexican American
Age
11 years
12 years
13 years
Grade 8 (n  1,769)
Gender
Male
Female
Race
African American
European American
Mexican American
Age
13 years
14 years
15 years
Grade 10 (n  1,232)
Gender
Male
Female
Race
African American
European American
Mexican American
Age
15 years
16 years
17 years

51%
49%
25%
28%
37%
47%
43%
10%

51%
49%
28%
42%
30%
44%
45%
11%

46%
54%
29%
41%
30%
41%
47%
12%
African European Mexican
American American American
(%)
(%)
(%)

Mothers education
 High school degree
10
High school degree/GED
26
Some college
24
College degree or higher
40
2(6, N  4,843)  1,344, p  .001

19
34
22
25

54
26
24
11

Fathers education
 High school degree
13
High school degree/GED
25
Some college
20
College degree or higher
42
2(6, N  4,843)  1,158, p  .001

18
32
22
28

54
23
10
13

15
57

13
68

28

19

Family structure
Single parent
30
Biological mother and
41
biological father
Other
29
2(4, N  4,843)  399, p  .001

and the four original subscales. The correlations

among factors were kept fairly restrictive. The four
original subscales were allowed to correlate with each
other, and the positive and negative method factors
were allowed to correlate with each other, but correlations between the method factors and original subscales were constrained to zero.
Comparing the matrix of the observed variances
and covariances of the measured variables with the
matrix of the variances and covariances of the measured variables resulting from the proposed model
tests the suitability of that model. To perform this
comparison, several measures of overall model t are
available, with varying strengths and weaknesses.
The measures used in the present study are well
known and widely accepted as robust measures of t
(Hoyle, 1995): 2, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index), CFI
(Comparative Fit Index), ECVI (Expected Cross-Validation Index), and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation). The model providing the best t
to the data is determined by comparing measures of
overall t for each of the models in the proposed series, typically by testing for signicant differences in
the model 2. Many other models could be tested;
however, the three models examined here are sufcient for providing a basic test of the EAS factor structure. Indeed, an indication of good construct validity
of the EAS would be the strength of Model M1 and a
lack of improvement in overall t in the subsequent
models, M2 and M3.
The series of proposed models was tested as multiple group analyses of the three ethnic groups within
the three grade cohorts. (To reduce the potential impact of English-language prociency on the results,
those Mexican Americans in the sample who spoke
only Spanish with both of their parents were eliminated from the analyses.) This provided an examination of the EAS factor structure for three independent
samples of adolescents in grades 6, 8, and 10, and for
the examination of ethnic differences in the EAS
structure. The European American ethnic groups allow for the comparison of these results with samples
that most closely resemble the samples originally
used by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986).
RESULTS
Descriptions and overall t for the three models
tested are presented in Table 2. Clearly, the four-factor
structure (Model M1) originally proposed by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) provided a very poor t to
the data, as indicated by all the measures of overall t.
The model 2 remained signicant for all nine models
tested, whereas the other t indicators showed ac-

Schmitz and Baer

Table 2 Overall Fit Statistics for Emotional Autonomy Scale
(EAS) Conrmatory Factor Analyses

Grade 6
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Grade 8
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Grade 10
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3

2(df)

GFI

CFI

3026.8
(492)
2260.5
(507)
1069.4
(429)

.815

.675

.871

.775

.938

.918

.819

.752

.835

.757

.931

.924

.819

.742

.815

.728

.918

.913

2835.5
(492)
2804.8
(507)
1150.4
(429)
2191.8
(492)
2293.3
(507)
1000.7
(429)

ECVI
(90% CI)

RMSEA
(90% CI)

2.039
(1.934, 2.148)
1.547
(1.459, 1.641)
0.907
(0.850, 0.969)

.056
(.054, .058)
.046
(.044, .048)
.030
(.028, .033)

1.912
(1.812, 2.018)
1.875
(1.775, 1.980)
0.954
(0.895, 1.018)

.054
(.052, .056)
.053
(.051, .055)
.032
(.030, .034)

2.176
(2.052, 2.308)
2.239
(2.111, 2.374)
1.235
(1.157, 1.320)

.055
(.053, .058)
.056
(.053, .058)
.034
(.031, .037)

Note: Model 1: Four EAS SubscalesParent Deidealization, Nondependence, Perceive Parents as People, Individuation. Model 2:
Two Method FactorsSame Direction as EAS Subscale, Opposite
Direction from EAS Subscale. Model 3: Combination of Model 1
and Model 2Four EAS Subscales and Two Method Factors.

ceptable t only for Model M3 in each of the three

samples (using as values for acceptable t GFI  .90,
CFI  .90, and RMSEA  .05).
Because models M1, M2, and M3 were not hierarchically nested, the 2 difference test was not appropriate for testing differences in t between models.
The 90% Condence Intervals, however, provided
with the ECVI and RMSEA, indicate the degree of
overlap between models. If the 90% CIs do not overlap (e.g., between M1 and M2 in the sixth-grade sample), then the two comparison models t the data signicantly differently, with the model having the smaller
point estimate providing the better t to the data. This
suggests that Model M2 t the data signicantly better than Model M1 in the sixth-grade sample, that
Models M1 and M2 t the data equally well for the
eighth-grade and tenth-grade samples, and that
Model M3 provided the best t for all three samples.
Standardized and unstandardized factor loadings
obtained for all of the models are shown in Table 3 for
the sixth-grade sample, Table 4 for the eighth-grade
sample, and Table 5 for the tenth-grade sample.
Examining the standardized factor loadings for
Model M1 can help determine where the lack of t in

211

that model occurs. In Table 3, results for Model M1 for

the sixth-grade sample showed standardized loadings for the Parent Deidealization construct that were
good (  .40) for all three ethnic groups. This result
was consistent with the other two samples, as can be
seen for the eighth-grade sample in Table 4 and the
tenth-grade sample in Table 5. For the Nondependency construct, EAS5 was weak in all three ethnic
groups in the sixth-grade sample and was weak in the
African American and Mexican American groups for
the eighth- and tenth-grade samples. All other loadings for the Nondependency construct were good
(  .40), with the exception of EAS6 in the European
American eighth-grade sample. EAS7 and EAS9
showed very strong loadings (  .60) on the Individuation construct for all three ethnic groups in all three
samples. The other items indicated weaker but generally still adequate loadings on that construct. The Perceives Parents as People construct was quite problematic for the sixth- and eighth-grade samples, with
generally very weak loadings for all of the ethnic
groups. This construct did exhibit somewhat better
loadings for the tenth-grade sample.
The standardized factor loadings for Model M2
were consistently higher than the factor loadings in
Model M1, in all ethnic groups and for all three samples. In the sixth-grade sample, the EAS3 item did not
load very well for any of the ethnic groups (Table 3),
and the EAS16 item did not load well for the African
American group. All other standardized loadings for
Model M2 in the sixth-grade sample were good ( 
.40). In the eighth-grade sample, the EAS3 item was
also weak in the European American group, as was
the EAS5 item for the African American group. In the
tenth-grade sample, only one loading was less than
.40: the EAS10 item for the African American group.
Clearly, the method factors exhibited greater stability
across ages and ethnicity than did the originally proposed four-factor structure.
These hints obtained from the rst two models
help when examining the results of Model M3, which
is the most appropriate model for interpreting the resulting factor structures, having shown the best overall t (Table 2) of the three basic models tested. In the
sixth-grade sample (Table 3) the Parent Deidealization construct held only for the African American
group, whereas the Nondependency construct held
for the Mexican American group. The Perceives Parents
as People and Individuation constructs were weak for
all three ethnic groups in this sample. The European
American sixth graders clearly showed the strongest
and most consistent standardized factor loadings for
the two method factors but presented considerably
weaker loadings for the four EAS subscales.

212

Child Development

Table 3 Grade 6, Models 1, 2, and 3 Unstandardized (Standardized) Factor Loadings

Model 2
Model 1

Positive

A-A

E-A

M-A

PDI

PDI

PDI

A-A

E-A

Model 3
Negative

M-A

A-A

E-A

M-A

Positive
A-A

E-A

M-A

A-A

E-A

Negative
M-A

A-A

E-A

M-A

PDI

PDI

PDI

EAS1

.99
.87
.99
(.61*) (.60*) (.65*)

.65
.52
.65
(.60*) (.57*) (.64*)

.90
(.48*)

.55
(.39*)

1.09
(.54*)

1.42
.48
.50
(.45*) (.43*) (.37*)

EAS4

1.33 1.30 1.03

(.60*) (.61*) (.54*)

.85
.80
.68
(.59*) (.60*) (.53*)

1.24
(.50*)

.94
(.45*)

1.15
(.46*)

1.63
.71
.48
(.39*) (.43*) (.29*)

EAS11 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.49) (.54) (.58)

.63
.60
.69
(.46*) (.56*) (.59*)

1.00
(.43)

1.00
(.55)

1.00
(.44)

.76
.41
.61
(.19*) (.29*) (.39*)

EAS15 1.36 1.52 1.47

(.53*) (.62*) (.66*)

.92
.93
.99
(.54*) (.60*) (.67*)

1.76
(.60*)

.65
(.27*)

1.33
(.45*)

EAS18 1.02
.96
.78
(.48*) (.50*) (.45*)

.69
.61
.53
(.49*) (.51*) (.46*)

1.12
(.46*)

.37
(.20*)

.66
(.29*)

ND

ND

ND

.74
(.48*)

.95
(.49*)

.92
(.62*)

.59
(.35*)

.60
(.26*)

.57
.70 1.41 1.60
(.32*) (.31*) (.44*) (.43*)

.65
.56
.72
(.48*) (.46*) (.60*)

.50
(.35*)

.69
(.38*)

.64
(.46*)

1.74
.46
.61
(.44*) (.31*) (.38*)

.86
.82
.89
(.52*) (.56*) (.63*)

1.00
(.58)

1.00
(.45)

1.00
(.61)

.33
(.07)

.70
.59
(.39*) (.31*)

PP

PP

PP

.68
(.14)

1.32
(.54*)

1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.60*) (.45) (.33) (.31)

.16
(.04)

1.11 1.18
(.66*) (.66*)

.25
(.05)

1.21 1.28
(.69*) (.71*)

ND

ND

ND

EAS2

.84
.93
.87
(.51*) (.63*) (.66*)

EAS5

.50
.68
.50
(.28*) (.39*) (.32*)

EAS6

.71
.65
.77
(.46*) (.46*) (.61*)

.74
.74
.78
(.50*) (.58*) (.61*)
1.27 1.36 1.37
(.41*) (.46*) (.42*)

EAS13 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.55) (.59) (.68)
PP

PP

PP

.09
(.02)

.71
.56
.60
(.15 ) (.48*) (.36*)

.99
.62
.47
(.23*) (.39*) (.28*)

EAS3

.42
.46
(.26*) (.19*)

.68 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.50*) (.33) (.35) (.34)

EAS8

1.09 1.32
(.63*) (.50*)

.86 1.97 1.72 1.92

(.55*) (.61*) (.55*) (.57*)

1.24
(.24*)

.36
(.14*)

.32 1.38 1.94 2.18

(.11*) (.59*) (.58*) (.58*)

1.00 1.72 1.67 1.76

(.65) (.52*) (.54*) (.54*)

1.00
(.19)

1.00
(.38)

1.00
(.35)

EAS10 1.00 1.00

(.56) (.38)
EAS12

.52 1.43
.02
(.33*) (.64*) (.02)

EAS16

.38
.65
(.24*) (.29*)

.60
.87 1.13 1.24
(.44*) (.29*) (.42*) (.43*)

EAS20

.55 1.68
(.34*) (.71*)

.01
(.01)

EAS7

1.00 1.00
(.62) (.70)

1.00 1.78 1.76 1.99

(.68) (.53*) (.54*) (.58*)

EAS9

.82 1.06
(.53*) (.77*)

.81
(.54*)

EAS14

.64
.53
(.42*) (.38*)

EAS17
EAS19

.80
.76
.77
(.54*) (.56*) (.57*)

3.51
.07
(.75*) (.03)
.37
(.08)

.74
.88
.75
(.48*) (.62*) (.55*)

.40
(.18*)

1.23 1.77 1.87

(.51*) (.53*) (.50*)

.63
(.25*)
.31
.68 1.16 1.36
(.12*) (.32*) (.40*) (.41*)

3.32
.39
.36
(.69*) (.16*) (.14*)
I

1.00
(.51)

1.00
(.50)

1.00
(.47)

1.55
(.82*)

1.66
(.86*)

1.86
(.84*)

.66 1.75 1.64 1.79

(.49*) (.54*) (.53*) (.57*)

.22
(.12*)

.15
(.08*)

.06
(.03)

.59
.53
(.42*) (.42*)

.70 1.23 1.54 1.56

(.55*) (.42*) (.55*) (.53*)

.42
.09
(.25*) (.05)

.24
.65 1.78 1.69
(.13*) (.31*) (.59*) (.51*)

.65
.59
(.44*) (.45*)

.64 1.52 1.66 1.73

(.49*) (.49*) (.56*) (.57*)

.45
(.25*)

.10
(.05)

1.00 1.00 1.00

(.60) (.64) (.63)

.28
(.15*)

1.05
.99
(.55*) (.50*)

.94 1.71 1.97

(.39*) (.49*) (.52*)
1.00
(.21)

1.00
(.52)

1.00
(.47)

1.32 1.69 1.98

(.56*) (.50*) (.56*)

.92 1.67 1.91

(.40*) (.52*) (.56*)

Note: n (A-A)  392; n (E-A)  632; n (M-A)  599. A-A  African American; E-A  European American; M-A  Mexican American.
PDI  Parental Deidealization; ND  Nondependency on Parents; PP  Perceives Parents as People; I  Individuation.
* p  .05; p  .10.

Schmitz and Baer

213

Table 4 Grade 8, Models 1, 2, and 3 Unstandardized (Standardized) Factor Loadings

Model 2
Model 1

Positive

A-A

E-A

M-A

PDI

PDI

PDI

A-A

E-A

Model 3
Negative

M-A

A-A

E-A

Positive
M-A

A-A

E-A

PDI

M-A

A-A

E-A

Negative
M-A

A-A

E-A

M-A

PDI

PDI

EAS1

.81
.96
.90
(.65*) (.69*) (.61*)

.67
.69
.72
.72
(.63*) (.67*) (.60*) (.45*)

.83
(.37*)

.73
(.49*)

.64
(.47*)

.71
.71
(.59*) (.35*)

EAS4

1.06
1.08 1.21
(.61*) (.59*) (.63*)

.86
.77
.97 1.36
(.58*) (.58*) (.63*) (.60*)

1.09
(.37*)

.99
(.52*)

.59
(.31*)

.78
.99
(.50*) (.38*)

.84
.72
.76 1.00
(.63*) (.58*) (.56*) (.49)

1.00
(.37)

1.00
(.60)

.74
(.43*)

.74
.48
(.51*) (.21*)

EAS11 1.00
(.65)

1.00
(.60)

1.00
(.60)

EAS15 1.24
1.47 1.24
(.66*) (.73*) (.59*)

1.06
1.07 1.00
.87
.55
(.66*) (.72*) (.59*) (.35*) (.17*)

.79
(.38*)

1.15
1.59 1.35
(.55*) (.91*) (.47*)

EAS18

.67
.52
.65
.83
(.53*) (.47*) (.50*) (.43*)

.30
(.12*)

.58
(.36*)

.60
(.37)

.59
.82
(.45*) (.37*)

ND

ND

.97
.89
.96 1.02
(.72*) (.70*) (.67*) (.61*)

1.09
(.50*)

.89
(.64*)

.85
(.49*)

.88
.86
(.58*) (.35*)

.57
(.28*)

.71
(.28*)

.47
(.28*)

.75
.45
.74
.68
(.56*) (.36*) (.54*) (.41*)

.41
(.19*)

.61
(.46*)

.65
(.38*)

.46
.69
(.32*) (.30*)

1.02
.98
.99 1.00
(.67*) (.67*) (.61*) (.53)

1.00
(.40)

1.00
(.63)

.95
(.48)

1.01
.74
(.58*) (.27*)

1.33
(.65)

.75 1.77
(.45*) (.67)

1.53
(.76*)

.89 1.89
(.53*) (.71*)

1.00
(.50)

1.00 1.00
(.60) (.37)

.80
.71
.81
(.54*) (.47*) (.50*)
ND

ND

ND

EAS2

.96
.93
.97
(.78*) (.74*) (.73*)

EAS5

.48
.84
.60
.94 2.19 1.16
(.33*) (.57*) (.38*) (.39*) (.62*) (.46*)

EAS6

.67
.44
.68
(.55*) (.36*) (.54*)

EAS13 1.00
(.72)
PP

1.00 1.00
(.69) (.67)
PP

ND

PP

PP

PP

PP

1.22 2.65 1.30

(.43*) (.58*) (.63*)

EAS3

.92
.75 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00
(.24*) (.35*) (.51*) (.44) (.31) (.45)

.74
(.44*)

.84
(.38*)

1.01
(.48*)

1.00 1.00 1.00

(.37) (.24) (.40)

EAS8

1.78
1.50 1.54 1.29 1.80 1.55
(.43*) (.64*) (.72*) (.53*) (.52*) (.64*)

.46
(.26*)

1.04
(.44*)

.48
(.21*)

1.41 2.10 1.67

(.49*) (.47*) (.63*)

1.00
(.56)

1.00
(.45)

1.00
(.48)

1.23 1.30
.94
(.43*) (.31*) (.38*)

.77
.63
.79
.05
(.50*) (.45*) (.50*) (.03)

1.07
(.47)

.36
(.17*)

EAS10 1.00
(.25)

1.00 1.00 1.19 1.26

.95
(.45) (.51) (.50*) (.39*) (.42*)

EAS12 2.71
1.39
.56
(.69*) (.63*) (.28*)
EAS16

.73
.99
.92 1.33 1.02
.47
(.12 ) (.33*) (.51*) (.40*) (.41*) (.47*)

EAS20 2.82
1.66
.76
(.73*) (.74*) (.38*)
I

.57
(.34*)
.81
.74
.70
.21
(.53*) (.53*) (.44*) (.13 )
I

EAS7

1.00
(.57)

1.00 1.00 1.10 2.22 1.30

(.71) (.70) (.47*) (.64*) (.55*)

EAS9

1.26
1.05
.98
(.71*) (.79*) (.71*)

EAS14

1.00
(.34)

.43
(.20*)

.63
(.31*)

.86 1.56 1.06

(.32*) (.38*) (.44*)

1.31
.04
(.57*) (.02)
I

1.00
(.62)

1.00
(.45)

1.00 1.00 2.76

(.71) (.63) (.94*)

.95
(.62*)

2.19
(.99*)

.61
.83
.63 1.13 2.26 1.14
(.34*) (.58*) (.43*) (.49*) (.64*) (.47*)

.36
(.12*)

.53
(.33*)

.37
(.16*)

1.24 2.37 1.16

(.45*) (.52*) (.43*)

EAS17

.79
.73
.56 1.16 2.05
.99
(.49*) (.56*) (.44*) (.55*) (.63*) (.46*)

.32
.28
(.12*) (.19*)

.17
(.08*)

1.45 3.43 1.14

(.58*) (.82*) (.48*)

EAS19

.65
.57
.55 1.28 1.69 1.20
(.38*) (.41*) (.40*) (.58*) (.49*) (.53*)

.07
(.03)

.23
(.10*)

1.62 2.08 1.25

(.63*) (.47*) (.50*)

1.00
(.65)

.11
(.07 )

1.33 2.36 1.30

(.48*) (.53*) (.50*)

Note: n (A-A)  437; n (E-A)  701; n (M-A)  492. A-A  African American; E-A  European American; M-A  Mexican American.
PDI  Parental Deidealization; ND  Nondependency on Parents; PP  Perceives Parents as People; I  Individuation.
* p  .05; p  .10.

214

Child Development

Table 5 Grade 10, Models 1, 2, and 3 Unstandardized (Standardized) Factor Loadings

Model 2
Model 1

Positive

A-A

E-A

M-A

PDI

PDI

PDI

A-A

E-A

Model 3
Negative

M-A

A-A

E-A

Positive
M-A

A-A

E-A

M-A

A-A

E-A

Negative
M-A

A-A

E-A

M-A

PDI

PDI

PDI

EAS1

.91
.91
.89
(.62*) (.64*) (.72*)

.73
.80
.81
(.60*) (.63*) (.69*)

.55
(.24*)

.60
(.17*)

.82
(.41*)

.75
.79
(.55*) (.61*)

.87
(.57*)

EAS4

1.09 1.02 1.15

(.60*) (.60*) (.67*)

.87
.87 1.06
(.57*) (.57*) (.66*)

1.39
(.50*)

.97
1.06
(.22*) (.38*)

.83
.89
(.49*) (.58*)

1.19
(.57*)

EAS11 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.57) (.59) (.70)

.81
.86
.89
(.56*) (.57*) (.66*)

1.00
(.37)

1.00
(.23)

.81
.90
(.49*) (.59*)

.99
(.57*)

EAS15 1.41 1.33 1.20

(.68*) (.69*) (.64*)

1.13 1.18 1.12

.40
(.65*) (.68*) (.63*) (.12)

EAS18

.68
.72
.67
(.51*) (.53*) (.55*)

.85
.85
.77
(.53*) (.56*) (.59*)
ND

ND

1.08
.99 1.09
(.81*) (.72*) (.79*)

EAS5

.57
.68
.49 1.18 1.30
.90
(.37*) (.44*) (.35*) (.48*) (.56*) (.45*)

EAS6

.61
.55
.78
(.46*) (.41*) (.61*)

PP

PP

1.53 1.45
.02
(.79*) (.82*) (.01)

.34
(.09)

.86
(.41*)

ND

ND

ND

.69
(.48*)

.83
(.48*)

.93
(.61*)

.26
(.16*)

.35
(.17*)

.62 1.62 1.75

.60
(.39*) (.50*) (.52*) (.31*)

.73
.62
.89
(.49*) (.43*) (.62*)

.13
(.09)

.12
(.07)

.94
.95 1.02
(.58*) (.58*) (.64*)

1.00
(.65)
PP

.99
.95 1.12
(.66*) (.63*) (.73*)

EAS13 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.68) (.59) (.70)

2.43
3.04
(.49 ) (.99*)

.83
(.34*)

ND

EAS2

1.00
(.43)

PP

.67
.76
(.46*) (.55*)

.65
(.41*)

.98
.88
(.59*) (.58*)

.98
(.50*)

.56
(.39*)

.79
.62
(.48*) (.42*)

.92
(.50*)

1.00
(.52)

1.00
(.63)

.86
.85
(.47*) (.51*)

.70
(.34*)

PP

PP

.94
.74
(.49*) (.42*)

.68
(.34*)

.92
.76
(.49*) (.44*)

.34
(.18*)

1.00 1.00
(.54) (.59)

1.00
(.48)

EAS3

1.06 1.02
.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
(.51*) (.57*) (.56*) (.41) (.42) (.51)

.77
(.45*)

1.04
(.56*)

EAS8

1.25 1.20 1.18 1.17 1.25 1.08

(.56*) (.63*) (.65*) (.45*) (.49*) (.54*)

.65
(.35*)

.99
1.39 1.42 1.41
.82
(.50*) (.45*) (.42*) (.38*) (.43*)

1.00
(.60)

1.00
(.54)

.52
(.30*)

.90
1.81
(.49*) (.60*)

.43
(.25*)

.43
(.23*)

.83
(.48*)

1.08
2.15
(.59*) (.73*)

EAS10 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.50) (.56) (.58)
EAS12

.79 1.05
.94
(.34*) (.44*) (.50*)

.69 1.01
.78
(.33*) (.58*) (.44*)

.74
.72
.73
(.44*) (.43*) (.48*)

EAS16 1.05
.68
.68 1.24 1.05
.93
(.51*) (.38*) (.37*) (.52*) (.44*) (.47*)

1.00
(.34)

.68 1.11
.92
(.22*) (.32*) (.51*)

.37 1.41 1.29

.87
(.12*) (.45*) (.37*) (.46*)

EAS20

.99 1.14
.86
(.49*) (.67*) (.50*)

EAS7

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.28 1.43 1.21

(.62) (.66) (.61) (.53*) (.56*) (.54*)

EAS9

.83
.94
.99
(.53*) (.70*) (.65*)

EAS14

.84
.96
.86 1.39 1.57 1.19
(.49*) (.62*) (.54*) (.55*) (.61*) (.55*)

EAS17

.95
.71
.86 1.38 1.33 1.22
(.62*) (.55*) (.59*) (.61*) (.62*) (.61*)

.29
.39
2.18 2.14 2.58
.70
(.15*) (.25*) (.66*) (.73*) (.83*) (.36*)

EAS19

.92
.60
.77 1.66 1.19 1.21
(.49*) (.46*) (.51*) (.68*) (.54*) (.59*)

.07
(.04)

.65
.74
.65
(.40*) (.44*) (.44*)

.90 1.00 1.00 1.00

(.30*) (.31) (.29) (.53)

1.00 1.00 1.00

(.62) (.61) (.62)

1.00
(.48)

1.00
(.55)

1.37
(.68*)

.90
1.38
(.55*) (.41*)

.45
(.21*)

.86
(.46*)

1.00 1.83 1.90 1.03

(.27) (.57*) (.52*) (.48*)

.67 1.65 1.91 1.18

(.19*) (.50*) (.51*) (.56*)

.16
1.25 2.05 1.57
.96
(.10*) (.37*) (.64*) (.50*) (.48*)

Note: n (A-A)  325; n (E-A)  467; n (M-A)  345. A-A  African American; E-A  European American; M-A  Mexican American.
PDI  Parental Deidealization; ND  Nondependency on Parents; PP  Perceives Parents as People; I  Individuation.
* p  .05; p  .10.

Schmitz and Baer

215

Table 6 Coefcient  of Emotional Autonomy Scale and Subscales

PDI

ND

PP

Positive

Negative

Total

Grade 6
A-A
E-A
M-A

.67
.70
.73

.49
.56
.66

.50
.66
.51

.59
.69
.69

.70
.75
.75

.80
.83
.86

.76
.84
.80

Grade 8
A-A
E-A
M-A

.75
.75
.76

.64
.65
.68

.63
.70
.62

.65
.76
.68

.72
.78
.74

.86
.85
.86

.82
.87
.83

Grade 10
A-A
E-A
M-A

.74
.75
.78

.63
.63
.68

.66
.74
.69

.68
.74
.75

.76
.77
.77

.83
.83
.86

.83
.85
.86

Note: A-A  African American; E-A  European American; M-A  Mexican American. PDI  Parental Deidealization; ND  Nondependency on Parents; PP  Perceives Parents as People; I  Individuation.

In the eighth-grade sample, the Perceives Parents

as People and Individuation constructs were again
weak for all three ethnic groups. The Parent Deidealization and Nondependency constructs were strong
in the Mexican American and African American
groups, but those items loaded more strongly on the
method factors for the European American group.
The African American eighth-graders showed stronger loadings on the two method factors, as compared
with the sixth-grade African Americans; the Mexican
American group showed strong loadings on the Positive method factor but not on the Negative method
factor.
The Parent Deidealization, Nondependency, and
Individuation constructs were quite strong for the
tenth-grade Mexican Americans, whereas the items
making up those constructs tended to load more
strongly on the two method factors for the tenthgrade African American and European American
groups. The Perceives Parents as People construct exhibited good loadings for the European American
tenth graders but only marginal loadings for the other
two tenth-grade ethnic groups. Essentially, for the
tenth-grade sample, the Mexican American group
tended to support the four-factor structure, whereas
the African American and European American
groups tended to support the method factors.
One of the most commonly reported statistics regarding the EAS is an estimate of reliability, coefcient
. Table 6 shows values of coefcient  for the total EAS
and the different subscales, including the two method
factors. Coefcient  for the total EAS was quite good
for all ages and ethnic groups (  .75); however, the
two method factors showed almost equally as strong
values as for the total EAS and consistently higher values than did any of the EAS subscales.

A primary concern in these analyses was whether

the positively worded and negatively worded items
measure the same construct. A comparison of the
mean values for the negatively worded items (after
reverse coding) with the mean values for the positively worded items indicated a distinct difference in
the patterns of the means over time (Figure 1). The
sixth-grade adolescents showed a signicantly smaller
mean for the negatively worded items than for the
positively worded items (p  .05). This statistically
signicant difference in means at the sixth grade disappeared by the eighth. The difference in the pattern
for the items may result from the shift in understanding of the negatively worded items as the adolescents
develop greater cognitive sophistication. Another pos-

Figure 1 Means of positive and negative item subscales from

the Emotional Autonomy Scale.

216

Child Development

sibility is that the negatively worded items and the

positively worded items measure substantively different constructs.
DISCUSSION
None of the conrmatory factor analyses presented
here, using three independent samples, supported
the factor structure originally proposed by Steinberg
and Silverberg (1986). Indeed, the analyses showed
that the EAS has very poor construct validity for any
of the age and ethnic groups examined in this study,
even in the European American samples, which most
closely resemble the samples used by Steinberg and
Silverberg (1986) in developing the EAS. The factor
structure found in this study was often dominated by
two method factors, one consisting of positively worded
items and one consisting of negatively worded items,
rather than the four-factor structure originally proposed by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986). Ethnic differences in the factor structure were present, most
broadly in that the Mexican American groups tended
to be somewhat different from both the African American and European American groups, particularly for
the eighth-grade and tenth-grade samples.
Among the four subscales, the Perceives Parents as
People factor was consistently the weakest, except in
the tenth-grade European American sample. The particularly poor construct validity for this subscale
should not be too surprising. Other studies that have
used the EAS subscales have dropped that subscale
from most analyses, usually because it has been
viewed as showing slow development during adolescence (Chen & Dornbusch, 1998; Lamborn & Steinberg, 1993; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). The results
of this study indicate that this may actually have been
due to the very poor construct validity of that particular subscale, rather than to any developmental issues within that aspect of autonomy.
The Individuation factor also exhibited very weak
factor loadings, except in the tenth-grade Mexican
American sample. The African American and European American samples showed substantially stronger loadings of the Individuation items on the two
method factors. All three Mexican American samples
tended to differentiate between the Parent Deidealization and Nondependency constructs, whereas the
African American and European American samples
(particularly the eighth- and tenth-grade samples)
blended these constructs into the method factors.
Analyses of the mean scores for negatively worded
and positively worded items showed very different
trajectories through time. The negative items showed
a signicant increase in their mean values between

the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades and then a leveling out of the trajectory from the eighth grade until
the tenth grade. The positive items showed a relatively
stable mean value for all age groups in this study.
These differences may be substantive in nature, or
they may result from the increase in cognitive sophistication in older adolescence and thus represent the
effects of method variance (Marsh, 1996). The present
study, however, cannot distinguish between these alternatives. Measures of reading and language skill
would be particularly helpful in discerning between
the two possibilities to more systematically assess the
cognitive sophistication of the respondents. Unfortunately these types of measures were not available in
the present study.
The inuence of method variance extends even to
the most commonly reported psychometric property
of the EAS: coefcient . Values of coefcient  for the
EAS total score were quite strong, a result consistent
with most previous research, which typically reports
values of .70 and greater for the total EAS (Fuhrman
& Holmbeck, 1995; Lamborn & Steinberg, 1993; Ryan
& Lynch, 1989; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Recent
research, however, has shown that method variance
within the scale items inates values for coefcient 
in that the computation of coefcient  does not discriminate between the true covariances between the
scale items and covariances due to systematic error
(Miller, 1995; Tepper & Tepper, 1993). Indeed, the conrmatory factor analyses in the present study show
how even very strong values for coefcient  can be
psychometrically misleading.
One solution to the inuence of method variance is
to use only the positively worded items (Marsh, 1986).
Unfortunately, the EAS does not have an even split of
wording style within the subscales so that eliminating
the negatively worded items also eliminates all of the
items for the Parental Deidealization (PDI) construct
and all but one of the items for the Nondependency
on Parents (ND) construct. This lack of balance between the oppositely worded items within the EAS
subscales means that the alternative hypotheses regarding method inuence or substantive inuence in
the method factors cannot be distinguished.
The connection within the negative method factor
of the PDI items and the ND items may be indicative
of a common construct. This is an appealing hypothesis in that there likely is a strong connection between
adolescents respect for their parents opinions and
the likelihood of going to the parents for help with a
problem. A fruitful line of research would be to develop items that are similar to the PDI and ND items
but that are balanced in the use of positive and negative wording style. This would help to distinguish the

Schmitz and Baer

substantive variance from the method variance in

the items.
Signicant ethnic differences in the EAS factor
structure were present in all three cohorts. These differences could be due to cultural inuences on adolescents perceptions of emotional autonomy. For example, in trying to control for English-language
prociency, we eliminated Mexican Americans who
spoke only Spanish with both of their parents from
the analyses. This also controls for some of the potential effects of acculturation on EAS factor structure;
however, there were also signicant demographic
differences that could impact the presence and perception of emotional autonomy, particularly the ethnic differences in family structure and education (see
Table 1). For example, the large percentage of singleparent African American families in the samples
could produce the differences in EAS factor structure
found for the African American adolescents. Unfortunately, the cell sizes in this studys dataset were too
small to test for group differences in the EAS factor
structure on these variables. Future research should
more carefully examine these cultural and social
structural aspects of family relations and their impact
on measures of emotional autonomy in adolescents.
Study limitations. The method of obtaining the
samples was a primary limitation of this study. The
survey instrument was administered in the classrooms of the selected schools. If a student was not in
the school on the day the survey was administered,
then that student was not a participant in this study,
for that particular wave. Although there was only
12% absenteeism, this aspect of missingness may
have inuenced our results, as indicated by the gender differences between the tenth-grade sample and
the sixth- and eighth-grade samples (Table 1). The
effects of missingness within the EAS, however,
were tested and had no signicant impact on the
analyses.
A second critical limitation in the present study
was the use of a 5-point Likert response set, rather
than the 4-point set typically used in the EAS. This, of
course, impacted the variances and covariances
among the EAS items and thus may produce a factor
structure quite different from that found in the exploratory analysis of Steinberg and Silverberg (1986).
The present analyses should thus be replicated by using different samples; conrmatory factor analyses
using the 4-point set should also be done, before any
further work with the EAS is performed.
A third limitation was the potential impact of English-language prociency. The English-language
prociency along with the cognitive sophistication of
the respondents likely inuences the amount of ran-

217

dom error present in the data and thus impacts the

strength of the factor loadings in the analyses presented here. To minimize this error source, those Mexican Americans who spoke only Spanish with both of
their parents were eliminated from the analyses. The
similarity of coefcient  for the three ethnic groups
(see Table 6) indicates that English-language prociency likely did not impact the results very much.
But the lack of adequate measures of English-language prociency and cognitive sophistication remains a key limitation of this study.
Conclusion. A crucial process in human development is the separation and individuation that occurs
during adolescence. A critical aspect of this process
may be the rise of autonomy in the adolescents relationships with parents and peers. As such, a signicant body of research has been undertaken to investigate autonomy in adolescents. Much of that research
has been based on the Emotional Autonomy Scale
(EAS) proposed by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986).
The conrmatory factor analyses presented here,
which are the only published analyses of the construct validity of the EAS, indicate some problematic
aspects of this scale. Indeed, the results presented in
the present study indicate that the debate that has
arisen about whether the EAS measures something
normative or pathological (Fuhrman & Holmbeck,
1995; Lamborn & Steinberg, 1993; Ryan & Lynch,
1989; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986) may have been
fundamentally misguided by the unstable psychometric properties of the EAS.
These problems in the EAS may be particularly
damaging for studies that have used the EAS subscales (e.g., Chen & Dornbusch, 1998; Frank, Pirsch, &
Wright, 1990). Recent recommendations proposing
the examination of predictors and outcomes of the
EAS subscales (Silverberg & Gondoli, 1996) are simply ill advised until signicant improvement occurs
in the measurement of the associated constructs.
Emotional autonomy is very likely multidimensional
in nature, and this should be addressed in any new or
modied instrumentation.
In the examination of emotional autonomy in adolescence, one helpful approach may be to use portions
of the present EAS for the development of a new measure of this construct or a construct similar in nature
(cf. Chen & Dornbusch, 1998). An alternative approach may be to start at the beginning by reconceptualizing what we are trying to measure. Because
much of the debate has focused on what emotional
autonomy represents within adolescent developmental processes, this may be an indication of the need for
more work at the conceptualization level in the research process.

218

Child Development

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (R01
AA08864) awarded to Paul E. Baer and James Bray,
Baylor College of Medicine.
ADDRESSES AND AFFILIATIONS
Corresponding author: Mark F. Schmitz, School of Social Work, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 536 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 089011167; e-mail: mschmitz@rci.rutgers.edu. Judith C. Baer
is also at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
APPENDIX

EAS16: My parents probably talk about different

things when I am around from what they
talk about when Im not. ( PP)
EAS17: There are things that I will do differently
from my mother and father when I become a
parent. ( I)
EAS18: My parents hardly ever make mistakes.
( ND)
EAS19: I wish my parents would understand who I
really am. ( I)
EAS20: My parents act pretty much the same way
when they are with their friends as they do
when they are at home with me. ( PP)
Note: PDI  Parental Deidealization; ND  Nondependency on
Parents; PP  Perceives Parents as People; I  Individuation.

Emotional Autonomy Scale

EAS1:
EAS2:
EAS3:
EAS4:
EAS5:

EAS6:

EAS7:
EAS8:

EAS9:
EAS10:
EAS11:
EAS12:

EAS13:

EAS14:
EAS15:

My parents and I agree on everything. ( PDI)

I go to my parents for help before trying to
solve a problem myself. ( ND)
I have often wondered how my parents act
when Im not around. ( PP)
Even when my parents and I disagree, my
parents are always right. ( PDI)
Its better for kids to go to their best friend
than to their parents for advice on some
things. ( ND)
When Ive done something wrong, I depend
on my parents to straighten things out for
me. ( ND)
There are some things about me that my parents dont know. ( I)
My parents act differently when they are
with their own parents from the way they do
at home. ( PP)
My parents know everything there is to
know about me. ( I)
I might be surprised to see how my parents
act at a party. ( PP)
I try to have the same opinions as my parents. ( PDI)
When they are at work, my parents act pretty
much the same way they do when they are at
home. ( PP)
If I were having a problem with one of my
friends, I would discuss it with my mother
or father before deciding what to do about it.
( ND)
My parents would be surprised to know
what Im like when Im not with them. ( I)
When I become a parent, Im going to treat
my children exactly the same way that my
parents have treated me. ( PDI)

REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users guide version 3.6. Chicago:
SPSS, Inc.
Bank, L., Dishion, T., Skinner, M., & Patterson, G. R. (1990).
Method variance in structural equation modeling: Living with glop. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and
aggression in family interaction (pp. 247279). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Blalock, H. M. (1979). The presidential address: Measurement and conceptualization problems: The major obstacle to integrating theory and research. American Sociological Review, 44, 370390.
Blos, P. (1962). On adolescence: A psychoanalytic interpretation.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Blos, P. (1979). The adolescent passage. New York: International Universities Press.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Paxton, P. (1998). Detection and determinants of bias in subjective measures. American Sociological Review, 63, 465478.
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and
programming for conrmatory factor analytic models. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81105.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity
assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, Z. Y., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1998). Relating aspects of
adolescent emotional autonomy to academic achievement and deviant behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research,
13, 293319.
Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience.
New York: Wiley.
Frank, S. J., Pirsch, L. A., & Wright, V. C. (1990). Late adolescents perceptions of their relationships with their parents: Relationships among deidealization, autonomy,
relatedness, and insecurity and implications for adoles-

Schmitz and Baer

cent adjustment and ego identity status. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 19, 571588.
Fuhrman, T., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1995). A contextualmoderator analysis of emotional autonomy and adjustment in adolescence. Child Development, 66, 793811.
Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 10291041.
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation models with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In G. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals
of child development (Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts,
issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lamborn, S. D. (1990, March). Psychosocial correlates of emotional autonomy among securely, avoidantly, and anxiously
attached adolescents. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Society for Research on Adolescence, Atlanta.
Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Emotional autonomy
redux: Revisiting Ryan and Lynch. Child Development, 64,
483499.
Levin, J., & Montag, I. (1989). The bipolarity of the Comfrey
Personality Scales: A conrmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 11151120.
Long, J. S. (1983). Conrmatory factor analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Negative item bias in ratings scales for
preadolescent children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22, 3749.
Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-

219

esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
810819.
McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefcient alpha: A basic introduction
from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2,
255273.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 2040.
Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and early adulthood. Child Development, 60, 340
356.
Silverberg, S. B., & Gondoli, D. M. (1996). Autonomy in adolescence: A contextualized perspective. In G. R. Adams,
R. Montemayor, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Psychosocial development during adolescence: Progress in developmental contextualism (pp. 1261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of
autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57,
841851.
Tepper, B. J., & Tepper, K. (1993). The effects of method variance within measures. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 293
302.

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.