The present instrumental study (Ato, López & Benavente, 2013) aimed to validate and adapt the Spanish version of the Psychological Control Scale Youth Self-Report (PCS-YSR) and the Psychological Control-Disrespect Scale (PCDS) with Spanish late adolescents. Both scales have been validated in the United States with demographically varied samples (Barber, 1996; Barber et al., 2012; Romm et al., 2020) and this study intends to contribute to their validation and adaptation to the Spanish context, which has a different linguistic and cultural background. It is important to contribute to this validation in another cultural context because parental psychological control may show similarity across cultural groups. This is because psychologically controlling parenting frustates children's basic need for autonomy which refers to the experimentation of a sense of volition and choice when a person performs an activity (Soenens et al., 2012). Therefore, when this basic need is frustrated, the person experiences a sense of pressuring to act, think, or feel in a particular way. For these reasons, it is interesting to study another culture to test the universalism perspective in relation to the parental psychological control. Thus, the present study assessed the factorial and convergent validity and reliability of the PCS-YSR and PCDS with two samples of Spanish late adolescents. In PCS-YSR, psychological controlling parenting was operationalized through manipulative behaviors, such as (a) invalidating feelings, (b) constraining verbal expressions, (c) personal attack, and (d) love withdrawal. In PCDS, psychological control was operationalized as disrespect behaviors such as (a) ridiculing, (b) embarrassing in public, (c) invalidating, (d) violation of privacy, (e) induction of guilt, (f) excessive expectations, (g) comparing to others, and (h) ignoring.

In sum, it was expected to replicate the structure of both scales concluding that PCS-YSR scale was psychometrically distinct from the PCDS scale. Furthermore, it was expected to find different patterns of associations between PCS-YSR/ PCDS and other measures of family dimensions: parental psychological control and parental autonomy support. In this sense, it had been hypothesized that PCS-YRS and PCDS would be positively correlated to other measures of psychological control and would be negatively correlated to parental autonomy support, in similar way to other studies (Mantzouranis et al., 2012; Soenens et al., 2010; Soenens et al., 2012). In addition, the correlations between perceived psychological control and late adolescent's self-concept were also examined to contribute to the research that studies the influence of psychological control in adolescent's adjustment. It was expected that both mothers' and fathers' perceived psychological control would have a negative influence on late adolescent's self-concept.

A convenience sampling technique was used due to the fact that there was no manipulation of criterion variables and that participants had been randomly allocated into each group. All the participants belonged to the target population. Therefore, all of them fulfilled the needed criteria to be enrolled in the study: being late adolescents. The participants were distributed into two samples from different campuses of the same Spanish university. The first one consisted of 367 undergraduate students. Over half of them (230) were women (62.7%) and 137 were men (37.3%) (One student failed to indicate their sex). The second sample comprised 312 undergraduate students, 73.9% women and 26.1% men. Both samples had the same mean age, the first one had a mean age of 19.80, SD = 2.11, and in the second sample the mean age was 19.70, SD = 2.91 Each participant had to assess their parents (mother and father) by responding some questions about their progenitors. As a consequence, the sample was duplicated: for the first sample, the data could go up to 734, and in the second sample, up to 624 answers. A random sampling was used to choose the participants among students from a Spanish University.

It should be noted that the population samples in which the scales were originally applied and in which we have carried out the present study have important cultural and linguistic differences. First, English is the mother tongue of the initial sample and Spanish is the mother tongue of the sample in which the adaptation was made. In addition, in this study, unlike the initial samples in which the scales were originally applied, the sample was very homogeneous about ethnicity due to the fact that there was not much ethnic diversity in Asturias, as it is a Spanish region with a low number of immigrants.

Psychological Control Scale (PCS-YSR) (Barber, 1996). This scale consists of 8 Likert items. The conceptual dimension refers to the attempt of parents to monitor the children's feelings and emotions. Controlling parenting was operationalized as invalidating feelings, constraining verbal expressions, personal attacks, and love withdrawal. The alpha value in the original version was .83 for answers about the mother's version, and .82 for replies about the father's behaviors. As regards of discriminant validity the values were -.13 for divergent validity, whereas the convergent one got a value of .34 (Barber et al., 2012)

Psychological Control-Disrespect Scale (PCDS) (Barber et al., 2012). This scale consists of eight Likert items. The construct core is the ability of parents to control their children using manipulation, coercion and a wrong exercise of parenthood. Psychological control was operationalized as ridiculing, embarrassing in public, invalidating, violation of privacy, induction of, excessive expectations, comparing to others, and ignoring. The original version obtained good fit indexes. In both scales items were rated on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not like her/him) to 3 (A lot like her/him). Participants rated the items separately for each parent. In the original version the alpha values were .83 for mothers and .90 for fathers; being the construct validity values of .66 for convergent validity and -.34 for the divergent one (Barber et al., 2012).

Dependency-Oriented and Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control Scale (DAPCS) (Soenens et al., 2010). This is a 17-items questionnaire which assesses two types of psychological control: dependency-oriented and achievement-oriented. Dependency-oriented psychological control was measured with eight items; this concept refers to the parents' psychological control to keep their children close, and achievement-oriented psychological control, with nine items. Control is defined as the psychological regulation used by parents as a way to get their children behave according to their standards (Soenens et al., 2010). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha values in the original version were .93 for mother's ratings and .91 for father's ratings (Soenens et al., 2010). In the Spanish version the alpha values were .92 for replies about fathers, and. 89 for answers about mothers'behaviors (García-Pérez, Rodríguez-Menéndez, Torío-López & Pérez-Rodríguez, 2019). The validity indexes were between .55 and .71 in the original version for convergent validity (Soenens et al., 2010) and for divergent validity the values were -.10 and -.50. In the Spanish version the indexes were between .48 and .65 with respect to convergent validity, and regarding divergent one were -.27, and -.61 (García-Pérez et al., 2019).

Perceived Parental Autonomy Support Scale (P-PASS) (Mageau et al., 2015). This instrument consists of 24 items assessing adolescents' perception about their parents' use of autonomy support versus controlling behaviors. The P-PASS measures three parental autonomy supportive behaviors and three controlling parenting behaviors. So, autonomy supportive strategies are provision of choice with certain limits, rationale for demands and limits, and acknowledgement of feelings Controlling parenting behaviors are threats to punish, performance pressures, and guilt-inducing criticisms. Adolescent participants rated each item on a 7-Likert scale, first regarding the mother and second, the father (1 = Do not agree at all to 7 = Very strongly agree). Parental autonomy support was measured with 12 items. Controlling parenting behaviors were measured through 12 items. Reliability in the original version was .89, for mothers and fathers. The discriminant validity took values between .33 and .57 for convergent validity and -.22 and -.62 for the divergent one. In the Spanish version the alpha values were .97 for fathers and .98 for mothers in autonomy support; and .93 for fathers and .94 for mothers in parental control. The values of divergent validity were between -.31 and .55; and regarding convergent validity, these were between .13 and .58.

AF5. Autoconcepto Forma 5 (García & Musitu, 1999). This self-report is a Spanish instrument which assesses a person's self-concept in five aspects: social, academic/work life, emotional, family, and physical. The social self-concept assesses the perception of the person about his or her social networks and the personality traits in social relationships. With respect to academic/work life self-concept, the test measures the self-perception as worker or student emotionally and efficiently. Furthermore, it gets information about the subject's insight on how are their family relationships. Additionally, the emotional dimension of self-concept values the inner life and its influence on the personal relationships. Finally, the physical self-concept evaluates how the person perceives oneself regarding the physical condition and appearance. Participants answered 30 items with values between 1 and 99, depending on the level of agreement with the statement. The reliability of the overall scale is .82; and for each self-concept is, respectively: academic/ professional life, a = .88; social, a = .70; emotional, a = .73; family, a = .77 and physical, a = .74.

Questionnaires were administrated during class time in the second semester of the academic year. After a brief presentation in which the researcher described the purpose of the study, the students were invited to fill out the questionnaires. If students did not want to participate in the study, they could leave the classroom but most of them agreed to participate in the research. The questionnaires were administered after obtaining permission from the college management. The study was not previously approved by any ethics committee because it was not necessary to do it in our region. Participants did not receive any remuneration for their participation. The questionnaire took about 25 minutes to complete. Anonymity of answers was guaranteed.

To get a right content validity all scales were translated from the English version into Spanish. Three members of the research team, who were experts in parental psychological control, were responsible for developing an initial Spanish translation of the original version. Once finished, this initial version was assessed by two experts in parenting styles from the University of Oviedo, who evaluated whether the items reflected the daily dynamics of Spanish families. Previously, they were informed ofthe psychometric characteristics of the scales, as well as the characteristics of the population in which the scales were to be applied and the place where their application would take place. Then a bilingual translator, who did not have prior knowledge of the original versions, back translated the Spanish versions.

The AERA, APA & NCME (1985, p.13) point at the standard 1.1. that multiple evidence of validity should be presented. To achieve this goal, the first step considered the establishment of a theoretical framework which defined the construct of interest. The study also developed diverse stages of validity following AERA, APA & NCME (1985). Furthermore, in order to guarantee its reliability and validity, 13.4 points are required when a test is translated into another language (AERA, APA & NMCE, 1999, p.99, cited in Hambleton, Merenda & Spielberger, 2005).

Firstly, as construct-related evidence was run an exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were carried out to PCS-YSR and PCDS separately for fathers and mothers. First, it was checked whether the data were suitable for EFA and CFA: normality of sample (skewness, kurtosis). The EFA, first sample, was performed using the Factor program (Ferrando & Lorenzo-Seva, 2017). The normality of the sample was assessed (skewness, kurtosis) and Bartlett's and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin's (KMO) indexes were calculated. The scree plot and ''minimum partial test'' were used to determine how many factors were retained. Unweighted least squares were used as factor extraction method. This method has proven to be the most effective one with relatively small samples (Ferrando & Anguiano-Carrasco, 2010). Promin was the oblique rotation method employed (Lorenzo-Seva, 1999), because it does not consider factors as pure measures of a single dimension. With the second subsample, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed (CFA) using the MPLUS 7.3 software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998; 2012). In order to test the structure given by the EFA, Maximum Likelihood was the estimation method selected. The CFA fit measures included: The Chi-Square test of significance (X²), the Tucker Lewis index-non normed fit index (TLI-NNFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), Steiger's Root Mean Square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR).

In addition, the Item Response Theory was used to analyze the differential analysis of items and deepen the role of each reactive in the construct validity of instruments through the IRTPRO software 4.2 (Scientific Software International, 2017. For each item, the difficulty level, the discrimination index through the slope values, and the fit index were calculated.

Likewise, the convergent and divergent validity were examined in order to distinguish the construct analyzed in the study from other control types, as pointed out in standard 1.8 (AERA, APA & NCME, 1985). The criterion-related evidence was ensured with the Pearson's correlations between PCS-YSR, PCDS, DAPCS, P-PASS scales and, the regression analyses model with these variables and student's self-concept as criterion variable.

To advance in the validity generalization, all the analyses were performed for mothers' and fathers' samples separately. AERA, APA & NCME (1985) point out the need to develop a validity process with different settings. Consequently, both instruments were answered thinking of their father and mother independently.

The values obtained were Bartlett's statistic = 2,235.3, df = 120, p = .000010, and KMO = .92. Likewise, the skewness and kurtosis values in the items ranged from 1.48 to -1.77 in skewness, and from 1.38 to -0.90 in kurtosis. Analyses began regarding both scales as part of the same questionnaire, considering the PCS-YSR and PCDS underlying one dimension: psychological control. The fit model measures included: the Chi-Square significance test (X ² ), the Tucker Lewis index-Non normed fit index (TLI-NNFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI), Root Mean Square of Residuals (RMSR), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and Steiger's Root Mean Square error of approximation (RMSEA).

The first EFA could suggest one factor for mothers and fathers (Table 1). The alpha value in one- dimension model for mothers was .88; regarding fathers, the internal consistency was .91. As Table 1 shows, the fit indexes were accurate, mainly for fathers. Specifically, another factor analysis was done, considering two domains. The factor analysis produced solutions with good fit indices, but not with an adequate structure model. Concerning fathers' ratings, items 5, 6, 14 y 15 loaded in one factor (a = .87), and the rest of items gathered in another factor (a = .91). About mothers' assessment, the two domains solution behaved in a similar way: one factor with items 7, 8 and 14 (a = .81), and a second factor with an alpha of .90.

Table 1

	X2	df	pvalue	TLI-NNFI	CFI	GFI	RMSR
PCS-YSR & PCDS One Fathers domain	155.31	104	.001	.99	.99	.98	.06
PCS-YSR & PCDS One Mothers domain	210.72	104	.000	.97	.98	.96	.07
PCS-YSR Fathers	41.10	20	.004	.98	.98	.97	.06
PCS- YSR Mothers	75.64	20	.000	.90	.93	.97	.08
PCDS Fathers	41.01	20	.004	.98	.99	.99	.06
PCDS Mothers	46.87	20	.007	.98	.98	.98	.06

Note. df = degrees of freedom, TLI-NNFI =Tucker Lewis Index - Non-normed Fit Index; CFI = comparative fit index, GFI = goodness of fit index, RMSR= Root Mean Square of Residuals, PCS-YSR = Psychological Control Scale, PCDS = Psychological Control-Disrespect Scale.

Furthermore, it was considered that there could be an independence between the PCS-YSR and PCDS scales. To test this hypothesis, an EFA was run for PCS-YSR, and another one for PCDS. Table 1 depicts fit indices values: for PCS-YSR, fathers got a .83 in Cronbach value, with regard to mothers, and the Cronbach value was .76. Considering PCDS alpha values, these were .85 for fathers, and .83 for mothers. These four EFAs got good fit; the incremental indexes (TLI and CFI) are better in PCDS when they are considered independently from PCS-YSR (Table 1), as fathers and mothers. However, the PCS-YSR data are not clear, particularly for mothers. Regarding absolute indices (GFI and RMSR), the values shows the best fit when PCS-YSR and PCDS are considered individually.

Table 2 represents the standardized factor loadings in each scale, by parents' gender. About PCS-YSR, item 6 had a higher value for fathers than for mothers, followed by item 4 for fathers and item 5 for mothers. Regarding PCDS, the items with the highest loadings were the same for fathers and mothers; item 3 was the one with the highest value; however, item 1 was the second with a higher value in mothers.

Table 2

Items		Loadings	Mean	Variance	Alpha
Psychological Control Scale (PCS-YSR)		(F/M)	(F/M)	(F/M)	.83/.76
My Mother or Father is a person who...
1.	Siempre intenta cambiar cómo me siento o pienso con respecto a las cosas [Is always trying to change how I feel or think about things]	.60/.53	1.37/1.40	0.37/0.38
2.	Cambia de tema cuando tengo algo que decir [Changes the subject whenever I have something to say]	.46/.49	1.21/1.22	0.24/0.26
3.	A menudo me interrumpe [Often interrupts me]	.52/.58	1.37/1.47	0.41/0.46
4.	Me culpa a mí de los problemas de otros miembros de la familia [Blames me for other family members' problems]	.64/.58	1.15/1.19	0.21/0.26
5.	Cuando él/ella me critica, saca a la luz errores que cometí en el pasado [Brings up past mistakes when s/he criticizes me]	.60/.66	1.47/1.66	0.52/0.62
6.	Si no veo las cosas como él /ella las ve es menos amistoso conmigo [Is less friendly with me if I do not see things her/his way]	.81/.73	1.32/1.26	0.42/0.32
7.	Evita mirarme cuando lo/la decepciono [will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her/him]	.42/.42	1.39/1.38	0.44/0.43
8.	Si hiero sus sentimientos, me deja de hablar hasta que hago algo que lo/la complazca(agrade)[If I have hurt her/his feelings, stops talking to me until I please her/him again]	.32/.55	1.41/1.51	0.42/0.49
Psychological Control-Disrespect Scale (PCDS)					.85/.83
My Mother or Father is a person who...
1.	Me ridiculiza o me hace de menos* (Ejemplo: Diciendo que soy estúpido, inútil...) [Ridicules me or puts me down (e.g. saying I am stupid, useless, etc.)]	.44/.69	1.26/1.22	0.62/0.28
2.	Me avergüenza en público (Ejemplo: Delante de mis amigos/as...) [Embarrasses me in public (e.g. in front of my friends)]	.44/.57	1.10/1.15	0.13/0.21
3.	No me respeta como persona (Ejemplo: No me deja hablar, favorece a otros antes que a mi...) [Doesn't respect me as a person (e.g. not letting me talk, favoring others over me, etc.)]	.56/.62	1.11/1.15	0.14/0.20
4.	Viola mi intimidad (Ejemplo: Entra en mi habitación, fisga en mis cosas (se mete en mis asuntos)) [Violates my privacy (e.g. entering my room, going through my things, etc.)]	.37/.53	1.15/1.52	0.18/0.47
5.	Intenta hacerme sentir culpable por cualquier cosa que he hecho o que él/ella quiere que haga [Tries to make me feel guilty for something I've done or something s/he thinks I should do]	.75/.72	1.301.39	0.39/0.43
6.	Espera demasiado de mí (Ejemplo: Hacerlo mejor en el colegio, ser mejor persona...) [Expects too much of me (e.g. to do better in school, to be a better person, etc)]	.37/.45	1.60/1.65	0.49/0.50
7.	A menudo injustamente me compara con otros (Ejemplo: Con mi hermano, hermana, con él/ella) [Often unfairly compares me to someone else (e.g. to my brother or sister, to her/himself)]	.48/61	1.36/1.61	0.42/0.59
8.	A menudo me ignora (Ejemplo: Evitándome, no prestándome atención...) [Often ignores me (e.g. walking away, from me, not paying attention to me)]	.41/.24	1.19/1.16	0.25/0.24

As EFA did not reveal clear solutions, a confirmatory factor analysis considering one and two domains, respectively, was conducted for the definition of psychological control. Analyses were run separately for fathers and mothers. Considering fathers, n = 285 (there were 27 missing values) the two- dimension model got the best fit, x2 (285, 98) = 218.26; p < .001; TLI = .88, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05. On the contrary, the one domain solution, obtained a worse fit, x2 (285, 103) = 360.29; p < .001; TLI = .76, CFI = .80, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .06

To ensure the validity generalization for each instrument, an item analysis was run for the mothers' sample and another one for the fathers' sample (Table 3 and Table 4).

Table 3

	Item		Descriptive Statistics				Fit Index
			P1	b	SE	a	SE	s-x 2	p 2
PCS-YSR	V5	Cuando él/ella me critica, saca a la luz errores qué cometí en el pasado	.48	0.14	0.09	1.40	0.21	4.73	.45
PCS-YSR	V8	Si hiero sus sentimientos, me deja de ha blar hasta que hago algo que lo/la complazca (agrade)	.42	0.37	0.10	1.23	0.19	3.39	.64
PCS-YSR	V3	A menudo me interrumpe	.37	0.59	0.11	1.35	0.21	6.62	.25
PCS-YSR	V1	Siempre intenta cambiar cómo me siento o pienso con respecto a las cosas	.35	0.61	0.10	1.54	0.23	8.15	.15
PCS-YSR	V7	Evita mirarme cuando lo/la decepciono	.33	1.01	0.19	0.86	0.16	8.40	.21
PCS-YSR	V6	Si no veo las cosas como él /ella las ve(si no pienso como él /ella) es menos amistoso conmigo	.20	1.02	0.09	2.99	0.64	3.26	.66
PCS-YSR	V2	Cambia de tema siempre que tengo algo que decir	.16	1.47	0.16	1.68	0.29	12.75	.05
PCS-YSR	V4	Me culpa a mí de los problemas de otros miembros de la familia	.14	1.52	0.16	1.88	0.33	4.09	.66
PCDS	V6	Espera demasiado de mí	.52	-0.05	0.12	0.94	0.16	3.62	.60
PCDS	V7	A menudo injustamente me compara con otros	.47	0.22	0.10	1.28	0.20	2.84	.72
PCDS	V4	Viola mi intimidad cualquier cosa que he hecho o qué él/ella	.37	0.55	0.10	1.36	0.21	2.61	.76
PCDS	V5	Intenta hacerme sentir culpable por quiere que haga	.27	0.78	0.09	2.22	0.36	3.32	.65
PCDS	V1	Me ridiculiza o me hace de menos	.15	1.22	0.11	2.82	0.51	6.50	.26
PCDS	V3	No me respeta como persona	.12	1.44	0.11	3.73	1.18	5.80	.33
PCDS	V2	Me avergüenza en público	.10	1.64	0.18	1.79	0.31	3.41	.76
PCDS	V8	A menudo me ignora	.10	1.86	0.21	1.68	0.30	4.50	.60

Note. p ₁ = Proportion of correct responses, b = Difficulty Level, a = Slope (Discrimination Index), S-x ² = fit index, SE = Standard Error, p ₂ = Significance level of S-x ² statistic.

Focusing on the Psychological Control Scale, the analysis revealed that item 5 "My Mother or Father is a person who brings up past mistakes when s/he criticizes me" was the reactive which got the same indexes in both versions, an adequate difficulty level and a good discrimination index.

Certainly, almost all items got good levels of difficulty, less than in the "Psychological Control-Disrespect Scale", father version, where item 4, "My Mother or Father is a person who violates my privacy (e.g. entering my room, going through my things, etc.)", and item 2, "My Mother or Father is a person who embarrasses me in public (e.g. in front of my friends)"; theses reactive got b values higher than 2 (Table 4).

Table 4

		Item	Descriptive Statistics				Fit Indez
			P1	b	SE	a	SE	S-x2	P2
PCS-YSR	V5	Cuando él/ella me critica, saca a la luz errores que cometí en el pasado	.35	0.61	0.10	1.59	0.24	10.14	.07
PCS-YSR	V1	Siempre intenta cambiar cómo me siento o pienso con respecto a las cosas	.33	0.68	0.10	1.69	0.26	6.90	.23
PCS-YSR	V8	Si hiero sus sentimientos, me deja de hablar hasta que hago algo que lo/la complazca (agrade)	.34	0.79	0.14	1.12	0.19	8.09	.23
PCS-YSR	V3	A menudo me interrumpe	.30	0.88	0.13	1.32	0.22	10.46	.11
PCS-YSR	V6	Si no veo las cosas como él /ella las ve (si no pienso como él /ella) es menos amistoso conmigo	.23	0.89	0.09	2.82	0.53	6.69	.25
PCS-YSR	V7	Evita mirarme cuando lo/la decepciono	.32	0.89	0.15	1.07	0.18	7.10	.31
PCS-YSR	V2	Cambia de tema siempre que tengo algo que decir	.17	1.31	0.14	1.81	0.31	7.17	.31
PCS-YSR	V4	Me culpa a mí de los problemas de otros miembros de la familia	.11	1.54	0.15	2.32	0.47	8.29	.22
PCDS	V6	Espera demasiado de mí	.48	0.14	0.13	0.88	0.17	8.87	.11
PCDS	V7	A menudo injustamente me compara con otros	.28	0.94	0.13	1.41	0.23	6.94	.23
PCDS	V5	Intenta hacerme sentir culpable por cualquier cosa que he hecho o qué él/ella quiere que haga	.19	1.00	0.09	3.21	0.62	5.41	.25
PCDS	V1	Me ridiculiza o me hace de menos	.15	1.19	0.10	3.16	0.66	5.26	.26
PCDS	V3	No me respeta como persona	.09	1.55	0.13	3.25	0.78	5.38	.25
PCDS	V8	A menudo me ignora	.14	1.55	0.17	1.71	0.30	6.04	.42
PCDS	V4	Viola mi intimidad	.10	2.12	0.31	1.29	0.26	8.55	.20
PCDS	V2	Me avergüenza en público	.08	2.20	0.30	1.48	0.30	3.77	.71

Note. p = Proportion of correct responses, b = Difficult Level, a = Slope (Discrimination Index), S-x ² = fit index, SE = Standard Error, p ₂ = Significance level of S-x ² statistic.

The analysis of fit index S-x² showed that items got a good fit to the underlying construct in both instruments; the significant level of S-x² values were higher than p < .01 (Orlando & Reeve, 2007, Orlando & Thissen, 2003) (Table 3 and Table 4); there was an exception with item 2 in the "Psychological Control Scale", Mother version, where the p value of S-x² was .05.

To conclude, the fit index in PCS-YSR, in the mothers' sample got values G2 = 221.97, p > .05; RMSEA = .00. In the fathers' sample was G2=240.52, p > .05; RMSEA = .00. As regards to PCDS, the fit indexes values were, in the mothers' sample, G2= 200.61, p > .05; RMSEA = .00, and in the fathers', G2= 163.39, p > .05; RMSEA = .00. These findings illustrate the good construct validity of both instruments.

Given that the factorial structure was similar for perceptions about fathers and mothers, Pearson's correlations were performed between the PCS-YSR, PCDS, DAPCS, P-PASS and AF-self-concept (Table 5). In order to test the distribution of normality, skewness and kurtosis values in each of the variables were considered. All variables ranged from values of 2.15 to -1.78 for skewness, and 2.41 to -0.58 for kurtosis.

Table 5

Variable	PCS. -YSR		PCDS
Maternal ratings	Fathers	Mothers	Fathers	Mothers
DAPCS_DPC	.46 ***	.48 ***	.45 ***	.50 ***
DAPCS_APC	.40 ***	.60 ***	.41 ***	.74 ***
Autonomy support P-PASS	-.31 ***	-.55 ***	-.31 ***	-.49 ***
Parental control_P-PASS	.42 ***	.52 ***	.42 ***	.53 ***
Paternal ratings
DAPCS_DPC	.60 ***	.30 ***	.53 ***	.31 ***
DAPCS_APC	.65 ***	.43 ***	.69 ***	.51 ***
Autonomy support_P-PASS	-.52 ***	-.44 ***	-.54 ***	-.42 ***
Parental control_P-PASS	.59 ***	.33 ***	.64 ***	.38 ***
Student's Self-Concept
Social self-concept	-.06	-.18 ***	-21 ***	-.15 ***
Academic/labor self-concept	-.07	-.14 ***	-.13 **	-.18 ***
Emotional self-concept	-.07	-.15 ***	-13 ***	-.13 ***
Physical self-concept	-.12 *	-.13 ***	-.16 **	-.14 ***
Family self-concept	-.43 ***	-.57 ***	-.51 ***	-.66 ***

Note. PCS-YSR = Psychological Control Scale, PCDS = Psychological Control-Disrespect Scale, DAPCS_DPC = Dependency-Oriented and Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control Scale_Dependency-Oriented psychological control, DAPCS_APC = Dependency-Oriented and Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control Scale_Achievement-Oriented psychological control, P-PASS = Perceived Parental Autonomy Support Scale, AF5 = Autoconcepto Forma 5. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Correlations between Barber's scales were positive with the two DAPCS' domains, and with the subscale of P-PASS of parental control (Table 5). However, there were negative correlations between, both maternal and paternal psychological control with autonomy support and the five dimensions of self-concept.

As a final step in data analysis, a regression model was run to test the predictive power of psychological control, assessed through PCS-YSR and PCDS on the five self-concepts. The model established considering PCS-YSR and PCDS as predictor variables and the five self-concepts as criterion variables. The strategy was to verify, first, the influence of psychological control, assessed by PCS-YSR, alone (Model 1). The fit, in this model, was not good; the TLC and CFI values did not reach the optimum cut-off point. When the psychological disrespectful control was introduced, the fit was worse (Model 2) (Table 6). Afterwards, the PCS-YSR and PCDS domains were added to the model (Model 3). Lastly, Table 6 shows that Model 3 is the most parsimonious model, and Table 7 depicts the standardized coefficients. In addition, a multiple group analysis was conducted to determine whether students' gender could moderate the relations among the variables (Model 4). The findings produced good results; it can be concluded that the model keeps along students' gender, Ax ² = 6.14;p > .05.

Table 6

	x 2	df	Pvalue	TLI-NNFI	CFI	RMSEA	RMSR
Model 1PCS-YSR	228.78	15	.00	.05	.59	.18	.12
Model 2PCDS	155.07	15	.00	.36	.73	.15	.08
Model 3 PCS-YSR+PCDS	7.87	4	.10	.95	.99	.05	.02
Model 4 multigroup_gender	14.01	8	.08	.92	.99	.06	.02

Note. df = degrees of freedom, TLI-NNFI =Tucker Lewis Index - Non-normed Fit Index, CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSR= Root Mean Square of Residuals.

Table 7 displays the significant standardized coefficients of PCS-YSR and PCDS on each self-concept. The psychological control, defined as manipulative behavior, used by mothers, has a huge impact on social, emotional and family self-concept. Findings show that there is a little difference between men and women, with regards to emotional self-concept. Disrespectful behaviors in mothers towards their children seem to develop a lower family self-concept, both in male and female students. Concerning men, this offensive behavior could lead to lower academic/labour self-concept. Regarding psychological-manipulative control behaviors from fathers, the results were similar for men and women, regardless of gender. The social self-concept is the most affected when the father carries out behaviors such as making their son/daughter feel guilty, criticizing them, withdrawing affection when their son/daughter doesn't think like him, or pulling back when their son/daughter disappoints him. However, the psychological control-manipulative, and the father do not have an influence over self-concept in men and women. To conclude this section, it is interesting to note the percentage of explained variance on each self-concept (Table 7). The family self-concept was explained by psychological control and disrespectful behaviors of parents in more than 57% of male students and in 43% of female students; and if the full sample is considered, the percentage raises to 49 %.

Table 7

Predictor	Outcomes: Student's self-concept
	Full sample n = 436		Men		Women
Maternal ratings
Psychological Control-manipulative	Social	-.17 ***	Family	-.23 *	Social	-.22 ***
	Family	-.15 *			Emotional	-.25 *
	Emotional	-.14 **			Physical	-.15 **
Control-Disrespect	Academic/Labor	-.17 *	Academic/Labor	-.32 *
	Family	-.42 ***	Family	-.60 ***	Family	-.53 ***
	Family	-.42 ***	Family	-.60 ***	Family	-.53 ***
Paternal ratings Psychological Control-manipulative
Control-Disrespect	Social	-.31 ***	Social	-.30. ***	Social Family	-.21 ***
	Family	-.26 ***			Family	-.20 ***
	Physical	-.15 **	Physical	-.31 **

Note. R2 Familiar = 49%; R2 Social self-concept = 8%, R2 Emotional self-concept = 2%, R2