https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9023-3875
Figures
Abstract
Background
Parental educational anxiety is prevalent globally and impacts children’s psychological outcomes profoundly. However, children’s perceived parental educational anxiety (PPEA) remains understudied, and a standardized tool for PPEA is lacking. Furthermore, the level and influencing factors of PPEA among children remain unclear. This study aimed to revise the Parental Educational Anxiety Scale from a parental perspective to a child-perceived perspective and to further explore its level and influencing factors in college freshmen.
Methods
The Perceived Parental Educational Anxiety Scale (PPEAS) was revised via pronoun conversion of the original items and expert consultation. Two independent samples were recruited for scale validation: Sample 1 (n = 232) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and Sample 2 (n = 287) for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and reliability testing. Subsequently, 646 participants completed the revised PPEAS, the Family Environment Scale-Chinese Version (FES-CV), and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Non-parametric tests and hierarchical multiple linear regressions were performed.
Results
EFA identified a three-factor structure consisting of 16 items with adequate model fit (χ²/df = 2.691, RMSEA = 0.077, TLI = 0.919, CFI = 0.932). Analyses confirmed satisfactory internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.922) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.825). The median PPEA score of Chinese college freshmen was 40 (IQR: 32, 49). Hierarchical regression showed that family conflict was positively associated with PPEA, while children’s resilience was negatively associated with PPEA. Contrary to our hypothesis, family cohesion was not a significant predictor in the final model.
Conclusion
The revised PPEAS exhibits good reliability and validity, providing a reliable instrument for measuring perceived educational anxiety from the children’s perspective. The findings highlight that reducing family conflict and improving children’s resilience may contribute to lower PPEA levels.
Citation: Du L, Dai Z, Sun X, Liu M, Dai Q (2026) Revision of the perceived parental-educational-anxiety scale and its application among Chinese college freshmen. PLoS One 21(9): e0358097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358097
Editor: Kumer Das, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: May 21, 2026; Accepted: August 26, 2026; Published: September 16, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Du et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data analyzed in this study were available from the supplementary materials (Supplementary 2: dataset).
Funding: Doctor Dai claimed that this work was supported by the Social Science Foundation of Chongqing (2023NDYB94), the Education Project of Army Medical University (2023yjsB02), and Natural Science Funding of Chongqing (CSTB2025NSCQ-GPX0065).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
In recent years, a growing body of research has examined education-related anxiety, including students’ academic anxiety and parental educational anxiety [1,2]. The latter has become a notable concern worldwide, particularly in East Asian contexts such as China [3]. Parental educational anxiety refers to a persistent emotional state of urgency, tension, and worry experienced by parents due to uncertainties regarding their children’s education [4]. This anxiety is prevalent in China due to the intense “involutionary” competition in Chinese society, especially within the education sector [5,6]. In response, the Chinese government issued the “Double Reduction” policy in July 2021, which aims to reduce students’ academic burden and alleviate parental educational anxiety [7]. Although certain progress has been made over the past few years, existing studies indicate that educational anxiety remains widespread among parents [8,9].
Family system theory posits that the family serves as an interactive system in which members’ emotions influence each other [10]. In this system, children actively perceive and interpret parental behaviors and emotions, which determines their own psychological developments. However, there are often discrepancies between parental self-reports and children’s perceptions regarding parental behaviors and emotions [11–13]. As revealed by existing research, children’s perceptions of parental general negative emotions (e.g., depression) are generally lower than parental self-reports [14,15], likely because children have limited access to their parents’ internal affective states [15,16]. Similarly, children’s perceived parental educational anxiety may diverge from parental self-reports. Notably, compared to parents’ self-reports, children’s perceptions can be more effective in predicting children’s mental health. This view is supported by cognitive theories of emotion. It is proposed that an individual’s interpretation outweighs the objective event in shaping emotional response, and by empirical evidence. For instance, adolescents’ perceived parental control predicts their depression more strongly than parents’ self-reporting [12,17]. Thus, using parental self-report instruments to assess children’s PPEA is unreasonable, highlighting the necessity of a reliable scale specifically designed for children. Nevertheless, the existing instruments such as the questionnaire of parents’ anxiety about their children’s education (MQPAE) [18], the self-report parental anxiety over children’s education scale (PACES) [19], and the parental educational anxiety scale (PEAS) [20], are all designed for parental self-reports. Among the above-mentioned tools, the PEAS developed by Yiwen Tang is a widely utilized, valid, and reliable measurement scale for parents of primary and secondary school students [20]. However, to date, no tool is available to assess children’s PPEA. Thus, the level of PPEA, which can be employed to identify high-risk individuals, remains largely unknown. To address this problem, the present study aims to develop a dedicated PPEA scale and focuses on Chinese college freshmen as the target population for two reasons. First, given that they have just completed 12-year basic education in China, their retrospective reports reflect an integrated and long-term perception of parental educational anxiety. Additionally, college students are prone to various mental disorders, with a depression prevalence of 33.6% and an anxiety prevalence of 39.0%, respectively [21]. Drawing on evidence linking perceived parental negative emotions to poor mental health in children, PPEA may exert a similar adverse impact, underscoring the urgent need for a screening tool to identify individuals with high PPEA levels.
Moreover, PPEA may be influenced by several factors. Based on ecological systems theory [22], the family constitutes the earliest and most fundamental micro-system for children’s development [23]. At the family level, family cohesion and family conflict may play a role in anxiety transmission. Specifically, a family climate characterized by high conflict and low cohesion may amplify children’s PPEA by undermining their emotional security and heightening vigilance toward negative emotional cues [24]. Conversely, a cohesive family environment can buffer this perception by serving as a secure base and providing shared coping resources [25]. Furthermore, specific interaction patterns (e.g., parenting styles) are of great significance to the transmission of educational anxiety [26,27]. For example, an authoritarian parenting style may increase children’s PPEA by enhancing their sensitivity to parental negative emotions [28]. At the individual level, resilience serves as a psychological resource that determines individuals’ capacity to cope with such anxiety signals [29,30]. Specifically, resilient children are more likely to employ adaptive strategies such as cognitive reappraisal, which allows them to interpret parental anxiety in less threatening terms, thereby reducing their perceived anxiety [31]. Thus, it could be assumed that family cohesion, family conflict, and children’s resilience may influence the formation of PPEA.
In brief, this study aimed to revise the Parental Educational Anxiety Scale from the parental perspective to the children’s perspective, and further examine the level and influencing factors of PPEA among Chinese college freshmen. It was hypothesized that family conflict would be positively associated with PPEA, whereas family cohesion and children’s resilience would be negatively associated with PPEA.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants
College freshmen from two universities in Chongqing, China, were recruited for this survey from April to July 2025. Convenience sampling was adopted to enroll participants through advertising from different departments. The inclusion criteria were as follows: first-year undergraduate students, voluntary participation, and signing on written informed consent. Exclusion criteria from self-reported questions included: current or history of mental disorders (major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, et al), substance or drug abuse, or severe physical disease.
Three independent samples were recruited. Sample 1 (n = 232; 31 females; mean age = 18.24 years) was utilized for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Sample 2 (n = 287; 177 females; mean age = 18.02 years) was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), as well as the assessments of criterion-related validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability. Sample 3 (n = 646; 231 females; mean age = 19.13 years) was applied to observe the level and influencing factors of PPEA.
2.2. Scale revision
Original scale used for revision.
The revision was carried out based on the 16-item PEAS developed by Yiwen Tang in 2025 [20]. The PEAS can measure parental educational anxiety by academic performance, competitive environment, and educational efficacy. The respective item scores on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Total score ranges from 16 to 80, with higher score representing stronger educational anxiety. The scale exhibits good reliability and validity among parents of primary and secondary school students [20].
First, items were converted from self-reporting style to children’s perspective (e.g., “I feel anxious” was converted to “My parents feel anxious”). To be specific, the assessment of parents’ internal experiences shifts to the assessment of children’s perceptions of these experiences. Next, the content validity of the adapted items was evaluated by 10 experts (one professor and nine doctoral candidates with professional experience in educational or psychology). These experts rated the relevance of each item independently to the intended construct on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not relevant, 4 = highly relevant). The item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) values for the 16 items ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 (> 0.78). Moreover, the scale-level CVI (S-CVI) based on the universal agreement method reached 0.88 (>0.80). The above-mentioned results indicated good content validity of the draft scale. Finally, given that the revised scale was designed for college freshmen, a population in emerging adulthood, 5 college freshmen were recruited for semi-structured interviews to examine face validity and comprehensibility. The interview guide focused on participants’ comprehension of each item of PPEAS, as well as any supplement for perceived parental-educational-anxiety, identification of any ambiguous wording or new suggestion, and confirmation that the scale and items clearly measured perceived parental educational anxiety from a child-perceived perspective. Based on the feedback, item 15 was revised from “My parents were uncertain whether their current parenting approach was the best for me” to “My parents were uncertain whether their parenting approach was the best for me” to match the retrospective design. No other major modifications were conducted. The final 16-item perceived parental educational anxiety scale (PPEAS) was in S1 Table. Subsequently, sample 1 (n = 232) and sample 2 (n = 287) were employed to examine the reliability and validity of the scale. Six weeks later, 156 participants from sample 2 completed the questionnaire again to assess test-retest reliability.
Item analysis was examined item-total correlations (items with r > 0.40 were retained) [32] and comparing extreme groups (the top and bottom 27% of scores) via the Mann-Whitney U test. EFA was subsequently conducted using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with promax oblique rotation. The criterion was the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value > 0.60 and Bartlett’s sphericity test (p < 0.05) [33,34]. Factors with eigenvalues > 1 were retained. Individual items were retained based on the following thresholds: factor loadings > 0.50, communality > 0.30, and cross-loading differences > 0.20 [35]. A cumulative explained variance of 40–60% was considered as adequate [36]. Subsequently, CFA was performed. Model fit was considered acceptable when χ²/df < 3, RMSEA < 0.08, TLI > 0.90, and CFI > 0.90 [37–39]. Convergent validity was assessed using composite reliability (CR > 0.60) and average variance extracted (AVE > 0.50) [40]. The heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT < 0.85) was used to assess discriminant validity [41]. Additionally, criterion-related validity was examined by Spearman correlation with generalized anxiety and parental parenting styles. Reliability was verified using Cronbach’s α coefficient (> 0.7) for internal consistency reliability and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC > 0.60) [42,43]. Lastly, measurement invariance was tested across gender groups through multi-group confirmatory factor analysis.
2.3. Study instruments
Self-designed Questionnaire.
A self-designed questionnaire was designed based on a review of the literature [7,44], covering demographic variables including gender, age, only-child status, parental marital status, parental education level, and family economic status. Consistent with previous studies [45,46], two variables were measured using single-item measures: parenting style (Authoritarian, Permissive, Indulgent, Democratic) and primary academic supervisor (Neither, Father, Mother, Both).
The Family Environment Scale-Chinese Version (FES-CV).
This scale was originally developed by Moos et al. [47], and its Chinese version was revised by Lipeng Fei [48]. The scale consists of 90 true-or-false items divided into 10 subscales, each comprising 9 items. The present study adopted the Cohesion and Conflict subscales, whose Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.795 and 0.702, respectively.
The Chinese version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).
The original CD-RISC was compiled by Connor and Davidson, and its Chinese version, revised by Yun Xu for Chinese student populations, contains 22 items [32].This scale adopts a 5-point Likert scoring system (1 = “Completely disagree”, 5 = “Completely agree”),with total scores ranging from 22 to 110. Higher total scores indicate greater resilience. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.963.
Criterion instruments.
According to emotional contagion theory [49], PPEA is positively associated with children’s anxiety. Given that parental educational anxiety is frequently manifested through controlling and less warm parenting practices, PPEA is likely positively correlated with parental rejection and overprotection, and negatively correlated with parental emotional warmth [7,50].
The Chinese version of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7).
The GAD-7 was developed by Spitzer et al. [51], and its Chinese version has been validated among Chinese university students by Zhang et al. [52]. This 7-item scale adopts a 4-point Likert scale (0 = “Not at all”, 3 = “Nearly every day”), with total scores ranging from 0 to 21; higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety [51]. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale in the current study was 0.842.
The Chinese version of the shortened Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (S-EMBU-C).
The Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (EMBU) was originally developed by Perris et al. [53]. The Chinese short-form version, consisting of 42 items, was revised by Jiang Jiang [54]. It contains paternal and maternal subscales, each covering three dimensions: rejection, emotional warmth, and overprotection. A 4-point Likert scale is applied (1 = “Never”, 4 = “Always”). A higher total score for each dimension indicates a more prominent corresponding parenting style. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficients ranged from 0.746 to 0.911 (paternal: rejection = 0.783, overprotection = 0.746, warmth = 0.903; maternal: rejection = 0.864, overprotection = 0.799, warmth = 0.911).
2.4. Procedure
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Army Medical University (Approval No. 2024-31-02). Participants were recruited from two universities in Chongqing. Prior to the survey, the purpose, voluntary nature and confidentiality were clearly explained to potential participants, and written informed consent was obtained. Subsequently, the questionnaires were distributed by two trained psychological professionals in papers. Furthermore, questionnaires with incomplete or patterned responses were excluded from analysis. Participants could withdraw at any time without any negative consequences. They received a gift after completing the questionnaires.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were conducted through SPSS 26.0, AMOS 26.0 and R 4.5.1. PPEA scores were described using the median and interquartile range due to non-normal distribution. Non-parametric tests were carried out for univariate analyses. Specifically, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed for two-group comparisons, Kruskal-Wallis H test was performed for multi-group comparisons, and Spearman correlation was used for continuous variables. Diagnostic statistics were examined in accordance with standard regression diagnostic procedures, with the aim of detecting potential influential observations (e.g., high leverage points) [55]. Subsequently, hierarchical regressions were conducted to observe predictors of PPEA levels: Model 1 included socio-demographic variables, Model 2 added family environmental variables, and Model 3 further incorporated individual resilience. All categorical variables were dummy-coded (Table 1).
Harman’s single-factor test was performed to evaluate potential common method bias. The first unrotated factor explained27.709% of the total variance, which was lower than50% [56], indicating no obvious common method bias in this study.
3. Results
3.1. Reliability and validity tests of the scale
3.1.1. Item analysis.
Item-total correlations were calculated between each item and the total score of the full scale (Table 2). All items exhibited significant correlations with the total score, ranging from 0.418 to 0.725. In addition, significant differences in all item scores were observed between the high and low groups (Z = 5.955–9.426, p < 0.001). All 16 items satisfied the retention criteria and were retained for subsequent analyses.
3.1.2. Exploratory factor analysis.
The results confirmed the suitability of the data for factor analysis (KMO = 0.913, Bartlett’s sphericity test p < 0.001). EFA on sample1 extracted three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which was consistent with the structure of the original scale. All 16 items yielded factor loadings above 0.50 on their respective dominant factors, with cross-loading differences exceeding 0.20 (Table 2). The three factors collectively explained 62.740% of the cumulative variance.
3.1.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
CFA was performed (Fig 1). The initial model fit was suboptimal (χ²/df = 3.032, RMSEA = 0.084, TLI = 0.902, CFI = 0.918). When the modification indices (MI) exceed 10 and the items share similar content and wording, residual correlation can be added between them [57]. Items 12 and 13 belong to same dimension and possess similar wording, with MI exceeding the recommended threshold, providing a reasonable theoretical basis for correlated measurement errors. Therefore, error covariance was conducted between Items 12 and 13.As this modification was limited to a single pair of the items and was theoretically grounded, the construct validity of the scale is unlikely to be compromised. After modification, the model fit was improved (χ²/df = 2.691, RMSEA = 0.077, TLI = 0.919, CFI = 0.932) and met standard psychometric criteria.
3.1.4. Convergent validity and discriminant validity.
The AVE values ranged from 0.520 to 0.592, the CR values ranged from 0.629 to 0.853, and the HTMT values ranged from 0.496 to 0.770 (Table 3).
3.1.5. Criterion-related validity.
Higher total scores of PPEA were significantly and positively correlated with paternal and maternal parental rejection (paternal: r = 0.438; maternal: r = 0.400), overprotection (paternal: r = 0.397; maternal: r = 0.506), and generalized anxiety levels (r = 0.291), and significantly and negatively correlated with parental emotional warmth (paternal: r = −0.212; maternal: r = −0.239). All correlation coefficients were significant at p < 0.001, indicating satisfactory criterion-related validity of the scale.
3.1.6. Reliability.
The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.922 for the full scale, ranging from 0.741 to 0.912 for the three sub-dimensions. The 6-week test-retest ICC was 0.825 for the total scale, with sub-dimension values ranging from 0.604 to 0.849.
3.1.7. Measurement invariance across gender.
Multi-group CFA was conducted to examine measurement invariance across gender. The results showed that changes in fit indices across successive models met the recommended criteria (|ΔCFI | < 0.010, |ΔRMSEA| < 0.015) [58], supporting configural, metric, and scalar invariance (Table 4). These findings indicated that the PPEAS measures the same construct for male and female participants.
3.2. Influencing factors of PPEA
3.2.1. Level and demographic characteristics of PPEA among Chinese college freshmen.
Among the 646 college freshmen, the median total score of PPEA was 40.00 (IQR: 32.00, 49.00). Higher PPEA levels were associated with male gender, being an only-child, having divorced parents, having authoritarian parents, and having at least one parent supervising academic (Table 5).
3.2.2. Correlations between family conflict, cohesion, children’s resilience and PPEA.
Spearman correlation analyses showed that PPEA was negatively correlated with family cohesion (r = −0.242, p < 0.001) and resilience (r = −0.194, p < 0.001), and positively correlated with family conflict (r = 0.262, p < 0.001).
3.2.3. Predictors of PPEA.
Hierarchical linear regression was performed with PPEA as the dependent variable. Model 1 included demographic variables; Model 2 further added family variables; children’s resilience was entered into Model 3 (Table 6). Prior to hierarchical regression, we examined all key assumptions of linear regression. As indicated by the Shapiro-Wilk test, the residuals were normally distributed (p = 0.200). Moreover, the residual scatter plot showed that the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity were satisfied. All VIFs were below 5, indicating no obvious multicollinearity. The Durbin-Watson statistic was 1.938, falling within the acceptable range of 1.5 to 2.5, thereby supporting independent error terms. The maximum Cook’s distance was 0.01, far below the critical cutoff of 1.0, indicating no influential outliers. These results verified that the assumptions for linear regression were sufficiently satisfied.
The overall model explained 24.2% of the total variance in PPEA. Demographic variables, family variables, and resilience accounted for 2.6%, 20.1%, and 1.5% of the variance, respectively. In the final model, six variables were significantly linked to higher PPEA: male gender, family conflict, authoritarian parenting style, and having at least one parent as the primary academic supervisor. By contrast, children’s resilience was associated with lower PPEA.
4. Discussion
Based on family system theory, this study revised the PEAS and formed PPEAS. The scale exhibited good reliability and validity and can serve as a scientific instrument to measure children’s retrospective PPEA. Furthermore, this study systematically observed the levels and influencing factors of PPEA among Chinese college freshmen.
4.1. The revised scale has good reliability and validity with a reasonable structure
The three retained factors of the revised PPEAS are perceived academic performance anxiety, perceived competitive environment anxiety, and perceived educational efficacy anxiety. This structure is consistent with the original scale, which was developed via systematic qualitative and quantitative research identifying these identical three core domains [20]. CFA supported the three-factor model, and the correlations among factors provide evidence for the scale’s construct validity, indicating that these three factors are not isolated but interrelated. An intense competitive environment raises parental attention toward children’s academic performance [4]. Parents with low educational efficacy are more vulnerable to pressures from the external competitive environment [59]. In addition, children’s unsatisfactory academic performance brings more negative feedback to parents, further undermining parents’ confidence in their educational capabilities [60]. Within a family system, members’ emotions mutually influence one another [10]; children actively perceive parental educational anxiety in specific scenarios such as receiving poor grades or discussing academic matters [20,61]. Accordingly, when children report their perceptions, their ratings across these three domains tend to correlate with one another, reflecting the interconnected anxiety cues they have perceived. Thus, the content of children’s perceptions matches the domains through which parents express educational anxiety, suggesting that the three-factor structure can adequately capture PPEA. Moreover, the scale showed satisfactory internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. In summary, the revised PPEAS has favorable structural validity and functions as a reliable and valid tool for measuring children’s PPEA.
4.2. Chinese college freshmen reported a relatively low level of PPEA, with higher score in male
The median PPEA score reported by freshmen in the current study was 40.00 (5-point scale; total score range: 16–80), which was numerically lower than the mean scores (46.27–50.77) reported by parents using the identical 5-point scale [20]. In addition, another study reported an average item score of 2.79 based on a 5-point scale [62], which exceeded the median item score of 2.50found in our sample. Although direct statistical comparisons cannot be conducted, these differences reveal a trend: children’s perceptions of parental anxiety may be lower than parents’ self-reporting. This discrepancy can be interpreted from the perspective of family system theory and construal-level theory of psychological distance (CLT). Within the family system, children have limited access to their parents’ internal thoughts and affective states, resulting in divergent perceptions of parental anxiety [63]. Furthermore, the retrospective design of the present study introduces substantial temporal distance. According to CLT, such distance renders memories more abstract [64]. Specifically, vivid and concrete details related to parental anxiety (e.g., specific interactions, urgent tones) may fade in memory and be reconstructed into abstract concerns (e.g., “my parents cared about my future”) [64], which may cause children to perceive parental anxiety as less intense than what parents actually experienced. This highlights a mismatch between PPEA and parental self-reported educational anxiety and underscores the necessity of measuring children’s perception to understand its unique impact on children’s mental health.
Moreover, males reported higher PPEA levels. This phenomenon can be explained within the Chinese socio-cultural context. Chinese parents often hold higher educational expectations for boys than for girls [65]. Accordingly, baseline expectations are set higher for boys. When children’s academic performance fails to meet parental expectations, the resulting “expectation gap” may amplify parental educational anxiety, which can be transmitted to children [7]. These results suggest that parents of boys should avoid excessive expectations, as such expectations not only elevate their own educational anxiety but also place pressure on their children. This insight highlights the value of establishing diverse and reasonable criteria for success to curb the excessive transmission of educational anxiety.
4.3. Influences of family conflict, family cohesion, and children’s resilience on PPEA
Although the PPEA scores were non-normally distributed, the hierarchical regression results were robust, as all diagnostic assumptions (normality of residuals, linearity, homoscedasticity, no multicollinearity, and no influential outliers) were met. Hierarchical regression revealed that higher PPEA was associated with greater family conflict and lower levels of children’s resilience, whereas family cohesion was not a significant predictor. These findings partially support our hypotheses. The positive association between family conflict and PPEA can be interpreted from two perspectives. On the one hand, family conflict may elevate parents’ own anxiety. Existing studies have confirmed that family conflict correlates with elevated anxiety and depression [66], and the family system perspective indicates that such anxiety can spill over into educational interactions [10], thereby increasing children’s PPEA. On the other hand, family conflict undermines children’s emotional security and heightens their vigilance toward parental negative emotional cues, rendering them more sensitive to parental educational anxiety [24,67]. Nevertheless, contrary to our hypothesis, family cohesion did not independently predict PPEA in the final model. A possible explanation is that the effect size of cohesion was relatively small, and its independent contribution was no longer significant when stronger predictors such as family conflict and authoritarian parenting style were simultaneously entered into the model. At the individual level, children’s resilience shows a negative association with their PPEA, which can be explained by the cognitive mechanism of selective perception within Kumpfer’s resilience framework [68]. Children with higher resilience may be better at rationally attributing their parents’ anxious behaviors and mobilizing more positive emotions and coping strategies to “filter” the perceived anxiety signals. Accordingly, the intensity of external stressors on their internal world can be significantly reduced [29,30]. As indicated by existing research, highly resilient individuals possess a great capacity for cognitive reappraisal [31], which may enable them to reinterpret their parents’ educational anxiety as a form of involved concern rather than a threatening signal. Thus, lower PPEA may be achieved. In addition, authoritarian parenting style also shows a significant correlation with higher PPEA. This may be because authoritarian parenting style serves as a primary behavioral conduit through which parents’ internal anxiety is expressed [69,70]. Children interpret these high-pressure, non-responsive interaction patterns as intense educational anxiety [69]. Together, the results suggest that both school and family education should focus on fostering harmonious family environment and enhancing children’s resilience to resist transmission of anxiety. Nevertheless, the final model explained only 24.2% of the variance in PPEA, indicating that substantial portion remains unexplained such as parent-child communication [28].
4.4. Limitations
Several limitations of this study need to be considered. First, samples exhibited substantial differences in gender distribution due to convenience sampling. In addition, as we excluded participants with current or history of mental disorders, substance abuse, or severe physical diseases, our findings are generalizable specifically for healthy college freshmen without these conditions, and the reliance on self-report may not capture undiagnosed cases. Future studies are recommended to adopt multicenter designs and gender-balanced samples to verify these findings. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore the causal relationships between these factors and PPEA. Third, as with retrospective self-report measures, participants’ current mood states may influence their responses [71]. Given the nature of the measure, current parent-child relationship quality may similarly shape their retrospective perceptions. Finally, we did not assess educational anxiety experienced by parents directly, and the criterion-related validity evidence for the PPEAS remains indirect. In future, parent-child dyad designs should be conducted to evaluate parent-child discrepancy and offer criterion validity of the PPEAS directly. Nevertheless, the current study offers a tool to access the perceived parental-educational-anxiety from children’s perspective and further observe the level and predictors of PPEA in Chinese college students.
5. Conclusion
This study revised and validated the PPEAS, providing a reliable instrument for assessing children’s PPEA. The findings indicated that family conflict was positively associated with PPEA, whereas children’s resilience was negatively associated with PPEA. Moreover, the level of PPEA reported by college freshmen appears lower than that previously reported by parents, suggesting a meaningful perception gap that warrants further parent-child pairing designs. These results highlight the importance of decreasing family conflict and enhancing children’s resilience to mitigate PPEA.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Perceived Parental Educational Anxiety Scale (PPEAS).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358097.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Tang L, Matt J, Khoshlessan R, Das KP, Allard C. A quantitative study of undergraduate students’ anxiety. J Educ Learn. 2022;11(5):15–30.
- 2. Khoshlessan R, Das KP. Analyzing international students’ study anxiety in higher education. J Int Stud. 2017;7(2):311–28.
- 3. Lu F, Wen M, Niu W, Wu X, Zhang C. Parental educational anxiety and adolescent problem behaviors: Serial mediation of psychological control and parent-child relationship with gender differences. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2025;259:105348. pmid:40716226
- 4. Deng LY, Tang YW, Wang JY, Li BL. A qualitative study on the generation and maintenance mechanisms of parental educational anxiety for urban primary and secondary school students in China. Journal of Educational Studies. 2024;20(1):159–73.
- 5. Chen Q, Lee BG. Deep Learning Models for Stress Analysis in University Students: A Sudoku-Based Study. Sensors (Basel). 2023;23(13):6099. pmid:37447948
- 6. Zhang S, Sulong RMB, Hassan NBC. Perceived double reduction policy, perception of educational involution: exploring the mediating role of parental educational anxiety and the moderating influence of gender—insights from a survey conducted in a city in China. Eur J Educ. 2024;59(2):e12604.
- 7. Chen G, Oubibi M, Liang A, Zhou Y. Parents’ Educational Anxiety Under the “Double Reduction” Policy Based on the Family and Students’ Personal Factors. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022;15:2067–82. pmid:35983019
- 8. QI ZY, Fang J, Ren SY. Alleviation of parental educational anxiety under the “double reduction” policy: An empirical survey across 29 provinces in China. Chinese J Distance Education. 2024;44(4):28–46.
- 9. Yan YJ, Deng H. Has parental educational anxiety been relieved after the “double reduction” policy? — A qualitative study based on parents of ninth-grade students in Jiangxi Province. Tribune of Education Culture. 2024;16(3):72–84.
- 10. Cox MJ, Paley B. Families as systems. Annu Rev Psychol. 1997;48:243–67. pmid:9046561
- 11. De Los Reyes A, Ohannessian CM, Racz SJ. Discrepancies Between Adolescent and Parent Reports About Family Relationships. Child Development Perspectives. 2019;13(1):53–8.
- 12. Yu M, Mao M, Tang C, Xing S. Mother-adolescent consistency and discrepancy in perceived maternal psychological control to adolescent depression: exploring the specificity of adolescent gender and age. J Youth Adolesc. 2025;54(10):2441–53. pmid:40833526
- 13. Zhang Q, Shek DTL, Pan Y. Parent-Child Discrepancies in Perceived Parent-Child Communication and Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescents in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(22):12041. pmid:34831792
- 14. Zeng C, Li XY, Pu WD, Wang LS. The relationship between parent-child perception differences in parental emotional expressions and adolescent self-injury behaviors: A latent profile analysis. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2025;33(5):1077–82.
- 15. Szkody E, Rogers MM, McKinney C. Discrepancy analysis of emerging adult and parental report of psychological problems and relationship quality. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2022;44(2):444–55.
- 16. Niditch LA, Varela RE. Mother-child disagreement in reports of child anxiety: effects of child age and maternal anxiety. J Anxiety Disord. 2011;25(3):450–5. pmid:21146953
- 17. Dinkha J. The dichotomy of education: public vs. private. Gend Women Stud. 2018;2(1):1–17.
- 18. Sun J, Liu T, Gao Y, Li H, Chen Y, Diao H, et al. Questionnaire development on measuring parents’ anxiety about their children’s education: Empirical evidence of parental perceived anxiety data for primary and secondary school students in China. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1018313. pmid:36312100
- 19. Wu W, Kaur A, Liang Q, Xu K, Mei S, Ye M, et al. Development and Validation of the Parental Anxiety over a Child’s Education Scale: Evidence from China. J Child Fam Stud. 2023;32(8):2532–45.
- 20. Tang YW, Yang YM, Zhang YQ, Deng LY, Tian HJ. Parental educational anxiety in K-12 students: a study on conceptualization and influencing mechanisms. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences). 2025;(1):85–98.
- 21. Li W, Zhao Z, Chen D, Peng Y, Lu Z. Prevalence and associated factors of depression and anxiety symptoms among college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2022;63(11):1222–30. pmid:35297041
- 22. Darling N. Ecological systems theory: the person in the center of the circles. Res Hum Dev. 2007;4(3–4):203–17.
- 23. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Devel Psychol. 1986;22(6):723–42.
- 24. Cummings EM, Schatz JN. Family conflict, emotional security, and child development: translating research findings into a prevention program for community families. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2012;15(1):14–27. pmid:22311087
- 25.
Kayfitz AD. Marital conflict, emotional security, and young children’s social and emotional competence. Windsor (ON), Canada: University of Windsor. 2011.
- 26. Yin X, Zhang H, Chen M. The influence of parents’ education anxiety on children’s learning anxiety: the mediating role of parenting style and the moderating effect of extracurricular tutoring. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1380363. pmid:38899130
- 27. Manzi C, Vignoles VL, Regalia C, Scabini E. Cohesion and Enmeshment Revisited: Differentiation, Identity, and Well‐Being in Two European Cultures. J of Marriage and Family. 2006;68(3):673–89.
- 28. Gao X, Xing S, Zhao J. Parental psychological control and the relationship with children’s psychosocial functioning. Adv Psychol Sci. 2016;24(11):1792.
- 29. Watson CR, Eaton A, Campbell CI, Alexeeff SE, Avalos LA, Ridout KK, et al. Association of adverse childhood experiences and resilience with depression and anxiety during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2024;143(5):707–10. pmid:38422503
- 30. Watters ER, Aloe AM, Wojciak AS. Examining the Associations Between Childhood Trauma, Resilience, and Depression: A Multivariate Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023;24(1):231–44. pmid:34313169
- 31. Yao H, Wang Q, Li Z. Cognitive reappraisal inventiveness in emotion regulation. Adv Psychol Sci. 2022;30(3):601.
- 32. Xu Y, Zhou R, Fu CM. Reliability, validity, and structural exploration of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC) in university students. China J Health Psychol. 2016;24(6):894–7.
- 33. Bartlett MS. The Effect of Standardization on a χ 2 Approximation in Factor Analysis. Biometrika. 1951;38(3/4):337.
- 34. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6.
- 35. Şener A, Çınarlı T, Köse D. Perceived stress during resuscitation: a scale development study. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):492. pmid:40325396
- 36. Çetinkaya Özdemir S, Semerci V, Sönmez Sarı E. Development of the diabulimia knowledge level scale. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2023;46:139–45. pmid:37813497
- 37. Demirhan Kayacik A, Ilcioglu K. Life satisfaction in individuals with premenstrual syndrome: Scale development and evaluation of psychometric properties. J Affect Disord. 2025;388:119757. pmid:40562108
- 38. Hu L t z e, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model: Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55.
- 39. Sun H, Tang K. Psychometric evaluation and measurement invariance of the problematic smartphone use scale among college students: A national survey of 130 145 participants. Addiction. 2025;120(4):629–41. pmid:39505322
- 40. Cheung GW, Cooper-Thomas HD, Lau RS, Wang LC. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac J Manag. 2023;41(2):745–83.
- 41. Voorhees CM, Brady MK, Calantone R, Ramirez E. Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. J Acad Mark Sci. 2016;44(1):119–34.
- 42. Onat G. Development of a scale for determining violence against infertile women: a scale development study. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):18. pmid:24576353
- 43. McLeod BD, Cecilione J, Jensen-Doss A, Southam-Gerow MA, Kendall PC. Reliability, factor structure, and validity of an observer-rated alliance scale with youth. Psychol Assess. 2021;33(10):1013–23. pmid:33998820
- 44. Zhang L, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Sun J. Factors influencing parents’ educational anxiety of primary and secondary school students: evidence from parents in China. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):65. pmid:39773161
- 45. Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. J Mark Res. 2007;44(2):175–84.
- 46. Chytas V, Costanza A, Mazzola V, Luthy C, Bondolfi G, Cedraschi C. Demoralization and Suicidal Ideation in Chronic Pain Patients. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2023;16:611–7. pmid:36911045
- 47. Moos RH. Conceptual and empirical approaches to developing family-based assessment procedures: resolving the case of the Family Environment Scale. Fam Process. 1990;29(2):199–208; discussion 209-11. pmid:2373215
- 48. Fei LP, Shen QJ, Zheng YP, Zhao JP, Jiang SA, Wang LW. Evaluating the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale and the Family Environment Scale: A Controlled Study in Normal Families and Families with Schizophrenia. Chinese Mental Health J. 1991;(5):198–202, 238.
- 49. Amer SA, Khan M, Ali LI, Moghib K, Abdul-Hafez HA, Amer MA, et al. Emotional contagion, anxiety, and depression during COVID-19: a survey from Egypt. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):3646. pmid:41162913
- 50. Friedman HP, Bilsky SA, Luber MJ. Parent Anxiety, Child Anxiety, Parental Beliefs about Anxiety, and Parenting Behaviors: Examining Direct and Indirect Associations. J Child Fam Stud. 2023;32(11):3419–29.
- 51. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7. pmid:16717171
- 52. Zhang C, Wang T, Zeng P, Zhao M, Zhang G, Zhai S, et al. Reliability, Validity, and Measurement Invariance of the General Anxiety Disorder Scale Among Chinese Medical University Students. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:648755. pmid:34093269
- 53. Arrindell WA, Akkerman A, Bagés N, Feldman L, Caballo VE, Oei TPS. The short-EMBU in Australia, Spain, and Venezuela. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2005;21(1):56–66.
- 54. Jiang J. Initial validation of the Chinese short-form Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (s-EMBU-C). Psychological Development and Education. 2010;26(1):94–9.
- 55. Dey A, Hossain Md, Das K. Regression analysis for data containing outliers and high leverage points. Ala J Math. 2015;39(1):1–6.
- 56. Qu J. Factors Affecting Patients’ Use of Telehealth Services: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e63295. pmid:40639939
- 57. Bandalos DL. Item Meaning and Order as Causes of Correlated Residuals in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2021;28(6):903–13.
- 58. Wang C, Sun Y, Yang Y, Li W, Lu S, Zhong J. Development and validation of future employment anxiety scale in China. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):1066. pmid:41013825
- 59. Villada C, Hidalgo V, Almela M, Salvador A. Assessing performance on an evaluated speaking task: the role of self-efficacy, anxiety, and cardiac autonomic reactivity. J Psychophysiol. 2018;32(2):64–74.
- 60. Kamali D, Illing J. How can positive and negative trainer feedback in the operating theatre impact a surgical trainee’s confidence and well-being: a qualitative study in the north of England. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e017935. pmid:29440141
- 61. Acar IH, Yalçıntaş Z. Dyadic Examination of Children’s Emotion Regulation in Family Context: Contributions of Coparenting and Parents’ Self-Compassion. Early Childhood Educ J. 2025;54(2):953–70.
- 62. Li YH, Zhao XY. Status and influencing factors analysis of parental educational anxiety among primary school students. People’s Education. 2024;(22):51–4.
- 63.
Minuchin S. Families and family therapy. Routledge. 2018.
- 64. Trope Y, Liberman N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev. 2010;117(2):440–63. pmid:20438233
- 65.
Song Y. Family Background, Parental Expectations, and Gender Differences in Children’s Attainment of High School Education [dissertation]. Nanjing, China: Nanjing University; 2015.
- 66. Xie M, Wang X, Zhang J, Wang Y. Alteration in the psychologic status and family environment of pregnant women before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;153(1):71–5. pmid:33403679
- 67. Cheng WY, Cheung RYM, Chung KKH. The role of family conflict and cohesion in adolescents’ social responsibility: Emotion regulation ability as a mediator. PLoS One. 2024;19(9):e0311265. pmid:39348421
- 68. Ma WN, Sang B, Hong LM. Reviewing resilience and its mechanisms of action. Huadong Shifan Daxue Xuebao. 2008;1:89–96.
- 69. Baumrind D. Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child Behavior. Child Development. 1966;37(4):887.
- 70. Teetsel RN, Ginsburg GS, Drake KL. Anxiety-promoting parenting behaviors: a comparison of anxious mothers and fathers. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2014;45(2):133–42. pmid:23677528
- 71. Faul L, LaBar KS. Mood-congruent memory revisited. Psychol Rev. 2023;130(6):1421–56. pmid:36201828