Psychometric Evaluation of the Strength-Based Parenting Questionnaire and Comparison of Perceived Strength-Based Parenting in Collectivistic and Individualistic Cultures

Strengths are defined as inherent intrapersonal factors that are authentic, energizing, virtuous, and help the individual to reach peak potential, peak performance, and/or peak levels of wellbeing (i.e., thriving) (Gordon & Gucciardi, 2011; Govindji & Linley, 2007; Linley et al., 2010b).

Strength-based psychology is an umbrella field that is united by its focus on the best in human nature (Linley, 2013). This field has investigated several broad categories of strengths including character strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), positive capacities (Linley et al., 2006), and talents (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Character strengths were developed in the VIA model (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and are described as universal, morally-valued personality traits that contribute to a good life at the individual and collective level (e.g., kindness, fairness, humility) (Gander et al., 2013, 2022; Niemiec & Pearce, 2021; Wagner et al., 2020). Strength-based capacities arise from the interwoven formation of knowledge and skills that support optimal functioning and goal attainment, examples include rapport building, strategic awareness, and time optimization (Linley et al., 2006, 2010a). Talents are ability-based strengths, identified by areas in which an individual demonstrates rapid learning and above average performance (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001).

As with many other psychological constructs that evolve through the contributions of multiple researchers, there are aspects of overlap and distinction amongst the categories of strengths. For example, for all three categories, researchers suggest a person is born with their strengths and, thus, that strengths are relatively stable (Gander et al., 2020). Yet, strengths in all categories are also viewed as being developable through experience and effort. Hence, strengths—be they character, capacities or talents—can change and grow over time.

In some cases, there is an overlap of the same strength being included in multiple categories. For example, creativity is included as a character strength (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and as a capacity (Linley et al., 2010a). Learning² and leadership³ are represented in the character strengths category (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) but also in the talents category (Lopez & Ackerman, 2009). However, the use and intended purpose of the creativity, learning and leadership are different between the strengths categories such that creativity, learning, and leadership as character strengths are used to foster wellbeing and social benefits (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), whereas these strengths as capacities and talents are used for their potential to enhance performance and productivity (Linley et al., 2010a; Buckingham & Clifton, 2001).

To date there have been two broad approaches used in the study of strengths: the classification approach and the process approach. The classification approach seeks to identify, compile, and classify strengths into groupings that assist people to learn what their strengths are. For example, the Values in Action (VIA) classification of strengths has generated a list of 24 universally valued character strengths that have been classified into six overarching virtues: wisdom, humanity, transcendence, temperance, justice, and courage (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The VIA inventory of strengths (Peterson et al., 2005) is the tool that then helps people identify which strengths are the most central to their sense of self and are used most frequently in their life (Peterson et al., 2005). Another example is the CliftonStrengths survey (Lopez & Ackerman, 2009) which helps a person gain insight into what their natural talents are (e.g., futuristic, deliberative, analytic).

While, the classification approach categorizes what strengths a person has, the process approach examines how a person’s strengths are developed over time (Minhas, 2010). Govindji and Linley (2007) identified two intentional processes that can be used to develop strengths: (1) cultivating strengths knowledge and (2) encouraging strengths use. They defined strengths knowledge as an awareness and recognition of one’s strengths. They described strengths use as the extent to which strengths are deployed in a variety of settings (Govindji & Linley, 2007). The current paper adopts the process approach, rather than the classification approach. Instead of looking at specific types of strengths that parents can develop in their children, this study investigates two child raising processes that parents use to develop a child’s strengths (fostering strengths knowledge and encouraging strengths use in one’s children) regardless of what the strength is.

According to Biswas-Diener et al. (2011, 2017) and Minhas (2010) strengths are developed through persistent patterns of person-environment interactions. Parenting, then, is likely to be a key factor in the development of a child’s strengths as parents have a vital role in shaping a child’s person-environment interactions through the family environment itself (family roles, rules, rituals, and routines) as well as the decisions parents make about schooling, religious and cultural education, travel, sports, interests, and other life experiences (Waters & Sun, 2016; Waters et al., 2019a).

Given the importance of parents in developing a child’s strengths, Waters (2015a, 2015b) adapted Govindji and Linley’s (2007) processes approach to study the degree to which a parent seeks to deliberately identify (strengths knowledge) and cultivate their children’s strengths (strengths use)—a style of parenting she called strength-based parenting (SBP) (Waters, 2015a) which has been defined by Ningrum and Utami (2022) as an approach to child rearing that aims to “to identify and encourage teens to recognize and use their strengths in every aspect of their life” (p. 82). Waters (2015a) described strengths knowledge as a process that continues over time whereby parents help their children to recognize, pay attention to, and understand their strengths (i.e., looking at the child’s character, capacities, and talents). She explained that the process of strengths use is enacted through parents encouraging their child to use and grow their strengths at home, school, in their family and friendships, sport, hobbies, cultural groups, and so on.

There are many dimensions of culture identified in cross-cultural research including emotional distance-emotional closeness, hierarchy-equality, masculinity–femininity, order maintaining-order transforming, and individualistic-collectivistic, to name a few (Eisenstadt, 1992; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Vinken et al., 2004). According to Lansford et al., (2021, p. 459) individualism-collectivism is “the main organizing framework for understanding cultural differences” in parenting. Similarly, Tamis‐LeMonda et al. (2008, p. 184) assert that individualism-collectivism is “the most influential framework for conceptualising cultural variation in parental beliefs and practices.”

Definitions of collectivism and individualism centre around differences in orientation of position of the self in relation to others (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003; Schwartz, 1990; Singelis et al., 1995). Individualistic cultures tend to place value on independence, self-governance, personal concerns, and self-enhancement. Collectivistic cultures are more likely to place value on interdependence, group-governance, cohesion, and collective goals (Hofstede, 2010; Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Oyserman et al., 2002).

According to Triandis et al. (1993), collectivistic-individualistic values shape the parenting process and socialization goals with which parents rear their children. Parents in collectivistic countries are preparing their child to fit in with the societal values of interdependence and heteronomy (Chen-Bouck et al., 2019), while parenting styles in individualistic cultures are guided by the normative societal values of autonomy and self-agency (Prevoo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2017).

Past research has shown that parenting style in collectivistic versus individualistic countries differs on a range of factors such as the degree to which parents demand conformity or foster autonomous motivation (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011; Pan et al., 2013), encourage independence versus interdependence (Suizzo et al., 2008), are supportive versus intrusive (Yaman et al., 2010), use authoritarian or authoritative parenting methods (Rudy & Grusec, 2006), and create power distance or are more egalitarian (Schwab, 2013).

This said, there are studies that find similarities between parenting in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. A cross-cultural study by McNeely and Barber (2010) asking adolescents to identify the ways their parents showed support found that teens from collectivistic and individualistic countries reported similar levels of parental support. When looking at particular types of support, there were no differences in the adolescent ratings of their parents providing instrumental support but emotional support and physical affection were rated higher by teens in individualist cultures, while parental guidance and respect were rated higher in the collectivistic youth. Liang et al. (2021) found that Chinese parents valued autonomous goals as highly as American parents and reasoned that parents from the two cultures will likely teach elements of individualistic values and collectivistic values, while having a default to one cultural approach over the other. Indeed, Triandis (2001, p. 909), who was one of the original proponents of the individualistic and collectivistic categories, articulated that parents will “sample from both the individualist and collectivist cognitive structures.”

When Lomas (2015) considered the role of culture on wellbeing, he asserted three operating mechanisms: (1) factors that are universal for wellbeing (universalism), (2) factors that boost wellbeing only within a cultural context (relativism), and (3) factors that exist across all countries but are shaped by culture (universal-relativism). McNeely and Barber’s (2010) results provide an example of universal-relativism where parental support was universal across individualistic and collectivistic samples, yet culture influenced the ways in which support was shown be it through emotional support, physical affection, guidance or respect.

We suggest that strength-based parenting is an approach that fits into the ‘universal-relativism’ category. In support of universalism, ongoing empirical research on the VIA character strengths classification index has continued to show that character strengths are desired across collectivistic and individualistic cultures (McGrath, 2014).⁴ The case for universality is also seen in the research showing that parents in both collectivistic and individualistic societies endorse the development of strengths for their children (Park et al., 2006; Ruch et al., 2014).

Further evidence for the universalism of SBP, comes from a consistent research pattern of SBP having beneficial wellbeing outcomes in children across collectivistic and individualistic societies. In collectivistic cultures, SBP has been positively associated with self-compassion (Ratna et al., 2021), mental toughness (Asgarizadeh & Shokri, 2025), optimism (Tunca & Belen, 2025), social emotional wellbeing (Arslan et al., 2022a, 2022b), and self-esteem (Sumargi & Firlita, 2020). In individualistic cultures, children and teenagers report positive associations between SBP and happiness (Loton & Waters, 2017), subjective wellbeing (Jach et al., 2017), school belonging (Allen et al., 2022), academic motivation (Arslan et al., 2022a, 2022b), and family happiness (Waters, 2020).⁵

Of course, while the endorsement of developing character strengths in children, and the positive effects of SBP on youth wellbeing, look to be universal, SBP is also likely to be influenced by culture, thus fitting into Lomas’ (2015) ‘universal relativism’ category. We suggest that relativity of SBP may appear in the way culture influences the types of strengths that parents foster. It seems reasonable to suggest the value that individualistic societies place on independence and autonomy may influence parents in these societies to cultivate strengths like leadership, courage, and zest. For societies who focus on interdependence and heteronomy, strengths like teamwork, prudence, and humility may be more favoured. In other words, strength-based parenting may be a universal aim of parents, but the types of strengths being developed may be shaped by culture. Cultural relativity may be apparent in studies that adopt the classification approach to strengths and focus on what strengths are fostered by parents, whereas universalism may be more likely to be found in studies that adopt the process approach to strengths and focus on how parents develop strengths in their children (i.e., by cultivating strengths knowledge and encouraging strengths use). This idea is akin to McNeely and Barber’s (2010) finding that the provision of parental support is universal (just as the provision of SBP may be universal), but the types of support given is different in individualistic and collectivistic cultures (just as the types of strengths developed is different in individualistic and collectivistic cultures).

It must be said that the ideas above can only be speculative because there has not been any SBP cross-cultural studies conducted. Indeed, it is not yet known whether the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism influences the degree to which parents adopt a strength-based parenting approach, not the types of strengths that parents seek to foster. The current study has adopted the process approach to strengths and seeks to compare levels of parents’ deployment of strengths knowledge and strengths use, as perceived by their sons and daughters, from individualistic and collectivistic countries.

In order to look for cross-cultural similarities or differences in levels of SBP between individualistic and collectivistic countries, a survey is needed that can validly and reliably measure this style of parenting in these two different cultural types.

To date, there have been 31 published studies that have used the SBPQ. Of the 31 studies published, nine were conducted in individualistic countries and 22 were conducted in collectivistic countries.⁶ Eighty percent of the studies conducted in individualistic countries tested the validity of the SBPS (including tests of factorial validity, incremental validity, concurrent, convergent validity, and divergent validity) and 70% tested the internal reliability (using Cronbach Alpha or the McDonald’s Omega). Forty-five percent of the studies conducted in collectivistic countries tested the validity of the SBPQ (factorial, criterion, convergent, and predictive validity) and 59% tested the internal reliability (using Cronbach Alpha).

In studies drawing from individualistic samples, factorial validity has been tested through Exploratory Factor Analysis (Arslan et al., 2022a, 2022b; Jach et al., 2017) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Jach et al., 2017; Loton & Waters, 2017). These tests have consistently found the best fit to be the two-factor solution of strengths knowledge and strengths use.

Evidence for discriminant validity in the SBPQ has been found in the studies using samples from individualistic cultures, with SBP being a distinct construct to authoritative parenting (Waters, 2015b), autonomy-granting parenting and responsive parenting (Waters et al., 2019b). Convergent validity of the SBPQ has been shown through its statistically significant associations with children and teen’s self-reported use of their strengths (Ju et al., 2023; Waters, 2015b), as well as its significant relationship with children’s strength-based coping (independently rated by researchers, Waters, 2015a), and finally through a dyadic study that found convergence between teen ratings of their parents’ strength knowledge and the parents’ own ratings of the degree to which they knew their sons’ and daughters’ strengths (Waters, 2015b). Continuing to look at studies conducted with youth from individualistic countries, predictive validity of the SBPQ has been shown in two studies where strength-based parenting prospectively predicted life satisfaction and academic grades (Waters et al., 2019b; Waters, 2015b).

In the collectivistic samples, both Exploratory Factor Analysis (Hardani et. al., 2022; Khosrojerdi & Heidari, 2024; Sağkal & Özdemir, 2018; Wen et al., 2025) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Arslan et al., 2022a, 2022b; Asgarizadeh & Shokri, 2025; Hardani et al., 2022; Sağkal & Özdemir, 2018, Tang et al., 2022; Wen et al., 2025) have shown a good to strong fit for the two-factor structure of the SBPQ.

Evidence for several other types of validity has also been published in studies using collectivistic samples. Predictive validity of the SBPQ has been shown in two longitudinal studies where baseline levels of SBP predicted academic buoyancy, resilience, optimism, and depression at later points in time (Belen & Tunca, 2025; Gu et al., 2023). Criterion validity was found by Asgarizadeh and Shokri (2025) where the SBPQ yielded significant correlations with mental toughness and psychological resilience. Furthermore, Wen et al. (2025) reported that the SBPQ demonstrated convergent validity in their sample via significant positive correlations between SBP and a scale measuring parental autonomy support and parental emotional warmth.

Tests of internal reliability of the SBPQ were performed in seven samples across individualistic studies. Four studies used Cronbach Alpha (Allen et al., 2022; Arslan et al., 2022a, 2022b; Waters, 2015bthis paper contained 2 studies) and three used the Omega Coefficient (with bootstrapping and 95% Confidence Intervals) (Jach et al., 2017; Loton & Waters, 2017; Waters et al., 2019a, 2019b). One study measured only the strengths knowledge factor (Waters et al., 2019a, 2019b) and two studies measured only the strengths use factor (Allen et al., 2022; Arslan et al., 2022a, 2022b). Reliability ranged from 0.81 to 0.95 for strengths knowledge and 0.72–0.95 for strengths use. Tests of internal reliability of the SBPQ were performed in six studies that collected data from young children and teenagers in collectivistic studies (Arslan et al., 2022a, 2022b; Asgarizadeh & Shokri, 2025; Sağkal & Özdemir, 2018; Tang et al., 2022; Zavala et al., 2022; Zavala & Waters, 2020. All studies used Cronbach Alpha. One study measured only strengths use (Zavala et al., 2022), the other five measured both SBP factors. Reliability ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 for strengths knowledge and 0.93–0.97 for strengths use.

As can be seen from above text, various aspects of validity and reliability have been studied by different researchers across separate studies in individualistic and collectivistic countries. Yet there has been no cross-cultural research that has tested the validity and reliability of the SBPQ in samples from both individualistic and collectivistic countries within the one study. What this means is that psychometric evidence for the SBPQ is buried within method sections in separate papers, leaving researchers who are interested in using the SBPQ to have to seek out these scattered findings. If greater numbers of SBP studies are to be supported, it is important that researchers can find the results of a formalized and comprehensive psychometric evaluation in the one paper. Additionally, for cross cultural comparisons to be made about whether SBP levels are similar or different in individualistic and collectivistic countries, a tool that is valid and reliable and that upholds test of Measurement Invariance in both cultural groupings is needed.

Hence, the first aim of this study is to test the factorial validity, internal reliability and test–retest reliability of the SBPQ in a study that has collected data from individualistic and collectivistic countries. The second aim is to examine if levels of strength-based parenting, as perceived by children and teenagers, are similar or different in individualistic and collectivistic cultures.

Youth who completed the SBPQ (N = 2449; M = 15.03 years ± 2.94: 55.7% female; 44.3% male were recruited from nine countries, spanning the geographical regions of Australia, Asia, South America, and Europe. Following other cross-cultural parenting studies (Lansford et al., 2021; Mertens & d’Haenens, 2014; Schwab, 2013), Hofstede’s cultural classification was used to categorise the countries as collectivistic or individualistic (see https://hi.hofstede-insights.com/models; Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Hofstede, 2010).

Cross-cultural research at the between-culture level, rather than the within-culture level, is common in parenting research. For example, in Kotlaja’s (2020) study on parental attachment styles, 19 countries were grouped as individualist (the USA, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Germany, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Armenia, and Czech Republic) and compared to a collectivist sample that grouped a wide range of collectivistic countries together (Russia, Spain, Venezuela, Portugal, Austria, Slovenia, and Suriname as one group) to look for between-culture differences. In introducing the new variable of SBP, we sought to ascertain if, in the first instance, there are parenting differences at this broad cultural level. If it is established that SBP is present in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures, the current paper will open the doorway for future researchers to examine within-culture differences.

Considering the criticism of positive psychology research being too western-centric (Becker & Marecek, 2008; Lomas et al., 2021), the decision was made to swing the pendulum the other way by deliberately including more collectivistic countries (n = 7) than individualistic countries (n = 2). There were seven collectivistic societies: Indonesia, Israel [Arab Citizens], Kazakhstan, Macau, Peru, Turkey, and Uzbekistan (n = 1503; 61.40% of the total sample) two individualistic societies: Australia and Germany (n = 946; 38.60% of the total sample). These nine countries utilized eight different language versions of the SBPQ (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan both used Russian language version of the SBPQ, see Table 1). All participation was voluntary, unpaid, and consent-based.

Convenience sampling was used in all countries and young people were recruited via a range of procedures including the web-based platform Unipark (Germany, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan; http://www.unipark.com/en/), school-based samples (Australia, Indonesia, Macau, Turkey), social media recruitment (Peru, Macau), and researcher networks (Arab Citizens of Israel). Each country had a dedicated research team to collect data, and all university teams gained approval from their respective university’s Human Ethics Research Committee. Data from Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Macau, Peru, and Uzbekistan was cross sectional. Test–retest data for the SBPQ was collected in Australia (6-month time interval) and the Turkish data (3-week time interval).

To ensure appropriate sample size, the suggested ratio of 5 to 10 participants per item for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was followed (Hatcher, 1994; Kyriazos, 2018; Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). Eight of the nine data sets (89%) had 10 or more participants per item and one data set had 7 participants per item ratio. Kline’s (1994) recommendation of a sample size of 100 being a sufficient for CFA was also met in the current study as all samples were above a n of 100.

Forward-and backward-translation of the questionnaire was conducted for the Spanish and Russian surveys. Forward translation was used for the remaining surveys. As a result of this study, the SBPQ is now available in the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, German, Indonesian, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish (see supplementary material).

Tests were performed at the item level to investigate means, standard deviations, and factorial validity. At the scale level, analyses were done on the data profile (skewness, kurtosis), descriptive and inferential statistics (Minima, Maxima, M, SD), and psychometrics (Cronbach’s Alpha, McDonald’s Omega, test–retest-reliability).

To decide what kind of estimators (e.g., classical ML or robust MLR estimators) were needed in the subsequent CFAs, univariate and multivariate normality tests were run. The original model included 14 items (2 × 7) for a two-factor solution. CFAs were used to see how well the data from the various samples fit the two-factor SBP model (Tavakol & Wetzel, 2020; Wetzel, 2012). Initially, two competing models were examined (one-factor vs. two-factor) including an analysis of modification indices. Following this, several CFAs were run to examine factorial validity.

Hair et al.’s (2019), cut-off values for the interpretation of the results of the CFAs were applied. In samples less than 250, Hair et al. advise a good fit is indicated by CFI or TLI of 0.97 or better, SRMR of 0.08 or less (with CFI of 0.95 or higher), and/or a RMSEA of 0.08 or less (with a CFI of 0.95 or higher). Where the sample size is 250 or more, a good fit is indicated by CFI or TLI of above 0.94, SRMR of 0.08 or less (with CFI of above 0.94), and/or a RMSEA of 0.07 or less (with a CFI of above 0.94) (Hair et al., 2019). In addition, Milfont and Fischer (2010) suggested an interpretation of RMSEA values of 0.08 to 0.10 as a mediocre fit, and values above 0.10 as a poor fit.

Measurement invariance (MI) (Rosseel, 2012) was tested across the different language versions of the SBPQ (note: Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan both used the Russian language version and have been combined for this analysis), and across the two cultural groups. Robust estimates of RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and the SRMR were used for comparing the different models for configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance. Although χ² is reported, we did not place too much weighting on these results, because χ² is sensitive to sample sizes (e.g., Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). RMSEA (ΔRMSEA) should not exceed an increase of more than 0.015 from one invariance model to the next more restrictive one. Furthermore, CFI/TLI values (ΔCFI; ΔTLI) should not exceed a decrease of more than 0.010 from one invariance model to the next more restrictive one. Finally, the SRMR (ΔSRMR) should not exceed an increase of more than 0.030 (for metric invariance) or 0.015 (for scalar or strict invariance) from one invariance model to the next more restrictive one (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). The syntax file, coding file, and covariance matrices for the current paper are available on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/k9dv2/).

Having established measurement invariance in the SBPQ for language and culture, we pursued the second aim of this paper by conducting independent sample t-tests to look for differences in the levels of strength-based parenting rated by young people in collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. The individualistic sample rated their parents higher on strengths knowledge than the collectivistic sample: t[1963] = 3.11, p = 0.002, (individualistic culture M = 5.43 [SD = 1.38]; collectivistic culture M = 5.25 [SD = 1.30]; Cohen’s d of 0.13). In contrast, there was no significant difference between the two cultural groupings on the degree to which youth rated their parents as encouraging them to use and develop their strengths (i.e., strengths use): t[2233] = 0.82, p = 0.412 (individualistic culture M = 5.17 [SD = 1.40]; collectivistic culture M = 5.12 [SD = 1.39]; Cohen’s d of 0.04). Although results suggested a significant difference in strength knowledge, it needs to be pointed out that effect size in terms of Cohen’s d was lower than small (Cohen, 1988), and therefore may not translate to be meaningful cultural differences in the two sub-samples (collectivistic vs. individualistic).

Tests of factorial validity showed an acceptable fit to the data for the two-factor model of strengths knowledge and strengths use, ranging from good to mediocre depending on the country. Good model fit was found when combining all the samples together (robust RMSEA = 0.047; SRMR = 0.022; robust CFI = 0.987; robust TLI = 0.985). Although results in specific samples (e.g., Germany, Peru, Uzbekistan) only show a (close to) mediocre fit to the data, these results suggest future researchers can have confidence about factorial structure when using the SBPQ in the following languages: Chinese, English, German, Indonesian, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish. The Arabic language version (from Israel) needs to be further investigated in a more age-diverse sample to get more information on its psychometrics and possible revisions to be made. With regards to reliability, all statistical tests (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients, McDonald’s Omega coefficients, test–retest coefficients) found a pattern of strong reliability.

As argued by Lomas (2015), positive cross-cultural psychology can improve our understanding of how to build global wellbeing by discovering: (1) the factors that are universal for wellbeing (universalism), (2) the factors that occur only within a cultural context (relativism), and (3) the factors that exist across all countries but are shaped by culture (universal-relativism). We suggest that strength-based parenting is an approach that fits into the ‘universal-relativism’ category. It is universal in that every child and every parent have strengths (Niemiec, 2018). Universality is also seen in research indicating that parents across both collectivistic and individualistic societies endorse the development of strengths for their children (Biswas-Diener, 2006; Park et al., 2006; Ruch et al., 2014). It is relative in that culture may play a role in the ways in which strength-based approaches are enacted and what types of strengths are fostered by parents.

Lomas (2015) positioned family as a ‘universal contextual determinant’ of wellbeing. Helliwell’s 17-year longitudinal study across 46 countries (n = 87,000) found that family relationships are the top ranked factor for predicting wellbeing (Helliwell, 2003; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). It may be that the universal importance of family motivates parents from both collectivistic and individualistic cultures to seek to bring out the best in their children, even if this is perhaps done through differing patterns (authoritarian versus authoritative).

As this study was the first to explore SBP across cultures, we encourage open mindedness to the idea that SBP may also have elements of Lomas’s (2015) ‘cultural-relativism’. For example, because the focus of the current study was on assessing the factor structure of the SBPQ, we took a process approach to examine if the two underlying processes of SBP (knowledge and use) were similar or different across cultures. Results may have changed if we had taken a classification approach and focused on the types of strengths parents seek to build in their children. It could be that parents in collectivistic cultures seek to develop different strengths to those in collectivistic cultures. Perhaps more other-oriented strengths are fostered in collectivistic countries as compared to individualistic cultures where parents may prioritise strengths that foster autonomy. In other words, an investigation of what strengths are developed, rather than how strengths are developed, may produce more cross-cultural differences. This is an interesting area for future research.

There are several limitations that must be considered when drawing conclusions. First, the SBPQ relies on subjective ratings, rather than objective behavioural ratings. As with all subjective ratings, the results can be influenced by several biases including self-confirmation biases and social acceptability. If this is the case, then the scores provided by our samples might be an over-inflation of SBP with children wanting to see, or present, their parents in a good light. Second, we used a cross-sectional design following other researchers conducting psychometric scale evaluations on positive psychology concepts (Butler & Kern, 2016; Major et al., 2018; Prilleltensky et al., 2015), but the nature of this study could well mean the results were specific to this point in time and may not be repeated. That said, there were two exceptions of test–retest designs, which showed adequate cross-time reliability.

The study utilized convenience sampling and participants were not matched to the population characteristics of each nation. Even with this limitation, it can be argued that the samples are suitable for establishing that the SBPQ has a consistent two-factor structure, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability across multiple samples (aim one of this paper). Given the consistent findings that emerged for validity and reliability of the SBPQ across 8 countries (without Israel), the findings may be considered to be reasonably generalisable, despite not using representative samples.

The analysis of measurement invariance across the different language versions of the SBPQ were promising. But some of the results were mixed and further research is needed. While robust RMSEA, SRMR, and robust TLI clearly indicated up to strict invariance, the robust CFI did not fully support this conclusion. The current study compared 7 groups, yet the cut-offs for the evaluation of fit indexes have been developed using studies only comparing 2 or 3 groups (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). Although some evidence is available (Kim et al., 2017; Svetina et al., 2017), knowledge about MI using larger group numbers has been understudied yet. Moreover, the sizes of our country-specific sample varied from n = 753 (Australia) to n = 110 (Uzbekistan)—having various numbers in the various samples did not help to stabilize the results.

The current study focused on the following psychometric indicators: Minima, Maxima, M, SD, skewness, kurtosis, various reliability tests, factorial validity, and measurement invariance (i.e., related to language version and cultural group). Now that the SBPQ shows to be psychometrically sound, future researchers can look to investigate criterion validity, divergent and convergent validity, and present the nomological network.

The use of dyadic designs, with matched parent–child samples, may also prove a fruitful area of research by examining how the interactive pattern within families shapes the level and ways in which strength-based parenting is enacted. Dyad research would also allow researchers to investigate if parent and child agreement (or disagreement) about the levels of SBP influence outcomes such as individual and family-level wellbeing. Longitudinal design that re-test SBP at multiple time points will also prove to be useful in further establishing the validity and reliability of the SBPQ.

A final suggestion for future cross-cultural research into SBP involves increasing the range of cultural dimensions examined. Individualism-collectivism has been the pre-dominant aspect of culture used in the cross-cultural parenting research. However, there are several other cultural dimensions that could well shape strength-based parenting; both the degree/level to which a parent deploys the SBP processes and the types of strengths a parent seeks to cultivate in their children. Examining parenting differences on cultural dimensions such as power distance (degree of hierarchy or equality), masculinity-femininity (degree of competitiveness or co-operation) and indulgence-restrains (encourage gratification and the enjoyment of life versus the importance of self-control) may also be a fruitful inquiry. For example, it may that cultures low on power distance use more of the SBP processes as a way to cultivate equality between themselves and their children. Parents in cultures characterised as higher on femininity may be socialised to value strengths that foster co-operation such as teamwork and social intelligence. Indulgent cultures may influence parenting in ways that see them raising their children with strengths that help them encourage the enjoyment of life such as zest and gratitude, and may downplay the importance of strengths like prudence and self-control.