Bidirectional perspectives on internet-related family communication: Development and validation of the parent–child internet communication scale (PCICS) and associations with problematic internet use
This study developed and validated the Parent–Child Internet Communication Scale (PCICS), a dyadic measure assessing internet-related communication between parents and adolescents. Drawing on parental mediation theory (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008) and Schaefer's (1965) two-dimensional model of parent–child relationships (acceptance–rejection; psychological autonomy–control), items were generated to capture whether internet-related concerns can be openly shared and constructively discussed within the family. Existing measures have focused mainly on mediation behaviors or general communication quality without capturing bidirectional dyadic perceptions. Data were collected from 824 parent–adolescent pairs via a web-based survey in Japan. Factor analyses supported a multidimensional structure: the child version (PCICS-C) yielded two factors (Parental Acceptance, Low Perceived Barriers to Consultation), and the parent version (PCICS-P) yielded three, adding Dialogic Parental Involvement. Metric invariance was confirmed across informants for the two shared subscales, and reliability was satisfactory throughout. Concurrent validity was supported by associations with problematic internet use (PIU) and attachment security. Child-reported low perceived barriers to consultation were negatively associated with PIU, suggesting that adolescents' sense of being able to discuss internet concerns openly may lower PIU risk. Parental acceptance, however, showed weaker associations with adolescent PIU than child reports, suggesting parents' subjective sense of acceptance does not always translate into adolescent-perceived support. These findings underscore the value of assessing internet-related family communication from both perspectives. The PCICS was designed to measure open, bidirectional communication and facilitate constructive family dialogue in intervention contexts; the observed perception gaps illustrate one clinically meaningful application of this dyadic approach.