Validation of the Overparenting Short-Form Scale with Parents of Early Adolescents: Factorial Structure, Measurement Invariance and Convergent Validity of the OP-SF

Abstract

Background: Overparenting describes a developmentally inappropriate and excessive parental involvement in a child’s life. It is predominantly measured in contemporary research by using emerging adults’ reports. Objective: The current study briefly reports on the adaptation and validation process of the overparenting short-form scale (OP-SF) with parents of early adolescents. The scale is among the sole instruments for evaluating overparenting within a general setting from the parental perspective. However, to date, its structure and psychometric properties remain untested among parents of pre-adults. Method: A cohort of 316 parents, including 159 mothers and 157 fathers (Mage = 44.07, SD = 5.08), provided online assessments regarding their overparenting behaviours, alongside a battery of related parental instruments used for validation. Results: The results showed that the OP-SF with three dimensions (i.e., Anticipatory Problem Solving, Affect Management, and Risk Aversion) fitted the data well, demonstrated measurement invariance across parental gender, had an acceptable internal consistency, and exhibited good convergent validity with several related constructs. Conclusions: Taken together, the 9-item OP-SF is a sound instrument for assessing a unidimensional construct of overparenting when used with parents of early adolescents. The implications for psychiatric and family practices involving parents and adolescents are discussed in depth.

1. Introduction

The concept of overparenting refers to the “enactment of developmentally inappropriate parenting behaviours that often take the form of excessive involvement in decision-making and conflict resolution and delivery of resources to children” ([1], p. 181). This relatively new and distinct parenting form [2], also known as helicopter parenting, has attracted a remarkable amount of empirical attention over the past two decades. Overparenting involves excessive forms of three core parental dimensions: support, control, and problem solving [3]. This form of excessive parental involvement, as evidenced in the research literature, consistently correlates with negative outcomes, particularly among young adults and late adolescents [4,5,6,7]. These include tendencies towards narcissism, substance abuse, extrinsically motivated academic pursuits, academic underachievement, emotional and behavioural challenges (such as depression and anxiety), as well as difficulties in social and relational contexts. Overparenting is believed to hinder the cultivation of the child’s autonomy and the fulfilment of other crucial psychological needs [8], presumably leading to a wide array of negative consequences toward and during emerging adulthood [9]. The realisation of the importance and complexity of overparenting in a variety of descendants’ wellbeing contexts boosted the development of measurement tools of this parental construct, many of which were designed for emerging adults’ self-report on parental behaviour [4,10,11,12,13]. This reflects the premise that a child’s report of perceived overparenting may be more reliable than a parent’s report [14,15], assuming that emerging adults possess a comprehensive understanding of all the behaviours encompassing overparenting and can accurately report them [9]. On the other hand, these researchers maintain that some of the immanent elements of overparenting are exactly those of which the youngster might not necessarily be aware, such as Anticipatory Problem Solving, whereby the parent tries “to stay one step ahead of what my child is doing so that I can help him/her minimise any obstacles…” ([2], p. 243). Thus, the abundant information in the research literature on overparenting predominantly relies upon data stemming from emerging adults’ reports [4,9,16], while lacking empirical data based upon the parental point of view. Furthermore, the body of research on overparenting is, for the most part, confined to older young populations (i.e., late adolescents and especially young adults), with relatively scant empirical evidence regarding younger children and adolescent populations [3,17,18]. This is despite the growing apprehension that overparenting emerges and affects child development much earlier than the emerging adulthood period [5,17,18,19].

Thus, as part of the endeavour to cultivate the research into overparenting in younger children’s populations (i.e., childhood and early to middle adolescence), it is crucial to expand the accessibility and efficiency of measurement abilities designed for assessing this construct from the parental point of view [9]. Evidently, the poor availability of such instruments in the field of overparenting exacerbates the gap in this body of research, resulting in an incomplete or lacking knowledge about the phenomenon’s nature in younger children and adolescents [3,18], whose conception of overparenting practices might be limited. In this regard, previous modest research evidence has shown that overparenting’s manifestation and expression may vary at different developmental stages, partially suggesting that, in certain conditions, this parental form may imitate authoritative parenting or at least be less developmentally detrimental than expected [17,18,20]. Further inspection of this critical issue requires us to optimise our measurement tools, which would allow us to better assess overparenting at early developmental stages. Although extensively documented in existing literature, research on overparenting remains largely reliant on self-reported data from emerging adults [9]. This methodological limitation constrains the understanding of how parents themselves perceive and enact overparenting behaviours, thereby restricting a comprehensive assessment of its manifestations. Furthermore, the predominant focus of empirical studies has been on late adolescence and young adulthood, resulting in a deficiency of research examining overparenting in younger populations [3,17]. This gap is particularly consequential, as overparenting behaviours are likely to emerge much earlier in a child’s development, exerting formative influences well before the transition to adulthood [18,19]. Given these limitations, there is a pressing need for rigorously validated instruments designed to assess overparenting from the parental perspective, enabling a more nuanced and developmentally sensitive understanding of its antecedents and long-term effects. One of the most prominent and widely used measures for assessing overparenting using parental report is the 34-item Overparenting Scale (O-P) [2], which was recently revised and revalidated cross-culturally with emerging adults (OP-SF) [9]. The revised version of the overparenting scale was shortened to 12 items, while retaining the 4-factor structure of the original O-P scale with 3 items each. The revised four-factor scale exhibited an excellent model fit to the data and good psychometric properties, including an adequate reliability index and convergence against the original O-P scale and other theoretically related variables (parent anxiety, perfectionism, child narcissism, family enmeshment, and helicopter parenting). Since the revised scales’ items were extracted from the original scale, which was administrated in its full form to the participants, the authors stated that “the properties of the OP-SF need to be further examined when the scale is administered by itself as opposed to as a subset of items included in the OP-LF” ([9], p. 749). Given the advantages of using a shorter overparenting measure [9,16], expanding its validation is essential, especially with respect to various populations. Further, in line with previous recommendations [18,21], the “Tangible Assistance” subscale (e.g., “I see to it that my child’s financial needs are taken care of”) was omitted from the current short-form scale due to limited relevance of its items’ content for minors living at home with their parents.

2. The Current Study

This study aims to test the psychometric properties of the short form of the overparenting scale (OP-SF) with parents of early adolescents, striving to validate the revised version in the pre-emerging adult population. While a few previous studies have utilised the original form of the overparenting scale [2] for research purposes with children’s and adolescents’ parents [17,18,21], the current study is the first to use the short form of the overparenting scale (i.e., the OP-SF) [9] with parents of adolescents. Its objectives are to (a) adapt the OP-SF to parents of adolescents rather than emerging adults, (b) test the revised scale’s factorial structure and reliability indexes among this group of reference, while (c) verifying its convergence against several external related constructs. This shall expand the original evidence provided for the scale’s convergent validity by the OP-SF developers [9], which may further contribute to strengthening the scale’s validity as an overparenting measure. With regards to study objectives, therefore, this study reports the psychometric properties and validity data for the adapted OP-SF for parents of adolescents, based on a 3-factor structure solution (i.e., three subscales of the revised Overparenting Short-Form Scale: Anticipatory Problem Solving, Affect Management, and Risk Aversion; see Table 1).

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

A cohort of 316 parents, including 159 mothers and 157 fathers, was enlisted for this research study. Their age range spanned from 30 to 58 years (Mean age = 44.07, SD = 5.08). The sample’s parents had at least one early adolescent child (44% girls), aged between 10 and 14 years, for whom they provided assessments regarding their own overparenting behaviours, alongside a battery of related parental variables used for validation (see below). Participants for this study were recruited through IPanel, an Israeli international online research panel specialising in professional survey distribution. Recruitment was conducted with the explicit consent of the panel members, who agreed to participate in the study. The data collection process took place between 2023 and 2024 and utilised IPanel’s nationally representative database of registered parents. Parents who received the online survey link were provided with a detailed explanation of the study’s objectives, methodology, and ethical considerations. Prior to participation, all respondents were required to review and digitally sign an informed consent form. Only after providing their consent did participants proceed to complete the survey, which was administered in an anonymous format to ensure confidentiality and data integrity. The predominant marital status among participants was married (88%), while the remaining portion comprised individuals either divorced or single. On average, families were composed of 4.96 ± 1.46 individuals. The prevailing demographic affiliation among the sample was that of secular Israeli Jews (53.8%), with the remaining participants identifying as either religiously traditional Jews (29.7%) or Israeli religious Jews (16.4%). Methodologically, the study adopted an anonymous battery of questionnaires presented in the Hebrew language, administered digitally through a proficient Israeli survey provider. Participants were recruited via access to an online research portal, facilitating their perusal of pertinent study-related information and elucidation of their rights, including the autonomy to withdraw from the study at their discretion or to avail themselves of the research team’s support in the event of exigent inquiries or unforeseen distress. Digital informed consent was secured from participants, and ethical approval was duly obtained from the institutional review board (IRB) (Ref. number 21-6/2023) of Tel-Hai College.

3.2. Instruments

The instrument used in this study is the Overparenting Scale-Short Form (OP-SF) [9]. The short version of the overparenting is a revised and validated form of the original 34-item Overparenting Scale (O-P) developed by Sergin and colleagues [2]. The short form instrument comprises 12 items based on four core dimensions of overparenting (3 items each composed of the following scales): Anticipatory problem solving (e.g., “If I can see that my child is about to have some difficulty, I will intervene to take care of the situation before things get difficult for him/her”), Affect Management (e.g., “If I see that my child is feeling badly, I try to cheer him/her up”), and Risk Aversion (e.g., “I urge my child to be careful and not take too many risks in life”). Consistent with prior research utilising this instrument with adolescent populations [18,21], the fourth dimension, Tangible Assistance, was omitted from the present study due to its limited relevance to underage individuals residing with their parents (hence, for the current validation purposes of the OP-SF with parents of early adolescents, the scale’s 9 items were used, composing a 3-factor measure). Responses were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The English version of the OP-SF underwent translation and adaptation into Hebrew through a systematic process led by the author and a professional bilingual English translator. Following the three-step back-forward translation method outlined by Van de Vijver and Hambleton [22] for test translation, the process involved initial translation from English to Hebrew, followed by translation from Hebrew back into English, and concluded with translation from English back into Hebrew. Each translation iteration was supervised by a proficient bilingual English translator.

3.3. Validation Constructs

One of the validation constructs used in this study is Parental Overprotection (OP) [23]. The Parental Overprotection Measure (POM) was employed to evaluate self-reported parental overprotective behaviours. Comprising 19 items, this tool assesses parenting actions aimed at restricting a child’s exposure to perceived threats or potential harm. The items are specific, focusing on behaviours or situations rather than general attitudes or beliefs; for instance, inquiries pertain to actions such as keeping a child close during play or shielding them from criticism. Parents rate the extent to which each item reflects their typical response on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much), with higher scores indicating greater levels of parental overprotection. Previous studies have affirmed the reliability and validity of the POM, reporting high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) and test-retest reliability [23]. Moreover, it has demonstrated sound construct and predictive validity when applied to community samples of parents with children aged 7 to 12 years [24]. Statistical information about the scale’s scores appears in Table 2.

Another validation construct used in this study is Parental Autonomy Granting. For the purposes of testing the overparenting scale against another construct, for this study, we also used the parental report form of the autonomy scale taken from the Parenting Style Inventory II (PSI-II) [25,26], which is a 5-item scale measuring aspects of parental autonomy granting in relation to their adolescent children (e.g., “I give my child a lot of freedom”; “I tell my child that my ideas are correct and that they shouldn’t question them”; and the reverse perspective to the latter, “I believe my child has a right to have his/her own point of view”). The scale’s developers have reported a moderate Cronbach’s Alpha index of reliability for the autonomy scale (α = 0.75), while in the current sample, we obtained a borderline reliability index (see Table 2).

Another validation construct assessed in this study is Parental Anxiety. To assess the participants’ level of parental anxiety, we used the “Anxiety about Adolescent Distancing” scale from the Separation Anxiety Scale (PASAS) [27]. This 21-item scale measures mothers’ separation anxiety and discomfort about being away from their adolescent child (e.g., “I worry that my teenager won’t be completely comfortable in an unfamiliar setting if I am not with him/her”). This scale was validated against insecure attachment with the parent and lower family cohesion, reflecting parents’ “reluctance to relinquish control and denial of young persons’ autonomy needs and self-functioning ([27], p. 294). Participants give their answers on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores reflecting higher parental anxiety. Statistical information and psychometric data regarding the current scale appear in Table 2.

4. Results

This section provides a concise overview of various validation techniques intended to assess the psychometric properties of the Hebrew version of the Overparenting Scale-Short Form (OP-SF) for application with early adolescents. Initially, it discusses the examination of the scale’s fit to the data through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), along with confirming its measurement invariance across parental gender. The current section also provides the scale’s psychometric properties and describes the statistical data of the OP-SF scales. Following Jiao and Segrin’s original validation work on the OP-SF [9], the scores obtained in the current sample were also tested against valid instruments designed for parental reports, further establishing its convergence with external parental scales.

4.1. Psychometric Properties

4.1.1. Testing OP-SF Factorial Structure Using CFA

After confirming that the sample meets the minimal standards for performing a factor analysis using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sample size adequacy (KMO = 0.792) [28] and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ²(28) = 854.38, p < 0.001) [29], we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis for the 3-factor OP-SF scale (i.e., Anticipatory Problem Solving, Affect Management, and Risk Aversion; see Figure 1). The three items referring to “Tangible Assistance”, the fourth original scale, were not included in this analysis due to their limited relevance for minors living at home with parents [18,21]. All the scales’ items of the model (i.e., latent variables’ indicators) were retained, as the minimal factor loadings approached 0.50 and maximal factor loadings exceeded 0.80 (which is consistent with the data reported for the original OP-SF scale by Jiao and Segrin [9]).

As can be seen from Table 1, both the unmodified and the modified (covariating e1 and e6) models yielded an acceptable fit to the data, with its CFI and GFI approaching and exceeding 0.95 (respectively), the NFI value exceeding 0.90, and the SRMR falling below the value of 0.80 [30,31,32]. Subject to the borderline value of the RMSEA index (which in the unmodified model failed to reach the cut-off value of 0.80), the amalgamation with all other indices suggests an acceptable fit for the 3-factor scale of the OP-SF when used with parents of early adolescent children.

Table 1. Goodness-of-fit indexes for the 3-factor Overparenting Scale-Short Form (OP-SF) with and without model modification.

Model	Items	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	NFI	CFI	GFI
Unmodified	9	84.72 *	24	3.53	0.090 (0.069, 0.111)	0.068	0.902	0.927	0.950
Modified 1	9	66.88 *	23	2.91	0.078 (0.056, 0.100)	0.066	0.923	0.950	0.960

Note: χ² Chi-square, df degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation; SRMR standardised root mean square residual, NFI Normed Fit Index, CFI comparative fit index, GFI Goodness of fit index. * p < 0.001. ¹ Variables e1 and e6 are covariated.

Table 1. Goodness-of-fit indexes for the 3-factor Overparenting Scale-Short Form (OP-SF) with and without model modification.

Model	Items	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	NFI	CFI	GFI
Unmodified	9	84.72 *	24	3.53	0.090 (0.069, 0.111)	0.068	0.902	0.927	0.950
Modified 1	9	66.88 *	23	2.91	0.078 (0.056, 0.100)	0.066	0.923	0.950	0.960

Note: χ² Chi-square, df degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation; SRMR standardised root mean square residual, NFI Normed Fit Index, CFI comparative fit index, GFI Goodness of fit index. * p < 0.001. ¹ Variables e1 and e6 are covariated.

4.1.2. Measurement Invariance Across Parental Gender

Measurement invariance across the parents’ gender of the OP-SF was tested using multiple group analysis by dividing the full sample of respondents into two subgroups of 157 fathers and 159 mothers. The multiple group model yielded acceptable fit indices (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.914; goodness of fit [GFI] = 0.926; root mean square of error approximation [RMSEA] = 0.069), affirming configural invariance across parental gender [33]. Metric invariance (i.e., equality in factor loadings across gender) was also obtained, with the model comparison of the multigroup analysis yielding insignificant Chi-square differences between the unconstrained model and the model containing factor loadings (Δ χ²(6) = 7.18. p = 0.31). Finally, Scalar invariance was recorded using the cutoffs established by Putnick and Bornstein [33] for the reduction in model fit indices (i.e., ΔCFI < 0.02, ΔRMSEA < 0.015) between the models constraining factor loadings (metric) and intercepts (scalar). These cutoffs were approximately met for both indices in question, with the ΔCFI = 0.02 and ΔRMSEA = 0.002. Taken together, the findings suggest that the 3-factor model of the OP-SF (in terms of path coefficients and means) can be safely compared across mothers and fathers of early adolescents.

4.1.3. Convergent Validity and Scale Reliability of the OP-SF

To examine the convergent validity of the OP-SF, zero-order correlations were calculated between the OP-SF and theoretically related constructs (i.e., parental overprotection, parental control vs. autonomy granting, and parental anxiety). As shown in Table 2, the OP-SF scores were significantly (positively and negatively) correlated with all the theoretically related constructs.

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alphas (α) for Theoretically Related Constructs and Bivariate Correlations with OP-SF.

	Parental Overprotection	Parental Autonomy Granting	Parental Anxiety
Cronbach’s alpha (α)	0.91	0.60	0.90
Correlation with OP-SF	0.61 *	−0.22 *	0.39 *

* p < 0.001.

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alphas (α) for Theoretically Related Constructs and Bivariate Correlations with OP-SF.

	Parental Overprotection	Parental Autonomy Granting	Parental Anxiety
Cronbach’s alpha (α)	0.91	0.60	0.90
Correlation with OP-SF	0.61 *	−0.22 *	0.39 *

* p < 0.001.

4.2. Item Descriptions and Scale’s Internal Consistency Reliability

Table 3. OP-SF items and descriptive statistics (N = 316).

Item Number and Abbreviation	Mean	SD	Cronbach’s α
Anticipatory Problem Solving 1-1. If I can see that my child is about to have some difficulty…	2.79	0.86	α = 0.83
1-2. I try to anticipate things that will prevent my child from…	2.90	0.97
1-3. I try to stay one step ahead of what my child is doing… Affect Management	2.82	0.99	α = 0.65
2-1. If I see that my child is feeling bad, I try…	4.41	0.62
2-2. When my child gets anxious, I will…	4.38	0.69
2-3. When times get tough for my child, I talk… Risk Aversion	4.17	0.66	α = 0.60
4-1. I urge my child to be careful and not take too…	3.45	0.93
4-2. I do what I can to protect my child from…	4.20	0.78
4-3. I do what I can to keep my child out of…	3.21	1.01

Note. The item response scale ranges between 1 and 5 (from strongly disagree to strongly agree).

displays the data obtained for the OP-SF scales in the current study, including means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s α coefficients. For both parents, an adequate internal consistency reliability was recorded for the overall scale, with slightly better coefficients for fathers (α = 0.82) than for mothers (α = 0.73). The sample’s total reliability coefficient was 0.78, which is generally consistent with the data reported for the original OP-SF scale [9]. Given the low number of items included in each of the OP-SF subscales (see Table 3), we recorded an acceptable internal consistency coefficient for subscales number 2 (i.e., Affect Management) and 3 (i.e., Risk Aversion) and a good reliability coefficient for subscale number 1 (i.e., Anticipatory Problem Solving).

5. Discussion

The present study aimed to provide a brief validation report on the factorial structure and psychometric properties of the short form of the overparenting scale (OP-SF) [9] when used with parents of early adolescents. To that end, we translated the OP-SF into Hebrew and omitted its subscale of “Tangible Assistance”, whose contents have very restricted pertinence for minors living at home with their parents [18,21]. The results showed that the OP-SF with three dimensions (i.e., Anticipatory Problem Solving, Affect Management, and Risk Aversion) fitted well to the data, demonstrated measurement invariance across parental gender, had an acceptable internal consistency, and exhibited good convergent validity to several related constructs. The study provides preliminary evidence for the scale’s validity as an overparenting instrument for the usage of parents of adolescents. Its merits stem from the fact that the majority of overparenting scales are designed for young adults’ self-report [4,9,16], which might exacerbate the already deficient overparenting research on children and adolescents. The need to establish more valid and sustainable measurement of the overparenting of children and adolescents stems from the burgeoning awareness that the phenomenon can manifest and impact child development well before the onset of emerging adulthood [5,17,19], perhaps even distinctively [18].

Despite an adequate overall internal consistency reliability recorded in the current sample, both for mothers’ and fathers’ reports, consistent with the data reported in Jiao and Segrin’s validation study for the OP-SF [9], two of the subscales’ reliability coefficients were under the threshold of 0.70 recommended by Smith [34]. Consequently, this requires using the OP-SF for research purposes as a unidimensional scale [9]. Based on the current 9-item form unidimensional overparenting scale, we found here a compelling convergence with other theoretically related parental constructs (i.e., overprotection, autonomy granting, and parental anxiety), which broadens and reinforces the convergent validity evidence (i.e., against anxiety, perfectionism, family enmeshment, and helicopter parenting) demonstrated in the original validation process of the OP-SF [9]. In the current study, we used only the items of the short form of the overparenting scale (as advised by these developers for further validation purposes). However, further validation of the current form with parents of adolescents requires examining its convergence with the original long-form overparenting scale (OP-LF) [2] as performed in the original validation study of the OP-SF. In addition to the measurement invariance evidence across cultures demonstrated in Jiao and Segrin’s validation study [9], the current study also provides evidence for measurement equality between mothers and fathers of early adolescents. Future studies, however, should collect more data on measurement invariance across gender in parents of children and adolescents of wider age ranges.

The present findings align with and extend previous literature emphasising the need for robust measurement tools in overparenting research [4,9,16]. Prior studies have primarily relied on self-reports from emerging adults, which may not fully capture the parental perspective, particularly regarding behaviours that children may not consciously perceive [9]. By demonstrating the OP-SF’s applicability for parents of early adolescents, this study contributes to bridging the existing gap in overparenting research, complementing findings on the developmental implications of excessive parental involvement in earlier stages of childhood [5,19]. Furthermore, our results reinforce the psychometric properties of the OP-SF, as previously validated with emerging adults [9], by confirming its reliability and measurement invariance across parental gender.

Given the acute shortage in valid tools assessing overparenting from the parents’ perspective [4,9,16], the current findings offer a fair yet vital expansion possibility for the utilisation of OP-SF with parents of emerging adults. Subject to the limitations abovementioned, the scale’s usage with parents of early adolescents offers a methodologically sound and effective measurement, as reflected by acceptable model-fit and reliability indexes for the 3-dimensional and unidimensional models (respectively), and measurement which is invariant in principle across parental gender. As a parental report measure, not only can it provide “behind the scenes” perspectives of overparenting, which exceeds the child’s awareness [9], but the practical methodological benefits of the current OP-SF might also boost future research to compensate for the poor empirical information on overparenting in children and adolescents [3,17].

Beyond methodological contributions, the study also extends theoretical discourse on the developmental emergence and impact of overparenting. The findings resonate with previous research indicating that overparenting begins to manifest in early developmental stages [5,17,18,19], suggesting the necessity for age-specific assessment tools. Additionally, the convergence of OP-SF scores with related constructs, such as overprotection, autonomy granting, and parental anxiety, supports prior claims regarding the interrelated nature of these parenting dimensions and characteristics [9].

Conclusions and Clinical Implications

The present study provides preliminary validation of the Hebrew-translated, short-form Overparenting Scale (OP-SF) for use with parents of early adolescents. Our findings support the factorial structure, measurement invariance across parental gender, and acceptable internal consistency of the three-dimensional model, although two subscale reliabilities fell below the conventional threshold. Given the demonstrated convergent validity with related constructs such as overprotection, autonomy granting, and parental anxiety, the OP-SF emerges as a promising tool for assessing overparenting behaviours from the parental perspective.

The findings of this study have important implications for psychiatry and diagnostic practices in family therapy, particularly in cases where families are engaged in mental health interventions for adolescent psychopathology. By providing a validated measure of overparenting from the parental perspective, the OP-SF offers clinicians a valuable and useful tool for assessing maladaptive parenting behaviours that may contribute to anxiety, autonomy deficits, and other developmental challenges in adolescents. The ability to screen overparenting within clinical assessments enhances diagnostic practice, facilitating therapeutic interventions aimed at fostering healthier parent-child dynamics. Moreover, as overparenting has been linked to increased risk for internalising and externalising disorders in offspring, integrating the OP-SF into psychiatric evaluations can help identify and tackle familial dynamics that might contribute to adolescents’ behavioural and emotional difficulties in the home and the educational environments.