Parental stress is a construct related to people’s perception of difficulties and feelings of not being able to cope with the demands of parenting. This construct is often experienced as a negative or aversive response to parental obligations, and the available evidence also suggests that excessive parenting stress reduces the use of positive parenting behaviors and are related to dysfunctional parenting. Different instruments exist to assess parental stress. This article is part of a project to translate and adapt the Parenting Stress Index (PSI), fourth edition, in its two forms (full and short). The aim of this research is to identify the psychometric indicators obtained by this instrument and to review the evidence they can provide. Method: Following the PRISMA guide (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), the studies related to the PSI were identified in different databases (ERIC, PsycArticles, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science). Results: The screening process resulted in 16 articles; four have analyzed the psychometric properties of the PSI-4 and the rest have studied the PSI-3. Although version 4 was published in 2012, the studies are scarce. However, they follow the line noted in the previous short version, a high internal consistency and a factor structure of three factors. Conclusions: The difficulties of working with a measurement instrument with 101 items means that the full version of the PSI has been little studied, except in translation and linguistic adaptation studies.

Background/Objectives: Parental stress is caused by the accumulation of difficulties related to raising children and is directly related to the educational functioning of a family and family dysfunction. The PSI (Parental Stress Index) is an assessment instrument and is considered the gold standard for measuring parental stress; however, there is no official Spanish version of this tool. Methods: Both the PSI-4 long form and short form were administered to a sample of 828 parents of children between 0 and 12 years of age. Results: The discrepancy between the scores of the original typification sample and the Spanish sample necessitates the establishment of specific normative values. Regarding internal consistency, test–retest stability, and construct validity, the results demonstrate consistency with the original study and other adaptation studies. The validity of the theoretical structure of the instrument was studied using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA fit indices in the overall PSI-4 LF model (101 items distributed across 13 first-order factors and two second-order factors) are not satisfactory. Therefore, the methodology used by the author in constructing the PSI-4 was employed, which involved performing two exploratory factor analyses (EFA). The domains of both parents and children exhibit partial replication of the theoretical subscales of the PSI-4. The analysis of the short form of the PSI-4 SF (comprising 36 items distributed across three subscales and a total score) yielded results similar to those of the long form. Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for developing specific standards for the Spanish population and conducting criterion validity studies for the clinical use of all dimensions of the PSI-4 in its two forms (LF and SF).