Cohesion and adaptability have been postulated as underlying dimensions of several models and measures of family systems. The convergent and discriminant validity of the Family Environment Scale, the Family Assessment Device, the Structural Family Interaction Scale, Revised, and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (III) was examined for the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability. The measures were administered to 183 high school seniors and college undergraduates. Correlational and factor analytic results showed that the convergent validity of self-report family measures was stronger than the discriminant validity. A comparative analysis of themes underlying cohesion and adaptability scales is presented and suggestions for future study are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
2.
Carlson, C. and Grotevant, H. (1987). Rejoinder: The challenges of reconciling family theory with method. Journal of Family Psychology, 3(1), 62-65.
3.
Cole, D. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(4), 584-594.
4.
Dickerson, V. C. and Coyne, J. C. (1987). Family cohesion and control: A multitrait-multimethod study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13(3), 275-285.
5.
Epstein, N. , Baldwin, L., and Bishop, D. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171-180.
6.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
7.
Green, R. G. , Kolevzon, M. S., and Vosler, N. R. (1985). The Beavers-Timberlawn Model of family competence and the Circumplex Model of adaptability and cohesion: Separate, but equal?Family Process, 24, 385-398.
8.
Hollingshead, A. and Redlich, F. (1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
9.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods. Mooresville, IN.: Scientific Software.
10.
Kaiser, H. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 182-200.
11.
Kog, E. , Vertommen, H., and Vandereycken, W. (1987). Minuchin's Psychosomatic Family Model revised: A concept-validation study using a multitrait-multimethod approach. Family Process, 26, 235-253.
12.
McCubbin, H. , Needle, R., and Wilson, M. (1985). Adolescent health risk behaviors: Family stress and coping as critical factors. Family Relations, 34, 51-62.
13.
Miller, I. , Epstein, N., Bishop, D., and Keitner, G. (1985). The McMaster Family Assessment Device: Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11(4), 345-356.
14.
Moos, R. H. and Moos, B. W. (1981). Family environment scale and preliminary manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
15.
Nie, N. , Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., and Bent, D. (1975). SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
Olson, D. H. , Portner, J., and Bell, R. (1982). Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. In D. H. Olson, H. I. McCubbin, H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, and M. Wilson (Eds.), Family inventories (pp. 5-25). St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Sciences.
17.
Olson, D. H. , Portner, J., and Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES lll. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Sciences.
18.
Perosa, L. , Hansen, J., and Perosa, S. (1981). The Development of the Structural Family Interaction Scale. Family Therapy, 8(2), 77-90.
19.
Perosa, S. and Perosa, L. (1987). The relationship between family structure, identity status, and coping style. Paper presented at the 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, August.
20.
Sigafoos, A. , Reiss, D., Rich, J., and Douglas, E. (1985). Pragmatics in the measurement of family functioning: An interpretative framework for methodology. Family Process, 24, 189-203.
