The Circumplex Model and its accompanying measure, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scale III (FACES III), have emerged as the state-of-the-artfaimly assessment instrument
in the field offamily therapy. A number of concerns, however, have been raised about the validity
of the FACES III. In response to these concerns, the FACES III has recently been rescored as a
linear measure, and a 3-D Circumplex Model has been developed. Data from a clinical
adolescent population were used to test the ability of the FACES III to assess the characteristics
of families according to the underlying assumptions of the 3-D Circumplex Model. Resultsfrom
the study indicate that there is some support for the validity of the 3-D Circumplex Model, but
validity problems with the adaptability subscale continue to be a problem for the FACES III.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beavers, W.R., & Hampson, R.B. (1990). Successful families: Assessment and intervention . New York: Norton.
2.
Beavers, W.R., Hampson, R.B., & Hulgus, Y. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers Systems approach to family assessment. Family Process, 24, 398-408.
3.
Beavers, W.R., & Voeller, M.N. (1983). Family models: Comparing and contrasting Olson's Circumplex Model with Beavers Systems Model. Family Process , 22, 85-97.
Daley, J.G., Sowers-Hoag, K.M., & Thyer, B.A. (1990). Are FACES-II "family satisfaction" scores valid?Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 77-81.
6.
Daley, J.G., Sowers-Hoag, K.M., & Thyer, B.A. (1991). Construct validity of the Circumplex Model of family functioning. Journal of Social Service Research, 15(1/2), 131-147.
7.
Epstein, N.B., Baldwin, L.M., & Bishop, D.S. (1982). McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) manual (Version 3. Providence, RI: Brown University/Butler Hospital Family Research Program, Butler Hospital.
8.
Friedman, A.S., Utada, A., & Morrissey, M.R. (1987). Families of adolescent drug abusers are "rigid": Are these families either "disengaged" or "enmeshed," or both?Family Process, 26, 131-148.
9.
Green, R.G. (1989). Choosing family measurement devices for practice and research: SFI and FACES III. Social Service Review, 63, 304-320.
10.
Green, R.G., Harris, R.N., Jr., Forte, J.A., & Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating FACES III and the Circumplex Model: 2,440 families. Family Process, 30, 55-73.
11.
Green, R.G., Kolevzon, M.S., & Vosler, N.R. (1985). The Beaver-Timberlawn Model of family competence and the Circumplex Model of family adaptability and cohesion: Separate, but equal?Family Process, 24, 385-398.
12.
Hampson, R.B., Beavers, W.R., & Hulgus, Y (1988). Commentary: Comparing the Beavers and Circumplex Models of family functioning. Family Process , 27, 85-92.
13.
Hatfield, A.B. (1987). Coping and adaptation: A conceptual framework for understanding families. In A. B. Hatfield & H. P. Lefley (Eds.), Families of the mentally ill (pp 60-84). New York: Guilford.
14.
Inwald, R.E., & Brobst, K.E. (1987). Use of the Hilson Adolescent Profile to compare juvenile offenders with junior and senior high school students. Rader Papers, 3, 9-12.
Johnson, H.C. (1987). Biologically based deficit in the identified client: Indications for psychoeducational strategies. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 337-348.
17.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
18.
Miller, I.S., Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D.S., & Kreitner, G.I. (1985). The McMaster Family Assessment Device: Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 337-356.
19.
Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1986). The Family Environment Scale (FES) manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
20.
Neter, J., & Wasserman, W. (1974). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
21.
Olson, D.H. (1985). Commentary: Struggling with congruence across theoretical models and methods. Family Process, 24, 203-207.
22.
Olson, D.H. (1986). Circumplex Model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process, 25, 337-351.
23.
Olson, D.H. (1989). Circumplex Model of family systems VIII: Family assessment and intervention. In D. H. Olson , C. S. Russell, & D. H. Sprenkle (Eds.), Circumplex Model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New York: Haworth.
24.
Olson, D.H. (1991). Commentary: Three-dimensional (3-D) Circumplex Model and revised scoring of FACES IIIFamily Process, 30, 74-79.
25.
Olson, D.H., Russell, C., & Sprenkle, D. (1989). Faces III manual. St. Paul : Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
26.
Olson, D.H., & Tiesel, J. (1991). FACES III: Linear scoring and interpretation. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota .
27.
Pratt, D.M., & Hansen, J.C. (1987). A test of the curvilinear hypothesis with FACES II and IIIJournal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 387-392.
28.
Rodick, J.D., Henggeler, S.W., & Hanson, C.L. (1986). An evaluation of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales and the Circumplex Model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77-87.
29.
Sigafoos, A., Reiss, D., Rich, J., & Douglas, E. (1985). Pragmatics in the measurement of family functioning: An interpretive framework for methodology. Family Process , 24, 189-203.
30.
Simon, C., McNeil, J.S., Franklin, C., & Cooperman, A. (1991). The family and schizophrenia: Toward a psychoeducational approach. Families in Society, 72, 323-334.
31.
Thomas, V., & Olson, D.H. (1993). Problem families and the Circumplex Model: Observational assessment using the clinical rating scale (CRS. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19, 159-175.
32.
Vega, W.A., Patterson, T., Sallis, J., Nader, P., Atkins, C., & Abramson, I. (1986). Mexican-American and Anglo families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 857-867.
33.
West, J.D., Hosie, T.W., & Matthews, F.N. (1989). Families of academically gifted children: Adaptability and cohesion. School Counselor , 37, 121-127.
34.
Zaks, E., Green, R.J., & Morrow, J. (1988). Comparing lesbian and heterosexual couples on the Circumplex Model: An initial investigation. Family Process , 27, 471-485.
