With the increasing interest in evaluating family therapy, self-reportfamily functioning measures
remain a key method of assessing outcome. This article addresses two issues. First, common
problems associated with self-report family measures are discussed. Second, because source-
books of research instruments often do not provide sufficient information on the validity and
reliability of measures, six commonly used family functioning measures (FACES III, Family
Environment Scale [FES], Family Asessment Device [FAD], Family Assessment Measure
[FAM-III], Index of Family Relations [IFR], and Self-Report Family Inventory [SFI]) are
assessed from the point of view of the adequacy of their psychometric support and practicality
of administration. Recommendations are made regarding the utility of each instrument in light
of its strengths and weaknesses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, S., & Gavazzi, S. (1990). A test of the Olson Circumplex Model: Examining its curvilinear assumption and the presence of extreme typesFamily Process, 29, 309-324.
2.
Beavers, W.R. (1982). Healthy, mid-range, and severely dysfunctional families In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 115-141). New York: Guilford .
3.
Beavers, W.R., & Hampson, R. (1990). Successful families: Assessment and interventionNew York: Norton.
4.
Beavers, W.R., Hampson, R., & Hulgus, Y. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers systems approach to family assessmentFamily Process, 24, 398-405.
5.
Bilbro, T., & Dreyer, A. (1981). A methodological study of a measure of family cohesionFamily Process, 20, 419-427.
6.
Bloom, B. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning, Family Process, 24, 225-239.
7.
Boake, C., & Salmon, P. (1983). Demographic correlates and factor structure of the Family Environment ScaleJournal of Clinical Psychology , 39, 95-100.
8.
Byles, J., Byrne, C., Boyle, M., & Offord, D. (1988). Ontario Child Health Study: Reliability and validity of the General Functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment DeviceFamily Process, 27, 97-104.
9.
Copeland, A., & White, K. (1991). Studying familiesNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Corcoran, K., & Fischer, J. (1987). Measurements for clinical practice: A sourcebookNew York: Free Press.
11.
Daley, J., Sowers-Hoag, K., & Thyer, B. (1989). Are FACES-II "family satisfaction" scores valid?Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 77-81.
12.
Daley, J., Sowers-Hoag, K., & Thyer, B. (1991). Construct validity of the Circumplex Model of Family FunctioningJournal of Social Service Research , 15, 131-147.
13.
DeVellis, R. (1991). Scale developmentNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Doherty, W., & Hovander, D. (1990). Why don't family measures of cohesion and control behave the way they're supposed to?American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 5-18.
15.
Edman, S., Cole, D., & Howard, G. (1990). Convergent and discriminant validity of FACES-III: Family adaptability and cohesionFamily Process , 29, 95-103.
16.
Epstein, N., Baldwin, L., & Bishop, D. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment DeviceJournal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 171-180.
17.
Fisher, L. (1982). Transactional theories but individual assessment: A frequent discrepancy in family researchFamily Process , 21, 313-320.
18.
Forman, B., & Hagan, B. (1983). A comparative review of total family functioning measures. American Journal of Family Therapy , 11 (4), 25-40.
19.
Fowler, P. (1981). Maximum likelihood factor structure of the Family Environment ScaleJournal of Clinical Psychology , 37, 160-164.
20.
Fowler, P. (1982). Factor structure of the Family Environment Scale: Effects of social desirabilityJournal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 284-292.
21.
Fredman, N., & Sherman, R. (1987). Handbook of measurements for marriage and family therapyNew York: Brunner/Mazel .
22.
Green, R. (1987). Self-report measures of family competenceThe American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 163-168.
23.
Green, R. (1989). Choosing family measurement devices for practice and research: SFI and FACES IIISocial Service Review , 63, 304-320.
24.
Green, R., Harris, R., Forte, J., & Robinson, M. (1991a). Evaluating FACES III and the Circumplex model: 2,440 familiesFamily Process, 30, 55-71.
25.
Green, R., Harris, R., Forte, J., & Robinson, M. (1991b). The wives data and FACES IV: Making things appear simpleFamily Process, 30, 79-83.
26.
Green, R., Kolevson, M., & Vosler, N. (1985). The Beavers-Timberlawn Model of Family Functioning and the Circumplex Model of Family Functioning: Separate but equal?Family Process, 24, 385-398.
27.
Halvorsen, J. (1991). Self-report family assessment instruments: An evaluative reviewFamily Practice Research Joumal , 11, 21-55.
28.
Hamilton, M., & Orme, J. (1990). Examining the construct validity of three parenting knowledge measures using LISRELSocial Service Review , 64, 121-143.
29.
Hampson, R., Beavers, R., & Hulgus, Y. (1988). Commentary: Comparing the Beavers and Circumplex Models of Family FunctioningFamily Process , 27, 85-92.
30.
Hudson, W. (1990). The WALMYR Assessment Scales: Scoring manualTempe, AZ: WALMYR.
31.
Hudson, W., Acklin, J., & Bartosh, J. (1980). Assessing discord in family relationshipsSocial Work Research and Abstracts, 16, 21-29.
32.
Jordan, C., Franklin, C., & Corcoran, K. (1993). Standardized measuring instruments In R. Grinnell, Jr. (Ed.), Social work research and evaluation (4thed., pp. 198-220). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
33.
Kabacoff, R., Miller, I., Bishop, D., Epstein, N., & Keitner, G. (1990). A psychometric study of the McMaster Family Assessment Devise in psychiatric, medical, and nonclinical samplesJournal of Family Psychology, 3 , 431-439.
34.
Larsen, A., & Olson, D. (1990). Capturing the complexity of family systems: Integrating family theory, family scores and family analysis In T. Draper & A. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use (pp. 19-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Miller, I., Epstein, N., Bishop, D., & Keitner, G. (1985). The McMaster Family Assessment Devise: Reliability and validityJournal of Marital and Family Therapy , 11, 345-356.
36.
Moos, R. (1990). Conceptual and empirical approaches to developing family-based assessment procedures: Resolving the case of the Family Environment ScaleFamily Process, 29, 199-208.
37.
Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1981). Family Environment Scale: ManualPalo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
38.
Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1983). Clinical applications of the Family Environment Scale In E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 253-273). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
Morris, T. (1990). Culturally sensitive family assessment: An evaluation of the Family Assessment Devise used with Hawaiian-American and Japanese-American familiesFamily Process, 29, 105-116.
40.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nded.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
41.
Olson, D.H. (1989). Circumplex Model of Family Systems VIII: Family assessment and interventionJournal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 4, 7-49.
42.
Olson, D.H. (1991). Commentary: Three dimensional (3-D) Circumplex Model and revised scoring of FACES IIIFamily Process , 30, 74-79.
43.
Olson, D.H., & Killorin, E. (1985). Clinical rating scale for the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family SystemsSt. Paul: University of Minnesota.
44.
Olson, D.H., Russell, C., & Sprenkle, D. (1983). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems VI: Theoretical updateFamily Process , 22, 69-83.
45.
Olson, D.H., Sprenkle, D., & Russell, C. (1979). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems I: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applicationsFamily Process, 18, 3-28.
46.
Pinsof, W.M. (1989). A conceptual framework and methodological criteria for family therapy process researchJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 53-59.
47.
Reiss, D. (1983). Sensory extenders versus meters and predictors: Clarifying strategies for the use of objective tests in family therapyFamily Process, 22, 165-171.
48.
Robertson, D., & Hyde, J. (1982). The factorial validity of the Family Environment ScaleEducational and Psychological Measurement , 42, 1233-1241.
49.
Rodick, J., Henggeler, S., & Hanson, C. (1986). An evaluation of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales and the Circumplex ModelJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77-87.
50.
Roosa, M., & Beals, J. (1990). Measurement issues in family assessment: The case of the Family Environment ScaleFamily Process , 29, 191-198.
51.
Schmid, K., Rosenthal, S., & Brown, E.D. (1988). A comparison of self-report measures of two family dimensions: Control and cohesionAmerican Journal of Family Therapy, 16,73-77.
52.
Sigafoos, A., Reiss, D., Rich, J., & Douglas, E. (1985). Pragmatics in the measurement of family functioning: An interpretive framework for methodologyFamily Process , 24, 189-203.
53.
Skinner, H. (1987). Self-report instruments for family assessment In T. Jacob (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology (pp. 427-452). New York: Plenum .
54.
Skinner, H., Steinhauer, P., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1983). The Family Assessment MeasureCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health , 2, 91-105.
55.
Szinovacz, M. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violenceJournal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 633-644.
56.
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B., & Straus, M. (1990). Handbook offamily measurement techniquesNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
57.
Waldron, R., Sabatelli, R., & Anderson, S. (1990). An examination of the factor structure of the Family Environment ScaleAmerican Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 257-272.
