Group Title: psychometric study of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales
Title: A psychometric study of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102805/00001
 Material Information
Title: A psychometric study of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Alexander, Barrie Byrnes, 1953-
Copyright Date: 1982
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00102805
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 09291431
ltuf - ABU5932

Full Text














A PSYCHOMETRIC STUDY OF THE FAMILY ADAPTABILITY
AND COHESION EVALUATION SCALES














BY

BARRIE BYRNES ALEXANDER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1982
















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Ths list of individuals who helped to one degree or

another with this project numbers near 1,000. Each person

who took the time to fill out a long questionnaire for me

will never get a personal thank you so this must suffice.

Then there are the hard workers in the lab who know

that the work and frustration they experienced cannot be

adequately repaid with this simple thank you. Marika

Spevack did an excellent job of helping to organize and mo-

tivate us all.

Similarly, Nan Hucker and her colleagues at the Uni-

versity Hospital's Community Mental Health Center in Jack-

sonville were wonderful about collecting data on the fam-

ilies seen in therapy there and Abe Spevack helpfully trans-

ported it back to Gainesville.

The psychology interns at Shands Teaching Hospital also

took time from their busy routines to ask their patients to

help. The staff of P.K. Yonge Lab School also were inval-

uable.

Randy Carter spent many long hours helping me interpret

factor analyses as well as initially helping me to concep-

tualize the project.











Ellen Amatea pointed me in the direction of helpful

reading material.

My husband Scott kept his head when I was losing mine

and provided me with lots of love and stability.

The American Association of University Women gave me

a fellowship which made this year much easier and gave me

confidence in the project too.

Last but most, Dr. Suzanne Johnson was with me every

step of the way. I've learned most of what I know about

research from her and I don't think I could have had a bet-

ter teacher or friend.


iii

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . .

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . .


CHAPTER


I MODELS OF THE FAMILY . .
Introduction . . . .
The Structural Model . .
The Circumplex Model . .

II FAMILY MEASUREMENT . .
Family Functioning Index .
Family Environment Scale .
The Family Adaptability and
Evaluation Scales . .

III PILOT STUDY . . .
Method . . . . .
Results . . . .

IV FACES-R STUDY . . .

Method . . . . .
Procedure . . . .
Measures . . . . .

V RESULTS OF FACES-R STUDY

Sample Characteristics
Reliability of the scales
Independence of the Scales
Norms . . . . .
Validity . . . . .


Cohesion
* . .


VI ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE THE FACES-R SCALES
Item Analysis and Further Factor
Analysis . . . . . . .

VII DISCUSSION . . . . . . .













Page

APPENDIX

A PILOT STUDY REVISED ITEMS . . . .. .66

B FACES-R QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . .. .73

C AUXILIARY FORMS . . . . . ... .83

D ITEM NUMBERS AND FACTOR LOADINGS . .. 87


REFERENCE NOTES . . . . . . . .. 91

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . ... .92

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............... 95















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy


A PSYCHOMETRIC STUDY OF THE FAMILY ADAPTABILITY
AND COHESION EVALUATION SCALES

By

Barrie Byrnes Alexander

August, 1982


Chairwoman: Suzanne Johnson, Ph.D.
Major Department: Clinical Psychology


The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales,

a measure of family functioning derived from the theory of

structural family therapy, contains three scales: cohesion,

adaptability and social desirability. These were slightly

modified, based on data from a pilot study, in order to make

them easier to read. The modified questionnaire (FACES-R)

was then administered to members of 206 non-clinic families

and 42 families being seen in a mental health clinic.

The psychometric properties of the three scales were

then examined. Sample characteristics, scale reliability

and validity, and the normative properties of the scales

were discussed. Comparisons with other studies were done

where data were available.

Support for the scales was found in high alpha coeffi-

cients of reliability and the similarity of the present











sample means and standard deviations to those of two other

samples. Intercorrelations between family members' scores

also moderately supported the reliability of the cohesion

but not the adaptability scale. Factor analyses of the

scales did not replicate that done by either Olson et al.

or Portner but did fit with the Circumplex Model since each

scale factored with one bipolar factor. The validity of the

scales was not supported.

The adaptability and cohesion scales correlated signif-

icantly with each other and cohesion correlated significantly

with social desirability. Therapists' ratings also did not

correlate with the scale scores. An analysis of covariance

controlling for SES found no effect for SES and no differ-

ences between groups on cohesion or adaptability. There were

group differences for social desirability. While chi'square

analyses of group differences lend minimal support for the

cohesion and social desirability scales' ability to discrim-

inate between the clinic and non-clinic groups, factor analy-

ses suggest that these differences are due only to social de-

sirability.

Attempts to improve the scales were made with results

consistently indicating that the only dimension being tapped

by the FACES-R scales is social desirability. Implications

of these findings were discussed in light of the Circumplex

Model.


vii















CHAPTER I
MODELS OF THE FAMILY



Introduction


In the past, the primary focus of investigators inter-

ested in assessing psychopathology was the individual and

his personality "traits" which were thought of as invariant.

The advent of behaviorism, however, made psychologists aware

of the impact of a person's environment and the possibility

of interaction effects between the individual and his envi-

ronment. Thus, there has been a shift in attention from the

individual to the larger interpersonal context in which the

person functions. This has resulted in a large number of

clinicians and researchers focusing on the family as being

or primary importance. Most family investigators feel that

there are family patterns and processes crucial to under-

standing the development of pathology within individual fam-

ily members. It is the belief of a number of the theorists,

researchers and therapists that the family is a basic unit

of psychopathology. This new focus has resulted in a size-

able body of literature concerned with family functioning

which seeks to identify the family "types" comprising healthy

and unhealthy systems. Unfortunately, most of the research

with couples and families has not tested hypotheses that are












considered therapeutically relevant (Olson, Russell, &

Sprenkle, 1980). Additionally, most of the outcome studies

of family therapy have not been theoretically based (Gurman

& Kniskern, 1978). Integration of research, theory and

practice has rarely been attempted. Reviewers of family in-

teraction research (Jacob, 1975; Riskin & Faunce, 1972) and

of family therapy outcome studies (DeWitt, 1978; Masten,

1979; Wells & Dezen, 1978; Wells, Dilkes, & Trivelli, 1972)

agree, however, that methodological problems, including the

lack of reliable and valid measurement, have prevented both

researchers and family therapists from adequately assessing

both their hypotheses and treatment efforts. This lack of

adequate methodology has had a part in preventing the inte-

gration of theory and research to bring about advances in

therapeutic techniques. Therapists do not engage in objec-

tive diagnostic evaluations because there is a scarcity of

techniques that have been adequately tested or validated

that also yield useful information (Cromwell, Olson, & Four-

nier, 1976).

The following is a brief discussion of two models of the

family that have influenced the work of family therapists in

recent years. The Structural Model (Minuchin, Rosman, &

Baker, 1978), and the Circumplex Model (Olson, Sprenkle, &

Russell, 1979) have both evolved from a systems perspective

influenced a great deal by the work of Von Bertalanffy

(1968).












The Structural Model


This model of family intervention has been most com-

pletely developed by Salvador Minuchin and his colleagues

at the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic. Here the focus

of intervention is the structural patterns that are malad-

aptive for the system. Structure in healthy families is

thought to be hierarchical yet flexible, with the parents

allied at the top of the hierarchy. Analysis of the family

structure consists of examining the patterns of alliances

or coalitions between members and their "rules" governing

boundaries. For example, there are four transactional pat-

terns felt to be characteristic of a family process that en-

courages somatization (Minuchin et al., 1978). These are

enmeshment, overprotectiveness, rigidity and lack of conflict

resolution. Enmeshment refers to a condition where subsys-

tem boundaries (e.g., the spouse relationship) are poorly dif-

ferentiated, weak and easily crossed by other family members.

Overprotectiveness is a high degree of concern for each oth-

er's welfare to the extent that nurturant acts are constantly

elicited and provided. Rigid families are those in which

very little change in transactional patterns occurs despite

the ineffectiveness of existing ones. Lack of conflict res-

olution does not mean that conflict does not exist but

rather that the family avoids or diffuses conflict, often

at the expense of the symptomatic individual.










Minuchin et al. (1978) have done some work to test this

model with diabetics and anorectics. They used two behav-

ioral measures, a Diagnostic Interview and a Family Task,

with various target behaviors operationally defined. Unfor-

tunately, these measurement devices have not been published

and it is unclear whether there is any support for their re-

liability or validity. It is thus impossible to evaluate

objectively Minuchin's claim that the Structural Model is

supported by research findings.



The Circumplex Model


This model, developed by Olson et al. (1979, 1980), hy-

pothesizes that cohesion and adaptability are two indepen-

dent dimensions underlying family functioning which emerge

through an "inductive conceptual clustering" from a survey

of the family literature across all disciplines (Olson et

al., 1979). Family cohesion is defined by two components:

the emotional bonding members have with one another and the

degree of individual autonomy a person experiences in the

family system. Enmeshment and disengagement (used as in

Minuchin's model) are seen as two extremes of cohesion with

a balance of cohesion being the most conducive to effective

family functioning. Table 1 shows the large number of fam-

ily therapists who have found cohesion or similar dimensions

to be relevant to their work.







Table 1
Family Cohesion Dimension: Related Theoretical


Concepts


Extremely Low Cohesion Balanced Cohesion Extremely High Cohesion


Bowen


Emotional divorce


Hans and Handel
Kantor and Lehr
Litz
Minuchin

Olson






Reiss


Rosenblatt
Scott and
Askworth
Steirlin



Vogel and Bell
Wynne


Differentiated
self


Separateness


Schism, Skew
Rigid boundaries
disengagement
Low connectedness

Independence
Rigid boundaries

Weak coalitions
Interpersonal-dis-
tance sensitive
Apartness



Expelling
Centrifugal force


Scapegoating
Pseudo-hostility


Clear boundaries


Separate connect-
edness
Interdependence
Clear individual
boundaries
Marital coalition
Environment-sen-
sitive





Centripetal and
Centrifugal bal-
ance


Mutuality


Undifferentiated family
ego mass; emotional fu-
sion
Connectedness
Bounding


Diffuse boundaries
Enmeshment
High connectedness

Dependence
Diffuse boundaries

Parent-child coalition
Consensus-sensitive


Togetherness
Extra-ordinary mutual
involvement
Binding
Centripetal force


Pseudo-mutuality
Rubber fence


Source: Olson et al., 1979, p. 7.










Family adaptability is "the ability of a marital/family

system to change its power structure, role relationships and

relationship rules in response to situational and developmen-

tal stress" (Olson et al., Note 3, p. 2). Rigid families

(again the concepts are similar to Minuchin's) are seen as

one extreme while chaotic families comprise the other.

Healthy families are thought to show a balance between change

and stability.

Adaptability and cohesion have been conceptually linked

in the Circumplex Model of Figure 1. From this, 16 possible

family types emerge with the four center ones representing

healthy families and the perimeter, unhealthy.

After this model was developed, it was discovered that

Angell (1936) had developed similar dimensions he called fam-

ily integration and family adaptability. Dividing families

into high, medium and low categories on these two dimensions,

he formed nine types of families, or which he located eight

in his work from case records (Angell, 1936).

The theoretical validity of the Circumplex Model is sup-

ported by a large number of studies that find cohesion and

adaptability to be important concepts related to family func-

tioning (Olson et al., 1980). Research testing the model di-

rectly has not been extensive, but there are a few studies

cited by Olson et al. (1980) as supporting the model's valid-

ity (Russell, 1979, Sprenkle & Olson, 1978).

These can each be criticized on methodological grounds,

















Low COHESION High


Separated Connected Enmeshed


Chaoticall
Disengag
Chaotically
Separated





Flexibly lexibly
Disengaged Separated


St ucturally
S parated

Structurally
Disengaged



Rigidly
Rigidly Separated
isengaged


Modified from
Source: Olson et al., 1979, p. 17


u Chaoticall
Enmeshed
Chaotically
Connected





Flexibly \ Flexibly
Connected \ Enmeshed

Structural y
Connecte

Structurally
Enmeshed )



Rigidly
Connected Rigidly
Enmeshe


Figure 1
Sixteen Possible Types of Marital and Family Systems
Derived from the Circumplex Model


Disengaged


L












particularly measurement and data analysis issues and must

be viewed as preliminary attempts to verify the model.

In summary, these two systems models presently have much

influence on the work of practicing family therapists. Stu-

dents are being trained in family therapy based on these mod-

els, yet there has been little attention to developing mea-

sures adequate for evaluating either model. The tendency has

been to attempt to "prove" the model through the use of woe-

fully inadequate measurement.















CHAPTER II
FAMILY MEASUREMENT



Along with the shift in attention from the individual

to his larger interpersonal context came the problem of as-

sessing him in that context. Attempts have ranged from us-

ing tests designed for individual diagnosis (e.g., Thematic

Apperception Test, TAT) with each family member and synthe-

sizing the information into a "family TAT," to tests, both

behavioral and self-report, designed specifically for assess-

ing family interactions. Cromwell, Olson and Fournier (1976)

compiled a catalogue of the various instruments that have

been used in diagnosing families. Within the self-report

measures a number of relationship tests have been developed.

These assess marital relationships, family and marital prob-

lems and a variety of parent-child interactions. The advan-

tage of this type of test is its potential of yielding in-

sight quickly and objectively into the interpersonal behavior

between family members. Three tests have been selected for

discussion here, because more data have accumulated concern-

ing their reliability, validity and general utility in work

with families than with most family instruments. The Family

Functioning Index (FFI) and the Family Environment Scale

(FES) are included to give the reader a flavor of the range

of concepts that researchers have attempted to measure and










the limitations encountered. The third instrument, the Fam-

ily Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES), is

the one studied in the present report.



Family Functioning Index


Pless and Satterwhite (1973) developed the Family Func-

tioning Index for use by medical doctors to index families

requiring further attention. It is not meant to precisely

measure the family's problems; by definition it is a global

measure. The original 16 questions were chosen based on both

theoretical and empirical considerations. Mothers of 300

school age children (part of a 1% random sample of all fam-

ilies in one county in New York) completed the questionnaire.

Two-hundred nine of these children had chronic physical dis-

orders; the remainder were healthy.

Factor analysis of the parents' answers yielded five

principal components: communication, togetherness, close-

ness, decision making and child orientation. These compo-

nents were never used to modify the instrument into sub-

scales to measure the individual concepts, probably due to

the small number of items. Examining the factors, however,

one can see that togetherness, closeness and decision mak-

ing might be related to the models discussed earlier, par-

ticularly the dimension of "cohesion."

Reliability of the instrument is suggested by a .72

correlation between the independently obtained scores of












husbands and wives. Families seeking counseling rated as

low functioning by case workers showed more agreement be-

tween spouses' scores (r=.74) than those ranked high func-

tioning (r=.41) (Pless & Satterwhite, 1973). Good five year

test retest reliability has been reported for the total

score (Satterwhite et al., 1976).

Validity of the index was assessed by comparing scores

of new registrants at a community counseling agency with rat-

ings of social workers. Mothers' (n=43) FFI scores corre-

lated .48 (p<.01) with the social workers' ratings, while

fathers (n=39) correlated .35 (p<.01) (Pless & Satterwhite,

1973). The index has differentiated families seeking assis-

tance from a counseling agency from those seeking no assis-

tance (Pless & Satterwhite, 1973). Pless, Roghman and Hag-

gerty (1972) found children from low functioning families

were described as having more behavior problems and lower

self-esteem than those from high functioning families.

Korsch et al. (1978) reported that aspects of the FFE were

predictive of non-compliant behavior among children with

renal transplants.

These studies suggest that this 16 item questionnaire

may be useful in yielding a total score of family function-

ing. Its length makes it a useful screening device, but its

global nature limits its utility for the therapist inter-

ested in specific areas of deficit.












Family Environment Scale


Rudolf Moos developed the Family Environment Scale to

assess the social climates of all types of families (Moos,

1974). The items were constructed so that they were worded

in a manner congruent with Moos' theory of Environmental

Press. Each item had to identify characteristics of an en-

vironment which would exert a press toward cohesion,

achievement or moral-religious emphasis. The focus of the

measure is in three areas: interpersonal relationships

among family members, the directions of personal growth em-

phasized in the family and the basic organizational struc-

ture of the family. Table 2 lists the dimension to which

each of the ten subscales belongs along with their defining

qualities. As can be seen from Table 2, the dimensions

tapped by the FES, particularly scales four through ten,

are descriptors rather than interaction measures. Moos has

used the FES in preliminary attempts to obtain family pro-

files similar to MMPI profiles (Moos & Moos, 1976).

The 90 true-false statements which comprise the FES were

selected and grouped into the ten subscales using the fol-

lowing criteria: (1) The overall item split should be as

close to 50-50 as possible to avoid items characteristic of

only extreme families. (2) Items should correlate more

highly with their own than any other subscale. (3) Each of

the subscales should have an approximately equal number of

items scored true and false to control for acquiescence










Table 2
Family Environment Scale Subscale Descriptions


1. Cohesion



2. Expressiveness


3. Conflict






4. Independence



5. Achievement
Orientation


6. Intellectual-
Cultural
Orientation
7. Active
Recreational
Orientation
8. Moral-
Religious
Emphasis


9. Organization


Relationship Dimensions
The extent to which family members are
concerned and committed to the family
and the degree to which family members
are helpful and supportive of each other.
The extent to which family members are
allowed and encouraged to act openly and
to express their feelings directly.
The extent to which the open expression
of anger and aggression and generally
conflictual interactions are character-
istic of the family.

Personal Growth Dimensions
The extent to which family members are
encouraged to be assertive, self-suffi-
cient, to make their own decisions and
to think things out for themselves.
The extent to which different types of
activities (i.e., school and work) are
cast into an achievement oriented or
competitive framework.
The extent to which the family is con-
cerned about political, social, intel-
lectual and cultural activities.
The extent to which the family partic-
ipates actively in various kinds of
recreational and sporting activities.
The extent to which the family actively
discusses and emphasizes ethical and
religious issues and values.

System Maintenance Dimensions
Measures how important order and organ-
ization is in the family in terms of
structuring the family activities, fi-
nancial planning, and explicitness and
clarity in regard to family rules and
responsibilities.


10. Control Assesses the extent to which the family
is organized in a hierarchical manner,
the rigidity of family rules and proce-
dures and the extent to which family
members order each other around.
Source: Moos, R. and Moos, B., 1976, p. 360.










response set. (4) The final subscales should show only low

to moderate intercorrelations. (5) Each item and subscale

had to maximally discriminate among families (Moos, 1976).

The FES was given to 285 families (1,000 individuals) of

various sizes primarily from upper and middle income levels.

Unfortunately, the data employed for item selection and sub-

scale construction were obtained from this same sample so

that the subscale dimensions were never independently con-

firmed. Despite the factor analytic rationale for item se-

lection given above, Moos never factor analyzed his data

(Robertson & Hyde, Note 1).

The ten subscales have been found to show adequate in-

ternal consistency (.64 to 179) and good eight week test-re-

test reliability (.68 to .86) and have an average intercor-

relation of .20, indicating they measure distinct though

somewhat related aspects of the family environment (Moos,

n.d.).

A comparison between 42 clinic families and 42 "normal"

families matched for size and composition showed the clinic

families obtaining significantly lower scores on cohesion,

intellectual-cultural orientation and active-recreational

orientation. This provides some support for the construct

validity of the FES (Moos, 1974). However, Janes and Hessel-

brock (Note 2) found that four of the ten scales correlated

significantly with the Personal Reaction Inventory measure

of social desirability.










Robertson and Hyde (Note 1) performed an orthogonal fac-

tor analysis on responses from half their sample of 686

freshmen and sophomore high school students. Their data in-

dicated that Moos' subscales did not adequately represent

the dimensions of the FES. They found an eight factor solu-

tion the best but one factor was uninterpretable. Their re-

formulated scales are 1. Group Cohesion (13 items, over-

laps Moos' cohesion scale but not exactly), 2. Conflict (7

items), 3. Activities (8 items), 4. Structure (7 items), 5.

Protestant Ethic (13 items), 6. Religion (5 items), 7. Ver-

bal-Intellectual Orientation (10 items). Using these seven

scales, they replicated using the rest of their sample and

found that Group Cohesion, Conflict, Structure and Religion

replicated very well while the other three replicated mod-

erately well. These seven subscales were found to be inter-

nally consistent (.48-.67) and have relatively low intercor-

relations, the highest being Conflict with Group Cohesion

(r=-.35).

Examining these factor analyzed subscales, one can again

see the suggestion of a relationship between some of these

subscales (e.g., cohesion, structure, conflict) and the con-

structs of the two models discussed earlier. If the factor

analyses of these scales replicate with an adult population,

a typology of families similar to that which Moos and Moos

(1976) have attempted, could be pursued. Since the instru-

ment is oriented toward describing the family environment












more than the interactions between family members, it is not

of great utility to all family therapists. It is no sur-

prise that it has not been extensively used by therapists.



The Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scales


In response to the need for a method to measure the two

dimensions, family cohesion and adaptability, postulated by

their Circumplex Model, Olson et al. (Note 3) developed a

self-report instrument, FACES. Unlike the FFI and the FES,

FACES was designed as a tool for use by family therapists

with the goal of diagnosing family target behaviors to be

altered through therapy.

Initial items were composed to measure nine concepts

posited by the model to be related to cohesion (emotional

bonding, independence, family boundaries, coalitions, time,

space, friends, decision making, interests, recreation) and

seven thought to be relevant to adaptability (assertiveness,

control, discipline, negotiation, roles, rules, system feed-

back). These 203 face valid items were rated by 35 marriage

and family counselors for low to high cohesion and adapta-

bility. Then 410 students in a college level family rela-

tionships course took the questionnaire. This sample, how-

ever, cannot be considered representative of the population

for which the test is designed and the subjects' experience

in their course indicates probably sophistication with re-

spect to the subject matter.










These student responses were then factor analyzed but

the two scales, cohesion and adaptability, were analyzed

separately. Thus, the independence of these two dimensions

has not been empirically tested. Portner (1982, p. 58) re-

fers to the independence of the dimensions being confirmed

by Candyce Russell (1979) in "two major efforts to test this

assumption" but again, the factor analyses she refers to

used 30 and 20 subjects respectively, an insufficient number

for the large number of items.

From Olsonand others' (Note 3) factor analysis of the

adaptability items, there emerge two factors accounting for

78.6% of the variance. Most of the chaotic and rigid items

(the extremes of adaptability) loaded on factor one while the

moderate items loaded on the second factor. Rather than sup-

porting Olson and others' (Note 3) belief that "chaotic" and

"rigid" families represent maladaptive extremes of an "adap-

tability" dimension, this two-factor solution implies a two-

dimensional structure for this variable. It also implies

that the chaotic and rigid items which loaded on factor one

are independent of the moderate items (factor two). This

does not make sense in terms of the described model, but Ol-

son et al. (Note 3) did not explain this discrepancy and in-

deed, described their results as if a discrepancy did not

exist.

In factor analyzing the cohesion items the first three

factors accounted for 33.7%, 14.1% and 11.1% of the variance.












The next factor accounted for only 4.6% of the variance,

yet Olson et al. (Note 3) opted for the four factor solution

selecting their "disengaged" items from factor one, "en-

meshed" from factor two and "moderate" from factors three

and four. Again, their analysis did not support a unidimen-

sional conceptualization of this variable's structure.

Additionally, Olson et al. (Note 3) did not use the re-

sults of their factor analyses to score their selected items

using the factor scoring coefficients. They chose instead

to use a weighted scoring system in which items at the cha-

otic extreme (for adaptability) are weighted or multiplied

by three, the moderate items are weighted by two, and the

other extreme (rigid items in this case) are weighted by one.

This has the disadvantage of not incorporating the informa-

tion yielded in their factor analyses. In selecting items

to include in the final scales, their criteria necessitated

six items for each subscale: two for each of the high, mod-

erate and low levels of the concept. On the cohesion scale,

in particular, this process resulted in items being retained

that correlated as low as .11 with the factor. Thus, items

were not selected so much with regard to their empirical

derivation via factor loadings as by their face validity and

theoretical fit with the Circumplex Model. It is entirely

probable that some items were retained that loaded very low

on a factor while others with higher loadings were discarded

because they did not fit the rigid criteria mentioned above.










Included in the final 111 items were 15 items adapted

for families from Edmonds' (1967) Marital Conventionaliza-

tion Scale. This scale measures the "extent to which a per-

son distorts his appraisal of a phenomenon in the direction

of social desirability" (Edmonds, 1967, p. 682). Convention-

alization, or social desirability, as it is more commonly

called, is a form of self-deception and is not an intentional

distortion of responses. Edmonds (1967) discusses support

for his hypothesis that this tendency is a great problem in

measuring marital interaction because social approval and

consequent ego-involvement are greater in matters pertaining

to one's marriage than in any other area. His results indi-

cated a .63 correlation of his scale with the Locke-Wallace

short scale of marital adjustment. Since matters of family

functioning may be hypothesized to be equally sensitive to

such tendencies, Olson et al. (note 3) are to be commended

for including these items. Unfortunately, all items on the

scale are answered on a four point scale from "4 = true all

the time" to "1 = true none of the time." This occasionally

puts the respondent in the position of having to respond to

a "never" question with a one to four answer, as in the fol-

lowing example of social desirability item number 38:

38. I have never regretted being with my family not even
for a moment.
1 2 3 4
Never True Sometimes True Usually True Always True










Joyce Portner, a graduate student working with Olson

at the time, was the first to administer the questionnaire

to several members of the same family (Portner, 1982). She

gave FACES to 53 families in counseling at Youth Service

Bureaus, 31 families with runaway adolescent and 117 non-

problem families. From each family, both parents and an

adolescent child completed the questionnaire for a total of

603 individuals or 201 families. Despite the large number

of problem families, this sample was used as a normative sam-

ple to establish cutting points for assigning families to

categories based on their scores. Factor analyses (again

of the two scales separately) were also done with these data

but it is unclear whether she used an average family score

for each item or used the total sample of 603 individuals

as if they were independent. If the latter was the case,

the assumptions of the factor analytic procedure were vio-

lated. No mention is made of how the social desirability

items loaded in the analyses. Her factor analysis of the

cohesion items resulted in three factors with factor one con-

taining the "disengaged" items, factor two the "moderate"

items, and factor three the "enmeshed" items. The alpha re-

liabilities for each factor were .52, .77 and .62, respec-

tively.

For adaptability, the analysis also resulted in three

factors with the "chaotic" items loading on factor one, the

"moderate" items on factor two, and factor three containing










the "rigid" items. The alpha reliabilities of the factors

were .81, .85 and .69 respectively.

The alpha internal consistency for the whole cohesion

scale was .83 with a Pearson's Split half of r=.49 (p .001).

The Adaptability items had an alpha of .73 with a split half

reliability of r=.42 (p<.001).

The subscales' (e.g., emotional bonding, roles, etc.)

measures of internal consistency and split half reliability

were low and Olson et al. (Note 3), therefore, recommended

that they not be used for research purposes.

Portner (1982) also correlated the two dimensions with

the social desirability items. While the correlation was

insignificant for the adaptability items, it was moderately

correlated with cohesion (r=.45, p<.001). Thus, it appears

that individuals have a tendency to present their families

in a socially favorable light when responding to the items

on the cohesion scale. Portner (1982) suggests that this

problem may be handled by employing a partial correlation

technique but then does not do this in her subsequent data

analysis.

Using the t-test statistic, the mean scores for fathers,

mothers, adolescents and total family of the clinic and non-

clinic groups were tested for group differences by Portner

(1982). The non-clinic families scored significantly higher

on cohesion than did the clinic families and this difference

replicated for fathers and mothers but not for adolescents.










There were no significant differences for any group on adap-

tability. For social desirability the groups were signif-

icantly different with fathers, mothers and adolescents of

the clinic group scoring lower than their non-clinic counter-

parts. Portner (1982) interpreted this as reflecting a will-

ingness by clinic families to speak honestly and openly about

their feelings.

Portner (1982) attempted to place her families in a 16

cell table similar to the Circumplex Model of Olson et al.

(Note 3) in Figure 1 (see page 7). Dividing the families

into low, moderately low, moderately high, and high groups on

each dimension, she used chi-square analyses. While the ma-

jority of both the clinic and non-clinic groups fell in the

moderate area on cohesion, more clinic families fell in the

low (disengaged) area and more non-clinic families fell in

the enmeshed area (p<.0001). This was true for the average

family score, and also for fathers' scores, mothers' scores

and adolescents' scores.

On the adaptability scale, the majority of both groups

again fell in the moderate range, but more clinic families

were in the chaotic area than were non-clinic families

(p<.04). This was true for average family score, fathers'

scores, mothers' scores and adolescents' scores.

On both scales combined, the majority of all families

(45% clinic and 35% non-clinic) were in the moderate ranges.

While a greater proportion of the clinic families fell out-

side the moderate ranges, the trend was non-significant.










Bilbro and Dreyer (1981) attempted a replication (minus

six items relating to coalitions) of Olson and others' (Note 3)

factor analysis of the cohesion items. Their samples con-

sisted of 48 husbands, their 48 wives, 86 female college stu-

dents and a fourth sample made by standardizing scores within

each subsample and combining them. The sample of husbands

and wives were not independent samples, however, since they

were from the same families. The size of each sample also

was not adequate to factor analyze 48 items. They excluded

the social desirability items from their analyses and con-

cluded that the best solution for the cohesion scale was a

one-factor solution. In computing alpha reliabilities of

the cohesion scale, they found them to be low (wives 4=.58,

husbands 4=.51, college females 4=.48, total 4=.65). They

found the reliabilities of a scale made up only from their

first factor to be much higher (r=.81).

Bilbro and Dreyer (1981) also criticized Olson and others'

(Note 3) confusing construction of FACES in which it is not

clear whether they view cohesion as a unidimensional or a

multidimensional construct. The ratings of cohesion items

by therapists on a scale from one to nine and the adding of

scores of all items from each factor in final scoring sug-

gest a unidimensional view. However, the listing of nine

concepts related to cohesion and the identifying of four co-

hesion factors from their factor analysis suggests a multi-

dimensional view. There are problems with a multidimensional












view of this construct in that it would allow families to be

both enmeshed and disengaged at the same time and implies

that the two are not related to each other.

It should be noted here that Olson and his colleagues

are now working on a shortened version of FACES. They have

made a 40 item version called FACES II and a 10 item version

called FACES III which they are administering to 1,000 fam-

ilies.* These new versions will not include a social desir-

ability scale.**

In summary, although of the three instruments discussed,

FACES shows the most potential utility for family therapists

interested in pinpointing areas of deficit in the relation-

ships among family members, its method of construction and

the manner in which the data analyses were conducted leave

many unanswered questions about its psychometric properties:

Are adaptability and cohesion really two independent dimen-

sions? Is there support for the reliability of the instru-

ment in agreement between the scores of various family mem-

bers? Can the factors Olson et al. (Note 3) derived be rep-

licated? Does the instrument successfully discriminate be-

tween problem and non-problem families? Are the cutting

points presently established correct when checked with a

normative family sample?



*Olson, D. Personal communication, February, 1982.

**Portner, J. Personal communication, October, 1981.










The present research is a critical look at the Family

Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales. Included in

this examination are three aspects. First, a pilot study

was undertaken to improve some of the items while leaving

the questionnaire substantially intact. Second, an attempt

was made to replicate Olson ad others' (Note 3) factor analy-

ses and Portner's (1982) measures of reliability using fam-

ilies. Finally, the results of the factor analyses were

used to compose empirically derived subscales from the orig-

inal items and the validity issues relating to both the

original and derived scales were explored.















CHAPTER III
PILOT STUDY



Method


A preliminary investigation of the 111-item FACES scales

was done by administering the scale to 40 undergraduates in

an introductory Psychology class. The same group was given

a revised version of the scale with the items rewritten so

that they would be easier to read. Using Fry's (1968) method

for calculating the readability level, Olson's original FACES

had a late sixth grade reading level while the revision had

a late fourth grade reading level. The average completion

time for each instrument was approximately 15-20 minutes.

If the three subscales (cohesion, adaptability and so-

cial desirability) are theoretically independent, each item

thought to measure cohesion, for example, should correlate

more with the cohesion scales than with either of the other

two scales and the three scale scores should have low inter-

correlations. The scales should also show good internal con-

sistency. The extent to which this was true for the pilot

sample was examined.










Results


The alpha coefficients of internal consistency, shown

in Table 3, were adequate for the three original scales.

However, the items did not consistently show a higher corre-

lation with their own scale than with the other two scales.

Seventy-nine percent of the cohesion items correlated more

with either the adaptability scale or the social desirabil-

ity scale than with cohesion. Sixty-seven percent of the

adaptability items correlated more with one of the other

scales than with their own. Only on the social desirability

scale were all the items most highly correlated with their

own scale.



Table 3
Alpha Coefficients of Internal Consistency


Original FACES Final Revised Version

Cohesion .88 .85

Adaptability .95 .93

Social Desirability .71 .67




If the scales are independent, one would not expect the

scale scores for cohesion and adaptability to be correlated

with each other. Table 4 shows the intercorrelations for

this preliminary sample. Olsonand others' (Note 3) original










Table 4
Pilot Study Scale Correlations


Original Original Original Revised Revised Revised
Cohesion Adaptability Social Cohesion Adaptability Social
Desirability Desirability

Original .90*
Cohesion p<.01

Original .43* .88*
Adaptability p<.01 p<.01

Original Social .27 .28 .97*
Desirability p<.09 p<.08 p<.01

Revised
Cohesion

Revised .22
Adaptability p<.17

Revised Social .27 .24
Desirability p<.10 p<.14


*Statistically significant











cohesion scales correlated significantly with their original

adaptability scale. The original social desirability scale

did not correlate with the other two scales. The same analy-

ses were undertaken for the rewritten items. Items for the

final version of FACES to be used with a large sample of fam-

ilies were chosen from both the original and rewritten ver-

sions of FACES with the following criteria:

(1) Each item was to be more highly correlated with

its own than any other scale. When neither alternative met

this criterion, as was true in many cases, the item that most

closely fit the criterion was chosen.

(2) Scale intercorrelations between the final revised

version and the original version were to be high positive

correlations, so that the original FACES and the final revi-

sion are substantially the same.

(3) Alpha internal consistency was to remain high.

(4) The reading level of the final version was to be

lower (easier to read) than that of the original.

When these criteria were followed, 14 of the cohesion

items, 16 of the adaptability items and 3 of the social

desirability items were altered for the final version of the

questionnaire. These items, their item correlation coeffi-

cients and the subscales to which they belong are listed in

Appendix A.

In addition to the above changes, some format changes

were also made. To make administration to a large number of










people easier and to minimize problems with transcription

of answers to a separate answer sheet, the questions were

written with the answer immediately below. This enabled

the respondent to simply circle the best choice.

The final revised version (referred to from this point

on as FACES-R) is a questionnaire that is highly similar to

Olson's original FACES, but it is easier to read (low sixth

grade level). More of the FACES-R items correlated with

their own scale rather than the other two scales, and each

scale had good internal consistency. A copy of FACES-R is

in Appendix B. The correlations between the scales of Olson

and others' (Note 3) original FACES and that of FACES-R are

available in Table 4. The correlations between the three

original and revised scales were highly significant. Thus,

the revision is substantially the same in meaning, while be-

ing improved psychometrically, making it more likely that

Olson and others' (Note 3) theory of the independence of the

cohesion and adaptability dimensions would be supported.














CHAPTER IV
FACES-R STUDY



Method


Subjects were 248 families who had at least one child

between the ages of 2 and 18 living in the home. Of these,

42 families were "clinic" families being evaluated or with

at least one member in treatment for a problem that could be

seen as appropriate for family intervention. These clinic

families were seen at either a community mental health cen-

ter or in the psychiatry department of a teaching hospital.

The remaining 206 families were non-clinic families from a

medium size metropolitan, university city. About half were

solicited through the elementary and secondary school run by

the university, while the other half were solicited through

girl scout troops and church groups.



Procedure


In the case of the clinic families, therapists were

asked to administer the measures to their patients at eval-

uation or early in treatment. They were also asked to pro-

vide descriptive data on the referring problem as well as

rate the families on cohesion and adaptability as defined











by Olson et al. (Note 3). All materials were then given to

the researcher to be scored anonymously.

The participation of non-clinic families was solicited

by letter through the school and a packet with all necessary

forms was sent home with the child if the parents agreed to

participate. For the other groups (e.g., girl scouts), the

researcher went to a group meeting, explained the project

to the children and gave them a packet to take home with a

letter of explanation enclosed for their parents. In both

cases, follow-up phone calls were made to answer questions,

encourage response and arrange for the pick up of the com-

pleted questionnaires. Anonymity was insured by use of only

first names on the questionnaire. Family members were in-

structed to complete the questionnaires by themselves and

not to read those of other members. All members of the fam-

ily age 11 or older were asked to participate and informed

consent (see Appendix C) was obtained from all families.



Measures


Forms. FACES-R (see Appendix B) was the primary mea-

sure used in the study. In addition, a family demographic

form (in Appendix C) was completed by a parent of each fam-

ily. For the clinic families, the therapists were also

asked to complete the therapist form (also in Appendix C).










Scoring. FACES-R was scored by Olson and others'

(Note 3) directions. This procedure involved weighting the

enmeshed and chaotic items by multiplying the response by

three. The moderate items were multiplied by two and the

disengaged and rigid items were multiplied by one. One mod-

ification was made to handle the problem of missing answers

since Olson and others (Note 3) did not suggest a method.

If a question was left blank, its value was estimated based

on that subject's responses to the other five items on the

subscale. In no case were more than two items in a sub-

scale estimated.















CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF FACES-R STUDY



Sample Characteristics


While an attempt was made to obtain a cross-section of

families of many types, there were nonetheless differences.

Socioeconomic status estimates (SES) were obtained by using

Hollingshead and Redlich's (1958) two-factor scale which es-

timates SES from occupation and education of the providing

parent. In cases where both parents work, the highest level

obtained by computing the scores for each parent was used.

Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of this group as well

as the clinic group. Where the percentages do not add to

100, the others were not able to be classified from the data.

As can be seen from the table, the clinic group was skewed

in the direction of lower SES and had proportionally more

blacks. The non-clinic group was skewed in the direction

of higher SES and white families.

The clinic families also were more likely to be single

parent families, and the non-clinic families more often had

both parents working. Proportionally more of the clinic

families had young children living in the home.

















Table 5
Percentages of Clinic and Non-Clinic Groups
Sample Characteristics


Clinic


Non-Clinic


Race


Black
White


39%
61%


SES
1 (high)
2
3
4
5 (low)

Single Parent Families
Families with Two Parents Working


Children Living in Home
Under age 6
Age 6-12
Age 13-17
Over age 18


24%
26%
39%

54%
34%


37%
68%
53%
10%


6%
92%


32%
21%
31%
12%
4%

16%
56%


21%
56%
51%
12%









Reliability of the Scales


Internal consistency assessed using Cronbach's alpha

(Cronbach, 1951) was high. For the average family scores

on cohesion, it was .95, while for the average adaptability

scale scores, it was .92. Social desirability had an alpha

coefficient of .68. Even when only the youngest respondents

(age 11) were considered, reliability calculated in this man-

ner remained high for cohesion and adaptability (.92 and .90,

respectively), but lost some on social desirability (.57).

Correlations between family members' scores can be con-

sidered another form of interrater reliability. These are

shown for the cohesion and adaptability scales in Table 6.

For the cohesion scale, fathers' scores correlated signif-

icantly with those of mothers and oldest siblings, while

mothers' scores did so with those of both siblings. The

siblings' scores also followed this pattern. On the adapta-

bility scale, only the mothers' scores and the second oldest

siblings' scores correlated significantly. In all cases,

even the significant correlations are low.



Independence of the Scales


In Olsonand others' (Note 3) model, the dimensions of

adaptability and cohesion are assumed to be independent.

The two FACES scales were also assumed to be independent,

but this has never been adequately tested. To assess the

















Table 6
Correlations between Family Members


Cohesion Adaptability
Mother Oldest Second Mother Oldest Second
Sibling Oldest Sibling Oldest
Sibling Sibling

Father .38* .19* .07 -.08 -.05 -.01
p<.03 p<.03 p<.62 p<.31 p<.55 p<.92
N=.28 N=128 N=58 N=146 N=124 N=58

Mother .25* .38* .03 .24*
p<.0007 p<.0006 p<.73 p<.03
N=179 N=79 N=176 N=79

Oldest .35* .09
Sibling p<.001 p<.43
N=83 N=83


*Statistically significant










extent to which the cohesion and adaptability are indepen-

dent, the scale scores were intercorrelated for the FACES-R

scales. Tables 7 and 8 show scale intercorrelations for the

entire sample (all fathers, mothers and children) and for

average family scores.

For the entire sample, the correlation between adapt-

ability and cohesion was low but highly significant. The

same was true when the statistic was computed with average

family scores.

In addition, each of the two scales was correlated

with the scale score on social desirability. For the cohe-

sion scale this correlation was moderate and highly signif-

icant. This was true both for the entire sample and for the

average family scores.

The adaptability scale showed a low and barely signif-

icant correlation with social desirability for average fam-

ily scores. For the entire sample, this was not replicated.



Norms


Table 9 contains the scale means and standard devia-

tions (where available) for the groups in the present study,

Olson and others' (Note 3) study and Portner's (1982) study.

In the case of families, an average family score was used.

While this is not ideal since it tends to average the ex-

treme members of the family to a perhaps deceptive moderate












Table 7
Scale Intercorrelations
entire sample (N=625)


Adaptability Social Desirability

Cohesion .24* .51*
p<.0001 p<.0001

Adaptability .06
p<.ll


*Statistically significant






Table 8
Scale Intercorrelations
average family scores (N=252)


Adaptability Social Desirability

Cohesion .30* .59*
p<.0001 p<.0001

Adaptability .12*
p<.05


*Statistically significant





Table 9
Normative Comparison of Three Studies


Cohesion Adaptability Social Desirability
non-clinic clinic non-clinic clinic non-clinic clinic

Olson et al. x=251 x=183 x=35
(Note 3) S.D.=19 S.D.=15 S.D.=5
Students N=410 N=410 N=410

Portner (1981) x=255 x=245* x=182 x=184
Families N=117 N=53 N=117 N=53
Fathers x=257 x=245* x=179 x=180 x=38 x=34*
N=117 N=53 N=117 N=53 N=117 N=53
Mothers x=253 x=243* x=179 x=182 x=37 x=33*
N=117 N=53 N=117 N=53 N=117 N=53
Adolescents x=254 x=248 x=186 x=190 x=38 x=33*
N=117 N=53 N=117 N=53 N=117 N=53

Present Study x=261 x=254 x=181 x=182 x=38 x=36
Families S.D.=14.7 S.D.=24.5 S.D.=10.4 S.D.=13.5 S.D.=3.6 S.D.=4.4
N=206 N=42 N=206 N=42 N=206 N=42
Fathers x=266 x=246 x=181 x=177 x=39 x=35
S.D.=19.5 S.D.=19.5 S.D.=14.7 S.D.=19.8 S.D.=4.5 S.D.=3.3
N=146 N=ll N=146 N=12 N=146 N=12
Mothers x=261 x=255 x=177 x=180 x=38 x=36.3
S.D.=19 S.D.=24 S.D.=12.7 S.D.=14.5 S.D.=4.3 S.D.=14.5
N=193 N=39 N=194 N=39 N=194 N=39
Adolescents x=258 x=249 x=185 x=184 x=37 x=36
S.D.=20.7 S.D.=26.9 S.D.=16 S.D.=15.5 S.D.=5.0 S.D.=15.5
N=134 N=17 N=131 N=17 N=134 N=18


*Statistically significant group differences in Portner's (1981)


study.











score, the alternative also has disadvantages. This would

involve categorizing families into groups such as consensus,

non-consensus but cannot take into account the strength of

the variable. Portner (1982) discussed all the alternatives

and settled on the use of average scores.

On each scale, the families (both clinic and non-clinic)

in the present study fell within one standard deviation of

Olson and others' (Note 3) sample means. A comparison is not

as easy for Portner's (1982) study since she did not report

standard deviations.



Validity


There are several ways to approach the question of the

validity of FACES-R. If the questionnaire is measuring co-

hesion and adaptability as defined by Olson et al. (Note 3),

any correlation shown with ratings of the same constructs by

therapists would be evidence of its validity. If the scales

show significant differences between the clinic and non-

clinic families, this would further support the scales' va-

lidity. Factor analyses in which the cohesion items, for

example, load in the expected direction on the same factor,

would also be evidence of validity.


Ratings

Therapist ratings of cohesion and adaptability were ob-

tained for the clinic families. These were correlated with












the average family scores, fathers' scores, and mothers'

scores. All of the ratings for cohesnion or adaptability

showed very low correlations, and these were nonsignificant.

Table 10 summarizes these findings.



Table 10
Correlations of Therapists' Ratings with Scale Scores


Rated Cohesion Rated Adaptability

Average family scores -.02 .08
p<.91 p<.64

Fathers' scores 0.23 .24
p<.53 p<.48

Mothers' scores -.08 .12
p<.65 p<.47




Group Differences

Determining whether the scales differentiated between

clinic and non-clinic groups was done in two ways. An analy-

sis of covariance controlling for the effect of socioeconomic

status (SES) was done to assess whether the means of the two

groups were significantly different. The main effects are

summarized in Table 11. In no case did SES significantly

affect the results. The social desirability scale was the

only one that differentated between the clinic and non-clinic

group. This between groups effect was highly significant

with F = 7.73, p<.006.


















Table 11
Main Effect Results Analyses of Covariance
Controlling for SES




Clinic Non-Clinic


Cohesion x = 254 x = 261
SD = 24.5 SD = 14.7

Adaptability x = 182 x = 181
SD = 13.5 SD = 10.4

Social Desirability x = 36* x = 38*
SD = 4.4 SD = 3.6


*F = 3.87, p<.02


Chi-square analyses were also used to assess any group

differences. Each group was divided into low, medium and

high scoring families. This was done by determining the

means and standard deviations of the non-clinic group for

the cohesion and adaptability scales. Low scores were de-

fined as those lower than one standard deviation from the

non-clinic group mean. Moderate scores were within one

standard deviation and high scores were higher than one stan-

dard deviation of this mean. Low scores on the cohesion

scale would correspond to what Olson et al. (Note 3) called

"disengaged families while high scorers would be the










"enmeshed" families. For the adaptability scale, low scorers

would be the "rigid" families and high scorers the "chaotic"

families. Moderate scorers, in both cases, would be the mod-

erate or "healthy" families.

Tables 12 and 13 summarize the results of the chi-square

analyses for each scale. The cell chi-square is the contri-

bution of each cell to the total chi-square. The overall

chi-square was significant only for the cohesion scale and

this can primarily be attributed to the disproportionate num-

ber of clinic families scoring low on this scale.

An attempt was made to combine the two dimensions in a

nine-cell chi-square but more than 20% of the cells had ex-

pected counts less than five, thus invalidating the test.

The frequency counts thus obtained are displayed in Table 14.

However, according to Olson et al. (Note 3), the low-low,

high-high, low-high and high-low cells should have a larger

proportion of clinic families than non-clinic families if

these scales are able to distinguish the two groups, while

the other cells should have proportionately more non-clinic

families. As can be seen, this was not consistently true.


Factor Analyses

The third support for the validity of the scales would

be factor analyses consistent with the composition of the

scales. The cohesion items, for example, should factor ana-

lyze with one factor having "enmeshed" item loading high and












Table 12
Chi-Square Analysis--Cohesion Scale
Average Family Score


Frequency
Cell Chi Square
Percent
Row Percent
Column Percent Clinic Non-Clinic Total

14 28 42
6.7 1.4
Low 5.65 11.29 16.94
(disengaged) 33.33 66.67
33.33 13.59

22 152 174
1.9 0.4
Moderate 8.87 61.29 70.16
12.64 87.36
52.38 73.79

6 26 32
0.1 0.0
High 2.42 10.48 12.90
(enmeshed) 18.75 81.25
14.29 12.62

Total 42 206 248
16.94 83.06 100.00


Chi Square = 10.381* p<.006

*Statistically significant.












Table 13
Chi-Square Analysis--Adaptability Scale
Average Family Score


Frequency
Cell Chi-Square
Percent Total
Row Percent Frequency
Column Percent Clinic Non-Clinic Percent

8 27 35
0.7 0.1
Low 3.23 10.89 14.11
(rigid) 22.86 77.14
19.05 13.11

23 145 168
1.0 0.2
Moderate 9.27 58.47 67.74
13.69 86.31
54.76 70.39

11 34 45
1.5 0.3
High 4.44 13.71 18.15
(chaotic) 24.44 75.56
26.19 16.50

Total frequency 42 206 248
Percent 16.94 83.08 100.00


Chi-Square = 3.93, p<.14









Table 14
Frequencies and Percent of Families in each Category for Two Scales Combined


Cohesion
Low Moderate High
(disengaged) (enmeshed) Totals
Adaptability F % F % F % F %

Low C 4 9 C 4 9.5 C 0 0.0 C 8 19.0
N 9 4.4 N 17 8.3 N 1 0.5 N 27 13.1


Moderate C 8 19.0 C 13 31.0 C 2 4.8 C 23 54.8
N 16 7.8 N 107 52.0 N 22 10.7 N 145 70.4


High C 2 4.8 C 5 11.9 C 4 9.5 C 11 26.2
N 3 1.5 N 28 13.6 N 3 1.5 N 34 16.5



TOTAL
Clinic 14 33.4 22 52.4 6 14.3
Non-Clinic 28 13.6 152 73.8 26 12.6












positive and "disengaged" items loading high and negative

on that factor. The moderate items should show high load-

ings, also on the same factor. The same should be true for

the factor analysis of the adaptability items with the "cha-

otic" items being positive and the "rigid" items negative.

In addition, the factor scale scores obtained using the

weights from these factor analyses should not correlate with

each other since the two scales should be independent if

they are measuring two distinct constructs.

An unrotated principal axis orthogonal factor analysis

was carried out on the items of each scale. Since there was

a large drop in both cases from factor one to factor two in

eigen values and percentage of variance accounted for, a

one factor solution seemed most appropriate using Cattell's

scree test (1966). However, the first five factors are in-

cluded in Tables 15 and 16 for comparison. Olson and others'

(Note 3) data are also included. See Appendix D for the fac-

tor loadings of each item on the first factor.

The items tended to load high and in the appropriate

direction (e.g., negatively for disengaged items) with few

exceptions. The patterns of the factor analyses were the

same for average family score, fathers' scores and mothers'

scores. Unfortunately, in each case the amount of the total

variance accounted for was not high.

A factor analysis of the social desirability items also

yielded a one-factor solution with the first factor having

an eigen value of 6.3 and accounting for 42% of the variance.











Table 15
Eigen Values and Variance Accounted for by First Five Cohesion Factors


Factor
Sample 1 2 3 4 5


Present Study
Total Sample
(av. family score)


Fathers


Mothers


Olson et al.
(Note 3)


Eigen Value
% of variance
Cum. variance

Eigen value
% of variance
Cum. variance

Eigen Value
% of variance
Cum. variance

Eigen Value
% of variance
Cum. variance


12.7
23.5
23.5

8.2
17.2
17.2

8.3
17.4
17.4

17.39
33.7
33.7


3.2
5.8
29.3

3.3
7.0
24.1

3.1
6.4
23.8

7.3
14.1
47.8


2.8
5.1
34.5

2.7
5.5
29.7

2.4
5.1
28.9

5.7
11.1
58.9


1.9
3.6
38.0

2.1
4.3
3.4

1.8
3.8
32.7

2.4
4.6
63.5


1.8
3.4
41.4

1.8
3.8
37.8

1.7
3.5
36.2

1.8
3.6
67.0










Table 16
Eigen Values and Variance Accounted for by First Five Adaptability


Factors


Factor
Sample 1 2 3 4 5


Total Sample


Fathers



Mothers


Eigen Value
% of variance
Cum. variance

Eigen Value
% of variance
Cum. variance

Eigen Value
% of variance
Cum. variance

Eigen Value
% of variance
Cum. variance


Olson et al.
(Note 3)


10.2
24.2
24.2

6.9
19.7
19.7

6.2
17.7
17.7

36.7
58.5
58.5


3.9
9.2
33.4

2.7
7.7
27.4

2.8
7.9
25.6

12.6
20.1
78.6


2.6
6.2
39.7

2.4
7.0
34.4

2.3
6.6
32.2

3.5
5.6
84.2


1.5
3.6
43.3

1.7
4.8
39.2

1.6
4.4
36.7

1.7
2.7
86.9


1.5
3.6
46.8

1.5
4.2
43.4

1.5
4.1
40.8

1.6
2.5
89.4












The scoring coefficient matrix obtained from each fac-

tor analysis is an empirically derived weighting of each

item's contribution to that factor. As such, it is the most

suitable weighting for that item and can be used to score

the factor to obtain a factor score for each of the three

scales. This was done and the three obtained factor scores

were then intercorrelated to assess the extent to which they

are independent and measure distinct concepts. Table 17 dis-

plays the results of these correlations. All three factor

scores were highly correlated at a highly significant level.



Table 17
Intercorrelations of Factor Scores for FACES-R Scales


Adaptability Social Desirability

Cohesion -.89* .86*
p<.0001 p<.0001

Adaptability -.76*
p<.0001


*Statistically significant















CHAPTER VI
ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE THE SCALES



Item Analyses and Further Factor Analyses


Because the factor scores were so highly intercorrelated,

implying that they were measuring highly similar constructs,

an attempt was made to improve the scales by selecting the

best items from each. It was hoped that by doing this scales

could be formed that would still account for a reasonable

amount of variance yet be more independent of each other.

An item analysis was done using the correlations of

each item with its own scale. Cohesion and adaptability

items were retained if they correlated significantly (p<.05)

with their own scale and had factor loadings, in the initial

factor analyses, greater than .60. This led to the retention

of 15 cohesion items (#20, 39, 58, 60, 24, 62, 98, 47, 66,

84, 102, 35, 91, 18, 37) and 12 adaptability items (#2,

59, 95, 27, 46, 65, 101, 15, 53, 108, 55, 74). All 15 so-

cial desirability items were retained. They all correlated

significantly with their own scale but some loaded low on

their first factor.

Factor analyses were carried out separately on the re-

tained cohesion and adaptability items and again the cohesion

items yielded a one-factor solution. This first factor had











an eigen value of 7.5, accounting for 47% of the variance.

The adaptability items also yielded a one factor solution

with the first factor having an eigen value of 5.6, account-

ing for 49% of the variance. Appendix D has the loadings

of each item on the first factor.

Using the results of the factor analyses on the retained

items, factor scores were again calculated and intercorre-

lated. Table 18 contains the results of these intercorrela-

tions. Again, all three factor scores were still highly sig-

nificantly correlated.


Table 18
Intercorrelations of Factor Scores for Retained Items


Adaptability-Retained Social Desirability

Cohesion- -.85* -.81*
Retained p<.0001 p<.0001

Adaptability- .77*
Retained p .0001

*Statistically significant

Since there were now less items, it was possible to com-

bine these in one factor analysis to see if they yielded the

three factors which would be expected if they measure three

distinct dimensions. Thus, the 15 social desirability items,

15 retained cohesion items and 12 retained adaptability items

were combined in a factor analysis which yielded a one-factor

solution. This factor had an eigen value of 16.7 accounting

for 40% of the variance. An examination of the items loading










on this factor revealed that most of the social desirability,

cohesion and adaptability items loaded moderate to high on

the factor. The conservative way to describe the factor is

as a social desirability factor. Table 19 contains the items

along with their factor loadings on the first factor.

Since the initial attempt to choose items that would

yield a distinct factor for each of the three constructs

failed, another attempt was made to select a group of items

that met even more stringent criteria and would show evidence

for some construct other than just social desirability.

Again using the correlation of each item with its own

and other scales, items were selected that correlated more

with their own than with either of the other two scales.

This resulted in 13 cohesion items (#76, 3, 5, 24, 80, 45,

64, 11, 104, 51, 75, 93, 111) and 15 adaptability items (#77,

4, 42, 61, 44, 63, 81, 99, 31, 87, 105, 72, 108, 17, 92) be-

ing retained.

A factor analysis of these retained cohesion items

yeilded another one-factor solution with the first factor

having an eigen value of 2.9 accounting for 22.5% of the

variance. The same was true for the retained adaptability

items. In this case, the one factor accounted for 23% of

the variance and had an eigen value of 3.4 Appendix D con-

tains the factor loadings of each item on the first factor.

Intercorrelations of the factor scores obtained were

again highly significant but the correlations were somewhat

reduced. These are shown in Table 20.








55


Table 19
Items and Loadings on Factor One All Retained Items



Factor
Scale Item # Item Loading

SD 107 I don't think any family could live .79
together with greater harmony than
my family.

A 65 Our family does not discuss its prob- .77
lems.

A 27 We talk about our problems and feel .79
good about the answers.

SD 48 My family has all the qualities I've .75
always wanted in a family.

A 46 We feel good about how we solve prob- .75
lems in our family.

SD 71 I don't think anyone could possibly .73
be happier than my family and I when
we are together.

C 91 We don't talk much to each other at -.73
home.

C 47 Although family members have individ- .73
ual interests, they still participate
in family activities.

C 102 Members of our family share many in- .71
terests.

C 66 Our family doesn't do things together. -.69

C 84 We have difficulty thinking of things -.68
to do as a family.

SD 103 Our family is as well adjusted as any .68
family in this world can be.

A 59 In our family, it's important for every- .67
one to express their opinion.

A 15 In our family we make the rules to- .66
gether














Scale Item

SD 57


74


24


39


2


98


18


101


55


35

58


85


37


Item

If I could be a part of any family in
the world, I could not have a better
match.

We try to plan some things during the
week so we can all be together.

Family ties are more important to us
than any friendship could possibly be.

Family members find it easier to dis-
cuss things with persons outside the
family.

If one way doesn't work in our family,
we try another.

We like to spend some of our free time
with each other.

Family members do not turn to each
other when they need help.

Family members feel free to say what's
on their mind.

It seems as if family members can never
find time to be together.

Family members do not check with each
other when making decisions.

Family members feel they have no say
in solving problems.

We help each other find new ways to
do things.

We respect each other's privacy.

Home is one of the loneliest places
to be.

Family members understand each other
completely.

In our family we are on our own when
there is a problem to solve.


Factor
Loading

.66



.65


.65


.65



.64


.63


-.62


.62


-.62


-.62


.62


.62


.61

-.61


.60


-.60













Factor
Scale Item # Item Loading

SD 19 My family always understands me no .60
matter how I feel.

SD 89 My family could be happier than it is. -.59

SD 33 Every new thing I've learned about my -.58
family has pleased me.

A 95 Family members rarely say what they -.56
want.

SD 52 There are times when I don't like my -.55
family a lot.

SD 38 I have never regretted being with my .54
family, not even for a moment.

A 108 It is hard to know what the rules are -.52
in our family because they always
change.

A 53 When rules are broken, family members .52
are treated fairly.

SD 14 There are some things I need that I .50
don't get from my family.

SD 10 There are times when other family mem- .44
bers do things that make me happy.

SD 29 Our family is not a perfect success. .39

SD 67 If my family has any faults, I am not -.03
aware of them.












Table
Intercorrelations of Factor


Scores for Retained Items


Adaptability-Retained Social Desirability

Cohesion- -.44* .62*
Retained p<.0001 p<.0001

Adaptability- -.50*
Retained p<.0001


*Statistically significant















CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION



Since the FACES-R questionnaire was designed as a self-

report instrument for use in assessing the functioning of

families, the present sample was appropriate to study the

scales' psychometric properties since it contained clinic

and non-clinic families. Portner (1982) was the only other

study with this instrument where responses were obtained

from parents and children. Olson and others' (Note 3) standard-

ization sample was undergraduates who were asked to respond

retrospectively about their families of origin. While the

present study's clinic and non-clinic groups differed some-

what, primarily in SES and race, the results should be com-

parable to Portner's (1982) study.

Before the appropriateness of the Circumplex Model can

be assessed, there must be evidence supporting the ability

of the FACES-R scales to reliably and validly measure the

two dimensions postulated in the model.

Support for the reliability of the scales can be seen

in the high alpha coefficients of internal consistency ob-

tained in the present study. These exceeded any reported in

previous studies and were contrary to Bilbro and Dreyer's

(1981) findings that the cohesion scale reliabilities were

low. A possible explanation was reflected in the spontaneous












comments of many respondents in the present study who said

the questionnaire was too long and kept asking the same thing

over and over. It may be that respondents recognized that if

they answered a question in one direction, they should there-

after answer in a manner consistent with their first response.

Some support for the reliability of the cohesion scale

was the extent to which family members' scores intercorre-

lated even though the correlations were low. This pattern

was not apparent for the adaptability scale, however, There

is also a question as to whether all family members' scores

should be expected to correlate with each other. Theoret-

ically, one might expect the responses of a healthy adoles-

cent, for example, to deviate a moderate amount from those

of his parents. One would expect parents' responses to

agree, however. Since the latter was true for the cohesion

scale, there is some evidence for the reliability of this

scale.

The similarity between the present study's sample means

on the scales and those of Olson et al. (Note 3) and Portner

(1982) also supports the consistency of the scales. In

every case, the means for the present sample were within

one standard deviation of Olson and others' (Note 3) normative

sample.

It is in examining support for the validity of the

scales that problems arose. Portner (1982) attempted to ad-

dress the validity question by categorizing her clinic and










non-clinic families into low-moderate and high groups. While

the majority of both groups consistently fell in the moderate

ranges, she had some limited success in differentiating the

two groups.

The present study approached the issue of validity in

several ways. Therapists were asked to rate the cohesive-

ness and adaptability of the clinic families. Since the def-

initions they were given of these constructs were those of

Olson et al. (Note 3), the complete lack of any correlations

between ratings and scale scores raised validity questions.

Therapists may not have perceived families in a manner congru-

ent with the families' self-perceptions. Since there was no

data to support the reliability of the therapists' ratings

and these were global in nature, they may not have been appro-

priate. The ratings were also obtained early in therapy

whereas, if they had been obtained later the therapists may

have had a better data base from which to rate the families.

Or, there is the possibility that what was measured by the

FACES-R scales was not cohesion and adaptability as defined

by Olson et al (Note 3).

Examination of the scale intercorrelations lent subsis-

tance to the latter conclusion. The cohesion and adaptability

scales were clearly not independent since they had a highly

significant low correlation with each other. In addition, in

both Portner's (1982) study and the present study, the cohe-

sion scale consistently correlated with social desirability.

While neither scale showed any consistent differences

between the means for the clinic and non-clinic groups, the







62

cohesion scale was significantly different for the groups in

a chi-square analysis. Portner (1982) found differences be-

tween her groups on this scale using both T-tests and chi-

square analyses. She did not find differences using the T-

test for the adaptability scale, although she did find a dif-

ference with the chi-square statistic. The present study

used an analysis of covariance to control for SES and still

found no difference between the groups on these two scales.

The social desirability scale appeared to be the only

scale which consistently revealed highly significant differ-

ences between the clinic and non-clinic groups. Portner

(1982) found this, as did the present study. In both studies

the clinic families' scores were lower on this scale than the

non-clinic families. This perception by clinic families

could be interpreted as accurately reflecting reality since

it is still considered somewhat socially undesirable to re-

quire psychotherapy, and it would be difficult to perceive

one's family as perfect yet still seek help. The social de-

sirability scale measured the tendency to perceive one's fam-

ily in a socially favorable light, rather than a tendency to

bias the presentation of the family in that direction. In

other words, it is not a "faking" scale.

The factor analyses were another way to approach the

question of validity. While the findings of the present

study's factor analyses did not replicate either those of

Oldon et al. (Note 3) or Portner (1982), they did support a

bipolar cohesion dimension and a bipolar adaptability












dimension. That is, the cohesion items had one factor on

which items, for the most part, loaded in the expected di-

rection depending upon whether they were "disengaged" (loaded

negatively) or "enmeshed" (loaded positively). The same was

true for the adaptability items. These findings were consis-

tent with the Circumplex Model.

It is unclear why the factor analytic solutions of the

two earlier studies were different from those of the present

study. The present findings for the cohesion scale were con-

sistent with those of Bilbro and Dreyer (1981) who also

found a one-factor solution with those items.

Problems with validity again become evident when the

factor scores obtained from the factor analyses of the three

scales were intercorrelated. If there existed three sep-

arate dimensions these empirically derived factor scores

should not correlate with each other. To the contrary, they

showed very high and significant intercorrelations. This

implied that all three factors obtained from the three sep-

arate factor analyses were tapping highly similar dimensions.

Taking the items from each factor which loaded highest

on their own factor and correlated the most with their own

scale in an item analysis, did not alter the results of a

subsequent factor analysis and factor scores intercorrela-

tion. The scales remained highly similar.

In addition, a factor analysis done with all these re-

tained items yielded only one factor rather than the three












separate factors that would substantiate three separate di-

mensions. This one factor was best described as a social de-

sirability factor. A third attempt to select a different set

of items to retain still did not yield factor scores that

were uncorrelated.

Thus, the factor analytic results implied that even

though there was some evidence that there were differences

between the groups on cohesion and less clearly on adaptabil-

ity, these distinctions may not be due to the theoretical di-

mensions the scale purports to measure. Instead, it is more

likely that these differences were due solely to differences

in the groups' perceptions of the extent to which their fam-

ily is a "perfect" family.

The lack of support in the present study for the valid-

ity of the Family Cohesion and Adaptability Evaluation Scales

must be taken in context. The entire field of family mea-

surement is in its infancy. Very few attempts have been made

to develop a measure of constructs relevant to family func-

tioning and useful to family therapists. The dimensions

that FACES-R sought to measure have strong theoretical sup-

port among family therapists. It is possible these exist

only in the minds of therapists. It is more likely, however,

that the problems in measuring by self-report, behaviors of

which family members are unaware, as well as the inherent ten-

dency of members to perceive their families in the best pos-

sible light, have handicapped this first attempt at measuring








65



family cohesion and adaptability. In future attempts at

such a self-report measure, the more concrete and easily in-

terpretible the item, the more likely it will be to elicit

an objective response. While the findings reported here are

discouraging, it is by no means time to give up. Olson and

his colleagues are to be commended for making this first at-

tempt. However, these scales are not appropriate, in their

present form, for use by therapists in assessing families.
















APPENDIX A
PILOT STUDY REVISED ITEMS



Changed Cohesion Items


Item No.

1. Original:

Revised:

11. Original:

Revised:


16. Original:

Revised:


24. Original:

Revised:


28. Original:

Revised:


43. Original:

Revised:


49. Original:

Revised:


54. Original:

Revised:


Family members are concerned with each oth-
er's welfare.
People in my family care about each other.

In our family we know where all family mem-
bers are at all times.
In our family we always know where every-
one is.

It seems like there is never any place to
be alone in our house.
It seems like there is no place to be alone
in our house.

Family members like to spend some of their
free time with each other.
We like to spend some of our free time with
each other.

Family members share almost all interests
and hobbies with each other.
In our family we like almost all the same
things.

Even when everyone is home, family members
spend their time separately.
Even when we are all home, we all do dif-
ferent things.

Family members are totally on their own in
developing their ideas.
Family members are on their own in doing a
project.

Family members don't enter each other's
areas or activities.
Family members don't get into each others
things or business.












Item No.


56. Original:


Revised:


78. Original:

Revised:


80. Original:

Revised:


86. Original:
Revised:


91. Original:

Revised:

93. Original:

Revised:


Family members discuss important decisions
with each other, but usually make their
own choices.
We talk about big decisions with each other
but make our own choices.

Family members feel comfortable inviting
their friends along on family activities.
When my family does something, friends are
welcome.

Family members feel pressured to spend most
free time together.
Family members feel we should spend most
of our free time together.

It seems as if we agree on everything.
It seems as if we agree on everything in
my family.

Family members seem to avoid contact with
each other when at home.
We don't talk much to each other at home.

We decide together on family matters and
separately on personal matters.
We decide family matters together and per-
sonal matters by ourselves.


Subscales of Changed Cohesion Items


Wt. Enmeshed Mod. Disengaged

1 Emotional Bonding #1
1 Family Boundaries #78
3 Time #80 #24 #43
0 Friends
1 Interests & Rec. #28
#86
3 Independence #11
0 Coalition #91, 49
3 Space #16 #54
2 Decision Making #93
#56
TOTAL 5 5 4













Item Correlation Coefficients
Changed Cohesion Items


Cohesion Adaptability Social Desirability


1 Original
Revised

11 0
R

16 0
R

24 0
R

28 O
R

43 0
R

49 0
R

54 0
R

56 0
R

78 0
R

80 0
R

86 0
R

91 0
R

93 0
R


r = .11
r = .08


.27
.36

.19
.37

.34
.42

.21
.21


-.12
-.36

-.06
-.10

-.02
-.11


.02
.10


.08
-.28


.07
.30

.32
.41


-.10
-.25

-.05
.05


r = .26
r = .18


-.41
-.24

-.06
-.06


.12
.10

.12
.04


-.19
-.04

-.09
-.09

.13
-.08


.31
.08


.02
-.18


.30
.03

.18
.17

.08
.01


-.21
.02


r = .33
r = .35


.15
.02


-.35
-.35


.24
.37

.46
.51


-.23
-.20

-.15
-.20


.45
.36

.10
.48


.18
-.01

-.08
-.00


.71
.58


-.44
-.66

-.06
-.01












Changed Adaptability Items


6. Original:

Revised:


8. Original:

Revised:


12. Original:

Revised:


15. Original:
Revised:

17. Original:

Revised:


21. Original:

Revised:


27. Original:

Revised:


31. Original:

Revised:


34. Original:

Revised:


40. Original:

Revised:


Family members are afraid to tell the truth
because of how harsh the punishment will be.
Family members are afraid to tell the truth
because they will get in trouble.

Family members talk a lot but nothing ever
gets done.
In our family we talk about doing a lot of
things but we never do them.

Family members have some say in what is re-
quired of them.
Family members get some say in what they
have to do.

Family members make the rules together.
In our family we make the rules together.

It is difficult to keep track of what other
family members are doing.
It is hard to know what other family members
are doing.

When our family has an argument, family mem-
bers just keep to themselves.
When our family disagrees, family members
don't talk.

Family members discuss problems and usually
feel good about the solutions.
We talk about our problems and feel good
about the answers.

No one in our family seems to be able to
keep track of what their duties are.
No one in our family knows what their
choices are.

Our family has a rule for almost every pos-
sible situation.
Our family has a rule for almost all situa-
tions.

It is hard to know what other family members
are thinking.
It is hard to know what other family members
think.












46. Original:

Revised:


50. Original:

Revised:


61. Original:
Revised:

69. Original:

Revised:

83. Original:


Revised:



99. Original:

Revised:


We feel good about our ability to solve
problems.
We feel good about how we solve problems in
our family.

Once a task is assigned to a family member,
there is no chance of changing it.
If a family member is given a job, they
can't change it.

There is no leadership in our family.
There is no leader in our family.

In our family, everyone shares responsibil-
ities.
In our family we share duties.

When trying to solve problems, family mem-
bers jump from one attempted solution to an-
other without giving any of them time to work.
When there is a problem, we jump from one an-
swer to another without giving any of them a
chance to work.

Family members are severely punished for any-
thing they do wrong.
People in our family get in lots of trouble
if they do anything wrong.


Subscales of Changed Adaptability Items


Wt. Chaotic Mod. Rigid

2 Assertiveness #40 #21
1 Control #61
2 Discipline #99
#6
4 Negotiation #8, 83 #27, 46

4 Roles #31 #12, 69 #50
2 Rules #15 #34
2 System Feedback #17 #55
TOTAL 6 6 5








71



Item Correlation Coefficients
Changed Adaptability Items


Adaptability Cohesion Social Desirability

6 Original -.16 .14 -.36
Revised -.22 .18 -.36

8 0 .17 .03 -.39
R .42 .12 -.00

12 0 .24 .15 .27
R .15 -.06 .15

15 0 .35 .11 .46
R .34 -.15 .32

17 0 .20 .05 -.12
R .21 .04 .08

21 0 .02 .17 -.18
R -.34 .01 -.59

27 0 .24 .50 .57
R .18 .15 .55

31 0 .18 .25 -.09
R .36 .22 -.15

34 0 -.20 .31 .09
R -.24 .19 -.13

40 0 .02 -.05 -.35
R -.15 -.03 -.14

46 0 .21 .17 .63
R .37 .05 .72

50 0 .10 .35 -.20
R .10 .11 -.11

61 0 .64 -.01 .34
R .70 -.13 .24

69 0 .27 .26 .38
R -.16 -.09 .21

83 0 .42 -.10 -.25
R .50 .03 -.15

99 O .17 .01 .15
R -.22 .01 -.19













Changed Social Desirability Items


14. Original:

Revised:


19. Original:

Revised:


52. Original:

Revised:


I have some needs that are not being met by
family members.
There are some things I need that I don't
get from my family.

My family completely understands and sympa-
thizes with my every mood.
My family always understands me no matter
how I feel.

There are times when I do not feel a great
deal of love and affection for my family.
There are times when I don't like my family
a lot.



Item Correlation Coefficients


Changed Social Desirability Items


Social Desirability Adaptability Cohesion

14 Original .30 -.02 .17
Revised -.35 .06 -.06

19 O .57 .42 .48
R .61 .33 .26

52 0 -.45 -.01 -.14
R -.68 -.17 -.08
















APPENDIX B
FACES-R QUESTIONNAIRE



First Name Age Sex
IDENTIFICATION:

FACES-R

INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each question by circling the
number that best describes your family.


1. People in my family care about each other.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

2. Family members feel free to say what's on their mind.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

3. We don't have spur of the moment guests at mealtime.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

4. It is hard to know who the leader is in our family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

5. It's difficult for family members to take time away
from the family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

6. Family members are afraid to tell the truth because
they will get in trouble.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

7. Most personal friends are not family friends.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

8. In our family we talk about doing a lot of things but
we never do them.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












9. Family members feel guilty if they want to spend some
time alone.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

10. There are times when other family members do things
that make me unhappy.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

11. In our family we always know where everyone is.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

12. Family members get some say in what they have to do.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

13. The parents in our family stick together.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

14. There are some things I need that I don't get from my
family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

15. In our family we make the rules together.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

16. It seems like there is no place to be alone in our house.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

17. It is hard to know what other family members are doing.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

18. Family members do not check with each other when making
decisions.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

19. My family always understands me no matter how I feel.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

20. Family ties are more important to us than any friend-
ship could possibly be.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












21. When our family disagrees, family members don't talk.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

22. Family members often answer questions that were ad-
dressed to another person.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

23. The parents check with the children before making im-
portant decisions in our family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

24. We like to spend some of our free time with each other.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

25. Punishment is usually pretty fair in our family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

26. Family members are encouraged to have friends of their
own as well as family friends.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

27. We talk about our problems and feel good about the an-
swers.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

28. In our family we like almost all the same things.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

29. Our family is not a perfect success.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

30. Family members are extremely independent.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

31. No one in our family knows what their chores are.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

32. Family members feel it's "everyone for themselves."
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












33. Every new thing I've learned about my family has pleased
me.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

34. Our family has a rule for almost all situations.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

35. We respect each other's privacy.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

36. Once our family has planned to do something, it's diffi-
cult to change it.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

37. In our family we are on our own when there is a problem
to solve.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

38. I have never regretted being with my family, not even
for a moment.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

39. Family members do not turn to each other when they need
help.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

40. It is hard to know what other family members think.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

41. Family members make visitors feel at home.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

42. Parents make all of the important decisions in our fam-
ily.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

43. Even when we are all home, we all do different things.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












44. Parents and children in our family discuss together the
method of punishment.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

45. Family members have little need for friends because the
family is so close.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

46. We feel good about how we solve problems in our family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

47. Although family members have individual interests, they
still participate in family activities.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

48. My family has all the qualities I've always wanted in a
family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

49. Family members are on their own in doing a project.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

50. If a family member is given a job, they can't change it.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

51. Family members seldom take sides against other members.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

52. There are times when I don't like my family a lot.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

53. When rules are broken, family members are treated
fairly.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

54. Family members don't get into others things or business.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true.

55. We help each other find new ways to do things.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true.












56. We talk about big decisions with each other but make our
own choices.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

57. If I could be a part of any family in the world, I could
not have a better match.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

58. Home is one of the loneliest places to be.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

59. In our family, it's important for everyone to express
their opinion.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

60. Family members find it easier to discuss things with
persons outside the family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

61. There is no leader in our family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

62. We try to plan some things during the week so we can
all be together.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

63. Family members are not punished or reprimanded when
they do something wrong.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

64. In our family we know each other's close friends.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

65. Our family dies not discuss its problems.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

66. Our family doesn't do things together.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












67. If my family has any faults, I am not aware of them.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

68. Family members enjoy doing things alone as well as to-
gether.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true.

69. In our family we share duties.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

70. Parents agree on how to handle the children.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

71. I don't think anyone could possibly be happier than my
family and I when we are together.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

72. It is unclear what will happen when rules are broken in
our family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

73. When a bedroom door is shut, family members will knock
before entering.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

74. If one way doesn't work in our family, we try another.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

75. Family members are expected to have the approval of oth-
ers before making decisions.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

76. Family members are totally involved in each other's
lives.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

77. Family members speak their mind without considering how
it will affect others.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












78. When my family does something, friends are welcome.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

79. Each family member has at least some say in major fam-
ily decisions.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

80. Family members feel we should spend most of our free
time together.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

81. Members of our family can get away with almost anything.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

82. Family members share the same friends.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

83. When there is a problem, we jump from one answer to an-
other without giving any of them a chance to work.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

84. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

85. Family members understand each other completely.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

86. It seems as if we agree on everything in my family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

87. It seems as if males and females never do the same
chores in our family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

88. Family members know who will agree and who will dis-
agree with them on most family matters.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

89. My family could be happier than it is.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












90. There is strict punishment for breaking rules in our
family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

91. We don't talk much to each other at home.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

92. For no apparent reason, family members seem to change
their minds.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

93. We decide family matters together and personal matters
by ourselves.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

94. Our family has a balance of closeness and separateness.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

95. Family members rarely say what they want.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

96. It seems there are always people around home who are
not members of the family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

97. Certain family members order everyone else around.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

98. It seems as if family members can never find time to
be together.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

99. People in our family get in lots of trouble if they do
anything wrong.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

100. We know very little about the friends of other family
members.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true












101. Family members feel they have no say in solving prob-
lems.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

102. Members of our family share many interests.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

103. Our family is as well adjusted as any family in this
world can be.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

104. Family members are encouraged to do their own thing.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

105. Family members never know how others are going to act.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

106. Certain individuals seem to cause most of our family
problems.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

107. I don't think any family could live together with
greater harmony than my family.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

108. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family
because they always change.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

109. Family members find it hard to get away from each other.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

110. Family members feel that the family will never change.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true

111. Family members feel they have to go along with what the
family decides to do.
1 2 3 4
Never true Sometimes true Usually true Always true















APPENDIX C
AUXILIARY FORMS



Informed Consent


I understand that this is a study of how the members of
my family see our family functioning. I understand that the
members of my family will be asked to complete a question-
naire about what occurs in our family on a daily basis. I
also understand that we will be asked to give information
about the occupations and incomes of family members as well
as whether they have been in therapy. This information will
be confidential to the extent provided by law and no names
will be used so that it will be anonymous.

I understand that there are no risks associated with
this study and no direct benefits to my family for partic-
ipating. It is agreed that the information may be used for
educational purposes, which may include publication.

I have read the above description and my questions have
been answered. I give my permission for the members of my
family to participate.

I understand that we may withdraw from the study at any
time if we no longer want to participate.




Signature of parent or guardian

If you would like
a copy of this
study, please put
your mailing address
here: Signatures of others in family (optional)

Date


Signature of person obtaining Signature of person obtaining
consent (witness) consent (witness)












Instructions and Questions
For Therapists Administering FACES


Identification of family:
Therapist:


All family members who are 12 years or older should be
asked to complete the FACES questionnaire. After these are
done, one parent (or both) should complete the Demographic
Information sheet. Please make sure that each person who
completes the questionnaire is identified on that question-
naire.

1. Who was the identified patient when this family pre-
sented? If there was no one person singled out by
the family, put none.

2. What was the presenting problem?

3. Which stage was this family in when they completed the
questionnaire? (Check one)
referred but not yet evaluated
evaluation in process or completed
being seen in psychotherapy
therapy successfully completed
therapy terminated without therapist's recommendation
referred elsewhere after evaluation

4. If you did an initial evaluation, what was your recom-
mendation?

5. Did the family follow through?

6. Had any member been in therapy before? If yes, state
who and why.

7. Family cohesion is defined as: "The emotional bonding
which members have toward one another and the individ-
ual autonomy that a person has in the family system."
At the extreme of high family cohesion, there is an
over-identification with the family which results in
extreme bonding and limited individual autonomy. The
low extreme is characterized by low bonding and high
autonomy from the family. A balanced degree of family
cohesion is thought to be the most conducive to effec-
tive family functioning and to facilitating individual
development.












On this five-point scale, please rate this family's
level of cohesion at the time they completed FACES.

1 2 3 4 5
too little cohesion balanced too much cohesion

8. Family adaptability is defined as: "The ability of a
marital/family system to change its power structure,
role relationships, and relationship rules in response
to situational and developmental stress." The assump-
tion is that an adaptive system requires a balance be-
tween change and stability.
On this five-point scale, please rate this family's
level of adaptability at the time they completed FACES.

1 2 3 4 5
too little change balanced too much change

9. Does any member of this family have a chronic illness?
Who and what?











Family Demographic Information


This form is to be completed by


a parent. Please use first names only.


IS THIS PERSON HIGHEST GRADE
FIRST NAME AGE SEX RACE LIVING AT HOME? OCCUPATION COMPLETED


(self)
(spouse)

your
children


others



Has your family or any member ever
psychiatrist? yes no


been seen


yes

yes


yes
yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes
yes

by a


no

no


no

no
no

no

no

no

no

no
no

counselor,


therapist, psychologist or


Does any member of your family have a chronic illness for which they are under a doctor's
care? If yes, which member and what illness? _yes no


= =
















APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSES


First Factor Loadings


of All Adaptability Items


Factor Loading


-.61
.57
.54
-.71
.25
.63
.13
-.43
.08
.09
-.54
.50
.52
-.59
-.38
.33
.43
.26
.35
-.74
-.71


Item #

65
83
101
12
31
50
69
87
105
15
34
53
72
90
108
17
36
55
74
92
110


Factor Loading


.78
.60
.66
-.49
.48
.18
-.56
.32
.38
-.69
-.08
-.61
.38
.02
.61
.55
-.01
-.61
-.67
.49
.19


Item #


2
21
40
59
77
95
4
23
42
61
79
97
6
25
44
63
81
99
8
27
46

















First Factor Loadings


Factor Loading


.56
.63
-.60
-.62
.47
.56
.01
-.40
.51
-.63
.33
-.00
-.09
.64
-.34
.65
.44
-.64
-.38
.48
.16
.57
.39
-.49
-.24
.54
.75


Item #

66
84
102
11
30
49
68
86
104
13
32
51
70
88
106
16
35
54
73
91
109
18
37
56
75
93
111


Factor Loading


-.69
-.67
.72
.47
-.09
-.30
.21
.56
.35
.59
-.72
.35
.60
-.19
-.54
-.37
.63
.39
.31
-.73
-.33
-.63
-.60
.20
.32
.14
-.08


Item #


1
20
39
58
76
94
3
22
41
60
78
96
5
24
43
62
80
98
7
26
45
64
82
100
9
28
47


(All Cohesion Items)















First Factor Loadings of 15 Retained Cohesion Items


Factor Loading

-.64
.65
.64
.65
-.66
-.69
.68
-.76


Item #

66
84
102
35
91
18
37


Factor Loading

-.76
.73
-.74
-.57
.76
.65
.65


First Factor Loadings of 12 Retained Adaptability Items


Factor Loading

.68
.76
-.62
.79
.76
-.79


Item #

101
15
53
108
55
74


Factor Loading

-.68
.72
.59
-.58
.65
.69


First Factor Loading of 13 Retained Cohesion Items


Factor Loading

.65
.18
.23
.59
.66
.41
.54


Item #


Factor Loading


11
104
51
75
93
111


.61
.39
.38
.55
.31
.35


Item #


Item #


Item #


First Factor Loadings of


15 Retained Cohesion Items








90



First Factor Loading 15 Retained Adaptability Items


Factor Loading

.24


-.20
.45
-.14
.58
.63


Item #


Factor Loading


99
31
87
105
72
108
17
92


.08
.65
.29
.43
.53
.71
.65
.54


Item #
















REFERENCE NOTES


1. Robertson, D., and Hyde, J. The factors of the family
environment scale. Unpublished and undated manuscript,
available from the first author P.O. Box 249, Warren
State Hospital, Warren, PA.

2. Janes, C.L. and Hesselbrock, V.M. Perceived family en-
vironment and school adjustment of children of schizo-
phrenics. Paper presented at the American Psychological
Association Eighth Annual Convention. Washington, D.C.,
September, 1976.

3. Olson, D., Bell, R., and Portner, J. Family adaptabil-
ity and cohesion evaluation scales. Family Social Sci-
ence Department, University of Minnesota, Unpublished
manuscript, 1978.















REFERENCES


Angell, R. The family encounters the depression. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936.

Bilbro, T.L., & Dreyer, A.S. A methodological study of a mea-
sure of family cohesion. Family Process, 1981, 20, 419-
427.

Cattell, R.B. The scree test for the number of factors. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1(2), 245-276.

Cromwell, R., Olson, D., & Fournier, D. Tools and techniques
for diagnosis and evaluation in marital and family ther-
apy. Family Process, 1976, 14(1), 1-49.

Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure
of tests. Psychometrika, 1961, 16(3), 297-334.

DeWitt, K.N. The effectiveness of family therapy. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 1978, 35, 549-561.

Edmonds, V. Marital conventionalization: Definition and
measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1967,
29, 681-688.

Fry, E. A readability formula that saves time. Journal of
Reading, 1968, 11, 514-577.

Gurman, A., & Kniskern, D. Research in marital and family
therapy: Empirical, clinical and conceptual issues.
In S.L. Garfield and A.E. Bergin (Eds.) Handbook of
psychotherapy and behavior change (Revised Edition).
New York: Wiley, 1978.

Hollingshead, A., & Redlich, F. Social class and mental ill-
ness. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

Jacob, T. Family interaction in disturbed and normal families:
A methodological and substantive review. Psychological
Bulletin, 1975, 82(1), 33-54.

Korsch, B., Fine, R., & Negrete, V. Noncompliance in children
with renal transplants. Pediatrics, 1978, 61(6), 872-876.

Masten, A.S. Family therapy as a treatment for children: A
critical review of outcome research. Family Process,
1979, 18(3), 323-335.












Minuchin, S., Rosman, B., & Baker, L. Psychosomatic fam-
ilies: Anorexia nervosa in context. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1978.

Moos, R. The family environment scale manual. Palo Alto,
California: Consulting Psychologists Press, n.d.

Moos, R., & Moos, B. A typology of family social environ-
ments. Family Process, 1976, 15(4), 357-371.

Olson, D., Russell, C., & Sprenkle, D. Circumplex model of
marital and family systems II: Empirical studies and
clinical intervention. Advances in family intervention,
assessment and theory. N.P.: JAI Press, 1980, 1, 129-
176.

Olson, D., Sprenkle, D., & Russell, C. Circumplex model of
marital and family systems I: Cohesion and adaptabil-
ity dimensions, family types and clinical applications.
Family Process, 1979, 18(1), 3028.

Pless, I., & Satterwhite, B. A measure of family function-
ing and its application. Social Science and Medicine,
1973, 7, 613-621.

Pless, I., Roghman, K., & Haggerty, R. Chronic illness,
family functioning, and psychological adjustment: A
model for the allocation of preventive mental health
services. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1972,
1, 271-277.

Portner, J. Parent/adolescent relationships: Interaction
types and the circumplex model (University of Minne-
sota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1982,
42(1), 4609-A.

Riskin, J., & Faunce, E.E. An evaluative review of family
interaction research. Family Process, 1972, 11, 365-
456,

Russell, C.S. Circumplex model of marital and family sys-
tems III: Empirical evaluation of families. Family
Process, 1979, 18, 29-45.

Satterwhite, B., Sqeig, S., Iker, H., & Pless, I. The fam-
ily functioning index--five year test-retest reliabil-
ity and implications for use. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 1976, 7, 111-116.

Sprenkle, D., & Olson, D. Circumplex model of marital sys-
tems III: Empirical study of clinic and non-clinic
couples. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling,
1978, 4, 59-74.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - Version 2.9.7 - mvs