Quantitative Methodology for Studying Families

  • Alan C. Acock


Many characteristics shape the research methods of family scholars. First, families have a shared past and future (Copeland and White, 1991). Other fields study groups that have history, but few areas involve a history that is so persistently salient to everyday decisions. Second, families are both sacred and profane. The reverence we have for families challenges researchers who seek to objectify and measure them, while also recognizing the levels of violence, dishonesty, and abuse in families that expressions like “dirty linen” fail to capture. Being both sacred and profane introduces a level of privacy that is difficult to unravel.


Marital Satisfaction Ordinary Little Square Regression Marital Conflict Marital Adjustment Quantitative Methodology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acock, A. C., & Demo, D. (1994). Family diversity and well-being. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Acock, A. C., & Schumm, W. (1992). Analysis of covariance structures applied to family research and theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, and S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 451–468 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  3. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, K. R., & Walker, A. J. (1993). A feminist analysis of interviews with elderly mothers and their daughters. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, and G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 198–214 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores ad dependent variables in regression analysis. In C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 20, pp. 93–114 ). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Allison, P. D. (1994). Using panel data to estimate the effects of events. Sociological Methods and Research, 23, 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research ( 7th ed. ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  8. Bailey, K. D. (1984). On integrating theory and method. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 6, 21–44.Google Scholar
  9. Bales, R. F (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Bronson, G. W. (1994). Infants’ transitions toward adult-like scanning. Child Development, 5, 1243–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, S. R., & Melamed, L. E. (1990). Experimental design and analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierachical linear models:Applications and data analysis techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Burr, W. R. (1995). Using theories in family science. In R. D. Day, K. R.Gilbert, B. H. Settles, and W. R. Burr (Eds.), Research and theory in family science (pp. 73–90 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  15. Call V., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a national sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 639–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, M. L., Roberts, R. E. L., & Rubenfeld, L. A. ( 1986, November). Selective attrition thirteen years later: Implications for the study of change in marital satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontology Society of America, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  17. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Carver, K. P., & Teachman, J. D. (1995). The science of family science. In R. D. Day, K. R. Gilbert, B. H. Settles, and W. R. Burr (Eds.), Research and theory in family science (pp. 113–127 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for thé behavioral sciences ( 2nd ed. ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Copeland, A. P., & White, K. M. (1991). Studying families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Dahrendorf, R. (1969). On the origins of inequality among men. In A. Beteile (Ed.), Social inequality: Selected readings (pp. 16–44 ). New York: Harmondsworth/Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Darlington, R. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, K., & Moore, W. (1945). Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review, 10, 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (1992). The NORC general social survey: A user’s guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Deal, J. E., & Anderson, E. R. (1995). Reporting and interpreting results in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Vellis, R. F (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Draper, T. W., & Marcos, A. C. (1990). Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement and use. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Duncan, O. D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A. J. Reiss, Jr. (Ed.), Occupations and social status (pp. 109–138 ). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1981). History and the family: The discovery of complexity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. French, J. R. P. (1950). Field experiments: Changing group productivity. In J. G. Miller (Ed.), Experiments in social process: A symposium on social psychology (pp. 79–96 ). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Gilgun, J. F. (1992). Definitions, methodologies, and methods. In J. E Gilgun, K. Daly, and G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 22–49 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Gilgun, J. F, Daly, K., & Handel, G. (Eds.). (1992). Qualitative methods in family research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Graham, J. W., Hofer, S. M., & Piccinin, A. M. (1994). Analysis with missing data in drug prevention research. In L. M. Collins and L. A. Seitz (Eds.), Advances in data analysis for prevention intervention research (National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series no. 142 ), Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  35. Haller, A. (1982). Social structure and behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Heaton, T. B., & Call, V. R. A. (1995). Modeling family dynamics with event history techniques. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1078–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables, and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 475–492.Google Scholar
  38. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Homans, G. (1974). Elementary forms of human behavior (rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, D. R. (1995). Alternative methods for the quantitative analysis of panel data in family research: Pooled time-series models. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1065–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, D. R., Amoloza, T. O., & Booth, A. (1992). Stability and developmental change in marital quality: A three-wave panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 582–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones, W. H., & Lang, J. R. (1980). Sample composition bias and response bias in a mail survey: A comparison of inducement methods. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 69–76.Google Scholar
  43. Kamo, Y. (1988). Determinants of the household division of labor: Resources, power, and ideology. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). Assessing longitudinal change in marriage: An introduction to the analysis of growth curves. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1091–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karney, B. R., Davila, J., Cohan, C. L., Sullivan, K. T., Johnson, M. D., & Bradbury, T. H. (1995). An empirical investigation of sampling strategies in marital research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 909–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kasprzyk, D., Duncan, G., Kalton, G., Singh, M. P. (Eds.). (1989). Panel surveys. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. LaRossa, R., Bennett, L. A., & Gelles, R. (1985). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative family research. In G. Handel (Ed.), The psychosocial interior of the family (pp. 95–111 ). New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  48. Larsen, A., & Olson, D. H. (1990). Capturing the complexity of family systems: Integrating family theory, family scores, and family analysis. In T. W. Draper and A. C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use (pp. 19–47 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Larzelere, R. E., & Klein, D. M. (1987). Methodology. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 125–156 ). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McArdle, J. J., & Hamagami, F. (1992). Modeling incomplete longitudinal and cross-sectional data using latent growth structural models. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (Eds.). (1991). Family assessment inventories for research and practice. Madison: University of Wiscons in Press.Google Scholar
  52. Miller, B. C., Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1982). On methods of studying marriages and families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 851–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller, R. B., & Wright, D. W. (1995). Detecting and correcting attrition bias in longitudinal family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 921–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nielsen, J. M. (1990). Introduction. In J. M. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 1–37 ). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  55. NSFH Staff. (1995). Preliminary differential response rates of main respondent by characteristics at NSFH 1 (December 24 release as response. rep.).Google Scholar
  56. Orne, M. T. (1959). The nature of hypnosis: Artifact and essense. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 277–299.Google Scholar
  57. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parker, K. C., Hanson, R. K., & Hunsley, J. (1988). MMPI, Rorschach, and WAIS: A meta-analytic comparison of reliability, stability, and validity. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explana- tion and prediction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  60. Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In K. W. Schaie (Ed.), Methodological issues in aging research (pp. 171–209 ). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (1979). Elementary survey sampling ( 2nd ed. ). North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  64. Scinovacz, M. E., & Egley, L. C. (1995). Comparing one-partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 995–1010.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, T. E., and Graham, P. B. (1995). Socioeconomic stratification in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 930–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., & Call, V. (1988). The design and content of the national survey of families and households (Working paper NSFH1). Madison: Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  67. Teachman, J. D. (1982). Methodological issues in the analysis of family formation and dissolution. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 1037–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Teachman, J. D., Polonko, K. A., & Scanzoni, J. (1987). Demography of the family. In M. B. Sussman and S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 3–36 ). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Teachman, J. D., Carver, K., & Day, R. (1995). A model for the analysis of paired data. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1011–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 999–1008.Google Scholar
  71. Vincent, J. P., Friedman, L. S., Nugent, J., and Messerly, L. (1979). Demand characteristics in observations of marital interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 557–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walker, A., Acock, A. C., Bowman, S., & Li, F. (1996). Amount of caregiven and caregiving satisfaction: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 51B, P130–P142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weber, M. (1968). Classes. London: Verso. (Original work published 1921 )Google Scholar
  74. Willet, J. B. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education: 1988–89 (pp. 345422 ). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  75. Willet, J. B., & Sayer, A. G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors of individual change over time. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan C. Acock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human Development and Family SciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations