Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Report Instruments for Family Assessment

  • Chapter
Family Interaction and Psychopathology

Part of the book series: Applied Clinical Psychology ((NSSB))

Abstract

There are many approaches to the assessment of family functioning. Popular techniques include the unstructured clinical interview (Fitzgerald, 1973); focused or structured interviews (Watzlawick, 1966); projective tests (Elbert, Rosman, Minuchin, & Guerney, 1964); self-report instruments (Moos & Moos, 1981); and performance on experimental tasks such as the revealed-difference technique (Jacob, 1975). The various methods differ with respect to their focus on past events versus the assessment of ongoing behavior. Also, there is considerable debate regarding how much emphasis should be placed on examining the characteristics of individual family members, their various interactions, or the family system as a whole (Bodin, 1968; Gurman & Kniskern, 1981; Lebow, 1981). Because each perspective may provide unique as well as corroborating information on areas of health or pathology in the family, there are obvious advantages in attempts to integrate these viewpoints. However, practical constraints and different theoretical orientations of staff often result in the use of a more circumscribed approach to family assessments in a given setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bell, R. Q. (1982). Parentladolescent relationships in families with runaways: Interaction types and the circumplex model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Family Social Service, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 392–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billings, A. G., and Moos, R. H. (1982). Family environments and adaptation: A clinically applicable typology. American Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process, 24, 225–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, A. M. (1968). Conjoint family assessment. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cerny, V., Dahl, N., Kamiko, T., and Aldous, J. (1974). International developments in family theory: A continuation of the “Pilgrim’s Progress.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 169–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, R. E., and Peterson, G. W. (1983). Multisystem—multimethod family assessment in clinical context. Family Process, 22, 147–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, R. E., Olson, D. H., and Fournier, D. G. (1976). Tools and techniques for diagnosis and evaluation in marital and family therapy. Family Process, 15, 1–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 282–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. (1979). A family oriented policy and treatment program for juvenile status offenders. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 627–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbert, S., Rosman, B., Minuchin, S., and Guerney, B. (1964). A method for the clinical study of family interaction. Paper presented at the American Orthopsychiatric Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler, N. S., and Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 956–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finney, J. W., Moos, R. H., and Newborn, C. R. (1980). Posttreatment experiences and treatment outcome of alcoholic patients six months and two years after hospitalization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney, J. W., Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., and Gamble, W. (1983). A conceptual model of the functioning of married persons with impaired partners: Spouses of alcoholic patients. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, L. (1976). Dimensions of family assessment. Journal of Marriage and Family Counselling, 2, 367382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, L. (1982). Transactional theories but individual assessment: A frequent discrepancy in family research. Family Process, 21, 313–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, R. V. (1973). Conjoint family therapy. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, B. D., and Hagan, B. J. (1983). A comparative review of total family functioning measures. American Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, B. D., and Hagan, B. J. (1984). Measures for evaluating total family functioning. Family Therapy, 11, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, P. C. (1981). Maximum likelihood factor structure of the Family Environment Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 160–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, P. C. (1982a). Factor structure of the Family Environment Scale: Effects of social desirability. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 285–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, P. C. (1982b). Relationship of family environment and personality characteristics: Canonical analyses of self-attributions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 804–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. E. (1976). Family therapy. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Clinical methods in psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhr, R. A., Moos, R. H., and Dishotsky, N. (1981). The use of family assessment and feedback in ongoing family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 9, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, P. E., Garner, D. M., Rose, J., Darby, P. L., Brandes, J. S., O’Hanlon, J., and Walsh, N. (1983). A comparison of characteristics in the families of patients with anorexia nervosa and normal controls. Psychological Medicine, 13, 821–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gurman, A. S., and Kniskern, D. P. (1981). Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harre, R. (1972). The philosophies of science. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S. R., and McKinley, J. C. (1951). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (rev.). New York: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2 ). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N. (1971). The dynamics of structured personality tests: 1971. Psychological Review, 78, 229–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality research form. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, T. (1975). Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 33–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karoly, P., and Rosenthal, M. (1977). Training parents in behavior modification: Effects on percep-tions of family interaction and deviant child behavior. Behavior Therapy, 8, 406–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. G., Calvert, G. P., Garland, T. N., and Poloma, M. M. (1969). Pilgrim’s Progress: 1. Recent developments in family theory. journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 677–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, J. (1981). Issues in the assessment of outcome in family therapy. Family Process, 20, 167–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1981). Constructs and their vicissitudes in educational and psychological measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 575–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. (1973). Conceptualization of human environments: An overview. American Psychologists, 28, 652–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. (1974). Combined preliminary manual for the family, work and group environment scales. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. (1984). Context and coping: Toward a unifying conceptual framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 5–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., and Fuhr, R. (1982). The clinical use of social-ecological concepts: The case of an adolescent girl. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 111–122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., and Moos, B. (1976). A typology of family social environments. Family Process, 15, 357–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., and Moos, B. (1981). Family Environment Scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., and Moos, B. (1984). The process of recovery from alcoholism: 3. Comparing functioning in families of alcoholics and matched control families. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 45, 111–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., and Spinrad, S. (1984). The Social Climate Scales: An annotated bibliography, 1979–1983. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., Bromet, E., Tsu, V., and Moos, B. (1979). Family characteristics and the outcome of treatment for alcoholism. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40, 78–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., Finney, J., and Chan, D. A. (1981). The process of recovery from alcoholism: 1. Comparing alcoholic patients and matched community controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 42, 383–402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R., Finney, J., and Gamble, W. (1982). The process of recovery from alcoholism: 2. Comparing spouses of alcoholic patients and matched community controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 43, 888–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory ( 2nd ed. ). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveri, M. E., and Reiss, D. (1984). Family concepts and their measurement: Things are seldom what they seem. Family Process, 23, 33–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., and Killorin, E. (1985). Clinical rating scale for the Circumplex Model. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., and Portner, J. (1983). Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., and Sprenkle, D. H. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 2. Empirical studies and clinical intervention. In J. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family interaction, assessment and theory. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., and Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 1. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., and Sprenkle, D. H. (1980). Marital and family therapy: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42,973–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., and Wilson, M. (1982). Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., Portner, J., and Bell, R. (1982). FACES II: Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen A., Muxen, M., and Wilson, M. (1983). Families: What makes them work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., and Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 4. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., Portner, J., and Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, G. W., and Cromwell, R. E. (1983). A clarification of multisystem-multimethod assessment: Reductionism versus wholism. Family Process, 22, 173–177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1972). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner, J. (1981). Parent/adolescent relationships: Interaction types and the circumplex model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, D. (1983). Sensory extenders versus meters and predictors: Clarifying strategies for the use of objective tests in family therapy. Family Process, 22, 165–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 3. Empirical evaluation with families. Family Process, 18, 29–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C. S. (1980). A methodological study of family cohesion and adaptability. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C. S., Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., and Atilano, R. B. (1983). From family symptom to family system: Review of family therapy research. American Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumm, W. R. (1982). Integrating theory, measurement and data analysis in family studies survey research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 8, 983–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, H. A. (1981). Toward the integration of classification theory and methods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 68–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, H. A. (1984). Models for the description of abnormal behavior. In H. E. Adams and P. B. Sutker (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, H. A., Santa-Barbara, J., and Steinhauer, P. D. (1981, June 3–5). The Family Assessment Measure: Development of a self-report instrument. Symposium presented at the Canadian Psychologi-cal Association Annual Meeting, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, H. A., Steinhauer, P. D., and Santa-Barbara, J. (1983). The Family Assessment Measure. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2, 91–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprenkle, D. H., and Olson, D. H. (1978). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 4. Em-pirical study of clinic and non-clinic couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 4, 59–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, P. D. (1984). Clinical applications of the process model of family functioning. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 98–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, P. D., and Tisdall, G. W. (1984). The integrated use of individual and family psychotherapy. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinglass, P. D., Davis, D. I., and Berenson, D. (1977). Observations of conjointly hospitalized “alcoholic couples” during sobriety and intoxication. Family Process, 16, 1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, P. D., Santa-Barbara, J., and Skinner, H. A. (1984). The process model of family functioning. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., and Tallman, I. (1971). SIMFAM: A technique for observational measurement and experimental study of families. In J. Aldous (Ed.), Family problem solving. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Veen, F. (1969). Family concept inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Juvenile Research, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P. (1966). A structured family interview. Family Process, 5, 256–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S. (1917). Personal data sheet. Chicago: Stoelting.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Addiction Research Foundation, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 2S1

    Harvey A. Skinner

Authors
  1. Harvey A. Skinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

    Theodore Jacob

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skinner, H.A. (1987). Self-Report Instruments for Family Assessment. In: Jacob, T. (eds) Family Interaction and Psychopathology. Applied Clinical Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0840-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0840-7_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-0842-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-0840-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation