Self-Report Instruments for Family Assessment

  • Harvey A. Skinner
Part of the Applied Clinical Psychology book series (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.

Keywords

Anorexia Nervosa Family Functioning Family Therapy Family System Family Cohesion 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Family Social Service, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 392–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billings, A. G., and Moos, R. H. (1982). Family environments and adaptation: A clinically applicable typology. American Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process, 24, 225–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodin, A. M. (1968). Conjoint family assessment. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Cromwell, R. E., and Peterson, G. W. (1983). Multisystem—multimethod family assessment in clinical context. Family Process, 22, 147–163.Google Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 282–302.Google Scholar
  12. Druckman, J. (1979). A family oriented policy and treatment program for juvenile status offenders. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endler, N. S., and Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 956–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, L. (1976). Dimensions of family assessment. Journal of Marriage and Family Counselling, 2, 367382.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, L. (1982). Transactional theories but individual assessment: A frequent discrepancy in family research. Family Process, 21, 313–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitzgerald, R. V. (1973). Conjoint family therapy. New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  21. Forman, B. D., and Hagan, B. J. (1983). A comparative review of total family functioning measures. American Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forman, B. D., and Hagan, B. J. (1984). Measures for evaluating total family functioning. Family Therapy, 11, 1–36.Google Scholar
  23. Fowler, P. C. (1981). Maximum likelihood factor structure of the Family Environment Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fowler, P. C. (1982a). Factor structure of the Family Environment Scale: Effects of social desirability. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 285–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fowler, P. C. (1982b). Relationship of family environment and personality characteristics: Canonical analyses of self-attributions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 804–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fox, R. E. (1976). Family therapy. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Clinical methods in psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gurman, A. S., and Kniskern, D. P. (1981). Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  30. Harre, R. (1972). The philosophies of science. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hathaway, S. R., and McKinley, J. C. (1951). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (rev.). New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  32. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Jackson, D. N. (1971). The dynamics of structured personality tests: 1971. Psychological Review, 78, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality research form. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jacob, T. (1975). Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 33–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lebow, J. (1981). Issues in the assessment of outcome in family therapy. Family Process, 20, 167–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Messick, S. (1981). Constructs and their vicissitudes in educational and psychological measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 575–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moos, R. (1973). Conceptualization of human environments: An overview. American Psychologists, 28, 652–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moos, R. (1974). Combined preliminary manual for the family, work and group environment scales. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  46. Moos, R. (1984). Context and coping: Toward a unifying conceptual framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 5–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moos, R., and Moos, B. (1976). A typology of family social environments. Family Process, 15, 357–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moos, R., and Moos, B. (1981). Family Environment Scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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, 111–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Moos, R., and Spinrad, S. (1984). The Social Climate Scales: An annotated bibliography, 1979–1983. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  52. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory ( 2nd ed. ). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Oliveri, M. E., and Reiss, D. (1984). Family concepts and their measurement: Things are seldom what they seem. Family Process, 23, 33–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olson, D. H., and Killorin, E. (1985). Clinical rating scale for the Circumplex Model. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., and Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  67. Peterson, G. W., and Cromwell, R. E. (1983). A clarification of multisystem-multimethod assessment: Reductionism versus wholism. Family Process, 22, 173–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Popper, K. R. (1972). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar
  69. Portner, J. (1981). Parent/adolescent relationships: Interaction types and the circumplex model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  70. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 3. Empirical evaluation with families. Family Process, 18, 29–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Russell, C. S. (1980). A methodological study of family cohesion and adaptability. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schumm, W. R. (1982). Integrating theory, measurement and data analysis in family studies survey research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 8, 983–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Skinner, H. A. (1981). Toward the integration of classification theory and methods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 68–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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, 59–74Google Scholar
  80. Steinhauer, P. D. (1984). Clinical applications of the process model of family functioning. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 98–111.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. van der Veen, F. (1969). Family concept inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Juvenile Research, Chicago.Google Scholar
  86. Watzlawick, P. (1966). A structured family interview. Family Process, 5, 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  88. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Woodworth, R. S. (1917). Personal data sheet. Chicago: Stoelting.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harvey A. Skinner
    • 1
  1. 1.Addiction Research FoundationTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations