Validity of the FACES IV Family Assessment Measure

Research on Social Work Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 576-596

  Franklin, Cynthia ^a   Streeter, Calvin L ^a   Springer, David W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035639902     PISSN: 10497315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/104973150101100503     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 443-441.
2. Barnes, H., & Olson, D. H. (1989). Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale. In D. Olson, C. Russel, & D. Sprenkle (Eds.), Family inventories manual (pp. 438-447). St. Paul, MN: Family Inventories Project, University of Minnesota.
3. Beavers, W. R., Hampson, R. B., & Hulgus, Y. S. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers Systems approach to family assessment. Family Process, 24, 398-408.
4. Beavers, W. R., & Voeller, M. N. (1983). Family models: Comparing and contrasting Olson's Circumplex Model with Beavers Systems Model. Family Process, 22, 85-97.
5. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
6. Cluff, R. B., & Hicks, M. W. (1994). Rejoinder: Superstition also survives. Seeing is not always believing. Family Process, 33, 479-482.
7. Cluff, R. B., Hicks, M. W., & Madsen, C. H., Jr. (1994). Beyond the Circumplex Model: I. A moratorium on curvilinearity. Family Process, 33, 455-470.
8. Daley, J. G., Sowers-Hoag, K. M., & Thyer, B. A. (1990). Are FACES-II 'family satisfaction' scores valid? Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 77-81.
9. Daley, J. G., Sowers-Hoag, K. M., & Thyer, B. A. (1991). Construct validity of the Circumplex Model of family functioning. Journal of Social Service Research, 15, 131-147.
10. Dundas, I. (1994). The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale III in a Norwegian sample. Family Process, 33, 191-202.
11. Eckblad, G. F. (1993). Commentary: The "circumplex" and curvilinear functions. Family Process, 32, 473-476.
12. Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1982). McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) manual (version 3). Providence, RI: The Brown University/Butler Hospital Family Research Program, Butler Hospital.
13. Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 9, 213-228.
14. Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. (1994). Measures for clinical practice: Volumes 1 & 2 (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
15. Franklin, C., & Streeter, C. L. (1993). Validity of the 3-D Circumplex Model for family assessment. Research on Social Work Practice, 3(3), 258-275.
16. Friedman, A. S., Utada, A., & Morrissey, M. R. (1987). Families of adolescent drug abusers are "rigid": Are these families either "disengaged" or "enmeshed," or both? Family Process, 26, 131-148.
17. Green, R. G. (1989). Choosing family measurement devices for practice and research: SFI and FACES III. Social Service Review, 63, 304-320.
18. Green, R. G., Harris, R. N., Jr., Forte, J. A., & Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating FACES III and the Circumplex Model: 2,440 families. Family Process, 30, 55-73.
19. Green, R. G., Kolevzon, M. S., & Vosler, N. R. (1985). The Beaver-Timberlawn Model of family competence and the Circumplex Model of family adaptability and cohesion: Separate, but equal? Family Process, 24, 385-398.
20. Hampson, R. B., Beavers, W. R., & Hulgus, Y. F. (1988). Commentary: Comparing the Beavers and Circumplex Models of family functioning. Family Process, 27, 85-92.
21. Hampson, R. B., Hulgus, Y. F., & Beavers, W. R. (1991). Comparisons of self-report measures of the Beavers Systems Model and Olson's Circumplex Model. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 326-340.
22. Hudson, W. W. (1982). The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
23. Hudson, W. W. (1991). MPSI technical manual. Tempe, AZ: WALMYR.
24. Hudson, W. W., & McMurtry, S. (1997). Comprehensive assessment in social work practice: The Multi-Problem Screening Inventory. Research on Social Work Practice, 7, 79-98.
25. Kabacoff, R. I., Miller, I. W., Bishop, D. S., Epstein, N. B., & Keitner, G. I. (1990). A psychometric study of the McMaster Family Assessment Device in psychiatric, medical, and nonclinical samples. Journal of Family Psychology, 3, 431-439.
26. Kuehl, B. P., Schumm, W. R., Russell, C. S., & Jurich, A. P. (1988). How do subjects interpret items in Olson's Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES)? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 247-253.
27. Lee, C. (1988). Theories of family adaptability: Toward a synthesis of Olson's Circumplex and the Beavers Systems Models. Family Process, 27, 73-85.
28. Miller, I. S., Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D. S., & Kreitner, G. I. (1985). The McMaster Family Assessment Device: Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 337-356.
29. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30. Olson, D. H. (1985). Commentary: Struggling with congruence across theoretical models and methods. Family Process, 24, 203-207.
31. Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex Model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process, 25, 337-351.
32. Olson, D. H. (1989). Circumplex Model of family systems VIII: Family assessment and intervention. In D. H. Olson, C. S. Russell, & D. H. Sprenkle (Eds.), Circumplex Model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New York: Haworth Press.
33. Olson, D. H. (1991). Commentary: Three-dimensional (3-D) Circumplex Model and revised scoring of FACES III. Family Process, 30, 74-79.
34. Olson, D. H. (1994). Commentary. Curvilinearity survives: The world is not flat. Family Process, 33, 471-478.
35. Olson, D. H. (1996). Clinical assessment and treatment using the family Circumplex Model. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook in relational diagnosis (pp. 59-80). New York: Wiley.
36. Olson, D. H., Russell, C., & Sprenkle, D. (1989). Faces III manual. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
37. Olson, D. H., Tiesel, J. W., & Gorall, D. M. (1996). Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
38. Olson, D. H., & Wilson, M. (1983). Family Satisfaction Scale. In D. H. Olson, C. Russell, & D. Sprenkle (Eds.), Family Inventories Manual. St. Paul, MN: Family Inventories Project, University of Minnesota.
39. Overall, J. E., & Klett, C. J. (1972). Applied multivariate analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Pratt, D. M., & Hansen, J. C. (1987). A test of the curvilinear hypothesis with FACES II and III. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 387-392.
41. Rodick, J. D., Henggeler, S. W., & Hanson, C. L. (1986). An evaluation of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales and the Circumplex Model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77-87.
42. Sigafoos, A., Reiss, D., Rich, J., & Douglas, E. (1985). Pragmatics in the measurement of family functioning: An interpretive framework for methodology. Family Process, 24, 189-203.
43. Springer, D. W. (1998). Validation of the Adolescent Concerns Evaluation (ACE): Detecting indicators of runaway behavior in adolescents. Social Work Research, 22, 241-250.
44. Thomas, V., & Olson, D. H. (1993). Problem families and the Circumplex Model: Observational assessment using the clinical rating scale (CRS). Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 19, 159-175.
45. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46. Tiesel, J. W., & Olson, D. H. (1997). FACES IV: Reliability and validity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
47. Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research, and intervention. New York: Praeger.
48. Vaux, A., Stewart, D., & Riedel, S. (1987). Modes of social support: The Social Support Behaviors (SSB) scale. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 209-237.
49. Vaux, A., & Wood, J. (1987). Social support resources, behavior, and appraisals: A path analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 15, 107-111.
50. Vega, W. A., Patterson, T., Sallis, J., Nader, P., Atkins, C., & Abramson, I. (1986). Mexican-American and Anglo families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 857-867.
51. West, J. D., Hosie, T. W., & Matthews, F. N. (1989). Families of academically gifted children: Adaptability and cohesion. School Counselor, 37(2), 121-127.
52. Zaks, E., Green, R. J., & Morrow, J. (1988). Comparing lesbian and heterosexual couples on the Circumplex Model: An initial investigation. Family Process, 27, 471-480.