Survey Approaches to the Assessment of Family Functioning: Conceptual, Operational, and Analytical Issues

Abstract

This article reviews several conceptual, operational, and analytical issues related to survey approaches to of family functioning. First, a multidimensional conceptualization of family functioning that is embedded within a family systems framework is presented. Second, operational issues pertaining to of family functioning when conceived of as a complex and multidimensional construct are discussed. Lastly, measurement strategies and analytical approaches that enable researchers to make level of functioning found within family system unit of analysis are explored. The notion that measurement is crucial to social sciences is a commonplace and unexceptional observation. While importance of good measurement is openly acknowledged by research community, there is, at same time, often a lack of systematic attention to practice of good measurement (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). In this article we review several conceptual, operational, and analytical issues that remain points of contention when it comes to survey approaches to of family functioning. SURVEY APPROACHES TO THE ASSESSMENT OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING: IS THERE A STATE OF THE ART? Our goal in writing this article is to provide an overview of issues that must be confronted by those who use survey approaches to of family functioning. To this end, problems with specific measures will be discussed to illustrate key points. However, scope of this review and critique of measures is not comprehensive nor do we make assumption that there are problems with all of existing measures. We would be remiss, however, if we did not comment in general about state of art when it comes to of family functioning. Critical theorists and methodologists have been calling attention for some time to a rash of conceptual and psychometric limitations associated with existing and often widely used measures of family functioning (Grotevant, 1989; Grotevant & Carlson, 1989; L'Abate & Bagarozzi, 1993). Grotevant (1989), for example, suggested that the lack of unified theory about family has led to confusion about what is to be measured, a proliferation of procedures, insufficient attention to psychometric standards, and consequently, restricted integration of findings across (p. 114). Furthermore, Grotevant and Carlson (1989) noted in their comprehensive review of family techniques that new coding schemes and measures surface frequently without sufficient regard for theoretical underpinnings, psychometric quality or careful development of linkages between theory and assessment (p. 5). As a way of illustrating these points, consider case of Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos, 1974). This measure has been used to assess aspects of family functioning in hundreds of studies since early 1980s (Waldron, Sabatelli, & Anderson, 1990), in spite of fact that examinations of psychometric foundation of FES called into question factor structure and validity of measure as early as 1982 (cf. Robertson & Hyde, 1982; Roosa & Beals, 1990; Waldron et al., 1990). Such methodological critiques have gone largely unheeded as is witnessed by continued wide use of measure. Another example is Family Assessment Device (FAD), a measure designed to assess family functioning based upon McMaster Model of Family Functioning (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983). L'Abate and Bagarozzi (1993) commented on FAD as follows: As far as we can tell from procedures outlined by Epstein et al. (1983), this study represents one of most poorly conceived and executed research attempts that we have come across in our review of published instruments. The FAD does not rest firmly on any recognizable theory of family process or family structure. In terms of domains of family functioning that this instrument is designed to assess, coverage is, at best incomplete. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 88 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.