Turkish Adaptation of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale IV

Year 2018, , 631 - 644, 16.12.2018

Turgut Türkdoğan , Erdinç Duru , Murat Balkıs

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.409110

Cited By: 8

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric
properties of the Turkish version of Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale IV (FACES
IV) Questionnaire Package, and also to achieve a valid and reliable assessment tool
for the further investigations of the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems
in Turkish culture. A total of 1613 (65.4% female, 34.6% male) university students
agreed to participate in the study. The construct validity of the FACES IV was examined
with confirmatory factor analysis. Also, the convergent validity, criterion-related
validity, internal reliability, and test-retest reliability analyses were examined
within the scope of validity and reliability studies. Findings indicate that Turkish
form of FACES IV can be used as a valid and reliable scale with sufficient psychometric
properties to evaluate the family cohesion, family adaptability, family communication,
family satisfaction, and the family functioning as a whole in Turkish culture. 

Keywords

Circumplex model, Family adaptability, Family cohesion, Family functioning, Family satisfac-tion

Turkish Adaptation of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale IV

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale IV (FACES IV) Questionnaire Package, and also to achieve a valid and reliable assessment tool for the further investigations of the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems in Turkish culture. A total of 1613 (65.4% female, 34.6% male) university students agreed to participate in the study. The construct validity of the FACES IV was examined with confirmatory factor analysis. Also, the convergent validity, criterion-related validity, internal reliability, and test-retest reliability analyses were examined within the scope of validity and reliability studies. Findings indicate that Turkish form of FACES IV can be used as a valid and reliable scale with sufficient psychometric properties to evaluate the family cohesion, family adaptability, family communication, family satisfaction, and the family functioning as a whole in Turkish culture. 

Keywords

Circumplex model, Family adaptability, Family cohesion, family communication, Family functioning, Family satisfaction

References

• Baiocco, R., Cacioppo, M., Laghi, F., & Tafa, M. (2013). Factorial and construct validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 22, 962-970.
• Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433-441.
• Beavers, R., & Hampson, B. (1990). Successful families: Assessment and intervention. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Beavers, R., & Hampson, B. (2000). The Beavers Systems Model of family functioning. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 128-143.
• Costa-Ball, D., Gonzalez-Tornaria, M., delArca, D., Masjuan, N., & Olson, D. H. (2013). Psychometrıc propertıes of FACES IV: Validity study in Uruguayan population. [Abstract]. Ciencias Psicologicas, 7(2), 119-132.
• Doherty, W. J., & Hovander, D. (1990). Why don’t family measures of cohesion and control behave the way they’re supposed to? American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 5-18.
• Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Eker, D. Arkar, H., & Yaldız, H. (2001). Factorial structure, validity, and reliability of revised form of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 12(1), 17-25.
• Epstein, N., Baldwin, L., & Bishop, D. (1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171-180.
• Epstein, N., Baldwin, L., & Bishop, D. (1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171-180.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Gladding, S. T. (2011). Family therapy: History, theory and practice. (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
• Gorall, T. M., Tiesel, J., & Olson, D. H. (2006). FACES IV: Development and validation. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.
• Gulerce, A. (2007). The transformational family model and the psychological patterns of families in Turkey. Istanbul: Bogazici University Library Cataloguing.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Hamilton, E., & Carr, A. (2016). Systematic review of self-report family assessment measures. Family Process, 55(1), 16-30.
• Klein, K., & Forehand, R. (2000). Family processes as resources for African-American children exposed to a constellation of sociodemographic risk factors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(1), 53-65.
• Kouneski, E. (2002). Circumplex model and FACES: Review of literature. Twin Cities, MN: University of Minnesota.
• Koutra, K., Triliva, S., Roumeliotaki, T., Lionis, C., & Vgontzas, A. N. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Greek version of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales IV package (FACES IV Package). Journal of Family Issues, 34(12), 1647-1672.
• Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308
• Loriedo, C., Di Nuovo, S. F., & Visani, E. (2013). FACES-IV reliability and validity in an adult Italian sample. Retrieved from http://www.buildingrelationships.com/facesiv_studies/italy_facesiv_2013.pdf
• Marsac, M. L., & Alderfer, M. A. (2011). Psychometric properties of the FACES-IV in a pediatric oncology population. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36(5), 528-538.
• Mikolajczak, M., Raes, M. E., Avalosse, H., & Roskam, I. (2018). Exhausted parents: Sociodemographic, child-related, parent-related, parenting and family-functioning correlates of parental burnout. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(2), 602-614.
• Mirnics, Z., Vargha, A., Toth, M., & Bagdy, E. (2010). Cross-cultural applicability of FACES IV. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 21(1), 17-33.
• Moos, R., & Moos, B. (2009). Family environment scale manual (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
• Okman-Fisek, G. (1990). Family interconnectedness. Graduate seminar. Bogazici University, Department of Educational Sciences, Istanbul.
• Olson D. H., & Gorall D. M. (2006). FACES IV and the circumplex model. Retrieved from https://www.societyofpediatricpsychology.org/sites/default/files/files/3_innovations.pdf
• Olson D. H., Gorall D. M., Tiesel J. W. (2007). FACES IV Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.
• Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2), 144-167.
• Olson, D. H. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7(1), 64-80.
• Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1989). Families: What makes them work (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of martial and family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69-83.
• Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1989). Circumplex Model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
• Olson, D.H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.) Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 514-548). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Olson, D.H., Sprenkle, D.H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family system: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18(1), 3-28.
• Pereira, M. G., & Teixeira, R. J. (2013). Portuguese validation of FACES-IV in adult children caregivers facing parental cancer. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 35, 478-490.
• Pirutinsky, S., & Kor, A. (2013). Relevance of the circumplex model to family functioning among Orthodox Jews in Israel. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 25-38.
• Rivero, N., Martinez-Pampliega, A., & Olson, D. H. (2010). Spanish adaptation of the FACES IV questionnaire: Psychometric characteristics. The Family Journal, 18(3), 288-296.
• Sebokova, G., Jurisova, E., Popelkova, M., Uhlarikova, J., & Zatkova, M. (2016). Factorial validity and reliability of the Slovak version of the F ACES IV in adolescents. [Abstract]. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 60(3), 278-289.
• Skinner, H., Steinhauer, P., & Sitarenios, G. (2000). Family assessment measure (FAM) and process model of family functioning. Journal of Family Functioning, 22, 190-210.
• Stratton, P., Bland, J., Janes, E., & Lask, J. (2010). Developing an indicator of family function and a practicable outcome measure for systemic family and couple therapy: The SCORE. Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 232-258.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., Huesmann, R., & Zelli, A. (1997). Assessment of family relationship characteristics: A measure to explain risk for antisocial behaviour and depression among urban youth. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 212-223.
• Trent, K., & South, S. J. (1992). Sociodemographic status, parental background, childhood family structure, and attitudes toward family formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(2), 427-439.
• Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30-41.