Based on the Circumplex model. Revised version includes six subscales: two assess the mid-ranges of adaptability and cohesion, and four assess the extremes (rigid, chaotic, disengaged, and enmeshed).
Overview
FACES IV
Olson DH, Gorall DM, Tiesel JW. FACES-IV package: Administration. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations, Inc; 2006.
Cost - $95 FACES IV package with unlimited use; $75 for students
Administration
5-point scale:
1= Does not describe our family at all
2=Slightly describes our family
3= Somewhat describes our family
4= Generally describes our famly
5= Describes our family very well
| Domains | Scales | Sample Items |
|---|---|---|
| Balanced Cohesion | Balanced | Family members are supporting each other during difficult times |
| Balanced Flexibility | Balanced | My family is able to adjust to change when necessary |
| Unbalanced Cohesion | Disengaged | Family members seem to avoid contact with each other when at home |
| Unbalanced Cohesion | Enmeshed | We spend too much time together |
| Unbalanced Flexibility | Rigid | There are strict consequences for breaking rules in our family |
| Unbalanced Flexibility | Chaotic | Our family feels hectic and disorganized |
| Family Communication | N/A | Family members are able to ask each other for what they want |
| Family Satisfaction | N/A | Your family's ability to cope with stress |
(1) Percentile scores - for research and clinical work; can be plotted on summary profile (2) Ratio scores - balanced v. unbalanced; cohesion ratio, flexibility ratio, total cirumplex ratio (generally used for research) (3) Dimension scores - plotting cohesion and flexibility and circumplex model - should not be used for research
Training
Familiarity w/administration, scoring guidelines & interpretation
Parallel or Alternate Forms
Psychometrics
| Type: | Rating | Statistics | Min | Max | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test-Retest | 0.83 | 0.93 | |||
| Internal Consistency | alpha | 0.65 | 0.81 | n/a | |
| Inter-rater | |||||
| Parallel/Alternate Forms | t-tests & correlation | r=0.12 | r=0.46 | n/a |
Test-retest reliability: More info would be valuable (Marsac & Alderfer, 2010)
Internal consistency: Appropriate for research but may not be ready for clinical use (Franklin, Streeter, & Springer, 2001)
Inter-rater reliability: Further analysis across family members needed (Marsac & Alderfer, 2010)
Olson (2011)
NOTE: See end of document for full references.
Franklin, Streeter, & Springer (2001).
Marsac & Alderfer (2010).
Olson (2011).
| Validity Type | Not known | Not found | Nonclincal Samples | Clinical Samples | Diverse Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convergent/Concurrent | Yes | Yes | |||
| Discriminant | Yes | ||||
| Sensitive to Change | X | ||||
| Intervention Effects | X | ||||
| Longitudinal/Maturation Effects | X | ||||
| Sensitive to Theoretically Distinct Groups | X | ||||
| Factorial Validity | Yes |
Franklin, Streeter, & Springer (2001).
Marsac & Alderfer (2010).
Olson (2011).
| Not Known | Not Found | Nonclinical Samples | Clinical Samples | Diverse Samples | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive Validity: | X | ||||
| Postdictive Validity: |
Predictive Validity: Future research should examine this (Marsac & Alderfer).
Concurrent Validity: Family therapists from AAMFT who described 4 unbalanced scales as accurately representing 4 unbalanced areas (Olson, 2011). Examined correlations between domains on the following scales and those on FACES-IV: McMaster Family Assessment Device, Family Satsfaction Scale, Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale, Perceived Parental Self-Efficacy Scale, Revised Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory, Self-Report Family Inventory, Social Support Behavior Scale, and Multi-Problem Screening Inventory (Franklin et al., 2001; Marsac & Alderfer, 2010; Olson, 2011).
Franklin, Streeter, & Springer (2001)
Marsac & Alderfer (2010)
Olson (2011)
Translations
| Language: | Translated | Back Translated | Reliable | Good Psychometrics | Similar Factor Structure | Norms Available | Measure Developed for This Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Spanish (Rivero, Martinez-Pampliega & Olson, 2010) | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
| 2. Italian (Baiocco, Cacioppo, Laghi, & Tafa, 2013; Loriedo, Nuovo, & Visani, 2013) | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
| 3. Greek (Koutra, Triliva, Roumeliotaki, Lionis, & Vgontzas) | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
| 4. Hungarian (Mirnics, Vargha, Toth, & Bagdy, 2010) | X | X | X | X |
Population Information
Modified convenience & snowball sample recruited from junior-level family systems and diversity university course in major midwestern metropolitan area over 1 year period - 469 usable data; 15% family members; avg. age = 28; range: 18-59; 2/3 single and female; 1/3 married; 80% Caucasian, 7% Asian American, 6% African American, 2% Hispanic, 2% Native American
Pros & Cons/References
Most of the subscales have good discriminant validity, excluding the Disengaged and Chaotic subscales which are relatively highly correlated (r = .60; Franklin et al., 2001).
The Cohesion subscale does a particularly good job assessing factors involved in the Circumplex Model (Franklin et al., 2001).
Appropriate for use in nomothetic research (Franklin et al., 2001)
Disengaged & Chaotic domains not entirely independent (Franklin et al., 2001)
Additional research or tweaking of the measure is needed before using with clinical populations (Franklin et al., 2001)
Internal consistency has been found to be as low as .65 (Marsac & Alderfer, 2010)
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. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9658-1
Franklin, C., Streeter, C. L., Springer, D. W. (2001). Validity of the FACES IV Family Assessment Measure. Research on Social Work Practice 11, 576-596.
Koutra, K., Triliva, S., Roumeliotaki, T., Lionis, C., & Vgontzas, A. N. (2013). 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, 1647-1672. doi: 10.1177/0192513X12462818
Loriedo, C., Nuovo, S. D., & Visani, E. (2013). FACES-IV: Italian reliability and validity. 1-16.
Marsac, M. L., & Alderfer, M. A. (2010). Psychometric Properties of the FACES-IV in a Pediatric Oncology Population. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 36, 528-538.
Olson, D. (2011). FACES IV and the Circumplex Model: Validation Study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 37(1), 64-80.
Rivero, N., Martínez-Pampliega, A., & Olson, D. H. (2010). Spanish Adaptation of the FACES IV Questionnaire: Psychometric Characteristics. The Family Journal 18, 288-296.
Mirnics, Z., Vargha, A., Toth, M., & Bagdy, E. (2010). Cross-cultural applicability of FACES IV. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 21, 17-33.