Introduction
Assessing family functionality in a dependable, applicable and clinically sound manner has been the inspiration of family researchers for many decades. These family psychologists and clinicians devised models and instruments to help in that effort. This paper provides a knowledgeable comparison of some of these instruments as well as what their authors consider as a normal family functionality. It also provides a synopsis of my experience while using these instruments.
Synopsis
Various tools for evaluation explore a person’s diverse traits or identical traits in different people using various ways. There are three important assessment tools that evaluate family situations. One of these is the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales (FACES), which is founded on the circumplex model devised by Olson (Sperry, 2012). The other tools are the self-report family inventory (SFI) and the family assessment device (FAD).
SFI is a self-assessment tool covering thirty-six items rated using five categories of answers extending from ‘fits our house well’ to ‘does not fit our house.’ The authors of the SFI instrument designed it for use on family members aged eleven and above (Lichtenberg, 2010). The five areas examined by SFI are health and competence, emotional bonding in the family (cohesion), the level of disagreement (conflict), leadership, and emotional articulateness (Beavers & Hampson, 2000).
The FACES self-assessment tool facilitates categorization of households as stable (high), mid-range, or severe (low) based on cohesion and rigidity. Scoring highly puts a family in the balanced scale and depicts a properly functioning family. An advantage of using FACES III is that it is not easily swayed by social desirability, and it also differentiates nicely between various models of family functionality.
Its interpretation uses a linear model where cohesion and flexibility are on four levels each determined by the scores awarded to family members in these categories. FACES tool is easy to administer and information drawn from it is easily applicable in real life clinical scenarios.
Unlike SFI, FAD assesses the general family performance focusing on six crucial areas of family functionality. It also targets respondents aged twelve years and above.
It employs a four-point scale with responses varying from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ and comprises seven items that cover general family functioning, problem solving, communication, roles, emotional involvement, and behavior control (Roberts & Yeager, 2003). FAD is relatively valid as it is consistent with the McMaster tools for clinical evaluation and shows a close relationship with FACES. It is able to distinguish clinical and non-clinical family units efficiently based on six of the seven subcategories (Acton, 2013).
The main similarity between SFI and FACES III lies in their use of tables while interpreting findings. However, on the scale of family competency SFI is better than FACES model in terms of disorder and inflexibility. The categories in FACES portray chaos/disorder and inflexibility/rigidity as extreme opposites while SFI places chaos next to rigidity on the scale (Sude, 2008).
From SFI, a point was entered for every question and the numbers summed up to arrive at the last tally in each area. An inventory sheet and the Beaver’s model were used in the translation of the findings. In some cases, marks were taken precisely as they were in the inventory sheet while others were plotted on the axes of the Beaver’s table.
A Normal Family
The authors of these assessment models label nonclinical families as strong or normal. They study family scenarios that they perceive as clinical or nonclinical and identify patterns and traits that differentiate them. Therefore, a normal family ought to be one where the members are non-alcoholics, good communicators and are not suicidal (Sperry, 2012).
These theorists devise various models based on what they perceive as a normal, properly functioning family. They employ these models in the identification of trends that set the clinical and non-clinical families apart. This is how they come up with their definition of a normal family.
The traits laid down by the authors of these models as vital in determining whether a family is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ are in many cases connected. For instance, adaptability is often linked with the ability to communicate effectively. In addition, a family cannot achieve a clear definition of individual roles without effective communication. A family that spends much time together has clearly defined roles and better communication among members.
They understand each member of the family better than those families that spend little or no time together. In their materials, the authors ask questions that suggest that spending time together is an important indication of a normally functioning family. They give other characteristics of a normal family such as cohesion, leadership, adaptability, definition of roles, religious affiliation among others.
There is proof that cohesion and adaptability are indicators of a flourishing and functioning family. However, the applicability of such information on teaching the values of the ‘normal’ families to those families that perform poorly on functionality is not feasible. It is possible that the strength of a family is dependent on the individual traits of its members like intellect and emotional strength. Such traits can be genetically inherited, or they can be acquired through socialization and upbringing.
These inherited traits cannot be taught easily as one either possesses them at birth or not. On the other hand, there are programs that teach values to family members and enhance such traits as communication and cohesiveness. If properly planned, such programs can introduce new ways of living for families that have problems and can lead to better upbringing of children as well as better interaction among family members. The good thing is that these programs do not necessarily have to be expensive.
An instrument that discriminates based on categories is not necessarily biased. The issue is whether this discrimination happens due to unfair situations. However, the problem with labeling a certain type of family ‘normal’ or otherwise is that such general categorization overlooks the intricate differences that exist in diverse cultures and the different values attached to the family institution by such cultures. In my view, there is no such thing as a normal family since what is normal in one place may be strange and totally undesirable elsewhere.
Identifying the traits of a healthy family is valuable in the diagnosis of other families’ problems. Information obtained from such an endeavor is useful in prescribing solutions to family problems. Though a healthy family environment is an important part of a child’s upbringing and the socialization process, branding some families as normal and others as abnormal is prejudicial, and members of the ‘abnormal’ families can feel that they are specifically targeted.
Conclusion
The family is a very intricate structure. Therefore, devising a standard system for its accurate evaluation is not an easy task. Family assessment instruments must provide practical and valuable information about the family. Though, the translation of results shows various aspects of my family depicted by the instruments, there are some areas that I find confusing. Therefore, I cannot speak authoritatively on their accuracy.
References
Acton, A. Q. (2013). Issues in human development research. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholarly Editions.
Beavers, R. & Hampson, R. B. (2000). The Beavers systems model of family functioning. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2), 128-143.
Lichtenberg, P. A. (2010). Handbook of assessment in clinical gerontology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Roberts, A. & Yeager, K. R. (2003). Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sperry, L. (2012). Assessment of couples and families. New York: Routledge.
Sude, E. (2008). Family of origin functioning and the likelihood of seeking romantic partners over the internet. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.