An empirical examination of the association between instruments measuring the Beavers-Timberlawn Model of family competence and the Circumplex Model of adaptability and cohesion is presented. Even when triangulated measures were utilized to control for the divergent methods of data collection traditionally employed to operationalize these models of family health, family competence as measured by the Beavers-Timberlawn Family Evaluation Scales was either minimally (mothers) or not associated at all (fathers and children) with balanced and thereby optimal dimensions of adaptability and cohesion as measured by the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales. Methodological and substantive explanations for the surprising lack of association between measures of these two prominent family assessment models are explored and short- and long-range implications for the growth and practice of family therapy are discussed.

No abstract

This study reports on a triangulation strategy for assessing family interaction, involving family members, their therapist and coders independently viewing videotapes. Utilizing a standardized scale, the Beavers-Timberlawn Model of Family Competence, the study found weak agreement between paired assessments within the family triad, and within the therapist-coder dyad. I n addition, more complex scaling techniques such as composite "family scores" or discrepancy scores between family member dyads added no predictive power. The findings suggest that a l i m i t of concordance" may exist when comparing varying raters' assessments of a given family, and that methodological andlor scaling strategies designed to maximize agreement may be both fruitless and diversionary.

The present study reports on a comparative survey of the belief and action systems of graduates who had been intensively trained in one of three of the major models of family therapy: Bowenian, communications, and strategic. An analysis of the factor-analyzed assumptions (belief system) and style (action system) items showed consistently greater divergence among the three models than convergence, as well as a remarkable synchronicity between the respective literature on these three models and their implementation, as represented by family therapists intensively trained in each model. A comparison of the present study's findings with previous research strongly supports the potency of formal and intensive training for developing adherents of a particular model and suggests that the distinctiveness of each model needs to be more fully developed in preference to premature attempts to develop generic or inclusive models that may become internally inconsistent and therefore difficult to operationalize in practice.

No abstract