Commentary: comparing the beavers and circumplex models of family functioning

Abstract

As the cool stream gushed over one hand, she [Annie] spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten — a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that WATER meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand…. I left the well‐house eager to learn. Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched seemed to quiver with life.

Family Process as a Mediator of the Negative Effects of Parental Alcoholism on Young Adult Dating Relationships

“…Internal consistency (alpha) for the subscales of the SFI ranges from .84 to .88 in diverse clinical and non-clinical samples. Test-retest reliability correlations across 30-and 90-day periods have supported the stability of the scales (Hampson, Beavers, & Hulgus, 1998).…”

Meta‐commentary: on synthesis and fractionation in family theory and research

“…The authors' methodological critique, that “the different FACES instruments evolve periodically in ongoing attempts… to map reality onto a conceptual model” (5, p. 86), is on target. As Kuhn (7) has indicated, scientific explanation is a give‐and‐take process by which we construct maps of reality while also interpreting reality by our maps.…”

“…Hampson, et al . (5) write that “the Beavers Model does not use the concept of adaptability directly or explicitly” (5, p. 86). This statement is misleading.…”

“…Hampson, et al . (5) also state that “on none of the scales, and in only few of our writings, is the term ‘adaptability’ used, except to take issue with the Circumplex Model” (5, p. 86). In neither of the cases cited above is the Circumplex Model at issue.…”

“…Both the past dialogue between Olson and Beavers and the foregoing commentary by Hampson et al . (5) seem to suggest that the dialogue is over when the semantic difference is acknowledged. This is the point at which the dialogue falters.…”