Do the Constructs of the FACES IV Change Based on Definitions of “Family?” A Measurement Invariance Test

Abstract

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale (FACES) IV does not provide instructions about which family members respondents should think about while answering questions. This study examined which family members respondents thought about while completing the FACES IV, and if this changed measurement invariance and population heterogeneity of the measure. Using a sample of n = 511 individuals, a latent class analysis showed three distinct classes: Nuclear Family, Family of Origin, and All of the Above. The FACES IV demonstrated measurement invariance across classes on the majority of subscales; however, population heterogeneity tests suggested that the means and variances of the subscales varied across classes. The findings suggest further examination of how the measure functions with unique family constellations is warranted.

Family emotional climate and health: Testing conveyance of effects via psychobiological mediators

“…The families and health literature suffers as a whole from lacking specification in this regard (Woods, Bridges, et al, 2019). However, prior research demonstrates that who a participant considers when completing family relationship measures may affect responses and thus assessment results (Priest, Parker, & Woods, 2018). In addition, as Holt‐Lunstad and Uchino (2019) suggest, the specific type of family relationship may have implications for ambivalence in relationships, as well as family‐based interventions.…”

Factors Influencing Family Environment Reporting Concordance Among U.S. War Zone Veterans and Their Partners

“…Given that couples without children had the lowest interpartner agreement, it is possible that such couples did not think of one another when using the term family, instead thinking of members of their extended family or their family-of-origin. For example, Priest et al (2017) found that approximately half of participants had included their family-of-origin in their thought process while answering FACES IV questions. Another potential explanation is that families follow a developmental course in establishing rituals, routines, and dynamics (Fiese et al, 2002), such that larger families have more time to establish these processes.…”

The Development and Validation of the FACES‐IV‐SF

“…Finally, previous tests of the FACES-IV have used measurement invariance testing to assess how measurement of the constructs varies depending on which members of the family a respondent was thinking about. The results of test have shown that measurement may not be consistent across different family types (Priest et al, 2018). It would be important to replicate similar test for the for the FACES-IV-SF to see if the same limitations are present.…”

“…Not only is the FACES‐IV a reliable and valid measure of family functioning (Olson, 2011; Priest, Parker, & Woods, 2018), it also provides clinical utility. Unlike many measures of family functioning, the FACES‐IV (and the Circumplex Model) allows clinicians to assess the complexity of family functioning by capturing the family processes that are linked to outcomes.…”

“…However, unlike the FACES‐IV, these brief measures are infrequently theory‐driven, nor clinically applicable, and rarely go beyond asking about family states of conflict and relationship satisfaction. This is problematic as a substantial amount of research (e.g., Kutschke, Bengston, Seeman, & Harris, 2018; Priest et al, 2018) using secondary datasets, and their less complex measures of family functioning, have begun to demonstrate associations between family relationships and major public health issues (e.g., mental health, obesity, and chronic health conditions). In other words, though the findings of these studies are critically important, the generalizability and clinical utility of their results may be incomplete due to the limitations of the measures included.…”