Family Environment Scale: Name and Type of Measure

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

F

Family Environment Scale family member or to multiple family members,


the latter of which allows for the computation of
Alannah Shelby Rivers1 and Keith Sanford2 incongruence scores. The FES is administered and
1
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, scored using pencil and paper.
Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA There are two ways that the FES has potential
2
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, for use in therapy. First, it could be used as a
College of Arts & Sciences, Baylor University, component of the therapy process. For example,
Waco, TX, USA the manual suggests examining incongruence
between family members’ scores in order to deter-
mine areas of disagreement which can be used to
Name and Type of Measure identify goals for family therapy. Similarly, differ-
ences between ideal and actual family climate
The Family Environment Scale (FES) is a self- may be discussed with the family in order to
report measure of family social climate. formulate treatment goals. The authors also sug-
gest using the manual instructions to classify fam-
ilies into seven predetermined profiles. It is
Introduction important to note that the FES manual does not
describe any studies testing the extent to which
The Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos and use of the FES during therapy is actually effective
Moos 2009) is a self-report multidimensional or correlated with therapy outcomes. The second
measure of social climate within families. The potential use for the FES in therapy is to use it
first edition of the Family Environment Scale to evaluate treatment outcomes. A key use of the
was published in 1981; since then, Moos and FES has been to evaluate the outcomes of family
Moos have updated the manual for the measure empowerment programs, home-visiting pro-
in 1984, 1994, and most recently in 2009. The grams, family outreach programs, solution-
FES comprises 90 true-false items spanning focused brief therapy, and types of family therapy,
10 dimensions. Three forms of the measure are including multidimensional, ecologically based,
available: R, measuring real family climate; I, and functional, on family environment. Some
measuring ideal family climate; and E, measuring studies utilize selected subscales – mainly conflict
expected family climate. The FES can also be used and cohesion – while others have used the sum of
to obtain retrospective reports of past family envi- all of the subscales (with conflict reversed) to
ronments. The FES can be administered to a single evaluate outcomes.

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018


J. L. Lebow et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_396-1
2 Family Environment Scale

Developers The subscales described above are grouped


into three higher-order dimensions: (a) a relation-
The FES was originally developed by Rudolf ship dimension is defined by cohesion, expres-
H. Moos (1974) as one of nine social climate siveness, and conflict; (b) a personal growth
scales. All subsequent publications on the FES dimension is defined by achievement orientation,
as an independent instrument have included intellectual-cultural orientation, active-
Bernice S. Moos as the second author. recreational orientation, and moral-religious
emphasis; and (c) a system maintenance dimen-
sion is defined by organization and control. The
strategy used to develop the FES was one that
Description of Measure
focused on identifying a large number of scales
that were potentially important, placing less
The FES is composed of ten subscales, each of
emphasis on requiring scales to conform with an
which assesses a different family characteristic
established theoretical model of family function-
presumed to be important for family functioning.
ing. In this respect, the FES has a degree of flex-
These subscales are described below:
ibility for use within different theoretical contexts,
and this differentiates it from other established
Cohesion: A subscale assessing family helpful-
measures of family environment like the Family
ness, togetherness, and functioning as a unit.
Assessment Device, the Family Adaptability and
Expressiveness: A subscale assessing the encour-
Cohesion Scale (FACES), and the Beavers Sys-
agement of openness and emotionality within a
tems Measures which have generally fewer scales
family.
and stronger ties to specific theoretical models.
Conflict: A subscale assessing the amount of open
One of the key strengths of the FES is that it has
hostility and aggression present within a
been used in a broad range of research studies
family.
spanning across several decades since its first
Independence: A subscale assessing the degree to
publication in 1981. This is important because it
which family members are expected to work
provides a degree of continuity across studies in
toward their own separate goals.
the way constructs are defined and measured.
Achievement Orientation: A subscale assessing
The FES has been translated into at least
the emphasis the family places on competition
22 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Dutch,
or achievement across environments.
Estonian, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi,
Intellectual-Cultural Orientation: A subscale
Italian, Japanese, Korean, Marathi, Polish,
assessing the emphasis the family places on
Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish, and Swedish.
engagement with intellectual or artistic
A children’s pictorial form of the FES has also
pursuits.
been developed (CVFES; Pino et al. 1983). Com-
Active-Recreational Orientation: A subscale
mon topics of research studies that have used the
assessing the emphasis the family places on
FES include child delinquency, academic
social and athletic engagement.
achievement, family or individual coping with
Moral-Religious Emphasis: A subscale assessing
major life changes like being diagnosed with an
the importance of issues of ethics and spiritu-
illness or beginning college, etiology of psycho-
ality within a family.
logical disorders, and formation of important
Organization: A subscale assessing the impor-
values.
tance of structure within the family’s day-to-
Although the FES includes several scales,
day functioning.
these scales have not received equal emphasis in
Control: A subscale assessing the degree to which
research. Due to the breadth of the measure, most
family functioning is governed by rules and
researchers focus on only a small set of target
routines.
scales from the FES. The most commonly targeted
scales include the three relationship scales:
Family Environment Scale 3

cohesion, conflict, and expressiveness, which (2009) reported 2-month test-retest reliabilities
may be examined individually or as a single ranging from 0.68 to 0.86 (M = 0.78). In addition,
index. All three of these scales are associated stability over a period of 1 year ranged from 0.53
with important outcomes. Low family conflict to 0.84 (M = 0.63), and many of the subscales
and high expressiveness and cohesion are associ- remained stable even after 10 years with a range
ated with lower health risk behavior, less from 0.38 to 0.77 (M = 0.48). The most stable
externalizing behavior in children, and greater subscale overall is moral-religious orientation,
physical fitness and psychological health (e.g., while the least stable is conflict.
Kronenberger and Thompson 1990; Nock et al. One potential psychometric limitation of the
2016; Sandhu 2015). FES is that there is little research supporting factor
validity. The instrument contains 90 items which
are presumed to be indicators of 10 different
Psychometrics scales. It is important to demonstrate that each
scale is comprised of a coherent set of items
The FES was normed using data from non- that are all good indicators of a single construct
distressed and distressed families. Families were and that clear distinctions can be made between
recruited from across the United States, with the scales. Although several studies have investi-
intentional recruiting of special-interest families, gated the higher-order factor structure of the ten
including large families, single-parent families, scales, much less is known about the factor struc-
and Latino and African-American families. Inde- ture of the items, which is essential for demon-
pendent investigators have also collected data strating factor validity. One study investigating
representing individuals from normal and dis- item factor structure produced mixed results
tressed families, and the aggregate individual (Sanford et al. 1999). On the one hand, this
data have been found to be comparable to the study identified four scales with items that failed
previously gathered family means for normal to fit the expected factor structure: expressiveness,
and distressed families (Moos and Moos 2009). independence, achievement orientation, and con-
In developing the FES, efforts were made to trol. On the other hand, after dropping these prob-
maintain high content validity for each scale, even lematic scales, a confirmatory factor analysis with
if this required inclusion of heterogeneous items the remaining six scales produced a fit that was
that lowered estimates of reliability based on judged to be adequate. Similar results were found
internal consistency. Thus, items were selected for Greek translations of the FES (Charalampous
to maximize the breadth of each construct (Moos et al. 2013). Thus, it appears that some, but not all,
and Moos 2009). Notably, some researchers have scales on the FES have adequate factor validity.
still raised questions of content validity for some Another question regarding factor structure of
scales, with one study finding disagreement the FES has to do with the extent to which scales
between experts attempting to sort items into in this instrument can be grouped together to form
their assigned scales (Roosa and Beals 1990). higher-order factors. This is important from a
Regardless, scales on the FES do appear to repre- theoretical standpoint because the scales are
sent broad constructs with estimates of internal expected to capture three broad aspects of family
consistency ranging from moderate to low. For environment: relationship, personal growth, and
example, Moos and Moos (2009) reported inter- system maintenance factors. Results from studies
nal consistency coefficients ranging from 0.61 using exploratory factor analysis typically pro-
to 0.78 (M = 0.71), and other researchers have duce results where most, but not all, scales
sometimes found slightly lower estimates (e.g., produce loadings that are consistent with the
Boyd et al. 1997). Given the breadth of items on proposed three higher-order factors. Although
each scale, a better estimate of reliability can be there has been interest in identifying higher-
gained by test-retest correlations, and these have order factors, the correlations between scales are
been adequate. For example, Moos and Moos not excessively high; Moos and Moos (2009)
4 Family Environment Scale

reported that the largest correlation between them at nearly two standard deviations below the
scales was approximately 0.5 between cohesion mean (at a range of 30–35; M = 50, SD = 10
and conflict, whereas the correlation between for all scales). Similarly, they both reported rela-
active-recreational orientation and conflict is tively lower cohesion and higher conflict in the
near 0. This provides some justification for family when Jody’s brothers were visiting. Form
treating each scale as a measure of a distinct I revealed high congruence in Roger and Jody’s
construct. ratings of the ideal family environment, and the
Convergent validity of the FES has been tested therapist particularly emphasized their shared
in studies examining correlations between FES desires for more cohesion, control, and recrea-
scales and comparable subscales of other family tional activities. The therapist also reviewed
environment scales, including the Family Assess- answers to specific items on subscales in order to
ment Device (FAD) and the Family Adaptability draw attention to specific day-to-day concerns.
and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES; Moos Based on this review, the family decided to hire
and Moos 2009). For example, cohesion as mea- part-time help to increase organization and free up
sured by the FES has been correlated with the time for mutually desired recreation. At a 3-month
cohesion subscales of the FAD and FACES. follow-up, organization was within one standard
The correlation between FES cohesion and deviation above of the norm. Both partners also
FACES cohesion has been reported by multiple rated family cohesion nearly one standard devia-
researchers as being in the range of r = 0.7–0.8 tion higher than prior to therapy; moreover, the
(Moos and Moos 2009). However, several of the clear communication about the disruption caused
subscales do not have counterparts in other family by Jody’s brothers allowed the family to focus on
environment measures. Some subscales, such as minimizing their influence.
moral-religious emphasis, have instead been
compared to indices of behavior (e.g., church
attendance, r = 0.6–0.7). Other subscales, like Cross-References
organization, have been compared to independent
observers’ ratings of variables like home cleanli- ▶ Beavers System Measures
ness (r = 0.5–0.6). ▶ FACES IV
▶ Family Assessment Device (FAD)

Example of Application in Couple and


Family Therapy
References
Moos and Moos (2009) report the details of a case
Boyd, C., Gullone, E., Needleman, G., & Burt, T. (1997).
example regarding a couple named Roger and The family environment scale: Reliability and norma-
Jody. Jody struggled with drinking, and both tive data for an adolescent sample. Family Process, 36,
members of the couple reported a concerning 369–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1997.
00369.x
lack of warmth in their relationship. One source
Charalampous, K., Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G.
of strain in their environment was the frequent (2013). The family environment scale: Resolving psy-
presence of Jody’s older brothers. The therapist chometric problems through an examination of a Greek
asked the couple to complete Forms R and I, translation. The International Journal of Educational
and Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 81–99.
representing real and ideal family life, and to
Kronenberger, W. G., & Thompson, R. J. (1990). Dimen-
also complete an alternate Form R, representing sions of family functioning in families with chronically
the realities of their environment when Jody’s ill children: A higher order factor analysis of the family
brothers were present. While there were some environment scale. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 19, 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1207/
areas of incongruence between Roger and Jody’s
s15374424jccp1904_10
perceptions, the couple largely agreed that orga- Moos, R. H. (1974). Family environment scale preliminary
nization and control were areas of concern, rating manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Family Environment Scale 5

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (2009). Family environment Roosa, M. W., & Beals, J. (1990). Measurement issues in
scale manual: Development, applications and research family assessment: The case of the family environment
(4th ed.). Palo Alto: Mind Garden Inc. scale. Family Process, 29, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.
Nock, N. L., Ievers-Landis, C. E., Dajani, R., Knight, D., 1111/j.1545-5300.1990.00191.x
Rigda, A., Narasimhan, S., & Uli, N. (2016). Physical Sandhu, D. (2015). Predictive factors of health-risk behav-
activity self-efficacy and fitness: Family environment iours among male adolescents. Pakistan Journal of
relationship correlates and self-esteem as a mediator Psychological Research, 30, 1–19.
among adolescents who are overweight or obese. Sanford, K., Bingham, C. R., & Zucker, R. A. (1999).
Childhood Obesity, 12, 360–367. Validity issues with the family environment scale:
Pino, C., Simons, N., & Slawinowski, M. (1983). Devel- Psychometric resolution and research application with
opment and application of the children’s version of the alcoholic families. Psychological Assessment, 11,
family environment scale. Journal of Mental Imagery, 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.315
7, 75–82. Retrieved from http://www.journalofmenta
limagery.com/

You might also like