Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Research on Social Work Practice
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tutty, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Theoretical and Practical Issues in Selecting a Measure of Family Functioning

Leslie M. Tutty

University of Calgary

With the increasing interest in evaluating family therapy, self-reportfamily functioning measures remain a key method of assessing outcome. This article addresses two issues. First, common problems associated with self-report family measures are discussed. Second, because source- books of research instruments often do not provide sufficient information on the validity and reliability of measures, six commonly used family functioning measures (FACES III, Family Environment Scale [FES], Family Asessment Device [FAD], Family Assessment Measure [FAM-III], Index of Family Relations [IFR], and Self-Report Family Inventory [SFI]) are assessed from the point of view of the adequacy of their psychometric support and practicality of administration. Recommendations are made regarding the utility of each instrument in light of its strengths and weaknesses.

Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 5, No. 1, 80-106 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/104973159500500107
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Family IssuesHome page
D. T. L. Shek
A Longitudinal Study of Perceived Family Functioning and Adolescent Adjustment in Chinese Adolescents With Economic Disadvantage
Journal of Family Issues, May 1, 2005; 26(4): 518 - 543.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
D. T. L. Shek
Assessment of Family Functioning in Chinese Adolescents: The Chinese Version of the Family Assessment Device
Research on Social Work Practice, July 1, 2002; 12(4): 502 - 524.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
T. J. Early, T. K. Gregoire, and T. P. McDonald
An Assessment of the Utility of the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 for Social Work Practice
Research on Social Work Practice, September 1, 2001; 11(5): 597 - 612.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
D. T. L. Shek
Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Self-Report Family Inventory: Findings Based on a Longitudinal Study
Research on Social Work Practice, July 1, 2001; 11(4): 485 - 502.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
D. T. L. Shek
The Chinese Version of the Self-Report Family Inventory: Does Culture Make a Difference?
Research on Social Work Practice, May 1, 1998; 8(3): 315 - 329.
[Abstract] [PDF]