Family Environment Scale Questionnaire
CLICK HERE ---> https://blltly.com/2sXG6J
The Family Environment Scale (FES) was developed and is used to measure social and environmental characteristics of families.[1] It can be used in several ways, in family counseling and psychotherapy, to teach program evaluators about family systems, and in program evaluation.
The scale is a 90-item inventory that has a 10 subscales measuring interpersonal Relationship dimension, the Personal Growth, and the System Maintenance.[2][3] The Relationship dimension includes measurements of cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict. Cohesion is the degree of commitment and support family members provide for one another, expressiveness is the extent to family members are encouraged to express their feelings directly, and conflict is the amount of openly expressed anger and conflict among family members.
Five subscales refer to Personal Growth: independence, achievement orientation, intellectual-cultural orientation, active-recreational orientation, and moral-religious emphasis. Independence assesses the extent to which family members are assertive, self-sufficient and make their own decisions. Achievement Orientation reflects how much activities are cast into an achievement oriented or competitive framework. Intellectual-cultural orientation measures the level of interest in political, intellectual, and cultural activities. Active-recreational orientation measures the amount of participation in social and recreational activities. Moral-religious emphasis assesses the emphasis on ethical and religious issues and values.
The final two subscales, organization and control, are for System Maintenance. These measure how much planning is put into family activities and responsibilities and how much set rules and procedures are used to run family life.Family Environment Scale
There are three, equivalent forms to the FES that are used to measure different aspects of the family. The Real Form (Form R) measures people's attitude about their family current environment, the Ideal Form (Form I) measures person's ideal family perception, and the Expectations Form (Form E) assess the family ability to withstand change.[1]
Family Relationship Index:Three subscales tap the degree of commitment and support family members provide for one another, the extent to family members are encouraged to express their feelings directly, and the amount of openly expressed anger and conflict among family members.
The Family Environment Scale (FES) is a self-report instrument developed by Rudolf Moos and colleagues in 1974 to assess the social climates of the families. It focuses on the measurement and description of the interpersonal relationships among family members, on the directions of personal growth which are emphasized in the family, and on the basic organizational structure of the family (Moos, Insel, & Humphrey, 1974, p. 3). It was administered to family members (parents and adolescent children) as a paper-and-pencil inventory with true or false answers. It is one of the ten social climate scale developed to assess the social climate in different setting: community, educational, treatment and residential care, and institution. According to the authors the measurement of social climate represents one of the major ways in which human environments may be characterized, and it may have an important impact on his attitude and mood, his behavior, his health and overall sense of well-being...
After adoption, children exposed to institutionalized care show significant improvement, but incomplete recovery of growth and developmental milestones. There is a paucity of data regarding risk and protective factors in children adopted from institutionalized care. This prospective study followed children recently adopted from institutionalized care to investigate the relationship between family environment, executive function, and behavioral outcomes.
Children who experience institutionalized care are at increased risk for significant deficits in developmental, cognitive, and social functioning associated with a disruption in the development of the prefrontal cortex. Aspects of the family caregiving environment moderate the effect of early life social deprivation in children.
In this prospective study, we followed the development of children who experienced institutionalized care 2 years post adoption by a family in the United States. We examined the relationship between family environment, growth, endocrine and levels of neurosteroids, executive functioning, and cognitive development in children adopted from institutionalized care and non-adopted controls to identify factors related to developmental recovery and behavioral outcomes.
Descriptive statistics were examined, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate group differences in growth, cognitive, and behavior problems. Statistical comparisons included paired t tests, ANOVAs, correlation, and regression analysis. Regression analyses were conducted to examine which aspects of the family environment predicted cognitive or behavioral outcome measures. Analyses were conducted using the SPSS software. A p value
To identify sociodemographic and family environment factors associated with increased risk for executive dysfunction or behavioral problems, a correlational analysis was performed between demographic variables of child gender and age and executive function variables to determine possible covariate variables. Sex was not significantly correlated with any executive function variables and therefore not included in any future analysis. However, age at baseline was significantly correlated with BRIEF subscales; correlation and linear regression analyses were used for these executive function variables.
This study, in the context of a small sample size, should be viewed as a pilot study in the field of developmental pediatrics. Here we find that specific aspects of the family caregiving environment moderate the effects of social deprivation during early childhood on executive function and behavioral problems. These findings provide preliminary data for larger studies that will further investigate the developmental effects that manifest in institutionalized children.
In light of the increasing interest in the role of family rituals in promoting mental health, a self-report questionnaire was developed. The Family Ritual Questionnaire (FRQ) assesses family rituals across 7 settings ranging from dinnertime to religious celebrations and across 8 dimensions ranging from roles to symbolic significance. Four studies were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the FRQ. Adequate internal consistency, construct validity in comparison to the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1986), test-retest reliability, and within-family agreement were established. The symbolic significance associated with family rituals was positively related to adolescent self-esteem and negatively related to adolescent anxiety. Clinical implications for the importance of symbolic meaning associated with family rituals are discussed.
N2 - In light of the increasing interest in the role of family rituals in promoting mental health, a self-report questionnaire was developed. The Family Ritual Questionnaire (FRQ) assesses family rituals across 7 settings ranging from dinnertime to religious celebrations and across 8 dimensions ranging from roles to symbolic significance. Four studies were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the FRQ. Adequate internal consistency, construct validity in comparison to the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1986), test-retest reliability, and within-family agreement were established. The symbolic significance associated with family rituals was positively related to adolescent self-esteem and negatively related to adolescent anxiety. Clinical implications for the importance of symbolic meaning associated with family rituals are discussed.
AB - In light of the increasing interest in the role of family rituals in promoting mental health, a self-report questionnaire was developed. The Family Ritual Questionnaire (FRQ) assesses family rituals across 7 settings ranging from dinnertime to religious celebrations and across 8 dimensions ranging from roles to symbolic significance. Four studies were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the FRQ. Adequate internal consistency, construct validity in comparison to the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1986), test-retest reliability, and within-family agreement were established. The symbolic significance associated with family rituals was positively related to adolescent self-esteem and negatively related to adolescent anxiety. Clinical implications for the importance of symbolic meaning associated with family rituals are discussed.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family environment scale manual. Consulting Psychologists Press. Moos, R. H. (1990). Conceptual and empirical approaches to developing family-based assessment procedures: Resolving the case of the Family Environment Scale. Family Process, 29, 199-208.
Two scales comprise the FES: family relationships and family system maintenance. A total score is computed for each scale by summing their component items, and subscores are computed by summing the component items for each of their component subscales. Items for this scale appear in the dataset as fes1 - fes25. See below for which items make up each individual subscale. Note that [R] indicates that the item was reversed scored prior to summing. Total Family Relationships (15 items)
Although research has established several factors related to college adjustment in traditional college students (e.g., self-esteem, perfectionism, family environment), few studies have examined whether these factors also relate to college adjustment in non-traditional students. The present study examined whether the factors related to academic and emotional adjustment to college differed between traditional and nontraditional college students. Three hundred thirteen college students (78% traditional; 22% non-traditional) completed the almost perfect scale revised, the Rosenberg self-esteem scale, the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire, and the family environment scale. Non-traditional college students displayed significantly greater academic and emotional adjustment to college than did traditional college students. Academic adjustment was related to self-esteem in both groups; in addition, perfectionism related to academic adjustment in traditional students. Emotional adjustment related to self-esteem and independence in both groups; in addition, emotional adjustment related to achievement motivation and organizational skills in non-traditional students and discrepancy between self and ideal in traditional students. College administrators may wish to emphasize different factors for these two groups when discussing adaptation to college during orientation sessions. 2b1af7f3a8