Outcome measurements from members of the same family are likely correlated. Such intrafamilial correlation (IFC) is an important dimension of the family as a unit but is not always accounted for in analyses of family data. This article demonstrates the use of linear mixed modeling to account for IFC in the important special case of univariate measurements for family dyads collected at a single point in time. Example analyses of data from partnered parents having a child with a chronic condition on their child's adaptation to the condition and on the family's general functioning and management of the condition are provided. Analyses of this kind are reasonably straightforward to generate with popular statistical tools. Thus, it is recommended that IFC be reported as standard practice reflecting the fact that a family dyad is more than just the aggregate of two individuals. Moreover, not accounting for IFC can affect the conclusions.
Arminger, G., & Sobel, M.E. (1990). Pseudo-maximum likelihood estimation of mean and covariance structures with missing data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 195-203.
2.
Barnett, R.C., & Gareis, K.C. (2007). Shift work, parenting behaviours, and children's socio-emotional well-being: A within-family study. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 727-748.
3.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
Brown, H., & Prescott, R. (1999). Applied mixed models in medicine. New York: John Wiley.
5.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D.A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342.
6.
Cook, W.L. (1994). A structural equation model of dyadic relationships within the family system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 500-509.
7.
Cook, W.L., & Kenny, D.A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101-109.
8.
Epstein, N., Baldwin, L., & Bishop, D. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 9, 171-180.
9.
Eyberg, S., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
10.
Eyberg, S., & Robinson, E. (1983). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of a behavior rating scale with adolescents. Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 12, 347-354.
11.
Gilliard, J.L., Blanton, P.W., & Bartley, S.J. (2007). Gender and generation: The relative influence of intimacy and individuation with mother and with father for spousal intimacy and individuation among dual-earner husbands and wives. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 350-358.
12.
Kashy, D.A., & Snyder, D.K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 338-348.
13.
Kenny, D.A., & Kashy, D.A. (1991). Analyzing interdependence in dyads. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 275-285). New York: Guilford.
14.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York : Guilford.
15.
Kenny, D.A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model . In L. Berkowicz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 141-182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
Knafl, G.J., Fennie, K.P., & O'Malley, J.P. (2006). Adaptive repeated measures modeling using likelihood cross-validation. In B. Bovaruchuk (Ed.), Proceedings second IASTED international conference on computational intelligence (pp. 422-427). Anaheim, CA : ACTA Press.
17.
Knafl, G.J., Knafl, K.A., & McCorkle, R. (2005). Mixed models incorporating intra-familial correlation through spatial autoregressive methods. Research in Nursing and Health, 28, 348-356.
18.
Larsen, A., & Olson, D.H. (1990). Capturing the complexity of family systems, integrating family theory, family scores, and family analysis. In A. C. Marcos & T. W. Draper (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use (pp. 19-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Rayens, M.K., & Svavarsdottir, E.K. (2003). A new methodological approach in nursing research: An actor, partner, and interaction effect model for family outcomes. Research in Nursing and Health, 26, 409-419.
21.
SAS Institute Inc. (2005). SAS/STAT 9.1 user's guide. Cary, NC: Author .
22.
Singer, J.D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth curves. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323-355.
23.
Thomson, E., & Williams, R. (1982). Beyond wives' family sociology: A method for analyzing couple data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 889-900.
