The purposes of this article are to present the reliability and validity analyses of the French version of the Family Assessment Measure III Dyadic Relationships Scale (DRS) and to compare its psychometric properties with the English version. The assessment offamilyfunctioning remains an immense challenge for both family researchers and clinicians. The availability of instruments in several languages is of the utmost importance to advance cross-cultural research. The DRS was used to measure family functioning from the perspective of the pregnant woman. Analyses from principal component analysis with varimax rotation (N = 271) reveal that the DRS contains two components with 21 items within each component instead of the proposed seven subscales. One component represents the positive side of the dyadic relationship; the other represents the negative. Though the DRS demonstrates both internal consistency and stability reliability, the involvement subscale has lower stability results. Issues relating to the use of the raw score or the standard score in the classification of normalfamily processes are addressed. Both the French and English versions of the DRS have similar reliability and validity qualities. We believe that the DRS can be used for research purposes to measure family functioning; however, the internal theoretical structure of the instrument needs to be reconceptualized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Belsky, J.
, & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across the transition to parenthood: Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52,5-19.
2.
Berger, C. R.
(1993). Goals, plans, and mutual understanding in relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 30-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Bloom, B. B.
(1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process, 24,225-240.
4.
Bradbury, T. N.
, & Fincham, F. D. (1987). Affect and cognition in dose relationships: Towards an integrative model. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 59-87.
5.
Buehler, C.
(1990). Adjustment. In J. Touliatos, B. F. Perlmutter, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Handbook offamily measurement techniques (pp. 493-516). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Bums, N.
, & Grove, S. K. (1993). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique & utilization (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
7.
Curry, M. A.
, &Snell, B. J. (1985). Antenatal hospitalization: Maternal behavior and thefamily (Final Report Grant No. RO1 Nu 00939). Rockville, MD: Division of Nursing, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration.
8.
Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, B. S. (1982). McMaster Clinical Rating Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Providence, RI: Brown/Butler Family Research Program.
9.
Feetham, S. L.
(1991). Conceptual and methodological issues in research of families. In A. L. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the science and art (pp. 55-68). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
10.
Galloway, K. G.
(1976). The uncertainty and stress of high-risk pregnancy. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 1, 294-299.
11.
Grotevant, H. D.
, & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family assessment: A guide to methods and measures. New York: Guilford.
12.
Johnson, D. R.
, White, L. K., Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1986). Dimensions of marital quality: Toward methodological and conceptual refinement. Journal of Family Issues, 7,3149-3149.
13.
Jolliffe, I. T.
(1986). Principal component analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
14.
Jones, E.
(1987). Translation of quantitative measures for use in cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 36, 324-327.
15.
Jones, E. G.
, & Kay, M. (1992). Instrumentation in cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 41, 186-188.
16.
Jones, M. B.
(1986). The high-risk pregnancy. In S. Hall Johnson (Ed.), Nursing assessment and strategies for the family at risk: High-risk parenting (pp. 111-128). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
17.
Kemp, V. H.
, & Page, C. K. (1986). The psychosocial impact of a high-risk pregnancy on the family. JOGNN, 15,232-236.
18.
Kirk, S.
(1989). The experiences of women hospitalized in pregnancy. Nursing Times, 85, 58-58.
19.
Larsen, A.
, & Olson, D. H. (1990). Capturing the complexity of family systems: Integrating family theory, family scores, and family analysis. In T. W. Draper & A. C. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use (pp. 19-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Larzelure, R. E.
, & Klein, D. M. (1987). Methodology. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 125-155). New York: Plenum.
21.
McArt, E. W.
, & Brown, J. K. (1990). The challenge of research on international populations: Theoretical and methodological issues. Oncology Nursing Forum, 17, 283-286.
22.
McCubbin, H. I.
, & McCubbin, M. A. (1987). Family system assessment in health care. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 53-78). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
23.
Mercer, R.
(1990). Parents at risk. New York: Springer.
24.
Mercer, R. T.
, Ferketich, S. L., May, K. A., & Dejoseph, J. (1987). Antepartum stress: Effect on family's health and functioning. Final Report, University of California, San Francisco.
25.
Merkatz, R. (1976). Behavior of hospitalized high-risk maternity patients. Unpublished master's thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
26.
Merkatz, R.
(1978). Prolonged hospitalization of pregnant women: The effects on the family. Birth and the Family Journal, 5,204-206.
27.
Munet-Vilaró, F.
, & Egan, M. (1990). Reliability issues of the family environment scale for cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 39, 244-247.
28.
Murphy, J. M.
, & Robbins, D. (1993). Psychosocial implications of high-risk pregnancy. In R. A. Knuppel & J. E. Drukker (Eds.), High-risk pregnancy: A team approach (pp. 244-261). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
29.
Niven, C. A.
(1992). Psychological care forfamilies: Before, during and after birth. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
30.
Norbeck, J. S.
, & Tilden, V. P. (1983). Life stress, social support, and emotional disequilibrium in complications of pregnancy: A prospective, multivariate study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 30-46.
31.
Olson, D. H.
, Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
32.
Olson, D. H.
, Sprenkel, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 1. Cohesion and adaptability, dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3-28.
33.
Ramsey, C. N., Jr.
, Abell, T. D., & Baker, L. C. (1986). The relationship between family functioning, life events, family structure, and the outcome of pregnancy. Journal of Family Practice, 22, 521-527.
34.
Randell, B.
(1989). Childbearing and its effect on marital quality. In C. L. Gilliss, B. L. Highley, B. M. Roberts, & I. M. Martinson (Eds.), Toward a science offamily nursing (pp. 187-198). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
35.
Richardson, P.
(1987). Women's important relationships during pregnancy and the preterm labor event. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 9, 203-222.
36.
Rosen, E. L.
(1975). Concerns of an obstetric patient experiencing long-term hospitalization. JOGNN, 4, 15-19.
37.
Schumm, W R.
(1990). Evolution of the family field: Measurement principles and techniques. In J. Touliatos, B. F. Perlmutter, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Handbook offamily measurement techniques (pp. 23-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
Sherwen, L. N.
(1987). Psychosocial dimensions of the pregnantfamily. New York: Springer.
39.
Skinner, H. A.
, Steinhauer, P. D., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1983). The Family Assessment Measure. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2, 91-105.
40.
Skinner, H. A.
, Steinhauer, P. D., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1984). The Family Assessment Measure: Administration and interpretation guide. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
41.
Smilkstein, G.
, Helsper-Lucas, A., Ashworth, C., Montano, D., & Pagel, M. (1984). Prediction of pregnancy complications: An application of the biopsychosocial model. Social Sciences Medicine, 18,315-321.
42.
Smith, D. R.
, & Williamson, K. L. (1977). Interpersonal communication. Dubuque, LA: William C. Brown.
43.
Stainton, M. C.
(1989). The perinatal family. In C. L. Gilliss, B. L. Highley, B. M. Roberts, & I. M. Martinson (Eds.), Toward a science offamily nursing (pp. 199-215). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
44.
Steinhauer, P. D.
, Santa-Barbara, J., & Skinner, H. (1984). The process model of family functioning. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 77-88.
45.
Tilden, V. P.
(1983). The relation of life stress and social support to emotional disequilibrium during pregnancy. Research in Nursing and Health, 6, 167-174.
46.
Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Vers une methodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue franqaise. [Toward a transcultural validation methodology of psychological questionnaires: Implications for research in French]. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 30, 662-679.
47.
Walsh, F.
(1982). Conceptualizations of normal family functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normalfamily processes (pp. 1-40). New York: Guilford.
48.
Werner, L.
, & Campbell, D. T. (1970). Translating working through interpreters and the problem of decentering. In R. Narrow & R. Cohen (Eds.), American handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 398-420). Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
49.
White, M. G.
, & Ritchie, J. (1984). Psychological stressors in antepartum hospitalization: Reports from pregnant women. Maternal Child Nursing Journal, 13, 47-56.
50.
Williams, L. H.
(1986). Long term hospitalization of women with high risk pregnancies. JOGNN, 15, 17-21.
