| The instrument was revised after the
testing in 1996 (sample 6). The instrument developed at that time had 17
items with acceptable reliability. Thirteen out of the original 15 item
tool were included. |
|
| Weaknesses of the 17 item instrument were: |
| 1. System Maintenance and Coherence could not be
separated in two factors |
| 2. Individuation had only two items with internal
consistency of .65. |
|
| A revised 24-item version was constructed for testing
by adding: |
|
4 individuation items; 1
coherence item; and 2 system maintenance items in the hope to separate
out all four dimensions. The minor wording changes suggested from the
qualitative study (Friedemann & Smith, 1997) were also included.
|
|
| The final instrument has 20 items. A total score and
sub-scores for the targets of Stability, Growth, Control and Spirituality
are available with construct validity and acceptable reliability. |
| Test
of Items |
| |
| Two Items (12 and 22) with
p-values > .80 were eliminated |
| |
| Item to Item Correlation
within dimension: Items were retained if r = .30 or statistically
significant. |
| |
| Factor
Analyses |
| |
| Initial
Factor Analysis was done with 22 items. Result: 8 factors with
Eigenvalues 1.0 and greater, explaining 60% or the variance. Items
designated for the four dimensions grouped with like items with few
exceptions. |
| |
| Experimented with
restriction of factor number to 6, 5 and 4. Fours factor solution had best
theoretical congruence. Two additional items needed to be eliminated. They
had factor loadings < .40 and their elimination raised the reliability
within the subscales. |
| |
| Final
Factor Analysis (Principle
Component extraction with Varimax rotation) |
| |
| Restricted to 4 factors.
Explained 45% of the variance. |
| |
| Cross loadings were less
than .40. One item (No. 17) loaded with .35 on its factor. It also failed
to correlate significantly with another item on the same dimension. It was
left in the scale, however, because its elimination would have decreased
the internal consistency of the subscale. |
| |
| Result of the final factor
analysis is represented below. The content of each item is summarized on
the left, followed by the dimension to which the item was originally
assigned: |
|
Item
Description |
Factor 1 |
Factor 2 |
Factor 3 |
Factor 4 |
|
|
SM |
C |
SC |
I |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Agreement about division of labor (SM) |
0.71 |
|
|
|
| Celebration of special events (SM) |
0.69 |
|
|
|
| Solving problems together (C) |
0.64 |
|
|
|
| Caring about each other (C) |
0.61 |
|
|
|
| Understanding each other (C) |
0.46 |
|
|
|
| Feeling about being with family (C) |
0.63 |
|
|
|
| Satisfaction with decisions (SM) |
0.55 |
|
|
|
| Feelings in the family (C) |
0.55 |
|
|
|
| Evaluating family support (C) |
0.52 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Being helpful/not doing enough (SM) |
|
0.48 |
|
|
| Respecting opinions (I) |
|
0.47 |
|
|
| Resolution of problems (C) |
|
0.42 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Asking for help (SC) |
|
|
0.63 |
|
| Independent decisions (I) |
|
|
0.63 |
|
| Satisfaction with neighborhood (SC) |
|
|
0.61 |
|
| Personal freedom (I) |
|
|
0.48 |
|
| Sharing problems with friends (SC) |
|
|
0.35 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Participation in community (I) |
|
|
|
0.75 |
| Help out in the community (I) |
|
|
|
0.69 |
| Dealing with organizations (SC) |
|
|
|
0.48 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha) |
0.7 |
0.67 |
0.55 |
0.58 |
| Theoretical
Explanation |
| Factor 1: |
The strongest two items
in the factor were meant to belong to system maintenance. Three coherence
items also grouped with these system maintenance items. All these items
point to some activity or effort needed to achieve coherence. It seemed
that the respondents reacted to the activity - which infers system
maintenance - rather than the outcome of coherence. The items, therefore,
were in no theoretical conflict and were reassigned to system maintenance. |
| Factor 2: |
The majority of the
items were coded as coherence. Two items originally assigned to system
maintenance items were viewed as coherence by the subjects. These two
items alluded to satisfaction with a family activity and therefore could
be understood as coherence in that the positive result of the activity
fostered a sense of togetherness. One individuation item describing the
freedom to express opinions also could be looked at as a family pattern
that leads to coherence. All three items were reassigned. |
| Factor 3: |
Three items were
originally coded as system change. Two more items were originally assigned
to individuation but could be system change: Both have to do with reaching
outside the family to make decisions. Connecting with the environment
signifies openness toward change in the family. |
| Factor 4: |
Two items were coded
individuation. The third item, system change, could be understood as
individuation easily since the individuals have relationships with other
systems such as organizations and the family promotes these activities. |
| |
| Factors 3 and 4 are not
independent as can be seen from the cross loading of three items (.32 to
.38). Theoretically, the factors should be related. In fact pairs of two
dimensions express the targets of Stability, Growth, Control and
Spirituality. If theory holds true, one should be able to combine the two
relevant subscales to arrive at scores for the targets. |
