The validity, reliability, and curvilinearity of the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS) from the Circumplex Model were evaluated and the ability of the scale to discriminate between proble/clinical families and nonclinical families was tested on family cohesion, family adaptability, and family communication. Two groups of problem families were compared with two control groups. The study tested the main curvilinear hypothesis of the Circumplex Model that nonclinical families will have more Balanced system types than problem/clinical families. Conversely, problem/clinical families will have more Extreme system types than nonclinical families. Using the CRS, this hypothesis was strongly supported. Family satisfaction was used as a measure to investigate group differences further. As hypothesized, the two control groups had high levels of satisfaction, and the two problem family groups had significantly lower levels of family satisfaction. Overall, the CRS discriminated well between problem families who had more Extreme types on cohesion and adaptability and lower on communication and satisfaction than control families. Investigating different family structures (single‐parent, blended, and traditional two‐parent families) confirmed these findings. The study provided strong support for the curvilinear hypothesis that problem families are more frequently Extreme on both ends of the family cohesion and adaptability dimensions. It also revealed that the CRS has excellent validity and reliability.

This study examined factors that influence family therapists to include children in or exclude them from therapy sessions. We hypothesized that therapist comfort, child problem type (internalizing vs. externalizing), family composition (one- vs. two-parent families), and presenting problem (child-oriented problem vs. adult-oriented problem) affect therapists' inclusion of children. A survey of clinical members of AAMFT found that half of the therapists excluded children on the basis of their comfort and that those who felt more comfortable were more likely to include children in sessions. Therapists included children more frequently in cases of an internalizing vs. an externalizing child, more with single-parent than two-parent families, and more often when the presenting problem focused on a child than on an adult. Implications of the findings are discussed.

This exploratory qualitative study used individual interviews and a focus group to investigate how women in Black-White interracial heterosexual partner relationships retrospectively described their racial identity development over the course of the relationships. Racial identity development, social constructionist, and feminist theories guided the grounded theory methodology. Participants described a process of restorying constraining narratives of racial identity into empowering racial identities through three types of strategies: blocking strategies, transforming strategies, and generating strategies. R acial identity refers to a person's identifying or not identifying with the racial group of his or her racial categorization (e.g., Black or White) and the quality or manner of this identification (Helms, 1990). With the exception of several recent publications (Luke, 1994;Reddy, 1994), literature to date on Black-White interracial heterosexual partner relationships has not addressed how women's racial identities may be affected by being in such relationships. We addressed this gap in the literature through a multi-method qualitative study that examined participants' retrospective reports of their racial identity development. We chose a qualitative research paradigm because it is well suited to situations such as this one, in which there is little existing research, the population is sparse or difficult to sample, and the purpose is description rather than verification (DePoy & Gitlin, 1993). The purpose of our study was to explore Black and White women's descriptions of how they were active in shaping their racial identity development over the course of their Black-White interracial partner relationships.

Although feminist family therapy has been studied and practiced for more than 20 years, writing about feminist supervision in family therapy has been limited. Three supervision methods emerged from a qualitative study of the experiences of feminist family therapy supervisors and the therapists they supervised: The supervision contract, collaborative methods, and hierarchical methods. In addition to a description of the participants' experiences of these methods, we discuss their fit with previous theoretical descriptions of feminist supervision and offer suggestions for future research.