No abstract

There is an increasing interest in and need for family models. One such model is the Olson Circumplex Model, previously reported in this journal (18). This model is compared and contrasted with the Beavers Systems Model, which was also developed from empirical data and has had extensive use in family assessment. Though both are cross-sectional, process-oriented, and capable of providing structure for family research, we believe there are certain short-comings in the Olson model that make it less clinically useful than the Beavers Systems Model. These include definitional problems and a total reliance on curvilinear dimensions with a grid approach to family typology that does not acknowledge a separation/individuation continuum. Our model avoids these deficiencies and includes a continuum of functional competence that reflects the development and differentiation of many living systems, including the family.

Recent attempts to compare conceptual and empirical models of family assessment have met with mixed to disappointingly low levels of cross-model convergence, particularly in comparative research with Olson's Circumplex Model. Some attempts to explain these findings, particularly the lack of support for curvilinearity of Olson's scales, posit that differences in method (observation vs. self-report) may account for these disparate results. More recently, theoretical reviews by Lee and others have raised issues regarding the theoretical framework of the Circumplex Model. The present study used similar assessment methodology (self-report) in comparing the Beavers Systems Model and the Olson Circumplex Model's FACES II and FACES III. In a general nonclinical sample, Adaptability and Cohesion factors on both FACES instruments showed strong linear correlations with the Self-Report Family Inventory's (SFI; Beavers model) Health/ Competence scale-a linear, directional scale. When three groups of subjects were formed on the basis of family health, significant differences existed in the scores on the FACES II and III scales, which followed a strong directional trend, supported also by correlational analyses. Theoretical classification of items on FACES II and III showed mixed levels of linearitylcurvilinearity within each factor. Discussions regarding methodology and clinical utility of family assessment models are provided A considerable amount of recent research has been aimed at examining the commonalities among the family assessment field's most prominent models. Green, Kolevzon, and Vosler (1985a) compared both observational and self-report versions of the Beavers Systems Model with the self-report scale of the Circumplex Model, FACES, and found "disappointingly low" correspondence between family competence/health (a linear/directional property) and mixed or balanced levels of adaptability and cohesion, as would be Reprint requests should be addressed to

A family model that provides a classification system for family therapists is presented, based on an integration of family systems research in healthy and disturbed families and clinical data. The model provides tools for cross-sectional, process-oriented family assessment derived from consideration of family competence in task performance and family operating style. Seven family types result: optimal, adequate, midrange centripetal, midrange centrifugal, midrange mixed, severely dysfunctional centripetal and severely dysfunctional centrifugal. Identifying characteristics of each type are provided, and intervention strategies and approaches are discussed that follow logically from the assessment.Family research and family therapy are evolving and expanding at a rate which points up the need for models. The value of a model lies in providing a common language, a means of organizing information, and a guide for directing and evaluating intervention. The model presented here is an integration of twenty years of clinical practice and family systems research in disturbed and healthy families.It seems apparent that a model of family, that is, an approach to classification and ordering of families in a communicable fashion, is essential to the development of better outcome studies and better selection of intervention strategies.From a systems viewpoint, all families begin with the behavior and attitudes of at least one previous family, and usually two. The family of origin is the conscious and unconscious model for what one expects in family life. I t influences the kind of intimacy or distance there is between individuals and the roles that different individuals take. A couple, newly united, is hammering out something potentially new and different, never before experienced. The attempt to accommodate the needs of these two individuals, the needs of children yet unborn, and the integration of all its members into the life of the broader community, is a creative process. Fortunate couples begin this process by negotiation-about such personal and vital matters as living space, the expression of feelings, the establishment of shared expectations, the style of communication, and standards of what is acceptable or tolerable. This negotiation requires a remarkable ability to risk, to declare, to explore new possibilities. In fact, only quite competent people do it well. Requirements for such negotiation include the following:

The impact of a retarded child on a family has previously been described by individual family members' reports. This study of 40 families, 10 in each of four critical periods during the life of the retarded child, utilized videotaped interviews with whole families, with subsequent clinical observation and analysis based on the Beavers family assessment model. Healthy and problematic adaptations are delineated, with specific attention to systems concepts such as family structure and power, member individuation, feeling expression, and values. The report includes data analysis and a summary of pattern differences in family functioning.