How do experts read family genograms?

Family Career Genograms: Beginning Life Design With Exploratory Students

“…Coupland, Serovich, and Glenn (1995) found variable accuracy among doctoral students recording genograms. Rohrbraugh, Rogers, and McGoldrick (1992) revealed poor reliability among counselors in a medical setting, and Whiston (2012) reported little evidence of validity for genograms. Despite these issues of reliability and validity, when used as a qualitative assessment within a constructivist paradigm, career genograms enable clients to make meaning of their family systems.…”

Genograms in research: participants’ reflections of the genogram process

“…A member-checking phase was also implemented after interview which enabled participants to contact the researcher with amendments to their electronic genograms. Because of the issues in interpreting genograms (Rohrbaugh et al, 1992), and visual methods generally (Banks, 2012), genograms were used in this study as a graphic elicitation tool, and were not themselves analysed. While interviews focused on family violence, questions relating to genogram construction were also explored.…”

The Family Genogram Interview

“…For example, among marriage and family doctoral students, Coupland, Serovich, and Glenn (1995) found the reliability of relationship information obtained by different clinicians was quite low. Further, Rohrbaugh, Rogers, and McGoldrick (1992) investigated whether a mixed sample of expert therapists and family physicians trained in genogram administration could achieve acceptable levels of interinterviewer reliability on several dimensions. While the clinicians were able to come to moderate agreement on the general categories of information that should be included in a genogram (i.e., r = .75 or above), they were unable to consistently agree on the level of importance of different types of information in specific case examples with correlations all below .45 between raters (Rohrbaugh, Rogers, & McGoldrick, 1992).…”

“…Further, Rohrbaugh, Rogers, and McGoldrick (1992) investigated whether a mixed sample of expert therapists and family physicians trained in genogram administration could achieve acceptable levels of interinterviewer reliability on several dimensions. While the clinicians were able to come to moderate agreement on the general categories of information that should be included in a genogram (i.e., r = .75 or above), they were unable to consistently agree on the level of importance of different types of information in specific case examples with correlations all below .45 between raters (Rohrbaugh, Rogers, & McGoldrick, 1992). Given the limited reliability in genogram administration, both studies highlight the need for a standardized genogram format for use in clinical and research application.…”