Advertisement

Child Psychiatry and Human Development

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 125–138 | Cite as

Family system test (FAST): Are parents' and children's family constructs either different or similar, or both?

  • Thomas M. Gehring
  • Daniel Marti
  • Andrea Sidler
Articles

Abstract

Perceptions of family cohesion and hierarchy structures were assessed by theFamily System Test (FAST), a clinically-derived figure placement technique. Parents (N=140) and their preadolescent offspring (N=70) completed typical and conflict representations in individual as well as group settings. Typical representations were characterized by balanced family structures (i.e. cohesive and moderately hierarchical) and those displaying conflict situations showed predominantly unbalanced patterns. FAST portrayals were related to respondent (mother vs. father vs. child). Fathers represented typical family relations as balanced more often than mothers. Regarding conflict representations, children were more likely than fathers to portray the family as unbalanced. However, analyses of representations of the same family (i.e. intra-family comparisons) indicated that all respondents differed in their perceptions and, that fathers' typical portrayals showed most often the same structure as those done by the family members as a group.

Key words

FAST Typical and Conflict Representations Individual and Group Settings Cross- and Intra-Family Comparisons 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Combrinck-Graham L: Developments in family systems theory and research.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 29:501–512, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gehring TM: Socio-psychosomatic dysfunctions: a case study.Child Psychiatry and Hum Dev 15:269–280, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaslow FW: Relational diagnosis: An idea whose time has come?Fam Process 32:255–259, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Youniss J: Further thoughts on social construction in families.Journal of Family Psychology 3:61–63, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feldman SS and Gehring TM: Changing perceptions of family cohesion and power across adolescence.Child Dev 59:1034–1045, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gehring TM and Marti D: The architecture of family structures: Toward a spatial concept for measuring cohesion and hierarchy.Fam Process 32: 135–139, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oliveri ME and Reiss D: Families' schemata of social relationships.Fam Process 21:295–311, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiss D: The represented and practicing family: Contrasting visions of family continuity. In:Relationship disturbances in early childhood: A developmental approach, ed. Sameroff AJ and Emde RN. New York, NY: Basic Books, pp. 191–220, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook WL and Goldstein MJ: Multiple perspectives on family relationships: A latent variables model.Child Dev 64:1377–1388, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denton WH, Burleson, BR, and Sprenkle DH: Motivation in marital communication: Comparison of distressed and nondistressed husbands and wives.The American Journal of Family Therapy 22:17–26, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cromwell RE and Petersen GW: Multisystem-multimethod family assessment in clinical context.Fam Process 22:147–163, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Minuchin P: Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy.Child Dev 56:289–302, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emery RE and Tuer M: Parenting and the marital relationship. In:Parenting. An ecological perspective, ed. Luster T. and Okagaki L. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 121–148, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liddell C, Henzi SP, and Drew M: Mothers, fathers and children in an urban park playground: A comparison of dyads and triads.Development Psychology 23:262–266, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabinowitz A and Eldan Z: Social schemata of Israeli children on measures of distance and height in dyad and family placements.The Psychological Record 34:343–351, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vandvik IH and Fleischer Eckblad G: FACES III and the Kvebaek Family Sculpture Technique as measures of cohesion and closeness.Fam Process 32:221–233, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wichstrom L, Holte A, Husby R, and Wynne LC: Competence in children at risk for psychopathology predicted from confirmatory and disconfirmatory family communication.Fam Process 32:203–220, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Russell CS: A methodological study of family cohesion and adaptability.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 6:459–470, 1980.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sidler A: Wahrnehmung von Kohäsion und Hierarchie durch Eltern und ihre Kinder: Validierung eines neuen Kodierungssystems für den Familiensystemtest (FAST) (Parents' and children's perceptions of cohesion and hierarchy: A new scoring procedure of the FAST). Universität Zürich: Psychologisches Institut, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feldman SS, Wentzel KR and Gehring TM: A comparison of the views of mothers, fathers and preadolescents about family cohesion and power.Journal of Family Psychology 3:39–60, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jessop DJ: Family relationships as viewed by parents and adolescents: A specification.Journal of Marriage and the Family 43:95–107, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Larson LL: System and subsystem perception of family roles.Journal of Marriage and the Family 36: 123–138, 1974.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noller P and Callan VJ: Understanding parent-adolescent interactions: Perceptions of family members and outsiders.Developmental Psychology 24:707–714, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beach SR and Arias I: Assessment of perceptual discrepancy: Utility of the primary communication inventory.Fam Process 22:309–316, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Booth A and Welch S: Spousal consensus and its correlates: A reassessment.Journal of Marriage and the Family 40:23–32, 1978.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deal JE, Wampler KS, and Halverson CF: The importance of similarity in the marital relationship.Fam Process 31:369–382, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gribble PA, Cowen EL, Wyman PA, Work WC, Wannon M, and Raoof A: Parent and child views of parent-child relationship qualities and resilient outcomes among urban children.J Child Psychol Psychiatry 34:507–519, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    O'Brien RW and Iannotti RJ: Differences in mothers' and children's perceptions of urban black children's life stress.Journal of Youth and Adolescence 22:543–557 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paikoff RL, Carlton-Ford S, and Brooks-Gunn J: Mother-daughter dyads view the family: Associations between divergent perceptions and daughter well-being.Journal of Youth and Adolescence 22:473–492, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gehring TM: Patterns in multi-respondent data of clinical and nonclinical families, presented at the German Psychology Society (DGPs) Conference, Hamburg, 1994.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Olson DH: Circumplex Model VII: Validation studies and FACES III.Fam Process 25:337–351, 1986.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomas V and Olson DH: Problem families and the circumplex model: observational assessment using the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS).Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 19:159–175, 1993.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wood B: Proximity and hierarchy: Orthogonal dimensions of family interconnectedness.Fam Process 24:497–507, 1985.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bowen M: The family as the unit of study and treatment.Am J Orthopsychiatry 31:40–60, 1960.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stierlin H:Separating parents and adolescents. New York, NY: Quadrangle, 1974.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cowan G, Drinkard J, and MacGavin L: The effects of target, age and gender on use of power strategies.J Pers Soc Psychol 47:1391–1398, 1984.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kranichfeld ML: Rethinking family power.Journal of Family Issues 8:42–56, 1987.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steinhauer PD, Santa-Barbara J, and Skinner H: The process model of family functioning.Can J Psychiatry 29:77–88, 1984.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Berry JT, Hurley JH, and Worthington EL: Empirical validity of the Kvebaek Family Sculpture Technique.The American Journal of Family Therapy 18:19–31, 1990.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cooper CR, Grotevant HD, and Condon, SM: Individuality and connectedness in the family as a context for adolescent identity formation and role taking skill. In:Adolescent development in the family, ed. Grotevant DH and Cooper CR. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 43–59, 1983.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eckblad G and Vandvik IH: A computerized scoring procedure for the Kvebaek family sculpture technique applied to families of children with rheumatic diseases.Fam Process 31:85–98, 1992.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Edell WS and Kaslow NJ: Parental perception and psychosis proneness in college students.The American Journal of Family Therapy 19:195–205, 1991.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Openshaw DK and Thomas DL: The adolescent self and familty. In:Adolescents in families, ed. Leigh GK and Peterson GW. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, pp. 104–129, 1986.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ben-David A and Sprenkle DH: How do they (participants) understand our (researchers) intentions? A qualitative test of the curvilinear assumptions of the adaptability items of the FACES III.The American Journal of Family Therapy 21:17–26, 1993.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bloom BL: A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning.Fam Process 24:225–239, 1985.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Green RG and Kolevzon MS: The correlates of healthy family functioning: The role of consensus and conflict in the practice of family therapy.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 12:75–84, 1986.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beavers RW:Successful Marriage. New York, NY: Norton, 1985.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leigh GK: Adolescent involvement in family systems. In:Adolescents in families, ed. Leigh GK and Peterson GW: Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, pp. 38–72, 1986.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Minuchin S:Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dornbusch SM, Ritter LP, Leiderman PH, Roberts DF, and Fraleigh MJ: The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance.Child Dev 58: 1244–1257, 1987.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Beavers RW and Voeller MN: Family models: Comparing and contrasting the Olson circumplex model with the Beavers systems model.Fam Process 22:85–98, 1983.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Constantine LL: The structure of family paradigms: An analytical model of family variation.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 19:39–70, 1993.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Olson DH, Russell CS, and Sprenkle DH: Circumplex Model of marital and family systems: IV. Theoretical update.Fam Process 22:69–83, 1983.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Anderson SA and Gavazzi SM: A test of the Olson circumplex model: Examining its curvilinear assumption and the presence of extreme types.Fam Process 29:309–324, 1990.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Green RG, Harris RN, Forte JA, and Robinson M: Evaluating FACES III and the circumplex model: 2440 families.Fam Process 30:55–73, 1991.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Green RG, Harris RN, Forte JA, and Robinson M: The wives data and FACES IV: Making things appear simple.Fam Process 30:79–83, 1991.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bowers L, Smith, PK, and Binney V: Cohesion and power in the families of children involved in bully/victim problems at school.Journal of Family Therapy 14:371–387, 1992.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gehring TM and Marti D: Der Familiensystemtest: Typen familiärer Beziehungsstrukturen (The Family System Test: Types of family structures).Bulletin der Schweizer Psychologen 11:13–19, 1990.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gehring TM, Wentzel KR, Feldman SS, and Munson J: Conflict in families of adolescents: The impact on cohesion and power structures.Journal of Family Psychology 3:290–309, 1990.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gehring TM and Schultheiss RB: Spatial representations and assessment of family relationships.The American Journal of Family Therapy 15:261–264, 1987.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gehring TM:Familiensystemtest (FAST) (Handbook of Family System Test). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, 1993.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gehring TM and Marti D: The Family System Test: Differences in perception or family structures between nonclinical and clinical children.J Child Psychol Psychiatry 34:363–377, 1993.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gehring TM and Wyler IL: Family System Test (FAST): a three dimensional approach to investigate family relationships.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 16:235–248, 1986.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Marti D and Gehring TM: Is there a relationship between children's mental disorders and their ideal family constructs?J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 31:490–494, 1992.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hollingshead AB: Two factor index of social position. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, 1957.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gehring TM: The Family System Test (FAST). In:Handbook of family measurement techniques, ed. Perlmutter BF, Straus MA, and Touliatos J: Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication, pp. 113–114, 1990.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gehring TM and Feldman SS: Adolescents' perceptions of family cohesion and power: A methodological study of the Family System Test.Journal of Adolescent Research 3:33–52, 1988.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rigazio-DiGilio SA: The Family System Test (FAST): A spatial representation of family structure and flexibility.The American Journal of Family Therapy 21:369–475, 1993.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hatta T and Kuroda N: Projected family structure by modern Japanese adolescents. Unpublished manuscript, Osaka University of Education, 1994.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Montemayor R: Parents and adolescents in conflict: All families some of the time and some families most of the time.Journal of Early Adolescence 3:83–103, 1983.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Villeneuve C and Roy L: Psychological distance in “clinic” and control families.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 16:216–223, 1984.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fisher L, Ransom DC, Terry HE, and Burge S: The California Family Health Project: IV. Family structure/organization and adult health.Fam Process 31:399–419, 1992.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gehring TM and Marti D: Debate and argument: Children's family constructs and classification of mental disorders: Different measurement approaches may yield different results.J Child Psychol Psychiatry 35:551–553, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas M. Gehring
    • 1
  • Daniel Marti
    • 1
  • Andrea Sidler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations