Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1440–1448 | Cite as

The Communities That Care (CTC) Family Attachment Scale: Measurement Invariance Across Family Structures

  • Hanna E. Schwendemann
  • Johanna U. Frisch
  • Maren Reder
  • Thomas Mößle
  • Renate Soellner
  • Eva-Maria Bitzer
Original Paper


Familial protective factors are an integral part of prevention approaches aimed at problematic behaviour in adolescents. However, there is scarce evidence on the role of familial protective factors in families deviating from the two-parent family configuration. For evaluating targeted (preventive) interventions, a reliable and valid measurement of familial protective factors is crucial. We investigated the factor structure of the Communities That Care (CTC) Family Attachment Scale and tested its measurement invariance in different family structures. Adolescents (n = 2.459, grades 6–11) from Lower Saxony, Germany filled in the German version of the CTC Youth Survey. Our analyses focused on the CTC Family Attachment Scale measuring the adolescent’s attachment to the mother and the father with six items. We evaluated the postulated unidimensional structure of the scale by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tested the measurement invariance using multigroup factor analyses across different family structures (two-parent family/single-parent family). We used SPSS V.23 and the R packages lavaan and semTools. The two-factor solution for the CTC Family Attachment Scale with one factor representing attachment to the mother and one indicating attachment to the father had an adequate model fit in the total sample (χ2(5) = 29.938; p < .001; CFI = .996; TLI = .988; RMSEA = .050, SRMR = .019). This two-factor solution of the CTC Family Attachment Scale showed strong measurement invariance regarding adolescents living in a two-parent family vs. those living with a single parent. The two-factor CTC Family Attachment Scale appears to be a suitable measure to assess family attachment in both two-parent and single-parent families with German adolescents.


Familial protective factors Family structure Family attachment Adolescents Measurement invariance Communities That Care Prevention 



The authors thank all the adolescents for their participation, as well as the school staff for their vast support. We thank Frederik Groeger-Roth, Crime Prevention Council of Lower Saxony, for supporting data acquisition.

Author Contributions

H.S. and E.M.B. conceived the idea of the research question. H.S. planned and performed the data analysis and prepared the manuscript. R.S., J.U.F., and M.R. designed, coordinated and conducted the study (data acquisition and data preparation). E.M.B., T.M., J.U.F., and M.R. provided substantial input to statistical analysis and interpretation of the data. J.U.F., M.R., R.S., T.M., and E.M.B. revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content.


Crime Prevention Council of Lower Saxony.

Compilance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was audited and approved by the institutional review board of the Education Authority of Lower Saxony, Germany. Ethical approval fell under the jurisdiction of the Education Authority because the survey was conducted in schools during class hours. Given this approval, no further ethical approval was required. American Psychological Association (APA) ethical standards were followed in conducting the study, and it was in accordance to the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The teachers informed the students about the study before participation. Non-participation had no negative consequences for the students. Participating students could discontinue the survey at any time or choose to omit questions. All parents were informed in writing about the study beforehand. Parents of adolescents in grades 6 and 7 had to give their written consent to their children’s survey participation, whereas parents of adolescents in grades 8 to 11 could actively object to the participation of their children.


  1. Amato, P. R., & Anthony, C. J. (2014). Estimating the effects of parental divorce and death with fixed effect models. Journal of Marriage Family, 76(2), 370–386. Scholar
  2. Arthur, M. W., Briney, J. S., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., Brooke-Weiss, B. L., & Catalano, R. F. (2007). Measuring risk and protection in communities using the Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(2), 197–211. Scholar
  3. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, Jr., A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601. Scholar
  4. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Deliquency and crime therories pp 149–197.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. Scholar
  7. Child Trends Data Bank. (2015). Family Structure–indicators of child and youth well-being. Retrieved from
  8. Cohen, A.L. (2008). The Social Development Model. Retrieved from
  9. Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(4), 381–398. Scholar
  10. DuBois, D., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships and adolescent health: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3), 518–524. Scholar
  11. Glaser, R. R., van Horn, M. L., Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2005). Measurement properties of the Communities That Care Youth Survey across demographic groups. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 73–102. Scholar
  12. Groeger-Roth, F., Frisch, J. U., Benit, N., & Soellner, R. (2015). Risikofaktoren für problematischen Substanzkonsum von Jugendlichen – Zur Anwendbarkeit des Communities That Care Schülersurveys auf kommunaler Ebene [Risk Factors for problematic substance use – Is the Communities That Care Youth Survey applicable in german communities?]. Sucht, 61(4), 237–249. Scholar
  13. Hawkins, J. D., Brown, E. C., Oesterle, S., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2008). Early effects of Communities That Care on targeted risks and initiation of delinquent behavior and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(1), 15–22. Scholar
  14. Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The Social Development Model: An integrated approach to delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6(2), 73–97. Scholar
  15. Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Patton, G. C., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2011). Risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use in Washington State, the United States and Victoria, Australia: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(3), 312–320. Scholar
  16. Jonkman, H., & Junger-Tas, Bv. D. (2005). From behinde Dikes and Dunes: communities that care in the Netherlands. Children & Society, 19, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klocke, A. (2012). Gesundheit der Kinder in Einelternfamilien [Health of children in single-parent families]. Das Gesundheitswesen, 74((Suppl.1), 70–75. Scholar
  18. Kuttler, H., Schwendemann, H., & Bitzer, E. M. (2015). Familial risk and protective factors in alcohol intoxicated adolescents: psychometric evaluation of the family domain of the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC) and a new short version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). BMC Pediatrics, 15(191), 1–14. Scholar
  19. Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
  20. Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development, 85(1), 6–20. Scholar
  21. McPherson, K. E., Kerr, S., McGee, E., Morgan, A., Cheater, F. M., McLean, J., & Egan, J. (2014). The association between social capital and mental health and behavioural problems in children and adolescents: an integrative systematic review. BMC Psychology, 2(1), 7 Scholar
  22. Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S69–S77. Scholar
  23. Oberski, D. (2014). lavaan.survey: An R package for complex survey analysis of structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 57(1), 1–27. Scholar
  24. Patton, G. C., Sawyer, S. M., Santelli, J. S., Ross, D. A., Afifi, R., Allen, N. B., & Viner, R. M. (2016). Our future: A Lancet commission on adolescent health and wellbeing. The Lancet, 387(10036), 2423–2478. Scholar
  25. Peuckert, R. (2012). Familienformen im sozialen Wandel [Family forms in the social change]. 8. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pilgrim, N. A., & Blum, R. W. (2012). Adolescent mental and physical health in the English-speaking Caribbean. Revista Panamericana Délelőtt Salud Pública, 32(1), 62–69. Scholar
  27. Rattay, P., Lippe, Evonder, & Lampert, T. (2014). Gesundheit von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Eineltern-, Stief- und Kernfamilien [Health of children and adolescents in single-parent, step-, and nuclear families. Results of the KIGGS study: first follow-up (KIGGS Wave 1)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt–Gesundheitsforschung–Gesundheitsschutz, 57(7), 860–868. Scholar
  28. Reinecke, J. (2014). Strukturgleichungsmodelle in den Sozialwissenschaften [structural equation modeling in social sciences]. 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage München: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  29. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Scholar
  30. Ryan, S. M., Jorm, A. F., & Lubman, D. I. (2010). Parenting factors associated with reduced adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(9), 774–783. Scholar
  31. Schubert, H. & Veil, K. (2009). Erster Zwischenbericht der SPIN Evaluation: Literaturanalyse Communities that Care [First interim report of the SPINEvaluation].
  32. Schubert, H. (2013). Evaluation des Modellproprogramms “Communities That Care” in Niedersachsen: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Befunde zur sozialräumlichen Prävention in Netzwerken [Evaluation of the Communities that Cares program in Lower Saxony.]. Köln: Verl: Sozial, Raum, Management. SRM-Reihe: Vol. 11.Google Scholar
  33. Soellner, R., Frisch, J. U., & Reder, M. (2016). Communities That Care: Schülerbefragung in Niedersachsen [Communities That Care–School Survey in Lower Saxony]. Hildesheim: Universitätsverlag Hildesheim.Google Scholar
  34. Soellner, R. & Groeger-Roth, F. (2016). Communities That Care–Schülerbefragung in Niedersachsen [Communities That Care–School Survey in Lower Saxony].
  35. Stappenbeck, J., Wendell, A., & Thomasius, R. (2015). Evaluation des familienbasierten Programms Familien stärken zur Prävention von Sucht- und Verhaltensproblemen bei Jugendlichen [Evaluation of the family based program “strengthening families” to prevent addictive and behavior problems in adolescents]. Das Gesundheitswesen, 77(S 01), S74–S75. Scholar
  36. Stolle, M., Sack, P.-M., & Thomasius, R. (2009). Binge drinking in childhood and adolescence: epidemiology, consequences, and interventions. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 106(19), 323–328. Scholar
  37. van de Schoot, R., Schmidt, P., & DeBeuckelaer, A. (2015). Measurement invariance. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for oragnisational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. Scholar
  39. Weiber, R., & Mühlhaus, D. (2014). Strukturgleichungsmodellierung: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in die Kausalanalyse mit Hilfe von AMOS, SmartPLS und SPSS [Structural equation modeling: An application-oriented introduction to causal analysis using AMOS, SmartPLS and SPSS] (2., erw. und korr. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer Gabler. Springer-Lehrbuch.
  40. Weinmann, J. (2010). Frauen und Männer in verschiedenen Lebensphasen [Women and men in different phases of life]. Wiesbaden.
  41. Werner, E. (1993). Risk, resilience and recovery: Perspetives from the Kauai longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 503–515. Scholar
  42. Wurdak, M., Dimberger, I., Hilpert, L., & Wolstein, J. (2015). Online-Elternintervention zur Reduktion des riskanten Alkoholkonsums der Familienkinder. [Online parent intervention to reduce the risky alcohol consumption of family children​]. Suchttherapie, 16(S01).
  43. Yap, M., Jorm, A., Bazley, R., Kelly, C., Ryan, S., & Lubman, D. (2011). Web-based parenting program to prevent adolescent alcohol misuse: rationale and development. Australasian psychiatry: Bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, 19(4), 339–344. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna E. Schwendemann
    • 1
  • Johanna U. Frisch
    • 2
  • Maren Reder
    • 2
  • Thomas Mößle
    • 3
  • Renate Soellner
    • 2
  • Eva-Maria Bitzer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Education FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.University of HildesheimHildesheimGermany
  3. 3.State Police College Baden-WürttembergVillingen-SchwenningenGermany

Personalised recommendations