Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

McMaster Family Assessment Device

  • James H. BañosEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1994

Synonyms

FAD; Family assessment device; MFAD

Description

The McMaster Family Assessment Device (MFAD; Epstein et al. 1983) is a 60-item self-report instrument intended to evaluate a number of aspects of family relationships based on the McMaster model of family functioning (Epstein et al. 1993). Items are phrased to denote both effective (e.g., “We feel accepted for what we are.”) and problematic family functioning (e.g., “We don’t get along well together.”). Respondents rate how well each statement describes their family; response options include strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Items are reverse scored as needed, such that higher scores indicate poorer family functioning. In addition to a General Functioning Index, the MFAD generates scores on six dimensions (problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, and behavioral control).

Historical Background

Although often used as an outcome instrument, the MFAD was developed...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Barney, M. C., & Max, J. E. (2005). The McMaster family assessment device and clinical rating scale: Questionnaire vs interview in childhood traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 19(10), 801–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boterhoven de Haan, K. L., Hafekost, J., Lawrence, D., Sawyer, M. G., & Zubrick, S. R. (2015). Reliability and validity of a short version of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster family assessment device. Family Process, 54(1), 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, M. S., & Smith, D. S. (1999). Psychological correlates of outcome following rehabilitation from stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 13(2), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D., Ryan, C., Miller, I. W., & Keitner, G. I. (1993). The McMaster model view of healthy family functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 138–160). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, R. L., Bishop, D. S., Matlock, A. L., Stranahan, S., Halar, E. M., & Noonan, W. C. (1987a). Predicting post-stroke family function: A continuing dilemma. Psychological Reports, 60, 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans, R. L., Bishop, D. S., Matlock, A. L., Stranahan, S., Smith, G., & Halar, E. M. (1987b). Family interaction and treatment adherence after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 68, 513–517.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton, E., & Carr, A. (2015). Systematic review of self-report family assessment measures. Family Process. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Josie, K. L., Peterson, C. C., Burant, C., Drotar, D., Stancin, T., Wade, S. L., et al. (2008). Predicting family burden following childhood traumatic brain injury: A cumulative risk approach. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 23(6), 357–368.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Kreutzer, J. S., Gervasio, A. H., & Camplair, P. S. (1994). Patient correlates of caregivers’ distress and family functioning after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 8(3), 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mansfield, A. K., Keitner, G. I., & Dealey, J. (2015). The family assessment device: An update. Family Process, 54(1), 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller, I. W., Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D. S., & Keitner, G. I. (1985). The McMaster family assessment device: Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11(4), 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ridenour, T. A., Daley, J. G., & Reich, W. (1999). Factor analyses of the family assessment device. Family Process, 38(4), 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zarski, J. J., DePompei, R., & Zook, A. (1988). Traumatic head injury: Dimensions of family responsivity. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 3(4), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical EducationUniversity of Alabama School of MedicineBirminghamUSA