 |
 |
 |
Druckversion |
|
|
| systemagazin Zeitschriftenarchiv: Journal of Family Therapy Heft 2/2000 |
| 1/2000 - 2/2000 - 3/2000 - 4/2000 - Übersicht Carr, Alan (2000): Editorial: Empirical Approaches to Family Assessment. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 121-127 Beavers, Robert & Robert B. Hampson (2000): The Beavers Systems Model of Family Functioning. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 128-143. abstract: Family competence and family style are the two main dimensions of the Beavers Systems Model of Family Functioning. The competence dimension ranges from optimal through adequate, midrange and borderline to severely dysfunctional. The style dimension ranges from centripetal to centrifugal. When the two dimensions are combined, they diagramatically define nine distinct family groupings, three of which are relatively functional and six of which are thought to be sufficiently problematic to require clinical intervention. A family’s status on the competence and style dimensions may be established with the Beavers interactional scales. The self-report family inventory may be used to evaluate family members’ perceptions of their status on the competence dimension. The reliability and validity of the self-report instrument and observational rating scales have been documented in over thirty papers and books published by the Beavers research team since 1970. The model has proved useful in training, research and clinical work. Olson, David H. (2000): Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 144-167. abstract: The Circumplex Model focuses on the three central dimensions of marital and family systems: cohesion, flexibility and communication. The major hypothesis of the Circumplex Model is that balanced couple and family systems tend to be more functional compared to unbalanced systems. In over 250 studies using the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales (FACES), a linear self-report measure, strong support has been found for this hypothesis. In several studies using the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS), a curvilinear observational measure, the hypothesis was also supported. These two assessment tools, the FACES and the CRS, are designed for research, clinical assessment and treatment planning with couples and families. Miller, Ivan W., Christine E. Ryan, Gabor I. Keitner, Duane S. Bishop & Nathan B. Epstein (2000): The McMaster Approach to Families: theory, assessment, treatment and research. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 168-189. abstract: The McMaster Approach to Families is a comprehensive model of family assessment and treatment. This paper provides an overview of the McMaster Approach and consists of five major sections. First, the under-lying theoretical model (McMaster Model of Family Functioning) is described. Second, the three assessment instruments of the approach (Family Assessment Device, McMaster Clinical Rating Scale, McMaster Structured Interview of Family Functioning) and their psychometric properties are summarized. Third, the family treatment model (Problem Centered Systems Therapy of the Family) is presented. Fourth, the research conducted using the McMaster Approach is reviewed. Finally, the clinical uses and advantages of the McMaster Approach are discussed. Skinner, Harvey, Paul Steinhauer & Gill Sitarenios (2000): Family Assessment Measure (FAM) and Process Model of Family Functioning. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 190-210. abstract: This paper provides an overview of twenty years’ work in the development of the Family Assessment Measure (FAM), based on the Process Model of Family Functioning. The Process Model describes a conceptual framework for conducting family assessments according to seven key dimensions: task accomplishment, role performance, communication, affective expression, involvement, control, values and norms. The FAM provides measures of these dimensions at three levels: whole family system (general scale, fifty items), various dyadic relationships (dyadic scale, forty-two items) and individual functioning (self-rating scale, forty-two items). In addition, the general scale includes social desirability and defensiveness response style measures. Brief FAMs (fourteen items) are available for each scale as well. The measurement properties of FAM have been evaluated in a variety of clinical and non-clinical settings. Reliability estimates are very good in most contexts. FAM’s validity has been supported using a number of techniques. Overall, the weight of the evidence is that FAM’s effectively and efficiently assess family functioning and provide strong explanatory and predictive utility. This empirical evidence reinforces experiences of clinicians, indicating that FAM provides a rich source of information on family functioning. Wilkinson, Ian (2000): The Darlington Family Assessment Sytem: clinical guidelines for practitioners. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 211-224. abstract: The Darlington Family Assessment System (DFAS) consists of a framework of widely accepted concepts, a semi-structured family interview and rating scale, and a detailed account of how to use the system in clinical practice. The model views health issues within a family life-cycle (developmental) framework. It assesses problems at four systemic levels: the child perspective, the parental perspective, the parent-child perspective, and the whole family perspective. The semi-structured interview is designed to see how family members perceive problems and to map out other possible problems, and is a useful basic training tool. Empirical work suggests that the framework of key concepts and the rating scale offer a powerful method for describing and differentiating families. There is evidence that the model is useful as a training method for health professionals undergoing basic training. Detailed clinical guidelines have also been developed, to show how the model can be applied in practice. The advantage of the model is that it can be used with a variety of therapeutic approaches, and to inform choices about which interventions are likely to be successful or not. Drumm, Michael, Alan Carr & Michael Fitzgerald (2000): The Beavers, McMaster and Circumplex clinical rating scales: a study of their sensitivity, specificity and discriminant validity. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 225-238. abstract: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of clinical rating scales from the Beavers, McMaster and Circumplex models of family functioning videotapes of sixty families engaging in a standardized family task interview were rated using the three rating scales. The sixty families included twenty containing a child with an emotional disorder, twenty containing a child with a mixed disorder of emotions and conduct, and twenty in which none of the children presented with clinically significant difficulties. The three rating scales accurately classified 85-90% of normal controls, 70-90% of cases containing a child with a mixed disorder of emotions and conduct, and 55-65% of families containing a child with an emotional disorder. On the rating scales, the Beavers and McMaster models showed particularly high levels of sensitivity in detecting clinical cases, whereas the Circumplex rating scale was particularly good at classifying non-clinical cases accurately. Book Reviews. In: Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2): S. 239-243. abstract: Gill Gorrell Barnes, Paul Thompson, Gwyn Daniel and Natasha Burchardt, Growing up in Stepfamilies Jim Wilson, Child Focused Practice: A Collaborative Systemic Approach A. Dienhart, Reshaping Fatherhood: The Social Construction of Shared Parenting Charles J. O’Leary, Counselling Couples and Families. A Person Centred Approach Published by
arrangement with John Wiley & Sons
 |
|
||||||||
Besuche seit dem 27.1.2005:   |