Die Erfassung des allgemeinen familiären Funktionsniveaus: Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version der Brief Assessment of Family Functioning Scale

Zusammenfassung

Die Funktionalität des Systems Familie spielt nicht nur in der Entwicklungspsychologie und Familienforschung, sondern auch bei vielen körperlichen Erkrankungen und psychischen Störungen eine zentrale Rolle. Trotz dieser hohen Relevanz existieren nur sehr wenige ultra-kurze, d. h. anwendungsökonomische Selbstbeurteilungsverfahren, die das allgemeine familiäre Funktionsniveau abbilden. Diese Lücke schließt die Brief Assessment of Family Functioning Scale (BAFFS), die aus drei Items der General Functioning Scale des international weit verbreiteten Family Assessment Device besteht. In dieser Studie wurde die deutsche Version der BAFFS erstmals an einer großen und repräsentativen Allgemeinbevölkerungsstichprobe (n=2463) psychometrisch evaluiert. Mittels Multigruppen-konfirmatorischen Faktorenanalysen konnte starke Messinvarianz für relevante Teilstichproben (Frauen vs. Männer; Probanden in Partnerschaften mit vs. ohne Kinder) bei guter Modellpassung gezeigt werden. Obwohl eines der drei Items, welches als einziges negativ formuliert ist, ungenügende psychometrische Itemkennwerte aufwies, lag die interne Konsistenz bei Cronbachs α=0,71. Als Hinweis auf eine adäquate Konstruktvalidität fanden sich hypothesenkonform Assoziationen des familiären Funktionsniveaus mit dem sozioökonomischen Status sowie mit aktueller Depressivität und Ängstlichkeit. Trotz ausstehender Anwendungserfahrungen und psychometrischer Analysen der Kurzskala Allgemeines Familiäres Funktionsniveau (KSAFF) als der deutschen Version der BAFFS in relevanten Zielgruppen und bei Patienten in Klinik und Forschung, kann das mit drei Items sehr anwendungsökonomische Verfahren zur orientierenden Erfassung des allgemeinen familiären Funktionsniveaus empfohlen werden, zumal es in der Allgemeinbevölkerung mit einigen Einschränkungen akzeptable bis gute psychometrische Kennwerte zeigte.

Abstract

The functionality of the family system is not only a central theme in developmental psychology and family research, but also plays a key role in many physical illnesses and mental disorders. Despite its high relevance, there are only a very few brief and user-friendly self-report measures assessing general family functioning. This gap is closed by the Brief Assessment of Family Functioning Scale (BAFFS), which consists of three items of the General Functioning Scale of the internationally well-established Family Assessment Device. In this study, the German version (KSAFF) of the BAFFS was psychometrically evaluated for the first time in a large and representative general population sample (n=2463). Using multigroup confirmatory factor analyses, strong measurement invariance was shown for relevant subsamples (women vs. men; participants in partnerships with vs. without children) with good model fit. Although one of the three items, which is the only negatively formulated item, yielded insufficient psychometric item characteristics, the internal consistency was Cronbach's α=0.71. As an indication of adequate construct validity, associations of family functioning with socioeconomic status as well as with current depression and anxiety were found in accordance with the hypothesis. Although application experiences and psychometric analyses of the German version of the BAFFS in relevant clinical samples are pending, this three-item self-report measure can be recommended as an economic, user-friendly assessment device for general family functioning, particularly since it yielded satisfactory to good psychometric properties in the general population.

Schlüsselwörter

Familiäres Funktionsniveau - psychometrische Erfassung - Allgemeinbevölkerung - ultrakurzer Test - Brief Assessment of Family Functioning Scale (BAFFS)

Key words

family functioning - psychometric assessment - general population - ultrashort test - Brief Assessment of Family Functioning Scale (BAFFS)

Publication History

Received: 02 July 2021

Accepted: 08 November 2021

Article published online:
15 December 2021

• Literatur

• 1 Seiffge-Krenke I. Psychotherapie und Entwicklungspsychologie. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009
• 2 Cierpka M. (Hrsg). Handbuch der Familiendiagnostik. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008
• 3 Fiese BH. (Hrsg). APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2019
• 4 Leeman J, Crandell JL, Lee A. et al. Family Functioning and the Well-Being of Children With Chronic Conditions: A Meta-Analysis. Res Nurs Health 2016; 39: 229-243 DOI: 10.1002/nur.21725.
• 5 Whisman MA. Psychopathology and Couple and Family Functioning. In: Fiese BH (Hrsg). APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology (Volume 3). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2019: 3-20
• 6 Rolland JS. The Family, Chronic Illness, and Disability: An Integrative Practice Model. In: Fiese BH (Hrsg). APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology (Volume 3). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2019: 85-102
• 7 Van Schoors M, Caes L, Knoble NB. et al. Associations Between Family Functioning and Child Adjustment After Pediatric Cancer Diagnosis: A Meta-Analysis. J Pediatr Psychol 2017; 42: 6-18
• 8 Cousino MK, Rea KE, Schumacher KR. et al. A systematic review of parent and family functioning in pediatric solid organ transplant populations. Pediatr Transplant 2017 May;21(3).
• 9 Mehnert A, Vehling S. Psychoonkologische Unterstützung von Patienten und Angehörigen in der Terminalphase. FORUM 2018; 33: 30-34
• 10 Erriu M, Cimino S, Cerniglia L. The Role of Family Relationships in Eating Disorders in Adolescents: A Narrative Review. Behav Sci 2020; 10: 71
• 11 Wiegand-Grefe S, Sell M, Filter B. et al. Family Functioning and Psychological Health of Children with Mentally Ill Parents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 1278
• 12 Prime H, Wade M, Browne DT. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol 2020; 75: 631-643
• 13 Epstein NB, Ryan CE, Bishop DS. et al. The McMaster model: A view of healthy family functioning. In: F. Walsh F (Hrsg). Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003: 581-607
• 14 Skinner H, Steinhauer P, Sitarenios G. Family Assessment Measure (FAM) and Process Model of Family Functioning. J Marital Fam Ther 2000; 22: 190-210
• 15 Hamilton E, Carr A. Systematic Review of Self-Report Family Assessment Measures. Fam Process 2016; 55: 16-30
• 16 Cierpka M, Frevert G. Die Familienbögen. Ein Inventar zur Einschätzung von Familienfunktionen. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1995
• 17 Epstein NB, Baldwin LM, Bishop DS. The McMaster Family Assessment Device. J Marital Fam Ther 1983; 9: 171-180
• 18 Mansfield AK, Keitner GI, Archambault RA. Family Assessment Device. In: Lebow J, Chambers A, Breunlin D, Hrsg. Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy. Cham: Springer; 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_395-1
• 19 Staccini L, Tomba E, Grandi S. et al. The evaluation of family functioning by the family assessment device: a systematic review of studies in adult clinical populations. Fam Process 2015; 54: 94-115
• 20 Beierlein V, Bultmann JC, Möller B. et al. Measuring family functioning in families with parental cancer: Reliability and validity of the German adaptation of the Family Assessment Device (FAD). J Psychosom Res 2017; 93: 110-117
• 21 Shek DT. The General Functioning Scale of the Family Assessment Device: does it work with Chinese adolescents?. J Clin Psychol 2001; 57: 1503-1516
• 22 Hausken SES, Lie HC, Lien N. et al. The reliability of the general functioning scale in Norwegian 13-15-year-old adolescents and association with family dinner frequency. Nutr J 2019; 18: 20
• 23 Pedersen MAM, Kristensen LJ, Sildorf SM. et al. Assessment of family functioning in families with a child diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: Validation and clinical relevance of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster family assessment device. Pediatr Diabetes 2019; 20: 785-793
• 24 Pires T, Assis SG, Avanci JQ. et al. Cross-Cultural adaptation of the General Functioning Scale of the Family. Rev Saude Publica 2016; 50: 32
• 25 Mansfield AK, Keitner GI, Sheeran T. The Brief Assessment of Family Functionig Scale (BAFFS): a three-item version of the General Functioning Scale of the Family Assessment Device. Psychother Res 2018; 29: 824-831
• 26 Mitchell AJ, Coyne JC. Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies. Br J Gen Pract 2007; 57: 144-151
• 27 Kemper CJ, Brähler E, Zenger M. (Hrsg). Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzsskalen. Berlin: MWV; 2014
• 28 Bornstein MH, Bradley RH. (Hrsg) Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2003
• 29 Masarik AS, Conger RD. Stress and child development: a review of the Family Stress Model. Curr Opin Psychol 2017; 13: 85-90
• 30 Miller IW, McDermut W, Gordon KC. et al. Personality and family functioning in families of depressed patients. J Abnorm Psychol 2000; 109: 539-545
• 31 Keitner GI, Miller IW. Family functioning and major depression: an overview. Am J Psychiatry 1990; 147: 1128-1137
• 32 Wang J, Chen Y, Tan C. et al. Family functioning, social support, and quality of life for patients with anxiety disorder. Int J Soc Psychiatry 2016; 62: 5-11
• 33 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. et al. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 2009; 50: 613-621
• 34 Löwe B, Wahl I, Rose M. et al. A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety: validation and standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. J Affect Disord 2010; 122: 86-95
• 35 Wu H, Estabrook R. Identification of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models of Different Levels of Invariance for Ordered Categorical Outcomes. Psychometrika 2016; 81: 1014-1045
• 36 Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2007; 14: 464-504
• 37 Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1-55
• 38 Wang WC, Chen HF, Jin KY. Item Response Theory Models for Wording Effects in Mixed-Format Scales. Educ Psychol Meas 2015; 75: 157-178
• 39 Boterhoven de Haan KL, Hafekost J, Lawrence D, Sawyer MG, Zubrick SR. Reliability and validity of a short version of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Fam Process 2015; 54: 116-123
• 40 Pritchett R, Kemp J, Wilson P. et al. Quick, simple measures of family relationships for use in clinical practice and research. A systematic review. Fam Pract 2011; 28: 172-187