FACES IV

Name and Type of Measure

The FACES IV is a family self-report measure with 6 scales and 42 items.

Synonyms

The Circumplex Model; The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales

Introduction

FACES IV is the latest version of a family self-report measure designed to assess family cohesion and family flexibility, which are the two central dimensions of the Circumplex Model* of Marital and Family Systems (Olson 2011). Previous self-report assessments include three versions of the self-report measure called FACES I, II, and III (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales*) and the observational assessment called the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS) (Olson 2000, Thomas and Olson 1993, Thomas and Lewis 1999). FACES IV is based on major studies by Dean Gorall (2002) and Judy Tiesel (1994) which were designed to improve the adequacy of the assessment and measure the full dimensions of cohesion and flexibility.

More than 1200 published articles and dissertations have used a version of FACES and/or the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family System (Kouneski 2002) since the first version of the model was published (Olson et al. 1979). The model has also stimulated discussion and debate regarding family functioning generally and the cohesion and flexibility concepts specifically. The concepts have been defined in various ways, both conceptually and operationally, by researchers and theorists to include various aspects of family functioning (Barber and Buehler 1996; Doherty and Hovander 1990). The one constant across these discussions and debates has been the consensus on the importance of these two concepts in understanding couple and family systems.

Developers

David Olson is the primary developer of a variety of assessments including AWARE for individuals, PREPARE-ENRICH for dating to married couples, a self-directed Couple Checkup for couples, and FACES for families. He has revised these and other assessments several times to improve their scientific rigor (i.e., reliability, validity, and national norms). These assessments have become popular both nationally and in over 25 other countries.

Description of Measure

The FACES measure was developed to tap the full continuum of the cohesion and flexibility dimensions from the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. Six scales were developed, with two balanced scales and four unbalanced scales designed to tap low and high cohesion (disengaged and enmeshed) and flexibility (rigid and chaotic). The six scales in FACES IV were found to be reliable and valid (Olson 2011). Concurrent and discriminant validity was established (Olson 2008), and new ratio scores measure the balanced and unbalanced level of cohesion and flexibility (Olson 2011).

More details on all aspects of FACES IV are contained in the FACES IV Manual (Olson 2008). The goals in developing FACES IV were as follows:

• 1. To develop self-report scales that tap the full dimensions (balanced and unbalanced) of cohesion and flexibility

• 2. To develop self-report scales that are reliable, valid, and clinically relevant

• 3. To develop a family assessment tool that is useful for research and clinical work with families

Brief Overview of Circumplex Model. The Circumplex Model is comprised of three key concepts for understanding family functioning. Cohesion is defined as the emotional bonding that family members have toward one another. Family flexibility is defined as the quality and expression of leadership and organization, role relationship, and relationship rules and negotiations. Flexibility, as previously used in the model, was defined as the amount of change in family leadership, role relationships, and relationship rules. Communication is defined as the positive communication skills utilized in the couple or family system. The communication dimension is viewed as a facilitating dimension that helps families alter their levels of cohesion and flexibility.

There are five levels of cohesion, and the three central ones are called balanced, ranging from “somewhat connected” to “connected” to “very connected.” The two unbalanced extremes on cohesion are “disengaged” (extremely low) and “chaotic” (extremely high). There are also five levels of flexibility, and the three central ones are balanced, ranging from “somewhat flexible” to “flexible” to “very flexible.” The two unbalanced extremes on flexibility are “rigid” (extremely low) and “chaotic” (extremely high) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Circumplex Model and FACES IV

By combining the 5 levels of cohesion and 5 levels of flexibility, this creates 25 types of relationships. There are 9 balanced types, 4 unbalanced types, and 12 midrange types – where the relationship has unbalanced types on one dimension and balanced types on the other dimension.

The main hypothesis of the Circumplex Model is: Balanced levels of cohesion and flexibility are most conducive to healthy couple and family functioning. Conversely, unbalanced levels of cohesion and flexibility (very low or very high levels) are associated with problematic couple and family functioning. This hypothesis has received strong support using both FACES and the Clinical Rating Scale (Kouneski 2002; Thomas and Lewis 1999).

A second hypothesis is: Balanced couples and families will have better communication skills than Unbalanced relationship, and these skills help Balanced relationship maintain balance over time. Furthermore, poor communication skills are often considered part of the reason that unbalanced relationship stay stuck in more dysfunctional behavior. As a result, teaching couples and families more positive communication skills can be a useful first step in helping them develop a more balanced relationship.

A third hypothesis is: If the normative expectation of a couple or family support behavior is more extreme on one or both dimensions, they will function well as long as other family members accept these expectations. This hypothesis is very important in applying the Circumplex Model to other cultures that have normative expectations that are more extreme on one or both of the dimensions. This is especially true for cultural groups that encourage and support more extreme togetherness (enmeshment) and extremely low flexibility (rigidity).

Assessing the Extremes of Cohesion and Flexibility. The cohesion and flexibility scales from FACES II and III have been consistently found to have a linear relationship with healthy/unhealthy family functioning (Olson 2000). In addition, there were not distinct scales that measured the two unbalanced areas (extremes) areas of cohesion (disengaged and enmeshed) or flexibility (rigid and chaotic).

Initial attempts with early versions of FACES IV were also not successful in assessing the full dimensions of cohesion and flexibility. One approach used a bipolar response format instead of a Likert response format, based on the suggestions of Pratt and Hansen (1987). The second approach was to use items based on the Clinical Rating Scale and have families rate themselves in much the same way they are rated by outside observers, based on the suggestions of Perosa and Perosa (1990). Both of these attempts yielded measures that were linear in relation to family functioning.

A significant step in developing the current FACES IV instrument was a study by Tiesel (1994) in which she developed four unbalanced sub-scales aimed specifically at the low and high extremes of cohesion and flexibility. Items were developed by having 154 clinical members of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) rate the degree to which they felt an item was representative of either cohesion or flexibility. Then they rated the item as falling into one of the four extremes. This work yielded four scales tapping the very low and very high levels of cohesion (disengaged and enmeshed) and flexibility (rigid and chaotic). These four scales were found to be reliable and valid and were able to discriminate between problem and non-problem families.

Using these four unbalanced scales, Craddock (2001) found support for the basic hypothesis that families with higher scores on these scales had higher levels of family stress and lower levels of satisfaction. Franklin et al. (2001) examined these same four scales using factor and correlational analysis, and their findings replicated the four scales. They found some cross-loading of items and a 0.60 correlation between the disengaged and chaotic scales and suggested further work on the independence of these two scales.

Psychometrics

Reliability of the Six FACES IV Scales. Using a sample of 489 adults, the alpha reliability of the 6 scales was assessed (Olson 2011). The reliability of the two balanced scales of cohesion (.89) and flexibility (.84). For the four unbalanced scales, the reliability of the scales was disengaged (.87), enmeshed (.77), chaotic (.86), and rigid (.82).

Discriminant Analysis of FACES IV Scales. To determine the ability of the FACES IV scales to distinguish between problem and non-problem family systems, a discriminant analysis was run for the FACES IV scales and validation (see Table 1). The analysis demonstrates that using the four unbalanced scales, it is possible to discriminant between those high and low on family functioning and family satisfaction with high accuracy with the disengaged scale (.76–89) and chaos scales (.60–85). Less useful were the unbalanced scales of enmeshment (.53–.65) and rigid (.51–.55). The two balanced scales were very predictive: cohesion (.80–.94) and flexibility (.72–.80). The best were based on using all six scales together, and the range was very high (.84–.99). In summary, these analyses demonstrate the high discriminant validity of the FACES IV scales.

Table 1 Discriminant analysis of problem and non-problem families (Percent accuracy in discriminating groups)

Creating a Dimension Score for Cohesion and Flexibility from Six Scales. The dimensional scores for cohesion and flexibility are used for plotting the one location of the family onto the updated graphic representation of the Circumplex Model of Couple and Family Systems. In order to create a single score for cohesion and flexibility dimensions, the following formula was created. This dimension score is created by using the balanced score and adjusting it up or down the scale based on whether the difference in the two unbalanced scale is at the high or low of the dimension. Percentile scores are used for each scale, and they are based on the raw scores. The formulas are cohesion = balanced cohesion + (disengaged – enmeshed / 2) and flexibility = balanced flexibility + (rigid – chaotic / 2). So if the enmeshed score is higher than disengaged, then the balanced cohesion score is adjusted upward.

Example of Application in Couple and Family Therapy

The FACES IV was implemented with a family where the presenting problem was significant emotional and behavioral problems exhibited by two children. Peggy and Doug are a married couple in their mid-30s who had three children, Alex (age 10), Sam (age 8), and Taylor (age 3). The couple began having trouble with emotional outbursts and oppositional behavior in both of their older children from an early age. They tried every different parenting approach they could imagine and read every book on handling difficult children.

After being seen by a child psychiatrist, both Alex and Sam were diagnosed with an early onset of bipolar disorder. Medication was prescribed to aid in reducing the turbulence of the emotions and behavioral difficulties experienced by the brothers. In conjunction with psychiatric services, intensive family therapy services were instituted to assist the parents in adapting their parenting styles and approaches. At the same time, couple therapy was initiated when the therapists conducting the family therapy determined that significant couple conflict prevented the parents from cooperatively instituting any of the parenting approaches they had attempted in the past.

FACES IV was administered to assess the particular strength and growth areas of the family. The scores on FACES IV from the two parents can be seen in the couple’s scores on the FACES IV profile and on the Circumplex Model (Figs. 2 and 3). Areas of difficulty for the family indicated by the FACES IV profile scores include low levels of “balanced cohesion” and high levels of the disengaged scale. The high levels of disengagement, particularly by the report of Peggy, and low levels of balanced cohesion indicate a lack of emotional closeness she feels in family. There were average scores on “balanced flexibility” but very high levels of chaos. The high level of chaos reported by the husband and wife was an indicator of problems with organization and leadership that the couple could not effectively provide. This was due to a combination of difficulties in their couple relationship and the overwhelming task of parenting two boys who did not seem to respond to any of their attempts at providing structure.

Fig. 2

FACES IV profile: pre- and post-test

Fig. 3

Pre- and post-test of couple in therapy

Family Treatment and Post Assessment. Therapeutic work with the couple and family was guided by FACES IV results and clinical observations. Intervention focused on increasing the emotional bonding in the couple relationship to enable Doug and Peggy to more effectively function as a co-parenting unit. As the couple relationship improved over time, they also improved at reducing the chaos as they began to work more as a team. They implemented specific parenting techniques aimed at increasing structure and consistency in the home for the boys, as well as increasing the positive emotional connections between the parents and children.

As illustrated in the FACES IV profile (Fig. 2), there was a moderate increase in balanced flexibility for both members of the couple, reflecting improvement in conflict resolution and negotiation in the couple relationship. There was a dramatic decrease in the chaos scores of both parents. This demonstrated an increase in the discipline and control exercised by the parents. There was also a positive increase in balanced cohesion and a dramatic drop in disengagement scores for both partners.

Figure 3 provides a graphic summary of the changes on the dimension scores of cohesion and flexibility at pre- and post-test for both partners. It clearly demonstrates that while Peggy was disengaged at pretest, she became more emotionally connected and that both described their relationship as more balanced in both cohesion and flexibility.

In summary, this intake assessment and post-therapy assessment enables the therapist to see the progress in the therapeutic process. The initial assessment provided information on how the system is functioning and helped the therapist develop a treatment plan. The six scales in the FACES IV profile provide a picture of balanced and unbalanced scales as perceived by each family member. The post assessment demonstrated the progress as perceived by the family members.

Cross-References

• Circumplex Model of Family Assessment

• Olson, David

• PREPARE/ENRICH