Background: The Family Assessment Device (FAD) is a 60-item questionnaire widely used to evaluate self-reported family functioning. However, the factor structure as well as the number of items has been questioned. A shorter and more user-friendly version of the original FAD-scale has therefore previously been proposed, based on findings in a nonclinical population of adults. We aimed in this study to evaluate the brief 36-item version of the FAD in a clinical population. Method: Data from a European multinational study, examining factors associated with levels of family functioning in adult cancer patients’ families, were used. Both healthy and ill parents completed the 60-item version FAD. The psychometric analyses conducted were Principal Component Analysis and Mokken-analysis. Results: A total of 564 participants were included. Based on the psychometric analysis we confirmed the 36-item version of the FAD has robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical populations. Conclusion: The present analysis confirmed the 36-item version of the Family Assessment Device (18 items assessing “well-being” and 18 items assessing “dysfunctional” family function) is a brief scale where the summed total score is a valid measure of the dimensions of family functioning. This shorter version of the FAD is, in accordance with the concept of “measurement-based care”, an easy to use scale that could be considered when the aim is to evaluate self-reported family functioning.

A confirmative clinimetric analysis of the 36-item Family Assessment Device / Timmerby, Nina*; Cosci, Fiammetta; Watson, Maggie; Csillag, Claudio; Schmitt, Florence; Steck, Barbara; Bech, Per; Thastum, Mikael. - In: NORDIC JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY. - ISSN 0803-9488. - ELETTRONICO. - (2018), pp. 1-5. [10.1080/08039488.2018.1435721]

A confirmative clinimetric analysis of the 36-item Family Assessment Device

Cosci, Fiammetta
Writing – Review & Editing
;
2018

Abstract

Background: The Family Assessment Device (FAD) is a 60-item questionnaire widely used to evaluate self-reported family functioning. However, the factor structure as well as the number of items has been questioned. A shorter and more user-friendly version of the original FAD-scale has therefore previously been proposed, based on findings in a nonclinical population of adults. We aimed in this study to evaluate the brief 36-item version of the FAD in a clinical population. Method: Data from a European multinational study, examining factors associated with levels of family functioning in adult cancer patients’ families, were used. Both healthy and ill parents completed the 60-item version FAD. The psychometric analyses conducted were Principal Component Analysis and Mokken-analysis. Results: A total of 564 participants were included. Based on the psychometric analysis we confirmed the 36-item version of the FAD has robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical populations. Conclusion: The present analysis confirmed the 36-item version of the Family Assessment Device (18 items assessing “well-being” and 18 items assessing “dysfunctional” family function) is a brief scale where the summed total score is a valid measure of the dimensions of family functioning. This shorter version of the FAD is, in accordance with the concept of “measurement-based care”, an easy to use scale that could be considered when the aim is to evaluate self-reported family functioning.
2018
1
5
Timmerby, Nina*; Cosci, Fiammetta; Watson, Maggie; Csillag, Claudio; Schmitt, Florence; Steck, Barbara; Bech, Per; Thastum, Mikael
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Timmerby, Cosci, Watson, Csillag, Schmitt, Steck, Bech, Thastum_FAD_2018.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 822.48 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
822.48 kB Adobe PDF   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1112476
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact