Family system functioning: behavior in the laboratory and the family treatment setting

The Family System Functioning (FSF) scale is a new instrument for measuring dimensions of the intrafamilial environment thought to be important in recovery from major psychiatric illness. Modest statistical correlations were obtained when FSF ratings of laboratory-based family interactions were compared with researcher-guided therapist ratings of FSF based upon the family's behavior in family therapy sessions during the subsequent month. The data from these two settings provide support for the validity of some of the scales. Because of the modest size of the correlations, however, behavior in the laboratory setting may not always be an accurate indicator of how the family will behave in the early weeks of family therapy.     

Spiritual and emotional determinants of health

Within our present health care system, there is a growing movement that argues that our perceptions of health and illness are in need of change. This change includes redefining what we mean by health in terms of the whole person—the emotional, social, and spiritual dimensions of our being, as well as the physical. An increasing number of health professionals and social scientists believe our concepts of health and illness must consider all these aspects of life. It is believed that the quality of life may be enhanced by such perceptions of health, which include social and spiritual factors. Using data from the 1985 Akron Area Survey—The Subjective Quality of Life in the Akron Area—this study explores the effects of spiritual well-being and emotional well-being on health satisfaction. Results indicate that emotional and spiritual factors do significantly contribute to the subjective evaluation of health, especially for individuals who are physically limited.An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the joint session of the Association for the Sociology of Religion and the American Sociological Association, August 20, 1986. The author would like to thank Margaret Poloma, Ph.D., The University of Akron, and Mark Tausig, Ph.D., The University of Akron, for their helpful comments.     

Perceived family environment as a moderator of young adolescents' life stress adjustment

A longitudinal design was employed to test the main and stress-moderating effects of young adolescents' perceived family environment (Family Environment Scales; FES; Moos & Moos, 1981) on their depression, anxiety, and self-esteem. This study was part of a larger longitudinal project (L. Cohen, Burt, & Bjorck, 1987) that demonstrated the significant cross-sectional effects of the young adolescents' controllable and uncontrollable negative events, and the significant longitudinal effects of the former. The present cross-sectional analyses demonstrated the hypothesized main effects of the FES scores; families perceived as cohesive, organized, and expressive were related to positive psychological functioning, whereas families perceived as conflict-ridden and controlling were related to negative functioning. However, in general these effects were nonsignificant in the longitudinal analyses. Although there were a number of significant Negative Events x FES interactions, in no instance did the pattern support the hypothesized stress-buffering role of positive family climate.     

The assessment of child abuse potential and the prevention of child abuse and neglect: A policy analysis

A frequently advocated strategy for increasing the efficiency of child abuse prevention programs is to deliver prevention services to "high-risk" populations. This article critically reviews procedures for the reliable and valid assessment of child abuse potential within an ecological perspective. Factors that limit the usefulness of child abuse risk assessment are discussed. These factors include the uncertain criteria of child abuse and neglect, the low base rate of the phenomenon, and the financial and social costs of such procedures. Finally, the prevention implications of the current and future state of the art in child abuse risk assessment are considered and preventive interventions that do not depend on individual case risk screening are advocated.