the family routines inventory: development and validation … · the family routines inventory:...

Sot &I Mrd. Vol. I?. N<> 4. pp. 201 21 I. IYX3 o277-953~‘x3’oJozoI-l I$03.00.‘0 Printed in Cire:it Britain. All rights reserved Cupynghl 0 IYX3 Pcrgtmon Press Lrd

THE FAMILY ROUTINES INVENTORY: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

ERIC W. JENSEN. SHERMAN A. JAMES, W. THOMAS BOYCE and SUE A. HARTNETT

Departments of Psychiatry. Medicine and Epidemiology. University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 and Department of Pediatrics. University of Arizona. Tucson. AZ X5724 U.S.A.

Abstract-This report builds upon pertinent theoretical considerations regarding the nature and importance of routinization within families and describes the development and validation of a standardized inventory to measure family routines. The Family Routines Inventory (FRI) measures 28 positive. strength-promoting family routines. those observable. repetititive behaviours which involve two or more family members and which occur with predictable regularity in the daily life of a family. The 28 routines were selected from an extensive list of 104 routines obtained through family interviews. Scoring options for the inventory were identiiied based on their face validity and consistency with the underlying theoretical construct. The inventory was subsequently administered IO a diverse group of families for reliability and validity testing. This testing identified an optimal scoring method (frequency score) for the inventorv and revealed that the Family Routines inventory. which measures the extent and importance of routikzation within a given family. appears to be a reliable and valid measure of family cohesion. solidarity, order and oveiall satisfaction with family life.

In recent years a growing body of social science and health care literature has demonstrated that family structure and function bear important relationships to the health status and illness experience of its members [l-7]. It has been recognized that the family occupies a central position in the complex interrelationships that mediate health and illness experience, disease etiology. and the treatment of both physical and men- tal illness [SJ. However. the small number of empirical studies which examine this relationship have often been limited by the imprecision inherent in the measdrement of ‘family functioning’. This methodological problem is largely attributable to the paucity of reliable and valid instruments which would permit the ordering of families along dimensions considered important in influencing health and illness behaviour [9]. This paper describes the development and validation of a standardized instrument assessing one such dimension: the extent of routinization or predictability in the ongoing daily life of a family.

The previous work of Boyce er al. [lo] provided the primary impetus for regarding family routinization as a potentially important variable in the social epidemiology of family health. In that pilot study, pediatric respiratory illnesses were found to be more severe as the magnitude of life events and the extent of family routinization jointly increased. While a number of explanations might account for this find- ing. a satisfactor! interpretation required a more thorough understanding of the routinization construct and the development of a standardized inventor! to measure family routines.

Past work from a variety of disciplines. along with information derived from ethnographic family observations. served to ground the concept of family routi-

Address reprlnr requests to: Dr Eric W. Jensen. School of Medicine 207 H. Wmg B. Box 5. Chapel Hill. NC 27514. V.S.A.

nization in a theoretical frame of reference [l I]. Within that frame of reference family routines were defined as observable, repetitive behaviors which involve two or more family members and which occur with predictable regularity in the day-to-day and week-to-week life of the family. The primary research goal in the current work was to identify those positive family routines which ‘protect’ against ill health by providing stability and continuity during periods of stress and promoting the strength and solidarity of the family. In addition. because it was recognized that a ‘large number of family background variables (e.g. race and social class) may influence the quantity and variety of routines in which families participate. steps were taken throughout the inventory development process to minimize the influence of race and social class differences on inventory scores.

The diverse theoretical perspectives discussed in the previous paper [12] suggest that family routines may be viewed as behavioral units of family life which provide order and structural integrity to the course of daily events. The presence of these routines would be expected to buffer the impact of stressful experiences impinging on the family and to protect its members against ill health by fostering a sense of stability, cohesion. and overall satisfaction with family life. The Faniily Routines Inventory described here is the product of a systemic effort to identify a set of strength-promoting routines and to develop a reliable and valid method for scoring an individual family’s adherence to these routines.

INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

Development of the Family Routines Inventory occurred in three sequential steps: family interviews, questionnaire design and administration and analysis of questionnaire data. In the first step. semi-structured

201

202 ERIC W. JENSEN er trl.

Table 1. Sociodemographic background of the 52 families interviewed to gener- ate list of 104 ‘family routines‘

Race F</lllil\ Tl~pJ I Parent 2 Parents

Black = 26 Black 14 12 White = 26 White I 25

Sociul cluss (Hollinyskmd) Rrliyion Bluck White Protestant = 29

I 0 3 Catholic = 6 Jewish = 2

II-IV 20 22 Other = 2 None = 5

V 6 1 Unknown = 8

Fanlilies with &/dim < 16 yec1r.s of age

I child = 25 families 2 children = 16 families 3 children = 5 families 4 children = 6 families

interviews were conducted in the homes of 52 families chosen randomly from a population of families attending the pediatric clinic at North Carolina Memorial Hospital. The selection procedure was stratified to yield 26 black and 26 while families and to achieve approximately equal representation from working and middle class families. Trained assistants conducted the 6&90min interviews in which each family was asked to provide a detailed description of their family routines. Sociodemographic characteristics of these 52 families are summarized in Table I.

Review of the interview data resulted in an extensive list of 104 family routines. Each of these routines met the following criteria:

(I) The routine was an observable behavior described by one or more of the 52 families interviewed.

(2) The routine occurred predictably on a daily or weekly basis.

(3) The routine involved or affected two or more family members.

(4) The routine offered acceptable differentiation among families with respect to participation in that routine, that is, the routine was neither so particular that it could be found in almost no families nor so general that it could be found in nearly all families.

These 104 family routines were subsequently organized into twelve distinct domains or areas of family functioning. The twelve domains and the number of family routines comprising each are shown in Table 2.

In the next step of the inventory’s development, a questionnaire was designed and administered to a second group of subjects who agreed to judge the relative importance of each of the 104 routines for “keeping a family strong”. The statement that routines are important for “keeping a family strong” is consistent with the theoretical basis of the family routines construct and states in ordinary language a judgment that people make implicitly or explicitly on numerous occasions in their day-to-day lives. Thus, the judgments regarding the strength-promoting character of family routines reflected the perceived functional and symbolic value of the individual rou-

tines. All judges were adult women residing in Chapel Hill and Durham, North Carolina. and were members of families in which at least one child 16 years old or younger was living in the home. Effort was made to secure a broad cross-section of racial (black-white) and social classes living in the area. Table 3 describes the sociodemographic characteristics of the 260 women who judge the routines. Judgments for each routine were made along an eleven point continuum (1 = not important to 11 = very important) modeled after the Thurstone Equal-Appearing-Interval Scale [ 131. This technique has been employed successfully in the measurement of attitudes toward a variety of phenomena including race, religion and politics but has not previously been .used to assess attitudes towards a behavioural dimension such as family routines. The judges were asked to decide how important they felt each of the 104 routines would be for keeping a family strong and to record their decision by checking the appropriate space along the I1 point scale. The purpose of this rating task was to permit the identification of that subset of the 104 routines which in the collective view of the judges were most important for maintaining strong and cohesive families.

Table 2. The 104 family routines organized conceptually by domains

Domain Number of

routines

I. Workday 9 II. Weekend and leisure time 14

III. Children’s routines 18 IV. Parent(s)’ routines 14 V. Bedtime 4

VI. Meals 16 VII. Extended family 6 VIII Leaving and homecoming 5

IX. Religious routines 5 X. Disciplinary routines 2

XI. Household chores 5 XII. Home entertainment 6

The Family Routines Inventory 703

Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics of the 260 judges* who rated each of the 104 family routines on their importance for ‘keeping a family strong’

RUW Black = i I I (4X”/,) White = 149 (57%)

Aget Maritul .~tut~.s fl 31-40 s Married &&, Unknown

Black 301‘, 489,, 2 1 s;, Black 7 1% 2sJ& 4:<* White 35”,” 4x”,,, 167” White 92”/;, ‘0 8%’

EdlKLlIiOll At717utrl ittcor77e Black Whir f Block White

c High school 36”,, I8”,, c $5000 zo”,, 1” High school ! 3O& 20% $5ooo-$10.000 23y; 12::: Some college 16”,, 427, ~lO.~-$20.~ 27% 403; College 29:, 177;; 820,ocO + 30”/,, 47% Unknown 60, 39’ , 0

*All judges were adult females and each had at least one child under 16 years old living at home with her.

iValues in this table total to 99:; for both Black and White women. Age values were missing for 2 Black women (1.8:&) and for 1 White woman (1%).

The third step in the inventory development was an analysis of the questionnaire data. Each of the 104 routines was tested using three selection criteria. Rou- tines selected for the final inventory met all of these criteria:

(I) The median value (S) of each routine must equal or exceed 6.5 on the 11.0 point continuum of importance. This assured that each routine selected would have a high level of importance for “keeping a family strong”.

(2) The variation among judgments or interquartile range (Q) of each routine must not exeed 5.5 on the I I point scale. This criterion assured a relatively high degree of consensus among the judges regarding the im~rtance of each routine.

(3) Finally. significant racial and social class differences [ 143 in the perceived importance (S) should not

I ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ J 0 I2 3 4 5 617 B 9 IO II

Not important Very important

S ( 50th’ percentile 1

5, 6.5

(25th percentile 1-Q ~(75th percentile ) c 5.5

Fig. 1. Selection criteria for inclusion of a given routine in famifv routines inventor\. Whole sampte (IV = 260) S-value 26.5: Q-value ~5.5. No significant-(P 2 0.05) statistical differences among routines with S-values 26.5 when scores on each routine are cross-classified by race (biack or white) and Green social position score (lower or upper half) and then contrasted in a 1 x 2 design b!- the Kruskal-Wallis H

stati&.

be evident for any routine included in the final inventory. An analysis of variance procedure (the Kruskal- Wallis H statistic) was used to compare the racial (black-white) and social class (upper-lower) differences among routines which met the first two criteria.

These three selection criteria *are summarized in Figure 1.

The Fumily Routines Inventory Twenty-eight (28) routines met all three setection

criteria. These routines possess the desired general properties of high perceived importance, high population consensus as to their importance, and minimal correlation with the race or social class of the judges. The 28 routines cover 10 of the original 12 domains identified earlier. (Interestingly, no religious or home entertainment routines met all three selection criteria.) The Family Routine Inventory (FRI) thus contains a reasonably brief list of highly valued family routines which covers a wide range of day-to-day family functioning. The 28 routines (with their associated S and Q values) of the Family Routines Inventory are listed in Table 4.

The theoretical framework underlying the family routines construct, participant-observations of families, and the findings of the pilot study described earlier [ 15,161 point to the importance of two distinct dimensions of routinization: routine endorser77ent (the extent to which the family subscribes to a set of behavioural routines as a part of their activities), and routine adherence (the degree to which a family rigor- ously enacts the routines to which they subscribed). Based on these diverse perspectives, valid measurement of family routinization seemed to require a de- termination of both the number of highly valued routines followed (endorsement) and the frequency with which each of these routines is performed (adherence). Additionally. a third dimension required consideration: the relative intportance of a routine for any given family. Criticism of other nomothetic

204 EKIC W. JENSES 1’1 ~rl.

Table 4. The family routines inventory (FRI)

s Q

1. 2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

21.

22. 23.

24.

25. 26.

27.

28.

Work day routines

Parent(s) have sometime each day for just talking with the children Parent(s) have certain things they do every morning while getting ready to start the day Working parent has a regular play time with the children after com- ing home from work Working parent takes care of the children sometime almost every day Children do the same things each morning as soon as they wake up Parent(s) and children play together sometime each day Non-working parent and children do something together outside the home almost every day (e.g. shopping, walking, etc.) Family has a ‘quiet time’ each evening when everyone talks or plays quietly

Weekend arld leisure time

10.9 0.6

8.‘. -1.8

9.8 3.4 10.2 2.8 7.7 5.1

10.1 2.8

8.3 4.6

7.9 4.7

Family goes some place special together each week Family has a certain ‘family time’ each week when they do things together at home

Children’s routines

8.2 1.9

9.3 3.8

Parent(s) read or tell stories to the children almost very day Each child has some time each day for playing alone Children take part in regular activities after school Young children go to play-school the same days each week Children do their homework at the same time each day or night during the week

Parent(s)’ routines

9.6 3.3 9.5 3.6 x.3 3.9 8.1 5.1

9.2 3.5

Parents have a certain hobby or sport they do together regularly

Bedtime

9.0

Children have special things they do or ask for each night at bedtime (e.g. a story, a good-night kiss, a drink of water) Children go to bed at the same time almost every night

Me&

9.5 9.7

Family eats at the same time each night At least some of the family eats breakfast together almost every morning Whole family eats dinner together almost every night

Eufended family .

8.0 1.3

9.7 3.7 10.6 1.6

At least one parent talks to his or her parents regularly Family regularly visits with the relatives

Leuuiq und homecoming Family checks in or out with each other when someone leaves or comes home

9.0 4.4 8.5 4.6

Working parent(s) comes home from work at the same time each day Family has certain things they almost always do to greet the working parent(s) at the end of the day

Disciplinury routines

10.7 1.6 8.1 3.2

6.8 5.2

Parent(s) have certain things they almost always do each time the children get out of line

Chores

9.x

Children do regular household chores 10.6

4.5 2.7

3.1

2.1

approaches to scale development has been directed toward the application of group determined weights of values to the experience of a given individual. Such an approach fails to account for the differential impact which any given stress or social support may have on the individual [17. 181. Since the importance of a family routine may vary considerably among families, even highly valued routines may not have the same functional or symbolic value for any given family completing the inventory. The Family Rou- tines Inventory is therefore designed to assess the three distinct properties of endorsement, adherence, and importance in an easily administered format, an example of which if presented for two routines in

Fig. 2. Endorsement and adherence are determined

simultaneously in the first question. while the subjective importance of each routine is ascertained by ask- ing each family how important that particular routine is “for keeping vour family strong”.

Endorsement/adherence and importance are quali- tatively different dimensions and for this reason are not readily combined into a single summary score. However, the dimensions of routinization described above provide a conceptual basis for a meaningful and practical approach to scoring the Family Rou- tines Inventory. Four scoring options were considered: one option (the frequency score) emerged as the scoring method of choice at this time.


l Children go to bed at the same time almost every night.

IS THIS A ROUTINE IN YOUR FAMILY? q ALWAYS-EVERY DAY 03-5 TIMES A WEEK ml-2 TIMES A WEEK q ALMOST NEVER

HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS ROUTINE FOR KEEPING YOUR FAMILY STRONG? q VERY IMPORTANT q SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT q INOT AT ALL IMPORTANT

0 Family checks in or out with each other when someone leaves or comes home.

IS THIS A ROUTINE IN YOUR FAMILY? q ALWAYSEVERY DAY 03-5 TIMES A WEEK 01-2 TIMES A WEEK q ALMOST NEVER

HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS ROUTINE FOR KEEPING YOUR FAMILY STRONG? q VERY IMPORTANT

Fig

q SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT q NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT

2. Sample page from the family routines inventory.

The first and most straightforward scoring option is to sum the absolute number of routines endorsed by a family. omitting data on frequency and importance. This results in a simple raw score. with possible values ranging from 0 to 28. A second scoring option is to sum the underlying Thurstone-like scale value (S) of all routines endorsed by a family, again omitting frequency and importance data. Summing the empiri- cally based group weights in this manner produces a weighted score with values ranging from 0 to 255.9. A third alternative is to weight each endorsed routine by the frequency of its performance by the family. Daily performance is assigned a weight of 3; a somewhat less frequency performance of 3-5 times a week is assigned a weight of 2; and an even less frequent performance of l-2 times a week is assigned a weight of 1. The ‘almost never’ category, if checked, is taken to mean that the family does not participate in the particular routine. and it is therefore assigned a value of zero in computing the total inventory score. This weighing of endorsed routines by frequency of performance results in a frequency score with values ranging from 0 to 84. A fourth scoring option is based on the same logic that underlies the frequency score but weights each endorsed routine by the level of im- parraxe assigned to it by the family. Given that re- spondents endorse a particular routine by checking one of the top 3 boxes of the frequency dimension, the score for that routine is determined bv whether the family regards it as ‘very important’ (weight = 3) ‘somewhat important’ (weight = 2) or ‘not at all important’ (weight = 1). In this manner, an importance score can be computed which weights endorsed routines by their degree of individualized importance for “keeping your family strong.” Like the fiequencJ score. the resulting iruporrarxe score has values ranging from 0 to 84.

In terms of its face validity. the frequency score option provides the best representation of the theoretical notions which underlie the family routine con-

struct. This is so largely because of its greater emphasis on issues of ‘regularity’ and ‘predictability’ in everyday family life-attributes which arc considered to be the very essence of the routinization construct. Importance scores also probably reflect these core attributes, but to a lesser degree. For this reason the importarm scare was eliminated from further consideration as a major scoring option for the Family Routine Inventory at this time. The run’ score and weighred scare have also serious limitations in terms of race validity, in that neither permits an intermediate adjustment of scores which might more fully capture the significance of a particular routine for an individual family. Nevertheless, the simplicity of the ruw score makes it an attractive option, while the weighed score incorporates the normative values placed on the endorsed routines. Thus, based largely on face validity and other practical considerations, three scoring options (the raw score. the weighted score, and the frequency score) were chosen for further testing of their reliability and validity. Table 5 presents a summary of these three scoring options.

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Overview

The Family Routines Inventory is a direct measure of the extent of strength-promoting routinization within families. These routines provide a behavioral matrix which presumably promotes the coherence. predictability, and organization of family life and thereby protect against ill health in family members. Several questions concerning reliability and validity are of central interest at this point. How stable are family routine scores over time, e.g. 30 days? Do family routine scores measure positive dimensions of family life? Are they negatively correlated or uncorre- lated with certain other specified family attributes?

To assess the reliability and validity of the inventory a booklet was constructed which contained the Family Routine Inventory, the Moos Family En- vironment Scale (FES), a multidimensional measure of family functioning with known reliability and validity characteristics [19]. and a series of other ques-

Table 5. Three scoring options for the family routines inventory

1. Raw score

2. Weighted score

3. Frequency score

Simple numerical sum of all routines endorsed by respondent. Scores can range from 0 to 28

Sum of the underlying Thurstone S values of all routines endorsed by respondent. Scores can range from 0 to 255.9

Simple numerical sum of all endorsed routines. weighting the score for each routine endorsed by the frequency with which the family participates in it. That is.

Always-every day = 3 3-5 times a week = 2 1-2 times a week = 1 (Almost never = 0) Scores can range from 0 to 84

206 ERIC W. JENSEY tv trl

Table 6. Sociodemographic characteristics of the validity sample* (.V = 307) for the Family Routines Inventory

RLKVb .Lftrrlti~l \rtrrfr.\t Married 79”,,

s&L?&

Black = 122(40”,,) Black 21””

White = 185 (60”,,) White 85”” 15” ,j

Aget Vwnhrr of’ chiirirrrl 111 i~o~~.wi~old

Black White

<30 31-jo >40 28”; 43”” 29”s Black 21”; 55”” 24”; White

L 7 & 32”” G” 21”” 36”; JO”” 24” ”

Edwntiont Tofu/ Family .4rmual I~~comr Black yg&e -Fg& White

<High school 17”” 29; < $5000 IO”& 5”” High school 17”; 23”; $500+$15.000 27”” 25” Some college 20”,” 23”; $15,0OG$25,000 34”” 29”; College plus 46”” jz”, 1” $25,000 plus 29”” 38””

*Mothers were requested to complete the questionnaires on behalf of their families. tThese data pertain to mothers drily.

tions which inquired about the social. demographic and economic characteristics of the family, as well as the nature of the social supports available to the family members on the job and in their neighborhood and community. Included among these questions was a single, summary question dealing with overall family-life satisfaction. This family-life satisfaction question was to be included along with four of the FES subscales among the key validating measures for the Family Routines Inventory, while data on the other variables were sought because the social and psycho- logical processes they represent could conceivably mediate the relationship between FRI scores and the major validity indices.

This test book.let was administered to a group of mothers recruited from PTA‘s, churches. social clubs, etc. in and around Chapel Hill and Durham, North Carolina. A total of 307 mothers. each with at least one child under 16 living at home participated in the study by recording information in the test booklet on their family’s routines. The test booklet was to be completed twice by each mother, with the first and

second occasions separated by an interval of ap 30 days. Approximately 25 days after compietic the first booklet. the second booklet. which cant: only the FRI and some select socio-demogr; questions, was mailed to the respondent for sil completion. As before, representation of families all walks of life (urban and rural. black and H lower. middle and upper income levels) was so and obtained for this phase of the study. Table 6 I marizes the major sociodemographic character: of the 307 women (families) upon which the val analyses were based.

The 271 mothers who returned the second hoc and thus provided test-retest reliability data on FRI are very similar in their basic characteristic the larger group of 307 mothers and the families represent. The sociodemographic data on the liability subsample are summarized in Table 7.

The assessment of reliability of the Family Roul Inventory focused on the temporal stability of

Table 7. Sociodemographic characteristics of the reliability* sample (N = 271) for the Family Rou- tines Inventory

Rucet Mc:ritul ,srurust Married s&&

Black = 9X (36”~ Black 77”” 23”,,

White = 173 (64”“) White 86”” 14”,,

-fort Numhrr of children in household

Black White

., <30 24”,, 30” - II

31_40 >40 45”,, 31”” Black 56”,, 24”” White

r 2 3+ 29”” 48”,, 23”,, 21”,, 39” ,) 24” ()

Educcuiont

<High school High school Some college College plus

Tnrul /&nil\’ unnutrl incomt’ Black _ White Black White

19”,, 7” - II < 85.000 IO”,, 6”,, 16”,, 23”” $5.00&$15.ooo 27”” 2X”,,

19”” 23” ,, $15.CO@!X25.000 35”,, X”,,

46”,, 52”” $25.000 plus 2X”,, 39””

*The temporal stability of FRI scores over a 31X35 day period was assessed. Approximately 25 days after re’ceipt of the first test booklet. the family routine booklet was again mailed to each of the 307 original participating families. 271 (88”“) families returned the second test booklet.

tThc>c data pertain to mothers only.


Table 8. Reliability correlation Cod- Table 9. A description of subscales from the Family En- fiC]ents (‘4’ = 271) for the Family Rou- vironment Scale included among key validatmg measures

tines Inventory for the Family Routines Inventory

Scoring method

Raw score Weighted score Frequency score

30 Day test/retest reliability

0.74 0.75 0.79

Cohesion

Organization

instrument. Reproducibility is an important psycho- metric property of the inventory score because the routinization construct places considerable emphtisis on the predictability of family life. Table 8 summar-

izes the Family Routines Inventory 30 day reliability

coefficients for each of the three scoring methods in- itially considered.

Control

The extent to which family members arc concerned and committed to the family and the degree to which family members are helpful and supportive of each other

Measures how important order and organization are in the family in terms of struc- turing the family activities. financial plan- ning and the explicitness and clarity m regard to family rules and responsibilities

Assesses the extenl to which the Parnil!, ia organized in a hierarchical manner: the rigidity of family rules and procedures and the extent to which family member5 order each other around

Conflict

All three reliability coefficients are in the acceptable range though ,fieque~c,~ score has slightly higher temporal stability over 30 days than the other two scoring options. Thus. on the basis of both face validity and temporal stability ,fic>c/uencj, Score appears prefer- able to n/n. .sc~we and weighted scare.

The extent to which the open expression of anger and aggression and generally conflic- tual interactions are characteristic of the

family

Vulidifj,

The construct validity of the Family Routines Inventory rests on the degree to which the strength- building routines measured by the inventory correlate with those positive dimensions of family life that are central to the theoretical basis of the family routinization construct [20]. If the Family Routines Inventory is a valid measure of the strength and solidarity of family life then its scores should correlate positively with other validated scales which measure these or similar attributes of family life and negatively with scales which measure undesirable or potentially des- trictive features of family activity.

The Family Environment Scale (FES). developed by Moos er trl. [?I]. contains a number of theoreti- call) relevant and valid subscales on family functioning which permits an impirical test of the convergent and discriminant validity [X!] of the Family Routines Inventor!. Four of the 10 FES subscales are particu- larlv relevant for this test. These are Cohesion, Or- ganization. Control and Conflict. The remaining six (Expressiveness. Independence. Achievement Orienta- tion. Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active Recrea- tional Orientation and Moral-Religious Orientation) do not have the same direct theoretical value for understanding the meaning of FRI scores. For this reason. no predictions were made for these six Family Environment subscales in relationship to Family Routines Inventory scores. Table 9 presents a description of the four FES subscales. as summarized by Moos cr ~1.. which \vere included among the key validating measures for the Family Routines Inventory:

orderly decision making, overlaps conceptually with the, characteristics of regularity and predictability which also underlie the family routinization construct. Although the FES Control subscale overlaps conceptually and statistically with the Organization subscale, the former emphasizes family rules, discipline. and strictness to a much greater degree. While family routinization and discipline are most likely correlated to some extent. the degree of rigidity implied in the FES Control subscale led to the prediction of a positive but weaker association with the FRI scores than was anticipated with Cohesion and Organization suhscale scores. The underlying theoretical framework suggests that increased routinization should function to decrease or facilitate resolution of family conflict. This theoretical expectation led to the prediction of a strong, negative correlation between FES Conflict and Family Routines Inventory scores. Finally, high scores on the Family Routines Inventory are expected to correlate with subjective reports of overall satisfaction with family life. Table 10 summarizes the direction and strength of these hypothesized associations between the family routine score and the five major validity indices.

The validity correlation coefficients for the Family Routines Inventory are presented on Table Il. This matrix summarizes the Spearman correlations among the three FRI scoring options (raw score. weighted score and frequency score), the four FES subscales and overall family satisfaction. Correlations with other variables which have bearing on the Family Routines Inventory construct validity are also presented.

The Farnil! Routines Inventory validity hypotheses predict strong positive correlations between inventory scores and FES Cohesion and Organization subscale scores. The Cohesion subscale directly measures farnil! solidarit! and support. both of which arc central attributes of the farnil) routinization construct. The Organization subscale. with its emphasis on the responsibility of farnil! members to each other and

The 0.99 correlation between raw score and weighted score suggests that these two scoring options are essentially identical measures. In addition. no meaningful differences in the pattern of their validity coefficients can be seen in the second and third

columns of Table 11. The frequency, score. however. correlates less highly (0.80 and 0.81) with the other two scoring methods. indicating that it contains some information not captured by the other scoring methods.

Table 10. Hypothesized associations between family routines score and select dependent variables

Family routines score*

Family cohesion+ +++ Family organicationt +++ Family controlt + Family conflictt -- Overall family life sarisfaction: +++ Races 0 Social position7 0

*Measured by the Family Routines Inventory (FRI). + + + Strong, positive association: + + moderately strong. positive association; + weak. positive association: 0 no association: - -moderately strong. negative association.

tsubscales of the Moos Family Environment Scale (FESL $SingIe question included among FR I ‘criterion’ variables. $Respondenfs race (black or white). 7Based upon Green [14] whereby (0.5 x educatIonI +

(0.6 x income) = black social position score. and (0.7 x education) + (0.4 x income) = white social position score.

The validity coefficients are in the predicted direction for all three scoring methods, but the correlations tend to be strongest with the frequency score. This differential predictive validity is most clear for Cohe- sion. Organization, Conflict. the family life satisfaction summary question and the OLDSTCH (i.e. age of oldest child. which some researchers use as a measure of family life stage). As predicted. race and social position score (when the latter is weighted by both education and income) are not correlated with family routine scores. However, when income alone is correlated with the frequency Score it produces a weak, negative (-0.14) but statistically significant correlation (P < 0.05) that is not observed for the raw score and w&&ted score. Multiple regression analysis revealed that this unexpected negative association between family income and the frequency score can be explained largely through their joint statistical relationship with the age of the oldest child variable (OLDSTCH). The intercorrelations between family income, OLDSTCH and the frequency score suggest that there is probably nothing about higher family income. by itself, which leads to lower family routine scores. The observed negative association between income and family routinization as measured by fry- qurncy score appears to be due to the fact that in- creases in family income are generally paralleled by the aging of parents and their children and ac- companied by a decrease in family routinization which usually follows the maturation and increased autonomy of older children. These multivariate analyses of the unexpected negative association between the frequency Score and family income suggests that ,firyuencv score, in addition to being more stable than ruw score and weighted score, is more sen- sitive to both the economic and developmental cycles through which families progress.

Frequency score-the optimul scoring method

The theoretical framework of the family routines construct and the reliability and validity correlations

collectively ser1.e to idrntif! the /vP(/I~uI(‘~’ .$u optimal scorin: method for the Farnil! Inventor! at this time. This scoring method the two important dimensions of routine end (does ;I family participate in this routine’!) ;I

rence (ho\v frequent11 do the! engage in the While al1 of the statistical associations are in dieted direction for each of the scoring opti sidered. the reliabilit! and \ahdit> data cot

overall superiority of the ~~XJ~/NIKJ’ .S<‘ON as ;I of family routinization.

Is the predictive validity of the ,f+~rrrlc~~ the five major validity indices (four FES subs family life satisfaction) secondarv to the inf other variables with which the &iventorc SC pens to be correlated? This final questi Family Routines Inventor! construct vali’ examined in the following manner.

Excluding the frerj~rr~c,~, .KOIY. a total of ables were identified in the validity test book their potential to preaict FES Cohesion. ation. Control and Conflict scores. and over faction with family life. The normality of the of each of these five major validity indices firmed by visual inspection of the scatter plc each of the five validity indices serving. in tul dependent variable. the /rrquenc~~‘ .sctm was e a predictor variable into a multiple regressi tion following the entry of the other 15 varia results of these analyses revealed that the ,, scvre is a significant predictor of each of dependent variables even after controlling influence of the other relevant variables. Tk ings are summarized in Table 12.

The results of these regression analyses a bilitv to the validity coefficients in Table I routinization. as measured by the Family Invent&y. is indeed a valid measure of fam sion. solidarity. order and overall satisfact family life.

DISCL:SSIO\

This report builds upon pertinent theoret siderations regarding the nature and impel routinization within families and describes t opment and validation of a standardized inv’ measure family routines. The Family Routin tory (FRI) contains 23 routines which appea vide important insights into the coherence. p lity and organization of family life. These va turn lend stability and meaning to family and in so doing may ‘protect’ against ill family members. The concluding discussion I on certain strengths and limitations of the i which can be identified at this time.

In all important respects the empirical dat; the predictions of the validity hypotheses. SC duced by the Family Routines Iinventory c ated appropriately between other variables a which measured either positive of negativ sions of family life. Importantly. the degree o zation of family life. as measured by the Far:

The Family Routines inventory 209

L saxpu1 ,il!p!J?/j

210 ERIC W. JENSEN rt trl.

Table 12. Summary of the partial F tests when family routines scores* were regressed on the major validity indices. controlling for other predictor

variablest

Validity indices Partial F,,L90d.r.(FRI~,...~,5) P< .

Family cohesion score: 48.25 0.0001

Family organization score: 55.89 0.000 1

Family control score: 11.25 0.0009 Family conflict score: . 8.26 0.004 Family life satisfactiong: 37.12 0.000 1

*Computed as Frrclwnc~~ Scow in each of these multiple regression analyses. t(1) Age of mother: (2) age of oldest child: (3) I vs 2 parent family: (4) race: (51

education of mother: (6) total family income: (7) frequency of family church attendance: (8) importance of family church attendance; (9) race x importance of church attendance; (10) availability of disposable family income: (11) length of current residence; (12) number of children in household: (13) friends living close-by: (14) relative living close-by; and (15) employment status of mother.

$Subscales of the Moos Family Environment Scale (FES). $Single question included among FRI ‘criterion’ variables.

tines Inventory, was not correlated with the race or social class of families.

During the process of the inventory’s development an effort was made to minimize the influence or racial and social class differences on inventory scores. Sup- port for this approach was derived from a number of sources. Clinical experience and observation during the earlier pilot study [23] and the initial week-long participant-observations [24] revealed that while variations in routines exist among families. there is a core number of highly valued routines common to all families. These early observations were consistent with the theoretical formulation which viewed family routines as integrating activities that tend to bind a family together regardless of race of social class. Em- pirical confirmation for this approach emerged when black and white families from varying socioeconomic backgrounds were asked to judge the initial list of 104 routines and from the data of subsequent participant- observations. These findings, taken collectively, per- mitted the construction of an inventory which mini- mized race and social class considerations in the assessment of strength-promoting family routines. As a result of this decision the inventory probably lacks the capability to measure those unique positive routines that may enhance the solidarity of families in a given racial or social class group. However, the presence of such specialized routines in an inventory for general population use would significantly diminish the clinical and epidemiological usefulnes? of the instrument.

Since black Americans are the largest minority group in the general population used to develop the inventory, racial comparisons at present are limited to blacks and whites. Efforts are currently under way to extend the study of family routines to other et’hnic minorities to determine if a similar group of highly valued routines can be identified.

The conceptual basis for the Family routines construct would suggest that some degree of routinization is most likely important for individuals and families of all ages. However, following the findings from the earlier pilot study. the present inventory was developed and validated among families with at least

one child 16 years of age or younger. Use of the inventory in families with older children would require consideration of other routines with particular importance for families in later developmental stages. Routine endorsement, adherence and importance might differ significantly as children grow up and leave the nuclear family. Future work will hopefully examine the importance of routinization throughout the family life cycle.

Assessment of the important dimension of each routine appears in the final inventory format despite the fact that this information is not included as part of the recommended scoring method (frrquenc~ score).

Retention of the importance question permits each family to individualize their responses to the family routines and acknowledges the fact that these routines might well have different meanings for every family. Future use of the FRI will permit further exploration of this aspect of family routines and its correlations with the predictive validity of the inventory.

Organizing the 104 routines into twelve conceptually distinct domains revealed that few major areas of family functioning had been excluded during the interviews. The presence of 10 of these I2 domains in the final inventory suggests that the Family Routines Inventory is of a broad range of family functioning and that routines in each of these areas are felt to be quite important for maintaining family strength.

Finally, the Family Routines Inventory is a brief. easily administered instrument that measures the extent and importance of routinization within a given family and appears to be a reliable and valid measure of the cohesion, organization and predictability of everyday family life. Future work will seek to extend these findings to geographic and ethnic group other than Southern blacks and whites and, in clinical and epidemiologic applications of the inventory, explore the extent to which family routinization promotes the health of family members.

Acknowledyemrnts-This work was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scho- lars Program. NIMH Grant No. 1 R03 MH 30337-01. University of North Carolina Health Serives Research

The Family Routines Inventory III

Center Grant No. l-O-107-495-BFOll. UNC Medical 9. Litman T. J. and Venters M. Research on health care

Faculty Grant No. VB185. and the Biomedical Research and the family: a methodological overview. Sot. Sci.

Support Grant (BSRG) Program Grant No. Med. 13A, 379. 1979.

5-507-RR05450-18 awarded to the University of North 10. Boyce W. T.. Jensen; E. W.. Cassel J. C.. Collier A. M., Carolina. Chapel Hill. North Carolina. The authors wish Smith A. H. and Ramey C. T. Intluence of life events to acknowledee the contribution of Dr David McKav and and familv routines on childhood respiratory illnesses.

the late Dr John Cassel. Il.

REFERENCES 12. 13.

Pediatric,; 60, 609. 1977. Boyce W. T.. Jensen E. W., James S. A. and Peacock J. L. The Family Routines Inventory: theoretical origins. Sot. Sci. Med. 17. 193. 19X3. Ibid.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Haggerty R. J. Family diagnosis: research methods and their reliability For studies of the medical-social unit. the family. Ant. J. pun/. HIth 55. 1521, 1965. Andersen R. A Behavioral Model II/ Families Use qf’ Healrh Sercices. Research Series No. 25 University of Chicago Center for Health Administration Studies, Chicago, IL, 1968. Litman T. J. Health care and the family: a three gener- ational analysis. Med. Care 9, 67. 1971. Roghmann K. and Haggerty R. J. Family stress and the use of health services. lrtt. J. Epidem. 1, 279, 1972. Pless I. B. and Satterwhite B. A measure of family functioning and its application. Sot. Sci. Med. 7, 613, 1973. Litman T. J. The family as a basic unit in health and medical care: a social-behavioral overview. Sot. Sci. Med. 8, 495. 1974. Kaplan B. H. and Cassel J. C. (Eds). Fumily and Heulth: An Epidemiologicul Approuch. Institute for Research in Social Science. University of North Carolina. 1975. Report. Special World Health Organization Consulta- tion on the Statistical Aspects 01 the Family as a Unit of Health Studies. DSI,!72-6. WHO, Geneva, 1971.

14.

15. 16. 17.

18.

19.

20. 21. 22.

23. 24.

Edwards A. L. The method of equal-appearing inter- vals. In Techniques (?I Atritude SC& Construction. p. 83. Appleton-Century---Crofts. New York, 1957. Green L. Manual for scoring socioeconomic status for research on health behavior. Pub/. Hlrh Rep. 85, 815, 1970. Boyce W. T. er ul. op. cit. [ll], Boyce W. T. or. op. cit. [lo]. Dohrenwend B. S. and Dohrenwend B. P. Stressful Life Evenr.s: Their Nature und Effect.~ Wiley. New York, 1974. Rabkin J. G. and Struenmg E. L. Life events. stress, and illness. Science 194. 1013, 1976. MOOS R.. lnsel P. and Humphrey B. Farnil,, Environ- ment Scale: Prel&Garj, Man&l. Consulting.Psycholo- gists Press, Palo Alto, CA. 1974. Boyce W. T. et aI. op. cir. [ 151. Moos R. er al. op. cit. [19]. Campbell D. and Fiske D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Ps,whol. Bull. 16, 81. 1959. Boyce W. T. rt al. op. cit. [14]. Boyce W. T. er al. op. cit. [15].

the family routines inventory: development and validation … · the family routines inventory:...

Documents