Volker Beierlein1, Johanna Christine Bultmann2, Birgit Möller3, Kai von Klitzing4, Hans-Henning Flechtner5, Franz Resch6, Wolfgang Herzog7, Elmar Brähler8, Daniel Führer9, Georg Romer10, Uwe Koch11, Corinna Bergelt12. 1. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Electronic address: v.beierlein@uke.de. 2. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Electronic address: johanna.bultmann@web.de. 3. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Muenster, Germany. Electronic address: birgit.moeller@ukmuenster.de. 4. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Leipzig University Hospital, Germany. Electronic address: Kai.vonKlitzing@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 5. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, Germany. Electronic address: hans-henning.flechtner@med.ovgu.de. 6. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany. Electronic address: Franz.Resch@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 7. Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University, Germany. Electronic address: wolfgang.herzog@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 8. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Leipzig University Hospital, Germany; Clinic and Policlinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: elmar.braehler@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 9. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatic s and Psychotherapy, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: Daniel.Fuehrer@charite.de. 10. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Muenster, Germany; Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Electronic address: Georg.Romer@ukmuenster.de. 11. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Electronic address: koch@uke.de. 12. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Electronic address: bergelt@uke.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The concept of family functioning is gaining importance in psycho-oncology research and health care services. The Family Assessment Device (FAD) is a well-established measure of family functioning. Psychometric properties inherent in the German 51-item adaptation of the FAD are examined in different samples of families with parental cancer. METHODS: Acceptance, reliability, and validity of FAD scales are analysed in samples from different study settings (N=1701 cancer patients, N=261 partners, N=158 dependent adolescent children 11 to 18years old). RESULTS: Missing items in the FAD scales (acceptance) are rare for adults (<1.1%) and adolescent children (<4.4%). In samples of adults and older adolescents (15 to 18years), all FAD scales except for the Roles scale are significantly reliable (0.75≤Cronbach's α≤0.88). The scales correlate highly (0.46≤Pearson's r≤0.59) with the criterion satisfaction with family life (convergent validity), and have smaller correlations (0.16≤r≤0.49) with measures of emotional distress and subjective well-being (divergent validity). In most FAD scales, adults seeking family counselling report worse family functioning (0.24≤Cohen's d≤0.59) than adults in other samples with parental cancer (discriminative validity). CONCLUSION: Overall, the German 51-item adaptation of the FAD reveals good acceptance, reliability, and validity for cancer patients and their relatives. Particularly the scale General Functioning shows excellent psychometric properties. The FAD is suitable in the assessment of families with parental cancer for adults and adolescents older than 11years.
OBJECTIVE: The concept of family functioning is gaining importance in psycho-oncology research and health care services. The Family Assessment Device (FAD) is a well-established measure of family functioning. Psychometric properties inherent in the German 51-item adaptation of the FAD are examined in different samples of families with parental cancer. METHODS: Acceptance, reliability, and validity of FAD scales are analysed in samples from different study settings (N=1701 cancerpatients, N=261 partners, N=158 dependent adolescent children 11 to 18years old). RESULTS: Missing items in the FAD scales (acceptance) are rare for adults (<1.1%) and adolescent children (<4.4%). In samples of adults and older adolescents (15 to 18years), all FAD scales except for the Roles scale are significantly reliable (0.75≤Cronbach's α≤0.88). The scales correlate highly (0.46≤Pearson's r≤0.59) with the criterion satisfaction with family life (convergent validity), and have smaller correlations (0.16≤r≤0.49) with measures of emotional distress and subjective well-being (divergent validity). In most FAD scales, adults seeking family counselling report worse family functioning (0.24≤Cohen's d≤0.59) than adults in other samples with parental cancer (discriminative validity). CONCLUSION: Overall, the German 51-item adaptation of the FAD reveals good acceptance, reliability, and validity for cancerpatients and their relatives. Particularly the scale General Functioning shows excellent psychometric properties. The FAD is suitable in the assessment of families with parental cancer for adults and adolescents older than 11years.
Authors: A Sharma; M Glod; T Forster; R McGovern; K McGurk; E Barron Millar; T D Meyer; D Miklowitz; V Ryan; L Vale; A Le Couteur Journal: Int J Bipolar Disord Date: 2020-08-03
Authors: Mona L Peikert; Laura Inhestern; Konstantin A Krauth; Gabriele Escherich; Stefan Rutkowski; Daniela Kandels; Louis J Schiekiera; Corinna Bergelt Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 4.062