Journal of Family Relations (한국가족관계학회지)

Korean Association of Family Relations (한국가족관계학회)
권호 표지

Reliability and Validity of Family Communication Scale in the FACES IV Package: Korean Version

FACES IV의 가족의사소통 척도(FCS) 한국어판의 신뢰도 및 타당도 분석

  • Kim, Young Sik (Dept. of Family Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Univ. of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Sung, Sunwoo (Dept. of Family Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Univ. of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Byungsu (Dept. of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, Univ. of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Hoon-Ki (Depart. of Family Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Ok, Sun Wha (Dept. of Child Dovelpment and Family Studies, Institute of Human Ecology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Cha, Donghyuk (Dept. of Child Dovelpment and Family Studies, Institute of Human Ecology, Seoul National University)
  • 김영식 (울산의대 서울아산병원 가정의학과) ;
  • 선우성 (울산의대 서울아산병원 가정의학과) ;
  • 김병수 (울산의대 서울아산병원 정신과) ;
  • 박훈기 (한양대학교병원 가정의학과) ;
  • 옥선화 (서울대학교 아동가족학과, 생활과학연구소) ;
  • 차동혁 (서울대학교 아동가족학과)
  • Published : 2012.04.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to verify the reliability and validity of the Korean version of Family Communication Scale(in the FACES IV Package). The sample consisted of 460 couples who enrolled in the Family Cohort Research Project (PI: Young Sik Kim). The original questionnaire in the FACES IV Package, which was developed by Olson and Barnes(2008), was translated in Korean in accordance with Olson's Guidelines for Translating FACES IV Package, and analyzed by Pearson's correlation coefficients, paired t-test, Cronbach's $\alpha$, Guttman's split coefficients, simple regression, seemingly unrelated regression, and factor analysis. In order to test the concurrent validity, cohesion scores and adaptability scores of FACES III and CED-S scores were used. So as to understand the difference between individual data and coupled data, we analyzed the data of individual and couple, respectively. Cronbach's alphas are .92 and .93; Guttman's split coefficients are .90 and .92. Then, the data were analyzed by principle axis factoring and varimax rotation with the number of factors fixed to one. One factor explained 55.8% of total variance in the case of individual, and 60.8% of total variance in couple. Pearson's correlation coefficients are .64 and .67 between Family Communication and Family Cohesion; .34 and .37 between Family Communication and Family Adaptability; -.27 and -.30 between Family Communication and Depression. These results suggested that, in its Korean version, Olson and Barnes's Family Communication Scale is generally a reliable and valid instrument for measuring family communication among Korean couples.

Keywords

References

  1. 권윤아.김득성(2008). 부부간 역기능적 의사소통행동 척도 개발: Gottman의 네 기수(騎手)개념을 중심으로. 대한가정학회지, 46(6), 101-113.
  2. 김수연.김득성(1993). 부부의 응집 및 적응과 의사소통의 관계: 순환 모델의 곡선성 대 선형성. 한국가정관리학회지, 11(2), 30-39.
  3. 김윤희(1990). 부부관계, 부모-자녀의사소통, 가족기능과 청소년자녀 비행과의 관계연구. 숙명여자대학교 박사학위논문.
  4. 김정희.박영숙(2002). 가족구성원 1인과 2인의 가족적응력 및 결속력 평가척도(FACES III) 응답 이용 시 신뢰도 및 타당도 분석. 대한간호학회지, 32(5), 599-608.
  5. 김화자(1990). 가족생활주기에 따른 부부의 의사소통 효율성과 결혼 만족도에 관한 연구: 국민학교, 중, 고등, 대학교의 학부모를 중심으로. 동덕여자대학교 석사학위논문.
  6. 민하영(1991). 청소년 비행 정도와 부모-자녀간 의사소통, 가족의 응집 및 적응과의 관계. 서울대학교 석사학위논문.
  7. 민혜영(1991). Circumplex Model과 부모-자녀간의 의사소통: 청소년 자녀를 중심으로. 연세대학교 석사학위논문.
  8. 송말희(1986). 도시 주부의 커뮤니케이션 이해도와 결혼 만족도간의 관계연구. 숙명여자대학교 석사학위논문.
  9. 신혜종.강유미(2010). 커플의사소통척도(CCI: Couple Communication Inventory) 개발에 관한 연구. 사회과학연구, 16(2), 269-287.
  10. 안현정.이소희(2005). 부모-자녀 간 의사소통 관련변인에 관한 메타분석. 한국가족복지학, 10(1), 65-81.
  11. 이철호.정정숙.이민규(2009). 부모-청소년 의사소 통이 청소년의 우울에 미치는 영향: 자아존중감과 비합리적 신념의 매개효과. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 14(2), 433-448.
  12. 조맹제.김계희(1993). 주요우울증환자 예비평가에서 the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)의 진단적 타당성 연구. 신경정신의학, 32, 381-399
  13. Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., Cacioppo, M., & Tafa, M. (2011). Factorial and construct validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.buildingrelationships.com/pdf/italy_facesiv.pdf.
  14. Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1982). Parent-adolescent communication scale. In D. H. Olson, et al., Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 33-48). St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
  15. Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438-447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129732
  16. Galvin, K. M., Bylund, C. L., and Brommel, B. J.(2012). Family communication: Cohesion and change(8th ed.). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.
  17. Olson, D. H.(2008). FACES IV manual. Retrieved from http://www.facesiv.com.
  18. Olson, D. H.(2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 3(1), 64-80.
  19. Olson, D. H.(2012). Guidelines for translating FACES IV Package. Retrieved by http://www.facesiv.com/FACESIVInformation/Translation/
  20. Olson, D. H., & Barnes, H.(2012). Family communication. Retrieved from http://www.facesiv.com/pdf/4.communication.pdf.
  21. Olson, D. H., Portner, H., & Lavee, Y.(1985). FACES-III. Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
  22. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H.(1980). Marital and family therapy: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 973-993. https://doi.org/10.2307/351836
  23. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H.(1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Family Process, 22, 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1983.00069.x
  24. Roth, A. & Locke, B(1973). Continuous mental health assessment. Presented at the 101st annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. San Francisco. Nov 4-8.