_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fam Proc 30:74-79, 1991

COMMENTARY: THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3-D) CIRCUMPLEX

MODEL AND REVISED SCORING OF FACES III
David H. Olson, Ph.D. a
a
Professor, Family Social Science, 290 McNeal Hall, St. Paul MN 55108.
This commentary on FACES III research by Green and colleagues (see preceding article) provides a useful format for
introducing the three-dimensional (3-D) Circumplex Model and the revised scoring of FACES III. This article describes how
the 3-D Circumplex Model will improve the model conceptually, methodologically, and clinically. Expanding the Circumplex
into a 3-D model offers the opportunity to integrate second-order change into the model.
Fam Proc 30:74-79, 1991
Faces III is a better measure of the 3-D model than the original design of the Circumplex Model. There is considerable
evidence that FACES III is a linear measure, with high scores on cohesion and adaptability being related to more functional
family relationships. High scores on cohesion and adaptability are reconceptualized as measuring Balanced family types,
and low scores on the two dimensions as measuring Extreme family types. Later sections of this article will address these
topics in more detail.
First, I want to commend Green and colleagues for their excellent evaluation study of FACES III. This study was well
done conceptually and methodologically. It used two useful dependent variables, one being personal well-being and the
other being marital satisfaction. They also used a large and diverse sample of 2,440 men. In addition, in another study they
replicated similar findings with a comparable sample of women. The only limitation of their study is that it did not contain a
clinical sample, which might be ideally preferred to test the curvilinear hypotheses that problem families will fall on the
extremes of the two dimensions.
The focus of their study was to test the curvilinear hypothesis from the Circumplex Model that individuals with more
problems would tend to fall at the extremes of the cohesion adaptability dimensions (8, 9). More specifically, the
hypothesis was that Balanced families will tend to have higher levels of personal well-being and marital satisfaction than
Extreme families.
Their study found support, in part, for this hypothesis in that Balanced families were significantly higher than Extreme
families on these two dimensions. This analysis was done using mean scores. However, the findings were not supported
using a correlation approach based on the Distance-from-Center (DFC) scores. The hypothesis was not supported using
another analysis that focused on comparing the types within the Balanced, Mid-Range, and Extreme groupings of the
Circumplex. This analysis demonstrated that there was more variability within the three major groups than between the
three groups (Balanced, Mid-Range, and Extreme).
In support of using FACES III with the 3-D Circumplex Model, they found a linear relationship between cohesion and
well-being (r = .55) and marital satisfaction (r = .36), but no significant correlations between adaptability and the two
outcome measures. These findings also demonstrated that cohesion was a more powerful predictor than adaptability.
These findings tend to support a linear relationship between FACES III and other positive individual and family
dimensions. These results are similar to other studies that have compared FACES III and other self-report family
assessment scales. For example, Green (3, 14) found the linear relationship between FACES III and the Self-Report
Inventory (SRI), and similar results were found by Hampson, Beavers, and Hulgus (1, 5). FACES III and the McMaster
Family Assessment Device (FAD) also were found to be related in a linear way by Miller and colleagues (7). Thomas and
Cierpka (13) also found a linear relationship between FACES III and Skinner's FAM III.

Three-Dimensional (3-D) Circumplex Model

The three-dimensional Circumplex Model was first introduced in the chapter by Walsh and Olson (15) to demonstrate
the clinical value of this expanded model. In this three-dimensional model, the Balanced types are elevated to the highest
level, followed by the Mid-Range types, and the lowest level are the four Extreme types.

1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1.
Three-dimensional family Circumplex Model.
Conceptually, this three-dimensional model enables one to incorporate second-order change into the Circumplex Model,
as proposed by Lee (6). First-order change is that which occurs within a given family system type. Second-order change is
the ability of a system type to change to another type. First-order change is curvilinear in that too much or too little change
is problematic. In contrast, second-order change is linear and is illustrated by the three-dimensional Circumplex Model.
Second-order change is also similar to Beavers' concept of competence as described by Beavers and Voeller (2).
Clinically, the three-dimensional model has the advantage of demonstrating more clearly the dynamic similarity of the
types within the Balanced versus the Mid-Range versus the Extreme groups. The three-dimensional model illustrates that

2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the four Balanced types are more similar to each other dynamically than they are to any of the Extreme types. Conversely,
the four Extreme types are more similar to each other dynamically than they are to any of the Balanced types. This clarifies
the dynamic similarities within types, which is often lost when looking at the Circumplex Model laid out in the traditional
four-by-four design.
Methodologically, FACES III measures the three-dimensional model in a more effective way than it does the traditional 4
¥ 4 design. It is clear from the various methodological studies and from a review of the specific questions in FACES III that
high scores really measure Balanced family types and low scores measure Extreme family types. More specifically, high
scores on cohesion are measuring "connected" families (Balanced) and high scores on adaptability are measuring "flexible"
families (Balanced).
In summary, future studies with FACES III should assume it is a linear measure with high scores representing Balanced
types and low scores representing Extreme types. This revised conceptual approach to FACES III also makes the
three-dimensional model more similar to the Beavers Systems Model (1) and McMaster Family Model (7). It also helps
clarify why FACES III statistically is correlated in a linear way to the Self-Report Family Inventory (SFI), the Family
Assessment Measure (FAM III), and the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD).

Curvilinearity Supported with Clinical Rating Scale

While most of the studies that have tested the Circumplex Model and curvilinearity have used a version of the self-report
scale of FACES (8, 9), a recent study by Thomas and Olson (14) clearly demonstrated curvilinearity when family
interaction was rated using the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS). The CRS was developed as the original operational measure of
the three Circumplex dimensions of cohesion, adaptability, and communication. The Clinical Rating Scale, recently revised
by Olson (10), contains specific indicators and anchors for the four levels of cohesion, four levels of adaptability, and three
levels of communication (high, medium, and low).
The CRS demonstrated good construct validity in that factor analysis produced the three dimensions of the Circumplex
(cohesion, adaptability, and communication) with minimal empirical overlap between items in the three scales. In addition,
the three dimensions had high levels of internal consistency (alpha) reliability (.95 for cohesion, .94 for adaptability, and .97
for communication). Also, the inter-rater reliability was high, with percentage agreement of 95% for cohesion, 91% for
adaptability, and 97% for communication.
In the study by Thomas and Olson (14), they compared 60 clinical families and 60 control families, using the Clinical
Rating Scale and FACES III. All of the families participated in a half-hour family interaction task that was videotaped and
coded by two raters using the Clinical Rating Scale. These families also completed FACES III, the Parent-Adolescent
Communication Scale, and several other self-report measures.
The curvilinear hypotheses from the Circumplex Model was that Balanced family types would be more common in the
control group, whereas Extreme family types would be more characteristic of the problem families (9). The findings based
on the family interaction data strongly supported this hypothesis. More specifically, 80% of the control families were
Balanced types and only 8% of the control families were Extreme types. Conversely, 45% of the clinical families were
Extreme types whereas only 13% of the clinical group were Balanced types. The results using FACES III were not,
however, significant in discriminating the two groups using either husband or wife scores.
In order to test for a curvilinear relationship, a regression analysis was done using data from the CRS and FACES III.
The dependent variables used were family communication and family satisfaction. In all the analyses, the CRS
demonstrated a curvilinear relationship between cohesion, adaptability, and these dependent variables. However, FACES
III showed a clear linear relationship, with most of the variance being accounted for by cohesion.
In summary, this study clearly demonstrated that, using the CRS, there is a curvilinear relationship between family
functioning, but with FACES III there is a linear relationship. This study supported the results of past studies, which
demonstrated that FACES III is primarily a linear scale.

Development of FACES IV
In order to determine if it is possible to develop a self-report measure that can assess the curvilinear dimensions of
cohesion and adaptability, we are in the process of developing FACES IV. This work is being done collaboratively by
Robert Green, Volker Thomas, and David Olson.
One of the problems of the past versions of FACES was that the response scale was designed in a Likert format. Pratt
and Hanson (12) and Perosa and Perosa (11) have both recommended a bipolar response format. This bipolar format is
currently being used in the development of FACES IV. The specific response format is: 1 - Not Often Enough; 3 = Just
About Right; and 5 = Too Often.
The FACES IV items have also been improved so they can reflect a curvilinear pattern. The items are brief, very
focused, and designed to tap the salient dimensions of cohesion and adaptability. FACES IV is being validated against

3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FACES III, the Self-Report Inventory (SFI), and the Family Communication and Family Satisfaction scales.

SUMMARY
FACES III can, however, continue to be a useful scale now that the Circumplex Model has been expanded into a
three-dimensional design. Past and future studies would benefit from using FACES III as a linear dimension with high
scores representing Balanced types and low scores representing Extreme types.
This approach means that many past studies with FACES III need to be reanalyzed and/or re-interpreted in light of this
3-D Model. This revised scoring will significantly increase the number of studies that support the basic hypotheses of the
Circumplex model, that Balanced families tend to function in more effective ways.
It is clear from more recent work with the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS) that the lack of support for the curvilinear
hypotheses of the Circumplex Model is due to the limitations of the FACES instrument and not the underlying theoretical
model. The CRS clearly demonstrated the curvilinear pattern that has been hypothesized (8, 9).
It is important that future studies using FACES III analyze data in a linear way that fits with the three-dimensional model.
In this way, there is a better match conceptually and methodologically between FACES III and the Circumplex Model.
It is also highly recommended that future studies use both the self-report of FACES and the observational approaches to
family assessment of the Clinical Rating Scale. This combined approach will help advance the field conceptually,
methodologically, and clinically.

REFERENCES
1. Beavers, W. R., Hampson, R. B. and Hulgus, Y. F., Commentary: The Beavers Systems approach to family
assessments. Family Process, 24, 398-405, 1985.
2. Beavers, W. R. and Voeller, M. N., Family models: Comparing and contrasting Olson's Circumplex Model with
Beavers Systems Model. Family Process, 22, 85-97, 1983.
3. Green, R. G., Choosing family measurement devices for practice and research: SFI and FACES III. Social Service
Review, 63, 304-320, 1989.
4. Green, R. G., Kolevzon, M. S. and Vosler, N. R., The Beavers-Timberlawn Model of family competence and the
Circumplex Model of family adaptability and cohesion: Separate but equal?, Family Process, 24, 385-398, 1985. 5.
Hampson, R. B., Beavers, W. R. and Hulgus, Y. F., Commentary: Comparing the Beavers and Circumplex models
of family functioning. Family Process, 27, 85-92, 1988.
6. Lee, C., Theories of family adaptability: Toward a synthesis of Olson's Circumplex and the Beaver's Systems
models. Family Process, 27, 73-85, 1988.
7. Miller, I. W., Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D. S. and Kreitner, G. I., The McMaster Family Assessment Device:
Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 345-356, 1985.
8. Olson, D. H., Circumplex Model VII: Validation studies and Faces III. Family Process, 25, 337-351, 1986.
9. Olson, D. H., Circumplex Model of family systems VIII: Family assessment and intervention. In D.H. Olson, C.S.
Russell, & D.H. Sprenkle (eds.), Circumplex Model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New York:
Haworth Press, 1989.
10. Olson, D. H., Clinical rating scale for Circumplex Model. Department of Family Social Science, University of
Minnesota, 1990.
11. Perosa, L. M. and Perosa, S. L., The use of a bipolar format for FACES III: A reconsideration. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 16, 187-199, 1990.
12. Pratt, D. M. and Hansen, J. C., A test of the curvilinear hypothesis with FACES II and FACES III. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 387-392, 1987.
13. Thomas, V. K. and Cierpka, M., FACES III and FAM III: A comparison of family assessment instruments.
Presentation made at the 1989 National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, New Orleans LA, 1989.
14. Thomas, V. K. and Olson, D. H., Circumplex Model: Curvilinearity using Clinical Rating Scale and FACES III.
Unpublished paper, University of Minnesota, 1990.
15. Walsh, F. and Olson, D. H., Utility of the Circumplex Model with severly dysfunctional family systems. In D.H.
Olson, C.S. Russell, & D.H. Sprenkle, Circumplex Model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New
York: Haworth Press, 1989.