Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

April 2002,Vol.28, No. 2,241-254

THE BOUNDARY VIOLATIONS SCALE: AN EMPIRICAL

MEASURE OF INTERGENERATIONAL BOUNDARY
VIOLATIONS IN FAMILIES
Debra A. Madden-Derdich, Ana Ulloa Estrada, Kimberly A. Updegraff, and Stacie A. Leonard
Arizona State University

This article reviews the development of a new measure to assess childrenSperceptions of intergen-
erational boundary violations infamilies. The Boundary Eolations Scale is a theoretically derived
instrument consisting of I 2 items. Principal components analysis using data from I I 9 young
adolescentsfrom diverse ethnic backgrounds (i.e., 56% Hispanic and 44% non-Hispanic) revealed
three ,factors (promoting maturity, forming coalitions, and communicating as peers) that are
consistent with the behavioral manifestations of this construct as posited by structural family
theory. The validity of the measure was supported by signijicant correlations with theoretically
relevant measures of family processes and child adjustment as reported by children and their
mothers.

The negative impact of intergenerational boundary violations on children’s adjustment has been
discussed in both the clinical and theoretical literatures for over three decades (Colapinto, 1991; Greif, 1996;
Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981; Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, & Schumer, 1967).
Structural family theorists argue that certain patterns of family interaction and organization promote healthy
psychosocial development in children, whereas other patterns result in stress and symptoms (Johnston,
1990; Minuchin, 1974). Despite the theoretical importance of this topic, the associated concepts have not
been empirically tested (Fish, Belsky, & Youngblade, 1991; Johnston, 1990; Marett, Sprenkle, & Lewis,
1992). This gap in the empirical literature can be attributed largely to the absence of established measures
that would allow these constructs to be investigated. In an effort to begin to bridge the gap between the
theoretical and empirical realms, we set forth to develop and validate an empirical measure of intergenera-
tional boundary violations in families.

Structural Family Theory

Family structure refers to “the invisible set of functional demands that organizes the ways in which
family members interact” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 51). From a clinical perspective, family structure can be
assessed by observing repeated interaction patterns that occur among family members. These repeated
patterns provide information regarding the stated and unstated rules that regulate how, when, and to whom
family members relate. Through his work with culturally and economically diverse families, Minuchin
(1974) concluded that problems arise in families when the power hierarchy that places parents in a position
of authority over their child breaks down, resulting in the child assuming spousal and parental functions.
Although family processes can be expected to vary somewhat as a function of culture and ethnic

Debra A. Madden-Derdich, Ana Ulloa Estrada, Kimberly A. Updegraff, and Stacie A. Leonard, Department of Family and
Human Development, Arizona State University.
This research was funded in part by a grant from the Faculty Grant-In-AidProgram, Arizona State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Debra A. Madden-Derdich, Department of Family and Human
Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2502. E-mail: dmadden@asu.edu

April 2002 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 241

Close Next
background (Greif, 1996; Parke & Buriel, 1998), a universal tenet of structural family theory is the belief
that a cohesive, collaborative parental subsystem is critical for healthy family functioning. This parental
subsystem should be in a position of authority over the child, taking responsibility for nurturance, guidance,
and control. The rules that regulate the interactions that occur between the parent and child are referred to
as boundaries. When the boundary between parent and child is clear, the child has access to the parent but
is not involved in parental or spousal functions. Intergenerational boundaries are more likely to be
compromised, however, in situations where the parental alliance is not functioning in a supportive and
cohesive manner. When the boundary between the parent and child is transgressed, the child’s role within
the family system becomes uncertain, with the child taking on tasks and responsibilities that are inconsistent
with hisher developmental status.
Boundary violations reflecting the collapse of the generational hierarchy between the parent and child
are typically evidenced in one of three interaction patterns. First, a child may be “parentified” in the sense
that they are given privileges and responsibilities that exceed what would be considered to be develop-
mentally consistent with their age (Minuchin, 1974). Second, a child may be elevated to the role of
confidante or peer to a parent (Greif, 1996; Minuchin, 1974). Finally, the child may be asked to form a
coalition with one parent, to the exclusion of the other parent (Greif, 1996; Minuchin, 1974). These types
of boundary violations are believed to negatively affect the psychosocial development of the child
(Minuchin, 1974).
Despite the long-standing use of these theoretical concepts in clinical practice, self-report measures
with established psychometric properties that would permit the empirical validation of this theoretical
perspective are not available. Although two previous studies utilized self-report measures to assess the
structural concepts of parentification (Mika, Bergner, & Baum, 1987) and boundary dissolution (Jacobvitz
& Bush, 1996), evidence of the psychometric properties for these measures was not provided. In addition
to self-report assessments, researchers also have utilized observational coding methods to assess such
concepts as generational boundary dissolution (Sroufe, Jacobvitz, Mangelsdorf, DeAngelo, & Ward, 1985)
and maternal intrusiveness (Jacobvitz, Morgan, Kretchmar, & Morgan, 1991) with infant children. These
concepts, however, were not defined in a manner consistent with structural family theory. Fish et al., (1991)
did conduct an observational study in which a structural family theory framework was used to operationalize
boundary violations that occurred in interactions between parents and their 4-year-old children. This
observational assessment of boundary violations, however, was limited to a very specific interaction (Le.,
did parents consult their 4-year-old child when deciding the order in which parents would depart from the
room during various portions of a research protocol) in a controlled laboratory setting. Thus, as a continuing
step in being able to empirically investigate the tenets of structural family theory, we sought to develop and
validate a self-report measure of intergenerational boundary violations in families.

Development of the Boundary Violations Scale

The Boundary Violations Scale (BVS) is a self-report measure developed to assess the degree to which
children perceive intergenerational boundary violations to be occurring in their families. Based on evidence
that suggests that children’s interpretations of family interactions mediate the effect that the interactions
ultimately have on their affect and behavior (Compas, 1987), we chose to assess children’s rather than
parents’ perceptions of boundary violations.
The initial items for the measure were developed to tap behavioral indicators of the three interaction
patterns that are theoretically posited to depict the collapse of the generational hierarchy between parent and
child, namely, parentification, a child acting in the role of confidante or peer, and coalition formation. Our
goal was to develop a small pool of concise items that clearly assessed these three interaction patterns. An
initial pool of 18 items was reviewed by three judges (two researchers trained in marriage and family
therapy and one adolescent researcher) to assess the validity and clarity of the items. The final instrument
was comprised of the 12 items assessed by all three judges to be the most accurate indicators of boundary
violations as conceptualized by structural family theory (see Table 1).

242 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2002

Previous First Next

Selection of the Initial Sample for Measurement Assessment
Given that both the likelihood and consequences of intergenerational boundary violations can be
expected to vary at different points along the developmental trajectories of children, we believed it was
important initially to assess the measure on a group of children who were homogenous in age. For example,
a parent may be more inclined to treat an adolescent than a younger child as a confidante or peer. This type
of interaction, however, may be less likely to impact an adolescent’s adjustment negatively because of their
increased desire for autonomy and independence during this developmental period.
Early adolescence was targeted as the age group on which to initially test the BVS for two reasons.
First, as children enter this developmental stage, they make advances in social cognition that allow them to
understand the perspectives of others and to consider how their own perspectives differ from those of others
(Selman, 1980).These cognitive developments give young adolescents the ability to better understand adult
concerns (i.e., marital conflict, financial matters, household responsibilities) and may increase the likelihood
that parents will engage them in conversations about such matters (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Second, family
relationships are more salient during this time period compared to later adolescence when girls and boys
begin spending more time with peers (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990).
The second decision we made regarding the selection of our sample relates to family structure. The
basic tenets of structural family theory were developed primarily based on interactional processes in two-
parent families. As a result, the role and outcome of intergenerational boundary violations in alternate family
structures is not clearly delineated. Minuchin himself suggested that in single-parent families, children often
take on parental responsibilities with no negative consequences (Minuchin, 1974).He suggested that within
this type of family structure, boundary violations may only be problematic when the delegation of authority
is not clearly stated or when the parents relinquish all parental responsibility. Given the absence of prior
empirical research on intergenerational boundary violations in various family forms, the focus of this study
was restricted to intact, two-parent families.

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for the Boundary Violations Scale

Items Mean SD

1. My mom talks to me about her relationship with my dad. 2.8 1.5

2. My dad talks to me about his relationship with my mom. 2.3 1.4
3. My mom treats me like a grown up. 2.9 1.5
4. My dad treats me like a grown up. 2.8 1.5
5. My mom tells me secrets that I am not supposed to tell my dad. 2.2 1.4
6. My dad tells me secrets that I am not supposed to tell my mom. 1.9 1.3
7. My mom talks to me like a close friend. 3.8 1.4
8. My dad talks to me like a close friend. 3.3 1.5
9. I have more privileges than most other kids my age. 3.3 1.5
10. I have more responsibilitiesthan most other kids my age. 3.0 1.4
11. When my mom and dad have a disagreement, I feel pressured
by my mom to take her side. 2.1 1.5
12. When my mom and dad have a disagreement, I feel pressured
by my dad to take his side. 2.1 1.4

Note. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from not at all to very much). Higher scores
represented a higher degree of intergenerational boundary violation.

April 2002 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY 243

Previous First Next

Strategyfor Validity Testing
Construct validity was tested by exploring the relationship between scores on the BVS and scores on
other parent and child measures that were theoretically expected to be associated with intergenerational
boundary violations (Carmine & Zeller, 1979). As posited by structural family theory, we expected
boundary violations to occur less frequently in families in which the parental subsystem is collaborative and
cohesive (Minuchin, 1974). Consequently, correlations between BVS scores and parents’ reports of
interparental conflict, frequency of coparental interaction, and satisfaction with the spouse’s parenting
performance were examined. Because of the lack of empirical research in this area, we could not
hypothesize which types of interparental difficulties (i.e., conflict, a lack of interaction, low satisfaction)
might be associated with which types of boundary violations. For this reason, we chose to include multiple
assessments of the interparental relationship.
We also expected intergenerational boundary violations to be associated with children’s perceptions of
parent-child communication. In particular, because the behavioral indicators of intergenerational boundary
violations involve communicating with the child at a level that exceeds the normal standard for their
developmental stage, we believed that these children would be more likely to describe communication with
their parents as open.
Finally, we examined the relationship between intergenerational boundary violations and child
adjustment. In accordance with the tenets of structural family theory, we anticipated an inverse relationship
between coalition formation, in which a child is asked to take the side of one parent against the other parent,
and child adjustment. Predicting the direction of the relationship between the remaining two subscales (i.e.,
peer communication and maturity promotion) and child adjustment, however, was not as straight forward.
Minuchin and Fishman (1981) discuss the fact that families with adolescent children are unique in that
parent-child interactions undergo significant changes as the adolescent seeks higher levels of autonomy and
independence. Consequently, although an 8-year-old child may be distressed by peer-level communication
with a parent or excessive responsibilities, an adolescent may desire these interactions and circumstances.
For this reason, we did not predict the direction of the relationships that would emerge between these two
subscales and child adjustment.
METHOD

Sample
Data for the current study were collected from a rural community in a southwestern state. In collabo-
ration with the community’s school district, families were recruited from fifth- and sixth-grade classes in
three of the district’s elementary schools. The three schools were representative of the overall ethnic and
socioeconomic makeup of the community. Recruitment letters were sent home to all parents of fifth- and
sixth-grade students explaining the nature of the study and requesting the participation of both themselves
and their child. Consent forms were received from 219 families, representing 52% of the fifth- and sixth-
graders in the three schools.
Child sample. Of the 219 potential child participants, 11 children moved from the schools prior to data
collection. The remaining 208 students completed the survey, yielding a 95% completion rate. Data from
eight children were excluded from the sample because of missing or problematic data (e.g., no variability
in responses). Thus, the overall sample included 200 students.
Only children living in intact households (n = 125) were included in the current analyses. Twelve (six
pairs) of these 125 children represented sibling pairs. To avoid problems with nonindependence of data, one
sibling from each family (n = 6) was randomly removed from the sample. The demographic characteristics
of the children in the final sample (n = 119) were consistent with those of the children in the overall sample.
Children were 10.7 years of age on average (SD = .68, range 9-12 years). Slightly more girls (n = 67) than
boys (n = 52) were represented. Of the participants, 56% of these children were Hispanic, 28% were White,
7% were Native American, 5% were African American, and 5% reported being of mixed ethnicity.
Parent sample. Questionnaires were sent to all parents who had returned a consent form indicating their
willingness to participate, who had not moved from the school district, and who could complete the survey
in English. Only data from mothers were used in this study. Questionnaires were returned from 121 mothers,

244 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2002

Previous First Next

yielding a completion rate of 73% for the mothers who received questionnaires. The mean age of mothers
in the sample was 36.5 years (SD = 6.4). Forty-seven percent of the mothers had continued their education
beyond high school with 23% being college graduates. The yearly family income reported by the mothers
ranged from less than $5,000 to in excess of $50,000 with a median range of $25,000-$30,000. The
subsample of mothers representing intact households (n= 74) whose data were used for the current analyses
were similar to the overall sample with the exception of yearly family income (median income of
$30.000-$40,000).
Children from families with and without mother participation were compared to determine if the two
groups differed in any important ways. No significant differences were found for BVS subscale scores,
parent-child communication scores, child behavior scores, or demographic characteristics. Similar
comparisons were conducted between Hispanic and non-Hispanic children on these same variables. Again,
no significant differences emerged.

Procedure
Child data. Surveys were administered to fifth and sixth graders during small group sessions at school
(i.e., group sizes ranging from 4 to 15 students) by university faculty and graduate students. Items were read
aloud as students followed along in their survey packet and indicated their responses to each of the
questions. The survey took approximately 1 hr to complete.
Parent data. A survey packet was sent home with each child including a cover letter, the parent
questionnaire, and an envelope to return the completed survey. Mothers were asked to complete the survey
and return it in a sealed envelope to their child’s school within 2 weeks. Mothers then were followed up in
three waves. An initial reminder letter was sent home with the child 2 weeks after the original questionnaire
was distributed.A second reminder letter was then sent directly to the homes of all nonrespondents. Finally,
phone contacts were made to nonrespondents when phone numbers were available.

Measures Used for Validity Testing

The validity of the BVS was tested by correlating children’s scores on the BVS with measures in three
domains: (1) The interparental relationship, (2) the parent-child relationship, and (3) child adjustment. All
of the measures used in the study for validity testing have well-established psychometric properties.
Intelparental relationship measures. Overt parental conflict was measured using the O’Leary-Porter
Scale (Porter & O’Leary, 1980). This scale was completed by mothers and consisted of nine items that were
designed to assess the frequency of overt parental conflict that occurs in the presence of the child. For each
item, mothers responded to a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from never to very often. The nine items were
summed, resulting in a final score in the potential range of 9 4 5 for each respondent, with higher scores
indicating greater parental conflict in the presence of the child (eg., “How often is there verbal fighting, that
is, name calling, yelling, swearing, or making threats between you and your spouse in front of your child?’;
“How often would you say you and your spouse argue over money matters in front of your child?”). Internal
consistency in the current sample was good (a= .75).
Coparental conflict was measured using Ahron’s (1981) interparental conflict scale, which is a subscale
of the coparental communication scale. The interparental conflict subscale includes four, 5-point Likert scale
items (ranging from never to always) that measured mothers’ reports of the degree of hostility, conflict,
tension, and disagreement that was present when the couple discussed parenting issues (e.g., “When you
and your spouse discuss parenting issues, how often does an argument result?’; “When you and your spouse
discuss parenting issues, how often are the conversations stressful and tense?’). The four items were
summed, resulting in a final score in the potential range of 4-20 for each respondent, with higher scores
indicating more conflictual coparenting relationships. Cronbach’s a was .74.
Coparental interaction was measured using Ahrons (198 1) Coparental Interaction Scale. This scale was
comprised of nine items that assessed mothers’ perceptions of the frequency of interaction between mothers
and fathers that directly focused on child-rearing issues, including medical problems, child-rearing
problems, special events for the children, major decisions regarding the children’s lives, and daily decisions
regarding the children’s lives. Items were measured on a 3-point Likert scale that ranged from never to

April 2002 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FRMILY THERAPY 245

Previous First Next

always. Items were summed, with higher total scores indicating a higher level of coparental interaction (a
= .95).
Satisfaction with Spouse’s Parenting was measured using five items from the Spouse Support Factor
of Guidubaldi and Cleminshaw’s (1985) Parent Satisfaction Scale that reflected the mother’s satisfaction
with her spouse’s parenting behaviors. Items were assessed on a 4-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree). The five items were summed, resulting in a final score that ranged from 5 to 20
for each respondent, with higher scores indicating satisfaction with the spouse’s parenting. Sample items
include: “I am satisfied with my spouse’s childrearing skills,” “My spouse has sufficient knowledge about
child development which seems to make him feel comfortable as a parent,” and “I wish that my spouse
could do a better job parenting.” Cronbach’s ci was .96, indicating that the internal consistency of this factor
was high for the current sample.
Parent-child relationship measure. Parent-child communication was measured using the open
communication subscale of the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Olson et al., 1983). This scale
assesses the child’s perception of communication with the parent. Children completed the scale separately
for each parent. The open communication subscale includes 10, 5-point Likert scale items (ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree). Sample items include: “I find it easy to discuss problems with my
mothedfather,” “It is very easy for me to express my true feelings to my mothedfather,” and “I can discuss
my beliefs with my mothedfather without feeling restrained or embarrassed.” The 10 items were summed,
resulting in final scores in the potential range of 10-50 with higher scores reflecting more open communi-
cation. The internal consistency of the subscale was high for children’s reports of communication with their
mothers ( a = .91) and with their fathers ( a = .95).
Child adjustment measures. Children’s behavior was measured using the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). The 118-item scale assessed mothers’ perceptions of internalizing and
externalizing problems demonstrated by their children. The externalizing items assessed aggressive
behavior, as well as social, thought, and attention problems. The internalizing items encompassed anxious,
depressed, withdrawn, and somatic behaviors. For each item, parents indicated whether the behavior was
not true, somewhat or sometimes true, or very true or often true. The standard CBCL computer scoring
system was used to calculate both externalizing and internalizing behavior scores for each child. The CBCL
is a widely used, psychometrically strong scale with reliable and valid subscales (Achenbach, 1991).
Child conduct was measured using the Youth Self Report (YSR) for conduct problems (Cook, 1986).
The 28 items on the YSR assess the frequency of externalizing behaviors as reported by the child. Items
were measured on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from not true to often true. Sample items included: “I
disobeyed at school,” “I tried to get a lot of attention,” “I had a bad temper or threw temper tantrums,” and
“I was mean to others.” The internal consistency of this measure was high for the current sample (a= 28).

RESULTS

Overview
The first step in our analyses was to establish the underlying structure of the BVS. Toward this end, we
conducted a principal components analysis of the 12-item scale. Next, to demonstrate the validity of the
measure, we calculated correlations between the boundary violations subscales and ratings of the
parent-child relationship (child reports), ratings of the parental subsystem (mother reports), and ratings of
child behavior (child and mother reports). The purpose of the correlational analyses was to determine
whether the subscales of the BVS were related to other measures of family process and child behavior as
would be expected based on structural family theory.

Factor Analysis
A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on children’s mean scores for
the 12-item measure. Based on structural family theory, a three-factor solution was specified. The three-
factor solution was consistent with inspection of the scree plot, the eigenvalues > 1 rule, the approximation
to simple structure, and the interpretability of the factor solution. A three-factor solution accounted for

246 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY April 2002

Previous First Next

62.8% of the variance’.
The means and standard deviations for each of the 12 items are presented in Table 1. The factor
structure, variance explained by each subscale, and internal consistencies can be found in Table 2. Subscale
scores were constructed by summing the four items that comprised each of the three subscales. Only items
with factor loadings of 2 .40 were considered for inclusion in each of the factors (Gorsuch, 1983).
Promoting maturity. The first factor was labeled “promoting maturity” and accounted for 21.8% of the
variance (eigenvalue = 2.61). This factor was composed of four items with high positive loadings that
reflected children’s perceptions that parents treated them in a way that encourages maturity and responsi-
bility at a level that exceeds their developmental status: “My mom treats me like a grown up,” (34); “My
dad treats me like a grown up,” ( 3 5 ) ; “I have more privileges than most other kids my age,” (.69); and “I
have more responsibilities than most other kids my age,” (.67). Cronbach’s a was .79 for the 4 item scale.
Forming coalitions. The second factor explained 20.6% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.47) and was
named “forming coalitions.” This label was chosen to reflect high positive loadings on four items that
indicated that, from the child’s perspective, parents were attempting to align themselves with their child in
opposition to the other parent. The four items for this subscale were “My mom tells me secrets that I am not
supposed to tell my dad,” (.67), “My dad tells me secrets that I am not supposed to tell my mom,” (.64),
“When my mom and dad have a disagreement, I feel pressured by my mom to take her side,” (.81), and
“When my mom and dad have a disagreement, I feel pressured by my dad to take his side,” ( 3 5 ) . Cronbach’s
a was .75 for this subscale.
Communicating as peers. The third factor, explaining 20.4% of the total variance (eigenvalue = 2.45),
was labeled “communicating as peers.” This subscale also included four items, all of which positively loaded
on the third factor. Endorsement of these items indicates that children perceived mothers and fathers to
communicate with them in a “peer-like’’ manner, including “My mom talks to me about her relationship
with my dad,” (.76), “My dad talks to me about his relationship with my mom,” (.77), “My mom talks to
me like a close friend,” (.71), and “My dad talks to me like a close friend,” (.78). Cronbach’s a for the
subscale was .79.

TABLE 2
Factors and Factor Loadings of the Boundary Violation Scale (n = 106)

Items Factor I Factor 2 Factor 3

Mom treats child as grown up .84* .10 .ll

Dad treats child as grown up .85* .01 .10
Child has more privileges .69* .oo .15
Child has more responsibilities .67* .28 .04
Mom tells child secrets .16 .67* .22
Dad tells child secrets .19 .64* .26
Child pressured to mom’s side .oo .81* .oo
Child pressured to dad’s side .11 .85* .oo
Mom talks about dad relationship .oo .28 .76*
Dad talks about mom relationship .oo .27 .77*
Mom talks like a close friend .29 .oo .7 1 *
Dad talks like a close friend .31 .oo .78*

Percent variance 21.8% 20.6% 20.4%

Internal consistency .79 .75 .79

Factor 1 = Promoting maturity; Factor 2 = Forming coalitions; Factor 3 = Communicating as peers.

* Indicates items that loaded on the corresponding factor.

April 2002 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 247

Previous First Next

Measurement Validity
We performed a series of correlationsbetween the BVS subscale scores and ratings of the parent-child
relationship, ratings of the parental subsystem, and ratings of child behavior. For children’s ratings, BVS
subscale scores were correlated with a measure of parent-child communication and a measure of child
conduct. Correlations also were estimated between the BVS subscales and mothers’ ratings of satisfaction
with spouse’s parenting, coparental involvement, interparental conflict, and children’s internalizing and
externalizing behaviors.
Forming coalitions. Forming coalitions was related to mothers’ reports of the interparental relationship
in the predicted direction for all four assessment domains (see Table 3). Mothers’ ratings of overt parental
conflict and coparental conflict (i.e., conflicts over childrearing issues) were positively associated with
children’s reports of coalition formation, r = .34, p < .01 and r = .35, p < .01, respectively. As would be
expected, when parents engage in more frequent and intense conflict as reported by mothers, children are
more likely to report that their parents are attempting to form coalitions in the parent-child triad.
Forming coalitions was negatively associated with mothers’ satisfaction with their spouse’s parenting,
r = -.39, p < .01. This suggests that when mothers are dissatisfied with their spouse’s child-rearing abilities,
children are more likely to perceive their parents as engaging them in coalitions. A similar pattern emerged
between mothers’ reports of coparental interaction and coalition formation, r = -.28, p < .05, suggesting that
when mothers are interacting less frequently with their spouses over parenting issues, children perceive
higher levels of coalition formation. Finally, forming coalitions was related to mothers’ ratings of child
behavior. Mothers’ reports of both externalizing, r = .30, p < .01, and internalizing problems, r = .28, p <
.05, were higher when children perceived that they were being asked to align with one parent in opposition
to the other.
Promoting muturiv. Children’s perceptions of parents’ efforts to promote maturity were related to one
domain of the interparental relationship. Mothers who were perceived as promoting maturity reported less
satisfaction with their spouse’s parenting, r = -.24, p < .05, suggesting that mothers who were more likely

TABLE 3
Correlations of the BVS Factors with Parent and Child Measures Assessing the Quality of
the Coparental and Parent-Child Subsystems

Boundaq Violation Scale Factors

Promoting Forming Communicating
Maturity Coalitions as Peers
Interparental relationship
Overt parental conflict -.04 (67) .34**(67) -.08 (69)
Coparental conflict -.lo (67) .35**(67) .OO (69)
Coparental interaction -.01 (67) -.28* (67) . l l (69)
Satisfaction with -.24* (69) -.39** (69) .06 (71)
spouse’s parenting
Parent-child communication
Open with mother .03 (112) -.02 (1 15) .42***(1 16)
Open with father .14 (112) -.02 (115) SO”** (116)
Child behavior
Externalizing .I4 (64) .30**(64) .01 (66)
Internalizing .24+ (64) .28* (64) .l 1 (66)
Conduct (child report) .08 (1 12) .14 (115) -.16 (116)

Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate the sample size for each correlation after cases with missing data
were dropped from the sample. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; + p < .06

248 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 200;

Previous First Next

to interact with the child at an adult level reported less satisfaction with their spouse as a coparent. Further,
promotion of maturity was associated with mothers’ reports of children’s internalizing problems at a trend
level, r = .24, p < .06.
Communicating as peers. As predicted, communicating as peers was positively related to children’s
perceptions of open communications with mothers, r = .42, p < .001, and fathers, r = S O , p < .001. Contrary
to our expectations, however, peer-level communication was not significantly related to any of the
interparental domains. Further, as we anticipated may be possible, no significant relationships were found
between the child behavior measures and this subscale.

DISCUSSION

Although structural family theory has been widely discussed and utilized in the treatment of families
since its conception in the late 1960s, measures with established psychometric properties that will permit an
empirical test of the theoretical underpinnings of the model have not been developed and established.As an
initial step toward making this type of theoretical investigation possible, we set forth to develop an empirical
measure of intergenerational boundary violations in families.
Three distinct factors were derived for the BVS through factor analysis. These factors were consistent
with the three behavioral manifestations of intergenerational boundary violations that are theoretically
posited to occur (i.e., coalition formation, peer communication, and maturity promotion). It is noteworthy
that each of the BVS factors reflects the mother-father-child triad, mirroring the intergenerational nature of
boundary violations as hypothesized by Minuchin and his colleagues (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin &
Fishman, 1981). In particular, structural family theory posits that the parental subsystem and the
parent-child subsystems are interrelated. This position is supported by the factor structure that emerged for
the current measure in that the items assessing children’s perceptions of both mothers’ and fathers’ behavior
related to a specific type of interaction (e.g., mom talks to child about relationship with dad and dad talks to
child about relationship with mom) loaded on the same factor.
The internal consistency of each factor was above that recommended for research measures (Nunnally,
1978). Moreover, the construct validity of this measure was supported by significant correlations with
theoretically relevant variables assessed by mothers and children.A discussion of these relationships as well
as the implications that the development of this measure has for future research follows.

The Parental Subsystem and Boundary Kolutions

According to structural family theory, when the parental alliance in families is not functioning in a
cohesive and hierarchical fashion, the intergenerational boundary between parent and child is at greater risk
of being violated (Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). Under these circumstances, parents may
cope with the stress and instability that is associated with a lack of collaboration and support in the parental
subsystem by engaging the child in a cross-generational coalition. This propensity to “triangulate” the child
in an effort to stabilize a conflictual parental relationship is a classic family pattern derived from structural
family theory and appears to have been captured by our measure.
Correlationsbetween the coalition formation subscale of the BVS and mothers’ assessments of conflict
in the parental subsystem were consistent with this type of process. Children were more likely to perceive
that they were being pressured into a coalition with a parent when mothers reported higher levels of
interparental conflict. Further, this process was reflected in the negative relationship between mothers’
satisfaction with their spouses’ parenting behavior and children’s perceptions of coalition formation. From
a structural family theory perspective, this finding may be interpreted as indicating that when mothers are
unhappy with their spouses’ parenting, children are more likely to report the formation of parent-child
coalitions. It is important to note, however, that given the correlational nature of the data, it is not possible
to determine the directionality of these influences. Hence, it is also possible that the formation of
parent-child coalitions results in mothers being less satisfied with fathers’ parenting. Finally, the negative
relationship between coparental interaction and coalition formation supports the supposition of structural
family theory that when parents are not working collaboratively in making child-rearing decisions, children

April 2002 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY 249

Previous First Next

are more likely to feel pressured to side with one parent against the other.
According to structural family theory, parents also may attempt to cope with stress and instability in
the parental subsystem by interacting with their child in a manner that exceeds the child’s developmental
status. This process may involve a child being given privileges and responsibilities that exceed what is
typical for their age or a parent conversing with the child in a peer-like manner. The negative relationship
that emerged between mothers’ satisfaction with their spouse’s parenting and the promoting maturity
subscale supports this pattern. Utilizing this theoretical perspective, the data suggest that when mothers were
unhappy with the father’s parenting behaviors parents were also more likely to promote mature behaviors
in their children by giving them privileges and responsibilities that, from the child’s perspective, exceeded
what was typical for their peers. It is interesting to note that unlike the coalition formation subscale that
correlated with all measures of the parental relationship, the promoting maturity subscale correlated signif-
icantly only with mothers’ dissatisfaction with their spouses’ parenting behavior. This finding offers support
to our supposition that distinct forms of interparental difficulties (e.g., conflict vs. dissatisfaction with the
spouse’s parenting) may be associated with different types of boundary violations and underscores the
importance of being able to empirically investigate these theoretically posited processes. The current
findings suggest that when mothers are less satisfied with fathers’ parenting, young adolescents also are
more likely to report being given developmentally advanced privileges and responsibilities. It may be that
when mothers are dissatisfied with fathers’ parenting, fathers are not utilized as a parental resource and more
maturity is expected from the adolescent. Parental conflict, on the other hand, may be more likely to result
in the formation of a parent-child triangle. Again, it is important to emphasize the correlational nature of
the data. We do not know if lower levels of satisfaction on the part of mothers are more likely to result in
parents granting more privileges and responsib es or if parents’ advanced expectations negatively impact
mothers’ levels of satisfaction. Moreover, because our data were limited to mothers’ reports of the parental
relationship, we cannot generalize our findings to fathers’ perceptions. Future research will need to explore
associations between the BVS subscales and fathers’ perceptions of the parental relationship.
The expected relationship between the interparental relationship and peer-level communication
between parent and child did not emerge in the current validation process. Two possible interpretations for
this lack of association warrant consideration. First, it is possible that this finding again speaks to the need
to consider the developmental stage of the child when discussing the impact of intergenerational boundary
violations in families. Given that during adolescence a shift occurs in the parent-child relationship from
asymmetry to mutuality (Steinberg, 1990),it is possible that “peer-like” conversations between parents and
children in early adolescence occur as a natural part of the advances in autonomy that the child is making,
rather than as a function of interparental distress. Minuchin (1974) himself emphasized that clinicians need
to be aware of the developmental considerations that influence parent-child interactions throughout
adolescence. It is also possible, however, that the four items developed to tap peer-level communication
between the adolescents and their parents were phrased in too general a manner, prompting adolescents to
report on both appropriate and inappropriate forms of communication. The validity of this subscale may be
strengthened in future research by modifying the items to more clearly specify communication that causes
the child discomfort.

Parent-Child Communication and Boundary Violations

The “communicating as peers” factor of the BVS assessed the degree to which children perceived their
parents to be conversing with them like a close friend, including discussions about their spousal relationship.
As expected, this factor was positively and significantly correlated with children’s perceptions of open
communication in the parent-child relationship. Parent-child relationships that were characterized by more
open communication also involved more peer-level communication.This finding is consistent with the idea
that open communication patterns may be a prerequisite for a child perceiving that they are interacting at a
peer level with a parent. Future empirical work also will need to consider at what threshold open communi-
cation between parents and children becomes problematic. In other words, at what point do appropriate,
open communication patterns that facilitate children’s adjustment cross the line and become distressing to
children?

250 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2002

Previous First Next

Boundary Violations and Child Behavior
Structural family theorists have argued that, for a child, the strain associated with being pressured to
align with one parent in opposition to the other places that child at greater risk for adjustment problems. The
findings from the current analyses support this contention. Mothers’ reports of both children’s externalizing
and children’s internalizing problem behaviors were significantly and positively correlated with children’s
reports of coalition formation. We believe that the salience of this relationship is strengthened by the fact
that children’sperceptions of coalition formation were correlated with mothers’ independent ratings of their
adjustment.
Further, structural family therapy suggests that children who are given privileges and responsibilities
that exceed what is developmentally typical for their age also may be at risk for adjustment problems. The
current findings support this supposition, indicating a positive relationship between promotion of maturity
and children’s internalizing problems. Again, it is noteworthy that this finding represents a correlation
between children’s reports of maturity promotion and mothers’ reports of internalizing problems. It is
interesting,however, that the promoting maturity subscale correlated with internalizing but not externalizing
problems, suggesting that various forms of boundary violations may impact children’s adjustment in unique
ways. Although the correlational nature of our data does not allow us to test such a hypothesis, it poses an
interesting inquiry for future empirical research that utilizes this measure. For example, it may be that
parents are less likely to give advanced privileges and responsibilities to children who are prone to display
externalizing problems.
The relationship between mothers’ reports of children’s conduct and the peer communication subscale
did not emerge as significant. This finding highlights the important theoretical and empirical questions
raised earlier about the interface between the developmental status of the child and the interaction processes
posited by structural family theory. It is possible that the desire for increased autonomy associated with the
transition to adolescence may lead children to view peer-level communication as a positive interactional
experience. The extent to which these positive appraisals are sustained over an extended period of time or
to which they occur at other points along the developmental continuum is unclear. For example, the findings
of this study suggest that communicating as peers may represent a developmentally appropriate strategy for
parents during early adolescence. Communicating with younger children in a “peer-like’’ manner, however,
may be more problematic for their social and emotional adjustment. As noted previously, the peer communi-
cation items, as currently worded, may have tapped appropriate as well as inappropriate instances of
parent-child communication. Future modifications of these items may clarify some of these issues. Finally,
future studies also might investigate how peer communication affects children’s adjustment when it occurs
simultaneously with coalition formation.Although these questions are beyond the scope of the current study,
they shed light on directions for future research in this area that will require an empirical measure of
intergenerational boundary violations, such as the BVS.

Cultural Diversity
A strength of the current study was our ability to validate the BVS with a culturally diverse sample. In
particular, given that 56% of the children in the current sample were Hispanic, we believe it is important to
consider the extent that our findings are consistent with the context of Hispanic culture. The negative
relationship between coalition formation and the child adjustment variables is consistent with the structure
and values of Hispanic families. Children are the center of the Hispanic family with parents typically
assuming complementary roles in the disciplining (i.e., fathers) and nurturing (i.e., mothers) of their children
(Falicov, 1996). Children are expected to pay respect to both parents, showing deference and obedience to
rules and decisions (Romeo, 2000). Pushing adolescents to choose between parents not only unbalances the
hierarchical structure and complementary parenting roles but also violates cultural norms in that both
endorsing and resisting coalitions with either parent can be construed as an act of disrespect and disloyalty.
Children assuming tasks and responsibilities that exceed their developmental status also may
undermine the executive leadership of the Hispanic family. For example, Falicov (1996) asserts that children
who overfunction in families (e.g., by serving as cultural or language mediators for their parents) can lose
respect for or even become ashamed of their parents. Whether the positive relationship between promoting
maturity and adolescent internalizing symptoms that emerged in the current study reflects a similar

April 2002 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 25 1

Previous First Next

disruption in the parent-adolescent relationship will need to be investigated in future research.
Finally, the Hispanic nuclear family is organized in an extended network, stressing family inter-
dependence, cohesiveness, and cooperation (Romeo, 2000). communicating in an open and peer-like
manner with parents may be one way in which supportive and cohesive familial relationships are
maintained. Even within a culture that emphasizes support and cohesiveness, future studies will need to
determine the point at which peer-level communication begins to contradict the hierarchy of the
parent-child relationship, potentially causing the child stress and discomfort.

Limitations
Before discussing the implications that the development of the BVS has for future research and clinical
practice, it is necessary to address certain limitations of this study. First, the present factor structure of the
BVS was derived from data obtained from 9- to 12-year-old children, and generalizability to other age
groups, therefore, cannot be assumed. Although the current undertaking is an important first step in
establishing an empirical measure of intergenerational boundary violations, future studies will need to
explore the properties of the scale for children at various stages of development. In particular, because
children’s interpretations of family boundaries may vary as a function of age and family structure, the
reliability, validity, and factor structure of the scale will need to be established for these distinct populations.
Finally, children’s reports of intergenerational boundary violations in the current study were correlated only
with mothers’reports of the parental relationship and child adjustment. Future studies will need to determine
if the same correlational patterns emerge when fathers’ reports of the parental relationship and child
adjustment are considered.

Implications for Future Research and Clinical Practice

The development of the BVS makes it possible to begin to empirically investigate the theoretical
assumptions and constructs of structural family theory. In particular, the initial exploration of four important
questions can now be undertaken. First, Minuchin (1974) acknowledges that intergenerational boundary
violations may occur for a limited amount of time or under certain circumstances without detrimental
outcomes. The development and validation of this type of measure will allow us to empirically investigate
this type of hypothesis. More specifically,it will allow us to explore how frequently, consistently, and under
what circumstances boundary violations need to occur before they begin to hinder the adjustment of the
child. Second, given that we might expect children’s perceptions and interpretations of family boundary
transgressions to vary with age, this measure will allow us to probe whether boundary violations are differ-
entially maladaptive to a child at distinct points on the developmental trajectory. Third, the three subscales
of the BVS will allow researchers to explore how the three distinct manifestations of intergenerational
boundary violations (i.e., maturity promotion, coalition formation, and peer communication) may differen-
tially affect children’s adjustment at various developmental stages and within diverse family structures.
Finally, although we followed the lead of notable researchers in the family field (e.g., Kurtines &
Szapocznik, 1996; Parke & Buriel, 1998) in assuming the universal applicability of many of the core
concepts of structural family theory, future work should consider the “special case of intergenerational
conflict” in Hispanic families. In particular, the contributions of the acculturation process-and potential
differences between parents and children in their levels of acculturation-may be sources of intergenera-
tional stress that are unique to Hispanic families (Szapocznik,Santisteban,Rio, Perez-Vidal, Santisteban,&
Kurtines, 1989).
Given that empirical research often provides the foundation for informed interventions (Kazdin, 1993),
the information regarding parent-child boundaries that can be provided through the empirical exploration
of the above research questions can serve to benefit clinicians practicing within a structural framework. Our
work integrates theory, research, and application in an effort to develop a theoretically appropriate measure
that identifies maladaptive interaction patterns in families. Utilizing a measure like the BVS that assesses
intergenerational boundary violations in combination with other marital and parental measures in a
therapeutic setting can provide a more systemically detailed picture of family interaction processes across
phases of treatment. Such detailed information may prove useful in confirming interactional hypotheses, in

252 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2002

Previous First Next

establishing appropriate therapeutic goals, and in selecting the most effective intervention strategies.
In sum, the BVS is a theoretically derived, brief questionnaire that assesses intergenerLtionalboundary
violations in families. Although the validity of the BVS remains to be established for children of various age
groups and from diverse family forms, we have presented strong evidence of its emerging psychometric
properties. The items are clearly stated in simple language and can be easily understood and endorsed by
young adolescents with promise for application with younger school-aged children and older adolescents.
The development of this scale offers the opportunity to advance theory by enabling both researchers and
clinicians to commence the empirical investigation of boundary violations and to explore the role that these
interactions play in family process and children’s adjustment.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior ChecklisU4-18 and 1991 pm$le. Burlington, V T Author.
Ahrons, C. R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatq,
5(13), 415-428.
Carmine, E. G., & Teller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Colapinto, J. (1991). Structural family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy, Vol. I t
(pp. 417443). New York BmnnerMazel.
Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 393-403.
Cook, C. (1986). The Youth-Self-ReportHostility Scale. Unpublished manuscript: Program for Prevention Research. Arizona
State University, Tempe, AZ.
Falicov, C. (1996). Mexican families. In M. McGoldrick, J.K. Pearce, & J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity infamily therapy (2nd ed.,
pp. 169-182). New York: Guilford.
Fish, M., Belsky, J., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Developmental antecedents and measurement of intergenerational boundary
violation in a nonclinic sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 278-297.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA Associates.
Greif, G. L. (1996). Treating the changing single parent family: A return to boundaries. Children Today, 24, 19-22.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.
Guidubaldi, J., & Cleminshaw, H. K. (1985). The development of the Cleminshaw-GuidabaldiParent Satisfaction Scale. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 293-298.
Jacobvitz, D., & Bush, N. (1996). Reconstructions of family relationships: Parent-Child alliances, personal distress, and self-
esteem. Developmental Psychology, 32, 732-743.
Jacobvitz, D., Morgan, E., Kretchmar, M., & Morgan,Y. (1991). The transmission of mother-child boundary disturbances across
three generations. Development and Psychopathology,3, 5 13-527.
Kazdin, A. (1993). Research issues in child psychotherapy. In T. R. Kratochwill & R. J. Moms (Eds.), Handbook of
psychotherapy with children and adolescents (pp. 541-565). Needham Heights, M A Allyn & Bacon.
Kurtines, W. M., & Szapocznik, J. (1996). Family interaction patterns: Structural family therapy within contexts of cultural
diversity. In E. D. Hibbs & P. S. Jensen (Eds.), Psychosocial treatmentsfor child and adolescent disorders (pp. 67 1-697).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Johnston, J. R. (1990). Role diffusion and role reversal: Structural variations in divorced families and children’s functioning.
Family Relations, 39, 405-414.
Marett, K. M., Sprenkle, D. H., & Lewis, R. A. (1992). Family members perceptions of family. boundaries and their relationships
to family problems. Family Therapy, 19, 233-242.
Mika, P., Bergner, R. M., & Baum, M. C. (1987). The development of a scale for the assessment of parentification. Family
Therapy, 14, 229-235.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, M A Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, M A Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guemey, B. G., Rosman, B. L., & Schumer, F. (1967). Families of the slums: An exploration of
their structure and treatment. London: Basic Books.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York McGraw Hill.
Olson, D., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H, Larsen, A., Muxen, M., &Wilson, R. (1983). Families: What makes them work. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, andpersonality development (5th ed., pp. 463-552). New York
Jon Wiley & Sons.

April 2002 JOURVAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 253

Previous First Next

Porter, B., & O’Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal ofAbnomal Child Psychology,
8,287-295.
Romeo, L. M. (2000). A multisystemic look at Mexican American gangs: Adolescents at risk. In M. T. Flores, & G. Carey (Eds.),
Family therapy with Hispanics: Toward appreciating Diversiry (pp. 265-279). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Savin-Williams,R. C., & Berndt, T. J. (1990). Friendship and peer relations. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the
threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 277-307). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Selman, R. L. (1980).
The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York Academic Press.
Sroufe, L. A,, Jacobvitz, D., Mangelsdorf, S., DeAngelo, E., &Ward, M. J. (1985). Generational boundary dissolution between
mothers and their preschool children: A relationship systems approach. Child Development, 56, 3 17-325.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the
threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255-275). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Szapocznik, J., Santisteban, D., KO,A,, Perez-Vidal,A,, Santisteban, C., & Kurtines, W. (1989). Family effectiveness training:
An intervention to prevent drug abuse and problem behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 11, 4-27.

FOOTNOTE

1. Although the current investigation is focused solely on children from intact family structures, it is important to note that
when the factor analysis was performed on data from the full sample of children, the same three-factor solution emerged,
suggesting that the factor structure of the measure remains consistent across various family forms.

254 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY April 2002

Previous First