(D

MANUA L

FOR

FAMILY ENVIRO NMENT J

I
SCALE

-····- - ·- •-- --- ·-·

- - - -.-:_____ -- ~7' -=~~~~ ::· .
- -··
- ..

~-0mp;_efilili_~~~t.an11!]JNJJJi~-_
=e-o~hesion
&p;r__=.ess1;o.n
-fiii/e~-• nilenae
Mo=mJ®-r_Jema~Lan
0Iganflsxit1on
~e~=-tfJnra1 rnr,1 1:~fftaHo~

Designed & Developed

by
SANJAY VOHRA

Copyrights © 1998. All rights reserved by Mis PSY-COM SERVICES, B-4, 8012, S,.J.Enclavc,
New De/hi-110 029 (INDIA). ~ 26106433, Fax: 26175191, email: slantee2000@yahoo.com

_J
 Jts
imp orta nce
Fam ily Env iron men t:

. .. ,. llie 111 osl e11d111 i11n conk: xi

. th e f11 st and per..1ld()" . l ·I"' .,
Family enviro nment Is . J , tifying wlf 11 moc c .... t.iCcupt -
. . ti f- 11ily 1Jl8clf1S. 1(1(, ll . ·· 11 .. .
ment w1th1n 1e at . , ltectio n oncJ evuntu t:1 y d1st111 ..
for growth . Adjust I develo pI11g 8 •·Id · · - · b .,
. - by other f <l1111ly rncm Ie, ::.. .
ing values playing out famI 1Yd roes.Is from -
those 1ic .
,
guishi ng one's own values an goa . .· . g all those ,nol1v es. vc1 uos
f h'ldho od is d1scove 1111 .
. . . he bound aries of your family
One centra l part of life a ter c '
and beliefs that were not accep ted w1Uiin t
(Newm an & Newm an, 1981 ).
. to a variety of group ings includ ing ( 1) a father ,
tt (3) a group of
The term famJ/y refers nd mo _ ier, a roup of
mothe r, and their childre n , (2) childre n
people living in the same house, (4) all of a person
of a father ~
5 relativ es, . (
5) od •
1972
.
·
1975, Bl~
related people , (6) a tribe, (7) one's ances tors (Ada.m s, th e
of "family ", we aie usual ly spea_krng of
Winch , 1971) . When we speak
n who live to~et~ er
group of adults (usual ly father and mothe r) and their childre
guide our thinki ng
in the same house for a long time. The main ideas that
about family enviro nment are these :

1. The family is the main setting for the experi ences

of the child , partic ularly
the young child .

the people who live

2 . The family is a dynam ic set of relatio nships among all
in the "family ."

the lives of those

3. Childr en 's behav iour, ideas, though ts and fantas ies affect
with whom they live.

and mothe r affect the

4 . The behavi 'our, ideas, though ts and fantas ies of father
lives of their childre n.

5. This group has resour ces that are used to adjust in life.

stand the family

The family group is part of a culture . In order to under
the expec tations that
enviro nment 's impac t on a person , one must consid er
ideal paren ting style,
adults .have about the ideal marria ge relatio nship, the
on as sons and
and the ideal paren t-child relatio nship. Adults also functi
partici pants in reli-
daugh ters, worke rs, memb ers of a politic al comm unity and
ute to their role as parent or
gious organi zation s. All of these roles may contrib
ces becau se of the
spous e . Finally , adults have acces s to particu lar resour
in the comm unity
work they do , the educa tion they have had , their social status
that aduits bring to
and their bonds with other family memb ers . The resour ces
childre n in the fam-
their farnily group will influen ce adjust ment for adults and
ily.
in which father,
In India, the most comm on family type is the joint family
live togeth er Jn the
mothe r, with their childre n and their childre n's offspri ngs
r familie s (one male
same house hold. Recen tly , howev er, numbe r of nuclea
with their childre n) is
and one female marry and live in the same house hold
. In additio n to joint familie s and
fast increa sing, espec ially in the urban areas
, called extend ed family , in
nuclea r familie s, there is one more family ·type
togeth er in the same
which three or more genera tions and their familie s live
are decrea sing very
house hold. Howev er, numbe r of such extend ed familie s
fast in India.
1
 . . . .
-. 11 ..1 . . _
In each of these f •. 1111·1Y .1 11uclu a 1 111111 c :in h e v1c:wuc.l a s th e
two paren t . ~ _ , 1l!fL:lllc : nts , Ille:
c11r:...1I1yc~mc-~n , , tllL'
middl s an? th e 11 offsp1111!JL; _ In ;.111 exll!11dc-: ci f;11l1ily livinv
would bt.: livinn with both !lie nuclea r f ,.unily of oric,i11 (tl1e .
. e gener ation • ,., · . -·
f am, 1y to h. c111d tile nuclc: -ir fo111ily of J)1o c re n f1on (Ilic.: l a rnrly
. w ich one 1s born)
uest ri e ne rotion would b e-!
~n _e b~gm s as an adult or ;:1fl i=: r r11<irriagc) . Tile yo1111
ed fomily mcrnu e rs (Adam s ,
iving 111 only one nucle ar unit an cl with e xtend
1975) .

, with respe ct to the

There are two specif ic functio ns of the nuclea r family
then have childre n provid e a legitim ate di-
child . First, adults who marry and
's ances try. This lineag e
rectio n of lineag e throug h the mothe r's and/o r father
ers . ln India, it entitle s the
ties the child to past gener ations of family memb
nuclea r family guide s the
child to a partic ular family inherit ance . Secon d the
child throug h social ization proce ss (Nye, 1976) .
t three impor tant func-
The extend ed or joint family contin ues to serve atleas
uity. We are begin ning to appre ciate
tions. First, they provid e histori cal contin
backg round s. Exten ded or joint family mem-
the need to prese rve our ethnic
learn about one's cultur al herita ge. They bring spe-
bers provid e oppor tunity .to memb ers
exten ded family
cial life to the ethnic rituals or festiva ls . Secon d, family .
missin g in nucle ar
provid e impor tant child care resou rces , which are g.
proble ms in child rearin
Paren ts freque ntly speak to their own paren ts about
fulfill a variet y of child care
More direct ly, grand paren ts , aunts and uncles may
from daily super vision of the child, to occas ional baby sitting . Chil-
functio ns
share privat e thoug hts with
dren learn to feel close to these adults . Childr en
with their paren ts . In many cases ,
these relativ es that they might not share
the desire s and plans of the grand child
grand paren ts are more recep tive to
than are the paren ts (Mead , 1975) .

rces that are greate r than

Finally , the exten ded family is a sourc e of resou
can look to exten ded family
those held by the nuclea r family alone. A child
and inform ation that paren ts
memb ers for areas of exper tise, acces s to settin gs
exten ded or joint family mem-
or sibling s may not have . Under extrem e stress ,
- -
bers can help eacn other in many ways.

have two paren t prese nt,

Even thoug h the vast major ity of Indian familie s
denie d . One can have single
the prese nce of single -paren t familie s can not be
of one paren t, or may be
paren t family becau se of separ ation, divorc e , death
e that absen ce of one par-
s ingle paren t by choice . Many psych ologis ts believ
justm ent in childr en. Sever al
ent, espec ially same -sex paren t leads to malad
veme nt, and emoti onal imma -
proble m$ like delin"q uency , acade mic under achie
fy with a paren t of the same
turity have been linked with this. Failur e to identi
these proble ms (Biller , 1974;
sex has been report ed as a cause for many of
is availa ble for single -pare nt
Hethr ington , 1966) . Howe ver, not enoug h data
familie s in India.

types can effect differ -

The above discu ssion shows how differe nt family
rchers over the year have
ently the enviro nmen t of the family . Lot of resea
t the devel opme nt of childr en .
shown how family envir onme nt can effec
early childh ood years fo·r l ater
Sigmu nd Freud talks about signif icanc e of
found ations are laid for the adult
adulth ood adjus tment . It is the time when the
habits of thinki ng and p~tter ~s
enviro nmen tal evalu ations and self evalu ations ,
of reacti ons.

not alway s go in a smoo th

But this devel opme ntal proce ss of a ch i ld does
e towar ds childr en by their
norma l cours e. Resea rch shows that reject ion attitud
' I
2
 . . .,. .. t" 0 11 seeking, jc,lluus, ar,grc:0:..iv( ~
parents makes them fe~rful. msc~u'.~ : c:1~ten ' 0 . Scars et al .. 195/: U...i,H.Ju,;;
19 ~. · . ·t . .. d (llld clcv::ilu,1led sc~r, .
hostile and lonely (Peprtone & _Wrl~m:eskr, 1
and Walters 1959). Parental reJectron fosters • 1 UI$ or e . c of ·
ti , 0 ther li.:111c1 111 1ern1 over -
'
image (Coleman
· '
1950) . Over
·
proteclron on ,c. ~ . ' .
,,
I1::i t ti 1c cl11ld re111cHns
_
wec.1k 111
valuation, adoration and delicate ·care shows t . . ,
81
achievement and often fails to cope with external expect.1t,on~ . <. ~•ckliarn.
1968) . Over protection develops submission, demanding, l~ck of ,nr!rat,ve, ten -
dency to passive dependency in relation with other (Coleman, _1950), over de -
pendence (Levy, 1943; Stendler, 1952; . Aldous, 1956), immunrty to comrnents
1968 ).
and criticisms by others, anxiety, guilt and unworthiness (Blackham,
Over ·protection is likely to be more harmful to the development of boys ratt,cr
than that of girls (Kagan and Moss, 1962).

Parents having perfectionistic demands from their children lead them to

internalize parent's unrealistic standards. Children's inevitable failure leads
them to continual frustration, guilt and self-devaluation {Coleman, 1950). Par-
ents having authoritative attitude and who keep rigid unrealistic moral stan-
dards develop an extreme conscience, tendency to rigidity, severe conflicts,
guilt, self-condemna tion and feeling of self-devaluatio n in their children
(Coleman, 1950). Symonds (1949) notes that children of authoritative parents
tend to be submissive, conforming and lacking spontaneity. They rely upon
repressions in dealings . With hostile impulse their super-ego remains rigid and
strict where life lacks pleasure and happiness.

Faulty discipline such as over permissiveness in terms of total freedom to

children develops a feeling of insecurity (Coleman, 1950; Blackham, 1968),
antisocial aggressiveness (Coleman, 1950), anxiety (Blackham, 1968), friction
in behaviour, frustration (Bakwin, 1948; Blood, 1953; Sears, 1953; Antonvsky,
1959; Hurlock, 1964). Hyperlinient children play truant from home and school.
show disobedience, rudeness, temper tantrums, swearing, stealing, fighting,
lying, and destructiveness in behaviour (Peterson, et al. 1959). Severe disci-
pline leads to excessive condemnation of self for socially disapproved behav-
iour, anxiety, over aggressive behaviour (Coleman, 1950), makes children
greater conformist to standards and role expectations (Cohen, 1951; Watson,
- 1957; Becker, 1962) and keeps them to be possessed with less initiative,
spontaneity and friendly to others (Watson, 1957).

Marital conflict in the family develops in children anxiety, high tension,

insecurity, lack of secure home base, tendency to see the world as a danger-
ous and insecure place, lack of models for prop-er ego developments
(Coleman, 1950). Faulty parental model in terms of faulty role expectations
leads children to internalize unethical and socially undesirable value attitudes
which frequently lead to difficulties with the law (Coleman, 1950).

Tt:,us unhealthy family environment is found to be in the background of

disturbed children. To over come this problem, study of family environment,
accurate identification of troubled areas, is very important to plan corrective
measures in time.
 Variou s Dimen sions Measu red by FES

. f Tl~e Family Environmc !nl ~-i <.;alc-! (rt.::S) w;-I5 dvvuloped os a mc:,:m:; lo gut
~n orination about Ille fo111ily environme nt in .:i r<.1pid · obJ·ective ond s1ondard-
Ized · ·
manner.. It Is a l.>ricf and non-stres sful seal<➔, applicable to all but the
1
owest education al levels. It is appropria te for use with ages of 1 O years and
above, throughou t adulthood . The scale can be used on young children or
even low literate adults who can read and comprehe nd simple English. The
scale gives an accurate appraisal of family environme nt. This scale is easily
administe red individual ly or to large groups at one time . It can even be used
as self-admin istering test. It includes 98 statement s and number of items for
each dimension are divided equally. Each statemen t has two possible an-
swers .

FES is based upon dimension al theory, where several dimension s mea-

sured together give a complete and comprehe nsive picture of one's family
environme nt. Present scale uses seven such clearly defined, independ ent di-
mensions to measure fa.m ily environme nt. However, it should be mentione d
here that none of these dimension alone can clearly give a picture of the whole
family environme nt. These primary source dimension s combined .together give
a clear and comprehe nsive informatio n about various componen ts of family
environme nt. The psycholog ical meaning of the each dimension is described
here for test users. We must indicate here that each dimension is independ ent
of each other and plays a dominant role in the family environme nt.

Competit ive Framewo rk (Cf): This dimension measures the extent to which ac-
tivities (such as school and work) are cast into an achievem ent oriented or
competitiv e framework . High score on this dimension means that the family
members are high on competitiv eness and achievem ent orientation . They give
importanc e to grades in school, or success one achieves at work and other
areas of life. However, low score on dimension Cf means that the family mem-
- bers are low on competiti ve~ss and need for achievem ent is also low. They
don't really work too hard or hardly worry about job promotion s, school grades
etc.

Cohesion (Co): This dimension measures the degree of commitme nt, help and
support family members provide for one another. High score on this dimensio n
mean·s that the family members support each other and they have a strong
feeling of togethern ~ss. They usually get along well and have time to pay
attention to everyone in the family. Low score on Co, on the other hand, means
that the family members openly express anger, show aggressio n in their be-
haviour. There is always conflict among family members and they often criti-
cize each other.

Expressiv eness (Ex): Expressiv eness measures the extent to which family mem-
bers _are encourag ed to act openly and to express their feelings directly. High
score on dimension Ex means that the family members are free to say anything
they want to, feelings of disagreem ent or disapprov al can be freely expresse d
at home. They usually indulge in spontane ous discussio ns without any fear or
hesitation of hurting each others feeling. However, low score on l;:x means
family members display difficulty in expressin g their feelings and thoughts to
one another. Important family matters are not discussed openly, and they are
always cautious about what they say to each other.

4
 t to w.l1icl1 f r.1111ily mc:n, ..
. • · me~surcs ti 1C, ex l l '·' ll • .. · Hi(lll score 011
Independe nce (In): This dimension , u cir 0 wn deC 1 ~'°11 ,_.
"' ·
bers are assertive, self-suffic ient 011d mak_c 1d to be indcpcn~u 11~, lli~y u,,u~•II~
::, •.•

In means that family members arc cncourc:lg e . ,. Ive tl1e11 p1oblcms tliL!m
do things on their own they are given freedorn 10 .;;, 0 embers arc 11ot re:.:illy
'
se'Jves. However, low score that family r11 • · , t
on In means •c: I ittlc or no privocy il
encourag ed to speak up for themselve s a nd th ere 1_'' . ost of tile decision s
home. There is usually one family member who makes Ill
for them .
. ree of emphasis given
Moral Orientatio n (Mo): This dimension measures th ~ deg n dimensio n Mo
to et_hical, moral and religious issues a~d values. High 5 ~~re O They have high
means that family members give high importanc e to religion. H r low
ethical and moral values and are encourag ed to follow them. oweve_ ·
score on dimension Mo means that family members attac h l ·ttl I or no ,mpor-
e
tance. to religion, and show little or no ethical and moral values.

Organizat ion (Or): This dimension measures the degree of importanc e .0 ~ ~~ear
organizat ion and structure in planning family activities and res~on~1 b1l,ti~s,
-and extent to which set rules and procedure s are used to run family life. High
score on this dimension means that family members place high emphasis on
rules, there activities are carefully planned. Each individual 's duty in the family
is clearly defined, and they are usually neat and orderly. Low score, on the
other hand, means that the family rules are pretty flexible in their hou5-eho ld
and activities are not really planned carefully. There duties are not' well de-
fined and they are usually dirty and indisciplin ed in their daily activities.

Recreatio nal Orientatio n (Ro): This dimension measures the extent of participa -
tion and interest in social, recreation al, political, intellectua l and cultural activi-
ties. The high score on Ro means that family members have varied interests in
various recreation al activities and that they spare time for there hobbies, cul-
tural activities and/or intellectua l discussio ns. They go out very often to see
plays, attend lectures, watch sports events or just go out for fun. However, low
score· on Ro means that family members are really not very much interested in
arts-and culture, politics, or other inte1rectua l activities. They spend most of
there free time watching T.V. or listening to radio. They rarely go out to watch
plays, attend lectures, watch sports events or go out just for fun.

Table-1 presents a brief summary of dimensio ns measured by FES. The

I
seven primary dimension s measured by FES are Competiti ve Framewo rk (CF),
Cohesion (Co), Expressiv eness (Ex), Independ ence (In), Moral Orientati on
(Mo), Organizat ion (Or), and Recreatio nal Orientatio n.

5
 Tab /e-1 Brie f Des crip tion of Din iens ions Mea
sur ed by FES
Dim ens i<;> n
Dcs crlp tlo1 1

er Com petit ive Fram ewor k - tho irnpo rtanc e show

n lo ncl1i evcm ent ori-
ented or comp etitiv e nctiv ilies (such c.1s scllo ol,
work etc .) by tho famil y
mem bers.

Co Cohe sion - the degr ee of comm itmen t, help,

supp ort, calm and cohe -
sion displ ayed by the famil y mem bers .

Ex Expr essio n - the exten t to whic h famil y mem

bers are enco urag ed to
act open ly and expr ess their feelin gs direc tly .

In Inde pend ence - the exten t to whic h famil y mem

bers are inc;1 epen dent,
self-s uffici ent , asse rtive, and make their own
decis ions.
Mo Mora l Orie ntati on - the degr ee of emp hasis
show n on ethic al, mora l
and religi ous issue s and value s by the famil y
mem bers .
Or Orga niza tion - the degr ee of impo rtanc e given
by the fami ly m~m bers
to clear orga nizat ion, struc ture plann ing, and
resp onsi biliti es
Ro Recr eatio nal Orie ntati on - the exte nt of parti
cipa tion in soci al, recre -
ation al, politi cal, intell ectua l and cultu ral activ
ities by the fami ly mem -
bers .
 Faking
A Word About

. _,e f 0111 f ;i k i 11 y or di:;

. · is 11 111111m c 1i c · 1 .
. No invento_ry._ scc1IP., or que_stronnaire_ s The I.Jc.st w~.1y to conl_r~I co 11.~
tortIon. whether 1t Is voluntary 01 unconsci_o u · -. ., tllal the accur .:1cy Is to ht ..:,
scious tendencies of faking is to help exarnrnee
5t;
? Still it is a simple fact
or her own advantage as well as that of tt,e exanirn~r. to 't1,e statements we
that we can not be sure that the answers _we iece_ivi~ index was developed
present are really true. In order to check this, a vali d Y
for the present scale .
,e statements are
The FES consists of 98 statements , out of these. son " rd ·t Index"
overlapping or similar in nature. These statements serve as V~ 1 ~ Y
statements to give validity indicator score (Vi Score) . The validity ,tern~ a~e
cross checked for response consistency with each other so that the ~ubJect 5
overall faking pattern can be assessed. For instance statement No. 1 is cross
checked with similar statement No . 71. If the subjects answer to statement No .
1 and 71 is same, we conclude that there is consistency in his/her responses .
However, if the answer to these similar repeated statements is different we
assume that the subject is faking in atleast one of the statement, hence there
is inconsistency in his/her responses . The cross checking is done in about 28
statements (14 pairs of statements) . If such consistency is found in more than
50% of the total Vi items, then only the benefit of "honesty" is given to the
subject.

The limit of 50% has been found to be statistically sound when this scale
was given to the subjects under two condition: (1) 'anonymity', where the test
was said to have no connection whatsoever with their family life and they were
told that the results will be used for research purposes only, and (2) 'strongly
motivated' conditions, where subjects believed that their family life depended
on their responses and it will be used to sort out his/her family problems, if
any. Out of the 28 questions which showed greatest distortion were correlated
with the distortion of the total test. Here also it was found that even in 'anonym- _
ity' condition subjects do not show 'total honesty' probably because one tends
always to give the best possible impression of themselves (called faking
good), or tries to hide his/her bad points (faking bad}. For this purpose sepa-
rate norms were prepared for 'Vi' scores. We suggest following interpretation
for 'Vi' score for test users.

Table-2 Interpretation of Vi Score

"Vi" Sten Score Interpretation

1O No Distortion: There is little or no distortion. Responses are

· quite consistent

5-9 Low Distortion: Scores are fairly accurate and retesting is

not required.

1-4 High Distortion: Scores are not reliable, as it is one or more

sten scores higher or lower on some dimensions than they
should be. Desirable for the individual to tal<e the test
again after some time.

7
 Adn 1in istr atio n

de . Admi nisll c:,lior~ of tlw fE S i s very simplP - ;:1ncl

s lr .:iiylll forwa ~~ - ·1Iw te s t is
. signe d to l>e ve1 bally not dcmc111d1nn ancl
as 11011 - 5trcs sful. Since the tesl
items are printe d on a reusa bl e book let desig
ned to be used with a scp.:i ralP.
answ er shee t, respo nden ts shou ld bu c clulio
ned, there fore, to make no m n rks
in their test book lets . The front page of the
book let conta ins instru ction s for
answ ering the state ment s with few exam ples
. Insid e page s conta in actu;::il
state ment s to be answ ered by the subje ct. Occa
siona lly , howe ver, respo nden ts
may be unab le to use the sepa rate answ er shee
ts . In such case s they may be
instr ucted to mark their respo nses on the
book let besid e each item. Their
resp onse s may then be trans cribe d onto
the answ er shee ts to facili tate
scori ng. Jn case of a blind or totall y illiter ate
subje ct, the entire test may be
admi niste red orally .

This scale is a powe r test (i.e. there is no

time limit} , but it usua lly
requ ires aroun d 20-25 minu tes for the subje
ct of avera ge readi ng abilit y to
finish FES . The usua l requi reme nts for prope
r test admi nistra tion sho1,Jld be
follow ed when admi niste ring the FES. The room
shou ld be quiet , comf ortab le,
and well- lit, with ampl e spac e for each resp
onde nt to work . In orde r to
esta blish good rapp ort and maxi mize the
valid ity of the resp onse s, the
exam iner shou ld make introd uctor y rema rks
appro priate to the situa tion. They
shou ld also be appri sed that their resul ts will
be kept strict ly confi denti al. For
less soph istica ted respo nden ts, the group shou
ld be kept smal l enou gh so that
the test admi nistra tor can move aroun d the room
to ensu re that each perso n is
perfo rming the task corre ctly .

It is usua lly helpf ul to read the instru ction s aloud

while the respo nden ts
follow them in their test book lets and on their
answ er shee ts. Howe ver, befor e
begin ning the test it is prope r to r;1sk every one
if the instru ction s are clear to
them . Once exam iner is sure that every one
has unde rstoo d the instru ction s
clear ly, he -shou ld ask them to begin the
test- by sayin g "ope n your test
book lets now and begin ." The exam iner must
also ensu re that the subje ct has
writte n his/h er name , age, sex etc. on top
of the answ er shee t. Lead penc ils
with erase rs shou ld be supp lied so that ball point
pens etc. will not be used .

Simp le clarif icatio ns of word mean ings may

be given on reque st, but
care shou ld be taken not to influ ence the
direc tion of the resp onde nts's
resp onse . Inde cisiv e resp onde nts or anyo ne takin g
unus ually long time
shou ld be remin ded that the "first respo nse"
that come s to your mind is what is
need ed from them or they may be assis ted
by sayin g , "ans wer true or yes if
you think it is true most of the time" (or "true
for most of the mem bers of your
fam ily on most ' occa sions ") . As a last resor t,
it is custo mary to say , "if you are
not sure, just give your best gues s" .

. Beca use the scale s are relat ively shor

t, resp onde nts shou ld be
enco urag ed to answ er all items . If poss ible , the admi nistra tor shou ld chec k
each answ er shee t as it is turne d in to see
that it is comp lete (inclu ding all the
nece ssary ident ifying inform ation ).

8
 Scoring

. _ . -_. sirni·>IC . Transpa,E-mt

. y ODjCCllV8 rlllu
..
Scoring procedure of the F Es rs ver . f tllic purpose. Please
Stencil Scoring key for answer sheet i's avar~atJle or ;J

follow the steps mentioned below to do the scoring .

. 10 uld ensure that tile
1. Before starting the scoring procedure, examiner 5 1 uestions ore
10
subject has answered all the questions . If more ll1an_ q Id however
skipped, the test is invalid and should not be scored. Ttlrs shou • '
be checked and corrected during administration of the test.

2 . Examiner should also ensure that each answer has one and only one
answer.

3 . Once this is done, place the transparent. stencil scoring key over the · answer
sheet. Be sure that . it is aligned properly with the outer box printed on the
body of the answer sheet and the scoring key.

4 . Please note that each answer scores either 1 or O as indicated by the

numbers printed above the boxes.

5. Each item in this scale measures some dimension as indicated in the key.

6. Add the scores horizontally for each dimension and write it in the space
provided for that dimension on the right hand side of the answer sheet.

7. For dimension 'Vi' use 'Vi Score Key'. Compare answers through
corresponding boxes, if the answer is same, give a score of 1 . If the answer
is different, no score is given. Add the score and note it down in the bottom
of the answer sheet.

8. Convert these raw scores to sten scores by procedure mentioned later in the
norms.
 Norma tive Samp le

. T_he FES has only UU ilc:rns, wltic:I1 covt-! 1 s c: v c.· n fa111ily e11viro1111 Hrnl
dimensio ns . The detciiled tfoscriptio n with their psycllolog icc1I meaning II as
already been discussed earlier. Final 98 ilcrns lie.WC been selected from a tolc1I
pool of more than 200 items tlwt had been tested and refined in programm atic
studies . Each item in the scale has two answer choices from which the subject
may select one answer . All the items were carefully screened and several
criteria were considere d in the final item select.,ion .

Normativ e data on the FES were collected for more than 725 families.
The sample includes families from more than 15 locations all over India .
Sample also included various types of families like joint families, nuclear
families, single-pa rent, families drawn from minority groups, and families of all
age groups (newly-m arried families, families with preschoo l and adolesce nt
childr:en, families ..whose children have left home, and families compose d of
older: retired adults) , with atleast 2 or more members in each family. Table-3
provides demogra phic details of these families with geograph ical locations
(mainly towns and cities).

Table 3: Demo graph ic Descr iption a,

Norm ative Samp les

Place of Data Collection Total Sample

Eastern Region 18.5

Western Region 26.4
Northern Region 36.3
Southern Region 18.8
 Norms for FES

. . . hnve no need to
ammer wr 11 ,,.
lications of FES, the ex to stnndord ::;co,c-> .
In many research apbpt . d with the scoring key . dividual stands
convert the raw score o arne know how an 111 f .
Commonly however the test user will want to . tables presented here are( or
in relation ' to the reference
' popu Ia t'on
1 •
The norm The term , sten • comes ro111
the conversion of raw scores into the st en scores. s witli a ten point range
the 'standard ten', i.e. sten scales are ~ta nd a rd ~f~~:ndard score points, from
and they are distributed over ten equal intervals
1 to 1'0.
u have decided
Use table 4 for parents and table 5 for children . . Onc:t:~traight forward.
on the norm table to be used, the use of _norm ~ables rs _q~• the raw score of
For example to convert raw score of dimension _Cf, frn on the top or
dimension Cf in the row Cf and read the corresponding s_ten s~ore Please
bottom column of 'Sten' scores . Do likewise for other dimensions a Iso. ..
note that the values within the table (i.e ., in the body of t_he ta~le) are . ra~
scores" - values which you obtained with the help of stencil .. scoring key,: an
the values on the top and bottom columns are corresponding sten scores ·

To use norm tables the test user must note that the sten scores derived
from these tables are n-stens or normalised stens, i.e. they do not result from a
linear transformation of the raw score distribution, but instead from an area
transformation of the raw scores designed to produce a more normal
distribution. For test users who wish to convert group mean raw .score profile to
n-sten (standard deviation sten), the means and standard deviations of the
norm ·group are given at the bottom of the table.

Please note that the sten of 4-7 indicates average score, sten of 8-10
indicates high and extremely high score and sten of 1-3 indicates low and
extremely low scores.

Whether or not there was any gender differences in the-way-husbands

and wives perceive family environment was probed. Husbands' and wives'
perceptions of their family were compared using t-test. Similarly son's and
daughter's perceptions were also compared. The data indicated a tendency of
wives to perceive their family settings slightly more positive than their
husbands did moral orientation, organization, anq recreational orientation.
Boys and girls viewed their families very similarly, although boys had a slight
tendency to see them as oriented more toward competitive framework than
girls. The differences were quite small in magnitude, and statistically not
significant.

. ·. Since_ there were no significant gender differences in perceptions of

fa_mrly environment, the perceptions of mothers and fathers were compared
with those of their adolescent sons and daughters. There were small bu.t
sys~e_matic ~ifferences in how parents and adolescents children saw their
'.amrlies. Children perceived less emphasis on cohesion, expressiveness,
independence and religious orientation. Since significant differences were
founaon some dimensions of family environment, separate norms were
prepared for both parents and their children .

11
 Table 4: Norms for General Population (Parents)

Ste n Score::.;
Dimension 1· 2 3 4 :, G 7 8 9 10 Mc:[111 SO

l~c1w Scores
Cf 9 10 11 12 7.26 2 .38
1- 2 3 4-5 6 7 8
10 11 - 12 - 7.03 2 .89
Co 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7-8 9
10 11 12 7.57 2 . 37
Ex 1- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 9.12 1 .74
In 1- 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11-12 6.91 2 .91
Mo 1 2 3 4-5 6 7-8
10 11 12 7.01 2 .71
Or 1 2-3 4 5 6 7-8 9
11 12 7 .64 2.91
Ro 1-2 3 4 5-6 7 8 9-10
9 10 11 12-14 7.50 1.80
Vi 1- 2 3 4 5- 6 7 8

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean so
Dimension 1 2
Sten Scores

N = 710, Age Range : 33-58 years

Table 5: Norms for General Population (Children)

Sten Scores
DimeA-Sion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean so
Raw Scores
Cf 1-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 .75 2.18
Co 1 2 3-4 5 6 7-8 9 10 11-12 6 .92 2.91
Ex 1 2 3 4 $ 0 7 8 9-10 11-12 5.98 2.34
In 1-4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8.49 1 .98
Mo 1 2 3-4 5 6 7-8 9 10-11 12 5 .78 2.98
Or 1 2 3-4 5 6 7 8-9 10 11 12 6.86 2.78
Ro 1 2-3 4 5 6-7 8 9 10-11 12 7 .32 2.80
Vi 1-2 3 4 5-6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12-14 7 .50 1.80

Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean SD
Sten Scores

N = 912 , Age Range : 12-20 years

 Developm ent of FES

I' ensions or la111 ily

. I . I cover seven c un . . . I I
The FES form has only 98 ,terns wiic 1 tnin 011 in1t1al poo 0
O1
•environment. Many methods were employed to ?111 f 0 rnialion gatl1crcd in
. .
questIonnaIre .
rtems ·r
. Items were cons t r.ucted from es of fclmilies . A d dr ,ona I
structured interviews with members of different typ_ t sc.,lcs . These
items were adapted from the other fam1·1 Y e nv1ronmen °
procedures resulted in an initial 200-item Form of tlie FES.

Initial form was administered to a sample of over 500 people in ~ a~

6
families. The sample included many different types of families to ens~re
the FES would be applicable to a variety of f amI-1Y se tfmg s · The choice
.
and
f
wording of items was guided by the general formulation of seven domains 0
social-environm ent dimensions. Each item had to identify an aspect of the
family environment that could reflect the emphasis on i n_terp~ rs O n a I
relationships (such as the degree of competitivenes s or moral orientation). or
the emphasis on the organization of the family (such as the degree of
organization or cohesion). For example, an emphasis on cohesion is inferred
from items such as "In my family we really help and support one another in
everything we do" and "There is strong feeling of togetherness in our family".
An emphasis on competitive framework is inferred from items such as "In my
family we feel it is important to be the best at whatever we do" and "Getting
ahead in life is very important in our family." The degree of moral orientation is
inferred from items such .as "My family members visit religious places often"
and "The religious books are very important in our home ." An emphasis on
organization is inferred from items such as "Activities in our family are
carefully planned" and "We are generally very neat and orderly ."

: Few psychometric criteria were kept in mind while selecting items for the
final form of the FES: (1) The overall item split should be as close to 50-50 as
possible to avoid items characteristic only of unusual families, (2) Items should
correJate more highly with their own-subscale than with any other (all the or
final 98 items met this criterion), (3) The subscales should have tow to
moderate inter-correlatio ns, and (5) Each item (and each subscale) should
discriminate among families . Each of these criteria was met in the .final form of
the FES.
 Reliabil ity of FES

The reliability 0 ·.111 t •111 . . . .

a g re e 111 en t f d. , . r. c c1 I cons 1s le II c y 1~, 11n po, t ; 1 11 t I o st u d y, , . ri . , ti H i
imen~ 1011 scores with itself l111de1 so1nc➔ clwnge of condilion5 .
O
T bl h
a e 6 s ows the intern.ii consistencie s (Cronl>c1cl1's Alpha) for each of the
ten ~.ES subscales . The internal consistencie s are all in an acceptable rnnge,
varying f_rom moderate for Independen ce and Competitiv e Framework to
su~ st an_t,al for Cohesion, Organizati on, Recreation al, and Relig i ous
Orientation . ·

The seven subscale scores were intercorrela ted separately on samples

of husbands and wives and sons and daughters drawn from normal and 266
dis tressed families. The intercorrela tions shown in Table 7 indicate that the
subscales measure distinct though somewhat related aspects of family social
environmen ts . Cohesion and Organizatio n are positively correlated. There are
negative· correlations between Cohesion' and Expression . The intercorrela tions
are quite similar for parents and children.

Test-Retes t Reliability and Profile Stability. Test-retest reliabilities of

individuals ' scores for the 7 subscales were calculated for over 1000
individuals with an 8-week interval between testings . The test - retest
reliabilities are all in an acceptable range, varying from a low of .78 for
Independen ce to a high of .$9 for Cohesion .

For calculating split-half reliability, a trial run of the present scale was
conducted on more than 300 individuals . The scale was divided into two parts
using odd-even method and care was taken to ensure that each half contained
more or less the $ame number of questions.

Table 6: Interna l Consist encies~ Test-Re test

Reliabi lities and Split H-alf Reliabi lities

Dimension Internal Test•retest Split•half

Consistency Reliability Reliability

Competitiv e Framework (Cf) .68 .79 .82

Cohesion (Co) .78 .89 .91

Expressio n (Ex) · . 71 .80 .84

Independe nce (In) .75 .78 .81

Moral Orientatio n (Mo) .78 .82 .85

Organizat ion (Or) ,76 .81 .84

Recreation al Orientatio n (Ro) .72 .82 .86

14
 Tab le 7: lnt erc orr e/a tio ns
.. . . --- - Or Ro
- ··· Mo
Ex In
Dime nsion Cf Co
--- -- ·- -· -- ---- - - •·•·. .0!)
.7G ..10
Cf .11 -. 05 -.01
.01 .21
.40 .28 .20
Co
-.01 .31
.24 .01
Ex
-.05 .09 .24
In
.27 .04
Mo
.12
Or

Ro
 Validit y of FES

measure
. i·t.r
The basic .definition 0· r vn • 111 .. ,1 .1I 1s
1 1ly ,s
.
. ..111 111<kx of how well . --1 ~c.:il~
h" 1
s w lat it purports to measure:. 111 tile case of an ability tost 01 c.111
a~ ,eve~ent test, this can be do1w directly and more easily . Gut tllis is riot so
simple wrth personali ty test or family environm ent scrile .

. Now, the question here is, what was FES designed to measure ? As
~ent1one d earlier the FES was conceived primarily as a device to measure 7
independ ent family environm ent dimension s that resulted from a set of items
adm!niste red on normal and clinical groups . The items in this final form are the
survivors from several thousand s of items originally tried, and constitute only
those which continue to have significan t validity against the dimensio ns. The
factor analyses verified the existence and structure of these 7 independ ent
family environm ent dimension s. More formally, to understan d the concept of
validity used here we must know the backgroun d theory of factorial validity .

Factorial validity is a technique which uses factor analyses in order to

show the independ ence of each dimension . Most tests of mental ability and
personali ty such as verbal knowledg e, numerica l and quantitati ve reasoning ,
memory span, and concept formation . These and other abilities, specially
when represent ed by a single composite index (such as mental age or IQ), are
not functiona l unities . Further, they are not measures of a "pure" ability, i.e.,
one type of ability uncomplic ated by others . Thus, a test is said to have high
factorial validity if it is a measure of one functional unity (for example , word
knqwledg e), to the exclusion of other elements as far as possible. The ultimate
goal is to device tests, which will measure only one functiona l t,mity, relatively
independ ent of others , i.e., low inter-corre lations . Such pure tests can then be
used as subtests in a comprehe nsive measuring instrumen t.

In the FES, thes~ functional unities are identified by analyzing the inter-
correlatio ns among a number of separate, re1atively- restricted measures , which
identify the common factors for obtained coefficie nts. Factor analysis ,
therefore, is intended to reduce the number of variables , or test categorie s,
needed to represent an individua l's traits for specified purposes . Factorial
validity here, is therefore , determine d by the weights (called, "loadings ") .
Contribute d to the total-test scores by each of qerived scores. It is determine d
by the relative independ ence of one another (low intercorre lations). Thus, to
be true to its design each dimension should have one "importan t", loading -
on the dimension that it was intended to measure - and 6 "unimpor tant"
loading . These factorial validity coefficien ts are shown in Table-8 below.

Table 7: Validi ty Coeffi cients

Dimension Validity Coefficient Dimension Validity Coefficient

Cf .84 -Mo .80

Co .83 Or .79

Ex .77 Ro .80

In .82

16