Mental Health, Religion & Culture

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmhr20

Validating an Indonesian version of the Family

Assessment Device among Indonesian Muslim
university students during the COVID-19 pandemic

Diana Mutiah, Ros Mayasari & Tina Deviana

To cite this article: Diana Mutiah, Ros Mayasari & Tina Deviana (2021): Validating an Indonesian
version of the Family Assessment Device among Indonesian Muslim university students during the
COVID-19 pandemic, Mental Health, Religion & Culture, DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2021.1976124

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2021.1976124

Published online: 22 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmhr20
MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE
https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2021.1976124

Validating an Indonesian version of the Family Assessment

Device among Indonesian Muslim university students during
the COVID-19 pandemic
a b a
Diana Mutiah , Ros Mayasari and Tina Deviana
a
Faculty of Psychology, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, Indonesia; bFaculty of Usul al-
Din, Adab and Da’wa, State Islamic Institute of Kendari, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As a foundational instrument in the measurement of family Received 31 January 2021
functioning, this study investigated the psychometric properties Accepted 30 August 2021
of the scores on the 53-item Family Assessment Device (FAD) on
KEYWORDS
multicultural Indonesian university student samples during the COVID-19; factor analysis;
early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study employed a Family Assessment Device;
quantitative cross-sectional research design involving 2740 family functioning;
respondents (74.4% women and 25.6% men; aged 17–29 years). It translation; validation
is unique in that it applies a multiple indicators multiple causes
(MIMIC) model to the Indonesian FAD scores. Overall, the
construct validity of FAD item scores was confirmed and
correlations between factors consistent with findings from the
original version were identified. Based on the MIMIC model, five
covariates were found to have a significant direct effect on at
least one factor, while two other covariates had no significant
direct effect on any factor. This study will facilitate the
development of future research and psychological knowledge
regarding family functioning.

Introduction
Indonesia – the largest country in Southeast Asia, with 275 million residents – is a multi-
cultural nation with over a thousand tribes living across different islands (Nakaya, 2018;
Worldometers, 2021). It is also a multi-faith country with 87.2% of the population follow-
ing Islam (Suryadi et al., 2020). The languages, dialects, and different accents used in
everyday life vary from one region to another; although indigenous languages are used
in specific areas, Bahasa Indonesia serves as the link language of the country’s vast geo-
graphical area (Suryadi et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has become widespread in
Indonesia since March 2020, with the first two cases confirmed on March 2, 2020 (Ratcliffe,
2020). By March 14, 2020 the government enforced the closure of schools and universities,
and cancelled public events across all 34 provinces (Adi & Rochman, 2020).
University students in Indonesia face several related challenges, such as the uncer-
tainty of continuing their education amid the pandemic (Rahayu et al., 2021). Universities
were ordered to close because of COVID-19 during the last six weeks of the second

CONTACT Diana Mutiah diana.mutiah@uinjkt.ac.id Faculty of Psychology, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University Jakarta, Kertamukti st. No. 5, South Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. MUTIAH ET AL.

semester of the academic calendar, with temporary closure statements being issued for
14-days followed by the holy month of Ramadan (observed by Muslims worldwide as a
month of fasting, prayer, reflection, and community) which began in late April 2020.
The temporary notice compelled students to stay in their current cities and await the
final announcement as the end-semester examinations had not yet been conducted,
although several students were from different cities spread across different islands thou-
sands of miles away. After graduating from high school, students in Indonesia tend to
move away from home for the first time to study at prestigious Indonesian universities,
primarily located on the island of Java (Robinson, 2016). They mainly live in kost (self-
funded boarding houses outside universities), which is an interesting aspect of youth tran-
sition to higher education in Indonesia (Parker & Nilan, 2013).
The restrictions enforced by the government prohibited cultural traditions during
Ramadan such as mudik (mass exodus or homecoming) (Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic
of Indonesia, 2020; Spagnoletti, 2020) and routines at mosques such as tarawih (additional
ritual prayer at night) and Friday prayers, mainly because they involved several people in
close contact at the same place. This is in line with previous research which states the impor-
tance of recognising the potential for major life crises caused by Covid-19, not only psycho-
logically, socially, and physically but religiously and spirituality as well (Dein et al., 2020). For
Indonesian students, Ramadan is a long holiday before beginning a new semester. Eid al-Fitr
(a religious holiday celebrated by Muslims worldwide that marks the end of Ramadan)
usually involves family members gathered together in an open house tradition where
people not only meet each other but also hold hands with and cium tangan (hand-
kissing tradition) their elders and close relatives (Handayani et al., 2021), all of which are dis-
couraged and could be dangerous during the pandemic. Because of COVID-19, students
across Indonesia were prohibited from travelling back home to their different islands or
cities. Thus, they faced several combined challenges brought about by uncertainty,
Ramadan, being far from home, and being prohibited to return home. A study by Fisher
et al. (2020) revealed that vulnerable communities face significant risks in times of
COVID-19 and Indonesian students most certainly represent a vulnerable community.
In the early phase of the pandemic, the family plays a very important role in supporting
its members during stressful events (Brock & Laifer, 2020; Pan et al., 2021). Family function-
ing – a term that has long been studied – refers to the effectiveness of members of the
family system to not only maintain emotional connections, family rules, and family com-
munication but also cope with external events (Epstein et al., 1978; Olson et al., 1983).
During COVID-19, family functioning was found to be an important factor contributing
to individuals’ mental health (Pan et al., 2021). While poor family functioning leads to a
feeling of emotional isolation (Padial-Ruz et al., 2020), anxiety, and depression, similar out-
comes were also caused by COVID-19 (e.g., Elmer et al., 2020; Guessoum et al., 2020).
Several characteristics and conditions reflect the unique nature of families as social
groups, with family members simultaneously being connected to and separate from
one another (Schanzel & Smith, 2014). During the early phase of COVID-19, Indonesian
students were separated from their families during the Ramadan holiday, adding “psycho-
logical pressure” upon Indonesians.
Family functioning has long been a topic of research in Indonesia. Studies have been con-
ducted on the following: family functioning and student engagement among Indonesian
high school students in central Java (Qudsyi et al., 2020); a comparison of family functioning
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 3

among medical and non-medical students (Anggraini, 2014); family functioning among uni-
versity dormitory students (Gunawan & Setianingrum, 2018) and migrant husbands (Hera-
wati & Endah, 2016). In terms of measurement instruments, there were similarities, as all
these research studies used the Family Assessment Device (FAD; Epstein et al., 1983) to
measure family functioning. However, studies on family functioning among Indonesian
samples during COVID-19 are not yet available given the challenges mentioned earlier.
To date, the FAD has been used extensively in research and translated into many
languages for use in different cultures and countries (Mansfield et al., 2015), such as
Armenia (Kazarian, 2010), Iran (Modanloo et al., 2019), Spain (Barroilhet et al., 2009),
France (Speranza et al., 2012), Italy (Roncone et al., 1998), Iceland (Juliusdottir & Olafsdot-
tir, 2015), Japan (Ohara et al., 2016), the Netherlands (Wenniger et al., 1993), Greece (Tsam-
parli et al., 2018), China (Shek, 2002), Germany (Beierlein et al., 2017), Brazil (Traebert et al.,
2016), and Indonesia (Anggraini, 2014; Qudsyi et al., 2020). All these versions are available
online. However, the validation of the Indonesian version on previous research had limit-
ations related to small sample sizes, with a maximum sample comprising of 201 respon-
dents (Qudsyi et al., 2020). Moreover, these studies were not published specifically for the
purpose of validation.
Further, the original FAD was developed based on samples drawn entirely from
Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD; Henrich et al., 2010)
culture, although it has been used across the world and works well in so many cultures.
In Indonesia, there are cultural differences particularly related to the family system, such
as the tendency of university students to live in their parents’ house until they get married
(Johar & Maruyama, 2011) and living in a home where intra-generational cohabitation is
common and includes, for example, a mother, father, children, and grandmother (Schrö-
der-Butterfill, 2004) both in metropolitan and rural areas.
Eid-al-Fitr as the end of Ramadan is a once-in-a-year holiday during which millions of
Indonesians return home from different cities following the mudik tradition. However,
during Ramadan 2020 (approximately two months after the pandemic began), mudik
was strictly prohibited by the government (Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia,
2020); thus, several university students were unable to see their families face-to-face and
return to their hometowns. The use of the FAD to assess this condition was hypothesised
to provide new situational perspectives and help in the theoretical development of family
functioning, which, based on the literature review, has not yet been studied in Indonesia.
Consequently, the purpose of this study was to not only investigate the psychometric
properties of the scores on the 53-item FAD but also determine the possible relation with
the situational context of Ramadan during the pandemic. Furthermore, by including some
demographic characteristics as situational context variables, the diverse nature of the
Indonesian population could be assessed to provide a greater understanding of the
family functioning theory among non-WEIRD samples in a culturally diverse setting.

Methods
Participants
The datasets in this study were part of a large-scale online survey conducted by a research
team from the Faculty of Psychology, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta,
4 D. MUTIAH ET AL.

Indonesia. The data collection was two-phased, with the final sample including approxi-
mately 4500 respondents, with 3450 university student (N = 2740) and general population
(N = 800) samples from Phase 1 (during Ramadan) and 1091 university students and
general population samples from a different time in Phase 2 (after the end of Ramadan).
For the present study, permission to use Phase 1 data was granted. These data com-
prise 2740 university students across Indonesia whose age ranged between 17 and 29
years (mean age 20.52 years; SD = 2.29). The data were collected via an online question-
naire survey conducted between April 26 and May 18, 2020, which happened to coincide
with the early phase of the pandemic and the holy month of Ramadan. There are three
parts to the questionnaire; informed consent, respondent characteristics (demographics,
email address, and phone number), and the main survey. See Table 1 for detailed study
sample information.

Instruments
The FAD (Epstein et al., 1983) is a self-report measure of perceived family functioning and
was designed to assess dimensions from the McMaster Model (Epstein et al., 1978) of
family functioning (Mansfield et al., 2015). The FAD has 53-items covering the following
seven dimensions: problem-solving (five items), communication (six items), roles (eight
items), affective responsiveness (six items), affective involvement (seven items), behaviour
control (nine items), and general functioning (12 items). Each item was rated using a
four-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. In the orig-
inal version, there was a positive correlation between factors in the range of .40 to .60
(Epstein et al., 1983). Additionally, further confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by its devel-
oper also replicated the seven-factor model of the FAD (Kabacoff et al., 1990), which was
also tested in the study Table 2.
The translation process was completed in accordance with van Widenfelt et al.’s (2005)
translation procedure guidelines. An initial search found existing translated items

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Demographics Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
Gender:
Male 701 25.6
Female 2039 74.4
Geographical area:
West Indonesian Zone 2087 76.2
Central Indonesian Zone 391 14.3
East Indonesian Zone 246 9.0
Missing 16 0.6
Residential area
Metropolitan area 1378 50.3
Others 1353 49.4
Missing 9 0.3
Daily language use:
Indonesian language 1628 59.4
Traditional language 1104 40.3
Missing 8 0.3
Place of living:
Kost 974 35.5
Home 1727 63.0
Missing 39 1.4
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 5

Table 2. Factors of the Family Assessment Device (Epstein et al., 1983).

Factors Descriptions
Problem-solving Refers to the family’s ability to resolve problems (issues that threaten its integrity and functional
capacity) at a level that maintains effective family functioning.
Communication Refers to the exchange of information among family members.
Roles Focuses on whether the family has established patterns of behaviour for handling a set of family
functions that include the provision of resources, nurturance, and support; encouraging
personal development; and maintaining and managing the family system.
Affective Assesses the extent to which individual family members are able to experience appropriate
responsiveness affect over a range of stimuli.
Affective involvement Concerned with the extent to which family members are interested in and place value on each
other’s activities and concerns.
Behaviour control Assesses the way in which a family expresses and maintains standards for the behaviour of its
members in various situations (dangerous, psychological, and social).
General functioning Assesses the overall health or pathology of the family.

(Anggraini, 2014) with information on 47 valid items. The existing Indonesian version of
FAD was used only for comparison (Qudsyi et al., 2020). The translation process was as
follows: First, two independent forward translations were made (from English to Indone-
sian) by two lecturers who were Indonesian native speakers. They were compared with
the previous Indonesian version of the FAD questionnaire before a new, unified, prelimi-
nary Indonesian version was created. Since no significant differences were noted between
the previous Indonesian version and the two translations, the translation process docu-
mentation was ready for pilot testing. However, pilot testing was not conducted as it is
often only used to classical test theories with a limited number of samples to eliminate
items (Hayat et al., 2021). Thus, based on expert judgements and the use of the data analy-
sis technique that can account for measurement errors for each item and persons (i.e.,
factor analysis), 53-items in the main survey were completed in order of comparability
with an original previous Indonesian version and original version of the FAD (e.g.,
Anggraini, 2014; Epstein et al., 1983).

Data analysis procedures

The first analysis involved examining the factor structure of the Indonesian FAD using
CFA. Following the recommendation of treating the number of response categories
lower than five as ordered-categorical (Rhemtulla et al., 2012), and considering the
non-normal or highly skewed Likert data in the study (Muthén & Kaplan, 1985), the
Ordinal CFA, also known as item factor analysis (IFA) was used (Bock et al., 1988). IFA is
a useful tool to explore the theoretical dimensions of measurement instruments in
psychological research with ordinal indicators (Hayat et al., 2021; Rahayu et al., 2021).
The IFA was performed to confirm whether the original seven-factor structure holds in
the sample.
For the second analysis, after factor structure was confirmed using IFA, five covariates
were added to the model, namely: gender, age, residential area, language use, and place
of living. All the covariates were hypothesised to represent the “situational context” faced
by Indonesian Muslim students during Ramadan, which coincided with the early phase of
the COVID-19 pandemic. The model used in this phase is called the multiple indicators
multiple causes (MIMIC) model (Joreskog & Goldberger, 1975), using which the direct
6 D. MUTIAH ET AL.

effects of covariates on each factor were tested (Schumaker & Lomax, 2016). Standardised
regression coefficients (b) were reported for each direct effect.
In using the IFA and Ordinal MIMIC model, several fit indices were employed, including
chi-square statistics (χ2), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative
fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and standardised root mean square residual
(SRMR) (Shi et al., 2020). The following standards for good fit were set: CFI >.90, TLI
>.90, RMSEA <.06, and SRMR <.08 (Schumaker & Lomax, 2016). It was hypothesised that
the seven-factor model would fit the data corresponding with the original version of
the FAD. The IFA and MIMIC model in this study were analysed using the Mplus 8.3 pro-
gramme using a weighted least squares estimator.

Results
IFA results
Results of the IFA indicated that the seven-correlated factor model fit the data
acceptably [χ2 (1304) = 4983.556, p < .001; RMSEA = .032 (90% CI = .031-.033), CFI
= .904, TLI = .899, SRMR = .089], with RMSEA and CFI meeting the predefined criteria,
while the TLI was slightly lower than the minimum criteria and SRMR higher than
predefined criteria. Thus, the results revealed that the seven-correlated factor
model, composed of seven factors (problem-solving; communication; roles;
affective responsiveness; affective involvement; behaviour control; and general func-
tioning) was acceptable and provided appropriate representations of the underlying
structure of the construct. All items loaded significantly (ranging from .193 to .931)
in relation to their respective factors, at a p < .05 significance level. In addition,
within the multidimensionality of the FAD, the ordinal Cronbach's alpha (α) for
each aspect was also reported (see Table 3).
As can be seen in Table 3, there were three of seven factors (communication, behaviour
control, and general functioning) had acceptable reliabilities since they were greater than
.70 (Loewenthal & Lewis, 2020), while the four others factors had relatively low internal
consistencies. This finding also relates to some items that have low factor loading (e.g.,
.193) which resulted in low internal consistencies.

Correlation between factors

From Table 2, it is evident that the correlation matrix for the seven subscales of the FAD
using the IFA approach was between .565 and .867, with all correlations being significant
at p < .01. In general, the pattern of the positive correlations was consistent with the
theory of family functioning, which is in line with the original FAD. Compared to the orig-
inal version of FAD (range of correlation = .40 to .60), the estimated correlation was higher
among Indonesian university student samples Table 4.

MIMIC model results

The MIMIC model results indicated that the inclusion of five covariates (gender, age, resi-
dential area, language use, and place of living) to the seven-correlated factor model fit the
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 7

Table 3. Items’ descriptive statistics and IFA parameter estimates.

Factor
Item Wording loading
Factor 1: Problem solving (a = .681)
1 Kami dapat menghadapi semua masalah keluarga dengan baik .744
2 Kami terbiasa untuk mendiskusikan apakah solusi yang kami ambil dalam menyelesaikan suatu .764
masalah telah tepat atau belum
3 Kami dapat menyelesaikan seluruh masalah keluarga dengan baik .548
4 Kami menghadapi suatu permasalahan yang melibatkan perasaan .600
5 Kami mencoba untuk memikirkan berbagai alternatif dalam menyelesaikan suatu masalah .577
Factor 2: Communication (a = .739)
6 Jika terdapat anggota keluarga kami ada yang sedang bersedih, kami tahu apa yang menjadi .537
penyebabnya
7 Kami mengetahui apa yang sedang dirasakan oleh anggota keluarga yang lain dari apa yang .582
mereka katakan
8 Setiap anggota keluarga bebas untuk menyampaikan pendapatnya .851
9 Kami bersikap terbuka satu sama lain .677
10 Anggota keluarga kami akan saling diam-diaman ketika sedang marah .708
11 Ketika kami tidak suka terhadap perilaku anggota keluarga lain, kami akan memberitahunya .788
Factor 3: Roles (a = .554)
12 Ketika meminta bantuan pada anggota keluarga yang lain, kami perlu mengeceknya apakah ia .532
benar-benar membantu
13 Kami memastikan bahwa seluruh anggota keluarga memiliki tanggung jawab yang baik .311
14 Pekerjaan rumah seringkali dibagi secara tidak adil .621
15 Kami kesulitan untuk memenuhi kewajiban keuangan keluarga .461
16 Keluarga kami kekurangan waktu untuk mendiskusikan hobi dan minat masing-masing .363
17 Kami mendiskusikan pembagian tugas bagi masing-masing anggota keluarga dalam rumah .662
18 Ketika anggota keluarga kami ditugaskan untuk melakukan sesuatu, maka kami harus .443
mengingatkannya agar tidak lupa
19 Secara umum kami kurang puas dengan pembagian tugas keluarga .231
Factor 4: Affective responsiveness (a = .504)
20 Anggota keluarga kami enggan menunjukkan perasaannya pada yang lain .508
21 Beberapa dari kami tidak melibatkan emosinya dalam menanggapi sesuatu .560
22 Kami tidak menunjukkan perasaan saling menyayangi .321
23 Kelembutan bukanlah hal yang utama dalam keluarga kami .358
24 Kami menunjukkan kelembutan dalam berkeluarga .404
25 Kami tidak malu untuk menangis didepan anggota keluarga lain .364
Factor 5: Affective involvement (a = .467)
26 Jika seseorang dalam keluarga kami terkena masalah, anggota keluarga yang lain terlewat batas .470
untuk ikut-ikutan
27 Kami hanya tertarik pada sesuatu ketika hal tersebut merupakan sesuatu yang penting .753
28 Kami terlalu mementingkan diri sendiri .193
29 Kami saling bekerjasama hanya ketika menghadapi sesuatu yang menarik minat kami .630
30 Kami saling menunjukkan perhatian hanya ketika ada sesuatu yang menguntungkan .200
31 Keluarga kami menunjukkan kelekatan satu sama lain hanya ketika ada keuntungan yang .521
didapatkan
32 Meskipun niat kami baik, terkadang kami terlalu banyak mencampuri urusan orang lain .584
Factor 6: Behaviour control (a = .760)
33 Kami tidak tahu apa yang harus dilakukan dalam keadaan darurat .871
34 Anggota keluarga kami dapat dengan mudah melanggar peraturan yang sebenarnya telah .418
disepakati sebelumnya
35 Kami tahu apa yang harus dilakukan ketika menghadapi keadaan darurat .454
36 Kami belum saling memahami kebiasaan masing-masing yang berhubungan dengan kebersihan .931
diri
37 Kami memiliki aturan untuk tidak menyakiti orang lain .505
38 Kami tidak memiliki aturan ataupun standar apapun dalam keluarga .759
39 Ketika suatu aturan dilanggar, kami tahu pasti apa konsekuensinya .808
40 Apapun dapat terjadi dalam keluarga kami .536
41 Keluarga kami memiliki aturan dalam menghadapi situasi yang tidak diinginkan .532
Factor 7: General functioning (a = .830)
42 Keluarga kami sulit untuk merencanakan suatu kegiatan karena selalu ada salah paham diantara .913
kami
43 Kami berusaha menghadapi suatu permasalahan dengan memberikan dukungan satu sama lain .782

(Continued)
8 D. MUTIAH ET AL.

Table 3. Continued.
Factor
Item Wording loading
44 Kami tidak terbiasa untuk saling menceritakan tentang kesedihan yang sedang dialami .662
45 Kami menerima setiap individu dalam keluarga kami dengan apa adanya .522
46 Kami selalu menghindari tema bahasan tentang ketakutan dan kekhawatiran .442
47 Kami dapat menunjukkan perasaan satu sama lain .845
48 Ada banyak sekali perasaan tidak enak dalam keluarga kami .776
49 Kami merasa diterima apa adanya dalam keluarga .659
50 Pengambilan keputusan adalah suatu masalah dalam keluarga kami .830
51 Kami kesulitan untuk mengambil keputusan dalam menghadapi suatu permasalahan .583
52 Kami tidak berinteraksi dengan baik ketika bersama .810
53 Kami saling curhat satu sama lain .795

Table 4. Correlations between the Family Assessment Device factors.

Factors PS CM RL AR AI BC GF
PS -
CM .644 -
RL .825 .665 -
AR .509 .388 .568 -
AI .694 .728 .706 .508 -
BC .699 .846 .780 .618 .842 -
GF .672 .849 .820 .431 .778 .857 -
Note. PS = problem-solving, CM = communication, RL = roles, AR = affective responsiveness, AI = affective involvement,
BC = behaviour control, GF = general functioning of family functioning. All correlations were significant at p < .01.

data reasonably well [χ2 (1534) = 6415.209, p < .001; RMSEA = .034 (90% CI = .034-.035),
CFI = .902, TLI = .895, SRMR = .084]. All items also loaded significantly (ranging from .196
to .933) in relation to their respective factors, at a p < .05 significance level with little
change compared to the IFA models. Table 5 depicts the standardised regression coeffi-
cients of the direct effect of each covariate to each of the seven factors.
As can be seen in Table 5, there were significant direct negative effects of gender on
problem-solving (b = −.064**) and affective responsiveness (b = −.037*). These findings
indicate that the female respondents tend to have lower scores than do the male respon-
dents in both factors. However, such differences were not found among the five other
factors.
There were significant direct negative effects of age differences on the roles (b =
−.046**), behaviour control (b = −.028*), and general functioning (b = −.033*). These
findings indicate that the older the respondents tend to be, the lower scores they tend
to have with regard to these three factors. However, such differences were not found
among the four other factors.

Table 5. Standardised regression coefficients based on the MIMIC model.

Variables PS CM RL AR AI BC GF
Gender −.064** .010 .023 −.037* −.014 .006 .007
Age .003 −.009 −.046** −.011 −.012 −.028* −.033*
Residential area −.017 .032 .045 .013 .005 .008 .010
Language use −.009 .034 .020 .048 .020 −.037 .032
Place of living −.044** −.067** −.034* −.005 .018 −.034* −.021
Note. Gender: 1 = Female, 0 = Male; Residential area: 1 = Metropolitan area, 0 = Others; Language use: 1 = Indonesian
language, 0 = Traditional language; Place of living: 1 = Kost, 0 = Home.
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 9

There were significant direct negative effects of place of living on problem-solving (b =

−.044**), roles (b = −.067**), and behaviour control (b = −.034*). These findings indicate
that the respondents who lived in kost tend to have lower scores for these three factors
than did respondents who lived at home during Ramadan in the midst of the COVID-19
pandemic. However, such differences were not found among the four other factors. With
regard to the two other covariates (residential area and language use in daily life), no sig-
nificant effect was found on any factor. This also indicates that the Indonesian FAD was
invariant across residential areas and language use in daily life.

Discussion
The purpose of this research was to examine the factor structure of an existing measure of
family functioning (FAD) based on a sample of Muslim university students during Ramadan
in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were analysed in two phases using
IFA and the MIMIC model. The IFA results provide specific validation of Epstein et al.’s (1983)
original 53-item FAD, confirming a seven-factor structure, consistent with the structure
identified in the original study (e.g., Kabacoff et al., 1990; Mansfield et al., 2015). The
seven factors represent problem-solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness,
affective involvement, behaviour control, and general functioning of family functioning.
They were statistically significant and conceptually related to each other.
Previous research has found evidence for seven-factor models of family functioning in
the Indonesian general population (e.g., Anggraini, 2014; Qudsyi et al., 2020). However,
the present study were conducted on larger samples compared to previous studies
(around 60–200 individuals). The samples met the recommendation of the minimum
sample size for factor analysis (e.g., Muthén & Muthén, 2002) and also considered the
large number of items and parameter estimate of FAD.
However, although the seven-factor models fit the data, from the psychometric perspec-
tive, some of IFA’s fit indices disagreed with each other. In the IFA and the MIMIC model,
RMSEA was a close fit and CFI was an acceptable fit, but TLI and SRMR did not meet the pre-
defined criteria. The chi-square was also significant, but the large sample size probably
resulted in this finding (Schumaker & Lomax, 2016). Since RMSEA was computed using chi-
square and had a known distribution (Shi et al., 2020), it was used for decisions about
model fit. Some related literature was found on this disagreement (Lai & Green, 2016; Shi
et al., 2020), but why this disagreement occurred in the data is inconclusive. This is a limitation
in regard to the mathematical aspects of the employed factor analysis. In sum, based on
RMSEA, the seven-factor model was concluded to be appropriate for the Indonesian FAD data.
In the present study, although the IFA model was found to fit the data, some items had
relatively low factor loadings ( < .300). Although some studies recommend removing such
items (e.g., Pargament et al., 2000; Schonrock-Adema et al., 2009), this was not done
because the seven-factor model was found to be fit. The inclusion of all items can
make the FAD comparable across previous Indonesian FAD studies on the general popu-
lation, which include all items despite only employing classical test theory analysis of the
items (e.g., Anggraini, 2014; Gunawan & Setianingrum, 2018). Consequently, the low
factor loading resulted in low internal consistencies on four of seven factors, which
were related to the sample since reliabilities are not the property of the test itself (See-
landt, 2018). These findings highlight the limitations of this study.
10 D. MUTIAH ET AL.

After the measurement model based on the IFA was fit to the data, the inclusion of
covariates by means of the MIMIC model revealed several significant direct effects.
Regarding gender differences, there were significant negative direct effects on
problem-solving (β = −.064**) and affective responsiveness (β = −.037*), indicating that,
overall, males scored higher than did females. Some studies that examined gender differ-
ences in social problem-solving (e.g., Miller & Crouch, 1991; Murphy & Ross, 1987) revealed
that females were superior to males (Murphy & Ross, 1987). The findings of this study con-
tradict these findings since the situational context and cultural aspects differ. Future
research is needed to examine this topic more deeply. Regarding affective responsive-
ness, the findings correspond to previous findings that males often have more intense
emotional experiences (Deng et al., 2016).
Significant direct negative effects of age on roles (b = −.046**), behaviour control (b =
−.028*), and general functioning aspects (b = −.033*) were identified, indicating that
younger respondents will score higher on these three aspects. Although not specifically
studied for each factor separately, age differences proved to moderate the relationship
between family functioning and health issues (Guzy et al., 2016). In the samples, it is sus-
pected that the younger respondents will be more attached to the family since a younger
age correlates with fewer semesters, indicating less time spent in university; these individ-
uals most likely comprise fresh high school graduates rather than older participants due
to the less time spent in university.
There were significant negative direct effects of place of living on problem-solving (β =
−.044**), roles (β = −.067**) and behaviour control (β = −.034, indicating that the respondents
who lived in kost had lower scores in those three aspects than did the respondents who lived
at home during Ramadan amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a novel finding since such
specific context-based studies are not found in the literature. It was concluded that the com-
bination of challenges faced by migrant students related to the uncertainty regarding the
continuation of their university education, spending Ramadan far away from home, and
being in the early phase of COVID-19 – which they had never faced before – will impact
family functioning. The difference between students who live in kost far away from home
and those at home, which resulted in new findings, can be further explored in the future.
Regarding the two other covariates – residential area and language use in daily life – no
significant effect was found on any factor. This is a positive finding, since the MIMIC model, as
is well known, can be used for differential item functioning (DIF) detection or measurement
invariance (Schumaker & Lomax, 2016). The Indonesian FAD was invariant across the covari-
ates of residential area and language use in daily life. Specifically for language use in daily life,
the non-significant effect corresponded to previous studies, which proved that the differ-
ences in language can be a source of item bias or DIF (e.g., Gibbons et al., 2011; van Widenfelt
et al., 2005). This did not emerge in the samples; instead, the results favoured the previous
findings that Bahasa Indonesia was a unifier of the entire country (Suryadi et al., 2021).
Lastly, there is one important factor that was not considered in this study, which is the aca-
demic aspect. The main purpose of Indonesian university students moving to big cities is to
obtain better education in prestigious universities mainly on the island of Java. A previous
study revealed that across Indonesia’s vast geographical area, the academic performance
and motivation combined with inequality of education across regions are major challenges
(Rahayu et al., 2020), which have become harder to face during the COVID-19 pandemic
(Rahayu et al., 2021). Future research should consider exploring the academic aspect.
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 11

This study’s limitations can provide some recommendations for future research. First,
the findings of this study cannot be generalised to clinical sample settings because it
was conducted on relatively non-clinical undergraduate students, and the responses to
the survey cannot necessarily be considered to reflect the opinions of clinical samples.
Second, in addition to the data collected using the non-probability sampling method,
it would be preferable to obtain data using multistage sampling (e.g., multilevel data)
in the future, as this will provide rich information to help capture data from the Indone-
sian archipelago’s vast geographical area.

Conclusions
In summary, using IFA statistical analyses, the psychometric characteristics of the Indone-
sian FAD are acceptable, with demonstrated construct validity and internal reliability
across the seven dimensions. Further, the current research highlights the interrelation
with background variables’ data on the various dimensions of the FAD. The next phase
of validation of the FAD requires replication of the current research using a new
sample, with a focus on a sampling technique that takes into account the multilevel struc-
ture of data across Indonesia’s vast geographical area and includes a greater proportion of
male participants. Overall, the current study supports the utility of the FAD as a reliable
and valid measure of family functioning.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Ethical approval
The study protocol was approved by the Institute for Research and Community Service
(LP2M; Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat), Faculty of Psychology,
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta, Indonesia (Reference No. B-114/
LP2M/TL.01.1/07/2020). Participants consented to participate in the study and consented
to the results being published according to the ethical approval in accordance with the
ethical standards as prescribed in the Declaration of Helsinki and Rector Decree No.
475a/2017 titled Kode Etik Penelitian dan Publikasi Ilmiah (Research and Publication Ethics).

ORCID
Diana Mutiah http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4934-6825
Ros Mayasari http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1905-6819
Tina Deviana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4730-6475
12 D. MUTIAH ET AL.

References
Adi, G. N., & Rochman, A. (2020, March 15). Regions close schools, cancel public events because of
COVID-19. The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/03/15/regions-close-
schools-cancel-public-events-because-of-covid-19.html
Anggraini, M. T. (2014). Perbedaan fungsi keluarga dan kualitas hidup antara mahasiswa kedokteran
dan non kedokteran. [Differences in family function and quality of life between medical students
and non-medical]. Unpublished master thesis, Universitas Sebelas Maret.
Barroilhet, S. A., Adrian, C., Cervera-Enguix, S., & Forjaz, M. J. (2009). A spanish version of the Family
Assessment Device. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44(12), 1051-1065. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00127-009-0022-8
Beierlein, V., Bultmann, J. C., Moller, B., von Klitzing, K., Flechtner, H., Resch, F., Herzog, W., Brahler, E.,
Fuhrer, D., Romer, G., Koch, U., & Bergelt, C. (2017). Measuring family functioning in families with
parental cancer: Reliability and validity of the German adaptation of the Family Assessment
Device (FAD). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 93, 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpsychores.2016.11.007
Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R., & Muraki, E. (1988). Full-information item factor analysis. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 12(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200305
Brock, R. L., & Laifer, L. M. (2020). Family science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: Solutions
and new directions. Family Process, 59(3), 1007-1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12582
Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia. (2020). COVID-19 task force head reaffirms “Mudik”
ban. Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia. https://setkab.go.id/en/covid-19-task-force-
head-reaffirms-mudik-ban/
Dein, S., Loewenthal, K., Lewis, C. A., & Pargament, K. I. (2020). COVID-19, mental health and religion:
An agenda for future research. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 23(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13674676.2020.1768725
Deng, Y., Chang, L., Yang, M., Huo, M., & Zhou, R. (2016). Gender differences in emotional response:
Inconsistency between experience and expressivity. PloS ONE, 11(6), e0158666. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0158666
Elmer, T., Mepham, K., & Stadtfeld, C. (2020). Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’
social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS
ONE, 15(7), e0236337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236337
Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1983.tb01497.x
Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D. S., & Levin, S. (1978). The McMaster model of family functioning. Journal of
Marriage and Family Counseling, 4(4), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1978.tb00537.x
Fisher, J., Languilaire, J., Lawthom, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Petts, R. J., Runswick-Cole, K., & Yerkes, M. A.
(2020). Community, work, and family in times of COVID-19. Community, Work & Family, 23(3), 247-
252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2020.1756568
Gibbons, L., Mehta, K. M., Pedraza, O., Tang, Y., Manly, J. J., Narasimhalu, K., Teresi, J., Jones, R. N., &
Mungas, D. (2011). Multiple, correlated covariates associated with differential item functioning
(DIF): Accounting for language DIF when education levels differ across languages. Ageing
Research, 2(1), e4. https://doi.org/10.4081/ar.2011.e4
Guessoum, S. B., Lachal, J., Radjack, R., Carretier, E., Minassian, S., Benoit, & Moro, M. R. (2020).
Adolescent psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Psychiatry
Research, 291, 113264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113264
Gunawan, B. A., & Setianingrum, M. E. (2018). Hubungan antara keberfungsian keluarga dengan self-
regulated learning pada siswa yang tinggal di asrama. [The relationship between family function-
ing and self-regulation learning for students who live in dormitories]. Persona: Jurnal Psikologi
Indonesia, 7(2), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.30996/persona.v7i2.1574
Guzy, G., Polczyk, R., Szpitalak, M., & Vernon, H. (2016). Age moderates the relationship between
family functioning and neck pain/disability. PloS ONE, 11(4), e0153606. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0153606
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 13

Handayani, N., Kusumawati, A., & Indraswari, R. (2021). COVID-19 prevention practice among
Indonesian Moslem toward eid al-fitr. Annals of Tropical Medicine & Public Health, 24(1),
SP24128. https://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2021.24128
Hayat, B., Hidayat, R., & Putra, M. D. K. (2020). Exploring the factor structure of environmental atti-
tudes measure in a sample of Indonesian college students. Revista CES Psicologia, 14(1), 112-129.
https://doi.org/10.21615/cesp.14.1.9
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Herawati, T., & Endah, N. Y. (2016). The effect of family function and conflict on family subjective
well-being with migrant husband. Journal of Family Sciences, 1(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.
29244/jfs.1.2.1-12
Johar, M., & Maruyama, S. (2011). Intergenerational cohabitation in modern Indonesia: Filial support
and dependence. Health Economics, 20(S1), 87-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1708
Joreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and mul-
tiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(351a),
631-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1975.10482485
Juliusdottir, G. M., & Olafsdottir, H. (2015). An Icelandic version of McMasters Family Assessment
Device (FAD). Research on Social Work Practice, 25(7), 815-827. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1049731514538673
Kabacoff, R. I., Miller, I. W., Bishop, D. S., Epstein, N. B., & Keitner, G. I. (1990). A psychometric study of
the McMaster Family Assessment Device in psychiatric, medical, and nonclinical samples. Journal
of Family Psychology, 3(4), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080547
Kazarian, S. S. (2010). Cultural appropriateness of the Family Assessment Device (FAD) in the case of
ethnic Armenian adolescents in Lebanon. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 56(3), 230-238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764009105646
Lai, K., & Green, S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA
and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2-3), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00273171.2015.1134306
Loewenthal, K. M. & Lewis, C. A. (2020). An introduction to psychological tests and scales (3rd ed.).
Psychology Press.
Mansfield, A. K., Keitner, G. I., & Dealy, J. (2015). The Family Assessment Device: An update. Family
Process, 54(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12080
Miller, C. J., & Crouch, J. G. (1991). Gender differences in problem solving: Expectancy and problem
context. The Journal of Psychology, 125(3), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1991.10543296
Modanloo, S., Rohani, C., Farahani, A. S., Vasli, P., & Pourhosseingholi, A. (2019). General family func-
tioning as a predictor of quality of life in parents of children with cancer. Journal of Pediatric
Nursing, 44, e2-e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2018.08.013
Murphy, L. O., & Ross, S. M. (1987). Gender differences in the social problem-solving performance of
adolescents. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 16(5-6), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00289953
Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-
normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 171–189.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a monte carlo study to decide on sample size and
determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM0904_8
Nakaya, A. (2018). Overcoming ethnic conflict through multicultural education: The case of West
Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20(1), 118-137. https://
doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1549
Ohara, C., Komaki, G., Yamagata, Z., Hotta, M., Kamo, T., & Ando, T. (2016). Factors associated with
caregiving burden and mental health conditions in caregivers of patients with anorexia
nervosa in Japan. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 10(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-016-0073-5
Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: VI.
Theoretical update. Family Process, 22(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1983.00069.x
14 D. MUTIAH ET AL.

Padial-Ruz, R., Perez-Turpin, J. A., Cepero-Gonzalez, M., & Zurita-Ortega, F. (2020). Effects of physical
self-concept, emotional isolation, and family functioning on attitudes towards physical education
in adolescents: Structural equation analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 17(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010094
Pan, Y., Yang, Z., Han, X., & Qi, S. (2021). Family functioning and mental health among secondary
vocational students during the COVID-19 epidemic: A moderated mediation model. Personality
and Individual Differences, 171, 110490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110490
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious coping:
Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 519-543.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200004)56:4<519::AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-1
Parker, L., & Nilan, P. (2013). Adolescents in contemporary Indonesia. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.
4324/9780203522073
Qudsyi, H., Sa’diyah, S. K., & Mahara, R. (2020). Family functioning, peer support, and student
engagement among high school students in Central Java island, Indonesia. In F. L. Gaol, F.
Hutagalung, & C. F. Peng (Eds.), The social sciences empowered (pp. 145-152). CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429444562
Rahayu, W., Putra, M. D. K., Rahmawati, Y., Iriyadi, D., & Koul, R. B. (2020). A Rasch and factor analysis
of an Indonesian version of the Student Perception of Opportunity Competence Development
(SPOCD) Questionnaire. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1721633. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.
2020.1721633
Rahayu, W., Putra, M. D. K., Faturochman, Meiliasari, Sulaeman, E., & Koul, R. B. (2021). Development
and validation of Online Classroom Learning Environment Inventory (OCLEI): The case of
Indonesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Learning Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10984-020-09342-x
Ratcliffe, R. (2020, March 2). First coronavirus cases confirmed in Indonesia amid fears nation is ill-
prepared for outbreak. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/02/first-
coronavirus-cases-confirmed-in-indonesia-amid-fears-nation-is-ill-prepared-for-outbreak
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as
continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under
suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354-373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
Robinson, K. (2016). Educational aspirations and inter-generational relations in Sorowako. In K.
Robinson (Ed.), Youth identities and social transformations in modern Indonesia (pp. 69-90). Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004307445
Roncone, R., Rossi, L., Muiere, E., Impallomeni, M., Matteucci, M., Giacomelli, R., Tonietti, G., &
Casacchia, M. (1998). The Italian version of the Family Assessment Device. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33(9), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050079
Schanzel, H. A., & Smith, K. A. (2014). The socialization of families away from home: Group dynamics
and family functioning on holiday. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 36(2), 126–143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.857624
Schonrock-Adema, J., Heijne-Penninga, M., van Hell, E. A., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2009). Necessary
steps in factor analysis: Enchanching validation studies of educational instruments. The PHEEM
applied to clerks as an example. Medical Teacher, 31(6), e226-e232. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01421590802516756
Schröder-Butterfill, E. (2004). Inter-generational family support provided by older people in
Indonesia. Ageing & Society, 24(4), 497–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X0400234X
Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed).
Routledge.
Seelandt, J. C. (2018). Quality control: Assessing reliability and validity. In E. Brauner, M. Boos, & M.
Kolbe (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 227–244). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.013
Shek, D. T. L. (2002). Assessment of family functioning in Chinese adolescents: The Chinese version
of the Family Assessment Device. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(4), 502-524. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1049731502012004003
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 15

Shi, D., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Rosseel, Y. (2020). Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: SRMR
vs. RMSEA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10705511.2019.1611434
Spagnoletti, B. (2020). Indonesia’s lockdown dilemma: Mudik is a safety net for some, but may
worsen the Covid-19 public health disaster. Indonesia at Melbourne. https://
indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/indonesias-lockdown-dilemma-mudik-is-a-safety-net-
for-some-but-may-worsen-the-covid-19-public-health-disaster/
Speranza, M., Guenole, F., Revah-Levy, A., Egler, P., Negadi, F., Falissard, B., & Baleyte, J. M. (2012). The
French version of the Family Assessment Device. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57(9), 570-
577. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371205700908
Suryadi, B., Hayat, B., & Putra, M. D. K. (2020). Evaluating psychometric properties of the Muslim Daily
Religiosity Assessment Scale (MUDRAS) in Indonesian samples using the Rasch model. Mental
Health, Religion & Culture, 23(3-4), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1795822
Suryadi, B., Hayat, B., & Putra, M. D. K. (2021). The Indonesian version of the Life Orientation Test-
revised (LOT-R): Psychometric properties based on the Rasch model. Cogent Psychology, 8(1),
1869375. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1869375
Traebert, E., Parma, G. O. C., & Traebert, J. (2016). Internal construct validity of a Brazilian version of
the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Jornal Brasileiro de Psiquiatria, 65(4), 309-313. https://
doi.org/10.1590/0047-2085000000138
Tsamparli, A., Petmeza, I., McCarthy, G., & Adamis, D. (2018). The Greek version of the McMaster
Family Assessment Device. PsyCh Journal, 7(3), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.218
van Widenfelt, B. M., Treffers, P. D. A., de Beurs, E., Siebelink, B. M., & Koudijs, E. (2005). Translation
and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with chil-
dren and families. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10567-005-4752-1
Wenniger, W. F., Hageman, W. J., & Arrindell, W. A. (1993). Cross-national validity of dimensions of
family functioning: First experiences with the Dutch version of the McMaster Family
Assessment Device (FAD). Personality and Individual Differences, 14(6), 769-781. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0191-8869(93)90090-P
Worldometers. (2021). Indonesia population. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
indonesia-population/