@ma1

of Adolescence 1992, 15, 101-l 14

Parent and adolescent perceptions of family functioning: a comparison of clinic and non-clinic families PATRICIA

NOLLER”, MARY AND ROBERT

SETH-SMITH, SCHWEITZER

RUTH

BOUMA

In this paper two studies are reported which compare (a) the perceptions of family functioning held by clinic and non-clinic adolescents, and (b) the perceptions of family functioning held by adolescents and their mothers in clinic and non-clinic families. In Study 1, matched group of clinic and non-clinic adolescents were compared on their responses to a 30-item scale (ICPS) designed to measure three factors of family functioning: Intimacy (high vs. low), Parenting Style (democratic VS. controlled) and Conflict (high VS. low). Clinic and non-clinic adolescents were also compared on their responses to a multi-dimensional measure of adolescent self-concept. Although there was little difference between the two groups of adolescents in terms of their perceptions of family functioning, there were strong relationships between the self-concept variables and the family functioning variables. In Study 2, comparisons were made between the perceptions of family functioning held by mothers and adolescents for both clinical and non-clinic families. There were no differences between the two groups of adolescents in terms of their perceptions of family functioning, although there were clear differences between the two groups of mothers. In addition, clinic adolescents and their mothers did not differ in their perceptions of the family, whereas adolescents in the non-clinic group saw their families significantly as less intimate and more conflicted than did their mothers.

INTRODUCTION

An interesting issue in the literature on families with adolescents is the question of which family members provide the most objective data about the family, parents or adolescents. Niemi (1968; 1974) argued that neither parent nor adolescents provide accurate accounts of family life, with both having biases in different directions. Niemi has maintained, however, that parents are probably more biased (or less objective) about their families *Reprint Cniversity

requests should be addressed to of Queensland, Queensland, Australia

0140.1971/92/020101+14$03.00/0

0

1992 The

Patricia 4072 Association

Noller,

Department

for the Psychiatric

of

Study

Psychology,

of Adolescents

102

P. NOLLER ET AL.

because of the high levels of investment they have in their families, while adolescents tend to have lower levels of investment and are thus more likely to be objective. Bengtson and his colleagues (Bengtson and Kuypers, 1971; Bengtson and Troll, 1978) have proposed that each generation views family life in terms of its own bias or stake. Adolescents who are in the process of establishing themselves as individuals and separating from their families take a more negative view, while parents, looking for validation of their efforts on behalf of their families, are likely to take a more positive view. This position has become known as the generational stake hypothesis. (See also Noller and Callan, 1991 for a more detailed discussion of this issue.) Differences between family members in their perceptions of family interactions and family relationships are common, with low to moderate agreement being the norm (Jessop, 1981; Olson et al., 1983). In addition, a number of studies have shown that parents perceive their families as more loving, closer, more understanding and more adaptive to stress, and parents tend to rate family communication as more open and less problematic than do their adolescents (Noller and Callan, 1986; Olson et al., 1983). In earlier work, we have found clear evidence for differences between parents and their adolescents in their assessments of the family, and of the more negative views of adolescents, using quite different methodologies. Noller and Callan (1986) used the Family Cohesion and Evaluation Scales (FACES III) to measure levels of cohesion and adaptability in the family. Mothers, fathers and adolescents provided ratings of the current state of the family as well as ratings of how they would like the family to be. There was a systematic tendency for adolescents to view their families more negatively (that is, as less cohesive and less adaptable) than did their parents. In a different study, Callan and Noller (1986) videotaped parents and adolescents in two discussions. During playback of the videotape, both parents and the adolescent made ratings of each of the family members (including themselves) at IS-second intervals on scales of anxious ZIS. calm, involved ‘us. uninvolved, strong OS. weak and friendly VS. unfriendly. While the adolescents’ rating of friendliness were similar to those of their parents, their ratings on the other scales were lower than those of their parents. Adolescents rated family members as more anxious, less involved and weaker than did their parents. Noller and Callan (1988) compared ratings within a family, by both parents and an adolescent, with ratings by the members of a matched family. The outsider family tended to rate family members more negatively than they rated themselves, but the ratings by the adolescent matched these more negative ratings of the outsider family. When both sets of ratings were compared with those of a trained observer, however, the picture

103

PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING

became

even

highly

more

correlated

insider

family,

complex. with

but

Ratings

ratings

the

by the trained

by the

trained

outsider

observer

observer

family

seemed

In other words, there were and insider family members

positivity of their ratings. The purpose of the studies

to be reported

using

both

similar

in parents’

a clinical

differences

problems

with their

ratings

of

the

perspective

family

families

in a good between both

than

however,

is that

negative

light

non-clinic stake

and

in the

parents

first

study,

of their

family

parents

and their

and

compared

clinic

help

with in

From

one would

the

predict

that,

have the same stake in seeing

their

in non-clinic

non-clinic

families,

should

the dif-

similar,

even

may see their

families

more

families.

families

then

remain A further

begin

to see their

possibility, family

in a

stake”. and

reports

non-clinic

of their

from

of their

for

in differences

adolescents.

hypothesis,

adolescents

of the intimacy,

adolescents

in terms

to see whether

clinic

adolescents

in clinic

perceptions

in order to a clinic

and the adolescents

light and “lose their

In the

and

families

as do parents

parents those

referred

the ques-

of the family,

We were also interested

in clinic

the parents

negatively

the

by

that parents

ferences

terms

adolescent.

a similar

perceptions

sample,

in families

of the generational

provided

though

and a non-clinical occur

of the

few differences in terms of the

here was to examine

and adolescents’

more

those

to be using

metric to the insider family. between the trained observer

tion of differences

were

than

both

conflict

self-concept. clinic

perceptions

and

are compared

and level of control In the

control

of family

second

families

in in

study, are

also

functioning.

METHOD

Subjects There

was considerable

but the two samples the

adolescents

because

were

of patterned

overlap

between

will be described not

included

responding

the samples

separately. in

the

analyses

to the measure

in the two studies

(Responses for

the

of self-concept

of three first

and those

of two families were not included in the analyses for the second because family members had not completed the measure of family tioning.)

The

clinical

group

for the first study

comprised

of

study

11 girls

study funcand 22

boys between the ages of 12 and 16, with a mean age of 14.0 years. All of the adolescents had been referred by a parent, teacher or health service practitioner to one of three Child Guidance Clinics in Brisbane, Australia between March and September, 1989. Clinical subjects were matched for age, sex, family structure and socio-economic status by 33 adolescents

104

P. NOLLER ET AL.

with no history of clinical referral, recruited from families living in various Brisbane suburbs. Adolescents were included in the control group only after it was established that their total behaviour problem score in the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1979) fell within normal limits. Eleven males and six females in each group were living in intact families, eight males and four females were living in single-parent families and three males and one female were living in step-families. The mean age of the control group was 14.1 years. The sample was generally middle-class, although there was some variability. For the second study, the clinical adolescent group consisted of 30 mothers and their children who attended child guidance clinics in Brisbane during the period between March and August, 1989. The adolescents were aged between 12 and 16 years, with a mean age of 14.2 years. There were 19 males and 11 females. Twenty of the adolescents came from intact families and 10 came from widowed or divorced families. The families were predominantly middle-class. The control group consisted of 30 families matched for age, sex of child, family structure and socioeconomic status with the families in the clinical group. Procedure

Mothers completed the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1979) and the ICPS F amily functioning Scales (Noller, 1988) while the adolescents completed the Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ II; Marsh, Parker and Barnes, 1985) and the ICPS Family Functioning Scales. Questionnaires were distributed in a variety of orders to ensure that any effects due to order were minimized. All questionnaires were administered by either the second or third authors and their completion was supervised by them. For clinic subjects, questionnaires were administered during the intake procedures at the clinic. Adolescents filled in the Self-Description Questionnaire and the ICPS Family Functioning Scales while the mother was being interviewed by the therapist, and the mother filled out the Child Behavior Checklist while the adolescent was being interviewed by the therapist. Control subjects filled out the same questionnaires in their homes, with mothers and adolescents completing the instruments in separate rooms. Measures Child Behavior

Checklist

(CBCL)

The CBCL behavior problem scale consists of 120 items which encompass a wide range of problems related to mental health (e.g. cries a lot,

PERCEPTIONS

OF FAMILY

FUNCTIONING

105

complains of loneliness, argues a lot, behaves like the opposite sex, destroys things belonging to his/her family or other children). Responses are scored on a 3-point scale from 0 = not true (as far as you know) to 2 = very true or often true. The checklist has been shown to have high levels of reliability and validity (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983) and there is also evidence of close correspondence between reports of teachers and clinicians and reports of parents. Data from the Child Behavior Checklist will not be reported in detail here, except to say that behavior problem scores (as reported by mothers) for all adolescents in the clinical group were outside the normal range (see Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983) while none of the scores for control group adolescents were outside this range. The two groups were significantly different from one another (t = 9.95, p < 0.001 for males and t = 6.75, p < 0.001 for females). Self-Description

Questionnaire

The Self Description Scale (SDQ II) 1s . a multi-dimensional self-concept measure designed for self-administration by young adolescents (Marsh, Parker and Barnes, 1985). Subjects indicate their responses to 102 statements on a 6-point scale from 1 = false to 6 = true. Half the statements are negatively worded and half are positively worded. Each item loads on one of 11 subscales as described in Table 1. The Self-Description Questionnaire had high levels of reliability and validity (Marsh, Parker and Barnes, 1985). ICPS

family functioning

scales

The 30-item questionnaire used in the present study was developed from a set of 68 items originally designed to measure six hypothetical constructs determined as important to family functioning from the existing literature (Beavers and Voeller, 1983; Epstein, Bishop and Levin, 1978; Lee, 1988; Minuchin, 1974; Olson, Sprenkle and Russell, 1979). (The six hypothetical factors were adaptability, closeness, communication, encouragement of autonomy, family style and family structure, all defined linearly.) Some items were taken and/or modified from previous instruments such as FACES but many were original. All items were responded to on a 6-point scale from 1 = totally agree to 6 = totally disagree. The subjects for the initial development were 213 couples in stable marriages (i.e. 426 subjects). Responses from these 426 subjects were subjected to factor analysis and the best solution was one involving three factors from an oblique rotation: Intimacy (the extent of sharing and closeness, as well as expressiveness and openness in communication); Parenting Style (the extent to which

P. NOLLER ET AL.

106 Table 1.

Description of the SDQ II subscales

General Self A scale based on Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale, modified by Bachman (1970); e.g. “Overall, I have a lot to be proud of”. Emotional Stability Student perceptions of their emotional stability; e.g. “I am a calm person”. Honesty Student perceptions of their honesty and trustworthiness; do the right thing”.

e.g. “You can rely on me to

Physical abilities Student perceptions of their skills and interest in sports and physical activities; e.g. “I am lazy when it comes to sports and hard physical exercise”. Physical appearance Student perceptions of their physical attractiveness; e.g. “I hate the way I look”. Parent relations Students’ perceptions of their interactions with parents; e.g. “It is difficult for me to talk to my parents”. Same-sex relations and opposite-sex relations Student perceptions of their interactions with peers. Within each scale some items refer directly to same or opposite sex; e.g. “I enjoy spending time with friends of the same sex”. Other items refer to boys and girls and are scored according to the sex of the respondent; e.g. “I am popular with boys”. Mathematics Student perceptions of their mathematical skills and reasoning ability, enjoyment and interest in mathematics; e.g. “I hate mathematics”.

and their

Verbal Student perceptions of their verbal skills and reasoning ability and their enjoyment and interest in verbal activities; e.g. “I’m not very good at reading”. General school Student perceptions of their ability, interest in and enjoyment of school in general; e.g. “I have trouble with most school subjects”.

family members have a say in rules and decisions, and are encouraged to make up their own minds and stand on their own feet); and Conflict (the extent of misunderstanding and interference, and difficulty in solving problems and making plans). The questionnaire was reduced to 30 items and the factor loadings for these 30 items are presented in Table 2. This

PERCEPTIONS

Table 2.

OF FAMILY

107

FUNCTIONING

Factor loadings for 30-item ICPS scales with oblique rotation

Item Help and support each other We are honest with each other Parents usually agree Go along with family decisions Fell very close Show tenderness and affection Share interests and hobbies Accepted for what they are Listen and respect Show true feelings to each other Difficult issues dealt with Sort out problems by talking Work together to sort problems Show love, even when disagree Say in important decisions Flexible about who does what Children have say in rules Encouraged make up own minds No one has more say Members stand on own feet Hard to get rule changed Often misunderstand each other Interfere too much Lot of anger between members Interrupt and talk over others One parent sides with children Once decide, difficulty changing Decisions and plans a problem Easier to talk to outsiders Try to change others in big ways

Factor o-47 0.72 061 -064 0.66 0.71 0.53 0.76 0.69 0.72 -0.56 0.58 0.65 0.69 0.17 O-29 -0-09 0.27 0.05 0.02 -0.21 O-06 -0.09 0.18 -0.09 o-22 -0-13 O-09 0.23 0.18

1

Factor 0.09 0.08 -0.06 0.21 -0.13 -0.71 -0.11 0.08 0.11 -0.01 0.08 0.05 0.04 -0.05 047 0.38 0.79 0.45 -0.61 0.43 0.20 -0-07 -0.05 -0.16 -0.10 -0.07 0.15 -0.02 -0.13 0.06

2

Factor

3

O-15 -0.05 0.02 0.13 -0-13 O-07 0.11 -0.11 O-06 O-02 -0.10 0.17 O-16 0.02 0.12 -0-07 -0.07 0.09 0.16 -0-04 0.56 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.55 O-50 0.51 0.56 0.43 0.47

factor structure has since been supported in an analysis of the data from 169 high-school age children (Nolier and Terry, 1990). Analyses carried out during the development of the questionnaire have shown strong evidence of the reliability and validity of this instrument. Alpha coefficients were calculated at 0.92 for Intimacy, 0.68 for Parenting Style and 0.82 for Conflict. Test-retest coefficients for the three scales were good: for Intimacy, 0.77, Conflict, 0.79 and Parenting Style 0.81, based on 46 subjects with an interval of 2 weeks. In addition, there are correlations between the ICPS scales and the Cohesion and Adaptability scales of FACES III (Olson, 1985) and the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). Cohesion was strongly positively correlated with Intimacy, and

108

P. NOLLER

ET AL.

negatively correlated with Conflict. There were moderate positive correlations between Cohesion and Parenting Style, Adaptability and Parenting Style, and Conflict Tactics and Conflict. (A copy of the instruments and a manual are available from the first author.) We have also found correlations between personality variables (self-esteem, anxiety and loneliness) and the ICPS Family Functioning Scales to be generally highly significant, supporting the probability that these scales are tapping highly important aspects of family life which have implications for adult personality and functioning.

RESULTS

AND DISCUSSION

Study

1

Two MAXOVAs with sex and group (clinic or control) were conducted on the adolescent reports of their self-concept using the Self-Description Questionnaire. The academic variables and the non-academic variables were analysed separately. For the academic variables, there was a main effect for sex, multivariate F(3,60) = 2.99, p < O-05 and a main effect for group, multivariate F(3,60) = 2.79, p < 0.05. Verbal self-concept was significantly higher for females than males, F(1,62) = 5.99, p < 0.02 and general school scores were lower for the clinic group than for the control group, F(1,62) = 8,66, p < 0.005. There was no group by sex interaction. For the non-academic variables, there was again no interaction of group and sex, but there were main effects for both group, multivariate F(8,55) = 3.46, p < 0.003, and for sex, multivariate F(8,.55) = 2.46, p < O-05, although the sex effect is fairly weak. The strongest differences between the clinic and non-clinic groups involved the clinic group obtaining lower scores for general self-esteem, F(1,62) = 15.84, p