Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Family Environment Scale (family + environment_scale)
Selected AbstractsBlack Women and White Women: Do Perceptions of Childhood Family Environment Differ?FAMILY PROCESS, Issue 2 2007CASSANDRA M. CLAY M.S.W. Introduction: Few studies have examined racial differences in perceptions of childhood. Little is known about how Blacks perceive their own families, particularly the family environment that they experienced in childhood. Methods: A community sample of 290 women (55% White, 45% Black) from two-parent families, heterogeneous in age and social class, was examined using a self-administered questionnaire, including the Family Environment Scale (FES), followed by a focused interview. Siblings were used as collateral informants. Results: The psychometric properties of the FES showed remarkably little variation by race: The internal scale reliability, correlations between scales, and factor structures were quite similar. Although both White and Black women reported good childhood family environments, Black women when compared with White women rated their families of origin as more cohesive, organized, and expressive, and lower in conflict. Sibling responses corroborated these findings. Discussion: This study addresses a gap in the research literature and provides important evidence of strengths in Black family relationships as reported by a community sample of women. The psychometric properties of the FES, found to be strong for families of both races, lends support to our findings and those of other researchers who have used this measure. [source] Temperament and stress response in children with juvenile primary fibromyalgia syndromeARTHRITIS & RHEUMATISM, Issue 10 2003Paola M. Conte Objective To examine temperament, stress response, child psychological adjustment, family environment, pain sensitivity, and stress response differences between children and adolescents with juvenile primary fibromyalgia syndrome (JPFMS), children with arthritis, and healthy controls. Parental psychological adjustment was also measured. Methods Subjects included 16 children with JPFMS, 16 children with arthritis, and 16 healthy controls. Participants completed the Dimensions of Temperament Survey-Revised (DOTS-R), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Children's Depression Inventory, Family Environment Scale (FES), Sensitivity Temperament Inventory for Pain (STIP), and Youth Self-Report. Responsiveness to an acute stressor was assessed by measuring salivary cortisol levels before and after venipuncture. Parents were asked to complete the parent versions of the DOTS-R, FES, STIP, Child Behavior Checklist, and Symptom Checklist-90-Revised. Results Children and adolescents with JPFMS demonstrated more temperamental instability, increased levels of depression and anxiety, less family cohesion, and higher pain sensitivity compared with the other 2 groups. Parents of children with JPFMS, in rating themselves, also reported higher levels of anxiety and depression, and lower overall psychological adjustment compared with parents of children in the other groups. Conclusion These results suggest that a psychobiologic perspective may contribute to an increased understanding of JPFMS in children and adolescents, facilitating an approach to investigating the interaction of factors that appear to place a child at risk for development of a pain syndrome. Because temperamental instability, sensitivity to pain, vulnerability to stress, psychological adjustment, family context, and parental psychopathology are individual risk factors, the interaction of these factors may explain the breadth of symptoms associated with this pain syndrome, as well as its severity. [source] Implications of family environment and language development: comparing typically developing children to those with spina bifidaCHILD: CARE, HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT, Issue 5 2009B. Vachha Abstract Introduction This study examines the effect of family environment on language performance in children with myelomeningocele compared with age- and education-matched controls selected from the same geographic region. Methods Seventy-five monolingual (English) speaking children with myelomeningocele [males: 30; ages: 7,16 years; mean age: 10 years 1 month, standard deviation (SD) 2 years 7 months] and 35 typically developing children (males: 16; ages 7,16 years; mean age: 10 years 9 months, SD 2 years 6 months) participated in the study. The Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) and the Wechsler tests of intelligence were administered individually to all participants. The CASL measures four subsystems: lexical, syntactic, supralinguistic and pragmatic. Parents completed the Family Environment Scale (FES) questionnaire and provided background demographic information. Standard independent sample t -tests, chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to make simple comparisons between groups for age, socio-economic status, gender and ethnicity. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to detect associations between language and FES data. Group differences for the language and FES scores were analysed with a multivariate analysis of variance at a P -value of 0.05. Results For the myelomeningocele group, both Spearman correlation and partial correlation analyses revealed statistically significant positive relationships for the FES ,intellectual,cultural orientation' (ICO) variable and language performance in all subsystems (P < 0.01). For controls, positive associations were seen between: (1) ICO and lexical/semantic and syntactic subsystems; and (2) FES ,independence' and lexical/semantic and supralinguistic tasks. Conclusions The relationship between language performance and family environment appears statistically and intuitively sound. As in our previous study, the positive link between family focus on intellectually and culturally enhancing activities and language performance among children with myelomeningocele and shunted hydrocephalus remains robust. Knowledge of this relationship should assist parents and professionals in supporting language development through activities within the natural learning environment. [source] The impact of a social network intervention on retention in Belgian therapeutic communities: a quasi-experimental studyADDICTION, Issue 7 2006Veerle Soyez ABSTRACT Background Although numerous studies recognize the importance of social network support in engaging substance abusers into treatment, there is only limited knowledge of the impact of network involvement and support during treatment. The primary objective of this research was to enhance retention in Therapeutic Community treatment utilizing a social network intervention. Aims The specific goals of this study were (1) to determine whether different pre-treatment factors predicted treatment retention in a Therapeutic Community; and (2) to determine whether participation of significant others in a social network intervention predicted treatment retention. Design, setting and participants Consecutive admissions to four long-term residential Therapeutic Communities were assessed at intake (n = 207); the study comprised a mainly male (84.9%) sample of polydrug (41.1%) and opiate (20.8%) abusers, of whom 64.4% had ever injected drugs. Assessment involved the European version of the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI), the Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness scales (CMR), the Dutch version of the family environment scale (GKS/FES) and an in-depth interview on social network structure and perceived social support. Network members of different cohorts were assigned to a social network intervention, which consisted of three elements (a video, participation at an induction day and participation in a discussion session). Findings Hierarchical regression analyses showed that client-perceived social support (F1,198 = 10.9, P = 0.001) and treatment motivation and readiness (F1,198 = 8.8; P = 0.003) explained a significant proportion of the variance in treatment retention (model fit: F7,197 = 4.4; P = 0.000). By including the variable ,significant others' participation in network intervention' (network involvement) in the model, the fit clearly improved (F1,197 = 6.2; P = 0.013). At the same time, the impact of perceived social support decreased (F1,197 = 2.9; P = 0.091). Conclusions Participation in the social network intervention was associated with improved treatment retention controlling for other client characteristics. This suggests that the intervention may be of benefit in the treatment of addicted individuals. [source] | |||||||||||||