Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES-III)

Abstract

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES-III) is a widely utilized psychometrics instrument developed by David H. Olson and colleagues. It is the third iteration of the instrument designed to operationalize the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. The scale measures two core dimensions of family functioning: Cohesion and Adaptability. This 20-item self-report scale assesses both the current perceived functioning of the family (Real Form) and the desired level of functioning (Ideal Form), allowing for the analysis of discrepancies and the classification of families into one of 16 structural types.

Keywords

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III, FACES-III, Circumplex Model, Family Systems Theory, Cohesion, Adaptability, Family Assessment, Family Functioning, Marital and Family Therapy.

Authors

David H. Olson, Joyce Portner, Yoav Lavee, Douglas H. Sprenkle, Candyce S. Russell.

Purpose

The principal purpose of the FACES-III is to provide a standardized, quantitative assessment of the two fundamental dimensions of the family system derived from the Circumplex Model: Cohesion and Adaptability. By measuring these dimensions, the instrument allows researchers and clinicians to categorize families into structural types that range from balanced (optimal functioning) to extreme (potentially dysfunctional).

In clinical settings, FACES-III is used as a diagnostic tool to identify areas of significant systemic strain or strength, facilitating targeted interventions in family therapy. The comparison between the Real and Ideal forms provides valuable insight into the family members’ satisfaction with their current dynamics and their aspirations for change. For research purposes, the scale is crucial for conducting normative studies, cross-cultural comparisons, and examining how family structures evolve across the family life cycle.

Construct

FACES-III measures the constructs of Family Cohesion and Family Adaptability. Family Cohesion is defined as the emotional bonding that family members experience toward one another. This includes feelings of closeness, the establishment of boundaries, the amount of time spent together, the involvement in decision-making, and shared interests. Cohesion is categorized into four levels: Disengaged (very low bonding), Separated (low to moderate bonding), Connected (moderate to high bonding), and Enmeshed (very high bonding).

Family Adaptability, also referred to as flexibility, measures the family system’s capacity to change its power structure, role assignments, and relationship rules in response to situational or developmental stressors. Adaptability is also categorized into four levels: Rigid (very low flexibility), Structured (low to moderate flexibility), Flexible (moderate to high flexibility), and Chaotic (very high flexibility). The Circumplex Model posits that healthy family functioning is typically associated with moderate or balanced levels of both Cohesion and Adaptability.

Validity

FACES-III has been the subject of numerous validation studies since its publication in 1986. Construct validity has been explored through its correlation with family satisfaction and other measures of family health. Olson (1986) reported evidence supporting the scale’s ability to differentiate between balanced and unbalanced family types, aligning with the theoretical predictions of the Circumplex Model.

However, debates surrounding the scale’s validity center on the method of scoring. While the Circumplex Model is based on a curvilinear hypothesis (moderate scores being optimal), empirical studies often found that FACES-III exhibited stronger predictive utility when scored linearly, where higher scores generally indicated greater family satisfaction and better outcomes. This challenge influenced the subsequent refinement of the instrument in later versions, such as FACES-IV, which explicitly sought to improve the curvilinear measurement properties.

Reliability

Reliability estimates for FACES-III are generally acceptable, although they vary significantly between the two subscales. Studies focusing on Internal Consistency, primarily using Cronbach’s Alpha, show that the Cohesion subscale typically performs well, often reporting values around 0.83 in normative samples (Olson, 1986).

Conversely, the Adaptability subscale often exhibits lower reliability, with reported alpha coefficients frequently falling between 0.60 and 0.65. This lower consistency in the Adaptability dimension is a recognized psychometric limitation of FACES-III and contributed to the necessity of further scale development to ensure more robust measurement across both dimensions.

Factor Analysis

Initial Factor Analysis of FACES-III was conducted to confirm the scale’s theoretical two-factor structure (Cohesion and Adaptability). The results generally supported the existence of two distinct factors, confirming that the dimensions were largely orthogonal, as intended by the Circumplex Model design.

Despite supporting the two-factor structure overall, detailed factor analysis revealed certain items, particularly those related to leadership and rule setting, sometimes cross-loaded onto both factors or did not load strongly onto their intended dimension. This suggested a slight empirical deviation from the strict theoretical definitions, leading to adjustments in the item composition and scoring algorithms in later revisions of the instrument.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory based on the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems.

Format: 20 items total (10 for Cohesion, 10 for Adaptability). Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Almost never) to 5 (Almost always). It is administered in two forms: Real (current perception) and Ideal (desired perception).

Language Available: English (original), widely translated into numerous languages including Spanish, German, Chinese, and others, supporting its use in international family research.

Population Group: Families, couples, and individuals reporting on their family of origin or current family structure. It is often used to capture the perspective of different family members simultaneously.

Age Group: Typically utilized with adolescents (12 years and older) and adults who possess sufficient reading comprehension to respond accurately to abstract family concepts.

Population Details: Used extensively in both clinical populations (e.g., families seeking therapy, substance abuse treatment) and non-clinical, normative samples across various socio-economic and cultural groups.

Test Methodology: Linear scoring is commonly applied, where subscale totals determine the level of Cohesion and Adaptability. These scores are then plotted onto the Circumplex grid to categorize the family structure (e.g., flexibly connected, chaotically disengaged).

Keywords

Family assessment, Family dynamics, Psychological scale, Cohesion measurement, Adaptability measurement, Systemic therapy, Family life cycle, Psychometric inventory.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: David H. Olson, Ph.D., Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The FACES-III was formally published in 1986. While FACES-III has been widely used in academic settings, specific licensing and fee information should be directed toward the primary author’s affiliated institution (University of Minnesota, Family Social Science) or the distributor of the most current version (FACES-IV). The instrument is frequently available for non-commercial research use. A related resource, the Healthy Marriages Compendium, Part 2, can be downloaded here: Healthy Marriages Compendium, Part 2 (PDF).

Reference’s

• Olson, David H., Sprenkle, Douglas H., and Russell, Candyce S. (1979). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: I. Cohesion and Adaptability Dimensions, Family Types, and Clinical Applications. Family Process, 18(1); 3–28.
• Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell R. Q. (1982). FACES II: Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota.
• Olson, David H., Portner, J.and Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-II. St Paul. Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
• Olson, D. H., McCubbing, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Family inventories: Inventories in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (rev. ed.). St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.
• Olson, David H. (1986). Circumplex Model VII: Validation Studies and FACES III. Family Process, 25(3); 337–351.
• Daley, James G., Sowers-Hoagf, Karen and Thyer, Bruce A. (1990). Are FACES-II “family satisfaction’ scores valid”?. Journal of Family Therapy ( 1990) 12: 77-81.
• Olson, D. H., & Diesel, J. (1993). FACES III: Linear scoring and interpretation, St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.
• Tzeng, Oliver C. S . (1993). Measurement of love and intimate relations: Theories, scales, and applications for love development, maintenance, and dissolution. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
• Information regarding the subsequent instrument version can be found at: http://www.facesiv.com/.

Items of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES-III)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

DESCRIBE YOUR FAMILY NOW:

1. Family members ask each other for help.
2. In solving problems‚ the children’s suggestions are followed.
3. We approve of each other’s friends.
4. Children have a say in their discipline.
5. We like to do things with just our immediate family.
6. Different persons act as leaders in our family.
7. Family members feel closer to other family members than to people outside the family.
8. Our family changes its way of handling tasks.
9. Family members like to spend free time with each other.
10. Parent(s) and children discuss punishment together.
11. Family members feel very close to each other.
12. The children make the decisions in our family.
13. When our family gets together for activities‚ everybody is present.
14. Rules change in our family.
15. We can easily think of things to do together as a family.
16. We shift household responsibilities from person to person.
17. Family members consult other family members on their decisions.
18. It is hard to identify the leader(s) in our family.
19. Family togetherness is very important.
20. It is hard to tell who does which household chores.

IDEALLY‚ HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR FAMILY TO BE:

21. Family members would ask each other for help.
22. In solving problems‚ the children’s suggestions would be followed.
23. We would approve of each other’s friends.
24. The children would have a say in their discipline.
25. We would like to do things with just our immediate family.
26. Different persons would act as leaders in our family.
27. Family members would feel closer to each other than to people outside the family.
28. Our family would change its way of handling tasks.
29. Family members would like to spend free time with each other.
30. Parent(s) and children would discuss punishment together.
31. Family members would feel very close to each other.
32. Children would make the decisions In our family.
33. When our family got together‚ everybody would be Present.
34. Rules would change in our family.
35. We could easily think of things to do together as a family .
36. We would shift household responsibilities from person to person.
37. Family members would consult each other on their decisions.
38. We would know who the leader(s) Was (were) in Our family.
39. Family togetherness would be very important.
40. We could tell who does which household chores.

The following items were also included in the source content, likely representing additional subscales or combined elements from the full battery:

• 1. Family members are involved in each others lives.
• 5. There are strict consequences for breaking the rules in our family.
• 10. Family members feel pressured to spend most free time together.
• 15. Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to other family members.
• 20. In solving problems‚ the children’s suggestions are followed.
• 25. Family members like to spend some of their free time with each other.
• 30. There is no leadership in this family.
• 35. It is important to follow the rules in our family.
• 40. Family members feel guilty if they want to spend time away from the family.
• 44. Family members are very good listeners.
• 46. Family members are able to ask each other for what they want.
• 50. Family members try to understand each other’s feelings.
• 54. Your family’s ability to cope with stress.
• 58. Your family’s ability to resolve conflict.
• 62. Family members concern for each other.

Response Scale: 1 = Almost never‚ 2 = Once in a while‚ 3 = Sometimes‚ 4 = Frequently‚ 5 = Almost always.