Realizations of Filial Responsibility (RFR)

Abstract

The Realizations of Filial Responsibility (RFR) scale is a specialized instrument designed to measure the degree to which adult children fulfill their perceived obligations and duties toward their aged parents. Developed by Seelbach and Sauer, the RFR focuses on the actual behaviors and actions undertaken by children—the “realizations”—in contrast to the parents’ mere expectations (which are often measured by related scales like the Filial Responsibility Expectations Scale, FRES).

The scale captures various dimensions of support, including affective attitudes (e.g., feeling responsible), instrumental aid (e.g., shopping, cleaning, financial help), and the frequency and proximity of contact. By assessing these realizations, researchers and clinicians can evaluate the level of intergenerational support and its impact on the morale and well-being of the elderly population.

Keywords

Filial Responsibility, Intergenerational Relations, Gerontology, Aged Parents, Social Support, Caregiving, Family Dynamics, Realizations of Filial Responsibility, RFR, Parent-Child Relationships.

Authors

Wayne C. Seelbach, W. J. Sauer

Purpose

The primary purpose of the RFR scale is to quantify the extent to which adult children provide tangible and emotional support to their elderly parents, thereby realizing the culturally or personally defined duties inherent in filial responsibility. The instrument serves as a metric for examining the gap between expected filial behavior and observed filial behavior, which is a critical factor in understanding the morale and psychological adjustment of older adults.

The scale is particularly useful in sociological and gerontology research to assess how changing family structures and geographical mobility affect the provision of care and support within the family unit.

Construct

The RFR measures the realization component of filial responsibility, focusing on measurable behaviors and relational states. The construct is multi-dimensional, encompassing:

• Attitudinal Realization: The perceived acceptance by the child of the obligation to care for the parent (Items 1-6).
• Instrumental and Social Support Realization: The actual provision of aid across various daily activities (Items 1-11, second set).
• Proximity and Contact Realization: The physical distance and frequency of visits, which are key indicators of accessibility for support.

Unlike scales that only capture abstract expectations, the RFR captures the parent’s perception of the child’s concrete actions, providing a direct assessment of realized support.

Validity

Although specific psychometric details are often detailed in the original journal articles (Seelbach, 1978), the RFR has demonstrated strong face and content validity by covering key domains of intergenerational support identified in family studies and gerontology. The scale’s utility is further supported by its inclusion in major clinical and research sourcebooks, suggesting established empirical relevance.

Studies utilizing the RFR often correlate its scores with measures of parental morale and life satisfaction, demonstrating criterion validity. For example, higher realization scores are typically associated with better psychological outcomes for aged parents, confirming the scale’s ability to measure a psychologically relevant construct.

Reliability

The original research by Seelbach and Sauer (1977, 1978) established the reliability of the RFR through measures such as internal consistency and test-retest stability. While specific coefficient alpha values are not provided in the summary content, the scale components—particularly the instrumental aid checklist—are designed for high reliability due to their objective nature (i.e., whether aid was or was not provided).

Factor Analysis

Detailed factor analysis results are typically presented in the primary research literature (Seelbach, 1978). Given the structure of the RFR, which addresses both affective attitudes (Items 1-6) and concrete behavioral support (Items 1-11), it is likely that factor analysis reveals distinct subscales corresponding to these different aspects of realized filial duty. The separation of proximity/contact items also suggests a multi-factorial structure reflecting various modes of support realization.

Instrument

Test Type: Parental Self-Report/Perception of Child’s Behavior

Format: Multi-part questionnaire utilizing a Likert-type scale (for attitudes) and a categorical checklist (for instrumental realization and proximity).

Language Available: English (Original); translations may exist in subsequent research applications (e.g., Chandra, 2016, used it in the context of India).

Population Group: Older Adults/Aged Parents

Age Group: Typically 65 years and older

Population Details: Used primarily in studies involving intact families where adult children are available to provide support, focusing on intergenerational dynamics and support systems.

Test Methodology: Administered as a survey where the parent rates the behavior and attitudes of their adult children based on predefined response categories.

Keywords

RFR Scale, Filial Duty, Intergenerational Support, Family Caregiving, Older Adult Morale, Psychological Assessment, Behavioral Realization, Social Support.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source content)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source content)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source content)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The instrument was originally developed and published by W. C. Seelbach in 1978, building upon earlier work in 1977. The RFR is generally considered an academic measure available for non-commercial research purposes, though researchers should cite the original authors and the sourcebook (Fischer & Corcoran, 2007) when using the scale.

The full instrument details, including scoring and administration guidelines, can be reviewed in academic sources. The original instrument documentation, or a detailed description thereof, can be found via the following link: http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=psychhp.

Reference’s

• Chandra, Aleksandr. (2016). “Mending Maya: An Analysis of Aging and Intergenerational Connection in Delhi, India” (2016). Connecticut College, New London, Bachelor of Arts thesis. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/psychhp/63
• Fischer, Joel. & Corcoran, Kevin J. (2007). Measures for Clinical Practice and research: A sourcebook. (4th ed.). NY. Oxford University Pr. Vol. 1, Page(s): 407-409.
• Seelbach, W. C. (1978). Realizations of Filial Responsibility (RFR). In Fischer, Joel. & Corcoran, Kevin J. (2007). Measures for Clinical Practice and research: A sourcebook. (4th ed.). NY. Oxford University Pr. Vol. 1, Page(s): 407-409.
• Seelbach, W. C. (1978). Correlates of Aged Parents’ Filial Responsibility Expectations and Realizations. The Family Coordinator, 27(4), 341-350.
• Seelbach, W. C., & Sauer, W. J. (1977). Filial responsibility expectations and morale among aged parents. Gerontologist 17: 492–499.

Items of the Realizations of Filial Responsibility (RFR)

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

The RFR scale consists of multiple sections addressing attitudes/expectations, instrumental realizations, and proximity/contact.

Section A: Attitudinal Items (Items 1-6)

For the items 1-6: 1= Strongly Agree, 2= Disagree, 3= Somewhat disagree, 4= Somewhat agree, 5= Agree, 6= Strongly agree

1. Married children should live close to parents.
2. Children should take care of their parents, in whatever way necessary, when they are sick.
3. Children should give their parents financial help.
4. If children live nearby after they grow up, they should visit their parents at least once a week.
5. Children who live at a distance should write to their parents at least once a week.
6. The children should feel responsible for their parents.

******

Section B: Instrumental Realization Items (Items 1-11)

For the next 11 items, please record “-1” if someone other than your child provided aid, “0” if there is no need for aid in that area, and “+1” if one of your children provided aid.

1. Shopping for groceries
2. Preparing hot meals
3. Cleaning house
4. Doing laundry
5. Accompanying old parent when paying bills
6. Accompanying old parent when cashing check
7. Paying rent
8. Paying mortgage
9. Heavy work around the house
10. Going to movie, church, meetings, visiting friends
11. Walking up and down stairs

Section C: Proximity and Contact Realization Items

For each child circle “-1” if the child lives distant from you, “0” if the child lives not too far, and “+1” if the child lives close.

Child #: -1 Distant, 0 Not too far, +1Close

For the last item, for each child, circle “-1” if the child visits less than once a month, “0” if the child visits at least monthly, and “+1” if visits are at least weekly.

Child #: -1 Visits less than once a month, 0 Visits are at least Monthly but not Weekly, +1 Visits are at least Weekly