_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fam Proc 30:55-73, 1991

Evaluating FACES III and the Circumplex Model: 2,440 Families

ROBERT G. GREEN, Ph.D.a
ROBERT N. HARRIS, JR., Ph.D.a
JAMES A. FORTE, Ph.D.b
MARGARET ROBINSON, M.S.W.a
aDr. Green is a Professor, Dr. Harris an Assistant Professor, and Mrs. Robinson a doctoral student and adjunct faculty member at the
School of Social Work of Virginia Commonwealth University. Correspondence may be directed to the first author at the School of
Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1001 West Franklin Street, Box 2027, Richmond VA 23284.
bAssistant Professor, Christopher Newport College, Newport News VA.

Previous evaluations of the Circumplex Model's curvilinear hypothesis using FACES instruments have yielded
conflicting results. A review of the different research procedures and samples used in those investigations revealed that
none of the studies had samples large and/or heterogenous enough to test the curvilinear hypothesis adequately. The
present study evaluates the curvilinear hypothesis of family functioning and the concurrent validity of FACES III with a
sample of optimal size (N = 2,440 families) and diversity. The lack of support for the curvilinear hypothesis in this
"greenhouse" sample is explained by different findings for the two FACES III subscales. There was no relationship
between the study's measures of well-being and the adaptability subscale and a linear relationship between these
measures and the cohesion subscale. Implications of these findings for the continuing use of the FACES III and for the
Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems are discussed.
Fam Proc 30:55-73, 1991
The Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems was formulated in the late seventies and first described in Family
Process in 1979 (25). Olson and his associates developed this family assessment model to facilitate the linkage between
clinical practice with families and the theory and research which guide that practice (17). Although a number of other
family assessment models with similar goals have been subsequently developed, the Circumplex has been the most
successful in promoting integration among family practice, theory, and research, and in stimulating a professional dialogue
between family clinicians and researchers.
The Circumplex Model has been used in literally hundreds of research projects in the last decade (18) and has guided
clinical practice in a wide variety of family treatment settings (4, 7, 37). In addition, Family Process and other prominent
family theory and therapy journals have devoted an impressive number of articles to studies and essays that have updated,
assessed, or critiqued various aspects of the Circumplex Model (9, 17, 26-28) or have provided theoretical (3, 15, 17) and
empirical (2, 10) comparisons of the Circumplex with other family models.

Description of the Circumplex Model

The Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems is organized by two central dimensions of family life: adaptability
and cohesion. Both dimensions are hypothesized to be related to family functioning in a curvilinear manner. Hence, optimal
functioning exists among families who achieve moderate, rather than extreme (high or low), levels of adaptability and
cohesion.
Adaptability is defined as the ability of the family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and
relationship rules in response to situational or developmental demands (17). The model identifies four different levels of
adaptability. Two of these levels, described as "flexible" and "structured," represent optimal family adaptability. Flexible
and structured families are "balanced" on the adaptability dimension. They have developed a balance between "chaos" (too
much change) at one end of the adaptability continuum and "rigidity" (not enough change) at the other.
Cohesion, the other central dimension of the Circumplex Model, is the "emotional bonding that family members have
toward one another" (18, p. 9). There are also four levels of cohesion. Families that have achieved the optimal or balanced
levels of cohesion may be either "separated" or "connected" and exist on a continuum between less functional families that
are either "enmeshed" (overly close) or "disengaged" (not close enough).
The Circumplex Model is best illustrated by a diagram in which midpoints of the four levels of adaptability and the four
levels of cohesion intersect at a right angle (see Figure 1). The resulting matrix forms a typology of 16 different family
types, which may be collapsed further into three major categories of family functioning: balanced families, mid-range
families, and extreme families. Each category occupies a clearly defined zone within the matrix. The four balanced family

1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

types cluster at the center. Families that occupy this central zone are balanced on both adaptability and cohesion. The eight
mid-range family types occupy a concentric zone surrounding the balanced types. These families are balanced on only one
of the major dimesions and function at one of the extreme levels on the other. Finally, the four extreme types of families
occupy corners of the matrix. These families function outside of the optimal or balanced zones on both adaptability and
cohesion.

Figure 1.
Circumplex Model of family functioning.
A third dimension of the Circumplex Model, communication, is not considered central to the model. Rather, family
communication is viewed as a dimension that can facilitate a family's movement among the family types and levels of
adaptability and cohesion.

Evaluating the Circumplex Model

The availability of scales for assessing the Circumplex Model is in large part responsible for the model's high visibility

2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and use among family clinicians and researchers. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES), a
111-item, self-report index, was introduced along with the model (25). Later, FACES II, a revised 30-item measure was
developed (23), and FACES III, the most recent 20-item measure of the Circumplex's central dimensions became available
in 1985 (24). FACES II and FACES III emerged in response to ongoing clinical and research feedback, and FACES IV is
currently under development in Olson's research laboratory (19). In addition to these rapidly administered, self-report
assessments of the Circumplex's adaptability and cohesion dimensions, the more comprehensive Circumplex Assessment
Package (CAP) includes measures of dyadic communication and family satisfaction (21). Finally, the Clinical Observer
Rating Scale (CRS) allows clinicians to use the Circumplex to guide and record observations of live family interaction (20).
The availability of these scales has stimulated a large number of studies concerned with evaluating the Circumplex
Model's ability to distinguish among various family types and levels of family functioning. Many of these studies have
attempted to evaluate the curvilinear hypothesis by observing the degree to which families with balanced FACES scores
function more adequately than families that achieve more extreme scores on one of the FACES instruments. However, the
results have been inconsistent, and at least four different findings have been reported. Each of these findings has also been
replicated at least once in a subsequent investigation.
One group of studies provides support for the curvilinear hypothesis. These studies compare families with identifiable
problems to nonproblem families. Families of sex offenders (5), and families with schizophrenic and neurotic (6), alcoholic
(20), and juvenile delinquent (27) members were all found to have lower percentages of balanced and greater percentages
of extreme families than their nonproblem comparison groups.
A second group of Circumplex studies, however, report findings of no relationship between adaptability and cohesion
scores and indicators of family functioning. Green, Kolevzon, and Vosler (10), for example, found that balanced families of
adolescent probationers were no more likely than mid-range or extreme families to have high scores on measures of
individual and family well-being. Walker, McLaughlin, and Greene (36) similarly found that FACES II would not
discriminate families of adolescents with a functional illness from families of healthy adolescents.
A third group of Circumplex studies reported linear, rather than curvilinear, relationships between the major dimensions
of the Circumplex and family functioning. These studies correlated FACES II assessments with other prominent measures
of family functioning: the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD), the Self-Report Family Inventory (SFI), and the
Family Assessment Measure (FAM III). Miller and colleagues (16) reported a linear relationship between the FAD and
FACES II scores when both measures were administered to a randomly selected sample of a Canadian university
community. Beavers, Hampson, and Hulgas (2) also found this linear relationship between college students' scores on the
Self-Report Family Inventory and FACES II scores; and Thomas and Cierpka (34) found a linear relationship between
FACES II scores and FAM III scores among German families of psychiatric patients and a comparison group.
Findings from a fourth group of studies have yielded different results for the different Circumplex dimensions when the
adapability and cohesion subscales were evaluated independently. For example, Green (9) recently found that while the
cohesion subscale could successfully discriminate the families of adolescent, psychiatric inpatients from a nonpatient
comparison group, the adaptability subscale could not. And finally, Hampson, Beavers, and Hulgas (2) reported similar
findings when they correlated college students' FACES III scores with the SFI.

Methodological Issues in Evaluating the Circumplex Model

The studies that have produced these conflicting results have relied on a variety of different measures, methods of data
collection, techniques of data analysis, and sampling strategies. It is possible that these different methods may have
influenced the different findings that have been achieved.

Different Measurement Devices

Although the proliferation of three generations of FACES instruments has insured the availability of current
measurement devices throughout the decade, the rather striking differences in successive versions of these measures also
make the comparison of findings very difficult. The progression of FACES to FACES III has involved prominent
modifications in the wording of the items and response categories as well as a radical reduction in the number of items and
subscales. And, when Hampson, Beavers, and Hulgus (13) correlated FACES II and FACES III with a third measure of
family functioning, the results were strikingly different, particularly for the adaptability subscales. Correlations between the
Self-Report Family Inventory (SFI) and the FACES III adaptability subscale diminished from those obtained for FACES II
and the SFI.

Different Family Members

Because studies have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of agreement between various family members when they were
asked to evaluate their family's functioning on FACES and other measures of family life, Olson and colleagues (22) have

3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

emphasized the importance of administering these instruments to all family members and of evaluating results by family
member. However, the studies reviewed above are based on the reports of a variety of family members or on average
couple or family scores. And, some evaluations of the curvilinear hypothesis have reported different results for different
family members (9). Clearly, some of the inconsistency in the results reported above may be the result of the inclusion of
different family members in different studies.

Different Methods of Analyzing Data

A variety of statistical methods have been used to analyze FACES data. Some researchers have used linear correlation
coefficients with raw FACES scores (2, 13), others have transformed raw FACES scores to allow linear analysis (10),
while still others have used a variety of these techniques (21, 34). Because of the curvilinear nature of the Circumplex,
Olson et al. (24) have endorsed the use of nominal level statistics as the method of choice. However, Olson and his
colleagues have also developed formulas that may be used to transform FACES data so that linear stastistics may be
applicable (23). The differential use of statistical techniques may have influenced the differential results achieved when the
curvilinear hypothesis has been evaluated.

Types of Samples
If the adaptability and cohesion dimensions of the Circumplex Model are related to family functioning in a curvilinear
manner as hypothesized, this relationship will not necessarily be reflected in all samples of families. Indeed, if a sample of
families is not heterogenous enough to include the full range of extreme family types, a linear relationship between FACES
scores and family functioning may be observed. Hence, Olson attributed the linear relationship between FACES II and
measures of individual and dyadic well-being in his national study of 1,000 "normal" families to the homogeneity of the
families comprising this sample (18). Because normal families represent only a narrow spectrum of the range of possible
cohesion and adaptability responses, a linear relationship is to be expected among these families (18, p. 29).
Similarly, sample size itself may have influenced the results of previous Circumplex evaluation studies. Small samples
are likely to include only a limited number of each of the 16 family types. Consequently, tests of the curvilinear hypothesis
have often involved assigning these 16 types to the larger more inclusive family categories or zones of the Circumplex (9,
23, 27). While the use of these more inclusive categories (balanced, mid-range, and extreme) for comparative purposes
does provide a very general test of the Circumplex Model's curvilinear hypothesis, this type of test may also obscure
essential findings. In fact, such a general test will not detect whether families within each of the three major categories
experience similar degrees of family functioning. In addition, this general test will not examine whether each of the 4
extreme family types experience lower degrees of family functioning than families assigned to each of the 8 mid-range and
to each of the 4 balanced family types. Unless these conditions are met, however, conclusions about the nature of the
relationship between the Circumplex Model and family functioning remain ambiguous.
In summary, two sampling issues may have contributed to the contradictory results reported above. First, sampling from
homogeneous populations may have precluded the discovery of a curvilinear relationship between FACES and measures of
family functioning. Second, small samples that may obscure potentially significant variation among families occupying
different types within the same Circumplex zone may also have contributed to the different findings among studies
attempting to evaluate the Circumplex Model.

The Present Study

The present study evaluates the Circumplex Model's curvilinear hypothesis by examining the relationship between
FACES and two valid and reliable measures of family well-being. Each of the methodological issues discussed above is
addressed. The sample is drawn from one of the largest family data sets collected in this country. It is also diverse enough to
include a sufficient number of each of the 16 Circumplex family types for statistical analysis. In addition, the same family
member has completed the most recent version of FACES (FACES III).

METHOD
Sample
The sample consists of 2,440 male members of the Virginia National Guard. Each of these men completed an extensive
questionnaire administered to more than 6,000 Guard members throughout the state during weekend drills between
November and December, 1988. All respondents included in the present study were married and living with their spouse at
the time data were collected. Questionnaires completed by single, separated, widowed, and divorced Guard members, by
female Guard members, and by those respondents who failed to complete FACES or one of the two well-being measures
central to the current study, were excluded from the analysis.

4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The mean age of respondents for the present study was almost 35 years (34.8), and the men ranged in age from 17 to 68
years. There was a similar amount of variation in the length of time the men had been married. The average length of
marriage was just over 10 years (10.1), but 7.4% were married less than a year and 4.5% had been married more than 25
years. Most of the men (80.8%) were in their first marriage and the majority (80.7%) had children and/or other dependents
living in their homes at the time the study was completed. The racial composition of the sample was also quite diversified.
Almost 74% (73.8) were White, 23.7% were African-American, and 4.6% were of other racial origins.
An overwelming majority of the men in the sample had completed high school (93.2%), 16.3% had undergraduate
degrees, and 4.8% had earned graduate or advanced professional degrees. Most (83%) were "weekend warriors" who also
held full-time civilian jobs. However, the remaining 17% of the men worked full-time as members of the Virginia National
Guard and viewed the Guard as their primary employer. Of the men's spouses, 55% were employed full-time and 16%
part-time. Total family income ranged from under $10,000 per year (8.9%) to more than $50,000 per year (13.4%), with
46.2% earning between $20,000 and $40,000 per year.

Measures
All respondents completed FACES III and selected measures of individual and marital well-being. The reliability
estimates for the 10-item adaptability and cohesion subscales were similar to those obtained in other recent studies.
Cronbach's alpha for the adaptability subscale in the present sample was .72 whereas a coefficient of .87 was obtained for
the cohesion subscale. Adaptability and cohesion cutting points developed by Olson in his sample of 1,000 families, and
reported in the FACES III manual (24), were used to assign families to the 16 different family types and, in turn, to either
balanced, mid-range, or extreme categories. In addition, a distance from the center of the circumplex score (DFC) was also
calculated to permit correlational analysis. The DFC for each respondent was calculated by first subtracting the cohesion
sample mean (25.2) from the respondent's raw cohesion score and squaring the difference. The same procedure was then
performed for the adaptability dimension. The sample mean for adaptability (36.9) was subtracted from the respondent's
adaptability raw score and the difference was squared. The squared differences for both scales were then added and the
square root of this sum obtained. This square root is the final DFC score (see Table 1).

Table 1
Formula for the DFC Score
p
DFC Score = (coh: ¡ sample coh: mean)2 + (adapt: ¡ sample adapt: mean)2

Hudson's Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS) was used to assess the respondents' overall contentment with their lives
and their surroundings (14). The GCS is a 25-item index that uses five-point Likert scales. Respondents are asked, for
example, to evaluate the amount of time they "feel blue," "feel that the future looks bright," "feel great in the morning."
Scores are transformed to range from zero to 100. A series of studies have established a clinical cutting point of 30 for this
scale. It has been shown that persons who score above 30 are likely to have a clinically significant problem with
depression, while those who score below 30 are usually free of such problems (14, p. 2). Numerous estimates of reliability
and validity for the GCS have been obtained in a series of studies (14, pp. 81-119). Cronbach's alpha for the GCS in the
present sample was .91.
The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) was used to assess the respondents' satisfaction with their marriages
(32). This three-item measure asks respondents to rate their satisfaction with three components of the marital relationship:
their wife as a spouse, their relationship with their spouse, and their marriage. Responses are selected from five options
ranging from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied." Scores on the KMSS range from 3 to 15. Higher scores indicate greater
degrees of dissatisfaction. There is considerable support for the reliability and validity of the KMSS. At least three previous
studies have reported Cronbach's alpha of .90 or better (29, 31, 33). Other studies have demonstrated the measure's
concurrent (11) and discriminant validity (30). Cronbach's alpha for the KMSS in the present sample was .96.

RESULTS
As summarized in Figure 2, all three major family categories of the Circumplex Model are adequately represented in the
current sample: 812 families (33.3%) are balanced, 1,151 (47.1%) fall within the mid-range zone, and 477 families
(19.6%) are within one of the extreme zones. More importantly, however, there are sufficient families assigned to each of
the 16 different family types to allow for comparisons of well-being indicators across family types within each of the three
major family categories. Hence, if there is a curvilinear relationship between FACES III scores and KMSS and GCS scores,
the size and the variation of family types comprising the current sample will certainly make this relationship observable.

5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2.
Distribution of the 16 family types within the Circumplex Model (N = 2,440).

Phase 1 Evaluations
The first phase of data analysis involved testing the curvilinear hypothesis at the molar level by using the three major
family categories. If FACES III is related to family functioning in a curvilinear manner, the KMSS scores and the GCS
scores should differentiate among the balanced, the mid-range, and the extreme families. Indeed, such discrimination is a
necessary condition for findings of a curvilinear relationship. Thus, it was hypothesized that KMSS and GCS scores of men
from extreme families would exceed the scores of men from mid-range and balanced families. Similarly, it was also
hypothesized that KMSS and GCS scores of men from the mid-range families would exceed the scores of men from
balanced families.
As indicated in Table 2, these hypotheses were clearly supported. Analysis of variance procedures yielded statistically
significant F values for the KMSS scores (F = 29.89, p < .0001) and the GCS scores (F = 86.95, p < .0001). As predicted,

6
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and as supported by post hoc Duncan tests, men with balanced FACES III scores reported more marital satisfaction (lower
scores reflect higher levels of satisfaction) and more contentment (lower scores reflect fewer problems with contentment)
than men with mid-range and extreme FACES III scores (p < .0001). In addition, KMSS and GCS scores were more
favorable (p < .0001) for men with mid-range families than for men with extreme families.

Table 2
The Three Major Family Categories: Comparison of Scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Generalized
Contentment Scale (GCS) (N = 2,440)
Family Category
Balanced Mid-Range Extreme
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F
KMSS 4.20 1.99 4.80 2.67 5.29 3.04 29.89*
GCS 21.16 12.78 27.76 15.89 32.33 18.87 86.95*
*p < .0001

These results certainly appear supportive of the curvilinear hypothesis. The KMSS and GCS scores for men in the
central zone of the Circumplex were more favorable than these same well-being indicators for men whose FACES III
scores placed them in zones at greater distances from the center. To further examine the relationship between placement on
the Circumplex and the well-being indicators, KMSS and GCS scores were correlated with the distance from center of the
Circumplex scores (DFC) for each respondent. The correlational procedure was expected to produce fairly robust
correlation coefficients. The strength of these coefficients would reinforce the results of the analysis of variance findings
and suggest that family well-being increases with movement toward the center of the Circumplex. Surprisingly, however,
these results were not achieved. The correlation coefficients, .06 for the KMSS and .17 for the GCS, although statistically
significant in this large sample (p < .001), were particularly weak and did not support the prediction.
Collectively, the different results achieved by different statistical tests within this same sample may suggest that the
relationship between FACES III and the indicators of marital and individual well-being is more complex than hypothesized.
Contrary to the central premise of the Circumplex, these findings may be suggesting that there is more variation in family
functioning within the family types that comprise each of the major categories than between the major categories or zones
of the Circumplex. Consequently, statistical procedures conducted during phase 2 of the data analysis plan were directed
toward the investigation of family functioning across the 16 family types.

Phase 2 Evaluations
Although family functioning is presumed to vary between the three major zones of the Circumplex Model, it is also
presumed to be equivalent among the four types of balanced families, among the 8 mid-range family types, and among the 4
extreme families (25). Indeed, equivalence of family functioning among family types within each of the three categories
would provide additional support for the curvilinear hypothesis in this large sample of married men. Consequently, the null
hypothesis for the KMSS and the GCS was tested among family types within each family category.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the test of the null hypothesis for the four balanced types of families. Contrary to the
prediction, however, the pattern of equivalence was not found. Statistically significant F values were obtained for the
KMSS and for the GCS and the pattern of differences was consistent for both measures. Men assigned to one of the two
quadrants on the right side of the Circumplex (flexibly connected and structurally connected) reported more favorable
marital satisfaction (p < .0001) and more contentment (p < .0001) than men in one of the quadrants on the left side of the
Circumplex (flexibly separated and structurally separated).

Table 3
The Balanced Family Types: Comparison of Scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Generalized
Contentment Scale (GCS) (n = 812)
Family Type
Flexibly Separated Structurally Flexibly Connected Structurally
Separated Connected
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F
KMSS 4.56 2.35 4.36 2.01 3.83 1.64 3.83 1.72 6.80*
GCS 22.84 12.66 22.74 11.55 19.05 14.33 18.44 11.84 6.91*

7
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*p < .0001

Table 4 summarizes the comparisons of measures of marital satisfaction (KMSS) and contentment (GCS) across the 8
mid-range family types. As in the case of the balanced families, the null hypothesis was not supported. Rather, statistically
significant F values were obtained for the KMSS (F = 25.56, p < .0001) and the GCS (F = 58.83, p < .0001). A closer
inspection of the patterning of these differences reveals similar findings to those observed for the balanced families. Indeed,
the men in the four family types in the two right-hand quadrants of the Circumplex, the connected and enmeshed types,
appear to be experiencing much more favorable levels of marital satisfaction and contentment than the men in the
disengaged and separated family types, the mid-range family types occupying the left-hand quadrants of the Circumplex. To
test this observation statistically, the men in the 8 mid-range families types were collapsed into two categories: those whose
FACES III scores placed them in a mid-range disengaged or separated family type (n = 762) and those whose score placed
them in one of the connected or enmeshed mid-range family types (n = 389). The results of this analysis strongly suggested
that mid-range men in one of the right-hand quadrants of the Circumplex were experiencing more favorable levels of
well-being than men in the left-hand quadrants. Indeed, the mean KMSS score for men in the right-hand side of the
Circumplex was 3.63 compared to 5.33 for men in the left-hand side (F = 119.08, p < .0001). Similarly, the mean GCS
score for men in the left-hand quadrants was 32.03 and 17.62 for mid-range men in the right side of the Circumplex (F =
262.34, p < .0001).

Table 4
The Mid-Range Family Types: Comparison of Scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Generalized
Contentment Scale (GCS) (n = 1,151)
Family Type
Flexibly Structurally Chaotically Rigidly Chaotically Rigidly Flexibly Structurally
Disengaged Disengaged Separated Separated Connected Connected Enmeshed Enmeshed
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F
KMSS 5.70 3.07 5.91 3.09 4.44 2.24 4.68 2.40 3.84 1.72 3.72 1.54 3.36 .94 3.19 .61 25.56*
GCS 36.09 14.45 35.57 14.13 26.49 13.76 24.91 13.60 20.19 14.60 19.51 11.63 11.46 9.74 14.21 10.41 58.83*
*p < .0001

Table 5 summarizes the testing of the null hypothesis for men assigned to one of the four extreme family types. Again, as
in the case of the balanced and mid-range family types, there was no support for this hypothesis. Significant F values again
emerged for the KMSS (F = 26.78, p < .0001) and the GCS (F = 98.62, p < .0001). Because of the patterning of
differences that emerged from testing the balanced and mid-range family types, men from the chaotically disengaged family
types were pooled with men from the rigidly disengaged family type (n = 336) and compared with men assigned to either
the chaotically enmeshed or rigidly enmeshed family types (n = 141). Following the pattern that typified the balanced and
mid-range families, men assigned to extreme family types in the right-hand quadrants of the Circumplex were experiencing
more positive degrees of marital satisfaction (F = 80.53, p < .0001) and contentment (F = 250.58, p < .0001) than men
assigned to the left-hand quadrants.

Table 5
The Extreme Family Type: Comparison of Scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Generalized Contentment
Scale (GCS) (n = 4 77)
Family Type
Chaotically Rigidly Chaotically Rigidly
Disengaged Disengaged Enmeshed Enmeshed
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F
KMSS 5.99 3.14 6.05 3.17 3.46 1.52 3.62 2.46 26.78*
GCS 43.15 13.71 35.01 16.69 16.89 14.78 10.03 8.38 98.62*
*p < .0001

Phase 3 Evaluations
Although some limited support for the curvilinear hypothesis was obtained during the molar phase-1 tests, the molecular

8
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

phase-2 tests suggested that there may be more variation among family types comprising each of the three major family
categories than between the family categories themselves. In addition, phase-2 tests also suggested that optimally
functioning families may be concentrated throughout the right-hand quadrants rather than at the center of the Circumplex.
Strong and consistent trends suggested that optimally functioning families may occupy all three zones (balanced,
mid-range, and extreme) of the Circumplex. An extended series of data analysis strategies were used, therefore, to identify
more accurately and to explain the relationship between FACES III scores and the measures of individual and marital
well-being.
The first strategy involved rank ordering the 16 FACES III family types by respondent mean scores on the KMSS and
GCS. The results of this procedure were particularly revealing and are displayed in Table 6. The predicted curvilinear
pattern, with balanced family types reflecting the highest rank ordering, is not at all apparent. In fact, the four most
favorable KMSS and GCS mean scores were obtained for men in mid-range (structurally enmeshed and flexibly enmeshed)
and extreme family types (chaotically enmeshed and rigidly enmeshed). Perhaps the most striking result of this
rank-ordering procedure, however, is the trend suggesting a linear influence for cohesion. Indeed, men from the four
enmeshed family types had the most favorable reports on the KMSS and the GCS. The next four most favorable reports on
the well-being measures were from men in the four connected family types, followed by men assigned to one of the four
separated types. Finally, men from the four disengaged family types had the least favorable scores on the KMSS and the
GCS.

Table 6
Rank Order of the 16 Family Types by Scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Generalized Contentment
Scale (GCS)
Family Family Rank Order: KMSS1 Rank Order: GCS2
Type Category (Mean scores in parentheses)
Structurally Enmeshed Mid-Range 1 (3.19) 3 (14.43)
Flexibly Enmeshed Mid-Range 2 (3.37) 2 (11.46)
Chaotically Enmeshed Extreme 3 (3.46) 4 (16.89)
Rigidly Enmeshed Extreme 4 (3.62) 1 (9.83)
Rigidly Connected Mid-Range 5 (3.72) 7 (19.45)
Structurally Connected Balanced 6 (3.82) 5 (18.52)
Flexibly Connected Balanced 7 (3.83) 6 (18.92)
Chaotically Connected Mid-Range 8 (3.84) 8 (20.26)
Structurally Separated Balanced 9 (4.36) 10 (22.95)
Chaotically Separated Mid-Range 10 (4.42) 12 (26.55)
Flexibly Separated Balanced 11 (4.56) 9 (22.83)
Rigidly Separated Mid-Range 12 (4.67) 11 (24.87)
Flexibily Disengaged Mid-Range 13 (5.71) 15 (36.65)
Structurally Disengaged Mid-Range 14 (5.89) 13 (35.64)
Chaotically Disengaged Extreme 15 (5.94) 16 (43.35)
Rigidly Disengaged Extreme 16 (6.03) 14 (35.64)
1 The lower the score, the greater marital satisfaction.
2 The lower the score, the greater the level of contentment, i.e., less depressive symptomatology.

Figure 3 graphically illustrates this apparent linear trend. The circles within each of the 16 family types contains that
type's rank order for the KMSS and the GCS. Hence, men assigned to the structurally enmeshed family type had the most
optimal KMSS scores and the third most optimal GCS scores. Similarly, the men assigned to the rigidly enmeshed family
type ranked fourth on the KMSS and first on the GCS, and so on. Clearly, as also suggested by phase-2 tests, men assigned
to right-hand quadrants of the Circumplex reported more marital satisfaction and more contentment than men assigned to
the eight family types in the left-hand quadrants.

9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3.
Location of optimal family functioning within the Circumplex: graphic representation. Note: The first
number in each circle within each family type is the rank order of that family type on the Kansas Marital
Satisfaction Scale; the second number is the rank order of the family type on the Generalized Contentment
Scale.

Phase 4: Explaining the Findings

The final phase of data analysis focused on explaining why the more optimally functioning families in the sample, as
reflected by KMSS and GCS scores, were assigned to family types in the right-hand quadrants of the Circumplex. Because
the phase-2 and phase-3 analyses suggested that the horizontal cohesion dimension, rather than the vertical adaptability
dimension, was determining placement within the Circumplex, the FACES III sub-scales were analyzed separately in phase
4. KMSS and GCS scores for men assigned to each of the four levels of cohesion are compared in Table 7, and these same
scores for men assigned to the four adaptability levels are compared in Table 8.

Table 7
Comparison of Scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS) Across the
Cohesion Sub-scale (FACES III)
Cohesion
Disengaged Separated Connected Enmeshed

10
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F

KMSS 5.90 3.11 4.49 2.23 3.82 1.67 3.39 1.38 124.07*
GCS 37.36 14.95 23.93 12.79 19.29 13.35 14.17 12.35 307.52*
*p < .0001

Table 8
Comparison of Scores on the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) and the Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS) Across Levels
of the Adaptability Sub-scale
ADAPTABILITY
Rigid Structured Flexible Chaotic
(n = 378) (n = 735) (n = 676) (n = 651)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F
KMSS 4.93 2.77 4.69 2.52 4.64 2.52 4.55 2.51 1.82
GCS 26.57 16.19 25.57 14.68 25.06 15.67 27.88 17.45 4.01

As summarized in Table 7, the relationship between the FACES III cohesion sub-scale and both well-being measures is
a linear one. Statistically significant F values (p < .0001) were obtained for both measures, and post hoc Duncan tests
confirmed that the between-group differences were linear. The men assigned to the disengaged level reported the least
marital satisfaction and the most problems with their contentment, while the enmeshed men reported the most marital
satisfaction and were the most contented. The KMSS and GCS scores for the separated and connected men were between
these extremes. Pearson correlation coefficients between cohesion sub-scale scores and the well-being measures also
reflected this linearity. The coefficient for the GCS was -.55 and -.36 for the KMSS. On the other hand, as summarized in
Table 8, there was no relationship between the adaptability sub-scale and the well-being measures. The F values obtained
for this sub-scale were small and not statistically significant. The correlation coefficients, r = .01 for the GCS and r = .-.06
for the KMSS, confirmed the lack of a relationship between FACES III adaptability sub-scale scores and these well-being
measures.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

While the results of the preliminary analyses at the molar or family category level were ambiguous, this study has
produced some very clear-cut and compelling findings about the relationship between FACES III and family functioning.
The use of a comprehensive set of data analysis procedures in a sample with adequate size and optimal variability failed to
confirm the predicted curvilinear relationship. Rather, because the FACES III adaptability sub-scale was unrelated to
measures of family well-being and because the cohesion sub-scale was related to these measures in a linear manner,
balanced families were no more likely than mid-range or even extreme families to receive high scores on the well-being
measures. Although some earlier studies have produced results supporting the validity of FACES II and III (5, 27), this
support was obtained only at the molar level of analysis and may have been influenced by the sampling procedures; the
samples used in these earlier studies were too small to permit examination of FACES III at the molecular or family-type
level. Consequently, particular family types may have been over- or under-represented in these samples.
The implications of the present findings for the continuing use of the FACES measures in family practice and research
are more clear than they are for the Circumplex Model itself. Specifically, combining the FACES III adaptability and
cohesion sub-scale scores to provide family assessments should be discontinued at once. Indeed, the present study failed to
find any evidence of concurrent validity for FACES III when two reliable and valid measures of family well-being were
used as criterion measures. However, the cohesion sub-scale may be a useful linear measure of family functioning. The
consistent linear correlations of the cohesion sub-scale with the well-being measures in the current study, in tandem with
previous findings of linear correlations between cohesion and other measures of family functioning (13), do suggest some
research utility for this FACES III sub-scale.
Fortunately, the growing number of investigations into the functioning of whole family units has stimulated the
development of several alternative self-report measurement tools that assess whole family functioning. Excellent reviews of
these and other measures of family functioning have recently been prepared in volumes by Grotevent and Carlson (12) and
by Touliatos, Perlmutter, and Strauss (35). Those interested in selecting measures of whole family functioning for clinical
practice with families or for research should review the instruments described in these volumes.
The implications of the present findings for the Circumplex Model itself are less apparent than for FACES III.
Correspondence between family models and measurement devices designed to measure these models is more frequently

11
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

assumed than it is empirically established. Consequently, when a measurement device is evaluated, the evaluation
procedure is often described as a test of the model itself, and findings are frequently taken to provide support for or against
the model as well as the measurement device. This has certainly been the case with the Circumplex Model. In fact, when
FACES instruments have successfully differentiated problem families from non-problem families at the molar level, Olson
and his associates have described these studies as "validating the Circumplex Model" (18, p. 25). If, as Olson has
previously assumed, FACES III does accurately measure the Circumplex Model, much of what we have concluded about
FACES III in the present study is also applicable to the model. In this event, neither of the major variables are related to
family functioning as proposed, and the Circumplex Model itself has little utility in guiding family assessment, practice, or
research.
On the other hand, and in what we consider by far to be the more likely event, there may be very little correspondence
between the model and the measure. Hence, FACES III may not be accurately measuring the Circumplex Model. If this is
the case, our findings have provided no information about the validity of the Circumplex Model itself. There is a
considerable amount of support for this latter position. Pratt and Hansen (26), for example, conducted a study designed to
test whether FACES adequately operationalized the curvilinear hypotheses. They questioned whether the unipolar FACES
items could assess the bipolar curvilinear constructs on which the Circumplex Model is based.
Pratt and Hansen (26) asked a group of family experts and naive subjects to complete the FACES measures twice. On
one of these administrations they were asked to think of a "healthy functioning family" and on the other a "dysfunctional
family." In addition, all respondents were asked to complete a single item from the Self-Report Family Inventory (SFI) for
both administrations. Contrary to the unipolar Likert-scale item used for all FACES responses, this item uses a bipolar
format. Although the SFI item measures "family independence," the overlap with FACES cohesion is readily apparent. The
SFI item is presented with descriptors below it and provides low scores for responses indicating "low independence," high
scores for "high independence," and moderate scores for "moderate independence." Findings from this study suggested that,
while the FACES results were linear, the responses to the SFI were curvilinear. Balanced FACES scores were not
associated with "healthy family functioning," but moderate scores on the single SFI item were. These findings certainly
suggest that while cohesion may be a curvilinear concept, FACES is not measuring it. Additional support for the curvilinear
nature of the cohesion variable was also obtained in a recent study by Anderson (1). Anderson found support for the
curvilinear hypothesis, particularly for the cohesion dimension, when he administered a group of substitute measures for the
FACES sub-scales to a sample of families with preschool children.
Thus, there appears to be some empirical support for the Circumplex Model, and in particular for the cohesion
dimension, independent of the FACES measures. This support, along with the continuing acceptability of the Circumplex
Model by family practitioners, raises some compelling concerns about the accuracy with which FACES III assesses the
Circumplex Model. Consequently, while we have cautioned clinicians and practitioners about combining adaptability and
cohesion scores to obtain an overall family assessment, we are also mindful of the need to determine whether our findings
from this large sample of men will be replicated in a similarly large and diverse sample of women, and are currently
collecting data for such a study. If our current results are replicated, methods substantially different from those used in
FACES III may be required to link the Circumplex Model to a self-report measurement device. We believe, for the
cohesion dimension anyway, this task may be best accomplished by exploring the bipolar methods recommended by Pratt
and Hansen (26). Our current data, however, tend to support previous observations (2, 8) that the adaptability dimension
may need some conceptual as well as measurement attention.

REFERENCES
1. Anderson, S. A., Cohesion, adaptability, and communications: A test of an Olson Circumplex Model hypothesis.
Family Relations, 35, 289-293, 1986.
2. Beavers, W. R., Hampson, R. B. and Hulgus, Y. F., Commentary: The Beaver systems approach to family
assessment. Family Process, 24, 398-405, 1985.
3. Beavers, W. R. and Voeller, M. N., Family models: Comparing and contrasting Olson's Circumplex Model with
Beavers Systems Model. Family Process, 22, 85-97, 1983.
4. Carnes, P. J., Counseling sexual abusers. Minneapolis: CompCare Publications, 1987.
5. Carnes, P. J., Sexually addicted families: Clinical use of the Circumplex Model. In D.H.Olson, C.S. Russell,
& D.H. Sprenkle (eds.), Circumplex Model: Systematic assessment and treatment of families. New York:
Haworth Press, 1989.
6. Clarke, J., The family types of schizophrenics, neurotics, and "normals." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, 1984.
7. Flores, M. T. and Sprenkle, D. H., Can therapists use FACES III with Mexican-Americans? A preliminary
analysis. In D.H. Olson, C.S. Russell, & D.H. Sprenkle (eds.), Circumplex Model: Systematic assessment and

12
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

treatment of families. New York: Haworth Press, 1989.

8. Friedman, A. S., Utada, A. and Morrissey, M. R., Families of adolescent drug abusers are "rigid": Are these
families either "disengaged" or "enmeshed," or both?, Family Process, 26, 131-148, 1987.
9. Green, R. G., Choosing family measurement devices for practice and research: SFI and FACES III. Social Service
Review, 63, 304-320, 1989.
10. Green, R. G., Kolevzon, M. S. and Vosler, N. R., The Beavers-Timberlawn Model of family competence and the
Circumplex Model of family adaptability and cohesion: Separate but equal?, Family Process, 24, 385-398, 1985.
11. Grover, K. J., Paff-Berger, L. A., Russell, C. S. and Schumm, W. R., The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: A
further brief analysis. Psychological Reports, 54, 629-630, 1984.
12. Grotevent, H. D. and Carlson, C. I., Family assessment: A guide to methods and measures. New York: Guilford
Press, 1989.
13. Hampson, R. B., Beavers, W. R. and Hulgus, Y. F., Commentary: Comparing the Beavers and Circumplex models
of family functioning. Family Process, 27, 85-92, 1988.
14. Hudson, W., The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Homewood IL: Dorsey Press, 1982.
15. Lee, C., Theories of family adaptability: Toward a synthesis of Olson's Circumplex and the Beaver's Systems
models. Family Process, 27, 73-85, 1988.
16. Miller, I. W., Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D. S. and Keitner, G. I., The McMaster Family Assessment Device:
Reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 345-356, 1985.
17. Olson, D. H., Circumplex Model VII: Validation studies and Faces III. Family Process, 25, 337-351, 1986.
18. Olson, D. H., Circumplex Model of family systems VIII: Family assessment and intervention. In D.H. Olson, C.S.
Russell, & D.H. Sprenkle (eds.), Circumplex Model: Systematic assessment and treatment of families. New
York: Haworth Press, 1989.
19. Olson, D. H., personal communication, 1989.
20. Olson, D. H. and Killorin, E., Clinical rating scale for Circumplex Model. Department of Family Social Science,
University of Minnesota, 1984.
21. Olson, D. H. and Lavee, Y., Family systems and family stress: A family life cycle perspective. In K. Kreppner
& R.M. Lerner (eds.), Family systems and life-span development. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1989.
22. Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M. and Wilson, M., Families: What makes them
work? Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications, 1983.
23. Olson, D. H., Portner, J. and Bell, R., FACES II: Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales.
Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, 1982.
24. Olson, D. H., Portner, J. and Lavee, Y., Faces III. Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota,
1985.
25. Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H. and Russell, C. S., Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems I: Cohesion
and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3-28, 1979.
26. Pratt, D. M. and Hansen, J. C., A test of the curvilinear hypothesis with FACES II and III. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 13, 387-392, 1987.
27. Roderick, J., Henggler, S. and Hanson, C. L., An evaluation of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation
Scales (FACES) and the Circumplex Model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77-87, 1986.
28. Russell, C. S. and Olson, D. H., Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: Review of empirical support
and elaboration of therapeutic process. In D.A. Bagorzzi, A.P. Jurich, & R.W. Jackson (eds.). Marital and family
therapy: New perspectives in theory, research, and practice. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1983.
29. Schectman, K. L., Bergen, B., Schumm, W. R. and Bugaighis, M. A., Characteristics of the Kansas Marital
Satisfaction Scale among female participants in community childbirth classes. Psychological Reports, 56,
537-538, 1985.
30. Schumm, W. R., Anderson, S. A., Benigas, J. E., McCutcheon, M. B., Griffin, C. B., Morris, J. E. and Race, G. B.,
Criterion-related validity of Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports, 56, 719-722, 1985.
31. Schumm, W. R., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L. and Grigsby, C. C., Characteristics of responses to the Kansas
Marital Satisfaction Scale in a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychological Reports, 53, 567-572, 1983.
32. Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D. and
Bugaighis, M. A., Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387, 1986.
33. Schumm, W. R., Scanlon, E. D., Crow, C. L., Green, D. M. and Buckler, D. L., Characteristics of the Kansas
Marital Satisfaction Scale on a sample of 79 married couples. Psychological Reports, 53, 583-588, 1983.
34. Thomas, V. K. and Cierpka, M., FACES III and FAM III: A comparison of family assessment instruments.
Presentation at the 1989 National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, New Orleans LA, 1989.

13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

35. Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F. and Strauss, M. S., Handbook of family measurement techniques. Newbury Park
CA: Sage Publications, 1989.
36. Walker, L. S., McLaughlin, F. J. and Greene, J. W., Functional illness and family functioning: A comparison of
healthy and somaticizing adolescents. Family Process, 27, 317-325, 1988.
37. Walsh, F. and Olson, D. H., Utility of the Circumplex Model with severely dysfunctional family systems. In D.H.
Olson, C.S. Russell, & D.H. Sprenkle (eds.), Circumplex Model: Systematic assessment and treatment of
families New York: Haworth Press, 1989.
Manuscript received March 7, 1990; Accepted September 5, 1990.

14