RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Family Environment Scale - Fourth Edition

Family Environment Scale - Fourth Edition

Last Updated

Purpose

The FES is intended to measure the actual (Form R), preferred (Form I), and expected (Form E) family social environments (Moos & Moos, 2009). The FES highlights the level of similarity/dissimilarity between family members (e.g., children and parents) in regard to their current perceptions, ideal preferences, and expectations of the family’s social environment. The FES is useful for understanding how family members perceive the family and how each member’s behavior affects the family unit during a time of crisis or transition.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym FES-4

Area of Assessment

Self-efficacy
Social Relationships
Social Support
Stress & Coping

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$100.00

Cost Description

The cost of the FES ranges from $100 for 50 administrations and $360 for 500 administrations.

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery
  • Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation
  • Spinal Cord Injury

Populations

Pediatric Disorders
Non-Specific Patient Population

Key Descriptions

  • The FES (90 items) is comprised of 10 subscales that together assess three underlying dimensions of the family environment:
    1) Family Relationship Index (comprised of the Cohesion, Expressiveness, and Conflict subscales)
    2) Personal Growth (comprised of the Independence, Achievement-Orientation, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active-Recreational Orientation, and Moral-Religious Emphasis subscales)
    3) System Maintenance (comprised of the Organization and Control subscales)
  • There are three forms of the FES:
    1) Form R measures the respondent’s current perception of the family environment
    2) Form I measures the respondent’s ideal preferences for the family environment
    3) Form E measures the respondent’s expectations that individuals have in relation to their family environment
  • The three forms of the FES are administered to participants via reusable booklets and answer sheets. The FES should be administered in a quiet room with ample space so that respondents may answer the questions comfortably without distractions. The instructions of the FES should be read aloud to the respondent. Respondents rate each item as either “True” or “False” and mark their answer on the answer sheet in pencil. Respondents should be encouraged to answer all of the questions and check their answer sheets for skipped items.
  • The answer sheet provided is arranged so that each column of responses comprises an FES subscale. The subscale raw scores of each person can be determined by summing the number of responses provided in each column. The total raw score can be determined by summing the total number of responses across the columns.
  • The family’s mean raw score can be determined by averaging the subscale raw scores for all members. Raw score to Standard Score conversion tables can be found in the FES Manual’s Appendix A.
  • FES total raw scores range from 0 (complete agreement between family members) to 90 (complete disagreement between family members).

Number of Items

90

Equipment Required

  • FES Booklet
  • Answer Sheet
  • Pencil/ Pen

Time to Administer

15-20 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initial review completed by Ryan Shahidehpour, Ana M. Popa, and Lauren E. Piper at the Illinois Institute of Technology (2015). Review and revision completed by Kristian P. Nitsch (3/4/2015).

ICF Domain

Environment

Measurement Domain

Emotion

Considerations

To date, the validation studies of the FES in the Traumatic Brain injury, Stroke and Spinal Cord injury populations are extremely limited. Future studies may consider investigating the implications of TBI, SCI, and other cognitive, physical, and other psychiatric populations on the family dynamic as measured by the FES.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Normative Data

Normal” & Distressed Families (Moos, R. & Moos, B., 2009; Form R). 

 

Normal Families (n= 1,432, individuals from families located across the U.S.) 

  • Cohesion: Mean= 6.73, SD= 1.47 
  • Expressiveness: Mean= 5.54, SD= 1.61 
  • Conflict: Mean= 3.18, SD= 1.91 
  • Independence: Mean= 6.66, SD= 1.26 
  • Achievement: Mean= 5.47, SD= 1.62 
  • Intellectual Cultural Orientation: Mean= 5.56, SD= 1.82 
  • Active Recreational Orientation: Mean= 5.33, SD= 1.96 
  • Moral-Religious Orientation: Mean= 4.75, SD= 2.03 
  • Organization: Mean= 5.47, SD= 1.90 
  • Control: Mean= 4.26, SD= 1.84 
  • Family Incongruence: Mean= 15.31, SD= 5.30 

 

Distressed Families (n= 288 families of distressed individuals; 220 families of individuals with alcohol use problems; 77 families with psychiatric patients; and 161 families involving a child or adolescent in a crisis situation) 

  • Cohesion: Mean= 5.25, SD= 2.13 
  • Expressiveness: Mean= 4.71, SD= 1.78 
  • Conflict: Mean= 4.02, SD= 2.07 
  • Independence: Mean= 6.03, SD= 1.35 
  • Achievement: Mean= 5.33, SD= 1.58 
  • Intellectual Cultural Orientation: Mean= 4.62, SD= 1.98 
  • Active Recreational Orientation: Mean= 4.15, SD= 1.96 
  • Moral-Religious Orientation: Mean= 4.51, SD= 1.96 
  • Organization: Mean= 5.07, SD= 1.97 
  • Control: Mean= 4.61, SD= 1.89 
  • Family Incongruence: Mean= 17.07, SD= 5.71 

** (For Family Incongruence, n= 1,324 for normal families and n= 717 for distressed families) 

 

Normal” & Distressed Families (Moos, R. & Moos, B., 2009; Form I). 

(n= 1,746, individuals from families located across the U.S.) 

  • Cohesion: Mean= 8.10, SD= 1.20
  • Expressiveness: Mean= 6.67, SD= 1.49
  • Conflict: Mean= 2.55, SD= 1.54
  • Independence: Mean= 7.03, SD= 1.24
  • Achievement Orientation: Mean= 7.11, SD= 1.44
  • Intellectual-Cultural Orientation: Mean= 5.84, SD=1.65
  • Active-Recreational Orientation: Mean= 7.70, SD= 1.41
  • Moral-religious Emphasis: Mean= 5.76, SD= 2.22
  • Organization: Mean= 6.33, SD= 1.88
  • Control: Mean= 3.78, SD= 1.75

Test/Retest Reliability

Individuals who completed Form R after 2 months: (Moos, R. & Moos, B., 2009; n = 47). 

  • Cohesion subscale: Excellent (ICC = .86)
  • Expressiveness subscale: Adequate (ICC = .73)
  • Conflict subscale: Excellent (ICC = .85) 
  • Independence subscale: Adequate (ICC = .68)
  • Achievement subscale: Adequate (ICC = .74)
  • Intellectual-Cultural subscale: Excellent (ICC = .82)
  • Active-Recreational subscale: Excellent (ICC = .77)
  • Moral-Religious subscale: Excellent (ICC = .80)
  • Organization subscale: Excellent (ICC = .76)
  • Control subscale: Excellent (ICC = .77) 

 

Individuals who completed Form R after 4 months: (Moos, R. & Moos, B., 2009; n = 35). 

  • Cohesion subscale: Adequate (ICC = .72)
  • Expressiveness subscale: Adequate (ICC = .70)
  • Conflict subscale: Adequate (ICC = .66) 
  • Independence subscale: Adequate (ICC = .54)
  • Achievement subscale: Adequate (ICC = .66)
  • Intellectual-Cultural subscale: Excellent (ICC = .86)
  • Active-Recreational subscale: Excellent (ICC = .83)
  • Moral-Religious subscale: Excellent (ICC = .91)
  • Organization subscale: Adequate (ICC = .73)
  • Control subscale: Excellent (ICC = .78)

Internal Consistency

Adolescents (Boyd, Gullone, Needleman, & Burt, 1997) 

  • Cohesion Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha=.69)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .64) 
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .63)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor(Cronbach’s Alpha= .68)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .67) 
  • Expressiveness Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .41)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .36)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .36)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .39)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .39) 
  • Conflict Subscale
    • Females: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .72) 
    • Males: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .72)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .71)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .71)
    • Entire Sample: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .72) 
  • Independence Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .33)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .30)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .26)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .34)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .31) 
  • Achievement Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .43)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .44)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .41)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .45)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .44) 
  • Intellectual-Cultural Orientation Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .41)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .53)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .37)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .54)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .47) 
  • Active-Recreational Orientation Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .64)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .60)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .65)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .59)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .62) 
  • Moral-Religious Emphasis Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .68)
    • Males: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .72)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .68)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .73)
    • Entire Sample: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .71) 
  • Organization Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .61)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .60) 
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .60)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .61)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .60) 
  • Control Subscale
    • Females: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .61)
    • Males: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .57)
    • 11-14 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .57)
    • 15-18 Year Olds: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .61)
    • Entire Sample: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .59) 

 

“Normal & Distressed Families”(Moos & Moos, 2009; **Form R (Real) only**) 

  • Cohesion: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .78) 
  • Expressiveness: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .69) 
  • Conflict: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .75) 
  • Independence: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .61) 
  • Achievement: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .64) 
  • Intellectual-Cultural: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .78) 
  • Active-Recreational: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .67) 
  • Moral-Religious Emphasis: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .78) 
  • Organization: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .76) 
  • Control: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .67) 

 

Convenience Sample of Undergraduate Students of Malta (Galea, 2010) 

  • Relationship Subscale (Cohesion, Expressiveness, and Conflict) 
    • Internal consistency ranged from Poor to Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .63 to .74)* 
  • Personal Growth Subscale (Independence, Achievement, Intellectual-Cultural, Active-Recreational, & Moral-Religious Emphasis)
    • Internal consistency was Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .34 to .66)* 
  • System-Maintenance Subscale (Organization and Control) 
    • Internal consistency was Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .56 to .63)*

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Families with Bipolar & Non-Bipolar Children (Belardinelli et al., 2008)

  • Families with bipolar children showed greater levels of dysfunction than families with non-bipolar children. 
  • Families with Bipolar children scored higher on the Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, and Active-Recreational Orientation than families with non-bipolar children ( p’s <.05).

 

Families of individuals with Severe TBI (Boyle & Haines, 2002)

  • Families of individuals with Severe TBI showed greater levels of dysfunction than families without an individual with Severe TBI. 
  • Families with TBI scored higher on the Expressiveness, Active-Recreational, and Control subscales (p’s <.05).

Construct Validity

Discriminant Validity:

Preadolescents & Adolescents (Feldman, & Gehring, 1988) 

  • Poor discriminant validity between cohesion of the Family System Test (dyadic) and FES control subscale for preadolescents (r = -.18, p < .05).

Content Validity

According to Galea (2010) face and content validity of the FES is "supported by the clear statements relating to the 10 subscale domains."

Moos (1990) contend that each of the subscales were developled and "based on conceptually derived definitions of central constructs." 

Face Validity

According to Galea (2010) face and content validity of the FES is "supported by the clear statements relating to the 10 subscale domains."

Moos (1990) contend that each of the subscales were developled and "based on conceptually derived definitions of central constructs."   

Responsiveness

Multivariate Effect Sizes 

Children between the Ages of 11-18 (n = 1,289) (Boyd et al., 1997). 

  • Small effect size for subscales = .09 (p < .05)
  • Small effect size for age = .06
  • Small effect size for gender = .02 

 

Mediator Variable Effects 

Maltese University Students (n = 312) (Galea, 2010). 

  • Child abuse partially mediated the relationship between family environment (as measured by the FES) and cognitive well-being (r (310) = -.23 p < .001

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Adolescent Sample (Calculated from Boyd et al., 1997 using Cronbach's Alpha coefficients, rather that ICC)

  • Children Ages 11-14
    • Cohesion: SEM= 1.28 
    • Expressiveness: SEM= 1.44
    • Conflict: SEM= 1.29
    • Independence: SEM= 1.33
    • Achievement: SEM= 1.29
    • Intellectual-Cultural: SEM= 1.46
    • Active-Recreational: SEM= 1.26
    • Moral-Religious: SEM= 1.22
    • Organization: SEM= 1.45
    • Control: SEM= 1.38 

 

  • Children Ages 15-18
    • Cohesion: SEM= 1.44
    • Expressiveness: SEM= 1.47
    • Conflict: SEM= 1.30
    • Independence: SEM= 1.34
    • Achievement: SEM= 1.32
    • Intellectual-Cultural: SEM= 1.25
    • Active-Recreational: SEM= 1.32
    • Moral-Religious: SEM= 1.16
    • Organization: SEM= 1.44
    • Control: SEM= 1.30

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Adolescent Sample (Calculated from Boyd et al., 1997)

 

  • Children Ages 11-14
    • Cohesion: MDC= 3.54
    • Expressiveness: MDC= 3.99
    • Conflict: MDC= 3.58
    • Independence: MDC= 3.70
    • Achievement: MDC= 3.58 
    • Intellectual-Cultural: MDC= 4.05 
    • Active-Recreational: MDC= 3.49 
    • Moral-Religious: MDC= 3.37 
    • Organization: MDC= 4.03
    • Control: MDC= 3.82 

 

  • Children Ages 15-18
    • Cohesion: MDC= 3.99
    • Expressiveness: MDC= 4.07 
    • Conflict: MDC= 3.61 
    • Independence: MDC= 3.72 
    • Achievement: MDC= 3.66 
    • Intellectual-Cultural: MDC= 3.46 
    • Active-Recreational: MDC= 3.66 
    • Moral-Religious: MDC= 3.21
    •  Organization: MDC= 4.00 
    • Control: MDC= 3.60

Bibliography

Belardinelli, C., Hatch, J. P., Olvera, R. L., Fonseca, M., Caetano, S. C., Nicoletti, M…. & Soares, J. C. (2008). Family environment patterns in families with bipolar children. Journal Of Affective Disorders, 107(1-3), 299-305. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2007.08.011. 

Boyd, C. P., Gullone, E., Needleman, G. L. & Burt, T. (1997), The Family Environment Scale: Reliability and Normative Data for an Adolescent Sample. Family Process, 36, 369–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1997.00369.x. 

Boyle, G. J. & Haines, S. (2002). Severe traumatic brain injury: Some effects on family caregivers. Psychological Reports, 90(2), 415. doi:10.2466/PR0.90.2.415-425. 

Feldman, S. S. & Gehring, T. M. (1988). Changing perceptions of family cohesion and power across adolescence. Child Development, 1034-1045. 

Galea, M. (2010). Does child maltreatment mediate family environment and psychological well-being?, Psychology, 1(2), 143-150. 

Glass, C. A. (1993). The impact of home based ventilator dependence on family life. Spinal Cord, 31(2), 93-101. 

Moos, R. H. & Moos, B. S. (2009). Family Environment Scale manual and sampler set: Development, applications and research. Mind Garden, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Sep 11, 2024

Structured Clinical Interv...

read more