TEORIFAMILYMINUCHINDANMcMASTER

According to the McMaster Model of Family Functioning, there are six

dimensionsoffamilyfunctioning.Thefirstdimension, ProblemSolving,
refers to the familys ability to solve problems, which is conducive to
effective family functioning. Communication is the second dimension,
which refers to the effectiveness and content of information exchange
amongfamilymembers.Thethirddimension,Roles,addressestheissueof
whether the family has recurrent patterns of behavior to handle family
functions.ThefourthdimensionisAffectiveResponsiveness,whichrefers
to the family members ability to respond with appropriate affect to
environmentalstimuli.Thefifthdimension, AffectiveInvolvement,refers
totheamountofaffectionfamilymembersplaceoneachother.Behavioral
Controlisthefinaldimension,whichassesseswhetherthefamilyhasnorms
or standards governing individual behavior and responses to emergency
situations. In the Family Assessment Device, items assessing these
dimensions include: Problem Solving: 6 items; Communication: 9 items;
Roles:11items;AffectiveResponsiveness:6items;AffectiveInvolvement:
7items;BehaviorControl:9items.Inadditiontotheabovesixsubscales,a
12item GeneralFunctioning Subscale, which assesses the overall
health/pathologyofthefamilyisincludedintheFAD(Epsteinetal.,1983).

Items and Subscales of the McMaster Familv Assessment Device

PROBLEM SOLVING
We usually act on our decisions regarding problems.
After our family tries to solve a problem, we usually discuss whether i t worked or not.
We resolve most emotional upsets that come up.
We confront problems involving feelings.
We try to think of different ways to solve problems.
COMMUNICATION
When someone is upset the others know why.
You cant tell how a person is feeling from what they are saying. People come right out
and say things instead of hinting a t them. We are frank with each other.
We dont talk to each other when we are angry.
When we dont like what someone has done, we tell them.

ROLES
When you ask someone to do something, you have to check that they did it. We make
sure members meet their family responsibilities.
Family tasks dont get spread around enough.
We have trouble meeting our bills.
Theres little time to explore personal interests.
We discuss who is to do household jobs.
If people are asked to do something, they need reminding.
We are generally dissatisfied with the family duties assigned to us.
AFFECTIVE RESPONSIVENESS
We are reluctant to show our affection for each other.
Some of us just dont respond emotionally.
We do not show our love for each other.
Tenderness takes second place to other things in our family.
We express tenderness.
We cry openly.
AFFECTIVE INVOLVEMENT
If someone is in trouble, the others become too involved.
You only get the interest of others when something is important to them.
We are too self-centered.
We get involved with each other only when something interests us.
We show interest in each other when we can get something out of it personally.
Our family shows interest in each other only when they can get something out of it.
Even though we mean well, we intrude too much into each others lives.
BEHAVIOR CONTROL
We dont know what to do when an emergency comes up. You can easily get away with
breaking the rules.
We know what to do in an emergency.
We have no clear expectations about toilet habits.
We have rules about hitting people.
We dont hold to any rules or standards.
If the rules are broken, we dont know what to expect.
Anything goes in our family.
There are rules about dangerous situations.
GENERAL FUNCTIONING

Planning family activities is difficult because we misunderstand each other. In times of

crisis we can turn to each other for support.
We cannot talk to each other about the sadness we feel.
Individuals are accepted for what they are.
We avoid discussing our fears and concerns.
We can express feelings to each other.
There are lots of bad feelings in the family.
We feel accepted for what we are.
Making decisions is a problem for our family.
We are able to make decisions about how to solve problems.
We dont get along well together.
We confide in each other.

Example of McMaster Clinical Rating Scale Problem Solving

Family problem solving refers to the family's ability to resolve problems to a
level that maintains effective family functioning. A family problem is seen
as an issue which threatens the integrity and functional capacity of the
family and which the family has difficulty resolving. Families can have
ongoing difficulties which do not threaten them in this way; such difficulties
are not considered in rating family problem solving.
Family problems can be divided into two types: Instrumental and Affective.
Instrumental problems are concrete and mechanical: provision of money,
food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc. Affective problems are
emotional, such as disruptive anger or depression. Families with
instrumental problems rarely, if ever, deal well with affective problems,
which underlines the more basic nature of instrumental problems. However,
families with affective problems may deal adequately with instrumental
problems.
There are seven problem solving steps described in the McMaster Model of
Family Functioning:
1. Identification of the problem
2. Communication of the problem to appropriate resources
3. Formulation of alternatives
4. Decision to take a particular action

5. Action
6. Monitoring results of the action
7. Evaluation of problem-solving process
Families differ in their problem-solving effectiveness. The differences can
be viewed as falling along a continuum. A healthy family has few if any
unresolved problems, and quickly and systematically deals with those which
arise. Toward the disturbed end of the continuum, a family's problemsolving behavior is less systematic, and accomplishes fewer of the problemsolving steps. At the extreme of the disturbed end of the continuum, a family
is unable even to identify problems, consistently denying or mislabeling
them, so they linger unresolved, and generate much conflict.
Description of Anchor Points
Severely Disturbed (Rating of 1)
1. The family does not recognize that problems exist.
2. The family is unable to correctly identify problems. This may involve
projection, displacement, or distortion.
3. The family is vaguely aware of problems, but engages in no
discussion of them, thus precluding formal identification of problems.
4. The family endures long-standing instrumental problems even though
resources are available to solve them.
5. The family cannot attempt to solve problems without generating much
conflict.
Nonclinical/Healthy (Rating of 5)
1. The family allows no disruptive instrumental problems to go
unresolved.
2. The family allows few affective problems to go unresolved. Most (7080%) are resolved quickly and efficiently.
3. One or more family members notice problems when they arise,
though they may occasionally mislabel the problems.

4. When a family member identifies a problem, she/he communicates it

to the others.
5. For most problems (70-80%), family members propose specific
alternative solutions and choose among them.
6. The family solves 70-80% of its problems quickly and effectively; it
solves the remaining 20-30% satisfactorily, but this process is
relatively inefficient/haphazard. This can be due to (a) a lack of
awareness of how a problem is solved; (b) a willingness to allow
resolution to take too long; or (c) the nonparticipation of some family
members.
Superior (Rating of 7)
1. The family quickly recognizes that a problem has developed.
2. The family accurately identifies the problem.
3. Through discussion, the family clearly defines alternatives and
decides on a course of action.
4. After acting, the family regularly evaluates its success.
5. The family is flexible: it adjusts approaches and solutions to different
situations.
6. The family has a history of dealing successfully with problems.
Principles for Rating
1. The fewer unresolved problems, the healthier the family.
2. The more problem-solving steps accomplished, the healthier the
family.
3. We rate a healthy or nonclinical family at 5 or higher.
4. We always rate a family with unresolved instrumental problems at 4
or lower.

5. If a family's competence in problem solving varies greatly, we rate

how well the family deals with its most potentially disruptive
problem.

Behavioral Process Operationalizations (Minuchin)

Boundaries
1. Do the parents talk together? (preparation part: disagreement task)
2. Do the children talk to the parents? (preparation part: disagreement task)
3. Do the children talk together? (preparation part: disagreement task)
4. Do the parents talk to the children? (preparation part: disagreement task)
5. Are alliances formed within the family? (break)
6. Do the family members try to reach a common family answer? (interactional part:
interest-task)
7. Are alliances formed within the family? (interactional part: criticism-task)
8. Does explorative behavior occur? (break)
9. Does explorative behavior occur? (introduction)
10. Does "in-between communication" occur? (interactional part: interest-task)

Cronbach alpha = 0.73

percentage agreement = 0.58
kappa-coefficient = 0.35
Adaptability
1. Does attention-seeking behavior occur? (individual part: interest/criticism-task)
2. To what extent does one discuss own preferences/criticisms? (interactional part:
interest/criticism-task)
3. Does one verbally disagree in the family? (interactional part: interest/criticism-task)
4. Does one of the parents take sides with the children? (discussion of the problem of the
parents/children: disagreement-task)
5. Does one interrupt each other? (interactional part: interest/criticism-task)
6. Does one talk? (individual part: interest/criticism-task)
7. Does one give comments on the task? (individual part: interest/criticism-task)
8. How long does one discuss the problem? (discussion of the problem of the
parents/children: disagreement-task)
9. Are coalitions formed? (interactional part interest/criticism-task)
10. Does one whisper? (introduction/break)
11. Is there guidance? (interactional part: interest/criticism-task)
12. Do the children support one another? (discussion of the problem of the
parents/children: disagreement-task)
13. What is the contribution of the parents/children in the negotiation? (discussion of the
problem of the parents/children: disagreement-task)
14. Does explorative behavior occur? (break/introduction)
15. Does attention-giving behavior occur? (individual part: interest/criticism-task)
16. What is the evolution of distance between family members? (interactional part:
interest/criticism-task)
17. To what extent does one observe dialogue in the communication? (interactional part:
interest/criticism-task)
Cronbach = 0.50
Cronbach = 0.53
kappa-coefficient = 0.29
Avoidance/Recognition of Intrafamilial Tension
1. Does attention-seeking behavior occur? (introduction)
2. Does attention-seeking behavior occur? (individual part: criticism-task)
3. Does one talk about the eating problem or about the patient? (break)
4. Does attention-seeking behavior occur? (break)
5. Does one talk about the eating problem or about the patient? (introduction)
6. Does attention-giving behavior occur? (introduction)
7. Does attention-giving behavior occur? (break)
8. Does one give comments on the task? (individual part: criticism-task)
9. Does attention-giving behavior occur? (individual part: criticism-task)
10. Does one give comments on the task? (individual part: interest-task)

Cronbach alpha = 0.67

percentage agreement = 0.67
kappa-coefficient = 0.51
Conflict
1. Is there a tense atmosphere in the family? (break)
2. Are coalitions formed? (interactional part: criticism-task)
3. Does one of the parents take sides with the children? (discussion of the problem of the
parents: disagreement-task)
4. What is the contribution of parents/children in the negotiation? (discussion of the
problem of the parents: disagreement-task)
5. Are coalitions formed? (interactional part: interest-task)
6. Is there a tense atmosphere in the family? (introduction)
7. What is the contribution of the parents/children in the negotiation? (discussion of the
problem of the children: disagreement-task) 8. To what extent does one compare the
criticisms in order to rank them? (interactional part: criticism-task)
9. Are coalitions formed? (break)
Cronbach alpha = 0.71
percentage agreement = 0.62
kappa-coefficient = 0.42