家庭系統測量的評估－以晚期青少年的家庭為例

The Evaluation of Family System Measurement for Late Adolescents and Families

10.30074/FJMH.200709_20(3).0003

劉惠琴(Whei-Ching Liu)

家庭系統 ； 青少年 ； 家庭測量 ； family system ； adolescents ； family measurements

中華心理衛生學刊

20卷3期（2007 / 09 / 01）

261 - 290

繁體中文

研究目的：台灣地區深受工業化與都市化的影響，家庭結構與功能均面臨相當的衝擊。複雜多變的家庭互動，使得系統的研究觀點不斷地被討論。家庭系統的測量工具雖然在近二十幾年來已逐漸發展，但由於家庭系統的複雜性，使得測量工具在實際操作的層面卻未必能確切捕捉及描繪其真正內涵。研究目的在針對國內普遍延用的FACES家庭系統測量工具，系統地評估Olson等人(1979)的編製理念及其在測量之問的落差，更進而以國內青少年與其家人為例，評估此工具對國人家庭的適用性。研究方法：以量性設計為主，質性設計為輔的二種研究程序共同探討以美國社會所發展出的家庭系統量表如何測量本地的青少年與其家人對家庭系統的知覺。研究結果：先整理出家庭系統量表的常模及向度，再整理出家庭系統向度中的內涵。接著，探討家庭系統的知覺與父母親互動，及與背景因素問的關連。研究結論：對於本樣本與Olson等人之研究結果之差異提出文化觀點的思考。

Purpose: The research is to evaluate how family systems for late adolescents and their families were measured by FACES-TI (a very popularly used inventory by researchers and practitioners). Due to the drastic social change process, traditional family structures have been facing great challenges, which make family interactions more varied and hard to be measured. Method: In order to evaluate how well the inventory measured, both methods of quantitative and qualitative procedures were designed. Based on the quantitative research design, 392 college students were surveyed, the FACES-Ⅱ and the Multi-Individuation Scale devised by the researcher as a validity indicator were administered. Based on the qualitative research design, 36 focus group members were recruited into 6 groups to collect qualitative reactions to FACES-Ⅱ. Results: The research results were presented to answer four questions: (1) What were families reflected from the inventory. (2) What aspect of dimensions were found from the inventory. (3) What theoretical constructs were in dimensions. (4) How did adolescents' perception of family system correlate to their individuation process and their demographic backgrounds. Quantitative data were analyzed by Factor Analysis method to examine major dimensions and factor components within dimensions. And, qualitative data collected from focus groups were analyzed by open coding procedures, and measurement difficulties for some factor components such as ”family boundary”, ”coalitions”, ”family role sharing”, and ”family rules” were presented. Finally, relations among FACES-Ⅱ, multi-individuation process and background variables were analyzed by correlation method. Conclusions: In general, Taiwanese family types tend to be more unbalances than Olson, et al's (1979) sample, whereas the cohesion dimension was underestimated and the adjustment dimension was overestimated. In conclusion, differences between this research results and Olson, et al's (1979) are also discussed with culture perspectives further. At last, the findings will have implications for researchers and practitioners who work with families in Taiwan, and limitations of this research are also discussed.

1. 賈紅鶯、陳秉華、楊連謙(2003)。一個結構－策略家族治療改變歷程與文化意涵。中華心理衛生學刊，16(1)，71-124。
   連結：
2. 劉惠琴(2005)。親子關係中多元個體化歷程的內涵與測量。中華心理衛生學刊，18(4)，55-92。
   連結：
3. Hoffman, J. A.(1984).Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents.Journal of Counseling Psychology,31,170-178.
4. Michele, B.,賈紅鶯,陳秉華,楊連謙(1987).Enmeshment fusion or relatedness? A conceptual analysis.Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family,3(4),65-80.
5. Minuchin, P.(1985).Families and individual development: Provocations: A genetic extension of the social relations model.Journal of Social and Personal Relationship,14,491-504.
6. Olson, D. H.,McCubbin, H. I.,Barnes, H.,Larsen, A.,Muxen, M.,Wilson, M.(1992).Family Inventories.MN:Life Innovations, Inc..
7. Olson, D. H.,Portner, J.,Bell, R. Q.(1982).Family Social Science.St Paul, MN:University of Minnesota.
8. Olson, D. H.,Sprenkle, D. H.,Russell, C. 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.
9. Tamura, T.,Lan, A.,Ng, Kit S. (Eds),賈紅鶯,陳秉華,楊連謙(1998).Connectedness versus separateness: Applicability of family therapy to Japanese families.Counseling Asian families from a systems perspective. The family and counseling series.
10. 何友暉、陳淑娟、趙志裕(1991)。中國人的心理與行為。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
11. 吳明燁(2002)。比較家庭系統中結構性與關係性資源對於青少年學業成就之影響。第四屆華人心理學家學術研討會暨第六屆華人心理與行為科際學術研討會，臺北:
12. 宋維村(1987)。家庭功能類型之研究。國科會結案報告。
13. 孫世維(1997)。親子依附與分離－個體化：大學時期的發展。教育與心理研究，20，271-296。
14. 高達觀(1978)。中國家族社會之演變。台北:九思出版社。
15. 游淑瑜(2003)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
16. 黃光國(1999)。華人的關係主義。華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計劃。
17. 黃宗堅(1999)。家庭系統的測量與應用。應用心理研究，2，83-110。
18. 黃宗堅(2002)。家庭系統的測量與分類－以青少年原生家庭為例之初探。家庭系統量化實徵研究學術研討會論文集
19. 楊中芳(1991)。中國人中國心－人格社會篇。台北:遠流出版社。
20. 葉光輝(1999)。家庭心理學：系統思維觀點的探討與應用。應用心理研究，2，19-20。
21. 蔡秀玲、吳麗娟(1998)。不同性別大學生的依附關係，個體化與適應之關係。教育心理學報，30(1)，73-90。
22. 羅國英(1995)。家庭研究中的測量問題：文獻探討。東吳社會工作學報，1，37-90。

1. 陳慧娟、林漢唐(2016)。家長網路管教、學校投入與青少年危險網路行為之關係：家庭凝聚力之調節效果分析。教育科學研究期刊，61(4)，205-242。
2. 陳婉真、江守峻(2017)。經濟弱勢青少年的教師支持、同儕支持、家庭凝聚力與心理資本之關係：台灣貧窮兒少資料庫分析。當代教育研究季刊，25(4)，11-50。
3. 劉惠琴(2011)。家庭調適的質量對話。教育心理學報，42(4)，567-590。
4. 孫英紅,佟月華,王榮(2021)。臺灣青少年社會關係認知特點：多情境、多維度探討。教育心理學報，52(3)，489-518。