1467-6427.00143

The Beavers Systems Model of Family Functioning

Robert Beaversa and Robert B. Hampsonb

Family competence and family style are the two main dimensions of theBeavers Systems Model of Family Functioning. The competence dimen-sion ranges from optimal through adequate, midrange and borderline toseverely dysfunctional. The style dimension ranges from centripetal tocentrifugal. When the two dimensions are combined, they diagramaticallydefine nine distinct family groupings, three of which are relatively func-tional and six of which are thought to be sufficiently problematic torequire clinical intervention. A familys status on the competence and styledimensions may be established with the Beavers interactional scales. Theself-report family inventory may be used to evaluate family membersperceptions of their status on the competence dimension. The reliabilityand validity of the self-report instrument and observational rating scaleshave been documented in over thirty papers and books published by theBeavers research team since 1970. The model has proved useful in train-ing, research and clinical work.

Overview

The Beavers Systems Model offers a cross-sectional perspective onfamily functioning. Family competence is conceptualized as fallingalong one dimension and family style is viewed as falling along asecond orthogonal dimension. Figure 1 is a diagram of this model.

The horizontal axis family competence relates to the struc-ture, available information and adaptive flexibility of the system. Insystems terms, this may be called a negentropic continuum, sincethe more negentropic (flexible and adaptive) a family, the more thefamily can negotiate, function and deal effectively with stressful situ-ations. High competence requires both structure and the ability tochange structures. There is a complex interaction of morphogenic

2000 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

The Association for Family Therapy 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 CowleyRoad, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.Journal of Family Therapy (2000) 22: 12814301634445

a Executive Director, Robert Beavers Family Studies Center, SouthernMethodist University, Dedman College, PO Box 750442, Dallas TX 75275-0442,USA.

b Associate Professor of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas,USA.

JOFT 22.2 - Main Text 14/4/0 10:59 am Page 128

and morphostatic features. Capable families intuitively have asystems approach to relationships, with an appreciation of the inter-changeability of causes and effects and the circularity of systemsphenomena. When a family is not bound to rigid behaviourpatterns and responses, it has more freedom to evolve and differ-entiate. Bertalanffy (1968) wisely said, system sickness is systemrigidity.

Beavers Systems Model 129


Figure 1. The Beavers Systems Model of Family Functioning


The vertical axis family style relates to a stylistic quality of familyinteraction. With respect to healthy functioning, it is not a unidirec-tional continuum. Rather, it bears a curvilinear relationship to healthyfunctioning and ranges from centripetal to centrifugal. Centripetalfamilies view most relationship satisfactions as coming from within thefamily rather than from the outside world. Conversely, centrifugalfamilies see the outside world as holding the most promise of satisfac-tion and the family as holding the least. The arrow shape of thediagram is designed to illustrate that extremes of style eitherprofoundly centrifugal or centripetal are associated with poor familyfunctioning. As a family becomes more competent, excessivecentripetal or centrifugal styles diminish. Competent families changeand adapt in various ways in order to meet individual members needs.For example, a family with small children is appropriately morecentripetal. As the family matures and children reach late adoles-cence, a more centrifugal pattern is expected to be optimally adaptive.

Nine family groupings may be defined on the basis of familiespositionings along the dimensions of competence and style. Thefollowing description of the characteristics of the nine differentfamily groupings specified in our model is based on both clinicalobservation and empirical research (Beavers, 1977, 1981a, 1981b,1982, 1985, 1989; Beavers and Hampson, 1990, 1993; Hampson andBeavers, 1996a, 1996b; Lewis et al., 1977).

Group 1. Optimal families

Optimal families serve as our model for effective functioning. Thefamily members have what can be described as a systems orienta-tion. They realize that many causes interact to produce a givenresult, and that causes and effects are interchangeable (e.g. harshdiscipline leads to aggressive behaviour and aggressive behaviourinvites harsh discipline). Intimacy is sought and generally found. Itis a function of frequent, equal-powered transactions along withmutual respect for differing family members viewpoints. Individualchoice and perceptions are respected, allowing for capable negoti-ation and excellent group problem-solving. Individuation of eachperson is highly evolved and boundaries are clear. There is conflict,but it is usually resolved quickly.

Group 2. Adequate families

Adequate families are contrasted with optimal families in that the

130 Robert Beavers and Robert Hampson



former are more control oriented and often attempt to resolveconflict by intimidation and direct force. Therefore, greater overtpower is sought by family members and the parental coalition is lessemotionally rewarding, though usually effective. While stilladequate, there is less intimacy and trust in these families, less joyand less spontaneity. Role stereotyping, particularly sex-role stereo-typing, with conventional, powerful, unemotive males counter-pointed by relatively less powerful, emotive and frequentlydepressed women, is usual.

Groups 3, 4 and 5. Mid-range families

The first three groups of dysfunctional families are termed mid-range. These families usually contain functional but vulnerablechildren, and both parents and children are susceptible to psycho-logical problems. Mid-range families are concerned with controland overt power differences. Power struggles and discipline withoutnegotiation are usual. Members of mid-range families assume thatpeople are basically antisocial and therefore their control effortsare believed to be essential. Family members do not have boundaryproblems. Although there are frequent projections, the family rolesallow for rebuttal, and invasion of one members inner space byanother is resisted. Further, one often sees favourite children inmid-range families. These favourites may be different for eachparent mother selects a son, father a daughter or they may teamup and select an agreed-upon favourite and possibly a scapegoat.

Ambivalence is frequently handled by denying one half of a pairof strong feelings and using repression or projection for the other.For example, I like to go out and you like to stay at home or Youare too strict with the kids versus No, you are too lenient. Thereis a pervasive belief that people really have one feeling: He reallyloves me, though he is contemptuous or She really hates methough she tries to be nice. Three types or styles of mid-range fami-lies centripetal, centrifugal and mixed will be discussed below.

Members of a mid-range centripetal family expect overt, author-itarian control to be successful. Parental manipulation or indirectcontrol is minimal. The expression of hostility is not approved andis therefore covert. Expressions of caring are approved. There isonly modest spontaneity and great concern for rules and authority.Sex stereotyping is at a maximum in this group. Childlike womenand strong, silent males abound.




Mid-range centrifugal families also attempt to use control byintimidation but do not expect their efforts to be successful. Openhostility, blame and attack are frequent. Expressions of warmth andcaring are anxiety-provoking. Easily unleashed negative feelingsprovide the energy for change in centrifugal families. Parents spendlittle time in the home, and children move out into the neighbour-hoods and streets much earlier than the norm. The parental coali-tion is tenuous, with unresolved power issues openly displayed.

Mid-range mixed families have enough alternating and compet-ing centripetal and centrifugal behaviour to disqualify them froman extreme stylistic position and thus are in a mixed position withinthe mid-range.

Groups 6 and 7. Borderline families

Borderline families present with chaotic overt power struggles alter-nating with ineffective but persistent efforts to establish domi-nance/submission patterns. Individual family members have littleskill in meeting emotional needs, either their own or those ofothers. The families are neither as dysfunctional as the severelydisturbed group nor as effective in establishing control-orientedstability as the mid-range families.

In borderline centripetal families the chaos is more verbal thanbehavioural, and control battles are intense but usually covert.Open rebellion or covertly expressed rage is not expected, that is,not within the family rules. Severely obsessional and anorecticpatients may sometimes be found in these families.

Borderline centrifugal families are much more open in theexpression of anger. The parental coalition is notably poor, andstormy battles occur regularly. Children learn to manipulate theunstable but oscillating parental subsystem and sometimes receive alabel of borderline personality disorder.

Groups 8 and 9. Severely dysfunctional families

The severely dysfunctional familys greatest deficit is in the domainof communication and its greatest need is for communicationalcoherence. Consequently, this group is most limited in negotiatingand adaptive capacity. Family members have little ability to resolveambivalence and to choose and pursue goals. There is a lack of ashared focus of attention in discussion and an emotional distancing




that precludes satisfying encounters. Overt power is not clearly heldby anyone in the family. Family functioning appears chaotic, sincecontrol is carried on by a variety of covert and indirect means.

Severely disturbed centripetal families have a tough, nearlyimpermeable outer boundary, and the family may be seen by neigh-bours as unusual. Children may be delayed in their progressionthrough normal sequences of emotional development. In thesefamilies there is a powerful conflict between the developmentalneed for separation/individuation and the familys insistence ontogetherness and extreme family loyalty.

Severely disturbed centrifugal families have a tenuous boundarybetween the family and the community, with frequent memberleave-taking, much open hostility, and great contempt for depen-dency, vulnerability, human tenderness and warmth. This contrastswith the severely disturbed centripetal familys characteristics, butthe confused, incomplete transactions and severely disturbed levelof adaptability are quite similar. Children from severely disturbedcentrifugal families may be as limited in social-emotional develop-ment as those from severely disturbed centripetal families.

Description of the self-report instruments and clinicalrating scales

A family may be classified into one of the nine categories or familygroupings described in the previous section on the basis of theirscores on the Beavers interactional scales (Beavers and Hampson,1990). A familys position along the competence dimension may beestablished with the self-report family inventory. A description ofthese two instruments will be given below.

Beavers interactional scales

There are two Beavers interactional scales: The BeaversInteractional Competence Scale and the Beavers InteractionalStyle Scale. Both are designed for use by trained raters who haveobserved an episode of family interaction in which familymembers discuss the following question for ten minutes: Whatwould you like to see changed in your family? Each interactional scaleis made up of a number of five- or ten-point subscales, with veryconcrete descriptions of what type of families should be givenparticular ratings.




Beavers Interactional Competence Scale

The Beavers Interactional Competence Scale is designed to assess afamilys overall level of health and competence (Beavers andHampson, 1990). The family competence scale is composed of thefollowing thirteen subscales.

1. Structure of the family: Overt power (from chaotic to egalitarian) Parental coalitions (from parentchild coalition to strong

parental coalition) Closeness (from indistinct boundaries to distinct boundaries).

2. Mythology (from congruent to incongruent).3. Goal-directed negotiation (from extremely efficient to extremely

inefficient).4. Autonomy:

Clarity of expression (from very clear to unclear) Responsibility (from regular to rare acceptance of responsibil-

ity for actions) Permeability (from very open to unreceptive).

5. Family affect: Range of feelings (from direct expression of a wide range to

little expression) Mood and tone (from warm and optimistic to cynical and

pessimistic) Unresolvable conflict (from severe unresolved conflict to

none) Empathy (from consistent empathy to none).

6. Global health pathology (from pathological to healthy).

In one of our investigations (Beavers and Hampson, 1990) therewere three pairs of raters who reached at least 90% overall reliabil-ity in training and maintained a minimum of 85% reliabilitythroughout the study. Interrater reliabilities expressed as Kappacoefficients ranged from .76 (closeness scale) to .88 (range of feel-ings), and a Kappa coefficient of .86 was obtained for the globalcompetence rating. The scale also shows a high degree of internalconsistency across the thirteen subscales, with a Chronbachs alphaof .94.

The validity of the competence scale has been demonstrated in anumber of investigations. The original Timberlawn study (Lewis et al.,1976) found that the competence scale successfully discriminated




families with hospitalized adolescents from non-clinical families.The competence scale has also shown a high degree of constructvalidity and correlated with the Self-Report Family Inventory(r = .62), and with the general functioning subscale of the McMasterFamily Assessment Device (r=.68: Epstein et al., 1993).

Beavers Interactional Style Scale

The Beavers Interactional Style Scale is designed to assess a familysstyle which may range from centrifugal to centripetal, withmembers of centrifugal families looking outside the family for theirneeds to be met and members of centripetal families looking exclu-sively within the family for need fulfilment (Beavers and Hampson,1990). The family Style Scale is composed of the following eightsubscales.

1. Meeting dependency needs (from needs ignored to met alertly).2. Managing conflict (from open to covert).3. Use of space (from much space between members to very close).4. Appearance to outsiders (from try to make a good impression to

unconcerned).5. Professed closeness (emphasize closeness to deny closeness).6. Managing assertion (discourage to encourage assertion).7. Expression of positive and negative feelings (mainly positive to

mainly negative).8. Global style (from centripetal to centrifugal).

For the eight style subscales, interrater reliabilities expressed asKappa coefficients ranged from .76 (Adult Conflict Scale) to .88(Positive versus Negative Feelings), with a coefficient of .81 for theoverall Style Scale (Beavers and Hampson, 1990). The Style Scalehas good internal consistency reliability across the eight subscaleswith a Chronbachs alpha of .88. For research purposes, a stylefactor consisting of two of the subscales (Social Presentation andBalance of Positive/Negative Feelings) may be used. This factorshows a higher predictive and clinical validity than does the overallStyle Scale (Daniels, 1995).

Validation research on the Style Scale is still in progress. Pilotdata from families assessed in a psychiatric emergency room indi-cate that style was a significant predictor of internalizing versusexternalizing diagnoses of patients. In a diagnostically heterogen-eous sample of patients all six unipolar depression cases were clas-




sified as centripetal and all seven substance abuse and all fourborderline personality disorder cases were classified as centrifugal(Beavers and Hampson, 1990) .

Self-report Family Inventory

The Self-report Family Inventory (Beavers and Hampson, 1990) is athirty-six-item, self-report instrument which may be completed byfamily members of 11 years of age and older. The Self-report FamilyInventory measures five family domains: health/competence,conflict, cohesion, leadership, and emotional expressiveness. Thehealth/competence subscale includes nineteen content itemsinvolving family affect, parental coalitions, problem-solving abilities,autonomy and individuality, optimistic versus pessimistic views, andacceptance of family members. The conflict subscale includestwelve content items involving overt versus covert conflict, includ-ing arguing, blaming, fighting openly, acceptance of personalresponsibility, unresolved conflict, and negative feeling tone. Thecohesion subscale includes five content items dealing with familytogetherness, satisfaction received from inside the family versusoutside, and spending time together. The leadership subscaleincludes three content items involving parental leadership, direc-tiveness, and degree of rigidity of control. Finally, the emotionalexpressiveness subscale includes six content items dealing withverbal and nonverbal expression of warmth, caring and closeness(Hampson and Beavers, 1988). Respondents answer all Self-reportFamily Inventory items except the last two on a Likert-type scale,with 1 being Yes: Fits our family well; 3 being Some: Fits our familysome; and 5 being No: Does not fit our family.

The Self-report Family Inventory has high internal consistencyreliability with Cronbach alphas between .84 and .93 and testretestreliabilities of .85 or better. The Self-report Family Inventory alsohas good validity with canonical correlations of .62 or betterbetween the Self-report Family Inventory Competence scores andthe observer-rated Beavers Interactional Competence Scale(Hampson et al., 1989).

The clinical validity of the Self-report Family Inventory hasbeen shown by its capacity to discriminate groups of psychiatricpatients with differing diagnoses (Hampson and Beavers, 1990:61). For example, in this study of forty-six diagnostically hetero-geneous cases, all ten cases with schizophrenia were classified as




being within the severely dysfunctional centripetal family group-ing and all four cases of borderline personality disorder fell intothe borderline centrifugal family grouping as predicted by theBeavers Model.

The Self-report Family Inventory also corresponds well withother self-report family scales measuring conceptually similardomains. For instance, the Self-report Family Inventoryhealth/competence subscale correlates with the general function-ing subscale of the Family Assessment Device (r=.77: Miller et al.,1985) and Self-report Family Inventory. The cohesion subscale ofthe Self-report Family Inventory correlates with the cohesion scalefrom FACES III, a self-report scale for the Circumplex Model ofMarital and Family Functioning (r= -.67: Beavers and Hampson,1990; Olson, 1986).

Summary of research

Our research programme has shed light on the distribution of fami-lies in terms of the main dimensions of the Beavers Model; the rela-tionship between the Self-report Family Inventory, the BeaversInteractional Scales and instruments derived from other models offamily functioning; and the relationship between the dimensions ofthe model and treatment process and outcome. A summary of theresults of this research follows.

Normative data

Since the 1970s we have accumulated Beavers Interactional Scalesdata on over 1,800 families from both clinical and non-clinicalpopulations. From these data we have found that 5% of the familiesstudied fell into the optimal range; 38% fell into the adequaterange; 38% fell into the mid-range; 16% fell into the borderlinerange; and 3% fell into the severely dysfunctional range on theBeavers Interactional Competence Scale (Beavers and Hampson,1993). We accept that our data are not drawn from a normativestratified random sample, but believe that they provide an approxi-mate indication of the distribution of families along the centraldimension of our model. These results have confirmed our expec-tation that adequate and mid-range levels of competence are rela-tively common, while optimal and dysfunctional levels offunctioning are relatively rare.




Cross-model, cross-method study

A cross-model, cross-method study (Hampson et al., 1995) wasconducted to compare the validity of the Beavers assessment instru-ments with that of assessment instruments for the McMaster(Epstein et al., 1993) and Circumplex models (Olson, 1993). In thisstudy parents and children over 11 years old in a group of forty-fiveclinical and forty-five non-clinical families completed self-reportinstruments from all three models (Beavers and Hampson, 1990;Miller et al., 1985; Olson, 1986). Family interaction was rated bytrained raters, who achieved acceptable levels of interrater reliabil-ity using observational ratings scales for all three models (Beaversand Hampson, 1990; Miller et al., 1994; Olson and Killorin, 1985).In addition, parents in all families completed the DyadicAdjustment Scale, a self-report measure of marital satisfaction andadjustment (Spanier, 1976). All families comprised at least threemembers, with one child being 11 years or older, and 97% of parti-cipants were two-parent families. Clinical families were recruitedthrough the Southwest Family Institute, Dallas and non-clinicalfamilies were recruited through churches and schools in the samedistrict.

There were four main findings in this study which support thevalidity of the Beavers Systems Models observational and self-reportassessment instruments. First, for the competence dimension of theBeavers Systems Model, the self-report and observational ratingscales correlated highly (r=.71). Thus, there was considerable cor-respondence between the way in which family members and inde-pendent raters described family competence. Second, self-reportedfamily competence as assessed by the Beavers Self-report FamilyInventory competence subscale correlated highly with other self-report measures of global marital and family adjustment includingthe Dyadic Adjustment Scale (r=-.44: Spanier, 1976), the generalfunctioning scale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device (r=.87:Miller et al., 1985), and the cohesion scale of the Family Adaptabilityand Cohesion Scales (r=-.82: Olson, 1986). This indicates that theBeavers Self-Report Family Inventory competence subscalemeasures marital and family strengths assessed by other self-reportinstruments derived from other models of marital and family func-tioning. Third, family competence as assessed by the BeaversInteractional Competence Scale correlated highly with self-reportmeasures of global marital and family adjustment derived from




other models, including the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (r=-..44:Spanier, 1976) and the general functioning scale of the McMasterFamily Assessment Device (r=.71: Miller et al., 1985). This indicatesthat the Beavers Interactional Competence Scale measures maritaland family strengths assessed by self-report instruments derivedfrom other models of marital and family functioning. Fourth, in adiscriminant function analysis, a subset of the Beavers InteractionalScales and Self-report Family Inventory Scales correctly classified91% of clinical and non-clinical families. Scales that made signifi-cant contributions to this discriminant function were observer-ratedcompetence, self-reported competence, self-reported cohesion andself-reported emotional expressiveness. These results show thatscores on this list of observational and self-report scales may beusefully employed in screening families with clinically significantdifficulties, without too many false positives or false negatives.Taken together, the four key results from this study provide strongsupport for the validity of the Beavers Family Systems Model.

Clinic family therapy studies

We examined factors associated with positive therapeutic outcomein family therapy in two studies (Hampson and Beavers, 1996a,1996b). The first of these two studies involved a cohort of 434 fami-lies who sought therapy at a sliding-fee clinic in Dallas, Texas, overan eight-year period (Hampson and Beavers, 1996b). The therapistswere interns from various universities and disciplines (psychology,marital and family therapy, social work and psychiatry) who were alltrained in the Beavers Systems Model.

With respect to the overall outcome of treatment, 75.8% of thesefamilies improved to some extent, with at least a few goals met,based on ratings made by therapists in final therapy sessions. Whenfamilies who attended only one session were omitted from ouranalysis, the overall improvement rate was 86.6%. The improve-ment rate for families who attended six or more sessions was 93.8%.

The most powerful predictors of goal attainment identified in amultiple regression analysis were: number of sessions, researcherratings of family competence on the Beavers Interactional Scales,researcher ratings of family style on the Beavers InteractionalScales, self-reported competence on the Self-report FamilyInventory, and therapists ratings of the degree of partnershipshared with the family in treatment. The families which achieved




the highest level of goal attainment in family therapy had the follow-ing profile. They were more competent, with a more centripetalstyle, attended at least six sessions, and formed a good therapeuticpartnership with the therapist. It was noteworthy that the followingdemographic variables were unrelated to therapy outcome: familyincome, family size, family structure (single versus two-parenthouseholds), family race and therapist gender.

In the second of our two studies on therapy outcome, we exam-ined the degree to which the outcome of therapy was related to thematch between family type (as defined by the Beavers InteractionalScales) and therapist style in a cohort of 175 families whichattended at least three therapy sessions (Hampson and Beavers,1996a). These families were a subset of those who participated inthe first study for whom complete datasets were available. In eachcase after the third session, therapists rated their therapeutic stylein working with the family on three dimensions. These dimensionswere openness in disclosing the therapeutic strategy to the family(from very open to guarded); power differential in the relationshipwith clients (from egalitarian to maximally hierarchical); and part-nership in the therapeutic alliance (from close and co-operative todistant and directive).

Families rated as more competent and families which were char-acterized by a centripetal style fared best when their therapistswere more open about their therapeutic strategy, more egalitarianin the power differential they established with their clients, andmore joined in partnership with families within the therapeuticalliance. Families rated as more dysfunctional and more centrifu-gal in their style made greater therapeutic progress when theirtherapists were less open about their therapeutic strategy, andestablished a more hierarchical therapeutic relationship charac-terized by interpersonal distance and directiveness. These resultsconfirm that different therapeutic styles are appropriate for differ-ing types of families as defined by the Beavers Model of FamilyFunctioning.

Clinical implications

Family assessment and goal specification lays a solid foundation foreffective family therapy. If there are not goals which require assess-ment, preferably goals determined by negotiation with familymembers, therapy can add to, rather than subtract from family




confusion and dysfunction. The Beavers Family Systems Model wasdeveloped to help novices in family therapy learn systems thinkingand to provide a structure to guide assessment and therapy.

The Beavers Interaction Scales and Self-report Inventory canserve to identify high-risk families as well as evaluate the results ofclinical intervention. Our accumulated data show that most familiesfall within the adequate and mid-range categories. Borderline andseverely dysfunctional families requiring clinical attention havebeen found in our work to account for about 20% of all 1,800 fami-lies we studied.

We can have a fair degree of confidence that families screened asrequiring clinical input using the Beavers Interaction Scales andSelf-report Inventory have difficulties in terms of overall function-ality or style, because our instruments correlate well with similardimensions from instruments based on other models such as theMcMaster Model of Family Functioning (Epstein et al., 1993).

The results of our first family therapy outcome study show that wecan be confident that families who score higher on competence andfamilies who have a centripetal style will usually benefit most fromtherapy. These factors and not demographic characteristics areimportant determinants of a familys capacity to benefit from familytherapy. The results of this study also highlight the importance oftaking steps to develop good partnerships with clients and keepingthem engaged in therapy, since families who form a good allianceand stay in therapy for at least six sessions tend to make the mosttherapeutic gains.

The results of our second family therapy outcome study supportthe view that partnership, openness and low power differential arethe hallmarks of an effective therapeutic alliance with adequate,mid-range and borderline families. It is only with severely dysfunc-tional families that a clinician maximizes therapeutic effectivenessby maintaining an overt power differential and by not disclosingstrategy. Further, centrifugal families and severely dysfunctionalfamilies do not tend to make as much therapeutic progress as otherfamily groups. Setting concrete goals and holding moderate expec-tations of therapeutic success with these families may reduce theincidence of therapist burn-out.

Common sense would suggest that not all families require thesame interventions any more than all needful individuals respondwell to the same therapy. Our results suggest that a therapist will dowell to assess the family and be prepared to vary power differential,




disclosure of strategy and partnership with family members,depending upon the familys characteristics.

Clinical intervention styles developed by pioneers in family ther-apy fall into distinct categories as determined by these three vari-ables. Boszormenyi-Nagys contextual therapy (Boszormenyi-Nagy etal., 1991), Bowens (1978) family-of-origin approach and socialconstructionist approaches are low on power differential, high ondisclosure of strategy, and high on inviting partnership. Our resultssuggest that this approach should work well with adequate and mid-range families. Carl Whitaker, with his stories, tangential comments,and relative warmth and openness, provides a model for workingwith borderline centripetal families (Neill and Kniskern, 1982;Roberto, 1991). Avoiding power struggles is most important intreating these families. Jay Haley (1976, 1980, 1984) recommends atherapeutic style that has a high power differential, secrecy abouttherapeutic strategies, and a modest effort at developing a partner-ship. Our results suggest that such an approach is well suited toseverely dysfunctional families.

Note

Copies of the Beavers Interactional Scales and the Self-report FamilyInventory are contained in W.R. Beavers and R.B. Hampson (1990)Successful Families: Assessment and Intervention. New York: W.W. Norton.

ReferencesBeavers, W.R. (1977) Psychotherapy and Growth: A Family Systems Perspective. New

York: Brunner/Mazel.Beavers, W.R. (1981a) A systems model of family for family therapists. Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy, 7: 299-307.Beavers, W.R. (1981b) Un modello sistemico di famiglia per terapisti familiari.

Terapia Familiare, 9: 42-57.Beavers, W.R. (1982) Healthy, midrange and severely dysfunctional families. In F.

Walsh (ed.) Normal Family Processes. New York: Guilford Press.Beavers, W.R. (1985) Successful Marriage: A Family Systems Approach to Marital

Therapy. New York: W.W. Norton.Beavers, W.R. (1989) The Beavers Systems Model of Family Assessment. In C.N.

Ramsey (ed.) Family Systems in Medicine. New York: Guilford Press.Beavers, W.R. and Hampson, R.B. (1990) Successful Families: Assessment and

Intervention. New York: W.W. Norton.Beavers, W.R. and Hampson, R.B. (1993) Measuring family competence: the

Beavers Systems Model. In F. Walsh (ed.) Normal Family Processes (2nd edn). NewYork: Guilford Press.




Bertalanffy, L. von (1968) General Systems Theory. New York: Braziller.Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., Grunebum, J. and Ulrish, D. (1991) Contextual therapy. In

A. Gurman and D. Kniskern (eds) Handbook of Family Therapy. Volume 11. NewYork: Brunner/Mazel.

Bowen, M. (1978) Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.Daniels, L. (1995) Honing the concept of family style. Unpublished Masters Thesis.

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D.S., Ryan, C., Miller, I. and Keitner, G. (1993) The

McMaster Model: view of healthy family functioning. In F. Walsh (ed.) NormalFamily Processes (2nd edn). New York: Guilford Press.

Haley, J. (1976) Problem Solving Therapy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Haley, J. (1980) Leaving Home. The Therapy of Disturbed Young People. New York:

McGraw Hill.Haley, J. (1984)Ordeal Therapy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Hampson, R.B. and Beavers, W.R. (1988) Comparing males and females perspec-

tives through family self report. Psychiatry, 50: 2430.Hampson, R.B. and Beavers, W.R. (1996a) Family therapy and outcome: relation-

ships between therapist and family styles. Contemporary Family Therapy, 18:345370.

Hampson, R.B. and Beavers, W.R. (1996b) Measuring family therapy outcome in aclinical setting. Family Process, 35: 347360.

Hampson, R.B., Beavers, W.R. and Hanks, C. (1995) Family assessment: cross-model, cross-method comparisons. Texas Psychological Association Meeting,November 1995, Dallas, Texas.

Hampson, R.B., Beavers, W.R. and Hulgus, Y.F. (1989) Insiders and outsidersviews of family: the assessment of family competence and style. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 3: 118136.

Lewis, J.M., Beavers, W.R., Gossett, J.T. and Phillips, V.A. (1976) No Single Thread:Psychological Health in Family Systems. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Miller, I.W., Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D.S. and Keitner, G.I. (1985) The McMasterFamily Assessment Device: reliability and validity. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 11: 345356.

Miller, I.W., Kabacoff, R.I., Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D.S., Keitner, G.I., Baldwin, L.M.and van der Spuy, H.I.J. (1994) The development of a clinical rating scale forthe McMaster Model of Family Functioning. Family Process, 33: 5369.

Neill, J. and Kniskern, D. (1982) From Psyche to System: The Evolving Therapy of CarlWhitaker. New York: Guilford Press.

Olson, D. (1986) Circumplex model VII: validation studies and FACES III. FamilyProcess, 25: 337351.

Olson, D.H. (1993) Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: assessingfamily functioning. In F. Walsh (ed.) Normal Family Processes (2nd edn). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Olson, D.H. and Killorin, E. (1985) Clinical Rating Scale for the Circumplex Model ofMarital and Family Systems. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department ofFamily Social Science.

Roberto, L. (1991) Symbolic-experiential family therapy. In A. Gurman and D.Kniskern (eds) Handbook of Family Therapy. Volume 11. New York: Brunner Mazel.

Spanier, G. (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the qual-ity of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38: 1528.




1467-6427.00143

Documents