The French Version of the Family Assessment Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate a French version of the Family Assessment Device (FAD), a well-known self-report questionnaire assessing family functioning in clinical and research settings. METHODS: A French adaptation of the FAD was administered to 3 groups of subjects: a nonclinical group (n = 115), relatives of psychiatric patients (n = 102), and medical patients and their relatives (n = 106). Temporal stability was assessed by test-retest intraclass correlations. Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients. Discriminant validity was explored, comparing the scores of the 3 groups, using a covariance analysis (ANCOVA). The dimensional structure of the instrument was explored using a principal component analysis, with promax oblique rotation, on the entire sample. RESULTS: The French FAD showed good temporal stability and good discriminant validity across groups. Internal consistency was satisfactory only for the General Functioning (GF) subscale. Factor analysis yielded a 3-factor model. The GF subscale was highly correlated with all of the other subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The French version of the FAD provides a valuable tool for assessing family functioning. However, our study failed to identify the theoretical structure of the FAD and suggests that the GF subscale could be used as a better overall indicator of family functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".