Comparing the Second‐Order Factor Structure of the Family Environment Scale across Husbands' and Wives' Perceptions of Their Family Environment*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1986) is one of the most widely used environmental measures in clinical and family research. Clinicians and researchers often use the FES for comparing spouses' perceptions of their family environment, under the assumption that the underlying structure of the FES is the same for husbands and wives. However, no studies have actually compared the structure of the FES across spouse responses to the FES. Additionally, a review of the literature generally suggests a lack of consensus regarding the factor structure of the FES. Using confirmatory factor analyses, we examined whether the second-order factor structures of the FES, as identified in the literature, were consistent across spouses' perceptions of their family environment. Husbands and wives in 130 nonclinical families responded to Form R of the FES. The findings supported the two-factor solution presented by Fowler (1981) and by Boake and Salmon (1983), and did not differ across responses by husbands and wives. In contrast, responses by husbands and wives to the FES could not be modeled using the three-factor solutions presented by Moos and Moos (1986) and by others. The importance of using a measure that is structurally the same across different groups of respondents is discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".