Cultural Appropriateness of the Family Assessment Device (FAD) in the Case of Ethnic Armenian Adolescents in Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to report on the cultural appropriateness of the 60-item Armenian version of the Family Assessment Device (FAD) among ethnic Armenian adolescents in the ethnically and religiously pluralist Lebanon. METHOD: A total of 558 Armenian adolescents in Grades 10, 11 and 12 completed the Armenian FAD scale and the Self-Family Closeness (SFC) scale in a randomized order. The internal consistencies and intercorrelations of the Armenian FAD domains were examined, as were their correlations with the SFC ratings. RESULTS: The Armenian FAD and its General Functioning subscale showed excellent internal consistencies (alpha = 0.89 and alpha = 0.80, respectively), whereas the reliabilities were satisfactory for the family domains of Communication and Role functioning but less than satisfactory for the Affective Responsiveness , Problem Solving, Affective Involvement and Behaviour Control domains. The Armenian FAD scale and its subscales correlated with each other and with SFC ratings (r = -0.55 for Armenian FAD scale; r = -0.57 for General Functioning), and showed sensitivity to gender differences, females reporting better family functioning than males. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings support the cultural appropriateness of the 12-item Armenian FAD General Functioning subscale and its advantage over the 60-item scale. The findings also suggest the need to rethink the items of the four Armenian FAD domains with low internal consistencies for their increased cultural relevance in the case of Armenian adolescents in Lebanon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".