Assessment of family functioning: evaluation of the General Functioning Scale in a Swedish Bariatric Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The General Functioning Scale (GFS) was developed to assess self-perceived overall family functioning. The scale has satisfactory psychometric properties, is internationally recognised and has been used in different contexts. However, no validated Swedish version is available. Healthy family functioning can support patients and help them adhere to treatment regimens. Moreover, it maintains the physical and emotional health and that of the family as a unit. Yet, there is limited information regarding family functioning postgastric bypass surgery. Thus, it is important to use validated instruments to understand family functioning in bariatric contexts. AIM: To evaluate aspects of reliability and validity in GFS in a Swedish bariatric sample, focusing on factor structure. METHOD: The Swedish version of the GFS (S-GFS) was administered on two occasions to 163 participants who had undergone gastric bypass surgery 6-8 weeks prior to testing. Internal consistency, temporal stability and construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: Data were positively skewed. The S-GFS showed good internal consistency (ordinal α = 0.92) with a sufficient overall mean interitem correlation (0.500) and adequate temporal stability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.833). After modifying response alternatives, confirmatory factor analysis indicated acceptable fit for a one-factor model. CONCLUSION: The scale is a promising tool for assessing family functioning in bariatric settings. The S-GFS showed satisfactory reliability - consistent with prior research - and acceptable validity in the study sample. This study contributes to the limited research on the scale's validity. However, the S-GFS needs to be evaluated in different cultural and clinical contexts, focusing on various aspects of validity and responsiveness (sensitivity to detect significant change over time) in different samples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".