Family Environment Scale

Measure DescriptionSource of measure Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1974). Family Environment Scale. Palo Alto. Cal.: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mode of administration Self-report
Age range for useAge 11 and older; reading level 6th grade and up
Domains AssessedAssesses family members' perceptions of their family. Ten subscales measure three broad dimensions: (1) family relationships, (2) personal growth, (3) system maintenance and change. Three forms exist to assess perceptions in three ways: as it currently is (real), how it would be in a perfect situation (ideal) and how they think it will be in new situations (expected).
Related Measures
BurdenTraining needed to administer Minimal staff training required for this self-report measure. Staff need to be familiar with all items before administering to a participant.
Minutes to complete15-20 minutes
# of items90 items
Adaptation for AIAN useAdaptedNo
Developer allows adaptation?Unclear- contact developer
Used with AIAN populations?Yes
PsychometricsNorm-referenced No
AIAN: Cronbach's alpha rangeCronbach's alpha ranges from 0.62-0.76 (reported by Michigan State University).
AIAN: Evidence of validityNot yet available
Other populations: Cronbach's alpha rangeReported as 0.67-0.72. Moos (1990) reports adequate internal consistency, reliability, and stability over time. In a sample of adolescents, Cronbach's alpha for subscales ranged from 0.26 to 0.73. (Boyd, Gullone, Needleman, & Burt, 1997).
Other populations: Evidence of validityMoos (1990) reports that the items have good content and face validity, and that many studies support the construct, concurrent, and predictive validity of the FES. Sanford, Bingham, and Zucker (1999) report that six of the 10 FES subscales have adequate internal consistency and convergent validity; they caution against the use of the remaining four FES subscales.
SourceDeveloperBernice S. Moos & Rudolf H. Moos
SummaryComments about sensitivity to change
General remarksCommonly used in clinical settings. Some studies (Boyd et al., 1997; Roosa & Beals, 1990) question the internal consistency and validity of the subscales, and others recommend using only some of the subscales (Sanford, Bingham, & Zucker, 1999).