Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Family Communication Scale in the Chinese Population

Ningyuan Guo, Henry C Y Ho, Man Ping Wang, Agnes Y Lai, Tzu Tsun Luk, Kasisomayajula Viswanath, Sophia S Chan, Tai Hing Lam, Ningyuan Guo, Henry C Y Ho, Man Ping Wang, Agnes Y Lai, Tzu Tsun Luk, Kasisomayajula Viswanath, Sophia S Chan, Tai Hing Lam

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the factor structure and psychometric properties of the 10-item Family Communication Scale (FCS) in the Chinese population. Methods: Study 1 was a population-based survey [N = 687, 61.1% female; mean age (SD) 56.6 (19.1)]. Study 2 was a community-based intervention (N = 1983, 76.7% female; 57.8% aged 20-59 years). We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in Study 1 and replicated the model by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Study 2. Psychometric properties were evaluated, including internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and known-group validity. We identified how the FCS scores differed by sociodemographic characteristics and communication methods including face to face and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Study 1. Results: The EFA and CFA supported a one-factor structure. The Chinese FCS showed a good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91; McDonald's Omega = 0.91) and was stable over 1-month (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.69, P < 0.001). Convergent validity was supported by positive correlations of FCS with the Subjective Happiness Scale, Family Adaption, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve (APGAR) Scale, family health, harmony, and happiness, and perceived family communication sufficiency and quality (All P < 0.001). Discriminant validity was supported by the stronger correlation of FCS with Short Form-12 Health Survey Version 2 Mental Component than that with Physical Component (P < 0.001). Higher household income, frequent face-to-face communication, and frequent use of phone calls, instant messaging, and social networking sites were associated with higher FCS scores. Conclusion: The one-factor structure of the Chinese FCS can be a reliable and valid measurement of positive family communication, in the context of ICT integration into family communication. Clinical Trial Registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT02563613].

Keywords: Chinese; communication method; family communication scale; information and communication technologies; positive family communication; validation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2021 Guo, Ho, Wang, Lai, Luk, Viswanath, Chan and Lam.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Parallel analysis for determining the number of factors to retain for the exploratory factor analysis in the population-based sample (N = 687).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The final one-factor model of the Family Communication Scale indicated by the confirmatory factor analysis with standardized path coefficients in the community-based sample (N = 1983).

References

    1. Aesaert K., van Nijlen D., Vanderlinde R., van Braak J. (2014). Direct measures of digital information processing and communication skills in primary education: using item response theory for the development and validation of an ICT competence scale. Comput. Educ. 76 168–181. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.013
    1. Baiocco R., Cacioppo M., Laghi F., Tafà M. (2013). Factorial and construct validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents. J. Child Fam. Stud. 22 962–970. 10.1007/s10826-012-9658-1
    1. Barnes H. L., Olson D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Dev. 56 438–447. 10.2307/1129732
    1. Bond M. H. (ed.) (2010). Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology, 1st Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541850.001.0001
    1. Carvalho J., Francisco R., Relvas A. P. (2015). Family functioning and information and communication technologies: how do they relate? A literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 45 99–108. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.037
    1. Challier B., Chau N., Prédine R., Choquet M., Legras B. (2000). Associations of family environment and individual factors with tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use in adolescents. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 16 33–42.
    1. Chan D. H., Ho S. C., Donnan S. P. B. (1988). A survey of family APGAR in Shatin private ownership homes. Hong Kong Pract. 10 3295–3299.
    1. Chan S. S., Viswanath K., Au D. W. H., Ma C. M. S., Lam W. W. T., Fielding R., et al. (2011). Hong Kong Chinese community leaders’ perspectives on family health, happiness and harmony: a qualitative study. Health Educ. Res. 26 664–674. 10.1093/her/cyr026
    1. Comrey A. L., Lee H. B. (2013). A First Course in Factor Analysis. Hove: Psychology press.
    1. Courtney M. G. R., Gordon M. (2013). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: using the SPSS R-Menu v2. 0 to make more judicious estimations. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 18 1–14.
    1. Dinno A. (2009). Implementing Horn’s parallel analysis for principal component analysis and factor analysis. Stata J. 9 291–298.
    1. Emmers-Sommer T. M. (2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 21 399–411. 10.1177/0265407504042839
    1. Gomes H. M. S., Peixoto F., Gouveia-Pereira M. (2017). Portuguese validation of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scale–FACES IV. J. Fam. Stud. 25 1–18. 10.1080/13229400.2017.1386121
    1. Gonzalez C., Katz V. S. (2016). Transnational family communication as a driver of technology adoption. Int. J. Commun. 10:21.
    1. Hayes A. F., Coutts J. J. (2020). Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for estimating reliability. Commun. Methods Meas. 14 1–24. 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
    1. Ho H. C. Y., Mui M., Wan A., Ng Y., Stewart S. M., Yew C., et al. (2016a). Happy family kitchen: a community-based research for enhancing family communication and well-being in Hong Kong. J. Fam. Psychol. 30 752–762. 10.1037/fam0000233
    1. Ho H. C. Y., Mui M., Wan A., Ng Y.-L., Stewart S. M., Yew C., et al. (2016b). Happy family kitchen II: a cluster randomized controlled trial of a community-based family intervention for enhancing family communication and well-being in Hong Kong. Front. Psychol. 7:638. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00638
    1. Ho H. C. Y., Mui M., Wan A., Stewart S. M., Yew C., Lam T. H., et al. (2017). Happy family kitchen: behavioral outcomes of a brief community-based family intervention in Hong Kong. J. Child Fam. Stud. 26 2852–2864. 10.1007/s10826-017-0788-3
    1. Ho H. C. Y., Mui M., Wan A., Yew C., Lam T. H., Chan S. S., et al. (2018). Family meal practices and well-being in Hong Kong: the mediating effect of family communication. J. Fam. Issues 39 3835–3856. 10.1177/0192513X18800787
    1. Ho H. C. Y., Mui M. W., Wan A., Yew C. W., Lam T. H. (2019). Happy family kitchen movement: a cluster randomized controlled trial of a community-based family holistic health intervention in Hong Kong. J. Happiness Stud. 21 15–36. 10.1007/s10902-018-00071-w
    1. Hooper D., Coughlan J., Mullen M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. 6:9.
    1. Izrael D., Hoaglin D. C., Battaglia M. P. (2004). “To rake or not to rake is not the question anymore with the enhanced raking macro,” in Proceedings of the 29th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, Montreal, CA.
    1. Kim H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor. Dent. Endod. 38 52–54. 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
    1. Kline R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
    1. Koo T. K., Li M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 15 155–163. 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
    1. Koutra K., Triliva S., Roumeliotaki T., Lionis C., Vgontzas A. N. (2013). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the greek version of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales iv package (FACES IV Package). J. Fam. Issues 34 1647–1672. 10.1177/0192513X12462818
    1. Lam C. L. K., Tse E. Y. Y., Gandek B. (2005). Is the standard SF-12 health survey valid and equivalent for a Chinese Population? Qual. Life Res. 14 539–547.
    1. Lam W. W. T., Fielding R., McDowell I., Johnston J., Chan S., Leung G. M., et al. (2012). Perspectives on family health, happiness and harmony (3H) among Hong Kong Chinese people: a qualitative study. Health Educ. Res. 27 767–779. 10.1093/her/cys087
    1. Lanigan J. D. (2009). A sociotechnological model for family research and intervention: how information and communication technologies affect family life. Marriage Fam. Rev. 45 587–609. 10.1080/01494920903224194
    1. Li C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav. Res. Methods 48 936–949. 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
    1. Lyubomirsky S., Lepper H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc. Indic. Res. 46 137–155.
    1. Martínez-Pampliega A., Merino L., Iriarte L. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scale IV. Psicothema 29 414–420. 10.7334/psicothema2016.21
    1. Moret-Tatay C., Beneyto-Arrojo M. J., Gutierrez E., Boot W. R., Charness N. (2019). A Spanish adaptation of the computer and mobile device proficiency questionnaires (CPQ and MDPQ) for Older Adults. Front. Psychol. 10:1165. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01165
    1. Nan H., Ni M. Y., Lee P. H., Tam W. W. S., Lam T. H., Leung G. M., et al. (2014). Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the subjective happiness scale: evidence from the Hong Kong FAMILY Cohort. Int. J. Behav. Med. 21 646–652. 10.1007/s12529-014-9389-3
    1. Olson D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family sytems. J. Fam. Ther. 22 144–167. 10.1111/1467-6427.00144
    1. Olson D. H., Barnes H. L. (2004). “Family communication,” in FACES IV Package (Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations; ).
    1. Orthner D. K., Jones-Sanpei H., Williamson S. (2004). The resilience and strengths of low-income families. Fam. Relat. 53 159–167.
    1. Rivadeneira J., López M. A. (2017). Family communication scale: validation in Chilean. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 20 127–137.
    1. Schneider L. A., King D. L., Delfabbro P. H. (2017). Family factors in adolescent problematic Internet gaming: a systematic review. J. Behav. Addict. 6 321–333. 10.1556/2006.6.2017.035
    1. Schrodt P., Witt P. L., Messersmith A. S. (2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Commun. Monogr. 75 248–269. 10.1080/03637750802256318
    1. Shen C., Wan A., Kwok L. T., Pang S., Wang X., Stewart S. M., et al. (2017a). A community-based intervention program to enhance family communication and family well-being: the learning families project in Hong Kong. Front. Public Health 5:257. 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00257
    1. Shen C., Wang M. P., Chu J. T., Wan A., Viswanath K., Chan S. S. C., et al. (2017b). Sharing family life information through video calls and other information and communication technologies and the association with family well-being: population-based survey. JMIR Ment. Health 4:e57. 10.2196/mental.8139
    1. Shen C., Wang M. P., Ho H. C. Y., Wan A., Stewart S. M., Viswanath K., et al. (2019). Test-retest reliability and validity of a single-item self-reported family happiness scale in Hong Kong Chinese: findings from Hong Kong Jockey Club FAMILY Project. Qual. Life Res. 28 535–543. 10.1007/s11136-018-2019-9
    1. Smilkstein G. (1978). The family APGAR: a proposal for a family function test and its use by physicians. J. Fam. Pract. 6 1231–1239.
    1. Smith K. M., Freeman P. A., Zabriskie R. B. (2009). An examination of family communication within the core and balance model of family leisure functioning. Fam. Relat. 58 79–90. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00536.x
    1. Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L. S., Ullman J. B. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    1. Taylor R. (1990). Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J. Diagn. Med. Sonogr. 6 35–39.
    1. Terwee C. B., Bot S. D. M., de Boer M. R., van der Windt D. A. W. M., Knol D. L., Dekker J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60 34–42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
    1. Türkdoğan T., Duru E., Balkıs M. (2018). Turkish adaptation of the family adaptability and cohesion scale IV. Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ. 5 631–644. 10.21449/ijate.409110
    1. Velicer W. F., Eaton C. A., Fava J. L. (2000). “Construct explication through factor or component analysis: a review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components,” in Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment, eds Goffin R. D., Helmes E. (Boston, MA: Springer; ), 41–71.
    1. Wang M. P., Chu J. T., Viswanath K., Wan A., Lam T. H., Chan S. S. (2015). Using information and communication technologies for family communication and its association with family well-being in Hong Kong: FAMILY project. J. Med. Internet Res. 17:e207. 10.2196/jmir.4722
    1. Wang M. P., Wang X., Viswanath K., Wan A., Lam T. H., Chan S. S. (2014). Digital inequalities of family life information seeking and family well-being among chinese adults in Hong Kong: a population survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 16:e227. 10.2196/jmir.3386
    1. Ware J., Kosinski M., Keller S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med. Care 34 220–233.
    1. Wharton A. S., Blair-Loy M. (2006). Long work hours and family life: a cross-national study of employees’ Concerns. J. Fam. Issues 27 415–436. 10.1177/0192513X05282985

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner