Ariel Adams 1 BJ Arnold 2 Renee Smith 2 Brittany Reed 2

1. Test-Retest Reliability of The Family Paradigm Assessment Scale (F-PAS) Ariel Adams1 BJ Arnold2 Renee Smith2 Brittany Reed2 1Department of Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences Gallaudet University 2Department of Speech-Language Pathology University of Central Arkansas

2. Resources transformed for goals. Control How do important things get done? Time How is it used? Family Members may act as one entity, in small groups, individually, according to their Space How are physical and personal space used? Affect How are caring & support expressed? Energy How much effort to get things done? Meaning What do you value? family paradigm Material How are possessions viewed? Content How do you determined what is real?

3. Family Paradigm = family’s view of the world. Each family's behavior is guided by its paradigm(s). There are four paradigms: ClosedRandomOpenSynchronous

4. Family Paradigm = family’s view of the world. Each family's behavior is guided by its paradigm(s). There are four paradigms: ClosedRandomOpenSynchronous Stability through continuity & tradition

5. Family Paradigm = family’s view of the world. Each family's behavior is guided by its paradigm(s). There are four paradigms: ClosedRandomOpenSynchronous Free exploration through intuition & innovation

6. Family Paradigm = family’s view of the world. Each family's behavior is guided by its paradigm(s). There are four paradigms: ClosedRandomOpenSynchronous Adaptation through consensus

7. Family Paradigm = family’s view of the world. Each family's behavior is guided by its paradigm(s). There are four paradigms: ClosedRandomOpenSynchronous Harmony through identification

8. Family Paradigm = family’s view of the world. Each family's behavior is guided by its paradigm(s). There are four paradigms: Closed  Random  Open  Synchronous  Some families use multiple paradigms

9. The Family Paradigm Assessment Scale (F-PAS) (Imig, 1998) • Used to identify paradigms • Paper and pencil instrument • 10 multi-part questions using a 0-10 rating scale • 1 question per resource • 1 question to rank resources • 1 question per goal • 1 question to rank goals • Current and Ideal

10. The Family Paradigm Assessment Scale (F-PAS) • Cluster Scores • Calculated from the F-PAS • Range from 0-5 • 0 – family never uses this paradigm • 5 – family uses this paradigm most often

11. Research Aim • To measure test-retest reliability of the F-PAS overall cluster scores.

12. Participants (N=51) • Gender: • 34 females, 17 males • Age: • Mean Age 30 years • Range from 18-70+ • Race/ethnicity: • 2% American Indian • 18% African American • 81% Caucasian • Education level: • 2% High school graduate • 39% Some college • 31% College graduate • 18% Some graduate school • 10% Advanced degree • Family roles: • 26 spouses • 11 parents • 3 grandparents • 20 offsprings • 23 siblings • Years in family: • 53% entire life • 29% five years or more • 10% less than five years • 8% less than one year

13. Procedures • Recruitment: flyers, word of mouth • Each participant completed the F-PAS twice, demographics, no major change, • Data entered into Excel spreadsheet which calculated F-PAS cluster scores • Test-Retest Reliability of the overall F-PAS cluster scores for each paradigm was calculated using weighted kappas (k) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)

14. CurrentClosed Paradigm k = .5095% CI (.30,.70) Moderate

15. CurrentRandom Paradigm k = .3095% CI (.09,.52)Fair

16. CurrentOpen Paradigm k = .2695% CI (.03,.50)Fair

17. CurrentSynchronous Paradigm k = .5495% CI (.38,.69) Moderate

18. IdealClosed Paradigm k = .5195% CI (.33,.70)Moderate

19. IdealRandom Paradigm k = .2795% CI (.05,.49)Fair

20. IdealOpen Paradigm k = .5095% CI (.24,.71)Moderate

21. IdealSynchronous Paradigm k = .3695% CI (.16,.56)Fair

22. Overall Findings • Current-Closed Paradigm • Moderate reliability • Current-Random Paradigm • Fair reliability • Current-Open Paradigm • Fair reliability • Current-Synchronous Paradigm • Moderate reliability • Ideal-Closed Paradigm • Moderate reliability • Ideal Random Paradigm • Fair reliability • Ideal- Open Paradigm • Moderate reliability • Ideal- Synchronous Paradigm • Fair reliability

23. Clinical Implications • Test-retest reliability OK for clinical use • Clinicians can use the F-PAS to: • Determine paradigms of clients and their families • Provide services that best fit client/family • Improve family-centered practices • Help families better understand how intervention affects their family functioning

24. Future Research • Analyze reliability of individual cluster scores • Need to evaluate ways to improve reliability • Wording of questions • Data collection method • Use family paradigm model of resources and goals in researching family-centered practices

25. What we learned… • There are no short cuts • Nothing is as easy as it appears to be • Double check EVERYTHING • Everybody needs a team • Research is fun • “Welcome to research”

26. Acknowledgements • Those who participated • Faculty mentor: Dr. Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker • F-PAS creator: Dr. David R. Imig • Research team members: BJ Arnold, Morgan Poole, Brittany Reed, Megan Scott, Sara Shaw, Renée Smith, Tammy Soileau and Kara Taylor • UCA Sponsored Programs Office (SPO) • This research was funded by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education and the University of Central Arkansas Speech-Language Pathology Department

27. For more information: Byrt, T. (1996). How good is that agreement? Epidemiology, 7(5), 561. Constantine, L. L. (1986). Family paradigms: The practice of theory in family therapy. New York: Guilford. Constantine, L. L. (1993). The structure of family paradigms: An analytical model of family variation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19(1), 39-70. Hidecker, M. J. C. (2004). An exploratory study of the associative relationships between family paradigms and augmentative and alternative communication satisfaction in families with young Children. Unpublished Thesis (Ph. D.), Michigan State University. Dept. of Audiology and Speech Sciences, 2004. Hidecker, M. J. C., Jones, R. S., Imig, D. R., & Villarruel, F. A. (2009). Using family paradigms to improve evidence-based practice. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 18(3), 212-221. Imig, D. R. (1993). Family stress: Paradigms and perceptions. Family Science Review, 6, 125-136. Imig, D. R. (2000). A conversation about interpersonal relationships, family systems and paradigms. Venice, CA: ETEXT.net Electronic Textbook Publishing. Imig, D. R. (2005). Family paradigms, interpersonal relationships, and family systems. Venice, CA: ETEXT.net Electronic Textbook Publishing. Imig, D. R., Pate, S. M., Mitchell, M. M., David, D. A., Pegorraro, C., Barton, E. R., et al. (1996). Paradigmatic family systems theory: Applications and praxis. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Conference Education & Enrichment Section, Kansas City, MO. Imig, D. R., & Phillips, R. G. (1992). Family theory: The family regime assessment scale (FRAS). Family Science Review, 5, 217-234. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.