Psychometric Analysis of the Family

Empowerment Scale

NIRBHAY N. SINGH, W. JOHN CURTIS, CYNTHIA R. ELLIS, MARY W. NICHOLSON,

TERRI M. VILLANI, AND HOLLIS A. WECHSLER

T HE CONCEPT OF EMPOWERMENT,
which first emerged during the
1970s, has been used by a vari-
ety of people, including both those on
the political right (Berger & Neuhaus,
The Family Empowerment Scale (FES), a 34-item rating scale, was developed to measure empowerment
in families with children who have emotional, behavioral, or mental disorders. This study investigated
the psychometric characteristics of the FES in a sample of 228 families whose children had serious
emotional disturbance or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The families rated each item on a
5-point Likert-type rating scale, and the ratings were subjected to a number of psychometric analyses.
1977) and on the political left (Freire, The results of factor analyses, with varimax rotation, provided a conceptually meaningful four-factor
1983; Solomon, 1976), as well as poets solution. Congruence between the four factors derived in this study and the corresponding factors in
(Neruda, 1987) and a host of social sci- the original FES psychometric analysis was high, with congruence coefficients ranging between .88
entists and human services personnel and .98. Obtained internal consistency estimates of reliability ranged from .78 to .89 for the four
(e.g., Dunst, Trivette, Davis, & Corn- subscales, and the split-half estimate of reliability for the FES was .93. The results indicate that the
well, 1988; Hasenfeld & Chesler, 1989; FES has robust psychometric properties and may be useful in assessing the empowerment status of
Rappaport, 1981; Vanderslice, 1984). families whose children are handicapped.
Empowerment has been defined within
various frameworks, including human
ecology (Vanderslice, 1984), rehabili- service delivery systems, family empow- developed three measures to assess per-
tation (Freund, 1993), community psy- erment is a process by which families sonal and political empowerment in
chology (Zimmerman & Rappaport, access knowledge, skills, and resources students participating in ethnic iden-
1988), and social work (Dodd & that enable them to gain positive con- tity and consciousness-raising groups.
Gutierrez, 1990; Staples, 1990). Al- trol of their lives as well as improve the Personal empowerment was assessed on
though numerous attempts have been quality of their life-styles. the basis of the students' responses to
made to define empowerment broadly, Although there is a wealth of con- six problem vignettes concerning expe-
such attempts have typically been un- ceptual literature on empowerment, riences of ethnic students, and political
successful because empowerment has there has been a paucity of empirical empowerment was assessed on the basis
been conceptualized as a state (e.g., work on its measurement. Early empiri- of their responses to two brief ques-
anger or joy) as well as a process that cal studies utilized interviews (e.g., tionnaires concerning interest in par-
involves change in individuals and in Kiefer, 1984; Maton & Rappaport, ticipating in campus ethnic groups and
the mediating structures (e.g., schools, 1984) and participant-observation activities. Short and Rinehart (1992)
service delivery systems), and no single methods (Maton & Rappaport, 1984) have provided preliminary data on their
definition can accommodate the two to assess levels of empowerment. More efforts to develop a rating scale to mea-
conceptualizations. In general, however, recent efforts have attempted to use sure school participant empowerment.
the concept of empowerment has come rating scales, problem vignettes, and These studies indicate that investiga-
to imply a process whereby individuals questionnaires. For example, Zimmer- tors are developing assessment instru-
gain control over their own lives by man and Rappaport (1988) used 11 ments for measuring empowerment in
influencing their interpersonal and personality and attitude scales assumed specific areas rather than as a global
social environments (Hasenfeld, 1987; to be indicative of empowerment to construct across areas.
Parsons, 1991; Rappaport, 1981; determine the relationship between The concept of empowerment has
Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). We participation and psychological empow- been extended to the level of the fam-
believe that, in the context of human erment. Gutierrez and Ortega (1991) ily, particularly in the context of hu-

JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, APRIL 1995, VOL. 3, NO. 2, PAGES 85-91 g^

Downloaded from ebx.sagepub.com at Mount Royal University on June 12, 2015

 man service delivery systems. For ex- on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not from the original FES study by Koren
ample, there is growing sentiment in true at all, 5 = very true). In the defini- et al. (1992). A further purpose was to
the mental health field that services tive study, Koren et al. administered study the meaningfulness of the factor
provided to families and children with the FES to a sample of 440 parents of structure of the FES in terms of the
disabilities should be designed to em- children with emotional, behavioral, or derived factors independently of the
power the recipients of such services mental disorders. In this sample, 94% conceptual framework of empowerment
(e.g., Freund, 1993; Parsons, 1991; of the parents were mothers, 92% were proposed by Koren et al.
Sluyter, 1994; Staples, 1990). In par- White, and 89% were the biological or
ticular, it is now generally accepted that adoptive parents of the child. The tar-
families of children with serious emo- get children were primarily W h i t e METHOD
tional disturbance (SED) must be "full (85%), were boys (74%), and had a
participants in all aspects of the plan- mean age of 13.2 years; the majority Participants
ning and delivery of services" (Stroul (76%) lived with their biological or
Of the 316 parents who had been re-
& Friedman, 1986, p. vii). Thus, in- adoptive parents.
quested to participate in this study, 228
stead of being informed by profession- Koren et al. (1992) conducted a con-
parents (72.2%) of children with SED
als as to the nature of the treatment firmatory factor analysis to assess the
alone or t o g e t h e r with a t t e n t i o n -
planned for their children with SED, degree to which the responses to the
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
families rightfully demand that profes- FES corresponded to the conceptual
responded positively. T h e initial pool
sionals, parents, and the children them- framework on which the scale was based.
of parents had been randomly selected
selves jointly make treatment planning T h e factor analysis yielded four factors
from two sources. Some were members
decisions (Tarico, Low, Trupin, & (unnamed) accounting for a total of 52%
of a parent support group (n = 111);
Forsyth-Stephens, 1989). A critical first of the total variance. Factor 1 measured
the others were parents of children who
step in such a process is the recognition parents' efforts to advocate for and im-
had attended an outpatient clinic at a
by professionals that parents are com- prove services for children and their
child and adolescent psychiatric hospi-
petent, valued, and knowledgeable, families. Factors 2 and 4 measured fam-
tal (n = 205). Every third family from a
especially with regard to the needs of ily empowerment with respect to the
patient registry was chosen to partici-
their children. It is the professionals* service system, and Factor 3 measured
pate. This sample size was selected so
responsibility to restructure the service empowerment within the family. T h e
that it would yield a ratio greater than
delivery system so that families may in- four factors corresponded to one of the
the usual 5 to 6 subject-to-item ratio
crease their social power and be able to three levels of empowerment in their
that has been consensually agreed on
access the services and resources that conceptual framework, with Factor 1
as necessary for deriving a stable factor
they need. One way to gauge how well corresponding to the community/politi-
solution (Arrindell & van der Ende,
professionals have restructured and made cal level, Factors 2 and 4 to the service
1985; Kass & Tinsley, 1979). Indeed,
the service delivery system more family system level, and Factor 3 to the family
the subject-to-item ratio in this study
friendly is measuring the family's em- level. T h e factors only minimally cor-
exceeded 8:1.
powerment status. responded to the expression dimension.
T h e mean age of the parents was
Koren, DeChillo, and Friesen (1992) T h e internal consistency of the FES
41.2 (SD = 8.7) years, and the mean
have developed a rating scale that mea- was examined in terms of the three
age of their target children was 13.3
sures family empowerment in the con- subscores based on the levels of em-
(SD = 4.5) years. Other sociodemo-
text of m e n t a l h e a l t h services for powerment (and not on expressions of
graphic characteristics of the partici-
families who have children with SED. empowerment). T h e coefficient alphas
pants are shown in Table 1.
Koren et al. developed their rating scale, were 0.88 for family, 0.87 for service
the Family Empowerment Scale (FES), system, and 0.88 for community/politi-
Instrument
within a two-dimensional conceptual cal. Further psychometric analyses
framework that specifies three levels of showed the FES to have good t e s t - T h e FES (Koren et al., 1992) is a 34-
empowerment (family, service system, retest reliability as well as validity. item rating scale designed to measure a
and community/political) and three T h e aim of the present study was family's empowerment status across two
ways by which empowerment is ex- (a) to examine the number of concep- dimensions: (a) levels of empowerment
pressed (attitudes, knowledge, and be- tually meaningful factors that can be (e.g., family, service system, and com-
haviors). Koren et al. developed items derived from the FES, (b) to look at munity/political) and (b) the way em-
for the scale that represented each of the structure of the factors (i.e., simple powerment is expressed (e.g., attitudes,
the nine cells of their two-dimensional structure, item loadings), (c) to exam- knowledge, and behaviors). Each item
conceptual model of family empower- ine the internal consistency of the fac- was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ment. Following pilot testing with a 28- tors, and (d) to compare mathematically (1 = not true at all to 5 = very true). In
item scale, the final version of the FES the similarity between the factors de- addition to the ratings, a face sheet at-
consists of 34 statements that are rated rived in the present study with those tached to the FES requested socio-

gg JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, APRIL 1995, VOL. 3, NO. 2

Downloaded from ebx.sagepub.com at Mount Royal University on June 12, 2015

 TABLE 1 demographic information on both the
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants participants and their children.

Variable Frequency Percentage Proce dure

Respondent gender A total of 316 participants were mailed

Female 198 86.8 a copy of the FES and a cover letter
Male 29 12.7 explaining the purpose of the study and
Unspecified 1 0.4 asking for their participation. Within a
month of the mailing, 49.7% (n = 157)
Respondent race
of the participants had completed and
White 176 77.2
returned the rating scale. During the
African American 39 17.1
Hispanic 4 1.8 second month, the remaining 50.3%
Other/Unspecified 9 3.9 were contacted by phone or letter and
requested to complete and return the
Child gender rating scale. Another 22.5% (n = 71)
Female 60 26.3 did so, yielding an overall return rate of
Male 161 70.6 72.2%.
Unspecified 7 3.1

Respondent relationship to child

Biological mother 164 71.9 RESULTS
Biological father 21 9.2
A factor analysis was undertaken to
Foster mother 3 1.3
determine the factor structure of the
Foster father 1 0.4
Adoptive mother 17 7.5 FES. A principal components procedure
Adoptive father 4 1.8 was used for factor extraction, with unity
Stepmother 5 2.2 (l's) on the diagonal of the correlation
Stepfather 1 0.4 matrix for deriving the initial estimates
Other 12 5.3 of communality. A varimax rotation was
used to obtain the rotated factor struc-
Respondent marital status
ture. Determination of the number of
Single 11 4.8
factors was achieved through a combi-
Married 137 60.1
Separated 20 8.8 nation of statistical and conceptual ap-
Divorced 45 19.7 proaches. Instead of relying solely on a
Widowed 8 3.5 strict mathematical approach to the
Unspecified 7 3.1 question of how many factors to retain,
solutions of three, four, five, and six
Respondent highest level of education factors were assessed with the follow-
Some high school or less 24 10.5 ing questions in mind: Did each factor
High school diploma 67 29.4
make sense conceptually? Was each fac-
Business or trade school 26 11.4
tor a logical component of the general
College degree 53 23.2
Some graduate school 24 10.5 concept of empowerment? Did each
Graduate degree 29 12.7 factor appear unidimensional without
Unspecified 5 2.2 being trivial? Was the overall solution
a parsimonious representation of fam-
Respondent yearly family income ily empowerment? Did the factor struc-
Under $10,000 39 17.1 ture have robust statistical properties?
$10,000 to $19,999 37 16.2
A three-factor solution resulted in
$20,000 to $29,999 34 14.9
factors that were statistically robust but
$30,000 to $39,999 36 15.8
lacked conceptual clarity. The four- and
$40,000 to $49,999 27 11.8
$50,000 or more 45 19.7 five-factor solutions provided the most
Unspecified 10 4.4 statistically robust and conceptually
meaningful factors. Inspection of the
Respondent belongs to a parent support group scree plot (Cattell, 1978) and the coef-
Yes 81 35.5 ficient alpha reliabilities of the factors
No 145 63.6 indicated that either of these solutions
Unspecified 2 0.9
would be acceptable statistically. A n

JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, APRIL 1995, VOL. 3, 87

Downloaded from ebx.sagepub.com at Mount Royal University on June 12, 2015
 examination of the five-factor solution parents. Factor 4 (Self-Efficacy) items conceptual grounds. The internal reli-
showed that it did not yield a structure represented the parents' perceptions of ability of the sixth factor of the six-
that was similar to the original four- their ability to have an impact on and factor solution was unacceptably low.
factor structure of the FES. A compari- utilize the mental health system that Further, the fifth and sixth factors con-
son of the four- and five-factor solutions would affect them or their child per- tained only four and three items, re-
showed that the four-factor solution sonally. spectively. The minimum number
provided the most conceptually mean- As noted by Short and Rinehart needed for a set of items to be consid-
ingful breakdown of the FES items. The (1992), a test-retest index of stability ered a factor is three (Thurstone, 1947),
six-factor solution was conceptually dif- may be an inappropriate measure of and the fifth and sixth factors barely
ficult to interpret, given that the fifth reliability because participant level of met minimum standards.
and sixth factors contained only four empowerment may fluctuate over time. The four-factor solution adopted in
and three items, respectively. Further, Thus, split-half estimate of reliability the present study differs somewhat from
in the six-factor solution, the internal and alpha coefficients were computed the original four-factor solution (see
reliability (coefficient alpha) of the sixth (Cronbach, 1951). The split-half esti- Koren et al., 1992). For example, in
factor was unacceptably low (.59). mate of reliability of the FES was .93. the present study, when the two rogue
The factors derived from the four- The alpha coefficients for Factors 1,2, items (Items 6 and 27) are removed
factor solution appeared to correspond 3, and 4 were .89, .89, .85, and .78, from Factor 4 because they have higher
reasonably closely to the original FES respectively. The alpha coefficients are loadings on Factor 2 (Item 6) and Fac-
and were labeled as follows: (1) Sys- large and indicate substantial internal tor 3 (Item 27), Factor 4 has six re-
tems Advocacy, (2) Knowledge, consistency (DeVellis, 1991). maining items. In the original solution,
(3) Competence, and (4) Self-Efficacy. Pearson product-moment correla- Factor 4 has 4 items, with only two
The eigenvalues for the four factors were tions among the factors are presented items (Items 18 and 19) being common
12.25 (1), 2.28(2), 1.89 (3), and 1.44 in Table 3. The magnitudes of the cor- between the two solutions. However,
(4). The four factors together accounted relation coefficients are moderately high, the other items load substantially on
for 52.5% of the total variance. The and the correlations are all significant the same factors in the original and
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index of factorial at the p < .001 level. These correla- present four-factor solutions (see Table
simplicity was 0.91, which is consid- tions indicate that the components of 2).
ered to be "marvelous" by Kaiser (1974, family empowerment represented by the Koren et al. (1992) interpreted the
p. 35). This is an index of the simplic- derived factors are not independent. results of their study as supporting the
ity of the final factor pattern matrix Congruence coefficients (Cattell, conceptualization of empowerment as
and the tendency for the factor pattern 1978) were computed to provide a di- consisting of two dimensions, level of
matrix to be unifactorial. Table 2 pre- rect quantitative comparison between empowerment and expression of em-
sents the items comprising the factors the current factor analysis of the FES powerment, although strong support was
and their factor item loadings as well as and the original analysis reported by found only for the level of empower-
comparative data from the Koren et al. Koren et al. (1992). These coefficients ment dimension. Further, Koren et al.
(1992) study. A factor loading of at are a comparison of the item loadings suggested that the FES should be scored
least .4 was used as the cut-off for a on parallel factors of the two analyses. not on the basis of the derived factors,
significant factor loading for an item. The coefficients for the four factors were which they did not name, but on the
All items from the scale loaded on at as follows: Systems Advocacy, .98; basis of its three subscores (Family, Ser-
least one factor, and eight items (Items Knowledge, .98; Competence, .98; and vice System, Community/Political) on
2, 6, 7, 9, 24, 27, 28, and 33) loaded Self-Efficacy, .88. All congruence coef- the level of empowerment dimension.
significantly on two factors. The mean ficients are large and highly significant Thus, the items from the four factors
factor loadings for items on Factors 1, (p < .001), indicating a high degree of are redistributed among the three
2, 3, and 4 were .63, .58, .59, and .56, congruence between the two factor subscales of the level of empowerment
respectively. Factor 1 (Systems Advo- structures. dimension (see Table 2).
cacy) items represented the thoughts, In the present analysis, we have not
beliefs, and behaviors of parents with followed the Koren et al. (1992) con-
regard to their interactions with men- DISCUSSION
ceptual framework because we think that
tal health service delivery systems. Fac- Statistical and conceptual consider- the concept of empowerment is still
tor 2 (Knowledge) items reflected the ations led us to choose the four-factor being developed, and currently there is
parents' understanding and skills about solution as the most appropriate for this little consensual agreement on its na-
how to work within mental health ser- sample. Although the three- and five- ture and definition. Thus, to anchor
vice delivery systems in order to obtain factor solutions were statistically robust, the FES to a conceptual framework at
needed services. Factor 3 (Competence) they were unacceptable on conceptual this stage may serve only to constrain
items represented the parents' percep- its further development. Our view is
grounds. The six-factor solution was
tions of their ability and competence as
unacceptable on both statistical and that the present analysis provides four

gg JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, APRIL 1995, VOL. 3, NO. 2

Downloaded from ebx.sagepub.com at Mount Royal University on June 12, 2015

 TABLE 2
Factor Loadings for the Four-Factor Solution of the Family Empowerment Scale

Factors Koren et al. (1992)

Original
Scale items factor no. Level Expression

Systems advocacy
20. I tell people in agencies and government how services for children .78 .26 -.07 .21 Comm Beh
can be improved.
15. I help other families get the services they need. .70 .16 .15 .30 1 Comm Beh
14. I have ideas about the ideal service system for children. .70 .20 .25 .02 1 Comm Know
17. I believe that other parents and I can have an influence on services .66 .11 .25 .16 1 Comm Att
for children.
8. I get in touch with my legislators when important bills or issues .66 .29 .02 .12 1 Comm Beh
concerning children are pending.
25. I feel that my knowledge and experience as a parent can be used to .62 .12 .36 .27 1 Comm Att
improve services for children and families.
22. I know how to get agency administrators or legislators to listen to me. .59 .37 .09 .27 1 Comm Know
3. I feel I can have a part in improving services for children in .56 .12 .33 .18 1 Comm Att
my community.
32. Professionals should ask me what services I want for my child. .43 .05 .18 .05 Sys Att

Knowledge
10. I understand how the service system for children is organized. .33 .72 .12 .03 2 Comm Know
5. I know the steps to take when I am concerned my child is .13 .68 .15 .37 2 Sys Know
receiving poor services.
24. I know what the rights of parents and children are under the .40 .67 .06 .04 2 Comm Know
special education laws.
30. I have a good understanding of the service system that my child is .17 .66 .17 .21 2 Sys Know
involved in.
11. I am able to make good decisions about what services my child needs. .20 .65 .37 .12 2 Sys Know
7. I know what to do when problems arise with my child. .06 .59 .41 .30 3 Fam Know
12. I am able to work with agencies and professionals to decide what .08 .55 .25 .33 2 Sys Know
services my child needs.
6. I make sure that professionals understand my opinions about what .09 .51 .07 .48 Sys Beh
services my child needs.
16. I am able to get information to help me better understand my child. .25 .50 .19 .30 1 Fam Know
9. I feel my family life is under control. .01 .46 .40 .08 3 Fam Att
23. I know what services my child needs. .29 .43 .38 -.03 2 Sys Know
Competence
4. I feel confident in my ability to help my child grow and develop. .15 .35 .69 .21 3 Fam Att
34. I feel I am a good parent. .20 .12 .68 .14 3 Fam Att
29. When dealing with my child, I focus on the good things as well as .29 .05 .66 .27 3 Fam Beh
the problems.
21. I believe I can solve problems with my child when they happen. .19 .20 .65 .18 3 Fam Att
2. When problems arise with my child, I handle them pretty well. .07 .40 .59 .09 3 Fam Beh
27. I make efforts to learn new ways to help my child grow and develop. .38 -.03 .52 .45 4 Fam Beh
31. When faced with a problem involving my child, I decide what to .25 .32 .50 .23 3 Fam Beh
do and then do it.
33. I have a good understanding of my child's disorder. .25 .40 .42 .06 Fam Know
Self-efficacy
26. When I need help with problems in my family, I am able to ask .31 .19 .25 .65 1 Fam Know
for help from others.
19. I tell professionals what I think about services being provided to .28 .29 .07 .63 4 Sys Beh
my child.
28. When necessary, I take the initiative in looking for services for my .42 -.01 .30 .61 ?a Sys Beh
child and family.
18. My opinion is just as important as professionals' opinions in .24 .14 .11 .58 4 Sys Att
deciding what services my child needs.
1. I feel that I have a right to approve all services my child receives. .09 .16 .25 .45 ?a Sys Att
13. I make sure I stay in regular contact with professionals who are .17 .22 .22 .43 2 Sys Beh
providing services to my child.

Note. Fam = family; Sys = service system; Comm = community/political; Att = attitude; Know = knowledge; Beh = behavior.
a
Data unavailable.

JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, APRIL 1995, VOL. 3, NO. 2 g^

Downloaded from ebx.sagepub.com at Mount Royal University on June 12, 2015

 TABLE 3 pharmacology, behavioral pediatrics, devel-
Pearson Correlation Coefficients of the Four Derived Factors opmental disabilities, and ecobehavioral
analysis. MARY W. NICHOLSON received her
BS from Ithaca College in New York. She
Factor 1 2 3 4
is currently a doctoral student in psychol-
ogy at the Virginia Commonwealth Uni-
1 Systems advocacy 0.62 0.63 0.63
versity. TERRI M. VILLANI received her BA
2 Knowledge 0.71 0.63
from New York University in New York.
3 Competence 0.65 She is currently a doctoral student in clini-
4 Self-efficacy cal psychology at Hofstra University, New
York. HOLLIS A. WECHSLER received her BA
from Wake Forest University in North Caro-
lina. She is a research assistant at the Com-
factors of the FES that correspond to with all families rather than just those monwealth Institute for Child and Family
four components of empowerment as with a family member with a disability. Studies in Richmond. Address: Nirbhay N.
currently understood in the literature, A limitation of the current work is that Singh, Department of Psychiatry, Medical
College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth
and we have named them as such. there is little data on the cultural ap-
University, PO Box 980489, Richmond, VA
Although the FES does not include propriateness of the items, and it re-
23298-0489.
other components of empowerment mains to be investigated whether the
(such as autonomy, impact, and per- FES is equally as sensitive a measure of
Authors' Note
sonal growth), we believe that it may empowerment in families of diverse ra-
not be possible to accommodate all cial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds This research was supported by the U.S.
dimensions of the concept within a as it is for the White, middle-class fami- Department of Education, Grant No.
single meaningful scale. lies that constituted the majority of the H237E20032. The interpretation of the data
The FES can be used to document sample in both the present and the and the opinions expressed in this article
and quantify four c o m p o n e n t s of Koren et al. (1992) studies. Further, are those of the authors and do not neces-
empowerment as the concept is cur- additional studies are needed to deter- sarily represent the official position or poli-
rently understood. These components mine the range of scores on the indi- cies of the U.S. Department of Education.
include systems advocacy, knowledge, vidual factors that indicate a satisfactory The authors thank the members of the Com-
monwealth Institute SED Research Group
competence, and self-efficacy. The FES level of empowerment.
for their input, encouragement, and assis-
can be used by mental health and other tance with this project. We also wish to
service delivery personnel as a "snap- About the Authors thank the parents who participated in this
shot" measure of empowerment of indi- NIRBHAY N. SINGH received his PhD from project.
vidual families and as a tool t h a t the University of Auckland, New Zealand-
provides the basis for periodically as- He is a professor of psychiatry and pediat- References
sessing the changing status of empow- rics at the Medical College of Virginia, a
erment of target families. T h e FES clinical professor of psychology at the Vir- Arrindell, W. A , & van der Ende, J. (1985).
should prove useful in assessing empow- ginia Commonwealth University, and di- An empirical test of the utility of the
erment of individual families longitu- rector of research at the Commonwealth observations-to-variables ratio in factor
Institute for Child and Family Studies, Rich- and components analysis. Applied Psycho-
dinally if professionals view themselves
mond, Virginia. His research interests are logical Measurement, 9, 165-178.
as facilitating families to access knowl-
in psychopharmacology, developmental dis- Berger, P., & Neuhaus, R. (1977). To em-
edge, skills, services, and resources that abilities, and emotional or behavioral dis-
power people: The role of mediating struc-
will enable the families to gain positive orders of children and adolescents. W. JOHN tures in public policy. Washington, DC:
control of their lives as well as improve CURTIS received his MA in clinical psy- American Enterprise Institute.
the quality of their lifestyles. Profes- chology from Michigan State University. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of
sionals cannot empower anyone other He is a research associate at the Common- factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences.
than themselves, but they can facili- wealth Institute for Child and Family Stud- New York: Plenum.
tate families to increase the level of the ies in Richmond. His research interests are Cronbach, L. ]. (1951). Coefficient alpha
families' empowerment by making struc- in mental health service delivery systems and the internal structure of tests,.
for children and their families, developmen- Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
tural changes in the way services are
tal psychopathology, and resilience of chil- DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development:
delivered to them and their children.
dren at risk. CYNTHIA R. ELLIS received her Theory and applications. Newbury Park,
The FES may provide a useful measure MD from the University of Nebraska Medi-
CA: Sage.
of the success of both professionals and cal Center in Omaha. She is an assistant
Dodd, P., & Gutierrez, L. (1990). Preparing
families in this regard. professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at the students for the future: A power perspec-
Much work remains in the develop- Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Com- tive on community practice. Administra-
ment of this instrument. It needs to be monwealth University, Richmond. Her tion in Social Work, 14, 63-78.
determined whether the FES can be used research interests are in pediatric psycho- Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Davis, M., &

9Q JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, APRIL 1995, VOL. 3, NO. 2

Downloaded from ebx.sagepub.com at Mount Royal University on June 12, 2015

 Cornwell, J. (1988). Enabling and em- Kiefer, C. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A mental health services: A survey of states.
powering families of children with health developmental perspective. Prevention in Administration and Policy in Mental Health,
impairments. Children Health Care, 17, Human Services, 3, 9-36. 21, 247-250.
71-81. Koren, P. E., DeChillo, N., & Friesen, B. ]. Solomon, B. (1976). Black empowerment.
Freire, P. (1983). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (1992). Measuring empowerment in fam- New York: Columbia University Press.
New York: Seabury Press. ilies whose children have emotional Staples, L. H. (1990). Powerful ideas about
Freund, P. D. (1993). Professional role(s) disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Reha- empowerment. Administration in Social
in the empowerment process; "Working bilitation Psychology, 37, 305-321. Work, 14, 29-42.
with" mental health consumers. Psycho- Maton, K. I., & Rappaport, J. (1984). Em- Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1986). A
social Rehabilitation Journal, 16, 65-73. powerment in a religious setting: A multi- system of care for severely emotionally dis-
variate investigation. Prevention in Human turbed children and youth. Washington, DC:
Gutierrez, L. M., & Ortega, R. (1991). De-
Services, 3, 37-72. National Institute of Mental Health.
veloping methods to empower latinos: The
Neruda, P. (1987). Fully empowered. New Tarico, V. S., Low, B. P., Trupin, E., &
importance of groups. Social Work with
York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Forsyth-Stephens, A. (1989). Children's
Groups, 14, 23-43.
Parsons, R.J. (1991). Empowerment: Pur- mental health services: A parent perspec-
Hasenfeld, Y. (1987). Power in social work
pose and practice principle in social work. tive. Community Mental Health Journal,
practice. Social Service Review, 61, 469-
Social Work with Groups, 14, 7-21. 24, 313-326.
483.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor
Hasenfeld, Y., & Chesler, M. A. (1989). A social policy of empowerment over pre- analyses. Chicago: University of Chicago
Client empowerment in the human ser- vention. American Journal of Community Press.
vices: Personal and professional agenda. Psychology, 9, 1-25. Vanderslice, V. (1984). Empowerment: A
Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 25,Short, P.M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). definition in process. Human Ecology
499-521. School Participant Empowerment Scale: Forum, 14, 2-3.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial Assessment of level of empowerment Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988).
simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. within the school environment. Educa- Citizen participation, perceived control,
Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. (1979). Fac- tional and Psychological Measurement, 52, and psychological empowerment. Ameri-
tor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 951-960. can Journal of Community Psychology ,16,
11, 120-138. Sluyter, G. V. (1994). Creating a vision for 1-25.

NOTICE

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS

The bimonthly journal Focus on Autistic Behavior will soon be superseded by a new, peer-reviewed quarterly
journal, to be titled Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. T h e journal will continue to include articles
related to persons with autism but is being expanded to address issues concerning persons with other developmental
disabilities, such as mental retardation.
T h e journal's editorial staff seeks manuscripts from diverse philosophical and theoretical positions. Five types of
full-length manuscripts (15 to 30 pages) will be considered for publication: (a) original research reports; (b) reviews
and interpretations of professional literature; (c) theoretical papers, conceptual statements, and position papers; (d)
intervention procedures; and (e) program descriptions. T h e journal will also publish short manuscripts (2 to 10 pages)
in two areas: (1) teaching tips and (2) book reviews.
For more information, please contact the coeditors: Dr. Richard L. Simpson, 913/588-5955, or Dr. Dianne E.
Berkell, 516/299-2245.

JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, APRIL 1995, VOL. 3, NO. 2 O,}

Downloaded from ebx.sagepub.com at Mount Royal University on June 12, 2015