The Family Systems Test

Article Review # 64767

Psychology > Social
Psychology > Testing
Psychology > Theory

This paper reviews two professional articles, which evaluate the family systems test (FAST).

1,330 words () | 2 sources | APA | 2005 United States

Paper Summary:

This paper assesses two articles regarding the family system test (FAST) methodology; one written by Rigazio-DiGilio soon after the test was pioneered and another article written by Kahn and Meier, almost a decade after the test was first introduced. The author points out that the Rigazio-DiGilio's article is more favorable regarding the utility of the test; whereas, Kahn and Meier raise more questions about how the FAST test is being taken and interpreted by respondents. In both articles, the titles adequately indicate the nature of the test as well as the article content and the authors agree that the purpose of the test is largely guided by the theoretical principles of family systems therapy. The paper concludes that the criticism of the FAST test is superficial and advocates Rigazio-DiGilio's support of the test measurement methodology because, if the respondent does not understand what terms such as power, cohesion or hierarchy means in the context of the test, this is a problem in communication between the examiner and the examinees not a fault of the FAST test itself.

From the Paper:

"The provisions taken for informing the subject of the test as to its purpose are therefore also drawn into question, since it is also questioned whether the subject adequately understands this purpose and is using vocabulary in the same manner as the examiner. Although scoring objectivity is not questioned in either article, Kahn and
Meier do address the objectivity of FAST's use of language. Reliability and validity coefficients are not reported in the Rigazio-DiGilio text or the Kahn and Meier text. Norms are presented for family groups chosen by the authors of the articles to act as case examples in some cases, but the primary slant is towards former peer-reviewed literature on the subject. The main question of Kahn and Meier, in terms of their critique of the test (which is primarily absent in DiGilio), is whether or not the norms suggested by the text are adequate to cover any individual taking the FAST test."