Where now for parenting perspective on parenting, policy and practice report

Can government measure
family wellbeing?
A literature review
FAMILY WELLBEING
RESEARCH & POLICY FOR THE REAL WORLD
Ivonne Wollny, Joanna Apps
and Clem Henricson

Can government
measure family
wellbeing?
A literature review
Ivonne Wollny, Joanna Apps, Clem Henricson

The Family and Parenting Institute researches what matters to families and parents.
We use our knowledge to influence policymakers and foster public debate. We develop
ideas to improve the services families use and the environment in which children grow up.
Other titles published by the Family and Parenting Institute:
Stephen A. Hunt (ed.) Family trends (2009)
Lucas Pedace, Child wellbeing in England, Scotland and Wales: comparisons and
variations (2008)
© Family and Parenting Institute 2010
Family and Parenting Institute
430 Highgate Studios
53–79 Highgate Road
London NW5 1TL
The Family and Parenting Institute is the operating name of the National Family and
Parenting Institute (NFPI). NFPI is a company limited by guarentee, registered in
England and Wales.
Registered charity number:1077444
Registered company number: 3753345
VAT registration number: 833024365
Figures 6 and 7 (p.37) are reproduced with kind permission from Springer
Science+Business Media: Social Indicators Research, A general theory for perceptual
indicators of family life quality, 47, 1999, K.D. Rettig and R.D. Leichtentritt, figure
Mapping Sentences 2 (p.319) and Mapping Sentences 1 (p.318).
ISBN: 978-1-903615-81-2
Designed by Sign Graphic Design

Executive summary 1
Quality of life and wellbeing 1
Conceptions of family wellbeing 3
Measuring family wellbeing 5
Conclusions 7
1. Introduction 9
Child or family wellbeing? 9
The intergenerational dimension 11
Policy developments and the role of research 11
The review 12
2. Methods 13
Search strategy 13
3. General conceptions of wellbeing 15
Historical background 15
Definitions and difficulties 16
4. Conceptions of family wellbeing 28
Definitions 29
Theoretical models 31
Non-theoretical approaches 40
Some conclusions 47
5. Measuring family wellbeing 50
Measurement quality 51
Measurement challenges 55
A lack of UK data? 60
6. Conclusions and recommendations 63
Appendix: Measures of family wellbeing
identified in research literature 67
References 75
Index 88
iii
Contents

Ivonne Wollny is a Senior Research Officer at the National Centre for Social
Research (NatCen) where she conducts social policy research for NatCen’s
Families and Children group. Formerly a research fellow at the Family and
Parenting Institute, she has also held research posts within the Mental Health
and Social Work department at Middlesex University, where she designed and
conducted an evaluation of learning for practice in social work education, and
at the Office for National Statistics where she worked on the Labour Force and
OMNIBUS surveys.
Joanna Apps is a Senior Research Fellow at the Family and Parenting
Institute. Her background is in social and health psychology and quantitative
research methods and her research and publications have focused on
measurement of quality of life, health and wellbeing in preschool children and
their families, and social inequalities in health. She has been a visiting lecturer
in psychology and research methods at six universities since 1994, and a
freelance research consultant to the private and voluntary sectors.
Clem Henricson, Director of Research and Policy at the Family and Parenting
Institute, is a social policy analyst who has specialised in investigating the
relationship between the state and the family. She has a particular interest in
human and children’s rights and has assessed the Government’s family policy
from a social rights perspective in Government and Parenting, 2000, and the
interaction between child and family policy in The Child and Family Policy
Divide, 2004. She supervised the work of the Commission into Families and the
Wellbeing of Children, which reported on the respective role of state and family
in 2005, and she has also researched family services in England and Wales and
developed a model for the future of family services which has been instrumental
in shaping government strategic planning in this area.
iv
Author biographies

1
Executive summary
This review, based on a wide-ranging examination of international research and
other literature, considers the concept of family wellbeing and various tools that
can be used to measure and understand it. Interest in wellbeing issues in the
UK has tended to focus on the welfare of children rather than families. But
growing policy interest in children’s welfare has led to efforts to improve the
ways that wellbeing is measured more holistically, within the family as a unit.
There is also a growing recognition of the importance of relationships across
the generations and an understanding that these involve a range of interests
and support needs. It is therefore necessary to have the tools to measure the
effectiveness of government policies in promoting the totality of family wellbeing.
Quality of life and wellbeing
Wellbeing is easier to recognise as a concept than to define. Dictionaries speak
in general terms of ‘health’, ‘happiness’, ‘comfort’, ‘contentment’ and ‘prosperity’.
The research literature describing theoretical concepts of ‘human wellbeing’ and
the closely related term ‘quality of life’ is, not surprisingly, extensive.
‘Quality of life’ (QOL) is used as a concept in many different contexts, but its
definition and application are inconsistent. The range of interpretations and lack of
consensus has led some writers to conclude that it cannot be uniformly defined
because its conceptualisation is bound to vary according to specific contexts.
It is also notable that many ‘quality of life’ studies do not explicitly define the
concept. They rely instead on the chosen measurements to provide an implied
definition. This can sometimes enable useful research to proceed regardless of
whether precise definitions are possible.

Wellbeing is a concept that has been developed mainly by economists, but like
quality of life it lacks any universally accepted definition. Varied approaches have
tended to result from individual disciplines studying wellbeing on their own terms.
Some researchers have attempted to specify the dimensions of wellbeing by
compiling lists of potential common factors such as ‘necessary resources’,
‘universal needs’ or ‘central capabilities’. This has resulted in debates about
whether a universal set of wellbeing domains can ever exist given that lists are
bound to diverge with context.
The major conceptual differences in the study of quality of life or wellbeing can
be considered under five sub-headings:
● Unidimensional versus multidimensional: although one widely adopted
quality of life measurement is a single scale item – ‘How do you feel about
your life as a whole?’ (Andrews and Withey, 1976) – researchers tend to
agree that wellbeing is multidimensional.
● Objective versus subjective: there is emerging consensus that the ideal
approach to conceptualising and measuring wellbeing is a combination of
subjective and objective dimensions. Individual wellbeing factors or
indicators can be viewed as combining both aspects.
● Self-assessment versus external assessment: although its validity has
been questioned in some circumstances, self-assessment is widely viewed
as an essential method, particularly where perceptions of wellbeing are
being researched.
● Aspirations and values: viewed as an important mechanism mediating
between objective and subjective dimensions.
● Culture: there is debate over how far definitions of quality of life are
constructs representing cultural norms. This relates to the specification
of standards or benchmarks, which is one of the most contentious
measurement issues.
Since notions vary concerning related concepts such as ‘quality of life’, ‘life
satisfaction’, ‘welfare’, ‘standard of living’, ‘liveability’, ‘social quality’ and ‘wellbeing’,
a strategy of treating them as interchangeable has often been pursued by those
more concerned with practical applications than semantics. There may be limits
to the level of conceptual clarity that can ultimately be achieved.
2
Can government measure family wellbeing?

Conceptions of family wellbeing
The term ‘family wellbeing’ is widely used in public policy. The need to develop a
conceptual framework is seen as increasingly important to justify measurement
and help build a consistent evidence base. At present, however, the term is
conceptualised in a variety of ways drawing on different theories according to
the context and purpose of research.
Much of the family wellbeing literature does not attempt to specify the nature
of the concept. Nevertheless, a number of studies and reports have sought to
define family wellbeing in explicit terms. These definitions indicate the main
ways of thinking about family wellbeing. For example:
● family wellbeing is overwhelmingly thought of as a multidimensional
concept encompassing different domains, and as an amalgamation of
different types of wellbeing: physical, social, economic and psychological
● there are implied criteria for families being ‘well’ or ‘unwell’ that are
subjective and related to culture
● like individual wellbeing, family wellbeing can be conceptualised in terms
of functions, and needs and their fulfilment.
Theoretical models
In a few cases the research literature takes the understanding and measurement of
family wellbeing towards a specific theoretical base. These models are based on:
● Ecological systems theory: arguing that family wellbeing and environments
are linked through interdependent relationships. An ecological approach
appears especially well suited to the study of family wellbeing at the level
of national statistics and trend monitoring. However, analyses of
interactions between families and their environments over time require
more comprehensive, longitudinal data than is currently available.
● Resource theory: this provides researchers with a way of conceptualising
the interpersonal ‘resource exchanges’ in family relationships. It uses six
classes of resource – love, services, goods, money, information and status
– to define family wellbeing as a multidimensional concept. It links the
concept of ‘personal needs’ being met through resources that in turn
produce life satisfactions.
3
Executive summary

● Family systems-based theories: family systems theory, widely applied in
psychology, emphasises the interdependence of personal relationships and
interactions within families. Whether a family is ‘well’ or not is determined by
elements of its internal functioning. The frameworks that have been described
include internal functioning (such as the conflict resolution style between family
members) and psychological constructs (such as social support processes).
Other approaches
‘Family functioning’ also appears in conceptualisations of wellbeing outside the
context of psychological research. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS),
for example, refers to “interactions between family members, often involving
combining and sharing resources” (Linacre, 2007). The National Survey of
America’s Families (Macomber and Moore, 1999) measures parent mental
health and parenting aggravation as family functioning constructs. In another
study, economic wellbeing and family physical and mental health are treated as
separate domains, while family functioning refers to various aspects of family
organisation, such as childcare arrangements, routines or the quality of time
spent with other family members (Sing et al., 2001).
Domain-based frameworks
Most research on family wellbeing has been underpinned by multidimensional
models. They prescribe relevant dimensions or domains and use a number of
different indicators to measure them. Concepts of family needs and resources are
often implicit in these studies. But they appear less likely to be driven by theory
and more by the findings of previous research, policy interests, or what is possible
in terms of data collection. The choice of domains, benchmarks and indicators is,
in the absence of guiding theory, more likely to be determined by the subjective
judgements and preferences of the researchers, funders or policymakers.
Data-derived and inductive models
In contrast to the theory-based approaches such as the ecological model
described above, a data-derived model of family wellbeing is based entirely on
the findings of data analysis. Researchers often favour these models because
their strength has been demonstrated and they lend themselves to further
replication. The most obvious limitation is that these models will only ever
contain constructs that have been singled out by the researchers, therefore
there is a risk of significant factors being excluded because the chosen
methodology was not robust enough to confirm their importance.
4

Special focus frameworks
Another group of conceptual models considers family wellbeing from a specific
perspective, or a focus on particular outcomes. A prominent example is the model
developed by the Child Trends research centre in the United States, which
conceptualises family wellbeing in terms of ‘healthy marriage’ and ‘family strengths’.
Risk and protective factors
Evidence from longitudinal research demonstrates how wellbeing is related to
the way that risk and protective factors in different life domains (individual,
relationships, family, community and society) interact. There is, however, a need
for better measures to capture these interactions. More generally, the breadth of
issues that have been researched in relation to family wellbeing suggests the need
for sophisticated, multidimensional and dynamic models to do the subject justice.
The challenges of developing such models have, however, raised doubts as to how
achievable this is. Rather than attempting to aggregate all the various aspects into
a single, overall framework, it has been suggested that a more achievable goal
would be a suite of linked frameworks. Researchers would familiarise themselves
with different types of theory, according to the models that were most appropriate
for the investigation in hand.
Measuring family wellbeing
Amid a wide variety of approaches to conceptualising family wellbeing, there is
no well-established consensus about the best way to measure it. Generally
assessments have used:
● measures of individual wellbeing
● measures of pre-specified family resources, functions or needs
● assessments of the quality of relationships
● measures of the social and political and cultural context of families.
In the first approach the unit of observation and analysis is the individual family
member. But if family wellbeing is to be viewed as more than aggregated
individual data, it becomes appropriate to observe the individual, the
relationships between individuals, and the family as a whole. Measurable
elements may include the distribution or structure of ‘wellbeings’ across the
5
Executive summary

family unit – for example, a family’s overall style of resolving conflict, as opposed
to the combined communication skills of its individual members.
Validity
A key issue in family wellbeing research is whether chosen indicators and
instruments are appropriate, consistent and sufficiently discerning. A lack of
validity or reliability has serious implications for the quality of research and the
resulting evidence base. Yet one investigation of the extent to which statistical
reliability and validity data has been reported in published studies found that
only 12 per cent of articles did so (Strauss and Ross, 1995). Speculation as to
the reasons for this highlighted different approaches to test development in
different research disciplines. The funding for studies may also, in many cases,
not include the resources needed for testing.
The number of standardised measurement instruments used in family wellbeing
research has been increasing. Yet it also appears that the complexity of the
constructs being investigated is often not reflected in the items being used to
measure them.
Other issues
There are a number of measurement issues relating to family research in
general that those interested in wellbeing are bound to consider:
● Defining ‘the family’: while many definitions are in use, practical and
financial constraints have often meant in practice that family research has
been based on household definitions of ‘family’, i.e. those living within the
same household are considered as a family unit. There are, however, many
factors that impact on family wellbeing that fall outside the parameters of
conventional household-based measurements.
● Differences within families: differences between family members pose
theoretical and measurement problems. The most obvious example of
intra-family differences is a relationship that is happy for one partner but
unhappy for the other. Researchers have also encountered difficulties
determining valid ways of ‘weighting’ data obtained from individuals when
scoring an overall family index of wellbeing; that is, deciding which individual
family member’s wellbeing is most important to overall family wellbeing when
there are differences in individual wellbeing in a family.
6

● Negative indicators: there has been a tendency to employ ‘negative’
indicators, i.e. that focus on what families lack or undesirable factors and
experiences. This can result in family wellbeing being placed conceptually
in a ‘deficit model’. The use of deficit indicators has been blamed for a
disproportionate focus on the negative in family research.
Lack of UK data
The review was unable to find any nationally representative family wellbeing
studies conducted in the UK. However, there are large national datasets that
provide a wealth of relevant data, collected in an objective and multidimensional
manner. There are also national household surveys in which families – especially
those with dependent children – form an important subset. Currently missing,
however, are longitudinal and other repeated surveys whose specific aim is to
measure the wellbeing of families comprehensively.
Conclusions
Given rapid social change, diversified family structures and the increasingly
complex demands placed on families, there is a growing case for family wellbeing
data that is representative, comprehensive and consistent. This is needed to
support policymakers in understanding the impact of social policy measures on
family functioning. Ideally, the data collected would represent the objective as well
as subjective dimensions of wellbeing. It would be collected in all the domains that
influence family functioning, and on relevant ecological levels, such as individual,
relationships, family, the community and wider society. Risk and protective factors
would be measured to facilitate analysis of their interplay and the salience of their
contributions to good, bad or indifferent outcomes. There would be particular value
in obtaining longitudinal data to enable better understanding of these processes.
Family wellbeing data would enable the study of links between family functioning
and child outcomes across different populations in ways that are currently not
possible. This would not only assist in monitoring family wellbeing, but also the
projection of future outcome trends and patterns, creating greater potential for
preventive policies. Consistent family wellbeing data would also allow analysis
of the impact of external factors on families, such as social services, schools and
labour markets. This, in turn, would support more effective service planning and
channelling of resources.
7
Executive summary

Measurement challenges, both conceptual and practical, need to be met
through further work, including:
● more reliability and validity testing of different measures
● research to explore the relative strengths of different family wellbeing
constructs that may be substitutes or proxies for each other
● cross-cultural and comparative studies of family wellbeing
● more sophisticated data and analysis (such as experimental and longitudinal
research designs, structural equation modelling and hierarchical analyses)
● more studies to discover how families themselves conceptualise family
wellbeing.
8

9
1. Introduction
This review is about the wellbeing of families and the various tools that can be
used to measure and understand it. Its focus is on the family as a social unit
interacting internally with its individual members on the one hand, and externally
with the community and wider society on the other. The purpose is to contribute
to the development of a measurement framework for assessing family wellbeing
in the UK and to raise awareness among policymakers about relevant conceptual
and practical issues.
The study begins with an exploration of the concepts ‘wellbeing’ and ‘quality of
life’. Families are then brought into focus, and there is an examination of a range
of different disciplinary approaches to the assessment of their wellbeing, from
studies in psychology through to social policy population surveys. A selective
interdisciplinary perspective is adopted intended to support the construction of
a practical tool to measure family wellbeing for the purpose of informing the
development of effective family policy.
Child or family wellbeing?
Interest in the concept of wellbeing in the UK has, until now, concentrated on the
welfare of children, rather than whole families. Particular attention has been paid in
the literature to international comparisons in child wellbeing. For example, the widely
publicised Innocenti Research Centre report published by UNICEF in 2007 ranked
the UK bottom among developed countries on various indices of child wellbeing
(UNICEF, 2007). Negative trends in mental health, offending and drug and alcohol
misuse were specifically highlighted. Comparisons have also been made between
child wellbeing and trend data on life chances and movement between social

classes. Social mobility rates in the UK have been in decline since the 1950s. This
has reinforced arguments that a policy emphasis on children’s overall wellbeing
is needed to help them reach their potential irrespective of family background
(Blanden et al., 2005). In addition, negative social trends such as increasing mental
health problems among children and youth offending are major concerns which
have drawn attention to how children develop in our society (Laurance, 2006).
The growing policy focus on children’s welfare has been accompanied by
international efforts in the past decade to improve the ways that child wellbeing
is measured in the general population (Andrews et al., 2002; Ben-Arieh and
Goerge, 2001; Hanafin et al., 2007; Moore, 1999; Pollard and Lee, 2003;
Lippman, 2007; Land et al., 2007). This has served to highlight criticisms of the
evidence base that are equally relevant to any discussion of the scope for
family wellbeing measurements. For example that:
● child wellbeing is inconsistently defined and measured
● the indicators used are far from comprehensive (there is limited or no data
on some important aspects of child wellbeing such as mental health)
● selected data and analyses are often inappropriate, measuring
multidimensional concepts with one-dimensional measures and with limited
ability to pick up cumulative risk factors in the lives of children
● data showing correlations between risk factors do not necessarily support
the investigation of causal pathways
● existing indicators create a ‘deficit model’ of childhood because they mostly
measure negative factors
● the available data is often unsuitable for international comparisons.
These problems concerning definitions, data collection and measurement need
to be addressed. But it is also self-evident that efforts to improve the lives of
children cannot be sensibly considered in isolation from the social and
environmental context in which they are growing up. Thus, to make a real
difference to their wellbeing, the focus of research and policy should be wide
enough to acknowledge the family unit as the most direct and influential
context in which children develop. This is not to deny a continuing need for
child-focused research and policy development, but simply to recognise that
efforts to enhance the wellbeing of children in the real world require that
questions also be asked about the wellbeing of families.
10

The intergenerational dimension
A further significant feature of family wellbeing concerns the intergenerational
relationship between children, parents and grandparents. Each generation has
an expectation of wellbeing in the context of the family as a caring unit. There
are supports, but also tensions, implied by the financial and caring ‘contract’
across the generations. Some of these tensions are internal to the family, while
others relate to the distribution by the state of differing financial supports and
caring services between the generations. While there have been a number of
studies examining the wellbeing of the elderly, these have not been undertaken
in the context of the whole family experience.
The crux of the need to measure family wellbeing is that the family is an
interdependent caring unit that impacts on the wellbeing of its members across
the age range, from cradle to grave. It is the fundamental biological and social
unit within society. As such its wellbeing pertains to both the individuals that
comprise it and the unit itself, with its network of caring and dependent
relationships. The family is the focus of a range of government supports and
controls and which require measures of efficacy.
Policy developments and the role of research
The importance of the family unit as a focal point for policy and research is
reflected in recent policy developments, both nationally and internationally. For
example, there has been the creation in the UK of a Department for Children,
Schools and Families and, a few years earlier, a Family and Parenting Institute.
In Ireland, the Department of Social Welfare was re-designated the Department
of Social and Family Affairs in 2002. New Zealand established a Families
Commission in 2004. A number of government policies relating to the family have
been published in the UK in recent years (Supporting families, 1998; Every Child
Matters, 2003; Every Child Matters: next steps, 2004; Support for parents: the
best start for children, 2005; Every parent matters, 2007). Initiatives like these
acknowledge that the family is a cornerstone of society, fulfilling major functions
such as the provision of care to the most vulnerable members of society and
the transmission of values and norms to the next generation.
The research community has a part to play in fostering an understanding of
family wellbeing so that policies are based on sound evidence and are
11
Introduction

consequently more likely to prove effective. Yet, as with efforts to promote child
wellbeing, there are obvious gaps in the conceptual understanding of family
wellbeing, and in knowledge about the indicators and instruments that can best
be used to measure it.
The review
The purpose of this review is to examine the literature on current concepts of
family wellbeing and to consider options for improving the way that its various
dimensions are recognised and assessed.
After a description in Chapter 2 of the methodology for the review, Chapter 3
considers wellbeing as a general concept alongside other commonly used terms
including ‘quality of life’ and ‘happiness’. From a conclusion that most definitions
are culturally determined, it moves on in Chapter 4 to examine a range of
different conceptual approaches to family wellbeing from studies in psychology
through to the non-theorised approaches of many social policy population surveys.
Chapter 5 explores the need for different conceptual frameworks and
measurement models appropriate to the subject matter being explored, but
linking the areas that are relevant to the study of family wellbeing to social,
economic and health research. This interdisciplinary relevance emerges as
especially important in discussion of the scope for developing bespoke national
surveys or instruments for the assessment of family wellbeing. The chapter
considers what measurement tools are currently available. It also examines
methodological, ethical and other issues that need to be taken into account
when developing comprehensive family wellbeing studies.
Conclusions are set out in Chapter 6, including a recommendation for the
development of sophisticated tools and surveys to measure family wellbeing
in the UK. As will be seen, wellbeing measurement is a highly complex and
challenging task. Further progress is, nevertheless, essential if national policy
is to be grounded in a full understanding of contemporary family life.
12

13
2. Methods
Search strategy
Three main databases were searched for relevant research literature. Two of
them – Swetswise and IBSS – included specialist social science material as
well as a wide range of related fields; for example, economics and health-allied
disciplines. The third, Ingenta, indexes a wide range of academic and professional
research articles.
The databases were searched with the key terms “Family Wellbeing” or “Family
Quality of Life”. Only relatively recent material was included (1990–2007).1
Table 1: Number of search items by database
1 The same time frame was not applied to Ingenta to increase the low number of records.
Search termDatabase No. of records
In article nameSwetswise 11
In article nameIBSS 102
In article name
In abstract and
as keywords
26
92 (12 of which
new material)
Ingenta

After checking the records for duplicates and non-relevant records (e.g. book
reviews) a total of 96 academic records were initially identified. More than half
these documents came from health-related publications and, in particular,
published research on intellectual disabilities. Forty-seven records originated
from this field with another seven documents originating from various others
such as mental health or maternity health care. However, it was subsequently
decided to exclude a large part of this health-related material (37 records) from
the final review. This was largely done because the focus of many articles was
considered to be too narrow to be of general relevance2
. The remaining 17
articles appeared to offer a good understanding of the conceptualisation and
measurement of family quality of life in the health field, including in relation to
intellectual disabilities.
It was, nevertheless, apparent that the academic literature on family quality of
life or family wellbeing was very limited compared to that concerned with
general wellbeing and quality of life. This could also indicate that these are
quite ‘new’ concepts in academic research and that their increasing use is,
for the time being, largely driven by the social policy field.
Whatever the reason, it was, therefore, considered important to conduct an
additional search of policy documents, conference proceedings and other so-called
‘grey’ material. This was done via Google using the key terms Family Wellbeing,
Family Quality of Life and Family Measurement. A total of 73 records were
examined in detail. These largely consisted of family wellbeing surveys, and
discussion and policy documents. The vast majority originated from the United
States, Australia and New Zealand. A certain amount of general wellbeing literature
was also retrieved via the Google search for material on wellbeing, especially
material which synthesised and provided an overview of current thinking and
the state of knowledge on human wellbeing. As a whole this material
contributed substantially to the review.
14
2 Examples of excluded articles included topics such as ‘Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on
2 family quality of life’ and ‘Family quality of life and day care centers for patients suffering from dementia’.

15
The theoretical and empirical research literature describing concepts of human
wellbeing and quality of life is extensive. For the study of family wellbeing this
large body of literature provides a wealth of conceptual information to clarify
the theoretical underpinnings of the generic concept of wellbeing. Psychological
research contributes many of the health-related insights; other fields include
nursing, medicine, health promotion, disability and mental health. Quality of life
has, over half a century, acquired the infrastructure of a discipline in its own right
with dedicated peer-reviewed journals and academic bodies. ‘Happiness studies’
have emerged more recently as a field of study concerned with subjective,
individual wellbeing. Among its major resources is the World Database of
Happiness (http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl), which serves as a repository
for scientific research in this area, and provides an exhaustive bibliography.
Different academic disciplines have contributed to theory and research in work
on quality of life and happiness, but it is fair to say that quality of life is more
associated with health, and happiness studies with economics.
Historical background
In their early days, studies of the wellbeing of individuals and nations relied
heavily on economic definitions and measurement using economic indicators,
such as income and shares of national output. The theoretical shortcomings of
this approach became evident once it had been demonstrated that the sense of
wellbeing among people living in developed nations had not increased in line
with improvements in their economic circumstances (Easterlin, 2003).
3. General conceptions
3. of wellbeing

Quality of life and standard of living were evidently not synonymous. Quality of
life thereafter became the focus of a ‘social indicators’ movement originating
mainly from Scandinavia and the United States (see Bell et al., 2006 for a
comprehensive history, also Berger-Schmitt and Noll, 2000). This approach was
(and remains) based on an assumption that wellbeing is determined by a range
of individual and social factors as well as economic ones; for example, health,
social relations and the environment. This has been a fast-growing field whose
influence has been felt in discussions ranging from the collection of national
social monitoring data (population statistics) to development studies. The quality
of life of populations (with the individual as the unit of analysis) and of societies
is the focus for this area of research (e.g. Berger-Schmitt and Noll, 2000).
More recently the quality of life concept has contributed significantly to debates
about the focus and targeting of mainstream health, education and social care
services, including the scope for multi-agency working in the public sector (Bell
et al., 2006, p.9). Its reach has also extended to such topics as urban design
(Chapman and Larkham, 1999).
Definitions and difficulties
Quality of life
Quality of life is used as a concept in many different contexts, but its definition
and application are inconsistent. There has been no shortage of attempts to clarify
its meaning, but the range of interpretations and lack of consensus has led some
writers to conclude that this task is well nigh impossible. In their view, quality of life
cannot be generally or uniformly defined because its conceptualisation is bound to
vary according to specific research purposes and contexts. For example, it may
relate to the quality of life of cities, nations or regions, or else it may be telling
us about different social or psychological factors that affect the quality of life of
individuals, or groups of individuals who share common characteristics (see Bell
et al., 2006).
A number of attempts have, even so, been made to summarise existing
definitions. For example, one typology suggested three major categories
(Farquhar, 1995, p.503, cited in Bell et al., 2006, p.11):
16

● general and global definitions
● definitions that break the concept down into a series of component parts
or dimensions (e.g. economic domain, intimate relationships domain etc.)
● definitions that focus on only one or two component parts or dimensions.
It is, however, important to note that quality of life studies most often provide no
explicit definition of the concept. They rely instead on the measurements they
have chosen to use to provide an implied definition specific to the particular
piece of research. While this may generally be considered a weakness, there is
an argument that it is done less to avoid defining the indefinable than to carry
out research that can be usefully applied regardless of whether an exact
definition is possible.
Where attempts have been made to define quality of life it has most often been in
terms of multidimensional domains. For example, the New Zealand Government
has specified four overlapping and interrelated domains of wellbeing: economic,
social, environmental and cultural. Each domain has been further defined.
Cultural wellbeing, for instance, is specified as people’s
Local government in New Zealand has been advised to take account of all four
domains of wellbeing in its policy planning and practice.
It has also been widely noted that quality of life can have objective and
subjective features. The social indicators movement referred to above developed
the ‘Scandinavian level of living’ approach, which focuses on objective measures
of individual living conditions to determine overall quality of life, most often
measured in terms of available resources; whereas in the American Quality of
Life approach the emphasis is on measuring ‘subjective quality of life’, based on
self-evaluations by individuals in a number of domains. These are most often
expressed in terms of their levels of satisfaction with different areas of their lives
(Berger-Schmitt and Noll, 2000).
17
General conceptions of wellbeing
“participation in recreation, creative and cultural activities; and
freedom to retain, interpret and express their arts, history, heritage and
traditions”. (New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2005, p.3,
as cited in Bell et al., 2006, p.31)

Wellbeing
Wellbeing is a concept that has in many cases been developed and studied by
economists (Bell et al., 2006, p.30). Like quality of life it:
It has also been described as:
The sheer range of (theoretical and non-theoretical) interpretations is illustrated
by the following, non-exhaustive list of examples. In those, wellbeing is based on:
● the fulfilment of human needs; for example, based on the psychological
theory of human motivation by Maslow (1970) a hierarchical set of human
needs can be categorised into ‘basic, safety, belonging, self-esteem and
self-actualisation’ (Clarke, 2005)
● the achievement of human capabilities; these are ‘real opportunities/
freedoms’ (for example, ‘bodily health’ and ‘integrity, ‘emotions’, ‘affiliation’
and ‘control over one’s environment’ (see Jasek-Rysdahl, 2001, for an
example of an application of the approach in research; Clark, 2005; Sen,
1992, for details of the approach)
● the availability of resources; the Resource Profiles Framework approach,
for example, includes as resources ‘relationships’ and ‘cultural status’
(McGregor and Kebede, 2003)
● the realisation of social and political values and goals, (identified through
analysis of the social and political goals inherent in such related concepts
as welfare, quality of life, sustainability and social quality and as expressed
in contemporary politics (Berger-Schmitt and Noll, 2000)
18
“. . . lacks a universally acceptable definition and has numerous, and
often competing, interpretations”. (McGillivray and Clarke, 2006, p.3)
“. . . a complex, multi-faceted construct that has continued to elude
researchers’ attempts to define and measure it”. (Pollard and Lee, 2003,
cited in Bell et al., 2006, p.30)

● research evidence; research into factors that facilitate psychological growth
and wellbeing led to the formulation of the psychological self-determination
theory that the satisfaction of three intrinsic needs – competence, autonomy,
relatedness – fosters wellbeing (Ryan and Deci, 2000)
● quality of life approaches; these identify a number of ‘domains’, in addition
to economic/material wellbeing – for example, health, education,
employment, housing, the environment, basic human rights (Clark and
McGillivray, 2007); as noted above, there may be subjective or objective
dimensions of these domains, or both (Berger-Schmitt and Noll, 2000).
These different approaches – and others based on more specific theoretical
frameworks (McGillivray and Clarke, 2006, p.2) – tend to have resulted from
individual disciplines studying wellbeing on their own terms, rather than from
attempting to take a multidisciplinary perspective. Consequently different
conceptualisations can be found that relate to different facets of wellbeing, all
of which could be considered important in their own right (Clark and McGillivray,
2007).
Researchers have also attempted to identify the domains of wellbeing by
compiling exhaustive lists of potential common factors such as necessary
resources, universal needs and central capabilities. Pollard and Lee (2003), for
example, established five separate domains of wellbeing and a range of positive
and negative indicators in each through a systematic review of the child
wellbeing literature. Another example of the ‘quality of life approach’ to wellbeing
definition comes in a study of European regional wellbeing and exclusion.
Wellbeing is not explicitly defined but is implied by the description of five
dimensions – material wellbeing, health, education, literacy and participation in
the productive and social spheres (Stewart, 2002, cited in Bell et al., 2006).
This has resulted in debates about whether a set of universal or fundamental
wellbeing domains can ever really exist, with some arguing that such frameworks
are bound to diverge with the context. As with quality of life (above), wellbeing
has most often been researched without a definition apart from that implied by
the particular choice of measurements (Bell et al., 2006).
19

It follows that those who seek a general and consensual definition of either
‘quality of life’ or ‘wellbeing’ are liable to experience disappointment. They may
also experience some understandable confusion, given the way that notions
concerning such related concepts as quality of life, life satisfaction, welfare,
standard of living, liveability, social quality and wellbeing tend to vary. Some
writers have made specific distinctions between the different concepts and
urged others to follow their lead for consistency (Haas, 1999), while others
insist on different distinctions or treat the terms as synonymous – a strategy
that holds considerable appeal for those more concerned with practical
applications than semantics.
Indeed, for the purposes of this review it is intended from now on to treat
quality of life and wellbeing as practically interchangeable. This is because a
discussion structured around differences in terminology would risk losing sight
of the many conceptual advances that have been made in recent years. It is,
therefore, proposed to focus the remainder of the discussion on the main
points of distinction between different interpretations, regardless of the specific
terms that researchers have used. The important distinctions are whether the
concept used is defined as objective or subjective and, within objective approaches,
whether emphasis is on the means for achieving wellbeing/quality of life or on
actual outcomes of different levels of wellbeing. With subjective approaches the
key distinction is whether the focus is on affective (emotional) or cognitive
(reasoning) dimensions (Berger-Schmitt and Noll, 2000).
Differences and debates
The major conceptual differences and principal debates in the study of quality of
life or wellbeing (Bell et al., 2006) can be considered under five sub-headings:
● a unidimensional or multidimensional concept
● objective versus subjective
● self-assessment versus external assessment
● aspirations and values
● culture.
20

A unidimensional or multidimensional concept?
Quality of life has been defined as both a uni- and multidimensional concept. One
of the most widely adopted quality of life measurements is the single Likert scale
item ‘How do you feel about your life as a whole?’ (Andrews and Withey, 1976).
Nevertheless, unidimensional measures are in a minority. When quality of life is
conceptualised as multidimensional, similar measures are commonly repeated
across a number of different domains, such as satisfaction with work, relationships
or neighbourhood. While scholars may nowadays tend to agree that wellbeing is
multidimensional, the identification of an exhaustive list of dimensions has proved
difficult – even more so the task of achieving consensus on what the dimensions
should be and their relative importance (McGillivray and Clarke, 2006, p.3).
Objective versus subjective
Whether wellbeing is related to the objective circumstances of individuals or their
subjective perceptions of those conditions continues to be a topic of major
debate. It arose from data showing that these two dimensions do not necessarily
correlate. This led to a re-orientation of research towards subjective measures on
the grounds that economic and other objective indicators could not demonstrate
how people ‘feel’ about their lives (Bell et al., 2006, p.19). For example, high levels
of unhappiness could still be found in individuals whose objectively measured
wellbeing, such as their ‘standard of living’, was high. Some writers even argued
that quality of life is a subjective concept by its nature (Raphael, 1996), which fits
with the postmodernist view that all reality is constructed and therefore subjective.
Also, as previously noted, it is often the research context that determines how
quality of life is conceptualised. In the context of medical interventions, for instance,
improvement in the quality of life for patients is often a desired outcome, but
improvement in the objective living conditions of patients may be more than a
particular treatment can achieve. A subjective definition of quality of life will be
better suited to the scope of what the intervention can actually hope to achieve.
However, the counter-argument for objective approaches is that subjective
judgements about quality of life are influenced (and limited) by individuals’
frames of reference. In other words, they reflect aspirations rather than actual
quality of life. The value of objective approaches to quality of life has also been
argued in the context of ethical responsibility towards vulnerable groups
(Cummins, 2000; Felce and Perry, 1995). To quote Bell and colleagues:
21

A further clarification made by Veenhoven (2004, p.3) concerns the difference
between studying a subject matter that is itself subjective and applying subjective
assessment methods. Likewise between the use of objective assessment methods
and studying an objective subject. Figure 1 describes, in a health context, what
implications these distinctions might carry in practice.
Figure 1: Objects of assessment and assessment methods
22
“If a person with poor mental health lives alone in squalid conditions
and rarely leaves the house, self assesses as having a good QOL, is
this a reason for leaving them to get on with it?” (Bell et al., 2006, p.21)
Source: Veenhoven, 2004
Type 1: Illness revealed by symptoms such as weight loss or biochemical tests
Type 2: Illness diagnosed by doctor on the basis of a patient’s complaints
Type 3: Perception of being ill by one-self (possibly without feeling sick)
Type 4: Being and feeling ill as apparent in sickness behaviours such as absenteeism and
doctor visits
Type 5: Being and feeling ill measured by a health questionnaire that involves both perceptions
of functional health and health complaints
Type 6: Being and feeling ill as reported directly by a person
Type 7: Feeling ill as apparent in consumption of relief drugs, such as painkillers or tranquilizers
Type 8: Feeling ill measured by a sickness complaint inventory
Type 9: Feeling ill measured by response to a single question on how fit or sick one feels
Assessment
Objective
1 2 3
654
7 8 9
Subject
matter Mixed Subjective
Objective
Mixed
Subjective

Debate continues, but it is fair to say that there is now a consensus that the ideal
approach to conceptualising and measuring wellbeing is a combination of
subjective and objective dimensions (e.g. Diener and Suh, 1997; Delhey et al.,
2002; Hagerty et al., 2001). This is based on recognition of the strengths and
weaknesses inherent in each approach and on the relationship between objective
and subjective aspects of quality of life. For example, an individual might give a
lower rating on job satisfaction in circumstances where friends and peers happen
to have jobs for which they are particularly well motivated. This does not mean the
individual necessarily believes her/his job is a bad one, but gives it a low rating
because he/she mixes with friends who are even more enthusiastic about their
work. Moreover, the subjective dimension may have an impact on the person’s
objective circumstances, where feelings of dissatisfaction at work may have a
negative impact on the chances of progressing and promotion.
Cummins (2000) proposes that subjective and objective quality of life are
independent of each other but only to the point where the objective quality of
life falls below a certain threshold from which it then drives down subjective
quality of life. Perhaps the dynamic nature of lived experience also means that
continuous interactions are likely to operate, not only between wellbeing
processes and outcomes, but also between objective and subjective wellbeing
dimensions. From this flows an argument that instead of treating the dimensions
as separate, it is more appropriate to regard each wellbeing factor as having
objective and subjective dimensions or for different indicators’ potential to be
assessed both from an objective and subjective point of view (Schalock, 1996).
It should be noted that conceptual frameworks already exist that represent
more comprehensive approaches to operationalising quality of life than the
contrasting ‘availability of resources’ and ‘subjective wellbeing’ perspectives.
For example, the Basic Needs Approach (Allardt,1993) identifies three basic
human needs – having, loving and being – and specifies subjective as well as
objective dimensions within each category.
A simultaneous focus on subjective and objective dimensions, in terms of four
possible groupings of these dimensions, is also central to the conceptualisation
of quality of life in the German Quality of Life Approach (Zapf, 1984, cited in
Noll, 2002):
23

Figure 2: German Quality of Life Approach
Self-assessment versus external assessment
Studies in the health field have explored the issue of how far self-assessment
can be relied upon as a source of wellbeing data. They have, for example,
compared scores on life satisfaction assessed by patients themselves and as
assessed by their carers. Studies of this type have shown mixed results in
terms of a match between the two different sets of responses (Eiser and Morse,
2001; Frost et al., 2002; Janse et al., 2004). However, a more fundamental
challenge to self-assessment can be mounted by those who argue that its
validity is inherently threatened; for example, by social desirability – where a
person gives an evaluation not based on true feelings, but based on what ‘the
norm’ is: which answer appears to the individual as the socially acceptable or
the most desirable answer. Even so, self-assessment is widely viewed as an
essential component in many assessments of quality of life, particularly where
perception of wellbeing is the subject being researched. Moreover,
Aspirations and values
Some writers have emphasised the importance of aspirations and values to the
quality of life concept. The sort of life someone aspires to or the value they place
on a particular aspect of life will have a bearing on how they respond to questions
24
Subjective well-being
Good
Well-being Dissonance
DeprivationAdaptation
Objective living
conditions Bad
Good
Bad
“personal appraisals of wellbeing have a validity for which there is no
substitute if one person’s values are not to be imposed on another”.
(Felce and Perry, 1995)

about their wellbeing. Identifying aspirations and values can consequently provide
significant insight into the relationship between the objective and subjective
dimensions of the quality of life of individuals. Attempts to incorporate individuals’
values into quality of life scores should be made by weighting the different
domains’ scores (satisfaction with work, relationships etc.) according to the value
individuals assign to them (Felce and Perry, 1995) within the same study (e.g. the
importance of work to an individual). In other work quality of life scores have
been weighted according to the differential structures of ‘domains importance’
to different demographic groups. These hierarchy structures represent
commonalities in views about what is important in life for different age groups
or social groups, and had been specified through research prior to being used
as mediators of quality of life scores (Felce and Perry, 1996; Schalock, 2000).
Culture
Another much debated subject is the extent to which definitions of quality of life are
cultural constructs representing norms and values. This relates directly to one of
the most contentious measurement issues in quality of life research: the selection
of life domains and indicators, and the specification of standards or benchmarks.
Researchers have been advised to reflect on the cultural presumptions, including
underlying values, norms and beliefs, which might have biased a conceptualisation
of quality of life. This is because how quality of life (QOL) is defined can have
profound implications, as Bell and colleagues observe:
The selection of domains by researchers or the funders of research is inevitably
based on subjective choices as to what seems important in wellbeing and what the
benchmarks for being ‘well’ should be. So, too, is the selection of indicators, which is
25
“QOL has a high public profile at times, for example concerning legal
decisions over medical intervention to save very premature babies
who will almost certainly be profoundly disabled, or to prolong the
lives of people in a persistent vegetative state. In a quite different
policy context, a psychological concept of QOL that regards aspects of
an individual’s personality or temperament as the determining factor may
result in fewer resources being invested in improving the material
circumstances of vulnerable individuals.” (Bell et al., 2006, p.9)

often driven by pragmatic rather than theoretical factors, such as the availability of
data. Any development of family wellbeing assessment would surely need to include
reflection on the underlying value base of the measurements being proposed.
Concepts and confusion
In the quest for conceptual clarity writers have tried to separate the different
tangible elements of wellbeing or quality of life; for instance, by distinguishing
what quality of life is, what determines it, what processes are involved in
attaining it, and what its outcomes are (Hagerty et al., 2001).
One widely quoted typology (Veenhoven, 2000) distinguishes between the means
and the ends of the ‘good life’ and argues that in the measurement of quality of life
Figure 3 below combines this differentiation while making a further distinction
between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ dimensions and illustrates the meaning of the
resulting categories.
Figure 3: Four kinds of being ‘well’
26
Outer qualities Inner qualities
Living in a good
environment
Being able to
cope with life
Enjoying lifeBeing of worth for
the world
Life-chances
Life-results
Source: Veenhoven, 2000
“one cannot meaningfully add chances and outcomes. A happy and
productive life is not better when lived in a perfect environment by a
well-endowed person than when realised in difficult circumstances by
someone handicapped.” (Veenhoven, 2000, p.25)

This typology has been usefully applied to replace or clarify other conceptions
and classifications and to assist in exploring the substantive meanings inherent
in diverse measures. It also represents a necessary step along the way to
establishing whether the concept of wellbeing can be measured comprehensively
(McGillivray and Clarke, 2006, p.8).
However, it should be noted that seemingly unambiguous and mutually exclusive
categories can start to lose their clarity at the point of practical application.
‘Being of worth for the world’ (otherwise known as ‘self-esteem’) could, for
instance, be conceptualised as both a determinant and a desirable outcome of
a good quality of life. As a result, ‘self-esteem’ defies easy assignment to
categories like ‘life-chances’ and ‘life-results’. So when it comes to distinguishing
the means of achieving wellbeing from its ends some confusion may still be apt
to prevail (Hagerty et al., 2001).
It has also been argued that a distinction between wellbeing processes and
outcomes is, in any case, artificial because
In the case of self-esteem, it could be viewed as a significant contributor to
processes related to wellbeing; for example, in learning for educational
achievement, or in coping with rejection letters from employers. But self-esteem
could also be a highly relevant wellbeing outcome at the end of both processes.
Thus, while theoretical clarity is often a prerequisite for sound analysis, particularly
for studying causal aspects of quality of life, it is necessary to acknowledge the
potential for a conceptual framework for wellbeing to work brilliantly in one context,
but poorly in another. There may, indeed, be limits to the level of conceptual clarity
that can ever be achieved. Identifying theoretical advances that can be generalised
is liable to be a long, laborious process.
27
“wellbeing cannot be thought of only as an outcome, but as a state of
being that arises from the dynamic interplay of outcomes and
processes”. (McGregor, 2006, p.3)

28
4. Conceptions of
4. family wellbeing
The term ‘family wellbeing’ is now widely used in public policy and a growing
volume of international research has sought to provide answers to the
questions of what family wellbeing is, what contributes to or enhances it, how
‘well’ families are today, and what the future trends impacting on the wellbeing
of families might be (e.g. Families Australia and the Australian National
University, 2007; Linacre, 2007; Colorado Foundation for Families and Children,
2003; Statistics New Zealand, 2006; Moore, 2007; Munford and Sanders,
1998). There is, however, a common perception, articulated by the New
Zealand Families Commission at the National Family Wellbeing Symposium in
2007, that the term’s “conceptual underpinnings, and measurement, are lagging
behind” (Fletcher, 2007, p.24).
Given the difficulties identified in the previous chapter in defining, generalising
and theorising wellbeing this is scarcely surprising, and there is added
complexity where families are concerned because:
● a family unit is an aggregate of individuals
● family units exist in a wide variety of forms
● individual wellbeing is contained within family wellbeing and these two
dimensions are consequently interdependent (e.g. Linacre, 2007)
● ‘family wellbeing’ is an ambiguous term that can refer to the quality of life
of a particular family unit, or else to the wellbeing of ‘the family’ in society
as a whole. In either case it is taken to mean something more than the sum
total of individual wellbeing (Families Australia, 2006).

29
As with child wellbeing, the need to develop a comprehensive, widely accepted
conceptual framework for family wellbeing has become more pressing in recent
years. It is seen as increasingly desirable in order to guide policy and research,
justify measurement and help to build a consistent evidence base (e.g. Statistics
New Zealand, 2007b; Behnke and MacDermid, 2004; Families Australia, 2007).
A strong theoretical framework would have the potential to enhance
understanding of family wellbeing and guide its measurement by, for instance,
defining relevant elements and the linkages between them. But at present it is
conceptualised in a variety of ways and different theories are drawn on,
depending on the research context and purpose. This can depend especially on
whether wellbeing is being studied at the level of an individual family (e.g. family
research in clinical psychology), at the level of families who share certain
characteristics (e.g. ethnic minority families) or families in relation to certain
aspects (e.g. how families manage their finances), or as a societal characteristic
(e.g. sociological family research).
Definitions
A wide variety of disciplines and research fields are concerned with the study
of the family. The literature retrieved for this review originated from:
● clinical psychology
● sociology
● health-related disciplines
● social care/work
● child psychology
● national statistics/trend monitoring (social indicators)
● family research (various disciplines)
● economics
● evaluative research.

As in the case of individual quality of life research, most of this literature does
not define the concept. As one review conducted in the US discovered:
While research is often described as an investigation into family wellbeing, it is
apparent from the measures used in these studies that they represent only one,
or a few, limited aspects of the concept.
There are, nevertheless, a number of studies and other reports that have sought
to define family wellbeing in more explicit terms. For example:
30
“most documents did not specifically define family wellbeing, but it
was characterized based on outcomes, indicators, values and ideals”.
(Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, 2003, p.6)
“The emotional, social and economic wellbeing of children, parents
and families.” (Sing et al., 2001, p.1)
“. . . both physical and psychological wellbeing [of family members] as
well as the quality of relationships between parents and the quality of
parent-child relationships”. (McKeown et al., 2003, p.5)
“. . . the health, happiness and prosperity of the family unit as a whole
as well as its individual members”. (Families Australia, 2006, p.4)
“The ability to perform functions and practices for the benefits of the
group and individuals.” (Pryor, 2007, p.23)
“The degree to which one person’s needs were met in the family setting
was assumed to be an indicator of family wellbeing. The combination of
wellbeing scores from more than one family member was assumed to be
an indicator of family life quality.” (Rettig and Leichtentritt, 1999, p.315)

31
These definitions, although varied, indicate the main ways of thinking about
family wellbeing. Thus:
● family wellbeing is overwhelmingly thought of as a multidimensional concept:
it encompasses different domains and is an amalgamation of different types
of wellbeing – physical, social, economic and psychological
● there are implied criteria for families being ‘well’ or ‘unwell’ that are
subjective and culture-related
● like individual wellbeing, family wellbeing can be conceptualised in terms of
‘functions’, and in terms of ‘needs’ and their fulfilment. This makes it necessary
to specify what the core family functions or basic needs might be.
Theoretical models
In a few cases the available literature takes the understanding and measurement
of family wellbeing beyond definition by using a specific theoretical base.
Existing family wellbeing models with a theoretical framework are based on:
● ecological systems theory
● resource theory
● family theories.
Ecological systems theory
Ecology in the natural sciences is the study of the representation of living
organisms, the interactions among and between organisms and their
environments. In human ecological systems theory the wellbeing of humans is
embedded within the wellbeing of their biological, physical and social
environments, in other words:
“the wellbeing of individuals and families cannot be considered apart
from the wellbeing of the whole ecosystem”. (Rettig and Leichtentritt,
1999, p.309)

Research findings support the utility of ecological theory for the study of the
family. For instance:
● they have demonstrated how the work domain and family domain influence
each other and how the connections run in both directions and that
‘community’ also needs to play a part in the analysis (Voydanoff, 2007)
● the analysis of longitudinal family wellbeing data has shown that in the
determination of wellbeing over time economical, psychological, psychosocial
and sociological factors interact (Hayes et al., 2007)
● research has shown that political cultures have an impact on family wellbeing
(Zimmerman, 2003).
Applied to families, it is argued that their wellbeing and environments are linked
through interactions and interdependent relationships. For example, an
ecological perspective is now standard in the context of family interventions
and programmes (Barnes et al., 2005). ‘Community’ has been found to be an
influential factor in the success of an intervention, even for interventions purely
on the family level, such as parenting classes. These community influences are
thought to come about via:
● institutional resources (the quality, quantity and diversity of the learning,
recreational, social, educational and health resources of a community)
● relationships and community ties
● norms and collective efficacy.
Voydanoff’s (2007) application of ecological theory illustrates several ways in
which it can help to guide the understanding and measurement of family
wellbeing. Her conceptualisation describes how aspects of three domains –
family, work and community ties – can be placed in a hierarchy of different
ecological levels:
● microsystem, describing patterns of activities, roles and interpersonal
relations that occur face to face
● mesosystem, referring to the various interlinked microsystems in which a
person participates
● exosystems, meaning external environments in which a person does not
participate, but which indirectly influence them
32

33
● macrosystems, defining the institutional patterns and broad belief systems
that provide the context for human development in which the other systems
are nested.
Voydanoff also identifies six categories of family, work and community
characteristics, derived from an analysis of dimensions in empirical research:
● structure
● social organisation
● norms and collective efficacy
● support (the provision or receipt of instrumental or emotional social support)
● orientations (the salience, commitment, involvement, aspirations)
● quality (subjective evaluation of multidimensional domains).
Together, the ecological levels and categories serve as a framework for
examining links between family, work and community.
Amid renewed interest in social indicators (Berger-Schmitt and Noll, 2000;
Cobb and Rixford, 1998; Clark and McGillivray, 2007) and international
recognition of the need for better representative data on families (Statistics
New Zealand, 2006; Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, 2003;
Moore, 2007; McKeown et al., 2003; Sanson et al., 2002), there has been
increased activity linked to the development of an agreed family wellbeing
framework. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, Families Australia (an
independent non-profit organisation that promotes the needs and interests of
families) and the New Zealand Families Commission have all adopted an
ecological approach to the development of a measurement framework for
family wellbeing (Linacre, 2007; Families Australia, 2006; Fletcher, 2007). The
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) contextual model for family statistics is
shown in Figure 4 and the Families Australia model in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Australian Bureau of Statistics family wellbeing model
34
Source: Linacre, 2007
Contextual setting for family statistics
Areas of
concern
Population
Family and
community
Health
Education and
training
Work
Economic
resources
Housing
Crime and
justice
Culture and
leisure
Population
groups
Males/females
Indigenous
people
Children/youth
Elderly people
Long-term
unemployed
Low income
families
Households in
rental housing
Communities
in selected
localities
Time Economic
resources
Genetic
make-up
Personal
attributes
Family
history/life
experience
Attitudes
and beliefs
Natural
capital
Family
structures
Individual
wellbeing
Societal
wellbeing
Transactions
Family
transitions
Family
functioning
Produced
and financial
capital
Human
capital
Social
capital
Personal resources of family members
Community resources
Family Wellbeing
emotional,
practical,
financial
support
services,
assistance and
intervention
services,
assistance
and
intervention

35
Figure 5: Families Australia family wellbeing model
Source: Families Australia, 2006
The ABS model in particular takes clear account of the different system levels
(individuals, families, and population groups; social, human, economic and natural
capital) and interactions between these as important factors in family wellbeing.
From these models, an ecological approach appears best suited to the study of
family wellbeing at the level of national statistics and trend monitoring, because
this level of research collects data sufficiently comprehensive to enable such
analysis; for instance, analysis of whether and how changes in systems – for
example, communities, the job market or the family services system – impact on
families. The data is unlikely to come from one source but there is scope within
national household surveys and other surveys to link various data sources; for
Supportive family
relationships
Outside social
connections
Physical safety,
health
Economic
security
FAMILY
WELLBEING

example, crime surveys, social capital studies, environmental data, economic
output data and labour market statistics. Analysis of family–environment
interactions which possibly take place via indirect mechanisms and over time
with many variables involved requires such comprehensive and longitudinal data.
Resource theory
Rettig and Leichtentritt (1999) have described a family wellbeing framework at
individual family level which combines ecological theory and resource theory. This
sees the family as the next-level system in which individuals are embedded and
with which they interact (Figure 6).
Resource theory provides the researchers with a way of conceptualising the
interpersonal ‘resource exchanges’ in family relationships. To do this it identifies
six interdependent classes of resource:
● love
● services
● goods
● money
● information
● status.
Resource theory thus defines family wellbeing as a multidimensional concept. It
uses the six classes of resource to guide the definition of the content of family
life, from which follows the development of measures and interpretation of findings.
It also links together the concept of ‘personal needs’ being met through ‘resources’
that in turn produce ‘life satisfactions’. Further arguments for the theory’s relevance
to family wellbeing research are its recognition of the importance of both economic
and social-psychological human needs and that it explicitly acknowledges the
interaction between these domains.
Family wellbeing in this model (Figure 6) is the property of an individual, and
the combined wellbeing of individuals constitutes the family’s overall life quality
(Figure 7). But the conceptualisation is still based on the ecological assumption
that humans depend on their surrounding environments for ‘resource exchanges’.
Ecology and resource theory are understood to complement each other.
36

37
Figure 6: Conceptual framework for family wellbeing based on
Figure 6: resource theory – individual as the unit of observation
Figure 7: Conceptual framework for family life quality based on
Figure 7: resource theory – family group as the unit of observation
Source: Rettig and Leichtentritt, 1999
The extent to which an individual receives the provided from the family environment is an
indication of the extent to which the family
group is effectively carrying on the essential
of family groups for individuals, and therefore contributing to family well-being, an apsect of overall
family life quality.
Resources
Love
Status
Services
Information
Goods
Money
Functions
Psychological – love, affection, respect, esteem
Social – communication with shared meaning
Physical – comfort and assistance
Economic – ownership of things, money for personal use
The extent to which the family group provides that meet
for all is the extent to which it is effectively carrying on the essential
of family institutions in society and therefore contributing to family life quality, an indication of overall life quality.
Resources
Love
Status
Services
Information
Goods
Money
Family members
Person 1
Person 2
Person 3
Person 4
Person 5
Personal Needs
Love and affection
Respect and esteem
Comfort and assistance
Communication with shared
meaning
Ownership of personal things
Money for personal use
Functions
Psychological
Social
Physical
Economic

Family systems theories
By the end of the twentieth century family systems theories had become some of
the major theoretical perspectives in the study of families, from which therapeutic
treatment of families was developed. Family systems theories view a family as an
organised hierarchy of subsystems, including individuals, subsets of individuals
and the overall combination of family members (Bonomi et al., 2005, p.1128).
Psychological or psycho-social family systems theory approaches to understanding
the wellbeing of whole families emphasise the organisational complexity of
families, their interdependent relationships, interactive patterns and dynamics.
In these approaches, whether a family system is ‘well’ or not is determined by
the elements of its internal functioning.
The psychological literature on family functioning is extensive. The approaches
can be broadly divided according to their focus:
● on the family as an entity; its adjustment and preservation
● on child development, viewing the family in terms of its contributions to
child welfare
● on the family as a system with internal dynamics that produce
developmental and welfare outcomes for its members.
(Babatunde et al,1995)
The functioning frameworks that have been described by researchers include
elements that are internal to the family (such as the conflict resolution style
between family members) and family functioning elements which play out
externally (such as the social support processes a family is involved in). Clinical
family research has led to the development of various family functioning
models. Two well-established and frequently referenced examples are:
● the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems (Russell and
Sprengkle, 1984; Olson, 1999); and
● the McMaster Model of Family Functioning (MMFF) (Epstein et al., 1984
and 1993).
38

39
The Circumplex Model theorises that a family is well when balanced in certain
dimensions, namely:
● marital and family cohesion (separateness versus togetherness) including
the dimensions of: emotional bonding; boundaries; coalitions; time; space;
friends; decision-making; interests; recreation
● marital and family flexibility (stability versus change) including the
dimensions of: leadership (discipline, control); negotiation styles; role
relationships; relationship rules: stability versus change
● marital and family communication (this category facilitates the other
dimensions), including: listening skills; speaking skills; self-disclosure;
clarity; continuity tracking; respect and regard; empathy and attention.
The McMaster Model of Family Functioning defines a healthy or effective
family according to its functioning in six main dimensions:
● Problem solving: a family’s well-functioning is defined by its ability to
progress through defined stages of the problem-solving process
(instrumental or affective problems).
● Communication: characterised as clear and direct; clear and indirect;
masked and direct and masked and indirect. Clear and direct is seen as the
most effective form of communication in a family system and masked and
indirect the least effective.
● Roles: effective functioning when the responsibilities for all necessary family
functions (such as the provision of resources, nurture and support, life skills
development) are clearly allocated to capable individuals who are also
accountable for their fulfilment; poor functioning when the functions are
not fulfilled or the responsibilities are not clearly or continuously allocated.
● Affective responsiveness: assessed by the range of responses (amount and
quality) to different stimuli. Family functioning is considered poor when the
range is very narrow and the quantity or quality is distorted in a given context.
● Affective involvement: a range of different styles of involvement is specified:
absence of involvement, involvement devoid of feelings, narcissistic involvement,
empathic involvement, over-involvement and symbiotic involvement. Empathic
involvement is viewed as the most effective form; symbiotic involvement
and absence of involvement as the least.

● Behaviour control: four styles are identified as rigid, flexible, laissez-faire,
and chaotic. A family is theorised to function best with flexible behaviour
control, where chaotic is, unsurprisingly, least effective.
Non-theoretical approaches
Family functioning in non-clinical family research
‘Family functioning’ also appears as a term in many of the wellbeing
conceptualisations that have been described outside the context of psychological
research. For instance, it is one domain in the ecological model of the Australian
Bureau of Statistics; family functioning is also measured in a national longitudinal
child and family wellbeing study in Australia (Nicholson, 2007) and in a national
family wellbeing survey in the U.S. (Macomber and Moore, 1999) and has been
named as one important focus for the analysis of the impact of public policy on
families (True, 2005). Often, however, family functioning elements are not explicitly
specified as part of the understanding of family wellbeing and instead this is implied
by the measurements that are taken in studies (e.g. BBC/ICM family poll, 2007).
Thus, non-psychological studies like family wellbeing surveys typically assess family
functioning as one dimension in the multidimensional family wellbeing construct, or
else conceptualise it as a mediator of family wellbeing (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2005).
In this way, the term appears similar to concepts such as ‘family resilience’ or ‘family
social capital’, which have become topical terms in recent years (e.g. Kalil, 2003;
Greeff and Van Der Merwe, 2004; Wright et al., 2001).
However, as might be anticipated, there is immense variety in the way that
family functioning is defined across studies. The Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS), for instance, defines family functioning within the ecological model as
“interactions between family members, often involving combining and sharing
resources” (Linacre, 2007, p.23). These interactions are about personal
resources such as time, education and own family experience; material
resources such as money and housing; and social resources such as networks
of friends. They are also about the negotiation of family roles and the fulfilment
of certain functions or family processes, namely:
● love and emotional support
● parenting and child development
40

41
● caring for elderly, sick and disabled family members
● communication and shared activities
● instilling social norms.
The family functioning that is being measured here embraces factors at individual
level (such as the educational status of individual family members), at family level
(such as their caring and support roles) and also includes a number of economic
variables. The specification of certain family functions like the instilling of social
norms means that elements of family sociology are contained within this
interpretation of family functioning. Among ‘good’ family functioning indicators
are good outcomes for children, ‘happy and stable’ families, family resilience in
crisis and a good parental relationship.
Taking a different approach, the National Survey of America’s Families (Macomber
and Moore, 1999) measures two constructs in the family functioning domain –
parent mental health and parenting aggravation. In contrast to the ABS model, it
treats child wellbeing as separate, so it is not assessed as an indicator of family
functioning. In another study (Sing et al., 2001) economic wellbeing and family
physical and mental health are treated as separate wellbeing domains. Family
functioning refers mainly to various aspects of family organisation, such as
childcare arrangements, family routines or the quality and quantity of time spent
with other family members and certain family processes such as communication
and parenting. In the Longitudinal Study of Australia’s Children, a comprehensive
survey of child and family wellbeing, family functioning is measured in terms of
parenting (cognitions and practices) and the quality of family relationships, as well
as the social support that families can draw upon. Neither ‘family organisation’ nor
the mental health of family members is conceptualised as family functioning
(Millward, 2003).
In yet another description of family functioning (True, 2005), it is defined as:
● family safety in terms of abuse, neglect and violence
● parenting (skills, obligations, commitment)
● work–life balance
● care functions
● rights of individual family members and power distributions.

Viewed overall, it is easy to see how the lack of any specific theoretical framework
is reflected in these differing concepts of family functioning. The researchers for
each of these surveys or studies have made their own decisions concerning the
dimensions of family functioning and what measures should be taken to assess it.
Domain-based frameworks
As with the general literature on wellbeing described in Chapter 3, the vast majority
of research on family wellbeing has been underpinned by multidimensional models
that prescribe a number of relevant domains and use a number of different
indicators to measure each of them (e.g. Colorado Foundation for Families and
Children, 2003; Sing et al., 2001; Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child
Wellbeing, 2006; United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2006).
As an example, for the purpose of assessing family progress in the context of
family support services, a framework for the collection of data on families has
been devised which covers the following 10 domains (Richardson et al., 2003):
● employment
● education
● community involvement
● self-sufficiency
● household management
● food/nutrition
● health
● housing
● emergency/crisis
● household linkages.
The concepts ‘family needs’ and ‘resources’ are often implicitly present in these
studies. But although family wellbeing is often interpreted along these lines, this
is less likely to be driven by theory than by the findings of previous research,
political and policy interests, and what is possible in terms of data collection.
42

43
There may, therefore, be an under-acknowledged need to reflect more carefully
on the values and norms implicit in many studies when interpreting their findings.
This is because the choice of domains, benchmarks and indicators is, in the
absence of any guiding theory, more likely to be determined by the subjective
judgements and preferences of the researchers, funders or policymakers.
For example, if a family wellbeing survey measures mainly psychological variables,
to what extent is there an underlying assumption that they matter more in terms
of family wellbeing than structural disadvantages and deprivations? If a family
wellbeing survey chooses to measure ‘religiosity’, does it imply a presumption that
religion is important for family wellbeing? Another example of a potentially
skewed approach would be if a survey assessed parents’ behaviour and their
ability to control children’s behaviour, but ignored relevant characteristics of the
communities where the parenting was taking place. Greater account could also
be taken of the perennial possibility that approaches may be biased by a desire
to circumvent theoretical uncertainties, data collection problems, or potential
difficulties in analysing certain types of data.
Data-derived models
Another set of family wellbeing conceptualisations can be categorised as ‘data-
derived’ or ‘inductive’ models. In contrast to the theory-driven ecological approach
described above, a data-derived model of family wellbeing is based entirely on
the findings of data analysis. There are limitations to such inductive approaches.
The most obvious is that the resulting model will only ever contain constructs
that have been (more or less subjectively) singled out for measurement by the
researchers. There is also the risk of significant factors being excluded from
the model simply because the chosen methodology was not robust enough to
confirm their importance.
In favour of models developed in this way, however, is the fact that researchers
include constructs in their investigations that are based on their strength
demonstrated by previous research. Such models also lend themselves to
replication in further research, with scope for refining the model by eliminating
insignificant elements, confirming associations in the data and adding new
concepts. Figure 8 shows an example of a model constructed according to the
results of sophisticated data analysis. This used the advanced statistical technique
known as structural equation modelling to define the final model in terms of
direct and indirect influences on family wellbeing (McKeown et al., 2003).

Figure 8: Data-derived family wellbeing model
Source: McKeown et al., 2003
Special focus frameworks
The last grouping of conceptual models observed by this review considers family
wellbeing from a specific perspective, or with a focus on particular outcomes.
One example is Child Trends, an independent research centre in the United
States, whose model conceptualises family wellbeing in terms of ‘healthy
marriage’ and ‘family strengths’. These are seen as leading to positive outcomes
for the individual family members via the fulfilment of necessary family functions
(Moore, 2007, pp.48, 49, 53; Figures 9, 10 and 11).
44
Indirect Influences Direct Influences
Parents’
Support
Network
Grandparents’
Couple
Relationship
Social Class,
Education,
Job Satisfaction,
Age
Family Processes:
● couple relationship
● parent–child relationship
● conflict resolution skills
● grandparents separated
Personality Traits
of Parents:
● negative & positive emotionality
● psychological independence
& interdependence
Socio-Economic
Environment:
● financial security
● life events
● family income
➜
➜
➜
➜
➜
➜
Well-BeingofParentsandChildren

45
Figure 9: Family strengths
Figure 10: Linkages between family strengths, characteristics and outcomes
● Appreciation
● Communication
● Time together
● Encouragement of individuals
● Adaptability
● Clear roles
● Commitment to family
● Religiosity/spirituality
● Social connectedness
Researchers have identified a number
of strengths:
Parent–Child
Relationships
Healthy
Marriage
Positive Child
Outcomes
Positive Adult
Outcomes
Family
Strengths

Figure 11: Family processes
This is essentially a family functioning approach which emphasises the internal
family dynamics and the quality of family relationships as the factors which
determine family wellbeing, with the focus on developing a model for families
being ‘well’.
Another example can be found in a study that looked at the effects of low-wage
employment on family wellbeing (Menaghan and Parcel, 1997). This took the
familiar domains-based approach to conceptualising family wellbeing. However,
the choice of domains and the constructs measured within them was guided by
child development research, including known associations between work and
family variables and long-term outcomes for children. In this model, family wellbeing
was conceptualised as outcomes in the domains of:
● financial wellbeing
● job characteristics
● home environment
● parenting values
● parent–child relationship.
46
Recently,
BYU
researchers3
have
elaborated
a model:
3 BYU researchers are academics at Brigham Young University in the United States.
Family
Processes
Regulating
Protecting
Including
Nurturing
Connecting
Providing

47
The same child-centred approach has since been proposed in a discussion
document by the Department of Family and Community Services in Australia for
measuring family and social functioning (Silburn et al., 2000).
Some conclusions
As noted in Chapter 3, the general literature suggests that wellbeing is a state
of being that is borne out of complex and dynamic interactions between
interdependent factors in a person’s life, and that these interactions are:
Evidence from longitudinal research demonstrates how wellbeing is related to
the way that numerous risk and protective factors in different life domains
(individual, relationships, family, community and society) are in constant
interaction (Sanson et al., 2002). There is, however, a need for measures to
better capture these interactions: for example, how the wellbeing of individuals
affects the family, the community and the wider social context; and how
individual wellbeing is, in turn, affected by these domains. There is also a need
for better conceptual models that are explicitly interactive (Hayes et al., 2007).
This applies equally to the theory and measurement of family wellbeing. For
example, low socio-economic status is a known risk factor for poorer child
outcomes and wellbeing; but we also know that factors like poor nutrition or a
lack of cognitive stimulation are likely to be the direct, mediating mechanisms
that produce the negative outcomes (Moore et al., 2006; Gore and Eckenrode,
1996; Rutter, 1996). Efforts to better capture this type of complexity in research
could significantly advance public understanding of wellbeing in general, not
least by unravelling causal mechanisms and pathways. Better knowledge
concerning family interactions between the psychological, economical, social and
functioning domains is, likewise, essential for understanding family wellbeing
and developing more effective support services. For instance, research has
shown that parenting interventions are less effective if families’ accompanying
housing problems (and associated emotional stress) are not addressed at the
same time. Thus, interventions, even when tailored to a specific family problem,
“. . . located in society and shaped by social, economic, political,
cultural and psychological processes”. (McGregor, 2006, p.4)

may be ineffective if the wider ecological context is ignored (Munford et al.,
1996 and1998; Munford and Sanders, 1999; Bratt, 2002).
There are many ways in which family wellbeing can be seen to depend on both
internal and external factors. Individual attitudes and prevailing social norms
concerning the family both have an impact. So do both the work–life balance
within families and external employment patterns and trends. Communication
skills of individual family members matter alongside the communication
processes that can be observed as a characteristic of family dynamics.
There is also evidence that this ‘expert’ interpretation of family wellbeing is in
accord with what families themselves believe. For example, American families,
in qualitative research, described their wellbeing as a product of the wellbeing
of individual family members, the dynamics of family relationships and outside
economic and community influences (Colorado Foundation for Families and
Children, 2002).
The sheer breadth of matters that have been researched in relation to family
wellbeing4
suggests that it is a multidimensional, dynamic and highly complex
concept. This, in turn, suggests the need for models of similar sophistication to
do it justice and to be universally accepted. The challenges of developing a
model have, however, raised doubts as to whether this is achievable. It would
need to be:
● suited to capturing not only the collective wellbeing of individual family
members, but also the wellbeing of the family entity itself
● able to recognise families’ collective goals and aspirations
● able to deal with change over time.
If family functioning was to be included in the model, account would need to be
taken of the fact that:
● connections between family functioning and child functioning are complex,
dynamic and bi-directional
● adjustment and roles of parents interact to influence children’s outcomes
48
4 See the Appendix to this report for a structured overview of domains and constructs within domains that have been studied
4 in relation to family wellbeing.

49
● social resources interact with personal resources such as self-efficacy,
self-reliance, empathy, altruism or self-understanding
● there are multiple levels of social resources for different family members
(Sanson et al., 2002).
The multiple external influences on families would also require recognition. For
example, one report into the connections between work and family wellbeing
identified a minimum of six work–family domains that needed to be taken into
account (Bowman and Russel, 2000). Other studies have highlighted multiple
dimensions of the social contexts in which families are placed that can impact
on their wellbeing (Child Trends, 2004; Bratt, 2002).
Rather than aiming to aggregate all of these aspects into a single, overall
framework, it has been suggested that a more achievable goal would be the
development of a “suite of linked frameworks” for the conceptualisation and study
of different aspects of family life (Families Australia and the Australian National
University, 2007, p.2). The findings from this review also suggest that a number of
different theoretical frameworks are more appropriate for the conceptualisation
and study of family wellbeing. There is already huge variety in the scope and
purpose of the available studies of family wellbeing. Family wellbeing is the subject
of investigation at national level, and at an individual, therapeutic level. It is also
studied at different stages of life; for example, in relation to child development
and to ageing. An ecological family wellbeing model would not fit comfortably
to a study like the investigation by Galbraith and Schvaneveldt (2005) into the
effects of leadership style on family wellbeing. However, group dynamics or
family functioning theory could be a suitable framework.
The evidence reviewed in this chapter suggests that if there is ever to be an
overall family wellbeing framework, it should observe an ecological model.
However, in-depth research into specific aspects of family wellbeing supports
the case for linked theoretical family wellbeing frameworks, rather than one
overall model. Even when family wellbeing is being studied from an ecological
perspective, it may still be valuable to draw on family systems and other
theories to determine some measurements and in the interpretation of relevant
findings. Thus, instead of trying to develop a general, universally accepted
framework for family wellbeing, researchers might do better to familiarise
themselves with different types of theory, according to whichever framework or
model is most useful and appropriate for the investigation and analysis at hand.

50
5. Measuring family
5. wellbeing
Given the wide variety of approaches to conceptualising family wellbeing it is
not surprising that there is no well-established consensus about the ‘ideal’ way
to measure it (Behnke and MacDermid, 2004). Research designs and methods
vary with the background disciplines of the researchers and the particular topics
under study. One obvious shared characteristic is, however, a prevalence of
quantitative over qualitative methodologies.
Generally speaking, family wellbeing has been assessed using:
● measures of individual wellbeing
● measures of pre-specified family resources, functions or needs
● assessments of the quality of relationships
● measures of the social, political and cultural context of families.
The family as a unit of observation and analysis is an aggregate of varying
numbers of individuals. This raises the theoretical question of what family
wellbeing is over and above the wellbeings of its individual members.
In the literature this question gives rise to two different approaches. One
understands family wellbeing as the sum of the wellbeings among family
members. The other postulates that there is a part of wellbeing that is the
wellbeing of the “entity itself” (Fletcher, 2007, p.16) or that a “family unit has
wellbeing in its own right” (Linacre, 2007, p.14).
In the first approach the unit of observation and analysis is the individual family
member. But where family wellbeing is viewed as something more than aggregate

51
data, it becomes appropriate to observe the individual, the relationships between
individuals, and the family as a whole (Behnke and MacDermid, 2004; Linacre,
2007). Measurable elements at the latter level may include the distribution or
structure of wellbeings across the family unit – for example, a family’s overall
style of resolving conflict, as opposed to the combined communication skills of
its individual members. It is, however, still rare for wellbeing to be measured in
this way. Presumably this is largely due to practical constraints or challenges
linked to the collection of data from multiple family members, including children.
Measurement quality
Validity
The statistical reliability and, more particularly, the validity of measurements is a
key issue in family wellbeing research literature. Are the chosen indicators and
instruments appropriate, consistent, and do they measure the aspect of wellbeing
they are intended to investigate? A lack of validity would have implications for the
quality and consistency of research and the resulting evidence base.
Yet an examination of the extent to which data on the validity of measurement
instruments has been reported in published family research (Strauss and Ross,
1995) found that only 12 per cent of articles did so. It also pointed to
differences between academic disciplines, suggesting that reliability and validity
issues tended to be given less consideration in sociological studies of families
than in psychological studies. Speculation as to the reasons for this highlighted
different approaches to test development and different discipline traditions.
The extent of validity testing and reporting was also said to vary with the type of
study. Much family wellbeing research has consisted of population surveys where
the quantity of data that can be gathered is limited by the amount of time that
survey respondents are willing to spare for an interview. Clinical research is not
affected by these limitations to the same extent and can use longer and potentially
more sophisticated measurement instruments. The funding for studies may, in
many cases, not include the resources needed for instrument testing. Researchers
may also be more focused on the subject matter of interest than on the potentially
awkward task of validity assessment. Strauss and Ross (1995, p.489) noted that a
contributing factor to the problem was that “the typical measure developed for use
in a family study is never used in another study”. They perceived the possibility of a

self-perpetuating problem as long as researchers and publishers continued to omit
the relevant information about reliability and validity. Nevertheless, on the positive
side, they also noted that the number of standardised measurement instruments
used in family research has been increasing.
Research into family wellbeing, for reasons explored in Chapters 3 and 4, requires
the measurement of complex constructs. These will usually have multiple
dimensions and subjective as well as objective components. For example:
● The quality of a relationship may be high in some aspects and not in others;
it may be perceived differently by different family members and there might
be interactions between different aspects of relationship quality.
● The concept of ‘parenting’ may include such diverse elements as parenting
self-efficacy (belief in being a competent parent), skills and resources, style
and actual practices and the level of agreement between two parents.
These, in turn, may vary in relation to different children.
● Work–life balance, though highly relevant to family wellbeing, is another
complex, multidimensional construct.
From the literature, it would appear that the complexity of the constructs being
investigated is often not reflected in the items being used to measure them.
Take, for example, the item below, from a BBC family life poll that was intended
to measure family conflict:
Even at face value this could be seen as a poor indicator of the wellbeing or
well-functioning of a family in this domain. What is crucial is less likely to be the
frequency of arguments than who does the arguing and if and how conflicts are
resolved – for example, listening skills, conflict resolution, and ‘overt’ or ‘covert’
communication. It could even be argued that the chosen item taps into family
expressiveness more than family conflict.
It has also been quite common for constructs such as ‘family relations’ and
‘parenting’ to be measured using single-item, self-report measures. Respondents
have been asked to rate the quality of their family relationships on a scale, or to
52
“How often does your family argue?” (BBC/ICM family poll, 2007)

53
rate themselves as parents from ‘very good’ to ‘not very good’ (Sing et al., 2001).
Given the complexity of the constructs being measured, the quality of data yielded
by such questions will always be debatable in the absence of validity testing.
Transferability
Given the range of disciplines and fields concerned with the wellbeing of families,
it is worth considering validity issues in relation to the use and transferability of
measurement instruments that were originally developed in different contexts. In
particular, there are many psychometric tests devised by clinical psychologists to
measure family functioning (documented in compendia, e.g. Touliatos et al., 2001;
Wampler and Halverson, 1993) that researchers have sought to adapt for non-
clinical studies. Clinical measurement instruments are frequently long and,
consequently, inappropriate for larger-scale surveys, or for the purposes of social
monitoring. Efforts have, therefore, been made to develop a shorter subset or
adapted versions of the scales (e.g. McKeown et al., 2003; Macomber and Moore,
1999; Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007; Bendheim-Thoman Center
for Research on Child Wellbeing, 2006). For example, items derived from the
McMasters Model of Family Functioning (see Chapter 4) have been frequently
used in non-psychological or non-clinical family studies. But this has often been
done without reference to their validity. Perhaps encouragingly, in the few cases
where the validity of such family functioning measurements has been investigated
outside a clinical context, the adapted scales have been judged appropriate
(Macomber and Moore, 1999; Moore and Hair, 2005). It is, however, not possible
to take a general view in the absence of more reliability and validity testing.
Some observers have argued that as more psychologists enter the field of non-
clinical family research there will be greater emphasis on ensuring the validity of
measurements. Also, self-report instruments do exist which are considered to have
robust psychometrics and are used repeatedly in research; for instance, the ‘Family
Assessment Device’ and the ‘Family Functioning Scale’ (Macgregor and Sheerin,
2006, p.217; Geismar and Camasso, 1993). But it remains important that the
validity of measurements is properly tested when they are applied in research
contexts that differ from those for which they were developed. A situation in which
a family is assessed at length in clinical psychology research is likely to be very
different from that of family members asked questions over the telephone for a
family wellbeing survey that uses a representative national sample.

Transferability issues also arise with regard to family quality of life measurements
that have been derived from other health fields, in particular research into
intellectual disabilities (e.g. Brown et al., 2003; Hoffman et al., 2006). These
typically involve the use of ‘satisfaction’ (and sometimes, also, ‘importance’)
based scales that assess family quality of life from respondents’ ratings in a
number of domains; for example:
● family interaction
● parenting
● emotional wellbeing
● physical/material wellbeing
● disability related support.
(Hoffman et al., 2006)
At first glance these types of instrument offer compellingly simple, short and
psychometrically robust tools for measuring the overall quality of life in families. A
closer look at the measures, however, highlights issues that merit further reflection.
In the example above (Hoffman et al., 2006), the psychometric properties of the
scale were evaluated for reliability and validity. However, the sample on which
this analysis was conducted consisted of parents of disabled children, who
were recruited at national and state meetings of parents. Thus, if a similar
measurement approach were applied to families, then the question would arise
as to how far advocacy-active parents of disabled children who volunteered
their services could be said to be representative of all parents. A measure can
work very differently with different populations (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2003) and
its applicability needs to be given due consideration.
Measures also need re-evaluating before they are applied in another research
context or for a different research purpose. As an example, one item in Hoffman
et al.’s (2006) parenting domain is “Adults in my family teach the children to
make good decisions”. Any score on this item can only be a highly subjective
assessment. It would be interesting to know how these measurements would
relate to other clinical family process measurements, such as the family decision-
making or conflict-resolution style. The broader question this raises is about the
extent to which ‘satisfaction with parenting’ is a proxy for the quality of parenting
and more generally whether or not parenting or family quality of life overall should
54

55
be conceptualised as it is here, as a purely subjective construct. This is not to make
the point that the measure falls short of validity contrary to what was reported, but
to highlight that a measure needs re-evaluating for application in different contexts.
Subjective family quality of life conceptualisation is, for example, absolutely suited
to a context in which a desired outcome of an intervention is improved parental
satisfaction with the family’s quality of life. However, it might not work as well as a
measure for assessing family functioning at a national level for trend monitoring
purposes, especially if it was correlated with child development outcomes.
Measurement challenges
There are a number of measurement issues relating to family research in
general that those focusing on wellbeing are bound to consider – especially at
population level.
Defining ‘the family’
The question ‘What is a family?’ has been extensively debated. Different
definitions have arisen in different contexts. For example:
● legal relationships
● biological connections
● emotional bonds
● households
● self-definition (‘families of meaning’)
● economic units
● health insurance units
● units defined by the function of caring for children.
A study conducted among adolescents found that 80 per cent referred to
family in affective terms of love and support, and only just over 40 per cent to
cohabitational, biological or legal criteria. Amid increasing diversity in family
structures and relationships, it has also been argued that family membership is
now negotiated, rather than defined by any universally agreed criteria (Anyan
and Pryor, 2002).

But just as it seems certain that there can never be a single satisfactory
definition, so it is equally evident that those who plan to assess family wellbeing
must set parameters on the units or types of family whose wellbeing they intend
to measure. Whatever definition of the family is adopted will then have important
implications for the research and its contribution to expanding knowledge. While
many definitions of the family are in use, practical and financial constraints on
sampling and data collection have often meant in practice that family research
has been based on household definitions of family. In other words, it has tended
to study individuals who live at the same address and share either a living room,
or at least one meal a day. These have, in turn, been classified into different
types of family using biological or legal connections.
While this definition may not concur with the ways that individuals themselves
define their families, it has proved difficult for researchers to make use of wider
non-household based definitions like those listed above. The use of such
definitions would pose a number of challenges including:
● the potential for interviewing the same family more than once because
members are resident in different households
● difficulties analysing potentially large and complex quantities of data from
each family unit
● problems setting necessary boundaries for who is consistently counted
within each family when different data is collected.
Notwithstanding these practical barriers and the relative ease and practicality of
household-based family studies, such research is apt to miss or underestimate
some aspects of family wellbeing. There are, for example, many factors that
have a direct impact on family wellbeing but that fall outside the parameters
of conventional household measurements. For example:
● the quality of the relationship between separated parents
● the existence of elderly or disabled family members who are dependent on
care from household members, but are not part of the household
themselves
● the role of grandparents.
There is also a lack of congruence between defining what the family is and the
factors that influence its wellbeing in reality and in terms of measurement. The
56

57
concept of the extended family exists in reality but may not be properly
recognised in national family statistics. For instance, two married couples, both
in close contact with the grandparents of their children, could be classified in
different ways depending on whether the grandparents are part of the
household or live in the next street. Yet their wellbeing as an extended family
might exhibit very similar characteristics.
This potential for household-based population data to present a less than accurate
picture of family life has led to calls for a more inclusive concept of the family in
research (e.g. McKeown et al., 2003, p.12). In the field of national statistics there is
continuing effort to find solutions to the challenges this presents, with the need to
move beyond household units in order to capture more of the factors that contribute
to family wellbeing (Statistics New Zealand, 2006, p.10 and 2007b, p.9).
A policy orientated definition of family to work from in this endeavour might be:
“A social unit where there is a legal or customary expectation by the state of
unremunerated family support and caring, specifically:
● a legally recognised parent child relationship (whether biological or social)
and/or
● a legally recognised adult couple relationship.”
Differences within families
The differences found among family members pose theoretical problems and a
further threat to the validity of family wellbeing measurement. The basic questions
of the debate about intra-family differences are:
● whether measuring family wellbeing inevitably means collecting data from
all members of the family, and if so
● how divergent perceptions should be accommodated.
These questions can be said to apply to every discipline and research field
concerned with family wellbeing at population level – but especially when the
subject matter or type of assessment is subjective.
The most obvious example of intra-family differences is a relationship that is
happy for one partner but unhappy for the other. Other examples would include:

● a father who judges the family’s parenting as excellent, living with a mother
who considers his parenting to be too authoritarian
● data on how safe families feel in their neighbourhood collected from parents
does not reflect the true extent to which their teenage children feel unsafe
due to bullying.
This type of problem occurs where measurement does not allow for, or is
unable to detect, intra-family differences when in fact these are important.
Likewise, where there is no protocol or theoretical rationale for how to treat
these differences across family members as they emerge. Researchers have,
for instance, experienced difficulties in determining ways of ‘weighting’ data
obtained from different family members for the purpose of creating an overall
wellbeing index (Bonomi et al., 2005, p.1130). If data, for example, show that
one family member’s personal health is very good and another’s extremely poor,
do they somehow cancel each other out in terms of overall family wellbeing?
Another issue might be to decide if the data should be weighted according to
precisely which family member is ill – with the possibility of attaching greater
weight to a breadwinner becoming sick or disabled.
In much more general terms, gender has been identified as a necessary dimension
and part of any wellbeing consideration and analysis in the human development
literature (McGillivray and Clarke, 2006). This suggests that any family wellbeing
measurement might also do well to include gender analysis – for example, by
measuring work–life balance of men and women in families separately.
Negative indicators
There has been a prevailing tendency to employ negative indicators in family
wellbeing measurement. This can result in family wellbeing being based
conceptually on a ‘deficit model’. The use of deficit indicators has been blamed
for a disproportionate focus on the negative in family research and in public
perceptions of families (Moore, 2007).
There is a widely recognised need for positive indicators in order to better
understand the mechanisms by which positive factors are related to positive
outcomes, and to investigate how risk and protective factors interact with each
other. It would be misleading to interpret the absence of a negative indicator in
one domain (for example, a child who has not been excluded from school) as
58

59
evidence concerning the influence of positive factors (for example, a supportive
school environment). The extent and influence of positive, protective factors has
to be properly measured, not simply the absence of negative problems or risk.
Ethics
Ethical considerations are inevitably important in family research because it
involves studying many of the most influential and potentially sensitive aspects of
people’s lives. The drive for data needs to be balanced with consideration for the
people asked to participate in the research. For example, when data is collected
on adolescents’ relationships with their non-resident parents this might result in
the revival of difficult memories; questioning could leave the young person
concerned feeling sad or distressed.
The policy or practice motivation for interviewing families in adverse circumstances
is often powerful and well intentioned. The argument for exposing vulnerable young
people to detailed questioning about their family lives and backgrounds is that the
data will help future generations through better understanding of what contributes
to family wellbeing, leading to better policy responses. Even so, there is a strong
responsibility on researchers and those who assess the ethical implications of
specific research proposals to consider the impact of surveys and other
measurement instruments on the intended participants. This also includes the
length of questionnaires and the ‘response burden’ on those being interviewed
or asked to complete surveys. The National Survey of Families and Households
(conducted 1987–2003), for instance, consisted of a 1.5 hour interview on average
plus self-administered parts (Sweet et al., 1988). While this might be acceptable for
a specific survey that collects data over a limited period of time, it would be less
obviously appropriate for gathering national statistics on a routinely repeated basis.
It has further been argued that an element of intrusiveness means that some
family functioning variables should not be measured in routine official statistics;
for example, those concerned with parenting style and family conflict (e.g.
Statistics New Zealand, 2007a, p.16), the argument being that these are private
issues. Even so, such variables are collected regularly at present, especially in
the United States. In Australia, Silburn and colleagues (2000, p.29) have
reported that the measurement of parenting variables such as ‘responsiveness
to the child’s needs’ is generally accepted by families.

What is or is not deemed to be ethical in family wellbeing investigations will
depend on the specific research and cultural context. What families find
acceptable in the US, for example, families might find unacceptable in the UK
context. There is also an associated issue concerning the differing ways that
cultural and other groups within a particular neighbourhood or society might
respond to questionnaires and the use of family wellbeing data.
In addition, family functioning measured by negative indicators in the absence
or under-representation of positive indicators could, arguably, contribute to a
‘culture of blame’ in which families are seen as responsible for their inadequate/
poor functioning. By underplaying or ignoring family strengths and areas of
resilience such an approach would also inevitably fail to capture the true diversity
of families and family life.
A lack of UK data?
This review was unable to find any nationally representative family wellbeing
studies conducted in the UK. However, to say there has been no specific family
wellbeing research does not mean there are no data about the wellbeing of
British families. On the contrary, there are several large national datasets that
provide a wealth of family wellbeing data that have been collected in an
objective and multidimensional manner. The list of government surveys that
contain relevant family wellbeing data includes:
● Millennium Study of Poverty and Social Exclusion
● Family Resources Survey
● British Household Panel Survey
● Labour Force Survey
● General Household Survey
● National Omnibus Survey
● Families and Children Survey
● National Child Development Study
● English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.
60

61
In these national household surveys certain types of families – including those
with dependent children – form important subsets. These subsets contain a
great deal of family wellbeing information, particularly concerning education,
socio-economic circumstances and other relevant domains.
Currently missing in the UK are longitudinal and other repeated surveys whose
aim is to measure the wellbeing of families comprehensively, covering as many
domains and constructs as feasible within one dataset. More specifically, what
is lacking is data on the subjective dimensions of family wellbeing and on
psychological and psycho-social family functioning factors that may be
especially influential. It has been suggested that child wellbeing information can
be treated as one of many possible indicators of family functioning or wider
family wellbeing, but not as a complete and adequate proxy (Families Australia
and the Australian National University, 2007, p.3).
The Families and Children Survey (FACS) conducted for the Department for
Work and Pensions (Hoxhallari et al., 2005) already covers many family
wellbeing domains and relevant constructs. It collects comprehensive information
from families with dependent children in the material domain – income, debt,
work and housing – as well as information on health, lifestyle, social capital,
schooling, childcare and outcomes for children in a number of other domains.
Even so, important elements are missing that would be necessary if the study
was specifically designed to measure family wellbeing. These include family
functioning elements, for example data on family relationships (such as levels
of parental satisfaction), processes (such as levels of emotional support) or
dynamics (such as the degree of family cohesion). Although it takes measures in
the relevant domains, for instance the work domain, FACS does not adopt the
specific constructs that research identifies as significant for family wellbeing,
such as job control, job stability or job flexibility. This is because it is not a family
wellbeing framework which underlies the research, but that, political and policy
interests, particularly in low-income families, are one of the survey’s main drivers.
Internationally, there has been much recent research activity to identify possible
indicators of family and social functioning for inclusion in official statistics. The
measurement challenges here include difficulties in:
● selecting which factors to measure
● identifying the value base underpinning such measurement

● determining the feasibility of collecting such information
● assessing the reliability and validity of such measures
● establishing the stability of measures over time
● describing the theoretical basis for linking indicators to particular wellbeing
outcomes.
(Silburn et al., 2000, p.7)
The UK could expect to face similar challenges if a decision were to be taken
to collect high quality national data to monitor trends in family wellbeing.
62

63
6. Conclusions and
6. recommendations
The policy and practice benefits that flow when countries construct a detailed
‘national picture’ of the wellbeing of families have been strongly articulated in
recent years. The movement towards measuring and promoting family wellbeing
has not only been connected to an appreciation of the ever increasing diversity
of the family and also to growing interest in understanding the way families
function and “what counts in family life” (Colorado Foundation for Families and
Children, 2003, p.2). Yet it is clear from this review of relevant literature that in
many countries, including the UK, such data about the family is not routinely or
consistently collected. Our contention is that it should be, not only to enhance
theoretical knowledge, but also significantly to support policymakers in
understanding the impact of social policy measures on family functioning over time.
Family wellbeing, as discussed in this report, is a multidimensional, dynamic
and complex concept. Although existing national surveys inform us about many
aspects of family wellbeing – in particular the socio-economic circumstances of
families as households – the data is not comprehensive enough to fully represent
the concept. The UK, as noted in Chapter 5, has no nationally representative or
continuous family wellbeing survey.
Yet given current global challenges, rapid social change, diversified family structures
and the increasingly complex demands being placed on families, there is a
strengthening case for family wellbeing data that is representative, comprehensive
and consistent – and that gathers policy-relevant evidence using theory-based
indicators. Ideally, the data collected would represent the objective as well as
subjective dimensions of wellbeing discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. It would be
collected in all the domains that influence family wellbeing, and on relevant
ecological levels, such as individual, relationships, family, the community and wider

society. Risk and protective factors would be measured to facilitate analysis of
their interplay and the salience of their contributions to good, bad or indifferent
outcomes. Since wellbeing is continuously constructed in the interactive and
complex ways outlined in this review, there would also be particular value in
obtaining longitudinal data to enable better understanding of these processes.
This is not to deny the evidence in Chapters 3 and 4 that theoretical
development work is needed to underpin the application of the family wellbeing
concept in research and policy development. Current efforts to develop a set of
interlinked family wellbeing frameworks should continue (Families Australia and
the Australian National University, 2007). Hard choices imposing limits on the
scope of individual studies, and on the range of measurements they employ, will
continue to be unavoidable. But that makes it all the more important that
choices of indicators and the overall approaches taken by studies of family
wellbeing are informed by theory – and that conceptual definitions are made
explicit. By underpinning their studies with clearly conceptualised frameworks,
researchers will be able to assert with greater confidence that what they are
measuring is either overall family wellbeing, or defined aspects of it.
As this review has indicated, it is not sufficient to infer the wellbeing of families by
aggregating wellbeing data gathered from individual family members. There are
strong arguments for research with the family as the unit of analysis. For example,
the evidence suggests links between family characteristics and child educational
outcomes, highlighting a need to research family behaviour rather than individual
behaviour (True, 2005, p.18). On the other hand, we also need data on the
wellbeing of individual family members because of what is known about
inconsistencies and trade-offs in the distribution of wellbeing within families.
The concerns noted in Chapter 5 about intrusiveness and other ethical issues
that can arise when monitoring family functioning warrant further reflection. But
even here there are practical as well as moral arguments as to why this type of
family wellbeing data should be collected. For example, current concerns in
relation to children’s mental health, youth violence and the number of young
people not in employment, education or training, have served to underline the
connections between family functioning and young people’s problems. Relevant
family wellbeing data would enable the study of links between family functioning
and child outcomes across different populations in ways that are currently not
possible. This would not only serve the purpose of monitoring, but also assist in
the projection of future child outcome trends and patterns, creating greater
64

65
Conclusions and recommendations
potential for prevention rather than crisis-driven policy. Consistent family
wellbeing data would also support analysis of the impact of external factors on
families, such as social services, schools and labour markets. This, in turn, would
support more effective service planning and channelling of resources.
An improved understanding of the influence of external factors is also needed to
enable assessments of the likely impact of policies on family functioning as well
as economic aspects of wellbeing. For example, research into welfare-to-work
programmes in the United States has found that, although the economic wellbeing
of families may be increased, there can be significant decreases in family
functioning if the jobs that parents take as a consequence offer them low wages,
low security and low control. The negative impact of the policy may be felt through
deteriorations in parenting and the home environment, and in less favourable
parent–child relationships (Menaghan and Parcel, 1997). This underlines the need
for conceptual frameworks as well as policy impact assessments that look across
domains for appropriate analysis and interpretation of family wellbeing.
We have also seen in Chapter 5 how the study of family wellbeing poses
measurement challenges, both conceptual and practical. These can be met, and
the study of family wellbeing advanced, through further work; for example:
● More reliability and validity testing of the measures used in family wellbeing
research (including non-response analyses that would shed light on possible
biases in the data resulting from particular groups of people refusing to
participate in research).
● Research to explore the relative ‘strengths’ of different family wellbeing
constructs that may be substitutes or proxies for each other in a particular
domain or concept of interest. (For example, a family wellbeing survey
might variously consider measuring job security, job demands and control,
overall job quality, job flexibility, job satisfaction, occupational complexity,
work-related stress, and the balance between effort and rewards – see
Appendix – but which of these overlapping concepts would have the
greatest reliability, validity and predictive power as a measurement of family
wellbeing? This could be explored through the analysis of existing evidence
as well as relevant theory).
● Cross-cultural and comparative studies of family wellbeing. This type of
research has the potential to deepen understanding of the dynamics
between different family wellbeing domains.

66
● More sophisticated data and analysis (such as experimental and
longitudinal research designs, structural equation modelling and hierarchical
analyses).
● More studies to discover what families themselves think (including
qualitative research to explore the perceived meaning of terms like ‘family
wellbeing’ and ‘quality of life’ as well as the acceptability of different family
functioning measures in official statistics).
Specifically, the evidence collected by this review points towards the following
further recommendations for research and development:
● Theoretical development: to apply and explore the potential that acknowledged
and previously unexplored5
theories hold for the conceptualisation and
measurement of family wellbeing.
● Full data feasibility studies for the UK (or separately for England, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales if national differences in data sources make
this more appropriate).
● More work to explore and overcome measurement challenges (including
reliability and validity issues, the acceptability of measures and the
measurement of intra-family differences).
● Exploration of new, potentially relevant factors (for instance, the
importance of the arts, sports and cultural heritage to family wellbeing).
It is important to emphasise, in conclusion, that none of this should take place
in isolation from detailed discussion of the norms, values and priorities that
underlie research into families and their wellbeing.
5 One possibility that could be considered under this heading is the potential for applying a human rights framework to the
5 concept of family wellbeing.

67
Appendix
Measures of family
wellbeing identified
in research literature
Access to and quality of health care
Satisfaction with health care
services
Physical health/health status
Nutrition
Parents’ level of fatigue
Substance use
Disability
Healthy lifestyle
Ability to afford medical care (US)
Social problem-solving skills
Mental health/psychological
wellbeing/positive or negative
emotionality
Child temperament
Child behavioural, emotional and
social adjustment
Child overall wellbeing
Child education and cognitive
development
School readiness
School engagement
Child self-efficacy
Child attachment type
Child’s time use
Child literacy and numeracy
The lists shown below are intended to give a structured overview of the wide
variety of potential measures theoretically and empirically relevant to family
wellbeing as identified in this review.
2 Psychological/individual
2 characteristics
1 Health

68
Appendix
Attitudes and beliefs (including
religious)
Commitment to family
Parent education
Ethnic background
Religious identity
Parents’ mood
Parents’ stress
Parents’ self-esteem
Psychological adjustment
Parental goal orientation/
aspirations
Self-reliance
Self-efficacy and social skills
Coping and life difficulties
Work-related mental health
Empathy
Self-understanding
Maternal depression
Anxiety disorder
Impulsivity
Life satisfaction
Communication skills
Relationship norms, attitudes and
values (also of child)
Gender role attitudes and gender
distrust
Life experience
Parenting (each parent and each
child)
● Concern for child
● Control/monitoring of child
● Use of punishment
● Parent–child interpersonal
boundaries
● Child cognitive stimulation
● Aggravation in parenting/
parenting stress/parenting
coping
● Discipline, structure of rules and
limits
● Nurturing and supporting
● Guidance
● Motivation
● Parenting
consistency/consistency in
parental control
● Parental trust/autonomy
● Protection and overprotection
● Parent–child communication ●
(frequency, type)
● Conflict-resolution style
● Literacy-related experiences and
activities
● Warmth, affection
● Responsiveness to child’s needs
● Hostile parenting
● Parental abuse/neglect
3 Relational characteristics
3 and processes

69
Measures of family wellbeing identified in research literature
● Inductive reasoning
● Maternal separation anxiety
● Parents’ feelings about parenting
● Parenting efficacy
● Parenting values and parenting
beliefs
● Parenting roles
● Parenting satisfaction
● Parenting skills
● Parenting awareness
● Parental expectations/attitudes
(education, work, cultural issues,
gender roles)
● Parental role stress
● Parental competence
● Agreement/conflict between
parents about parenting.
Relationship characteristics
● Child and parent conflict
● Child seeks advice in personal or
vocational matter
● Non-resident parent contact,
contributions/support
● Closeness/caring (parent–child
and child–parent)
● Parent knowledge of youth
● Bonding and type of attachment
● Shared leisure time
● Child disclosure.
Current partner–children
Parental relationship
● Relationship skills
● Couple relationship satisfaction
● Couple conflict/inter-parent
conflict (hostile co-parenting)
● Supportiveness, affection, warmth
(especially fathers)
● Mutual understanding of needs
● Communication
● Psychological independence and
interdependence
● Fidelity
● Intimacy/emotional support
● Couple commitment
● Duration
● Violence
● Shared time.
Parent–current partner relationship
Non-residential parent and
residential current partner
● Role and contribution of non-
residential parent/non-biological
resident partner
● Conflict.
Sibling relationships

70
Appendix
Family structure/composition, size
(evidence: correlate not cause)
Cohesion/mutuality
Family conflict/harmony/emotional
climate
Family expressiveness
Collective Family Sense of
Coherence (FSOC)
Communication
Flexibility/adaptability
Decision-making/family negotiation
Mutual expectations
Child involvement in activities
Creation of sense of identity and
belonging
Family failure (e.g. child abuse)
Patterns of sharing paid and unpaid
work (incl. satisfaction with)
Family roles
Affective responsiveness and
affective involvement
Behavioural controls
Family belief systems
Family goals and aspirations
Commitment to children
Acceptance of differences
Resilience/family hardiness
Sense of identity and belonging
Family social capital
Reciprocity
Power distribution
Family norms and expectations
Family commitment, involvement
and attachment
Intra-family support
Distribution of resources within the
household and across households
Transmittance of culture, values and
knowledge
Family spirituality/religion
Family stress
● Stress coping/family coping
strategies
● Problem-solving
● Conflict-solving.
Family strengths
● Resilience
● Successful risk engagement.
Family life
● Home environment
●● Household organisation/
household tasks
●● Home literacy and educational
resources
●● Cleanliness/orderliness
●● Location and regularity of
children’s sleeping place/room
sharing
●● Family participation in learning.
4 Family as a whole/
4 family functioning

71
5 Sociological/social
● Family routines
●● Activities with children
●● Family dinners
●● Time together, quantity and
quality of time spent with
family members
●● Consistency in home routines
●● Television habits
●● Amount of sleep
●● Family events and holidays
●● Physical activity
●● Parental activities.
● Childcare
●● Childcare use
●● Problems with childcare
●● Type of caregiver
●● Ethos of childcare settings
●● Carer–child relationship
●● Stability/instability in childcare
arrangements
●● Participation in pre-school/
kindergarten
●● Satisfaction with care
●● Cost of care/affordability
●● Reasons for use.
● Care for adults.
Proximal social environments
● Relatives, friends, neighbours
●● Social support/help (perceived
and received) (instrumental,
emotional, informational,
tangible aid, positive social
interaction, affection, esteem)
●● Extended family contact
●● Relationship quality with family,
friends and peers
●● Multiple role occupancy
●● Child’s friends/peer groups.
● Acquisition and use of support
networks
●● Other parents
●● Key services.
Distal social environments
● Work
●● Job security
●● Work hours
●● Job demands and control
●● Effort and reward balance
●● Occupational complexity
(supervision vs self-direction;
variety vs repetition)
●● Job satisfaction
●● Job concerns/stress
●● Work–family balance (at least
six domains identified)
●● Job flexibility

72
Appendix
●● Overall job quality
●● Work history
●● Work support for caring
responsibilities.
● School
●● Parents’
involvement/engagement in
education
●● Parents–teacher contact
●● Access to quality education
●● Expectations/beliefs held of
children
●● Ethos/climate of school
●● Teachers’ characteristics
●● Teacher–child relationship
●● Characteristics (size, child–staff
ratio, group sizes)
●● Satisfaction with school
●● Experiences in school incl.
bullying.
● Community
●● Safety
●● Community supports youth
●● Expectations of children
●● Cultural make-up
●● Access to high quality early
childhood care
●● Access to high quality later
childcare
●● Other family (support services)
●● Transportation/transportation
problems
●● Community activism/social
justice
●● Participation in civic life/
volunteerism
●● Trust
●● Reciprocity
●● Social engagement
●● Age and income profile
●● Involvement in non-family
social structures (e.g. sports/
church groups)/social
participation
●● Perceptions of levels of
community cohesion, trust,
crime and violence
●● Discrimination and racism.
● Local resources and amenities
●● Sports facilities
●● Childcare
●● Library
●● Family activities
●● Child activities
●● Availability, safety and
stimulation of parks, playing-
fields
●● Availability, access, use and
satisfaction with local services.

73
● Neighbourhood
●● Social cohesion
●● Prevailing parenting practices
●● Neighbourhood reciprocity.
Macro social environments
● Social policy
● Economic policy
● Cultural environment
●● Social normative beliefs about
marriage and family
●● Political culture.
Housing
● Home ownership status
● Overcrowding
● Type of dwelling
● Condition of dwelling
● Housing problems
● Safety and stability
● Affordability.
Employment and earnings
Family finances
● Self-sufficiency
● Self-reported standard of living
● Financial/economic/material
hardship/stress
● Family income
● Income sources
● Retirement provision and
inheritance
● Family resource management
● Risk management (insurance)
● Financial obligations
● Financial decision making
● Food insecurity
● Ability to pay for rent and utilities.
Mobility
6 Material domain

74
Appendix
Transitions
● Family separation
● Divorce
● Remarriage
● Cohabitation
● Marital/relationship history
● Family life stage.
Bereavements
Incarceration
Life stressors
● Illness
● Unemployment
● Early/late onset of target
problems.
Parents’ family background
● Parents’ relationship with own
parents as child
● Intergenerational history of family
relationships.
7 Life course/events

References
Allardt, E. (1993) Having, loving, being: an alternative to the Swedish model of welfare
research. In M. Nussbaum and A. Sen (eds) The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andrews, A., Ben-Arieh, A., Carlson, M., Damon, C., Dweck, F., Earls, C., Garcia-Coll, R.,
Gold, R., Halfon, N., Hart, R., Lerner, R.M., McEwen, M., Meaney, Offord, D., Patrick, D.,
Peck, M., Trickett, B., Weisner, T., Zuckerman, B. (2002) Ecology of child wellbeing:
advancing the science and the science-practice link. Centre for Child Wellbeing: Georgia.
Andrews, F.M. and Withey, S.B. (1976) Social indicators of wellbeing: Americans’ perceptions
of life quality. New York: Plenum.
Anyan, S. and Pryor, J. (2002) What is family? Adolescent perceptions. Children and Society,
16(1-12). Cited in J. Pryor (2007) Family wellbeing: confusions and challenges. Roy
McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families. Victoria University, New Zealand. Presentation
to the National Family Wellbeing Symposium, Canberra, 20–21 June 2007. Online at
http://www.familiesaustralia.org.au/publications/pubs/conferences/nfws2007/nfwspryor.pdf
Armstrong, M.I., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Ungar, M.T. (2005) Pathways between social support,
family well being, quality of parenting, and child resilience: what we know. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 14(2), 268–281.
Australian Institute of Family Studies (2007) The longitudinal study of Australian children:
wave 1 content sources and supporting rationale (Draft, forthcoming on the LSAC
website: http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup).
Babatunde, E.D., Colletta N.D., Garman, D., Kramer E.M., Megawangi, R., Zeitlin, M.F. (1995)
Strengthening the family – implications for international development. Tokyo: The United
Nations University Press.
75

Barnes, J., Belsky, J., Broomfield, K.A., Dave, S., Frost, M., Melhuish, E. (2005)
Disadvantaged but different: variation among deprived communities in relation to child
and family wellbeing. The National Evaluation of Sure Start Research Team. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(9), 952–962.
BBC (2007) UK is accused of failing children. BBC News article. Online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm
BBC/ICM family poll (2007) Complete results. Online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_11_07familypoll.pdf
Behnke, A. and MacDermid, S. (2004) Family wellbeing. Basic concepts and definitions.
Encyclopaedic brief. Boston College: Sloan Work and Family Research Network. Online at
http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=235
Bell, D., Hamilton, C., Galloway, S., Scullion, A. (2006) Quality of life and wellbeing:
measuring the benefits of culture and sport. Literature review and thinkpiece. Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive Education Department. Online at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/89281/0021350.pdf
Ben-Arieh, A. and Goerge, R. (2001) Beyond the numbers: how do we monitor the state
of our children? Children and Youth Services Review, 23(8), 603–631.
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (2006) Scales documentation
and question sources for three-year questionnaires. United States: Princeton University.
Online at
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/documentation/core/scales/ff_3yr_scales.pdf
Berger-Schmitt, R. and Noll, H.-H. (2000) Conceptual framework and structure of a
European system of social indicators. EuReporting Working Paper No. 9. Mannheim:
Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA). Online at
http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/paper9.pdf
Blanden, J., Gregg, P., Machin, S. (2005) Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North
America. A report supported by the Sutton Trust. London School of Economics: Centre for
Economic Performance. Online at
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf
Bonomi, A.E., Boudreau, D.M., Fishman, P.A., Meenan, R.T., Revicki, D.A. (2005) Is a family
equal to the sum of its parts? Estimating family-level well-being for cost-effectiveness
analysis. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1127–1133.
76
References

Bratt, R.G. (2002) Housing and family wellbeing. Housing Studies, 17(1), 13–26.
Bronte-Tinkew, J. et al. (2003) Conceptualizing and measuring ‘healthy marriage’ or empirical
research and evaluation studies: a review of the literature and annotated bibliography.
Prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services: Washington DC. Online at
http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2004_01_01_FR_HMFullLitReview.pdf
Brown, I., Anand, S., Fung, W.L.A., Isaacs, B., Baum, N. (2003) Family quality of life:
Canadian results from an international study. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 15(3), September 2003.
Cameron, D. (2006) Families ‘key to poverty fight’. BBC News article. Online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6165833.stm
Chapman, D.W. and Larkham, P.J. (1999) Urban design, urban quality and the quality of
life: reviewing the department of the environment’s urban design campaign. Journal of
Urban Design, 4(2), 211–232.
Child Trends (2004) Indicators of child, family, and community connections. Report
produced for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Online at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/connections-charts04/chartbook.pdf
Clark, D.A. (2005) The capability approach: its development, critiques and recent
advances. Research Paper GPRG-WSP-032. Economic and Social Research Council:
Global Poverty Research Group. Institute for Development Policy and Management:
University of Manchester. Online at
http://www.gprg.org/pubs/workingpapers/pdfs/gprg-wps-032.pdf
Clark, D.A. and McGillivray, M. (2007) Measuring human wellbeing: key findings and
policy lessons. Policy Brief Number 3. United Nations University: World Institute for
Development Economics Research. Online at
http://www.unu.edu/publications/briefs/policy-briefs/2007/pb03-07.pdf
Clarke, M. (2005) Assessing wellbeing using hierarchical needs. UNU-WIDER Research
Paper No. 2005/22. United Nations University: World Institute for Development Economics
Research. Online at
http://www.wider.unu.edu/stc/repec/pdfs/rp2005/rp2005-22.pdf
Cobb, C.W. and Rixford, C. (1998) Lessons learned from the history of social indicators.
Redefining Progress: San Francisco. Online at
http://www.rprogress.org/publications/1998/SocIndHist.pdf
77
References

Colorado Foundation for Families and Children (2002) Families speak out: ‘what success
looks like for my family’. Executive Summary of the Final Report on FamilyWise Focus
Groups. Prepared for Family Support America and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
United States: Denver. Online at
http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources
/FamilyWiseFocusGroupExecutiveSummary.pdf
Colorado Foundation for Families and Children (2003) What counts: measuring indicators
of family wellbeing. United States: Denver. Full report prepared for the Child and Family
Policy Center. Online at
http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources
/WhatCountsMeasuringIndicatorsofFamilyWell-being.pdf
Conservatives (2007) More ball games. The childhood review. Online at
http://www.conservatives.com
Cummins, R.A. (2000) Objective and subjective quality of life: an interactive model. Social
Indicators Research, 52(1).
Delhey, J. et al. (2002) Quality of life in a European perspective: the EUROMODULE as
a new instrument in comparative welfare research. Social Indicators Research, 58(1-3),
161–175.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2003) Every Child Matters. Online at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/EveryChildMatters.pdf
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2004) Every Child Matters: next steps.
Online at
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/EveryChildMattersNextSteps.pdf
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) Every parent matters. Online at
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/familyandcommunity/workingwithparents/every
parentmatters
Department for Children, Schools and Families and HM Treasury (2005) Support for
parents: the best start for children. Online at
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr05_supportparents_391.pdf
Diener, E. and Suh, E. (1997) Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective
indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40(1-2), 191.
78
References

Easterlin, R.A. (2003) Building a better theory of wellbeing. United States: University of
Southern California. Online at
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/BetterTheory.pdf
Eiser, C. and Morse, R. (2001) Can parents rate their child’s health-related quality of life?
Results of a systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 10(4), 347–357.
Epstein, N.B., Bishop, D.S., Baldwin. L.M. (1984) McMaster Model of Family Functioning.
In D.H. Olson and P.M. Miller (eds) Family studies review yearbook. Volume 2. New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D., Ryan, C., Miller, L., Keitner, G. (1993) The McMaster Model View
of Healthy Family Functioning. In F. Walsh (ed.) Normal family processes. New York/London:
The Guildford Press.
Families Australia (2006) Family wellbeing in Australia: a families Australia vision. Online at
http://familiesaustralia.org.au/publications/pubs/policy-familywellbeing.pdf
Families Australia (2007) Family. Families Australia’s bulletin about national family issues.
Issue No. 8, September 2007. Online at
http://www.familiesaustralia.org.au/publications/pubs/family/FamilyNo8September2007.pdf
Families Australia and the Australian National University (2007) What counts? Defining,
exploring and measuring family wellbeing. Overview, outcomes and next steps. Proceedings
of the National Family Wellbeing Symposium at the Australian National University, Canberra
20–21 June 2007. Online at
http://nceph.anu.edu.au/News/NFWS_Outcomes.pdf
Farquhar, M. (1995) Definitions of quality of life: a taxonomy. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
22(3), 502–509. Cited in D. Bell, C. Hamilton, S. Galloway, A. Scullion (2006) Quality of
life and wellbeing: measuring the benefits of culture and sport. Literature review and
thinkpiece, p.11. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department. Online at
Felce, D. and Perry, J. (1995) Quality of life: its definition and measurement. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 51–74.
Felce, D. and Perry, J. (1996) Assessment of quality of life. In R.L. Schalock (ed.) Quality
of life. Volume 1. Conceptualisation and measurement. Washington: American Association
on Mental Retardation.
79
References

Fletcher, M. (2007) Issues in developing a conceptual framework for ‘family wellbeing’.
Families Australia. Presentation to the National Family Wellbeing Symposium, Canberra,
20–21 June 2007. Online at
http://www.familiesaustralia.org.au/publications/pubs/conferences/nfws2007/nfwsfletcher.pdf
Frost, M.H. et al. (2002) Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the
clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(5), 488–494.
Galbraith, K.A. and Schvaneveldt, J.D. (2005) Family leadership styles and family wellbeing.
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(3), 220–239.
Geismar, L.L. and Camasso, M.J. (1993) The Family Functioning Scale: a guide to research
and practice. New York: Springer. Cited in A.E. Bonomi, D.M. Boudreau, P.A. Fishman, R.T.
Meenan, D.A. Revicki (2005) Is a family equal to the sum of its parts? Estimating family-level
wellbeing for cost-effectiveness analysis. Quality of Life Research, 14, 113.
Gore, S. and Eckenrode, J. (1996) Context and process in research on risk and resilience.
In R.J. Haggerty, L.R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, M. Rutter (eds) Stress, risk, and resilience in
children and adolescents: process, mechanism, and interventions, pp.19–63. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Greeff, A.P. and Van Der Merwe, S. (2004) Variables associated with resilience in
divorced families. Social Indicator Research, 68, 59–75.
Haas, B.K. (1999) Clarification and integration of similar quality of life concepts. Journal
of Nursing Scholarship, 31(3), 215–220.
Hagerty, M.R., Cummins, R.A., Ferriss, A.L., Land, K., Michalos, A.C., Peterson, M., Sharpe,
A., Sirgy, M.J., Vogel, J. (2001) Quality of life indexes for national policy: review and
agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55(1), 1–96.
Hanafin, S., Brooks, A.-M., Carroll, E., Fitzgerald, E., Gabhainn, S.N., Sixsmith, J. (2007)
Achieving consensus in developing a national set of child well-being indicators. Social
Indicators Research, 80, 79–104.
Hayes, A., Gray, M., Baxter, J. (2007) The wellbeing of families: conceptual issues and
unique insights from ‘growing up in Australia’. Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Presentation to the National Family Wellbeing Symposium, Canberra, 20–21 June 2007.
Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Poston, D., Summers, J.A., Turnbull, A. (2006) Assessing family
outcomes: psychometric evaluation of the Beach Center Family Quality of Life Scale.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1069–1083.
80
References

Home Office (1998) Supporting families. Online at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/sfamr.pdf?version=1
Hoxhallari, L., Barnes, M., Lyon, N. (2005) Families and children study (FACS) Waves 6 & 7
user guide (2004–2005). Prepared by NatCen for DWP. Online at
http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/doc/4427/mrdoc/pdf/4427wave7guide.pdf
Janse, A.J. et al. (2004) Quality of life: patients and doctors don’t always agree: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(7), 653–661.
Jasek-Rysdahl, K. (2001) Applying Sen’s Capability Approach to neighbourhoods: using
local asset maps to deepen our understanding of well-being. Review of Social Economy,
59(3), 313–29.
Kalil, A. (2003) Family resilience and good child outcomes: a review of the literature.
Centre for Social Research and Evaluation: Ministry of Social Development. New Zealand:
Wellington.
Land, K.C., Lamb, V.L., Meadows, S.O., Taylor, A. (2007) Measuring trends in child well-being:
an evidence-based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80, 105–132.
Laurance, J. (2006) Mental health: children on the edge. One in ten youngsters suffers
mental problems as behavioural disorders double in 30 years. The Independent (health
and wellbeing) newspaper article. Online at
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mental-health-
children-on-the-edge-404875.html
Linacre, S. (2007) Family statistics towards a framework. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Presentation to the National Family Wellbeing Symposium, Canberra, 20–21 June 2007.
Online at
http://www.familiesaustralia.org.au/publications/pubs/conferences/nfws2007/nfwslinacre.
pdf
Lippman, L.H. (2007) Indicators and indices of child wellbeing: A brief American history.
Social Indicators Research, 83, 39–53.
Macgregor, C.A. and Sheerin, D. (2006) Family life and relationships in the health of the
nation outcome scales for children and adolescents (HoNOSCA). Psychiatric Bulletin, 30,
216–219. Full text available online at
http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/216
81
References

Macomber, J.E. and Moore, K.A. (1999) 1997 NSAF benchmarking measures of child
and family well-being. Report No. 6. Urban Institute: Washington DC. Online at
http://www.urban.org/publications/410137.html
Maslow, A. (1970) The farther reaches of the human mind. Viking Press: New York.
McGillivray, M. and Clarke, M. (eds) (2006) Understanding human well-being. Tokyo:
United Nations University Press.
McGregor, J.A. (2006) Researching wellbeing: from concepts to methodology. WeD
Working Paper 20. Economic and Social Research Council: Research Group on Wellbeing
in Developing Countries, University of Bath. Online at
http://www.welldev.org.uk/research/workingpaperpdf/wed20.pdf
McGregor, J.A. and Kebede, B. (2003) Resource profiles and the social and cultural
construction of wellbeing. Paper presented at the inaugural workshop of the ESRC
Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries. University of Bath, January 2003.
Revised version forthcoming.
McKeown, K., Pratschke, J., Haase, T. (2003) Family well-being: what makes a difference?
Research report to the Céifin Centre: Shannon, Ireland. Online at
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/FamiliesResearchProgramme
/Documents/famwelloct03.pdf
Menaghan, E.G. and Parcel, T.L. (1997) Effects of low-wage employment on family well-
being. The Future of Children, 7(1) (Welfare to Work), 116–121.
Millward, C. (2003) The growing up in Australia study content: what are we asking, who
are we asking and why? Australian Institute of Family Studies. Paper presented at the 8th
AIFS Research Conference, February 12–14, Melbourne, Australia. Online at
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc8/millward.pdf
Moore, K.A. (1999) Indicators of child and family wellbeing: the good, the bad and the
ugly. A presentation to National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social
Sciences Research. Child Trends: Washington. Online at
http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-1999_09_13_SP_IndicatorsCF.pdf
Moore, K.A. (2007) Child and family wellbeing: a new look. Washington DC: Child Trends.
Lecture at Brigham Young University. Online at
http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2007_02_09_SP_NewLook.pdf
82
References

Moore, K.A. and Hair, E.C. (2005) Family process measures. Child Trends: Washington.
Presentation on the measures used in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97).
Online at
http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2005_10_14_SP_BYUPresentation.pdf
Moore, K.A., Vandivere, S., Redd, Z. (2006) A sociodemographic risk index. Social Indicators
Research, 75, 45–81.
Munford, R. and Sanders, J. (1998) Playing ball on running water: studying family wellbeing.
Conference Paper for the 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies conference ‘Changing
Families, Challenging Futures’ 25–27 November 1998, Melbourne. Online at
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc6papers/sanders.html
Munford, R. and Sanders, J. (1999) Supporting families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. New
Zealand: Dunmore.
Munford, R., Sanders, J., Tisdall, M., Henare, A., Livingston, K., Spoonley, P. (1998)
Working successfully with families: stage 2. Wellington: Barnardos NZ.
Munford, R., Sanders, J., Tisdall, M., Mulder, J., Spoonley, P.; Jack (1996) Working
successfully with families: stage 1. Wellington: Barnardos NZ.
New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage (2005) Cultural well-being and local
government. Report 1: definitions and contexts of cultural well-being, p.3. Cited in D. Bell,
C. Hamilton, S. Galloway, A. Scullion (2006) Quality of life and wellbeing: measuring the
benefits of culture and sport. Literature review and thinkpiece, p.31. Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive Education Department. Online at
Nicholson, J. (2007) The longitudinal study of Australian children (LSAC): a growing resource for
understanding child and family wellbeing. Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Presentation
to the National Family Wellbeing Symposium, Canberra, 20–21 June 2007. Online at
http://www.familiesaustralia.org.au/publications/pubs/conferences/nfws2007/nfwsnicholson
.pdf
Noll, H.-H. (2002) Towards a European system of social indicators: theoretical framework
and system architecture. Social Indicators Research, 58, 47–87.
Olson, D.H. (1999) Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Paper published as a
special edition of the Journal of Family Therapy (1999) entitled Empirical Approaches to
Family Assessment. Online at
http://www.lifeinnovations.com/pdf/circumplex.pdf
83
References

Oxley, H., Dang, T., Foster, M., Pellizzari, M. (2001) Income inequalities and poverty among
children and households with children in selected OECD countries. In K. Vleminckz and T.
Seeding (eds) Child wellbeing, child poverty and child policy in modern nations. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Pollard, E.L. and Lee, P.D. (2003a) Child wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature.
Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59–78
Pollard, E.L. and Lee, P.D. (2003b) Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature.
Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 60. Cited in D. Bell, C. Hamilton, S. Galloway, A. Scullion
(2006) Quality of life and wellbeing: measuring the benefits of culture and sport. Literature
review and thinkpiece, p.30. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department. Online at
Pryor, J. (2007) Family wellbeing: confusions and challenges. Roy McKenzie Centre for
the Study of Families. New Zealand: Victoria University. Presentation to the National
Family Wellbeing Symposium, Canberra, 20–21 June 2007. Online at
http://www.familiesaustralia.org.au/publications/pubs/conferences/nfws2007/nfwspryor.pdf
Raphael, D. (1996) Defining quality of life: eleven debates concerning its measurement.
In R. Renwick, I. Brown, M. Nagler (eds) Quality of life in health promotion and
rehabilitation: conceptual approaches, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rettig, K.D. and Leichtentritt, R.D. (1999) A general theory for perceptual indicators of
family life quality. Social Indicators Research, 47, 307–342.
Richardson, B., Spears, J., Thiesen, B. (2003) Network guide to measuring family
development outcomes. University of Iowa School of Social Work: National Resource
Center for Family Centered Practice. Online at
http://www.uiowa.edu/~nrcfcp/publications/documents/final_network_guide.pdf
Russell, C.S. and Sprengkle, D.H. (1984) Circumplex model of marital and family systems:
Vl. Theoretical update. In D.H. Olson and P.M. Miller (eds) Family Studies Review Yearbook.
Volume 2. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Russell, G. and Bowman, L. (2000) Work and family current thinking, research and
practice. Report by Macquarie Research Limited: Macquarie University. Prepared for the
Department of Family and Community Services as a background paper for the National
Families Strategy. Online at
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/pubs/work_family/Pages/default.aspx
84
References

Rutter, M. (1996) Stress research: accomplishments and tasks ahead. In R.J. Haggerty,
L.R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, M. Rutter (eds) Stress, risk, and resilience in children and
adolescents: process, mechanism, and interventions, pp.354–385. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Online at
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf
Sanson, A. et al. (2002) Introducing the longitudinal study of Australian children. LSAC
Discussion Paper No. 1. Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne. Online at
http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup/pubs/discussionpaper1.pdf
Schalock, R.L. (1996) Reconsidering the conceptualisation and measurement of quality
of life. In R.L. Schalock (ed.) Quality of life, Vol. 1. Conceptualization and Measurement.
Washington: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Schalock, R.L. (2000) Three decades of quality of life. Focus on autism and other
developmental disabilities, 15(2), 116–127.
Sen, A.K. (1992) Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silburn, S.R., Vimpani, G., Williams, A.A., Zubrick, S.R. (2000) Indicators of social and family
functioning. Department of Family and Community Services: Australia. Online at
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/pubs/families-isff/Documents/full_report.pdf
Sing, M., Hill, H., Mendenko, L. (2001) Work, welfare, and family wellbeing. Research
Report. Mathematica Policy Research. New York: Princeton. Sponsored by the Iowa State
Department of Human Services, Des Moines. Online at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80
/1a/2f/0b.pdf
Statistics New Zealand (2006) International developments in family statistics. New
Zealand: Wellington. ISBN 0-478-8-26980-3. Online at
http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/statistics/publications/developments/international-
developments-in-family-statistics.aspx
Statistics New Zealand (2007a) Review of official family statistics. Consultation Paper.
New Zealand: Wellington. Online at
http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/statistics/publications/developments/review-of-official-
family-statistics-consultation-paper.aspx
85
References

Statistics New Zealand (2007b) Report of the review of official family statistics. New
Zealand: Wellington. ISBN 978-0-478-26933-8. Online at
http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/statistics/publications/developments/report-of-the-
review-of-official-family-statistics.aspx
Stewart, K. (2002) Measuring well-being and exclusion in Europe’s regions. Case Paper
53. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics. Cited in
D. Bell, C. Hamilton, S. Galloway, A. Scullion (2006) Quality of life and wellbeing:
measuring the benefits of culture and sport. Literature review and thinkpiece. Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive Education Department. Online at
Strauss, M.A. and Ross, S.M. (1995) Measures of family characteristics. In D. Levinson (ed.)
Encyclopedia of marriage and the family, 2, 486–490. Online at
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/M39.pdf
Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., Call, V. (1988) The design and content of the National Survey of
Families and Households. NSHF Working Paper No. 1. Center for Demography and
Ecology: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Online at
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B.F., Strauss, M.A. (2001) Handbook of family measurement
techniques. Volumes 1-3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
True, J. (2005) Methodologies for analysing the impact of public policy on families.
A conceptual review. Research Report No. 5/05. Families Commission: New Zealand.
Online at
http://www.familiescommission.govt.nz/download/impact-policies.pdf
UNICEF (2007) Child poverty in perspective: an overview of child wellbeing in rich countries.
Innocenti Report Card 7, 2007. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Online at
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2006) The Bay Area family
wellbeing survey. A study of welfare leavers in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Survey interview. Online at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/ques/ques_bay.pdf
Veenhoven, R. (2000) The four qualities of life. Ordering concepts and measures of the
good life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 200(1), 1–39. Online at
http://www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/veenhoven/Pub2000s/2000c-full.pdf
86
References

Veenhoven, R. (2004) Subjective measures of wellbeing. UNU-WIDER Discussion Paper
No. 2004/07. United Nations University: World Institute for Development Economics
Research. Online at
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/discussion-papers/2004/en_GB/
dp2004-007
Voydanoff, P. (2007) Work, family, and community. Exploring interconnections. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wampler, K.S. and Halverson, C.F.Jr. (1993) Quantitative measurement in family research.
In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, S.K. Steinmetz (eds) Source book
of family theories and methods: a contextual approach. New York: Plenum.
Wright J.P., Cullen F.T., Miller J.T. (2001) Family social capital and delinquent involvement.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(1), 1–9.
Zapf, W. (1984) Individuelle Wohlfahrt: Lebensbedingugen und wahrgenommene
Lebensqualitat in der Bundesrepublik. Glatzer W. (ed.) Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
Cited in R. Berger-Schmitt and H.-H. Noll (2000) Conceptual framework and structure
of a European system of social indicators. EuReporting Working Paper No. 9. Mannheim:
Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA). Online at
http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/paper9.
pdf
Zimmerman, S.L. (2003) Child and family wellbeing in states with different political
cultures. Families in Society, 84(2), 275–284.
87
References

88
Index
Bold page numbers indicate figures and
tables
A
academic disciplines, contribution of 15
adapted scales 53–4
affective involvement 39
affective responsiveness 39
aggregate data 51
alcohol misuse 9
American Quality of Life 17
analysis, more sophisticated 66
approaches to measurement, objective
and subjective 21–3
areas of concern 34
aspirations 2, 24–5
assessment, objects and methods 22
attitudes 48
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 4,
40
Australian Bureau of Statistics family
wellbeing model 34, 35
Australian Institute of Family Studies 53
Australian National University 49, 64
autonomy 19
B
background, historical 15–16
Basic Needs Approach 23
behaviour control 40
Bendheim-Thoman Center 53
boundaries, setting 56
C
capabilities, achievement 18
categories: family, work and community
33
Child Trends research centre 5, 44
child wellbeing 9–10
choices, in measurement 64
Circumplex Model of Marital and Family
Systems 38, 39
clarity, conceptual 26–7
clinical research 51
cohesion, marital and family 39
Colorado Foundation for Families and
Children 30, 48, 63
common factors, identifying 19
communication 39, 48
community characteristics, categories 33
community resources 34
comparative studies 65
competence 19
complexity 47, 52–3
conceptions 3
conceptual differences 20
congruence 56–7
constraints, financial and practical 56

constructs measured, complexity of
52–3
constructs, relative strengths 65
context 10, 16, 49
cross-cultural studies 65
culture 2, 3, 25–6
D
data
aggregate 51
lack of for UK 7, 60–2
more sophisticated 66
need for comprehensive 63–4
possible use of 7
weighting 58
data collection 10, 56
data-derived models 4, 43–4, 44
databases 13
debates 20
deficit indicators 58–9
deficit model 10, 58
definitions 10, 20
Department for Work and Pensions 61
differences
and debates 20
intra-family 57–8
dimensions 19, 26–7
direct influences 44
domain-based frameworks 4, 19, 42–3,
46
domains 19, 47
drug misuse 9
E
ecological models 35–6, 40–1, 49
ecological systems theory 3, 31–6
economists, studies of wellbeing 18
employment patterns 48
ethical responsibility 21
ethics 59–60, 64–5
events, potential measures 74
excluded literature 14
exosystems 32
extended family 57
external assessment 2, 24
external factors 65
F
families 6
complexity 28
as context of child wellbeing 10
household and non-household
definitions 56–7
Families and Children Survey (FACS) 61
Families Australia 28, 30, 33, 49, 61, 64
Families Australia family wellbeing
model 35
family
defining 6, 55–7
as unit of analysis 51, 64
Family Assessment Device 53
family characteristics, categories 33
family conflict, acceptability of
measuring 59
family functioning 4
conceptualisation 40–1
in ecological model 40–1
inclusion in models 48
indicators 41
non-clinical family research 40–2
potential measures 70–1
understanding 63
variables measured 59
Family Functioning Scale 53
family interactions 47
family interventions, ecological
perspective 32
family members 56, 64
family processes 46
family resilience 40
family social capital 40
family strengths 45
linkages with characteristics and
outcomes 45
89
Index

family systems theory 38–40
family theories 4
family wellbeing
defining 3, 29–31
theoretical models 31–9
understandings 50
use of term 28
feasibility 62
feasibility studies, full data 66
flexibility, marital and family 39
framework, developing shared 33
freedoms 18
full data feasibility studies 66
funding 51
G
gender 58
German Quality of Life Approach 23–4,
24
goals, social and political 18
government surveys 60
grandparents 56
grey literature 14
H
happiness studies 15
health 58, 67
historical background 15–16
human needs 18
I
importance scales 54
indicators 25–6, 58–9
indirect influences 44
individual, as unit of analysis 51
individual characteristics, potential
measures 67–8
inductive models 4, 43–4
influences, external 49
information sources 13, 14, 29
Innocenti Research Centre report 9
interaction, risk and protective factors 47
intergenerational dimension 11
international research activity 61–2
interventions, effect of context 47–8
intra-family differences 57–8
intrusiveness 59, 64
investigation, levels of 49
L
life chances 9–10
life course, potential measures 74
literature 14, 15
Longitudinal Study of Australia’s
Children 41
longitudinal surveys, lack of 61
low wage employment 46
M
McMaster Model of Family Functioning
(MMFF) 38, 39–40, 53
macrosystems 33
material factors, potential measures 73
measurement 5–8
challenges 55–60, 61–2, 65
comprehensiveness 27
implied definition of quality of life 17
implied definition of wellbeing 19
lack of consensus 50
measures used 50
meeting challenges 8
problems of 10
uni- and multidimensional 21
measurement instruments, transferability
53–5
measurement quality 51–5
measures, of parenting 54–5
measures used
inconsistency 51
poorly defined 52–3
mental health 9, 10
mesosystems 32
microsystems 32
models, developing 48
90
Index

multidimensional models 4
multidimensionality 2, 3, 17, 21
multidisciplinary perspective, lack of 19
N
national household surveys 61
National Survey of America’s Families
4, 41
National Survey of Households and
Families 59
negative indicators 7, 58–9
neighbourhoods, perceptions of 58
new factors, exploration of 66
New Zealand Ministry for Culture and
Heritage 17
non-theoretical approaches 40–2
norms 43, 48
O
objective approaches 21
objective circumstances 21
objectivity 2, 17, 20
offending 9
operationalisation 23
opportunities 18
outcomes 27
P
parameters, setting 56
parenting 54–5, 59
parents, separated 56
personal resources 34
policies, assessing impact 65
policy developments, role of research
11–12
policy, focus on child wellbeing 10
policy interests 61
political interests 61
population groups 34
applicability of measures 54
population statistics 16
positive indicators 58
pragmatism, in choice of model 49–50
problem solving 39
processes 27
protective factors 64
protective frameworks 5
psycho-social family systems theory 38
psychological characteristics, potential
measures 67
psychological factors, lack of data 61
psychological family systems theory 38
psychological literature 38
psychological studies, validity 51
psychometric tests 53
psychosocial factors, lack of data 61
Q
quality of life (QOL) 1–2, 15, 16, 17
quality of life approaches 19
quality, of measurement 51–5
R
relatedness 19
relational characteristics and processes,
potential measures 68–9
reliability 6, 53, 62, 65
repeated surveys, lack of 61
research
clinical 51
role in policy development 11–12
research activity, international 61–2
research context 21
research evidence 19
research participants, vulnerability 59
researchers, focus 51
resource exchanges 36
Resource Profiles Framework 18
resource theory 3, 36–7
resources 18, 36, 48, 49
response burden 59
review, purpose of 12
risk 5, 64
roles 39
91
Index

S
safety, perceptions of 58
sampling, constraints on 56
satisfaction scales 54
scales, 53–4
Scandinavian level of living 17
search items, by database 13
search terms 13, 14
selection, of variables 61
self-assessment 2, 24
self-esteem 27
self-report instruments 53
social acceptability 24
social and political values and goals 18
social context 49
social factors, potential measures 71–3
social indicators 16
social mobility 9–10
social norms 48
social resources 48–9
social trends 10
social units, families as 9
sociological factors, potential measures
71–3
sociological studies, validity 51
special focus frameworks 5, 44–7
stability, of measures 62
standard of living, and quality of life 16, 21
Statistics New Zealand 57, 59
studies of wellbeing, more needed 66
subjective dimensions, lack of data 61
subjective perceptions 21
subjectivity 2, 17, 20, 25–6, 54–5
surveys, government 60
T
ten domains 42
theoretical basis 62
theoretical development 64, 66
theoretical models 3–4, 31–9, 49–50
transactions 34
transferability 53–5
U
UNICEF 9
unidimensionality 2, 21
United Kingdom, lack of data 7, 60–2
units of analysis 5–6, 33–7, 51, 64
units of observation 50–1
universality, of wellbeing domains 19
V
validity 6, 51–3, 57–8, 62, 65
value base 61
values 2, 18, 24–5, 43
variables 59
vulnerability, research participants 59
W
weighting 58
welfare-to-work 65
wellbeing
conceptual differences 2
construction 64
definition and interpretation 1–2, 18
within families 64
wellness, four kinds 26
work characteristics, categories 33
work-family domains 49
work–life balance 48
92
Index

The Family and Parenting Institute researches
what matters to families and parents. We use our
knowledge to influence policymakers and foster
public debate. We develop ideas to improve the
services families use and the environment in
which children grow up.
Interest in ‘wellbeing’ in the UK has tended to focus on the welfare of children,
or wellbeing at an individual, adult level, rather than on family wellbeing. But
with growing acknowledgement of the importance of the family to outcomes for
both children and adults there is increasing interest in finding ways of developing
a comprehensive, widely-accepted conceptual framework for measuring family
wellbeing. Such a framework is needed in order to build a reliable evidence base
of the constituents, causes and outcomes of family wellbeing, and to measure
the effectiveness of government policies designed to promote it.
Based on a wide-ranging examination of international research and other literature,
this review analyses current definitions, theoretical models, and measurement tools
and examines quality issues such as validity and transferability, as well as the
conceptual and practical measurement challenges posed by the study of family
wellbeing. It considers whether existing datasets and surveys could be used for
measuring family wellbeing and proposes future directions for family wellbeing
research in the UK. It also includes comprehensive appendices that detail the
many concepts and measures that have been identified in the literature.
This is an invaluable resource for policy makers, academics and all those in
interested in this complex and contested area.
Family and Parenting Institute
430 Highgate Studios
53–79 Highgate Road
London NW5 1TL
Tel 020 7424 3460
Fax 020 7485 3590
Email info@familyandparenting.org
Website www.familyandparenting.org
Free updates www.familyandparenting.org/keepupdated

Where now for parenting perspective on parenting, policy and practice report

Where now for parenting perspective on parenting, policy and practice report

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Where now for parenting perspective on parenting, policy and practice report

More from Family and Childcare Trust

Recently uploaded

Where now for parenting perspective on parenting, policy and practice report