Kontakt 2024, 26(1):69-76 | DOI: 10.32725/kont.2023.045

Perceived functioning of the family system in professional foster familiesSociální vědy ve zdraví - původní práce

Elena Gažiková1, Gabriela Šeboková1, Martina Mojtová1, Alena Hricová2, Michal Kozubík1, 3, *
1 Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care, Nitra, Slovak Republic
2 University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Institute of Social and Special-paedagogical Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
3 University Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Community & Occupational Medicine, Groningen, The Netherlands

Aim: The aim of this study was to analyse the differences in the perception of the functioning of the family system between professional foster parents, their life partners, biological children, and children placed in professional foster families.

Methods: The sample consisted of 401 respondents. The functioning of the family system was measured using the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale - FACES IV. The Family Communication Scale and the Family Satisfaction Scale were administered to assess communication and satisfaction with the family system.

Results: The results of the statistical analyses did not confirm differences in the perception of the functioning of the family system between professional foster parents and their life partners, nor between the biological children of professional foster parents and children placed in professional foster families. Professional foster parents and children placed in professional foster families differed statistically significantly in balanced cohesion. Professional foster parents and their biological children differed statistically significantly in their perception of disengaged cohesion. Partners of professional foster parents and children placed in professional foster families differed in their perception of family adaptability, with children in professional foster families perceiving family functioning as more rigid compared to partners of professional foster parents. The results also indicated that biological children perceived family cohesion as more disengaged than partners of professional foster parents.

Conclusion: Understanding the functioning of the family system of professional families is important in effectively applying a systems approach when working with this target group.

Klíčová slova: Family adaptability; Family cohesion; Family communication; Family system; Olson's circular model; Professional foster family
Granty a financováni:

This paper was written as part of the project VEGA No.1/0868/21 "The use of selected elements of the systems approach in the context of professional families".

Střet zájmů:

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Vloženo: 12. září 2023; Revidováno: 27. říjen 2023; Přijato: 5. prosinec 2023; Zveřejněno online: 5. prosinec 2023; Zveřejněno: 15. březen 2024  Zobrazit citaci

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Gažiková E, Šeboková G, Mojtová M, Hricová A, Kozubík M. Perceived functioning of the family system in professional foster families. Kontakt. 2024;26(1):69-76. doi: 10.32725/kont.2023.045.
Stáhnout citaci

Reference

  1. Baiocco R, Cacioppo M, Laghi F, Tafà M (2013). Factorial and Construct Validity of FACES IV Among Italian Adolescents. J Child Fam Stud 22(7): 962-970. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-012-9658-1. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  2. Becvar DS, Becvar RJ (2018). Systems Theory and Family Therapy: A primer. Hamilton Books, 106 p.
  3. Berg IK (1992). Posílení rodiny. Příručka krátké terapie. Praha: Institut pro systemickou zkušenost, 138 p.
  4. Bokhorst CL, Sumter SR, Westenberg PM (2009). Social Support from Parents, Friends, Classmates, and Teachers in Children and Adolescents aged 9 to 18 Years: Who is Perceived as Most Supportive? Soc Dev 19(2): 417-426. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00540. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  5. Boyraz, G, Sayger TV (2011). Psychological Well-Being Among Fathers of Children With and Without Disabilities: The Role of Family Cohesion, Adaptability, and Paternal Self-Efficacy. Am J Mens Health 5(4): 286-296. DOI: 10.1177/1557988310372538. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  6. Burns BJ, Phillips SD, Wagner HR, Barth RP, Kolko DJ, Campbell Y, Landsverk J (2004). Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: A national survey. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 43(8): 960-970. DOI: 10.1097/01.chi.0000127590.95585.65. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  7. Craddock AE (2001). Family System and Family Functioning: Circumplex Model and FACES IV. J Fam Stud 7(1): 29-39. DOI: 10.5172/jfs.7.1.29. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  8. Cumsille PE, Epstein N (1994). Family cohesion, family adaptability, social support, and adolescent depressive symptoms in outpatient clinic families. J Fam Psychol 8(2): 202-214. DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.8.2.202. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  9. Degarmo J (2013). The Foster Parenting Manual: A Practical Guide to Creating a Loving, Safe and Stable Home. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 160 p.
  10. Doležalová P, Červenka K, Vojtová V (2022). Attachment of vulnerable adolescents in residential facilities in the Czech Republic. Kontakt 24(1): 92-97. DOI: 10.32725/kont.2021.042. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  11. Everri M, Caricati L, Mancini T, Messena M, Fruggeri L (2020). Italina Validation of Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale (FACES IV) Short Version for Adolescents: SAD_FACES. J Child Fam Stud 29(9): 2507-2514. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-020-01771-9. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  12. Feldman SS, Gehring TM (1988). Changing Perceptions of Family Cohesion and Power across Adolescence. Child Development 59(4): 1034-1046. DOI: 10.2307/1130269. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  13. Gomes HS, Gouveia-Pereira M (2019). Testing the General Theory of Crime with the Circumplex Model: Curvilinear Relations between Family Functioning and Self-Control. Deviant Behav 41(6): 779-791. DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2019.1596449. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  14. Graham PJ (2004). The end of adolescence. New York: Oxford University Press, 268 p. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  15. Gupta G, Bowie CR (2016). Family cohesion and flexibility in early episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry 12(5): 886-892. DOI: 10.1111/eip.12384. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  16. Keil V, Price JM (2006). Externalizing behavior disorders in child welfare settings: Definition, prevalence, and implications for assessment and treatment. Child Youth Serv Rev 28(7): 761-779. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.08.006. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  17. Kelly W (2017). Understanding Children in Foster Care: Identifying and addressing what children learn from maltreatment. Palgrave Macmillan, 232 p. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  18. Kirton D (2012). Step forward? Step back? Professionalisation of fostering. Social Work and Social Sciences 13(1): 6-24. DOI: 10.1921/swssr.v13i1.465. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  19. Kouneski EF (2000). The family circumplex model, faces II, and faces III: Overview of research and applications. Minnesota: Department of Family Social Science.
  20. Macek P (2003). Adolescence. Praha: Portál, 144 p.
  21. Merkel WT, Searight HR (1992). Why families are not like swamps, solar systems, or thermostats: some limits of systems theory as applied to family therapy. Contemp Fam Ther 14(1): 33-50. DOI: 10.1007/BF00891748. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  22. Minuchin S (1974). Families & Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 268 p. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  23. Montgomery J, Fewer J (1988). Family systems and beyond. New York: Human Science Press, 197 p.
  24. Navrátilová J, Navrátil P, Punová M (2021). The Well-being of Children and Young People: The Context of Social Services from the Perspective of the Capability Approach. Clin Soc Work Health Intervent 12(4): 49-61. DOI: 10.22359/cswhi_12_4_06. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  25. Noller P, Callan VJ (1986). Adolescent and parent perceptions of family cohesion and adaptability. J Adolesc 9(1): 97-106. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-1971(86)80030-6. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  26. Olecká I, Pospíšil J, Trochtová L (2023). Přenos vzorců chování souvisejících se zneužíváním alkoholu z rodičů na dětiv české populaci. Kontakt 25(2):138-146. DOI: 10.32725/kont.2023.020. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  27. Olson DH (1993). Family Continuity and Change. A Family Life-Cycle Perspective. In: Brubaker TH (Ed.). Family Relations. Challenges for the Future. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc., pp. 17-40. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  28. Olson DH (2010). FACES IV Manual. Minnesota: Life Innovations, Inc., 23 p.
  29. Olson DH, Barnes H (2004). Family Communication. Minnesota: Life Innovations.
  30. Olson DH, Gorall DM (2003). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. In: Walsh F (Ed.). Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. The Guilford Press, pp. 514-548. DOI: 10.4324/9780203428436_chapter_19. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  31. Patterson JM (2002). Understanding family resilience. J Clin Psychol 58(3): 233-246. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.10019. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  32. Pereira GM, Teixeira, RJ (2013). Portuguese validation of FACES-IV in adult children caregivers facing parental cancer. Contemp Fam Ther 35 (3): 478-490. DOI: 10.1007/s10591-012-9216-4. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  33. Popelková M, Šeboková G (2015). Rodinný systém a jeho miesto vo vývine adolescentov. Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre, 137 p.
  34. Prange ME, Greenbaum PE, Silver SE, Friedman RM, Kutash K, Duchnowski AJ (1992). Family functioning and psychopathology among adolescents with severe emotional disturbances. J Abnorm Child Psychol 20(1): 83-102. DOI: 10.1007/BF00927118. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  35. Rosnati R, Iafrate R, Scabini E, (2007). Parent-adolescent communication in foster, inter-country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences. Int J Psychol 42(1): 36-45. DOI: 10.1080/00207590500412128. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  36. Sarour EOA, El Khesky ES (2021). Investigating the Psychometric Properties of Arabic Version of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV (FACES IV) in Saudi Arabia. J Fam Issues 43(10): 2767-2787. DOI: 10.1177/0192513X211033936. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  37. Sentse M, Laird RD (2010). Parent-child relationship and dyadic friendship experiences as predictors of behavior problems in early adolescence. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 39(6): 873-884. DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2010.517160. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  38. Stace S, Lowe K (2009). Reducing risks for young people in foster care. A UK study: Research report. Brighton: TSA Publishing Ltd., 116 p.
  39. Trommsdorff G, Schwarz B (2007). The 'Intergenerational Stake Hypothesis' in Indonesia and Germany: Adult Daughters´and their Mothers´ Perception of their Relationship. Curr Sociol 55(4): 599-620. DOI: 10.1177/0011392107077641. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  40. Vágnerová M (2012). Vývinová psychologie: Dětství a dospívání. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, 536 p.
  41. Walsh F (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  42. Watzlawick P, Bavelas JB, Jackson DD (1999). Pragmatika lidské komunikace: interakční vzorce, patologie a paradoxy. Hradec Králové: Konfrontace, 243 p.

Tento článek je publikován v režimu tzv. otevřeného přístupu k vědeckým informacím (Open Access), který je distribuován pod licencí Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), která umožňuje nekomerční distribuci, reprodukci a změny, pokud je původní dílo řádně ocitováno. Není povolena distribuce, reprodukce nebo změna, která není v souladu s podmínkami této licence.