68 DEBORAH J. THARINGER AND KEVIN STARK Mean Scores by Group Membership Mood disorder disorde n=13) Age(years) 1.211.6 64924.135.50283248 RCMAS 66.7564365.0077771006.1240.339,28 1952528.78132.36157221069220397.777.18 KSADS-Anxiety 1624220.52154.7215.07217.7544.43124.3824 2 Koppitz Emotional Indicators 3.00 2.22 2.64 1.86 2.13 1. 45 1.69 1.38 DAP Integrative System scor 4081.082641.573.061.182001.00 KFD Integrative System score 3.061.342461.33 Note. CDI =Children's Depression Inventory; RCMAs=Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale; KSADS= Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children; DAP= Draw-A- Person; KFD= Kinetic Family Drawing. and Cohesion Evaluation Scales(Olson, Bell, Portner, 1978), and the piece of paper I would like you to draw a whole person It can be ar Family Assessment Measure(Skinner, Steinhauer, Santa-Barbara, kind of person you want to draw, just make sure that it is a whole 98)as a result of a series ofinvestigations of the psychometric proper- person and not a stick figure or a cartoon figure ties of these measures. In its original form, the measure consists of Kinetic Family Drawing(KFD). For the KFD, paper was p three dimensions and 15 scales. Each scale consists of five items. the and the instructions consisted of On this piece of paper dra Relationship dimension, which captures the characteristics of the rela- ture of everyone in your family doing something. Draw whole tionships among family members, consists of the following six scales: not cartoon or stick people. Remember, make everyone doing some- Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict, thing: some kind of actio zation, and Disengagement. The value dimension, which represents s: Intellectual/c ural Orientation, Active/Recreational Orientation, and Moral/Re- Procedures ligious Emphasis. These scales were not of interest in this study and were not included in the present analyses. the third dimension, the A multiple-gate assessment procedure(Kendall, Hollon, Beck System Maintenance dimension, which reflects the management style Hammen, Ingram, 1987)was followed with parental permission of the parents and the family's perceptions about who controls their ecured at each step of the process consistent with the regulations of lives, consists of the following six scales: Organization, External Locus the Institutional Review boardofthe University Permission for partici of Control, Democratic Family Style, Laissez-Faire Family Style, Au- parents of 720 children, which represented 42% of the student popula thoritarian Family Style, and Enmeshment tion. The cDi and the rCMas were used to assess the children in (SRMFF-C)by simplifying the language in the directions and items, mission letter was sent home to the parents of the children who (a) removing double negatives, and simplifying the descriptive anchors to scored 19 or greater on the CDI(n=40), (b)received aTscore of 60or Never, Sometimes, and Always. Because theoriginalSRMFF was modi- greater on the RCMAS ( =62), or (c) exceeded the cutoff scores on fied and originally standar the 15 scales was examined (Stark, Humphrey, Lewis, Crook, 1990). participation in a second screening were received from 80%(=32)of score corn the children who reported depressive symptoms, 90%(=56)of the Disengagement, Laissez-Faire Family Style, and External Locus of children who reported anxious symptoms, and 95%(n=72)of the Control scales did not meet minimal psycho andards of reli- children who reported both depressive and anxious symptoms ability and were dropped Items 14, 22, 25, and 5I also were droppe Parents of the children who once again scored 19 or greater on the because of unacceptable item-to-total score correlations. Conse. CDI (n=8), 60 or greater on the RCMAS(n-35), or above the cutoff quently, the aforementioned unacceptable scales and items were not scores on both(= 69 )received a third letter requesting permission to included in the present analyses. The internal consistency reliability of interview their child. within 10 days, permission was received from the nine rem scales of interest was Cohesion, ,a=69; Expressive- 93%(n= 104)of the parents, and each child was individually inter ness,'= 78: Conflict, r..66: Organization, .53: Family Sociabi- viewed with the K-SADS. Doctoral psychology students, unaware of Idealization, r=70; Democratic Family Style, r subjects CDl and RCMAS scores, conducted the K-SADS interview 73; Authoritarian Family Style, /= 50; Enmeshment, Ta=51. A more Prior to the actual interviews, they were trained until they reached a thorough discussion of the development and psychometric evaluation criterion of90% agreement on the symptom ratings. Interviews ofallof of the SRMFF-C can be found in Stark et al. ( 1990) the subjects were audiotaped. One-fourth of the tapes were randomly Draw-A-Person(DAP). For the administration of the DAP, the chil- selected and re-rated as a reliability check. The average percentage of dren were provided with two sheets of white typing paper and a pencil agreement for the depression symptoms was 87.5%, and the averag with an eraser, and the following instructions were given. "On your percentage of agreement for the anxiety symptoms was 93.6% as a368 DEBORAH J. THARINGER AND KEVIN STARK Table 2 Mean Scores by Group Membership Group Mood disorder Oi-12) Anxiety disorder (»=H) Mood/anxiety disorder (n=16) Control (» = 13) Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD Age (years) CDI RCMAS KSADS-Depression KSADS-Anxiety 2 Koppitz Emotional Indicators 2 Reynolds Emotional Indicators DAP Integrative System score KFD Integrative System score 11.5 25.17 66.75 195.25 162.42 3.00 5.00 4.08 4.00 1.2 9.71 6.43 28.78 20.52 2.22 2.05 1.08 1.13 11.6 20.18 65.00 132.36 154.72 2.64 5.91 2.64 2.64 1.5 6.49 7.77 15.72 15.07 1.86 2.30 1.57 1.69 11.9 24.13 71.00 210.69 217.75 2.13 5.94 3.06 3.06 1.5 5.50 6.12 22.03 44.43 1.45 2.67 1.18 1.34 12.0 2.83 40.33 97.77 124.38 1.69 5.15 2.00 2.46 1.3 2.48 9.28 7.18 2.47 1.38 1.82 1.00 1.33 Note. CDI = Children's Depression Inventory; RCMAS = Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale; KSADS = Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children; DAP = Draw-A￾Person; KFD = Kinetic Family Drawing. and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978), and the Family Assessment Measure (Skinner, Steinhauer, & Santa-Barbara, 1983) as a result of a series of investigations of the psychometric proper￾ties of these measures. In its original form, the measure consists of three dimensions and 15 scales. Each scale consists of five items. The Relationship dimension, which captures the characteristics of the rela￾tionships among family members, consists of the following six scales: Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict, Family Sociability, Family Ideal￾ization, and Disengagement. The Value dimension, which represents family values, consists of the following three scales: Intellectual/Cul￾tural Orientation, Active/Recreational Orientation, and Moral/Re￾ligious Emphasis. These scales were not of interest in this study and were not included in the present analyses. The third dimension, the System Maintenance dimension, which reflects the management style of the parents and the family's perceptions about who controls their lives, consists of the following six scales: Organization, External Locus of Control, Democratic Family Style, Laissez-Faire Family Style, Au￾thoritarian Family Style, and Enmeshment. The wording of the original SRMFF was modified for children (SRMFF-C) by simplifying the language in the directions and items, removing double negatives, and simplifying the descriptive anchors to Never, Sometimes, and Always. Because theoriginal SRMFF was modi￾fied and originally standardized on college students, the reliability of the 15 scales was examined (Stark, Humphrey, Lewis, & Crook, 1990). Using internal consistency and item-to-total score correlations, the Disengagement, Laissez-Faire Family Style, and External Locus of Control scales did not meet minimal psychometric standards of reli￾ability and were dropped. Items 14, 22, 25, and 51 also were dropped because of unacceptable item-to-total score correlations. Conse￾quently, the aforementioned unacceptable scales and items were not included in the present analyses. The internal consistency reliability of the nine remaining scales of interest was Cohesion, ra = .69; Expressive￾ness, r, = .78; Conflict, ra = .66; Organization, ra = .53; Family Sociabi￾lity, r, = .54; Family Idealization, ra = .70; Democratic Family Style, ra = .73; Authoritarian Family Style, /•„ = .50; Enmeshment, r, = .51. A more thorough discussion of the development and psychometric evaluation of the SRMFF-C can be found in Stark et al. (1990). Draw-A-Person (DAP). For the administration of the DAP, the chil￾dren were provided with two sheets of white typing paper and a pencil with an eraser, and the following instructions were given. "On your piece of paper I would like you to draw a whole person. It can be any kind of person you want to draw, just make sure that it is a whole person and not a stick figure or a cartoon figure." Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD). For the KFD, paper was provided and the instructions consisted of "On this piece of paper, draw a pic￾ture of everyone in your family doing something. Draw whole people, not cartoon or stick people. Remember, make everyone doing some￾thing; some kind of action." Procedures A multiple-gate assessment procedure (Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987) was followed with parental permission secured at each step of the process consistent with the regulations of the Institutional Review Board of the University. Permission for partici￾pation in the initial screening portion of the study was secured from parents of 720 children, which represented 42% of the student popula￾tion. The CDI and the RCMAS were used to assess the children in large groups for symptoms of depression and anxiety. A second per￾mission letter was sent home to the parents of the children who (a) scored 19 or greater on the CDI (« = 40), (b) received a rscore of 60 or greater on the RCMAS (n = 62), or (c) exceeded the cutoff scores on both measures (n = 76). Parental permission and child assent for participation in a second screening were received from 80% (n = 32) of the children who reported depressive symptoms, 90% (n = 56) of the children who reported anxious symptoms, and 95% (n = 72) of the children who reported both depressive and anxious symptoms. Parents of the children who once again scored 19 or greater on the CDI (n = 8), 60 or greater on the RCMAS (n = 35), or above the cutoff scores on both (n = 69) received a third letter requesting permission to interview their child. Within 10 days, permission was received from 93% (n = 104) of the parents, and each child was individually inter￾viewed with the K-SADS. Doctoral psychology students, unaware of subjects' CDI and RCMAS scores, conducted the K-SADS interviews. Prior to the actual interviews, they were trained until they reached a criterion of 90% agreement on the symptom ratings. Interviews of all of the subjects were audiotaped. One-fourth of the tapes were randomly selected and re-rated as a reliability check. The average percentage of agreement for the depression symptoms was 87.5%, and the average percentage of agreement for the anxiety symptoms was 93.6%. As a