Home1
Psychological tests2
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES III)3

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES III) Test

In eight minutes, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES III) Test uses 40 questions to explore how a family manages closeness, roles, rules, decision-making, and change. Results highlight areas of alignment or tension between current family life and desired patterns, supporting thoughtful self-reflection and constructive discussion.

Questions: 408 minutes

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation: sample question card

October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published

35,835 views

3,960 completions

3,292 likes

Daniel Hall Psychologist · Test reviewer

3,292 likes

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Rules (Ideal–Actual Discrepancy)RAD

Measures the size of the gap between how structured and stable family rules are in reality versus how they are ideally desired to be.

example score6/10

6/10Moderate gapexample score

0 – 3Low gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10High gap

A score of 6 indicates a moderate discrepancy between desired and actual family rules, suggesting some dissatisfaction with how formalized or stable the norms feel.

Roles (Ideal–Actual Discrepancy)RAD

Measures the gap between the family’s desired and actual distribution of roles and responsibilities.

example score5/10

5/10Moderate mismatchexample score

0 – 3Low mismatch

4 – 6Moderate mismatch

7 – 10High mismatch

A score of 5 indicates a moderate mismatch between preferred and current family roles, suggesting some dissatisfaction with how responsibilities are allocated.

Discipline (Ideal-Actual Discrepancy)DAD

Measures the gap between how much discipline the family wants and how much discipline it experiences in everyday life.

example score3/10

3/10Low gapexample score

0 – 3Low gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10High gap

A score of 3 indicates a low discrepancy between desired and actual family discipline, suggesting generally acceptable order and consistency with only minor unmet expectations.

Control (Ideal-Real Discrepancy)CRD

Measures the gap between the family’s desired and current level of control and regulation in daily life.

example score7/10

7/10High gapexample score

0 – 3Low gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10High gap

A score of 7 indicates a high mismatch between desired and current family control, suggesting notable dissatisfaction with how regulated family life feels.

Leadership (Ideal-Actual Discrepancy)LAD

Measures the size of the gap between desired and actual leadership (guidance and responsibility distribution) within the family.

example score7/10

7/10Large gapexample score

0 – 3Small gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10Large gap

A score of 7 indicates a large ideal-versus-reality gap in family leadership, suggesting notable dissatisfaction with how guidance or responsibilities are currently organized compared with what is desired.

Family Adaptability Discrepancy (Ideal vs. Actual)FADvA

Measures the discrepancy between perceived current and desired family adaptability, indicating satisfaction with the family’s flexibility under stress.

example score7/40

7/40Ideal exceeds realityexample score

-40 – -1Reality exceeds ideal

0No gap

1 – 40Ideal exceeds reality

A score of 7 indicates a small-to-moderate gap where the desired level of family adaptability is higher than the current perception, suggesting some dissatisfaction with flexibility.

Interests and Recreation (Ideal–Actual Discrepancy)IaRAD

Measures the size of the gap between desired and actual shared interests and leisure time in the family.

example score3/10

3/10Low gapexample score

0 – 3Low gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10High gap

A score of 3 indicates a low gap, suggesting the family's current shared interests and leisure time are fairly close to what is desired.

Friends (Ideal-Actual Discrepancy)FAD

Measures the gap between desired and actual family involvement in friendships, indicating how aligned social connectedness feels to the respondent.

example score3/10

3/10Low discrepancyexample score

0 – 3Low discrepancy

4 – 6Moderate discrepancy

7 – 10High discrepancy

A score of 3 suggests a low discrepancy between the desired and actual level of friendship involvement in the family, indicating generally aligned expectations.

Time (Ideal-Actual Discrepancy)TAD

Measures the size of the gap between actual and desired time spent together as a family.

example score6/10

6/10Moderate gapexample score

0 – 3Small gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10Large gap

A score of 6 indicates a moderate discrepancy between current and preferred family time together, suggesting some dissatisfaction with this aspect of family life.

Decision-Making (Ideal-Actual Discrepancy)DMAD

Measures how large the gap is between desired and actual involvement in family decision-making.

example score5/10

5/10Moderate gapexample score

0 – 3Low gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10High gap

A score of 5 falls in the Moderate gap range, suggesting a noticeable mismatch between preferred and current participation in family decisions.

Family Boundaries (Ideal-Actual Discrepancy)FBAD

Measures how large the gap is between desired and actual family boundaries and personal space.

example score8/10

8/10Large gapexample score

0 – 3Small gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10Large gap

A score of 8 indicates a large gap between ideal and current family boundaries, suggesting notable dissatisfaction with personal space or boundary clarity.

Emotional Bonding Discrepancy (Ideal vs. Actual)EBDvA

Measures the gap between desired and current emotional closeness in the family, indicating how satisfied a person is with family cohesion.

example score2/10

2/10Low gapexample score

0 – 3Low gap

4 – 6Moderate gap

7 – 10High gap

A score of 2 indicates a low ideal–reality gap, suggesting the current emotional connection is close to what is desired.

Family Cohesion Discrepancy (Ideal vs. Actual)FCDvA

Measures the gap between ideal and current family cohesion, indicating how closely expectations about emotional closeness match perceived reality.

example score18/40

18/40Ideal > reality cohesionexample score

-40 – -1Reality > ideal cohesion

0Aligned expectations

1 – 40Ideal > reality cohesion

A score of 18 indicates that the desired level of emotional closeness is notably higher than what is currently perceived, suggesting dissatisfaction with present family cohesion.

RulesR

Rules measure how formalized, stable, and binding behavioral norms are within the family system.

example score9/10

9/10Strictexample score

0 – 3Flexible

4 – 7Balanced

8 – 10Strict

A score of 9 suggests very strict, strongly enforced family rules that emphasize order and consistency but may limit flexibility under stress.

RolesR

Roles measure how clearly and consistently responsibilities and family functions are distributed among members.

example score6/10

6/10Mostly defined rolesexample score

0 – 3Unclear roles

4 – 7Mostly defined roles

8 – 10Well-defined roles

A score of 6 suggests that roles are generally allocated and understood, though some situations may still require clarification or renegotiation.

DisciplineD

Discipline measures how consistent, structured, and predictable family behavior and rules are in everyday life.

example score3/10

3/10Low structureexample score

0 – 3Low structure

4 – 7Moderate structure

8 – 10High structure

A score of 3 suggests low structure, with family routines and rules tending to be less consistent and predictable.

ControlC

Control reflects how strongly family members’ behavior is regulated by rules and expectations versus allowed to be spontaneous and free.

example score4/10

4/10Moderate controlexample score

0 – 3Low control

4 – 6Moderate control

7 – 10High control

A score of 4 indicates moderate control, suggesting a balance between clear rules and room for flexibility and spontaneity in family interactions.

LeadershipL

Leadership measures how clearly guidance and responsibility are organized within the family system.

example score4/10

4/10Moderate leadershipexample score

0 – 3Low leadership

4 – 6Moderate leadership

7 – 10High leadership

A score of 4 indicates moderate leadership, suggesting some guidance is present but roles and responsibility may not be consistently defined.

Family Adaptability LevelFAL

Assesses how flexibly a family system can adjust roles and rules to cope with change and stress.

example score18/50

18/50Rigidexample score

10 – 21Rigid

22 – 30Balanced

31 – 50Chaotic

A score of 18 falls in the Rigid range, suggesting the family tends to respond to stress with limited flexibility and slower changes to established rules or roles.

Interests and RecreationIaR

Measures the extent to which family members share common interests and spend leisure time together.

example score6/10

6/10Some shared interestsexample score

0 – 3Disconnected leisure

4 – 7Some shared interests

8 – 10Strong shared leisure

A score of 6 suggests the family has a moderate level of shared interests and leisure time, with connection present but not consistently maintained.

FriendsF

Measures how much the family is socially connected through friendships outside the family, from isolation to many shared friends.

example score3/10

3/10Low involvementexample score

0 – 3Low involvement

4 – 7Moderate involvement

8 – 10High involvement

A score of 3 suggests low family involvement in friendships outside the family, indicating relatively limited shared social connections.

TimeT

Assesses how much time family members spend together as an indicator of connectedness versus disconnection.

example score4/10

4/10Moderate shared timeexample score

0 – 3Low shared time

4 – 7Moderate shared time

8 – 10High shared time

A score of 4 suggests a moderate level of shared family time, indicating some togetherness alongside noticeable periods of separation.

Decision MakingDM

Measures how much family members participate in shared discussion and collective decision-making.

example score7/10

7/10Moderate shared decision-makingexample score

0 – 3Low shared decision-making

4 – 7Moderate shared decision-making

8 – 10High shared decision-making

A score of 7 suggests decisions are typically discussed together, though some choices may still be made independently by individual family members.

Family BoundariesFB

Measures how clearly personal space and autonomy are separated among family members, reflecting the clarity of family boundaries.

example score2/10

2/10Blurred boundariesexample score

0 – 3Blurred boundaries

4 – 7Moderately clear boundaries

8 – 10Clear boundaries

A score of 2 falls in the “Blurred boundaries” range, suggesting relatively limited separation of personal space and autonomy among family members.

Emotional BondingEB

Emotional connection measures the degree of emotional closeness, mutual support, and attachment among family members.

example score6/10

6/10Moderate connectionexample score

0 – 3Low connection

4 – 7Moderate connection

8 – 10High connection

A score of 6 indicates a moderate level of emotional closeness and support, suggesting connection is present while still allowing some interpersonal distance.

Family Cohesion LevelFCL

Measures the degree of emotional closeness and bonding among family members.

example score34/50

34/50Lower cohesionexample score

10 – 36Lower cohesion

37 – 42Connected

43 – 50Very high cohesion

A score of 34 falls in the Lower cohesion range, suggesting comparatively more emotional distance and autonomy among family members at present.

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Couples in relationship strain

41%OF USERS

Partners take it to understand emotional closeness, conflict patterns, and how flexibly their family system responds to stress.

Parents navigating transitions

34%OF USERS

Parents use it during major changes (new baby, divorce, relocation, adolescence) to see what needs to shift in roles and connection.

Family therapy and counseling clients

25%OF USERS

Families in counseling complete it to compare how things are versus how they want them to be and set clear therapy goals.

BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.

Shaded area — where most people score

Dot — the average

You — your score lands on each curve after the test— your score, after the test

Rules (Ideal vs. Reality Gap)RvRG

You?

Average4.5

Typical rangeTypical2.9 – 6.2

Possible0 – 10

Roles (difference between ideal and reality)Rbiar

You?

Average5

Typical rangeTypical3.5 – 6.4

Possible0 – 10

Discipline (gap between ideal and reality)Dbiar

You?

Average6.9

Typical rangeTypical5.4 – 8.5

Possible0 – 10

Control (difference between ideal and reality)Cbiar

You?

Average6.1

Typical rangeTypical4.6 – 7.5

Possible0 – 10

Leadership (Ideal vs. Reality Gap)LvRG

You?

Average5.5

Typical rangeTypical4 – 6.9

Possible0 – 10

Family Adaptation (Ideal-Reality Gap)FAG

You?

Average-10.8

Typical rangeTypical-21.6 – 0

Possible-40 – 40

Interests and Leisure (Ideal vs. Reality Gap)IaLvRG

You?

Average3.5

Typical rangeTypical1.8 – 5.2

Possible0 – 10

Friends (the gap between ideal and reality)Fgbiar

You?

Average7.4

Typical rangeTypical5.8 – 9

Possible0 – 10

Time (difference between ideal and reality)Tbiar

You?

Average5.2

Typical rangeTypical3.7 – 6.7

Possible0 – 10

Decision Making (The Gap Between Ideal and Reality)DMGBIaR

You?

Average5.1

Typical rangeTypical3.7 – 6.6

Possible0 – 10

Family Boundaries (The Gap Between Ideal and Reality)FBGBIaR

You?

Average7.3

Typical rangeTypical5.9 – 8.7

Possible0 – 10

Emotional Connection (the Ideal-Reality Gap)ECIG

You?

Average3.2

Typical rangeTypical1.7 – 4.7

Possible0 – 10

Family cohesion (gap between ideal and reality)Fcbiar

You?

Average3.4

Typical rangeTypical-6.5 – 13.3

Possible-40 – 40

RulesR

You?

Average6.4

Typical rangeTypical4.9 – 7.9

Possible0 – 10

RolesR

You?

Average5.3

Typical rangeTypical3.9 – 6.6

Possible0 – 10

DisciplineD

You?

Average7.2

Typical rangeTypical5.9 – 8.4

Possible0 – 10

ControlC

You?

Average2.8

Typical rangeTypical1.5 – 4.1

Possible0 – 10

LeadershipL

You?

Average3.8

Typical rangeTypical2.1 – 5.5

Possible0 – 10

Level of Family AdaptationLoFA

You?

Average27.8

Typical rangeTypical22 – 33.6

Possible10 – 50

Interests and LeisureIaL

You?

Average7.1

Typical rangeTypical5.5 – 8.8

Possible0 – 10

FriendsF

You?

Average6

Typical rangeTypical4.1 – 7.9

Possible0 – 10

TimeT

You?

Average5.3

Typical rangeTypical3.7 – 7

Possible0 – 10

Decision MakingDM

You?

Average4.7

Typical rangeTypical3.3 – 6.1

Possible0 – 10

Family BoundariesFB

You?

Average3.9

Typical rangeTypical2.3 – 5.5

Possible0 – 10

Emotional connectionEc

You?

Average6.9

Typical rangeTypical5.4 – 8.4

Possible0 – 10

Level of Family CohesionLoFC

You?

Average28.1

Typical rangeTypical22.3 – 33.9

Possible10 – 50

Featured On

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

The questionnaire consists of two parts. First 20 items: Please describe your actual family (spouses, children). Read each statement and rate it using the scale provided. Next 20 items: Now, please describe the ideal family—the one you would wish for. Read each statement and rate it using the scale provided.

- Almost never
- Rarely
- From time to time
- Often
- Almost always
- Almost never
- Rarely
- From time to time
- Often
- Almost always
- Almost never
- Rarely
- From time to time
- Often
- Almost always

These are 3 of the 40 real questions — the rest appear in the test. No sign-up needed to start.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES III) Test - Description and methodology of the test

family adaptation

family

Families wanting a structured view of closeness, flexibility, and everyday coordination can use the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III (FACES III) Test to compare current patterns with preferred ones. As a family cohesion test, it helps readers notice where expectations and lived experience align or diverge around communication, responsibility, boundaries, and shared decisions.

What This Assessment Explores

The questionnaire examines cohesion, or emotional closeness, and adaptability, or the capacity to adjust rules, roles, leadership, and discipline. Ideal-actual comparisons show whether preferred patterns differ from perceived reality; larger gaps may indicate dissatisfaction, while smaller gaps suggest alignment. Viewed as a family adaptability assessment, it also considers shared activity, decision-making, and personal boundaries.

Key result areas are:

Cohesion shows emotional connection and independence; Family Cohesion Level is 10-50, labelled Lower cohesion 10-36, Connected 37-42, or Very high cohesion 43-50.
Adaptability shows response to change; Family Adaptability Level is 10-50: Rigid 10-21, Balanced 22-30, or Chaotic 31-50.
Rules, discipline, control, leadership, and roles describe order and responsibility, with results on 0-10 ranges.
Interests, recreation, friends, and time describe shared participation, also using 0-10 ranges.
Decision-making and family boundaries describe collective choice and personal space through 0-10 results.

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Each item uses five ordered response options, from almost never to almost always. The questionnaire separates actual from ideal responses, then presents domain scores and ideal-actual discrepancies. Interpretation follows score ranges and labels; answer-point contributions should not be inferred beyond that scoring.

The method is traceable to FACES III (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985), a published instrument within the Circumplex Model. In this FACES III questionnaire, cohesion and adaptability are considered with related family processes rather than read as isolated traits.

Olson (1986) reports validation work for the instrument and model, while Green, Harris, Forte, and Robinson (1991) evaluate FACES III across 2,440 families. Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell (1979) provide the model of cohesion, adaptability, and family types. These sources give research context, but the online version should not be assumed to reproduce their exact norms, administration conditions, or psychometric estimates.

Results are best read as a current self-report profile. Family stress, viewpoint, memory, and willingness to answer openly can affect responses, and discrepancy labels describe perceived alignment or dissatisfaction rather than a clinical diagnosis.

Author: David H. Olson, Joyce Portner, Yoav Lavee

Literature:

Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex Model VII: Validation Studies and FACES III. Family Process, 25(3), 337-351. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1986.00337.x
Green, R. G., Harris, R. N., Forte, J. A., & Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating FACES III and the Circumplex Model: 2,440 Families. Family Process, 30(1), 55-73. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1991.00055.x
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: I. Cohesion and Adaptability Dimensions, Family Types, and Clinical Applications. Family Process, 18(1), 3-28. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00003.x

Updated: 2025-10-02