Family Attitudes Questionnaire for Adolescents and Young Adults Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Not sure
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Not sure
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- Completely agree
- Agree
- Not sure
- Disagree
- Completely disagree
Family Attitudes Questionnaire for Adolescents and Young Adults Test - Description and methodology of the test
Designed for adolescents and young adults who want to reflect on home life, the Family Attitudes Questionnaire for Adolescents and Young Adults Test offers a structured way to consider whether family interactions feel supportive, strained, or distant. The result can serve as a family attitude assessment when a respondent is deciding which relationships or patterns deserve closer attention, without reducing the whole household to a single impression.
What This Assessment Explores
Everyday reactions frame this questionnaire. Its statements address withdrawal, conflict, understanding, responsibility, support, affection, and open discussion, showing how connected family interactions feel to the respondent.
Three thematic areas are interpreted through the single Family Life Attitude Index, not reported as separate subscales:
- Perceived understanding and openness show whether worries can be shared and support feels available.
- Family involvement reflects willingness to help with problems and add warmth at home.
- Withdrawal and conflict describe frustration, separation wishes, or making a scene when expectations feel difficult.
The Family Life Attitude Index (0-100) reflects satisfaction with family atmosphere and close-relative relationships. Low satisfaction (0-39) indicates possible difficulties or tension; Adequate satisfaction (40-100) indicates a positive perception, and scores below 40 are a reason for educational attention. Because this family relationships test captures only the respondent’s perspective, this is a snapshot of family functioning.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each statement uses five agreement options, from strong or complete agreement through uncertainty to strong or complete disagreement. The items describe familiar family situations, so the result reflects personal interpretation rather than observed behavior. The questionnaire displays that index, but it does not state how individual responses contribute to the result.
Conceptually, the structure is consistent with the Family Attitudes Questionnaire described by Duszynski and colleagues in 1983, but that published instrument is distinct from this online questionnaire. The questionnaire offers a family life assessment, but this version has no stated validation or standardization and provides no population norms.
The wording invites reflection on withdrawal, conflict, support, and openness, but it does not provide an observational check or a separate account from other family members. Agreement also captures the respondent’s interpretation of a situation, not its frequency or intensity. Self-report answers may shift with current conflict, mood, developmental change, or limited self-awareness, so the score is best read as a structured snapshot rather than a standalone explanation of family functioning.
- Duszynski, Karen Rose, John Whitcomb Shaffer, and Caroline Bedell Thomas. "Dimensions of Family Attitudes among Female Medical Students." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(3), 1983, 735-745. 10.1177/001316448304300307
- Moos, Rudolf H., and Bernice S. Moos. Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, Applications, Research. 3rd ed., Consulting Psychologists Press, 1994.
- Cox, Martha J., and Blair Paley. "Understanding Families as Systems." Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 2003, 193-196. 10.1111/1467-8721.01259
- Kazak, Anne E. "Commentary: Progress and Challenges in Evidence-based Family Assessment in Pediatric Psychology." Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 33(9), 2008, 1062-1064. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsn061
Updated: