Filial Responsibility Expectation Vignette (Filiale Zorg Verwachtingen Vignet)
LASA filenames:
LASAD074 / LASAD274
Contact: Theo van Tilburg
Background
The filial responsibility expectations vignette scale is developed by Van der Pas, Van Tilburg & Knipscheer (2005). Filial responsibility expectations refer to expectations, which indicate a sense of adult children’s obligations towards their parents and of which the fulfilment may contribute to the parents’ well-being. This attitude emphasises care, contact, protection and support. The filial responsibility expectation vignette is an adjusted version of Brody et al. (1984). The development and testing of the filial responsibility expectations vignette and item-scale are described in Van der Pas, van Tilburg and Knipscheer (2005).
The item scores were collected by means of a face-to-face interview.
Measurement instrument in LASA
The vignette items
The vignette technique was used in a face-to-face interview and consists of four vignettes. Each vignette is directed to a specific child (Mary, Sophia, Emily or John) and has five questions, except one with four questions. The question on adjusting the work schedule was not asked for Sophia, the non-working child. The vignettes are preceded by an introduction. Paragraphs in italics are instructions for the interviewer. The respondent is given a show card, with the vignette questions and characteristics of the four children.
The questionnaire is programmed sex-specifically. If the respondent is female, “widow”, Mrs Hendriks” respectively, “her” has been incorporated in the question, otherwise “widower”, “Mr Hendriks” and “him”.
The sequence of the four vignettes is randomly chosen.
Frequency
The five questions concerning the first child are always asked in sequence. The respondent could answer each question with ‘no’ or ‘yes’. After having answered the questions on the first child, the respondent may state that the expectations towards the second child are the same as towards the first. In this case the interviewer is given the opportunity to code this answer as ‘equal to the previous child’. When this answer is recorded, questions regarding this child are skipped and the same answers are applied as given for the first child. If the respondent expresses having the same expectations towards the third and fourth child, the interviewer is similarly given the opportunity to code an answer ‘equal to the previous child’. The possibility to code the answer ‘equal to others’ is continuously available in case a respondent answers with ‘no’ or ‘yes’ and the pattern of answers is identical to the answers on questions asked about the previous children. The possibility to code the answer ‘equal to others’ disappears when a divergent answer is given, for example, when a respondent answers ‘yes’ on the first question on the first child and answers ‘no’ on that question for a subsequent child. In such case, all questions concerning the subsequent children are still asked.
Frequency of children’s equality
Interviewer: The underlined sections in the text should be read with emphasis.
Introduction
Parents expect different things from their children. This may change, as parents grow older. We are interested in your opinion of these expectations, whether you have children, have had children, or have never had children. We will now present you with a family situation, which we have made up. Try to imagine you are in this situation. Please tell us what your opinion would be in this situation?
You can answer each question with YES or NO
Interviewer: Answering options are: 0 = no answer, 1= N0, 2 = YES, 3 = don’t know. Only offer YES or NO. [Possible answers: (0) no answer, (1) no, (2) yes, (3) don’t know, (4) equal to the previous child]
| Possible reactions of respondents | Instruction |
|---|---|
| 'The situation is unclear'. 'I need more information' etc. | Additional information should not be given, such as that Mr./Mrs. Hendriks' children have enough money to mobilise (extra) professional care. Also, no specification should be given of the reason why care is needed or what 'relatively close' implies, etc. |
| 'All my children are equal' | This is a legitimate answer. For the first fictitious child (i.e., for example John in a specific sequence) all the questions should be answered. For the questions concerning the following children (e.g. Mary, Sophia and Evelyn) the programme offers an extra answer (4). As soon as a deviating answer is given, this answer option disappears. |
| 'What do you mean by adjustment of the home situation?' | The following examples can be given: hand over responsibilities to others; temporarily postpone activities. |
| 'What is meant by adjustment of the work situation?' | The following examples can be given: work less overtime; temporarily work less hours. |
Imagine you are Mr/Mrs Hendriks. Mr/Mrs Hendriks is an 80-year-old widower/widow who requires regular help in selfcare and doing the housekeeping over a period of 3 weeks. Mr/Mrs Hendriks has four children: Mary, Sophia, Emily and John. All four children live relatively close to Mr/Mrs Hendriks.
Interviewer: In the following questions a fictitious situation is presented to the respondent. The respondent is expected to imagine being in Mr./Mrs Hendriks shoes. Your task is to make this clear to the respondent. Questions are asked about four children. These children are also fictitious. The respondent is not meant to take his/her own children as an example. The sequence of the four children is randomly chosen and varies from one interview to the next. Questions 2 and 3 are asked only when the answer to question 1 is positive.
The first questions concern Mary. Mary is a married daughter with children. She has a job.
1. Should Mary take care of her father/mother?
2. Should Mary adjust her situation at home in order to help her father/mother?
3. Should Mary adjust her work situation in order to help her father/mother?
4. Should Mary visit her father/mother more often in this situation?
5. Would you, if you were Mr/Mrs Hendriks, be disappointed if Mary did not take care of you?
The same situation still holds for Mr/Mrs Hendriks.
Interviewer: Repeat the fictitious situation if needed.
Interviewer: Answering options are: 0 = no answer, 1= N0, 2 = YES, 3 = don’t know, 4 = equal to the previous child. Only offer YES or NO.
The following questions concern Sophia. Sophia is also married and has children. Contrary to Mary, she does not have a job.
1. Should Sophia take care of her father/mother?
2. Should Sophia adjust her situation at home in order to help her father/mother?
3. (not applicable; Question 3 for Sophia is not asked because she does not have a job)
4. Should Sophia visit her father/mother more often in this situation?
5. Would you, if you were Mr/Mrs Hendriks, be disappointed if Sophia did not take care of you?
The same situation still holds for Mr/Mrs Hendriks.
Interviewer: Repeat the fictitious situation if needed.
The following questions concern Emily. Contrary to Mary and Sophia, Emily is not married and does not have any children. Emily has a job.
1. Should Emily take care of her father/mother?
2. Should Emily adjust her situation at home in order to help her father/mother?
3. Should Emily adjust her work situation in order to help her father/mother?
4. Should Emily visit her father/mother more often in this situation?
5. Would you, if you were Mr/Mrs Hendriks, be disappointed if Emily did not take care of you?
The same situation still holds for Mr/Mrs Hendriks.
Interviewer: Repeat the fictitious situation if needed.
The following questions concern the son John. Like Mary, John is married, has children and a job.
1. Should John take care of his father/mother?
2. Should John adjust his situation at home in order to help his father/mother?
3. Should John adjust his work situation in order to help his father/mother?
4. Should John visit his father/mother more often in this situation?
5. Would you, if you were Mr/Mrs Hendriks, be disappointed if John did not take care of you?
Frequency of the vignette item scores (PDF)
Psychometric properties
Loevingers H = .69; Reliability rho = .94
Scale score
Missing values are replaced according to the following method: (1) when more than three item scores are missing: no replacement; in this case no total vignette score is ascribed; (2) when three or less item scores are missing, replace according to the following procedure. The items are arranged according to increasing difficulty; given the strong homogeneity of the scale (based on the cases without missing values), (2a) a missing value is replaced by the value of the previous (or subsequent) item when the score on the immediately subsequent and immediately previous item are identical, or (2b) a missing value is replaced by 0.5 when the score on the immediately subsequent and immediately previous item are different, i.e. 0 and 1 or 1 and 0.
Computation of the scale score from the item scores:
get file ‘LASAd074.sys’.
count mis = dvigm1b to dvigj5b (lo thru -1).
* replacement of missing values: see above.
compute dvignet = dvigm1b+dvigm2b+dvigm3b+dvigm4b+dvigm5b+dvigs1b+dvigs2b+dvigs4b+
dvigs5b+
dvige1b+dvige2b+dvige3b+dvige4b+dvige5b+dvigj1b+dvigj2b+dvigj3b+
dvigj4b+dvigj5b.
if (mis>3)dvignet = -1.
Frequency of the vignette scale scores (PDF)
Distribution of Filial Responsibility Expectations vignette scale scores
N = 1666; Range = 0 – 19; Mean = 8.5; SD = 5.3; Skewness = .413; Kurtosis = -.815
Questionnaires
LASAD074 (main interview, in Dutch)
Variable information
LASAD074;
LASAD274 ( total score)
(pdf)
Availability of information per observation ¹
| B | C | D | E | 2B* | F | G | H | 3B* | MB* | I | J | K | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vignettes | - | - | Ma | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
¹ More information about the LASA data collection observations is available here.
* 2B=baseline second cohort;
3B=baseline third cohort;
MB=migrants: baseline first cohort
Ma=data collected in main interview
References
- Brody, E.M., Johnson, P.T., & Fulcomer, M.C. (1984). What should adult children do for elderly parents? Opinions and preferences of three generations of women. Journal of Gerontology, 39, 6, 736-746.
- van der Pas, S., van Tilburg, T.G., & Knipscheer, C.P.M. (2005). Measuring older adults’ filial responsibility expectations: Exploring the application of a vignette technique and an item scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 1026-1045. doi:10.1177/0013164405278559
Date of last update: May 11, 2006
