Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI)

1. Abstract

The Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI), developed by W. Robert Beavers, Robert B. Hampson, and Y. F. Hulgus, is a prominent 36-item psychometric instrument designed to evaluate systemic family functioning, structural competence, and relational dynamics. Derived directly from the empirical foundations of the Beavers Systems Model, the SFI bridges observational family assessment with subjective, insider perceptions of family life. It measures systemic competence across five distinct primary subscales: Family Health/Competence, Family Conflict, Family Cohesion, Directive Leadership, and Family Expressiveness (alongside an overall global competence index). The questionnaire utilizes a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“Fits our family very well”) to 5 (“Does not fit our family”), wherein lower aggregate scores traditionally indicate healthier, more competent systemic patterns, balanced structural flexibility, and clear interpersonal boundaries.

Extensive psychometric investigations across clinical, psychiatric, and non-clinical cross-sectional populations demonstrate robust construct, criterion, and concurrent validity, exhibiting high convergence with the FACES (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales) and the clinician-rated Beavers Interactional Competence Scale (BICS). Reliability analyses consistently yield elevated internal consistency metrics, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the global scale ranging between α = .88 and α = .94, and individual subscale coefficients spanning .70 to .93. Test-retest reliability across multiple assessment intervals demonstrates enduring temporal stability (r = .84 to .89). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses validate the multidimensional construct of the instrument, affirming its efficacy as both an investigative diagnostic instrument and a versatile outcome measure in marital and family therapy, child psychopathology research, adolescent psychiatry, and systemic interventions.

2. Keywords

Self-Report Family Instrument, SFI, Beavers Systems Model, family assessment, family competence, family cohesion, family conflict, structural family dynamics, relational health, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI) was conceived and validated by a collaborative research group based at the Southwest Family Institute in Dallas, Texas:

• W. Robert Beavers, M.D. — Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; Founder and Executive Director of the Southwest Family Institute, Dallas, Texas, USA. Recognized as a pioneer in systemic family therapy, interactional observation, and developmental family typologies.
• Robert B. Hampson, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, Texas, USA; Senior Research Associate at the Southwest Family Institute. Expert in developmental psychopathology, family systems assessment, and quantitative methodology.
• Yosef F. Hulgus, Ph.D. — Research Methodologist and Biostatistician, Southwest Family Institute, Dallas, Texas, USA. Specialized in psychometric evaluation, multivariate factor analytics, and interactional family coding systems.

Inquiries regarding historic archival research and theoretical materials are traditionally directed through the Department of Psychology at Southern Methodist University or corresponding family therapy research repositories.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI) is to provide an empirically grounded, quantitative measure of perceived family system competence, interpersonal communication, and organizational style. Within clinical family psychology and systemic therapy, clinical observers historically relied upon intensive interactional coding schemes, such as the Beavers Interactional Scales, to categorize family units along continuous spectra of competence and stylistic functioning. However, observational methods present notable pragmatic challenges: they require video recording facilities, standardized interaction tasks (such as family consensus discussions), and extensive training for coders to maintain high inter-rater reliability. The SFI was designed to overcome these operational constraints by capturing the “insider” perspective of family members quickly, economically, and reliably, while preserving the systemic architecture of the Beavers Systems Model.

Clinically, the instrument serves multiple operational purposes:

• Diagnostic Baseline Formulation: The SFI enables clinicians to quickly assess the family’s baseline functioning across conflict resolution, parental coalition strength, emotional closeness, and affective expression. Discrepancies between family members (e.g., comparing parental perceptions with adolescent perceptions) expose hidden coalitions, systemic triangulation, scapegoating, or divergent realities that standard individual intakes fail to diagnose.
• Treatment Planning and Structural Targeting: By isolating specific domains of impairment, such as high unresolved conflict (Item 14, Item 31) versus authoritarian or ambiguous leadership structures (Item 8, Item 16, Item 32), systemic therapists can customize structural interventions to reinforce the executive parental hierarchy, foster affect regulation, or restore interpersonal boundaries.
• Longitudinal Outcome Monitoring: Because the SFI is sensitive to structural change, administration across pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and post-treatment intervals provides concrete empirical evidence regarding whether therapeutic interventions are translating into enduring changes in emotional climate, mutual respect, and autonomous individuality.
• Empirical Research Applications: The SFI is widely deployed in developmental psychopathology, behavioral medicine, and psychiatric epidemiology to examine family-level moderators and mediators of individual disorders, such as pediatric chronic illness management, adolescent conduct problems, major depressive disorder, substance use disorders, and eating pathologies.

Ultimately, the SFI operates on the theoretical rationale that an individual’s subjective perception of their relational ecology is a primary cognitive-affective determinant of behavioral adaptation. While external clinician ratings evaluate objective behavioral execution, the internal subjective appraisal quantified by the SFI reveals how safe, validated, and autonomous an individual genuinely feels within their nuclear family matrix.

5. Psychological Construct

The SFI conceptualizes family functioning not as an arbitrary collection of isolated individual traits, but as a systemic, cybernetic, and interactional property of the entire relational unit. Grounded in the Beavers Systems Model, the scale evaluates the overarching construct of Family Competence—defined as the capacity of the family system to execute essential developmental tasks, flexibly adapt to internal and external stressors, preserve clear cross-generational boundaries, and nurture the emotional growth and autonomy of its individual members. Within this multidimensional architecture, the SFI delineates five primary interactional dimensions:

1. Family Health / Competence

This overarching macro-dimension assesses the degree to which the family operates as a stable, mutually respectful, problem-solving collective capable of fostering growth. Healthy, competent systems are characterized by open communication, high levels of shared parental responsibility, positive future outlooks, empathic listening, and flexible leadership. A representative item reflecting this construct is Item 6: “There is closeness in my family, but each person is allowed to be special and different,” which operationalizes structural differentiation—the ability to maintain profound interpersonal intimacy without smothering individual identity or personal autonomy.

2. Family Conflict

The conflict dimension measures the frequency, severity, and resolution style of systemic friction, overt hostility, and structural scapegoating. Rather than viewing conflict merely as ideological disagreement, the SFI measures toxic interactional patterns, chronic blaming, generational boundary violations, and pervasive negative affect. For example, Item 18 (“We usually blame one person in our family when things aren’t going right”) and Item 25 (“When things go wrong, we blame each other”) capture triangulating dynamics and projective identification, wherein unresolved systemic anxiety is targeted onto an identified patient.

3. Family Cohesion

Family Cohesion evaluates the balance between connectedness, shared emotional bonding, and centrifugal autonomy. Drawing on systems theories of family boundaries, healthy cohesion occupies an optimal midpoint between two dysfunctional extremes: enmeshment (excessive structural entanglement, lack of private identity, and over-dependence) and disengagement (interpersonal isolation, emotional coldness, and excessive centrifugal dispersion). Items such as Item 2 (“Our family would rather do things together than with other people”) and Item 27 (“Our family members would rather do things with other people than together”) calibrate whether the family’s gravitational pull promotes warm solidarity or cold estrangement.

4. Directive / Authoritarian Leadership

The leadership subscale measures the distribution, clarity, and flexibility of executive power and generational hierarchy. Grounded in Minuchin’s structural concepts, healthy family systems require a well-defined, collaborative parental coalition that provides safety and order without descending into despotic authoritarianism or chaotic abdication. Item 8 (“There is confusion in our family because there is no leader”) reflects chaotic boundary diffusion, while Item 32 (“One person controls and leads the family”) measures autocratic, unilateral control patterns that impede mutual decision-making.

5. Family Expressiveness

The expressiveness dimension assesses the psychological safety, spontaneous emotional permeability, and warmth shared among family members. In dysfunctional, closed systems, affective display is severely curtailed by rigid interpersonal rules, shame, or fear of emotional retaliation. Conversely, in highly competent systems, members openly verbalize positive and vulnerable feelings, offer spontaneous physical affection, and navigate emotional exposure without defensive posturing. Item 9 (“Our family members touch and hug each other”) and Item 22 (“Family members easily express warmth and caring toward each other”) quantify this capacity for authentic, non-punitive emotional resonance.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Self-Report Family Instrument is directly derived from the Beavers Systems Model of Family Functioning (Beavers & Voeller, 1983; Beavers & Hampson, 1990), an integrative developmental systems theory synthesized with principles from structural family therapy (Salvador Minuchin), Bowenian intergenerational theory (Murray Bowen), and general systems theory (Ludwig von Bertalanffy).

The Beavers Systems Model cross-classifies family systems along two primary developmental axes: Family Competence (a horizontal dimensional spectrum) and Family Style (a vertical interactional continuum).

The Competence Dimension

The Competence axis spans a continuous spectrum of developmental maturity, functional capability, and adaptive flexibility, typically segmented into four broad systemic tiers:

1. Severely Disturbed Families: Marked by chaotic, unpredictable structures, poor reality testing, severely blurred generational boundaries, fragmented communication, and chronic projective blaming. No true parental executive coalition exists, leaving the system in perpetual confusion.
2. Borderline Families: Characterized by persistent, overt power struggles, unstable coalitions, ambivalent attachment patterns, and rigid, vacillating disciplinary patterns. Control battles dominate the relational space, oscillating between enmeshment and emotional abandonment.
3. Mid-Range Families: Structurally organized around rigid, authoritarian rules, conventional moral codes, and external behavioral compliance. Emotional expressiveness is restrained, conflict is suppressed or managed through dogmatic dogma, and individuality is perceived as a threat to systemic solidarity.
4. Adequate to Optimal Families: Optimal systems demonstrate flexible, egalitarian parental coalitions, high mutual empathy, clear interpersonal boundaries, spontaneous warmth, and an appreciation for individual autonomy. They acknowledge problems openly and resolve them through collaborative, rational negotiation.

The Stylistic Dimension (Centripetal vs. Centrifugal)

The second axis within the Beavers Systems Model addresses how families satisfy emotional needs across internal versus external environments:

• Centripetal (Inward-Turning) Style: The family system views the external world as threatening, cold, or hostile, generating strong relational gravitational forces that keep members psychologically and physically clustered inside the family orbit. In mid-range and borderline systems, extreme centripetal patterns manifest as structural enmeshment, binding guilt, and developmental arrest of offspring autonomy.
• Centrifugal (Outward-Turning) Style: The system views the family home as unrewarding, cold, or combative, expelling emotional energy outwards. Family members seek validation, solace, and social engagement primarily outside the home. Extreme centrifugal patterns correlate with premature adolescent expulsion, neglect, runaway behaviors, and chronic antisocial acting out.
• Mixed / Balanced Style: Found primarily in optimal families, where members move fluidly between secure domestic intimacy and autonomous external exploration without systemic guilt or emotional severance.

Unlike Olson’s Circumplex Model, which posits a curvilinear relationship where both extremely high and low cohesion/adaptability are pathological, the Beavers Systems Model assumes a predominantly linear developmental trajectory for Competence: increased competence consistently produces healthier structural balance, superior affective communication, and enhanced individual self-actualization.

7. Validity

Empirical validation studies of the Self-Report Family Instrument demonstrate comprehensive psychometric soundness across diverse epidemiological, psychiatric, and multicultural samples.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity has been verified through extensive factor analytic investigations and structural equation modeling (SEM). Initial validation samples conducted by Beavers, Hampson, and Hulgus (1985, 1990) utilized healthy community families alongside families referred for adolescent psychiatric crises, juvenile delinquency, and clinical depression. Confirmatory analyses demonstrated that the underlying latent factor structures consistently map onto the theoretical pillars of the Beavers Systems Model: Health/Competence, Conflict, Cohesion, Leadership, and Expressiveness.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The SFI exhibits strong criterion-related validity, successfully differentiating clinical psychiatric samples from non-clinical community controls across multiple demographic tiers:

• Adolescents exhibiting clinical diagnoses of major depressive disorder, conduct disorder, or substance abuse score significantly higher (reflecting poorer systemic competence and elevated conflict) than matched non-clinical cohorts (p < .001).
• Studies evaluating pediatric chronic illness (e.g., pediatric oncology, brittle diabetes mellitus) reveal that SFI Health/Competence scores predict treatment adherence, glycemic control, and adolescent psychological adaptation over longitudinal trajectories.
• Longitudinal outcome studies of family-based interventions demonstrate that reductions in SFI conflict and overall competence scores correlate with clinical drops on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating the SFI with other standardized family measurement systems and observational coding tools:

• Convergence with Observational Metrics: SFI subscale scores correlate significantly with the clinician-rated Beavers Interactional Competence Scale (BICS). Global self-report competence correlates with observational ratings between r = .52 and r = .68 (p < .001), indicating strong concordance between subjective self-report and blind behavioral observation.
• Convergence with Olson’s Circumplex Measures: Hampson, Hulgus, and Beavers (1991) directly compared the SFI with the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES III). SFI Cohesion correlates strongly with FACES III Cohesion (r = .71 to .76), while SFI Health/Competence correlates negatively with FACES III family dissatisfaction scores (r = -.64).
• Convergence with the McMaster FAD: Cross-validation studies evaluating the SFI against the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) demonstrate strong positive correlations between the SFI Conflict subscale and FAD General Functioning (r = .69), as well as robust alignment between SFI Expressiveness and FAD Affective Involvement (r = .61).
• Discriminant Validity: Discriminant analyses confirm that the SFI successfully differentiates structural family properties from individual personality traits (such as neuroticism or extraversion) and social desirability bias (e.g., low correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, r = -.16 to -.22).

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Self-Report Family Instrument has been evaluated extensively across adolescent and adult populations, demonstrating high internal consistency and strong test-retest temporal stability.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across validation studies spanning community samples (N > 1,200) and clinical outpatient cohorts (N > 650), the SFI displays high internal consistency coefficients:

• Overall Global Competence Score (Full Scale): Consistently yields a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .88 to .94, reflecting an exceptionally cohesive measurement of global systemic functioning.
• Health/Competence Subscale (19 items): Exhibits alpha values ranging from α = .86 to .91.
• Family Conflict Subscale (12 items): Displays robust reliability ranging between α = .84 and .89.
• Family Cohesion Subscale (5 items): Yields coefficients between α = .74 and .83.
• Family Expressiveness Subscale (5 items): Demonstrates internal consistency ranging from α = .70 to .81.
• Directive Leadership Subscale (3 items): Exhibits moderate alpha values ranging from α = .62 to .72, an expected finding given the short 3-item length of this subscale.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

Stability analyses conducted over intervals ranging from 30 to 90 days demonstrate that SFI scores reflect enduring structural dynamics rather than ephemeral emotional states:

• Across a 30-day retest window in a non-clinical cohort, the full-scale SFI global score produced a test-retest correlation of r = .87 (p < .001).
• Individual subscale test-retest coefficients over a 60-day interval yielded: Health/Competence (r = .85), Conflict (r = .84), Cohesion (r = .80), Expressiveness (r = .78), and Leadership (r = .71).
• Split-half reliability coefficients using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula frequently exceed r = .86 across normative populations.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional validity of the SFI has been established through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), clarifying the latent structural architecture originally operationalized by Beavers, Hampson, and Hulgus.

Exploratory Factor Structure

In the foundational psychometric investigations, principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with varimax and oblique rotations were conducted on large heterogeneous cohorts of adolescents, mothers, and fathers. Initial eigenvalues and scree plot examinations consistently revealed a dominant primary factor—accounting for 35% to 42% of the common variance—reflecting generalized Family Health and Competence, alongside distinct subordinate factors representing discrete interactional patterns:

• Factor 1 (Health/Competence): Characterized by high positive loadings (> .50) from items assessing collective efficacy, mutual respect, and parental agreement (e.g., Item 3: “We all have a say in family plans”; Item 4: “The grownups in this family understand and agree on decisions”; Item 21: “Our family is good at solving problems together”).
• Factor 2 (Conflict): Marked by substantial factor loadings (.45 to .78) on items capturing chronic bickering, overt hostility, scapegoating, and structural blame (e.g., Item 10: “Family members put each other down”; Item 14: “We argue a lot and never solve problems”; Item 25: “When things go wrong, we blame each other”).
• Factor 3 (Cohesion): Defined by loadings from items measuring emotional bonding, mutual presence, and shared domestic preference versus centrifugal withdrawal (e.g., Item 2: “Our family would rather do things together than with other people”; Item 15: “Our happiest times are at home”; Item 27: “Our family members would rather do things with other people than together”).
• Factor 4 (Expressiveness): Marked by loadings from items indexing spontaneous warmth, emotional validation, and physical affection (e.g., Item 1: “Family members pay attention to each other’s feelings”; Item 9: “Our family members touch and hug each other”; Item 22: “Family members easily express warmth and caring toward each other”).
• Factor 5 (Directive Leadership): Loaded primarily by items measuring authoritarian distribution of executive power and structural chaos (e.g., Item 8: “There is confusion in our family because there is no leader”; Item 16: “The grownups in this family are strong leaders”; Item 32: “One person controls and leads the family”).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent structural equation modeling across independent validation samples validated the correlated multi-factor architecture over unidimensional models. CFA goodness-of-fit metrics typically demonstrate:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranges between .90 and .94, confirming acceptable-to-good fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically spans .89 to .93.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates range from .048 to .058 (90% CI [.042, .064]), meeting modern psychometric criteria for robust model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Remains below .055 across both adolescent and adult cohorts.

Because the overarching Health/Competence dimension incorporates items that overlap with the specific structural subscales (such as items shared between competence, cohesion, and conflict), methodological researchers frequently deploy either the focused five-factor oblique structure or a hierarchical bifactor model comprising one generalized systemic competence factor alongside orthogonal domain-specific factors.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI) are summarized below:

• Complete Instrument Name: Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI)
• Acronym: SFI (occasionally referenced in comparative literature as SFI-I or SFI-II across developmental iterations)
• Authors: W. Robert Beavers, M.D., Robert B. Hampson, Ph.D., and Yosef F. Hulgus, Ph.D.
• Instrument Typology: Multi-dimensional self-report questionnaire / systemic family functioning inventory
• Target Population: Administered to family members aged 11 years and older (including pre-adolescents, adolescents, parents, and cohabitating extended family)
• Administration Format: Individual self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital/computerized survey
• Estimated Completion Time: 10 to 15 minutes
• Total Item Count: 36 items
• Item Formats and Core Scales:
  • Items 1 through 34: Evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = “Fits our family very well” to 5 = “Does not fit our family” (or 1 = high, 5 = low).
  • Item 35: Global Family Functioning rating: 1 = “My family functions very well together” to 5 = “My family does not function very well together at all we really need help.”
  • Item 36: Family Independence rating: 1 = “No one is independent”, 3 = “Sometimes independent”, 5 = “Family members usually go their own way.”
• Subscale Structural Composition and Item Allocation:
  • Health/Competence (19 items): Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18R, 19R, 20, 21, 24R, 25R, 27R, 28, 33, 35, and 36.
  • Family Conflict (12 items): Items 5R, 6, 7, 8R, 10R, 14R, 18R, 24R, 25R, 30R, 31R, and 34. (In the alternate clinical configuration published in Measures for Clinical Practice, the Conflict subscale includes items: 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 18, 24, 25, 30, 31, and 34).
  • Family Cohesion (5 items): Items 2, 15, 19R, 27R, and 36. (Unreversed baseline grouping: 2, 15, 19, 27, 36).
  • Family Expressiveness (5 items): Items 1, 9, 13R, 20, and 22.
  • Directive Leadership (3 items): Items 8R, 16, and 32. (Unreversed baseline grouping: 8, 16, 32).
  • Family Communication (Alternative Formulation, 4 items): Items 11, 23, 26, and 29.
  • Overall Global Mean Score: Derived across items: 1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5, 6R, 7R, 8, 9R, 10, 11R, 12R, 13, 14, 15R, 16R, 17R, 18, 19, 20R, 21R, 22R, 23, 24, 25, 26R, 27, 28R, 29R, 30, 31, 32R, 33R, 34R, & 35R.
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Under the foundational Beavers Systems scoring convention, lower mean scores indicate higher family competence and healthier functioning (1.0 = optimal competence; 5.0 = severe dysfunction).
  • Specific items marked with “R” are reverse-coded prior to subscale score calculation depending on the directional scoring scheme adopted. When computing raw subscales according to Measures for Clinical Practice, reversed items include: Items 4–8, 10, 14, 18, 19, 23–25, 27, 29–31, and 34.
  • Subscale scores are typically calculated as the arithmetic mean of their component items, allowing direct comparisons across dimensions on a standardized 1.0 to 5.0 continuum.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Report Family Instrument (SFI) was initially developed and disseminated in 1985 through empirical publications by W. Robert Beavers, Robert B. Hampson, and Yosef F. Hulgus at the Southwest Family Institute, with comprehensive operationalization details formalized in the Beavers Systems Model Manual (1990 Edition).

Copyright and Permissibility: The instrument is held under academic copyright by the original authors and the Southwest Family Institute. However, the full questionnaire, administration guidelines, and scoring criteria were placed in the public academic domain for clinical and scientific research and were officially reproduced in standardized sourcebooks, including:

• Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. J. (2007). Measures for Clinical Practice and Research: A Sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 410–412). Oxford University Press.

Fee Status: The SFI is generally available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, institutional theses, clinical student training, and non-profit diagnostic use, provided proper academic attribution is cited. For commercial software integration, proprietary healthcare platforms, or large-scale for-profit diagnostic deployments, formal permission must be sought from the copyright holders or their institutional successors.

12. References

• Beavers, W. R., & Hampson, R. B. (1990). Successful families: Assessment and intervention. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Beavers, W. R., Hampson, R. B., & Hulgus, Y. F. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers systems approach to family assessment. Family Process, 24(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1985.00398.x
• Beavers, W. R., Hampson, R. B., & Hulgus, Y. F. (1990). Beavers Systems Model manual: 1990 edition. Southwest Family Institute.
• Beavers, W. R., & Voeller, M. N. (1983). Family models: Comparing and contrasting the Olson Circumplex Model with the Beavers Systems Model. Family Process, 22(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1983.00085.x
• Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. J. (2007). Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1: Couples, Families, and Children, pp. 410–412). Oxford University Press.
• Hampson, R. B., Beavers, W. R., & Hulgus, Y. F. (1988). Commentary: Comparing the Beavers and Circumplex Models of family functioning. Family Process, 27(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1988.00085.x
• Hampson, R. B., Hulgus, Y. F., & Beavers, W. R. (1991). Comparisons of self-report measures of the Beavers Systems Model and Olson’s Circumplex Model. Journal of Family Psychology, 4(3), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.4.3.326

13. Items of the Scale