Table 5. Family Outcomes in Assisted Living.

Study	Design and Family Sample	Family Outcomes Assessed	Predictors/Correlates of Family Outcomes (effect size; p value)
Dobbs & Montgomery (2005)	Mail survey of 260 family members from 83 ALs in Kansas	Facility rating, overall satisfaction with AL, satisfaction with AL staff	Age of family member→facility rating (.14; .0051); Age of family member→satisfaction with staff (.05; .0051)
Buelow & Fee (2000)	Mail survey of 113 family members of 3 ALs in metropolitan area	Single item ratings of: overall care, “residents generally like staff,” “residents are comfortable in AL,” “staff are interested in residents,” “complaints are acted upon,” “aspects of care could be improved;” open-ended responses	Family members rated satisfaction higher than residents on the “staff are interested” (3.28 vs. 2.89; <= .001) and “aspects of care could be improved” (3.06 vs. 2.61; <=.001) items
Marsden (1999)	In-person interviews with 100 family members of residents in ALs of New York and Michigan, U.S., recruited from support groups	Rating of “homeyness” following view of pictures of various models of AL; open-ended responses	Across various facility categories, families tended to rank two-story environments as more “homelike” (p < .05) when compared to residents
Gesell (2001)	Mail survey to all family members of 12 ALs in 8 states; N = 350	Multidimensional measure of satisfaction with: activities, personnel, aides, apartment, facility, and management	Overall, residents indicated lower ratings of satisfaction than family members (p < .05)
Levin & Kane (2006)	Kane study; see Table 1	Multidimensional measure of importance and satisfaction with: control, household services, care, programs, dining, and living situation	Family members' ratings of importance regarding control (16.76 vs. 14.97), care(18.02 vs. 16.85), and programs (15.78 vs. 14.29) were higher than residents' (p < .01). Family members' satisfaction with control (16.74 vs. 17.59), household services (7.29 vs. 8.73), care (15.81 vs. 17.91), programs (13.45 vs. 14.87), and dining (7.57 vs. 8.33) were lower than residents' (p < .01)
Leon et al. (2000)	See Table 3 above	Multidimensional measure of caregiving burden: mastery, health change, relationship strain with care recipient, social activity restriction, work strain)	Community caregivers reported greater work-related strain than AL family caregivers (2.1/2.0 vs. 1.7; .001)
Port et al. (2005)	CS-LTC; see Table 3 above	Single-item reports of preferred level of involvement and burden in caring for resident	Means adjusted for resident cognition, function, caregiver health, and sociodemographics found that family members of AL residents indicated greater burden than family members of NH residents (1.13 vs. .80; .015)
Seddon et al. (2002)	See above	Single item reports of perceived stressfulness of various care responsibilities recently after admission and 10 months thereafter	Feelings of guilt remained “very stressful” or “stressful,” whereas visits and interactions with staff became less stressful
Sloane et al. (2003)	CS-LTC (see Table 2 above); 224 family members of 73 AL residents who died	Single-item reports of: knew death was approaching, believed death occurred in manner resident wanted, and believed resident died with dignity; satisfaction as assessed on a 20-item scale	Family members of AL residents were less aware of resident's approaching death (64.7% vs. 87.0%; .011); overall family satisfaction was higher for family members of AL residents than NH residents (32.1 vs. 41.2; .016) (note: lower score represents higher satisfaction on scale)

NOTE: AL = assisted living facility