Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association

2005, Vol. 19, No. 1, 121–132 0893-3200/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.121

Cluster Analysis in Family Psychology Research

David B. Henry, Patrick H. Tolan, and Deborah Gorman-Smith
University of Illinois at Chicago

This article discusses the use of cluster analysis in family psychology research. It provides an
overview of potential clustering methods, the steps involved in cluster analysis, hierarchical
and nonhierarchical clustering methods, and validation and interpretation of cluster solutions.
The article also reviews 5 uses of clustering in family psychology research: (a) deriving
family types, (b) studying families over time, (c) as an interface between qualitative and
quantitative methods, (d) as an alternative to multivariate interactions in linear models, and
(e) as a data reduction technique for small samples. The article concludes with some cautions
for using clustering in family psychology research.

Keywords: cluster analysis, research methodology, qualitative data, multivariate analysis

With the application of systems theory in family psychol- primary methods used, and review examples of clustering
ogy (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956; Bowen, applications in family research. In addition, we discuss
1960) came the need to simultaneously consider related some cautions for using these methods with family data.
dimensions when describing clinical phenomena and fami-
lies (Haley, 1971). However, the statistical methods pre- Overview of Clustering Methods
ferred by family researchers are more appropriate for ana-
The logic of clustering differs from that of methods that
lyzing individual differences than for describing groups of
emphasize relations among variables. Fundamentally, clus-
families along multiple dimensions simultaneously (Man-
tering involves sorting cases or variables according to their
dara, 2003). Better describing meaningful subgroups of
similarity on one or more dimensions and producing groups
families and linking these subgroups to development, risk,
that maximize within-group similarity and minimize
and intervention requires a method more attuned to this
between-group similarity. Kaufman and Rousseeuw (1990,
multidimensional perspective. In this article, we discuss
p. 1) defined cluster analysis as the classification of similar
cluster analysis, an approach that can better connect family
objects into groups, where the number of groups, as well as
psychology research with its theoretical and clinical
their forms, may be unknown. Critics point to the unknown
interests.
aspects of clustering and its relative lack of statistical so-
We use the term cluster analysis to refer to a general
phistication as warranting caution in its use (Morgan & Ray,
approach composed of several multivariate methods appro-
1995).
priate for research within family psychology (Mandara,
Numerous methods exist for detecting clusters in multi-
2003). Referred to as person-oriented methods by some
variate data (Arabie & Hubert, 1992). The strategies differ
(Bergman, 1996; Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Cairns,
in the ways they define groups and in the ways they identify
Bergman, & Kagan, 1998) in contrast to variable-oriented
groupings in the data. The measures taken to prepare data
methods, cluster analysis identifies and describes groups of
for clustering, the statistical methods employed, and the
individual cases defined by similarities along multiple di-
validation and interpretation of cluster solutions affect the
mensions of interest. These groupings can form the basis for
outcome. Each step in clustering, from choosing variables to
understanding normal development, risk, or other outcomes.
interpreting solutions, requires an awareness of the limita-
Clustering methods are used infrequently in psychologi-
tions of clustering methods.
cal research on families (Bray, Maxwell, & Cole, 1995;
Mandara, 2003). To encourage more frequent consideration
Preparing to Apply Cluster Methods
of clustering methods by family researchers, we suggest
important steps in applying cluster analysis, describe the Theoretically driven measures. Clustering algorithms
can always find some clusters, even in data that are ran-
domly distributed. Therefore, selecting variables consistent
with relevant theoretical perspectives and expectations is
David B. Henry, Patrick H. Tolan, and Deborah Gorman-Smith,
Institute for Juvenile Research, Department of Psychiatry, Univer-
critical. However, there is little benefit from redundant
sity of Illinois at Chicago. measures. Therefore, when multiple measures of the same
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to construct are available, it is preferable, prior to cluster
David B. Henry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of analysis, to combine different sources of information into
Psychiatry, 840 South Wood Street, Chicago, IL 60612. E-mail: higher order measures based on confirmatory factor analysis
dhenry@uic.edu or other methods (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 2000).

121
122 HENRY, TOLAN, AND GORMAN-SMITH
It may also be that collapsing information provided by
multiple family members is inconsistent with theory or the
observed association between sources of data. Variation
among sources of information may be expected in theory or
may be observed in low correlations between different
sources. Differences among sources of information may
provide important insights into the characteristics of fami-
lies and the nature of family clusters. Therefore, multiple
family members’ measures of the same constructs should be
combined only if they are both theoretically consistent and
statistically related. For example, Belsky and Hsieh (1998),
in a cluster analysis of patterns of change in marriage, found
that separate cluster solutions for husbands and wives
aligned more consistently with theory than a single solution
derived by clustering averaged husbands’ and wives’
scores.
Equating scaling of measures. Another issue of impor-
tance in data preparation is equating the variables prior to
entry into a cluster analysis. Debate abounds in the literature
on standardizing variables prior to clustering (Aldenderfer
& Blashfield, 1984; Seber, 1984, pp. 353–355) given that
unequal scaling of variables to be analyzed creates unequal
variable weights. Variables with greater ranges or larger
variances may have greater influence in the calculations
used to determine clusters. On the other hand, standardizing
variables so that they have equal variances may result in
solutions that do not reflect the natural clustering of the data
(Milligan, 1996). Despite the debate surrounding how best
to standardize variables, there is some agreement that di-
viding each variable by its range provides an acceptable
method of equating variables. Dividing variables by their
ranges places all variables on the same scale while leaving
differences in variances intact. This approach is supported
by Milligan and Cooper (1988), who found that dividing by
the range was superior to five other methods of
standardization.
Visually examining the data. After selecting theoreti-
cally meaningful measures and equating the scaling of mea-
sures, it is important to visually examine the distributions. A
graph or chart can reveal important information for select-
ing clustering methods and interpreting the solutions. Ex-
amining the distributions can, particularly with fewer vari-
ables, suggest the extent to which the data are clustered and
the shapes of the clusters. Two- and three-dimensional
scatterplots are available in most statistical packages. Al-
though it becomes difficult to visualize joint distributions
when more than three variables are considered, a scatterplot
matrix, or SPLOM, can reveal the univariate and bivariate
marginal distributions. For example, Figure 1 is a SPLOM
of three family relationship variables (cohesion, beliefs, and
structure) from Wave 3 of the Chicago Youth Development
Study (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 2000). Areas of
lower or higher than expected density, such as those circled
in Figure 1, may indicate clustering beyond what would be
expected in random data. This can aid in deciding whether
to apply cluster analysis to the data. In addition, visual
examination can suggest whether the variables to be clus-
tered have multivariate normal distributions within the clus-
Figure 1. Scatterplot matrix of family relationships and parent-
ing practices scales from Wave 3 of the Chicago Youth Develop-
ment Study. W3COHES ⫽ family cohesion; W3FAMBEL ⫽
family beliefs; W3STRUCT ⫽ family structure.
ters. Such knowledge can help in deciding which clustering
methods to use.
Clustering Methods
The three methods of clustering are hierarchical, nonhi-
erarchical, and overlapping (Seber, 1984, pp. 349 –350). Of
these methods, only hierarchical and nonhierarchical are
widely used in family psychology research. Hierarchical
and nonhierarchical clustering are distinguished by the tech-
nique used to derive clusters from the data. However, the
distinction has theoretical implications as well. Nonhierar-
chical clusters are mutually exclusive categories and, there-
fore, do not represent any theoretically nested structure.
Hierarchical methods can be used to create mutually exclu-
sive groups, but nonhierarchical methods cannot represent
nested structures. Consider, for example, Baumrind’s
(1991) distinction between authoritative and authoritarian
families. Any single family would be categorized as either
authoritative or authoritarian. The theoretical clustering
would be nonhierarchical, and either hierarchical or nonhi-
erarchical methods would be appropriate. If, however, one
conceptualized authoritarian and authoritative families as
subtypes of a type of family that exercised authority over
their children, hierarchically arranged clusters would be
more consistent with theory.
Hierarchical clustering. Hierarchical methods are in-
tended to reveal the nested structure of clusters within
multivariate data. Most statistical software uses joining for
hierarchical clustering. Joining begins by linking the indi-
vidual observations closest to one another in a space defined
by the dimensions used in the analysis. Once these clusters
are formed, they are joined with other clusters or individual
observations to create larger clusters. This process continues
until all observations are joined together into a single
cluster.
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CLUSTER ANALYSIS 123

Hierarchical clustering creates a representation of the
structure of the data from which the clusters to retain can be
chosen. This is illustrated in Figure 2. The left panel of
Figure 2 is a scatterplot of two family variables, cohesion
and supervision of children, with the cases labeled to show
their corresponding positions in the tree diagram, or den-
drogram, in the right panel. The data set contained measure-
ments of these two variables for 15 families. Presented with
a hierarchical cluster solution, such as that in Figure 2, a
researcher would most likely decide to retain three clusters
defined by (a) low cohesion and low supervision, (b) low
cohesion and high supervision, and (c) high cohesion and
high supervision. Alternatively, a researcher might combine
Clusters a and b into Cluster c, regarding the former as
subtypes of the latter. Such a decision would result in
clusters defined by low and high cohesion, possibly with
subtypes defined by levels of child supervision.
Hierarchical clustering requires the researcher to select a
distance metric, which is a unit of measurement for express-
ing the distances between cases in multivariate space. Hi-
erarchical clustering also requires the researcher to select a
way of defining the link between clusters. The choice of
distance metrics combined with the scaling of variables can
greatly affect the relative distances between cases, which in
turn affect the cluster solution obtained. The most common
distance metric in family research is the Euclidian distance,
which is calculated by summing the squared differences
between cases on each variable and using the square root of
the sum. Euclidian distances are used with numeric data but
may also be used with binary data. Distances used exclu-
sively in clustering categorical variables are based on the
logic of the 2 ⫻ 2 table. Common distances for categorical
data are Jaccard’s (1908) measure and distances based on
the chi-square statistic and the square of the phi coefficient.
Many other distance metrics are available in hierarchical
clustering programs. Each distance metric has strengths and
weaknesses. The interested reader is referred to Seber
(1984, pp. 351–359), Aldenderfer and Blashfield (1984),
and Kaufman and Rousseeuw (1990, chap. 1) for more
detailed discussions and definitions of distance metrics.
We recommend Euclidian distances in cluster analysis in
family psychology. Rescaling variables by their ranges prior
to calculating distances compensates for the most serious
problem with Euclidian distances—namely, their sensitivity
to variations in the ranges of variables—yet leaves sufficient
information about variances to minimize the likelihood of
cluster solutions that inaccurately represent the natural clus-
ters in the data.
In addition to the measure of distances between cases, it
is necessary to define how clusters will be linked together to
form other clusters, or linkage. Whereas distance refers to
the unit of measurement, linkage refers to the point in a

Figure 2. A: Bivariate scatterplot of supervision and rules on family cohesion. Cases are labeled
to allow comparison with the dendrogram in Panel B. B: SPSS dendrogram (tree diagram) from a
hierarchical cluster analysis of 15 families on measures of supervision and rules for children and
family cohesion. Single linkage (nearest neighbor) and Euclidian distances were used in the cluster
analysis.
124 HENRY, TOLAN, AND GORMAN-SMITH
cluster from which distance measures will be calculated.
Because clusters contain multiple cases, distances can be
measured between the closest observations, the most distant
observations, the centroids (the points of averages of the
clusters), or in other ways. Commonly used linkages in
family studies are single linkage, complete linkage, centroid
linkage, and Ward’s (1963) linkage.
In single linkage, distance is measured between the ob-
servations in two clusters with the smallest distance be-
tween them. For this reason, single linkage is sometimes
called nearest neighbor linkage. Complete linkage is the
opposite of single linkage and, as a result, is sometimes
called farthest neighbor linkage. It involves measuring the
distance between clusters by using the observations with the
greatest distance between them. Ward’s (1963; Wishart,
1969) method of linkage links clusters together on the basis
of the degree of similarity between observations in the same
cluster. Ward’s linkage minimizes the within-cluster sum of
squares of each cluster when clusters are joined together.
As is the case with distance metrics, the choice of linkage
method affects the results. In particular, it may affect
whether the clusters obtained are unique and the degree of
sensitivity to areas of greater density in the multivariate
distribution. Morgan and Ray (1995) noted that in a Monte
Carlo study of linkage methods, only single linkage pro-
duced unique cluster solutions. Other methods could return
different solutions from the same data set. However, if the
data are not tightly clustered, as is often the case in family
research, single linkage may not clearly differentiate among
clusters that exist in the data.
We recommend single linkage as an initial step in family
psychology studies that use hierarchical clustering. If single
linkage does not return identifiable clusters, the clusters in
the data may be variations in density rather than groups
separated by empty space. In that case, further analysis with
other linkage methods can be undertaken. If it is believed
that the clusters in the data are roughly multivariate normal
in shape, clustering with Ward’s (1963) linkage would be a
reasonable second step. If visual examination suggests that
clusters are not multivariate normal in shape, complete
linkage or centroid linkage might be a better choice for
further analysis. Interested readers may consult Aldenderfer
and Blashfield (1984), Seber (1984), or other texts on clus-
tering for more specific guidance.
Nonhierarchical clustering. Nonhierarchical clustering
differs from hierarchical clustering in that it does not pro-
duce a nested structure of the data. Rather, nonhierarchical
clustering results in discrete clusters. Unlike hierarchical
methods, nonhierarchical clustering requires that the re-
searcher specify a number of clusters to extract prior to
conducting the analysis. Nonhierarchical clustering has both
advantages and disadvantages. Nonhierarchical clustering
routines do not allow the researcher as much latitude in
choosing distance metrics and ways of differentiating
among clusters as do hierarchical routines. However, some
nonhierarchical clustering programs allow researchers to
specify initial cluster centers and to choose distance metrics.
In widely used statistical software such as SAS, SPSS,
and SYSTAT, nonhierarchical clustering is most often im-
plemented with the K-means algorithm (MacQueen, 1967).
With this method, initial cluster centers (values representing
the average of each cluster on each variable) are either
entered by the researcher or chosen at random by the pro-
gram. Once initial centers are chosen, the program assigns
cases to the cluster whose center is nearest. Assigning the
cases in this manner usually changes the cluster centers, and
thus objects are reassigned to clusters and the centers are
updated again. This process continues until no objects
change their cluster memberships.
There is no consensus on methods for determining
whether a nonhierarchical cluster solution fits the data.
Methods for comparing nonhierarchical cluster solutions are
not currently implemented in statistics programs. Recently,
however, some helpful procedures have been developed,
and they are being increasingly used in family psychology
research. Most procedures involve comparing the mean
distances between individual observations and their cluster
centers for different numbers of clusters. These distances
may be compared through a scree plot (Breckenridge, 2000;
Mandara, 2003) or a t test or F test (Beale, 1969; Gorman-
Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 2000).
In family psychology research, nonhierarchical clustering
has often been used as a second step in a cluster analysis.
First, hierarchical methods in combination with theoretical
discussion are used to determine how many clusters to
expect and where to place the initial cluster centers. Next,
nonhierarchical clustering, using the predetermined number
of clusters and initial centers, is used to assign observations
to clusters. This combination of methods capitalizes on the
strengths of both methods and compensates for their
weaknesses.
Validating Cluster Solutions
Ensuring validity requires attention from the beginning of
a cluster approach. Researchers should attend to the content
validity of the solution at each step in the analysis because
multiple cluster solutions and potentially acceptable num-
bers of clusters are usually possible from a single data set.
Selecting an appropriate solution requires an interplay be-
tween theory and analysis in the attempt to maximize the
content validity of the solution.
One approach to validating a cluster solution is to rean-
alyze the data with a different clustering method. This
approach is sometimes referred to as confirmatory cluster
analysis (Fisher & Ransom, 1995). Reanalyzing the data
using a different method can determine the extent to which
solutions produced by the two methods converge. For ex-
ample, Fisher and Ransom (1995) used hierarchical cluster-
ing with Ward’s (1963) linkage to derive four clusters of
families on 11 scales. To confirm the solution, they con-
ducted a K-means analysis, specifying four clusters, and
found substantial agreement between the solutions in as-
signing cases to clusters. A second approach to validation, if
the sample is large enough, is to randomly split the sample,
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CLUSTER ANALYSIS 125

analyze each half separately, and compare the solutions
(Mandara, 2003).
A third approach is to confirm the solution on a second
sample. Gorman-Smith, Tolan, and Henry (1999a) took this
approach in a cluster analysis of relationship patterns among
young urban couples. They conducted an initial cluster
analysis using a sample of reports from 203 individuals on
the characteristics of their romantic relationships. They then
pooled partners’ measures in a sample of 46 couples and
cluster analyzed that data set, examining fit measures to
determine whether the same number of clusters fit the data.
Next, they assigned partners in the couples’ data set to the
clusters with centers chosen by the individual solution.
They then conducted a multivariate analysis of variance of
the variables used in clustering with terms for the sample
(individual or couple), cluster, and the Sample ⫻ Cluster
interaction as predictors. They found a significant cluster
effect and nonsignificant effects for sample and the interac-
tion between sample and cluster. They concluded from this
that the individual solution also fit the pooled couples’ data
and that a significant Sample ⫻ Cluster interaction would
have indicated that the solution did not fit.
A fourth approach to validation is to test the criterion-
related validity of the solution, that is, to use the solution to
predict variables of interest in ways consistent with theory
(Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984, pp. 62–74; Mandara,
2003). Several family studies have used such an approach,
in which evidence for the validity of a cluster solution
comes from the ability of the clusters to predict outcomes
that are unrelated to the variables used in the clustering but
that are theoretically related to the clusters. For example,
Danseco and Holden (1998), in a study of types of homeless
families, found that children whose families were classified
as resilient by a cluster analysis had higher Stanford-Binet
IQ scores and lower problem behavior scores on the Child
Behavior Checklist than did children in families classified
as “getting by” and “at risk.” They suggested that these
differences reflected the likely effects of family resilience
and, therefore, supported the validity of the cluster solution.
Interpreting Cluster Solutions
One of the most difficult aspects of using cluster analysis
is interpreting and comparing different cluster solutions.
Although preparing and conducting the analysis are critical
steps, naming clusters and interpreting their differences is
equally critical yet highly subjective, which adds to the
difficulty. One reason for this difficulty is that cluster anal-
ysis can contain more dimensions than can be easily inter-
preted. In addition, multiple cluster solutions are often
available, and, as noted, little statistical guidance exists for
choosing one solution over another on the basis of their
relative fit to the data.
Grouped bar charts are useful visual aids when only a few
variables are clustered, but they become cumbersome with
increasing numbers of variables and clusters. When one is
faced with numerous variables and clusters, a helpful plot is
variously called a radar plot (SAS and MS Excel), star plot
(SYSTAT), or sun ray plot (STATSOFT). Figure 3 is a
radar plot of two clusters representing patterns of family
problems drawn from a cluster analysis of four family
problem measures gathered annually for 4 years. The data
used to construct these plots were reported by Gorman-
Smith, Tolan, Loeber, and Henry (1998). Each plot repre-
sents a single cluster, and each ray of the plot represents a
single variable. In Figure 3, variables are identified with

Figure 3. Radar plots of two family risk clusters, plotted in SAS PROC GRADAR from cluster
means published in Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Loeber, and Henry (1998). This type of plot allows
simultaneous presentation of cluster means on all variables used in the analysis. Variables in this
plot are identified by their clock positions. The “deviant” family cluster is identified by high means
on deviance at all waves, and the “disruption and conflict” cluster is identified by high means on
disruption and moderate means on conflict at all waves. W ⫽ wave.
126 HENRY, TOLAN, AND GORMAN-SMITH

numbers in the legend and may be found on the plot.
Variable 1 (Wave 1 conflict) is displayed on the plot in the
12:00 position, whereas Variable 5 (Wave 2 conflict) is
displayed in the 3:00 position. The axis for each variable
radiates out from the center of the plot, and the mean of the
cluster is the intersection of the “star” with the axis. The
axes can be calibrated if desired. This plot clearly shows the
differences between the clusters on each of the 16 variables
used. These types of plots can be used to display up to 200
variables (in SAS) simultaneously, which is more than
sufficient for most cluster analysis applications in family
psychology.
Interpretation begins by seeking the distinctive features
of each cluster. For example, the first cluster in Figure 3 has
elevated levels of deviance at all waves, most conspicuously
at Wave 2 (Variable 6 in the left-hand plot). The second
cluster, in contrast, has elevated levels of disruption at all
waves. These features led Gorman-Smith et al. (1998) to
interpret the first cluster as a group of families characterized
by deviance and the second as families characterized by
chronic disruption.
Cluster analyses often return clusters that show only
slight differences in levels of multiple variables rather than
distinct differences, such as the elevated levels of deviance
and disruption seen in Figure 3. In such cases, interpretation
may be eased by conducting post hoc comparisons using t
tests of all combinations of cluster means on each variable.
Such a group of tests should be protected against Type I
error inflation by reducing the alpha level for interpretation
in accordance with the number of tests conducted. Post hoc
tests such as these are not implemented in clustering pro-
grams. They may be conducted by saving the cluster iden-
tifier (a variable that indicates the cluster to which each case
has been assigned) and testing all differences between clus-
ters on all variables used in the cluster analysis.
Identifying the interpretable differences among clusters
creates a basis for dialogue between theory and the solutions
produced by the analysis. This dialogue is the final stage in
interpreting cluster solutions. In this stage, the theoretical
considerations raised in the early stages of the analysis may
be raised again in light of the results. Were all of the
variables chosen for the analysis optimal, or should certain
variables be added or deleted? Which of several possible
solutions is most interpretable in light of the existing theo-
ries (Lee, Rice, & Gillespie, 1997)? Such dialogue often
leads to further cluster analyses as the correspondence be-
tween analysis and interpretation is refined.
Using Cluster Analysis in Family Psychology
Research
The methods of hierarchical and nonhierarchical cluster-
ing described here have been applied to various problems in
family psychology, including multivariate characterization
of families, studying families over time, interpreting com-
plex qualitative data, data reduction, and as an alternative to
multivariate interactions in statistical models. In this sec-
tion, we briefly describe studies illustrating each of these
applications.
Multivariate Characterization of Families
The most frequent use of clustering methods in family
psychology over the past 5 years has been to characterize
parents and families along multiple dimensions of theoret-
ical interest, producing types of families. These types are
then used to predict risk or other outcomes. Table 1 sum-
marizes the cluster solutions obtained in these studies. To
organize the clusters, we order them in Table 1 by their
levels of control and closeness (e.g., high levels of control
and low closeness or low control and high closeness; Mac-
coby & Martin, 1983). Baumrind (1991) found four types of

Table 1
Cluster Solutions From Studies Deriving Family Types
Levels of control and closeness
Low control, low Low control, high High control, low High control, high
Study closeness closeness closeness closeness Other
Brenner & Fox Low discipline, Low discipline High discipline and Low discipline, high
(1999) nurturance, and and expectations, low nurture and
expectations expectations, nurture (21%) expectatio
(31%) high nurture
(27%)
Hamid et al. Unstructured, low Conflict–control (26%) Structured, cohesive, Structured, cohesive,
(2003) control (18%) expressive, and and low conflict
recreation-oriented (31%)
(26%)
Mandara & Defensive–neglectful Conflictive–authoritarian Cohesive–authoritative Not classified (6%)
Murray (21%) (34%) (38%)
(2002)
Gorman-Smith, Struggling families Task-oriented families Exceptionally Moderately
Tolan, & (20%) (25%) functioning families functioning
Henry (27%) families (27%)
(2000)
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CLUSTER ANALYSIS
families based on measures of parenting practices that were
consistent with this conceptualization and have been influ-
ential in interpreting cluster analyses in family research: (a)
authoritative families who had control of children but also
allowed independence, (b) authoritarian families who fo-
cused primarily on control and evaluation of children, (c)
permissive families who were low on control and high on
support for children’s independence, and (d) neglectful fam-
ilies, defined by low control and low support for children’s
independence.
Brenner and Fox (1999), citing Darling and Steinberg’s
(1993) distinction between parenting styles (systems of
attitudes and beliefs) and parenting practices (specific be-
haviors), clustered three subscales of the Parenting Behav-
ior Checklist (PBC; Fox, 1994) to derive a typology of
parenting practices. They used a sample of 1,056 mothers of
young children who completed the PBC as part of a vali-
dation study for the instrument. Using hierarchical cluster-
ing and Ward’s (1963) linkage, they found a four-cluster
solution (see Table 1) that they interpreted in light of
Baumrind’s (1991) typology of parenting styles. The family
clusters were at significantly different levels in terms of
socioeconomic status, number of children, and child behav-
ior problems.
In another study drawing on Baumrind’s (1991) typol-
ogy, Mandara and Murray (2002) analyzed numeric data
from 10 subscales of the Family Environment Scale (Moos
& Moos, 1986) and 8 subscales of the Black Family Process
Q-Sort (Peacock, Murray, Ozer, & Stokes, 1996). Their
sample consisted of 116 African American families, each
with a 15-year-old male or female adolescent. The authors
used adolescent reports of family functioning in the cluster
analysis. With initial cluster centers from a hierarchical
solution, these investigators used K-means to extract three
clusters of families (see Table 1). They compared these
family clusters with Baumrind’s (1991) authoritative, au-
thoritarian, and neglectful parenting styles. The clusters
differentiated families in regard to demographics, parenting
practices, church attendance, youth self-esteem, ethnic iden-
tity, and personality variables.
Hamid, Yue, and Leung (2003), in a study of adolescent
coping, compared their clusters with Baumrind’s (1991)
parenting styles. These investigators clustered the percep-
tions of 297 Chinese adolescents of their families on 10
Family Environment Scale subscales and found four clus-
ters (see Table 1) that differed in regard to coping style.
In a study using repeated measurements, Gorman-Smith,
Tolan, and Henry (2000) considered combined parent and
child reports on three family relationship dimensions (co-
hesion, beliefs, and structure) and two parenting practices
dimensions (discipline and monitoring) in deriving family
types among 280 inner-city families with male adolescents.
Using four waves of these five measures, they determined
the number of clusters with hierarchical clustering and
extracted clusters with nonhierarchical clustering. This
analysis produced four clusters (see Table 1) that differed
significantly in regard to delinquent involvement (Henry,
Tolan, & Gorman-Smith, 2001) and positive outcomes
127
(Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Henry, & Florsheim, 2000) later in
adolescence.
Despite the apparent convergence in this research, there is
not yet enough evidence to determine the extent to which
these seemingly consistent family types span ethnicities,
cultures, and levels of socioeconomic status or whether
relations to child and parent functioning are consistent
across demographic differences. The value of a large-scale
cluster-analytic study employing a wide array of measures
of family functioning and parenting from multiple sources
and targeting families that cross cultural, ethnic, geo-
graphic, and economic lines could be considerable. Such a
study, or future cluster-analytic family studies, could help
determine the extent to which family configurations or
cluster types and their relations to outcomes can be gener-
alized to different populations.
Studying Families Over Time
An infrequent, but potentially important, use of cluster
analysis in family studies is investigating families over
time, or the trajectories of family development. Including
multiple time points in analyses is a natural conceptual step
beyond characterizing families at a single point in time, but
this has rarely been done. We could locate only four cluster
studies that included development in any form. Two of these
studies were published more than 5 years ago.
Gorman-Smith et al. (1998; 1999b) used scales that rep-
licated Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber’s (1986) measures of
four family risk factors: deviance, disruption, neglect, and
conflict. With data from a sample of 288 male inner-city
residents, they entered data from four annual waves into a
K-means analysis and adapted Wishart’s (1982) stopping
criterion in determining the number of clusters to retain.
They identified four clusters of family risk: families with
minimal problems (48%), families characterized by disrup-
tion (24%), families with deviant beliefs and behaviors
(16%), and families with multiple problems (13%). Nota-
bly, change in scores over time was of negligible impor-
tance in interpreting the clusters.
Belsky and Hsieh (1998) used cluster analysis to examine
couples’ marital functioning over the course of their chil-
dren’s development, from 10 months through 5 years of age.
They entered four waves of love and conflict measures into
separate cluster analyses for reports by husbands and by
wives. Through hierarchical clustering, they found three
patterns of change, replicated in husbands’ reports of love
and wives’ reports of conflict: (a) stayed good, (b) good gets
worse, and (c) bad to worse. Two of these patterns (stays
good and bad to worse) were differentiated by husbands’
and wives’ levels of agreeableness and neuroticism. Fami-
lies with the longitudinal patterns of “stays good” and “good
gets worse” differed in regard to levels of unsupported
coparenting.
Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson (1999) investigated
the developmental trajectories of blended families by ana-
lyzing the content of interviews revealing major “turning
points” (events considered by participants to have been
128 HENRY, TOLAN, AND GORMAN-SMITH
important in becoming a family). Using hierarchical clus-
tering of multiple turning points over multiple waves, they
identified five trajectories in the first 48 months of being a
family. Families with different trajectories differed in vari-
ability or turbulence over 4 years as well as direction. For
example, families with an accelerated trajectory rapidly
developed a sense of being a family, whereas those with a
prolonged trajectory developed a sense of family much
more slowly. Families with a declining trajectory lost an
initial sense of being a family, and those with a stagnating
trajectory never developed one. Finally, those with a turbu-
lent trajectory vacillated between extremes of cohesion and
alienation.
These studies illustrate the potential importance of devel-
opment in characterizing family types. All three studies
suggest that levels of functioning at a single point in time
and change in functioning are associated in a complex
manner. In the Gorman-Smith, Tolan, and Henry (2000)
study, the highest and lowest functioning families both
showed stability over 4 years of assessment, whereas the
moderately functioning families revealed change over time.
Baxter et al. (1999) also found an association between level
and change in functioning among stepfamilies, and Belsky
and Hsieh (1998), in a study of married couples, found such
an association as well. In each study, the groups at the
extremes of the dimensions had stable levels of variables
over time. In the two latter studies, the pattern of change
rather than the relative levels of variables defined a family
type.
Interest in multivariate longitudinal clustering is rela-
tively recent. New methods have become available that may
assist in modeling the developmental trajectories of fami-
lies. One promising method for family research is latent
transition analysis (LTA), developed by Collins et al. (Col-
lins, Lanza, Schafer, & Flaherty, 2002; Collins, Hyatt, &
Graham, 2000).1 With LTA, one can describe the charac-
teristics of clusters and the likelihood that cases will become
members of other clusters at other points in time. A second,
newer clustering method for longitudinal analysis is PROC
TRAJ (Jones, Nagin, & Roeder, 2001; Nagin, 1999). Im-
plemented through the SAS system, PROC TRAJ clusters
multiple repeated measures, creating trajectory classes
(groups defined by their levels and growth patterns on the
variable being clustered). Fit statistics are provided, allow-
ing one to determine the optimal number of clusters. PROC
TRAJ implements distributions appropriate for count data
and data whose distributions depart substantially from nor-
mal. Approaches similar to LTA and PROC TRAJ can be
implemented with the M-Plus statistical program (B. O.
Muthén & Muthén, 2000).
An Interface Between Qualitative and Quantitative
Methods
Clustering approaches also have potential advantages
when the interest is in relating qualitative and quantitative
methods. Cluster analysis has been used in family psychol-
ogy to confirm typologies suggested by qualitative methods.
Hawkins, Marshall, and Allen (1998) applied cluster anal-
ysis to the Domestic Labor Questionnaire in an attempt to
validate Hochschild’s (1989) qualitative findings on the
division of domestic labor between married couples.
Cluster analysis has infrequently been used for quantita-
tive analysis of qualitative data in family psychology. We
could find only a single example of the direct use of clus-
tering for analyzing qualitative data in family psychology.
To classify the expectations of mothers of children with
hearing impairments, Dromi and Ingber (1999) applied
cluster analysis to interview data that had been coded.
As is evident from the study of Baxter et al. (1999), noted
earlier, interviews with or about families produce rich data
whose latent structure can be revealed with clustering meth-
ods. Data consisting of a mix of categorical and numeric
variables can also be cluster analyzed, producing categorical
variables that can be used in further analyses. Qualitative
interviews must be coded prior to entry into cluster analysis,
but such coding may be a simple indicator of the presence
or absence of words, phrases, or concepts. Qualitative cod-
ing programs such as NU-DIST (QSR International, 2004)
have substantial coding capabilities and can handle large
amounts of qualitative data. They can also produce output of
coded data that can be used by statistical programs. Some
qualitative analysis programs are beginning to incorporate
clustering and concept mapping routines. As noted earlier,
distances in qualitative data are defined by the degree of
similarity or association between categorical variables.
Data Reduction for Small Sample Sizes
Smaller sample sizes may produce unreliable correlations
that are sensitive to outlying observations and inappropriate
for principal components analysis or factor analysis. With
smaller samples, clustering methods may provide a desir-
able alternative to factor analysis for data reduction. Hier-
archical methods can be used to cluster rows or columns
(cases or variables) in the data matrix. Clustering items in a
scale returns a representative hierarchical structure of the
items that can be used in a manner analogous to a factor
analysis. Cordingley, Wearden, Appleby, and Fisher (2001)
used cluster analysis to test a questionnaire measuring fam-
ily responses to patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.
They recruited 78 physician-diagnosed patients, who com-
pleted the questionnaire on two occasions. Believing that
factor analysis of the 30-item Family Response Question-
naire would require a sample at least twice this size
(Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989, p. 603), they instead used hier-
archical cluster analysis to determine how many subscales
to retain. The analysis suggested four scales instead of the
original five. The cluster analysis showed that the four
revised scales were nested within two higher order
constructs.
1
A version of LTA for Windows can be downloaded from the
Pennsylvania State University Methodology Center Web site:
http://methodology.psu.edu/downloads/winlta.html
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CLUSTER ANALYSIS
An Alternative to Multivariate Interactions in Linear
Models
Clustering may also provide a useful alternative when
researchers are exploring the interactions between multiple
predictors in a statistical model. This is particularly impor-
tant in family research because, in multidimensional con-
ceptions of families, the full range of interacting family
variables may not be measured well, particularly when
sample sizes are smaller. Linear models can also mistakenly
identify interaction effects when the relations between vari-
ables are nonlinear (McClelland & Judd, 1993) or when
interactions and covariates are included in the same analysis
(Yzerbyt, Muller, & Judd, 2004). Clustering may be used as
an alternative to entering multiple interactions in linear
models. Cases can be clustered through the use of multiple,
relevant variables, and then dummy codes or effect codes
for cluster membership can be entered into the model,
easing interpretation of differences.
For example, Henry et al. (2001) used clustering in place
of interaction terms among multiple predictors. They en-
tered five measures of family relationships and parenting
practices into a linear model predicting later property and
violent crime in a sample of urban male adolescents. Incre-
ments in R2 values over intercept-only models determined
that the main effects of these five variables accounted for
6.5% of the variance in property crime and 7.4% of the
variance in violent crime. When they entered dummy codes
for clusters based on these same five variables into the
model, they could account for an additional 4.1% of the
variance in individual property crime and an additional
4.5% of the variance in individual violent crime. These
investigators concluded that the clusters were accounting
for the variance that would have been explained by the
interactions among the five variables.
Cautions in Applying Cluster Analysis in Family
Psychology Research
Two decades ago, Aldenderfer and Blashfield (1984, pp.
14 –17) offered three notes of caution in using cluster anal-
ysis, and they remain important today in family research.
First, clustering methods are relatively simple heuristics that
Figure 4. Bivariate distributions showing varying degrees of clustering.
129
are not supported by extensive statistical reasoning. Be-
cause of this, clustering methods are often criticized for
producing results that are not readily generalized to larger
populations. At the very least, unvalidated cluster solutions
should be regarded as explorations and descriptions of the
structure of data rather than as hypothesis tests or confir-
mations of theoretical structure. In particular, the signifi-
cance tests provided by clustering routines in most statisti-
cal programs (e.g., the analysis of variance table provided in
the SPSS K-means routine) should not be considered a
hypothesis test of the validity of the cluster solution. They
only test cluster separation on the variables the clusters were
designed to separate maximally.
Second, clustering methods can produce multiple solu-
tions from the same data. As we noted earlier, the solutions
produced by hierarchical clustering are sensitive to the
linkage method used (Morgan & Ray, 1995). The solutions
produced by nonhierarchical clustering are sensitive to sev-
eral factors. K-means clustering is sensitive to nonnormality
because it uses a least squares criterion for calculating
the distances between cluster centers. In SAS PROC
FASTCLUS, it is possible to specify criteria other than least
squares in nonhierarchical clustering, which can reduce
sensitivity to nonnormality. With small sample sizes,
K-means is also sensitive to the order of entry of variables.
As noted earlier, different starting values (initial cluster
centers) can significantly affect the solutions obtained with
K-means (Steinley, 2003). These limitations can be over-
come, to a certain extent, by obtaining cluster centers using
hierarchical clustering and then using these centers as initial
centers in a nonhierarchical (K-means) analysis. Two stud-
ies reviewed here used this combination of clustering meth-
ods (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 2000; Mandara &
Murray, 2002).
Third, and most important, no definitive test exists to
determine whether cluster solutions reveal meaningful clus-
ters or merely clumping that is essentially random. The
nature of clustering itself in multivariate distributions com-
plicates the use of clustering methods in family psychology.
To illustrate what we mean by “the nature of clustering,”
Figure 4 shows three points on a continuum of aggregation
in bivariate distributions: (a) aggregated, (b) regularly dis-
130 HENRY, TOLAN, AND GORMAN-SMITH
tributed, and (c) randomly distributed. The random distri-
bution is, as its name suggests, a distribution of uniform
random numbers between 0 and 1. We created the regular
distribution by transforming a random distribution in a
manner that decreased its clustering. We created the aggre-
gated distribution by transforming a random distribution to
increase its degree of clustering. Figure 4 illustrates that
random data are not regularly or uniformly spaced but have
some degree of clustering (Cottam, Curtis, & Cantana,
1957). Random data from a normal distribution, such as that
expected in many psychological measures, show an even
higher degree of clustering than do these random data from
a uniform distribution.
The degree of clustering normally present in random data
complicates the task of differentiating meaningful natural
clusters from random clustering. Adding to this complica-
tion is the fact that psychological data do not tend to be
tightly clustered. That is, clustered distributions, when they
do occur in psychology, tend to have fairly subtle degrees of
clustering, areas of slightly greater density rather than the
clear groups seen in the first panel of Figure 4. Clustering
methods are not sensitive to the difference between cluster-
ing found in random distributions and that found when real
clusters exist. Although no definitive test exists to determine
whether true clustering is present in data (Mandara, 2003),
several existing and emerging methods, when used together,
can increase one’s confidence in the appropriateness of
cluster analysis (Breckenridge, 2000; Mandara, 2003). In
addition, newer programs such as M-Plus (L. K. Muthén &
Muthén, 1998) and Latent Gold (Vermunt & Magidson,
2003)2 conduct latent class analysis (McCutcheon, 1987))
or latent class clustering and provide fit statistics that can
aid in determining how many clusters or classes to retain.
Conclusion
We have reviewed the steps in conducting a cluster
analysis and have reviewed the most commonly used clus-
tering methods in family research. We have reviewed the
uses of clustering in the family psychology literature during
the past 5 years and have discussed some notes of caution
for using clustering methods in family research. The field of
clustering, classification, and taxonometrics is vast, varied,
and rapidly growing. There are other clustering methods
(e.g., see Meehl, 1992; Stutz & Cheeseman, 1995) and
potential uses for clustering, such as detection of multivar-
iate outliers (Rocke, 2002) that we did not review here. New
methods are emerging to determine appropriate numbers of
clusters and to validate cluster solutions (Breckenridge,
2000; Mandara, 2003) that may, in time, be implemented in
statistical packages. Family psychology research would
benefit from conversation with other sciences that have
longer histories of using clustering methods, such as for-
estry, ecology, or epidemiology (Hartigan, 1975). Such
dialogue may lead to further refinements of clustering meth-
ods, although cluster analysis in other disciplines necessar-
ily reflects the particular needs and biases of those
disciplines.
In time, clustering methods may be an important compo-
nent of statistical methods that help provide an understand-
ing of the complexities of family relationships. Clustering
has much to offer, although it is still rarely applied and is
not well accepted by some in the field as a strong statistical
method. Clustering fills an important void in linear statisti-
cal methods, which cannot account for subsamples or the
natural clusters that occur in data. Some of the evidence
reviewed here suggests that clustering studies may reveal
more general groupings in samples that vary in nationality,
ethnicity, and residence, as well as methods and measures.
Recent advances have improved clustering methods and
have added and refined methods for determining an appro-
priate number of clusters and interpreting cluster solutions.
These advancements, along with improved measures of
family characteristics, should enhance the role of clustering
methods in family research.
2
Vermunt (1996) introduced a latent class approach to cluster-
ing that can be used with categorical, continuous, ordinal, or mixed
data types and does not require rescaling variables. It provides
chi-square, Bayesian information criterion, and similar statistics
that allow comparisons between different cluster solutions. This
method is available in commercially marketed (Vermunt & Magid-
son, 2003; online at www.latentgold.com) and free downloadable
packages (www.uvt.nl/faculteiten/fsw/organisatie/departementen/
mto/software2.html).
References
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Arabie, P., & Hubert, L. J. (1992). Combinatorial data analysis.
Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 169 –203.
Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956).
Towards a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251–
264.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adoles-
cent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 11, 56 –95.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Nicholson, J. H. (1999).
Turning points in the development of blended families. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 291–313.
Beale, E. M. L. (1969). Euclidian cluster analysis. Bulletin of the
International Statistical Institute, 43, 92–94.
Belsky, J., & Hsieh, K. (1998). Patterns of marital change during
the early childhood years: Parent personality, coparenting, and
division-of-labor correlates. Journal of Family Psychology, 12,
511–528.
Bergman, L. R. (1996). Studying persons-as-wholes in applied
research. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 331–
334.
Bergman, L., & Magnusson, D. (1997). Person-oriented research
in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopa-
thology, 9, 291–319.
Bowen, M. (1960). A family concept of schizophrenia. In D. D.
Jackson (Ed.), The etiology of schizophrenia (pp. 346 –372). New
York: Basic Books.
Bray, J. H., Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. (1995). Multivariate
statistics for family psychology research. Journal of Family
Psychology, 9, 144 –160.
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Breckenridge, J. N. (2000). Validating cluster analysis: Consistent
replication and symmetry. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35,
261–285.
Brenner, V., & Fox, R. A. (1999). An empirically-derived classi-
fication of parenting practices. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
160, 343–356.
Cairns, R. B., Bergman, L. R., & Kagan, J. (Eds.). (1998). Methods
and models for studying the individual. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Collins, L. M., Hyatt, S. L., & Graham, J. W. (2000). LTA as a
way of testing models of stage-sequential change in longitudinal
data. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.),
Modeling longitudinal and multiple-group data: Practical is-
sues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 147–161).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, L. M., Lanza, S. T., Schafer, J. L., & Flaherty, B. P.
(2002). WinLTA user’s guide. University Park: Methodology
Center, Pennsylvania State University.
Cordingley, L., Wearden, A., Appleby, L., & Fisher, L. (2001).
The Family Response Questionnaire: A new scale to assess the
responses of family members to people with chronic fatigue
syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 51, 417– 424.
Cottam, G., Curtis, J. T., & Cantana, A. J., Jr. (1957). Some
sampling characteristics of a series of aggregated populations.
Ecology, 38, 610 – 622.
Danseco, E. R., & Holden, E. W. (1998). Are there different types
of homeless families? A typology of homeless families based on
cluster analysis. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family
and Child Studies, 47, 159 –165.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An
integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487– 496.
Dromi, E., & Ingber, S. (1999). Israeli mothers’ expectations from
early intervention with their preschool deaf children. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 50 – 68.
Fisher, L., & Ransom, D. C. (1995). An empirically derived
typology of families: I. Relationships with adult health. Family
Process, 34, 161–182.
Fox, R. A. (1994). Parenting Behavior Checklist manual. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. B. (1999a, Septem-
ber). Patterns of coupling among late adolescent youth: Path-
ways to risk for relationship aggression. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Life History Research Society, Kauai, HI.
Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. (1999b). The rela-
tion of community and family to risk among urban-poor adoles-
cents. In P. Cohen, C. Slomkowski, & L. Robbins (Eds.), Where
and when: Influence of historical time and place on aspects of
psychopathology (pp. 349 –367). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. B. (2000). A
developmental-ecological model of the relation of family func-
tioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Crim-
inology, 16, 169 –198.
Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Henry, D. B., & Florsheim, P.
(2000). Patterns of family functioning and adolescent outcomes
among urban African American and Mexican American families.
Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 436 – 457.
Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P., Loeber, R., & Henry, D. (1998). The
relation of family problems to patterns of delinquent involvement
among urban youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26,
319 –333.
Haley, J. (1971). Family therapy: A radical change. In J. Haley
(Ed.), Changing families: A family therapy reader (pp. 272–284).
New York: Grune & Stratton.
131
Hamid, P. N., Yue, X. D., & Leung, C. M. (2003). Adolescent
coping in different Chinese family environments. Adolescence,
38, 111–130.
Hartigan, J. A. (1975). Clustering algorithms. New York: Wiley.
Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M., & Allen, S. M. (1998). The
Orientation Toward Domestic Labor Questionnaire: Exploring
dual-earner wives’ sense of fairness about family work. Journal
of Family Psychology, 12, 244 –258.
Henry, D., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2001). Longitudinal
family and peer group effects on violence and nonviolent delin-
quency. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 172–186.
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the
revolution at home. New York: Viking Press.
Jaccard, P. (1908). Nouvelles recherches sur la distribution florale
[New research on the floral distribution]. Bulletin sur le Societe
Vaudoise Sciencia Naturale, 44, 223–270.
Jones, B. L., Nagin, D. S., & Roeder, K. (2001). A SAS procedure
based on mixture models for estimating developmental trajecto-
ries. Sociological Methods and Research, 29, 374 –393.
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990). Finding groups in data:
An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley.
Lee, J. W., Rice, G. T., & Gillespie, V. B. (1997). Family worship
patterns and their correlation with adolescent behavior and be-
liefs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 372–381.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as
correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and de-
linquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice
(pp. 29 –149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context
of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series
Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psy-
chology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social develop-
ment (4th ed., pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.
MacQueen, J. B. (1967). Some methods for classification and
analysis of multivariate observations. In L. M. Le Cam & J.
Neyman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on
Mathematical Statistics (Vol. 1, pp. 281–297). Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Mandara, J. (2003). The typological approach in child and family
psychology: A review of theory, methods, and research. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 129 –146.
Mandara, J., & Murray, C. B. (2002). Development of an empirical
typology of African American family functioning. Journal of
Family Psychology, 16, 318 –337.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of
detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bul-
letin, 114, 376 –390.
McCutcheon, A. R. (1987). Latent class analysis. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors, taxa, traits, and types, differences of
degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–
174.
Milligan, G. W. (1996). Clustering validation: Results and impli-
cations for applied analyses. In P. Arabie, L. J. Hubert, & G. De
Soto (Eds.), Clustering and classification (pp. 341–375). River
Edge, NJ: World Scientific.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1988). A study of standard-
ization of variables in cluster analysis. Journal of Classification,
5, 182–204.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1986). Family Environment Scale
manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Morgan, B. T., & Ray, A. P. G. (1995). Non-uniqueness and
inversion in cluster analysis. Applied Statistics, 44, 117–134.
132 HENRY, TOLAN, AND GORMAN-SMITH
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2000). Integrating person-
centered and variable-centered analysis: Growth mixture model-
ing with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Ex-
perimental Research, 24, 882– 891.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide. Los
Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A
semi-parametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods,
4, 139 –177.
Peacock, M. J., Murray, C. B., Ozer, D., & Stokes, J. (1996). The
development of the Black Family Process Q-Sort. In R. Jones
(Ed.), Handbook of tests and measurements for Black popula-
tions (Vol. 4, pp. 475– 493). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.
QSR International. (2004). N6: The sixth version of the world
leading NUD-IST software. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://
www.qsr.com.au/
Rocke, D. (2002, May). Multivariate outlier detection and cluster
identification. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Robust Statistics, Davis, CA.
Seber, G. A. F. (1984). Multivariate observations. New York:
Wiley.
Steinley, D. (2003). Local optima in K-means clustering: What
you don’t know may hurt you. Psychological Methods, 8, 294 –
304.
Stutz, J., & Cheeseman, P. (1995). AutoClass: A Bayesian ap-
proach to classification. In J. Skilling & S. Sibisi (Eds.), Maxi-
mum entropy and Bayesian methods (pp. 117–126). Boston:
Kluwer.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate
statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Vermunt, J. K. (1996). Causal log-linear modeling with latent
variables and missing data. In U. Engel & J. Reincke (Eds.),
Analysis of change: Advanced techniques in panel data (pp.
35– 60). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2003). Latent class models for
classification. Computational statistics and data analysis, 41,
531–537.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective
function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58,
236 –244.
Wishart, D. (1969). An algorithm for hierarchical classifications.
Biometrics, 25, 165–170.
Wishart, D. (1982). Supplement, CLUSTAN user manual (3rd ed.).
Edinburgh, Scotland: Program Library Unit, Edinburgh
University.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Muller, D., & Judd, C. M. (2004). Adjusting
researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates
when testing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 40, 424 – 431.
Received February 15, 2004
Revision received August 30, 2004
Accepted October 5, 2004 䡲