This paper assesses two articles regarding the family system test (FAST)
methodology; one written by Rigazio-DiGilio soon
after the test was pioneered and another article written by Kahn and Meier, almost a decade after the test was first introduced. The author points out that the Rigazio-DiGilio's article is more favorable regarding the utility of the test; whereas, Kahn and Meier raise more questions about how the FAST test is being taken and interpreted by respondents. In both articles, the titles adequately indicate the nature of the test as well as the article content and the authors agree that the purpose of the test is largely guided by the theoretical principles of family systems
therapy. The paper concludes that the criticism of the FAST test is superficial and advocates Rigazio-DiGilio's support of the test measurement
methodology because, if the respondent does not understand what terms such as power, cohesion or hierarchy means in the context of the test, this is a problem in communication between the examiner and the examinees not a fault of the FAST test itself.