The Experts below are selected from a list of 2757 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alan J. Hawkins - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Learning About Love: A Meta-Analytic Study of Individually-Oriented Relationship Education Programs for Adolescents and Emerging Adults
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2018Co-Authors: David M. Simpson, Nathan D. Leonhardt, Alan J. HawkinsAbstract:Despite recent policy initiatives and substantial federal funding of individually oriented Relationship Education programs for youth, there have been no meta-analytic reviews of this growing field. This meta-analytic study draws on 17 control-group studies and 13 one-group/pre-post studies to evaluate the effectiveness of Relationship Education programs on adolescents’ and emerging adults’ Relationship knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Overall, control-group studies produced a medium effect ( d = .36); one-group/pre-post studies also produced a medium effect ( d = .47). However, the lack of studies with long-term follow-ups of Relationship behaviors in the young adult years is a serious weakness in the field, limiting what we can say about the value of these programs for helping youth achieve their aspirations for healthy romantic Relationships and stable marriages.
-
Shifting the Relationship Education Field to Prioritize Youth Relationship Education
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 2017Co-Authors: Alan J. HawkinsAbstract:ABSTRACTThe field of couple and Relationship Education is dominated by a focus on helping committed couples strengthen their Relationship. This article reviews several lines of research to argue th...
-
is couple and Relationship Education effective for lower income participants a meta analytic study
Journal of Family Psychology, 2015Co-Authors: Alan J. Hawkins, Sage E EricksonAbstract:The negative effects of family instability on children and adults have captured the attention of legislators and policymakers wondering if something could be done to help at-risk couples form and sustain healthy Relationships and marriages. For a decade now, public funds have supported grants to provide couple and Relationship Education (CRE) to lower income individuals and couples. This meta-analytic study reviewed 38 studies (with 47 independent samples) assessing the effectiveness of CRE for lower income couples (defined as more than two-thirds of the sample below twice the poverty level) in an attempt to inform current policy debates. Overall effect sizes for control-group studies suggest that CRE for diverse, lower income couples has small, positive Relationship effects (overall d =.061), especially on self-reports of Relationship quality, communication, and aggression. There were somewhat stronger effects for studies with more married couples (d =.091), mostly "near-poor" (vs. poor) participants (d =.074), and more (vs. fewer) participants in Relationship distress (d =.072). In comparison to the effect sizes for control-group studies, the effects of one-group/prepost studies were larger (overall d =.352). Practitioners will need to continue to innovate curriculum design and pedagogy, improve other programmatic elements, and find ways to increase participant engagement to achieve greater success with the limited public funds that support CRE. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved). Language: en
-
a more optimistic perspective on government supported marriage and Relationship Education programs for lower income couples
American Psychologist, 2013Co-Authors: Alan J. Hawkins, Howard J. Markman, Galena K Rhoades, Scott M Stanley, Frank D. Fincham, Philip A Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, Steven R H Beach, Andrew P. DaireAbstract:In the past decade, the federal government, some states, and numerous communities have initiated programs to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages and Relationships in order to increase family stability for children. Thus, we value the attention given to this emerging policy area by the American Psychologist in a recent article (Johnson, May–June 2012). However, it is important to challenge some of Johnson’s points about the effectiveness and reach of interventions to lower income couples and couples of color and his suggested prioritization of basic over applied research. Johnson (2012) questioned whether marriage and Relationship Education (MRE) initiatives targeted to lower income individuals and/or minorities can be effective in anything like their current forms because much of the research on MRE has been based on middle-class, Caucasian couples. Johnson pointed to two large, rigorous evaluation studies with lower income, racially and ethnically diverse couples: Building Strong Families (BSF; Wood, McConnell, Moore, Clarkwest, & Hsueh, 2010) and Supporting Healthy Marriages (SHM; Hsueh et al., 2012). As Johnson accurately noted, the statistically significant effects in one study (SHM) were small, and in the other (BSF), significant results were confined mostly to one large site that was successful in retaining participants for substantial doses of the intervention (Oklahoma City). The significant effects in these two trials are indeed modest; improvements are needed. But we believe these and other studies provide some basis for optimism in this area of preventive Education, especially in light of the fact that many more costly government-supported programs, including teen pregnancy prevention, drug abuse interventions, and employment services, have struggled to document significant impacts (see the 2011 GAO report on jobs programs, where the rarely documented effects tend “to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to shortterm impacts” [United States Government Accountability Office, 2011, p. 11]). Given Johnson’s (2012) primary arguments about couples of color, it is noteworthy that he gave brief and no attention, respectively, to findings from the largescale trials he mentioned that minority couples were more likely to show significant benefits (African American couples in BSF [Wood et al., 2010] and Hispanic couples in SHM [Hsueh et al., 2012]). There are other studies that Johnson did not mention, and that he may not or could not have known about in writing his critique, that support our basis for more optimism in MRE efforts. In a recent meta-analysis of 50 programs supported by federal funds (reaching nearly 50,000 lower income participants) and evaluated by program providers with pre–post field data (no control group), statistically significant, generally moderate effect sizes were found for each target population and outcome assessed, and these effects were generally stronger for less educated participants (Hawkins & Fellows, 2011). In a rigorous randomized controlled trial study of nearly 500 young and married Army couples in a stressful context (e.g., deployments), those receiving one of the most tested MRE programs had a significantly lower likelihood of divorce one year following training (Stanley, Allen, Markman, Rhoades, & Prentice, 2010). These participants were lower income couples (although they cannot be compared to low-income civilian couples with less access to various resources). Moreover, the two-year outcomes in this study (being prepared for publication) showed the significant divorce reduction effect was maintained and that minority couples received the largest divorce reduction effect. Other studies also are demonstrating significant impacts from MRE efforts with lower income and/or minority couples (Bradley, Friend, & Gottman, 2011). In addition, one such study even showed positive effects on parenting and children’s problem behaviors (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009). Another study suggests that impacts from these government-supported programs may be beginning to register at the demographic level (Hawkins, Amato, & Kinghorn, in press). Johnson (2012) also suggested that lackluster impacts from the recent efforts were based on inadequate basic science about the risks and developmental course of Relationships for low-income and minority couples. We agree that there needs to be more research on basic risk and protective factors, and we think the emphasis he places on the role of stress in the lives of low-income couples is particularly promising. In fact, such research was influential in the adaptation of interventions in the largescale intervention studies cited earlier. Further, there was more reliance on empiricism in many efforts than the subtitle of Johnson’s article would suggest. We also are not convinced by his assertion that there is, at present, one “best supported model of marriage” (Johnson, 2012, p.
-
exploring programmatic moderators of the effectiveness of marriage and Relationship Education programs a meta analytic study
Behavior Therapy, 2012Co-Authors: Alan J. Hawkins, Scott M Stanley, Victoria L. Blanchard, Michael AlbrightAbstract:This study uses meta-analytic methods to explore programmatic moderators or common factors of the effectiveness of marriage and Relationship Education (MRE) programs. We coded 148 evaluation reports for potential programmatic factors that were associated with stronger intervention effects, although the range of factors we could code was limited by the lack of details in the reports. Overall, we found a positive effect for program dosage: moderate-dosage programs (9–20 contact hours) were associated with stronger effects compared to low-dosage programs (1–8 contact hours). A programmatic emphasis on communication skills was associated with stronger effects on couple communication outcomes, but this difference did not reach statistical significance for the Relationship quality/satisfaction outcome. There was no evidence that institutionalized MRE programs (formal manuals, ongoing presence, formal instructor training, multiple evaluations) were associated with stronger effects. Similarly, there was little evidence of differences in program setting (university/laboratory vs. religious). We discuss possible explanations for these findings and implications for program design and evaluation.
Andrew P. Daire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Correlational Study of Differences in Distress Following Relationship Education for Individuals With or Without Chronic Illness
Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 2019Co-Authors: Naomi J. Wheeler, Andrew P. Daire, Sandy-ann M. Griffith, Kelsee Tucker, Rachel A. RegalAbstract:AbstractRelationship quality contributes to favorable health; and conversely, chronic relational stress exacerbates symptoms of chronic illness (CI). Individual-oriented Relationship Education (RE)...
-
The Effectiveness of Couple and Individual Relationship Education: Distress as a Moderator.
Family Process, 2015Co-Authors: Ryan G. Carlson, Andrew P. Daire, Damon L. Rappleyea, Steven M. HarrisAbstract:Current literature yields mixed results about the effectiveness of Relationship Education (RE) with low-income participants and those who experience a high level of individual or relational distress. Scholars have called for research that examines whether initial levels of distress act as a moderator of RE outcomes. To test whether initial levels of Relationship and/or individual distress moderate the effectiveness of RE, this study used two samples, one of couples who received couple-oriented Relationship Education with their partner (n = 192 couples) and one of individuals in a Relationship who received individual-oriented RE by themselves (n = 60 individuals). We delivered RE in a community-based setting serving primarily low-income participants. For those attending with a partner, there was a significant interaction between gender, initial distress, and time. Findings indicate that women who were relationally distressed before RE reported the largest pre-postgains. Those who attended an individual-oriented RE program reported significant decreases in individual distress from pre to post, but no significant Relationship gains. Findings also suggest that initial levels of distress did not moderate the effectiveness of individual-oriented RE.
-
Investigating the Influence of Relationship Education on Parental Attitudes
Marriage and Family Review, 2015Co-Authors: Sejal M. Barden, Ryan G. Carlson, Andrew P. Daire, Laura Rendell Finnell, Krystal Christopher, Erika YoungAbstract:Economically strained couples experience a multitude of chronic stressors and are at greater risk for lower quality Relationships with their children. Relationship Education (RE) programs indicate positive results for economically strained couples who attend. However, most studies examine Relationship satisfaction or communication patterns with few addressing the influence of RE on parental attitudes. Therefore, we examined changes in parental attitudes for couples (n = 70) and compared differences in parental attitudes as measured by the empathy and family roles subscales of the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 at pre- and post-assessment. Results partially supported the hypothesis becasue participants indicated no significant differences between pre- and post-scores on empathy; however, participants did indicate significant differences between pre- and post-scores on family roles. Implications of results and discussion are provided.
-
Influence of Relationship Education on Relationship Satisfaction for Low‐Income Couples
Journal of Counseling and Development, 2014Co-Authors: Ryan G. Carlson, Sejal M. Barden, Andrew P. Daire, Jennifer H. GreeneAbstract:Declining marriage rates and increases in divorce have garnered interest from researchers and policy makers. Although the cause of marital dissolution cannot be pinned to one singular source, several factors contribute to divorce, including loss of employment, financial instability, child rearing, mental health issues, and a lack of primary support (Neff & Karney, 2004). One often-cited study conducted by Raley and Bumpass (2003) examined demographic trends of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Results indicated substantial differences in marital stability depending on individuals' age and Education level at the time of marriage; estimates suggest that 70% of first marriages for Black/African American women will end in divorce compared with 47% of White women's first marriages. Furthermore, estimates on the influence of Education suggest that 60% of marriages for individuals who drop out of high school will end in divorce compared with 36% of marriages when partners are college graduates. These findings confirmed earlier studies suggesting that socioeconomic status (SES) affects Relationship quality (Conger et al., 1992; Conger, Elder, Lorenz, & Conger, 1990). Researchers (e.g., Dakin & Wampler, 2008; Karney, Story, & Bradbury, 2005; Neff & Karney, 2004) continued to identify links between stressors (e.g., economic strain, financial pressure, chronic stress) and decreased marital quality. Karney and Bradbury (2005) suggested that research targeting financially strained couples has previously neglected to account for contextual, or environmental, stressors facing low-income couples. They argued that even well-adjusted couples would experience Relationship strain when facing some of the contextual stressors of low-income couples. Furthermore, economic strain predicts decreased marital adjustment (Kinnunen & Feldt, 2004), negatively influences marital happiness, and increases disagreements for couples (Voydanoff, 2004). Therefore, low-income couples consider financial instability the biggest barrier to maintaining a lasting Relationship (Charles, Orthner, Jones, & Mancini, 2006); however, it does not appear to deter their desire for a committed Relationship (Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005). Financial stressors influence parental quality and Relationship satisfaction (Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999). Children whose parents divorce are more likely to divorce (Amato, 2000). Additionally, children whose parents experience marital discord are more likely to experience poor performance in school, reduced coping skills, and more behavioral problems (Amato & Booth, 2001, Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995; Moore, Kinghorn, & Bandy, 2011). Kirkland et al.'s (2011) research supported couples and Relationship Education (CRE) as effective at improving coparenting among couples who participated, as well as their children's social competence. Thus, improving Relationship quality may help improve overall outcomes for children, even though children are not directly involved in Relationship Education workshops. The risk for Relationship distress in low-income couples justifies the need to provide effective interventions to ameliorate distress. Recent federal funding supported the use of Relationship Education as an intervention to increase conflict resolution skills and promote healthy communication in low-income couples. Therefore, in the remainder of this article, we (a) provide an overview of Relationship Education; (b) present results from our study, which randomly assigned 54 couples to Relationship Education or a wait-list control group; (c) discuss the efficacy of Relationship Education in increasing Relationship quality for low-income couples; and (d) highlight implications for counselor educators. Relationship Education CRE programs are skills-based curricula designed to promote healthy Relationships, or Relationships that are grounded in emotional, personal, and commitment safety (Stanley, Pearson, & Kline, 2005). …
-
Examining Relationship Satisfaction and Individual Distress for Low-to-Moderate Income Couples in Relationship Education:
The Family Journal, 2014Co-Authors: Ryan G. Carlson, Andrew P. DaireAbstract:Although economic disadvantage is linked to poor Relationship quality and increased individual distress, emerging literature supports couples and Relationship Education as effective at improving Relationship quality for low-income couples. However, Relationship Education’s influence on individual distress for low-income couples has not yet been determined. We provided Relationship Education using the Prevention Relationship Enhancement Program curriculum to 96 low-to-moderate income married couples with children and examined changes in Relationship quality and individual distress pre, post, and 3–6 months after intervention. We found significant improvements in Relationship satisfaction and significant individual distress decreases. Implications are discussed.
Howard J. Markman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Relationship Education for Military Couples: Recommendations for Best Practice
Family Process, 2016Co-Authors: Melissa G. Bakhurst, W. Kim Halford, Benjamin Loew, Annabel Mcguire, Howard J. MarkmanAbstract:Military couples have a number of distinctive strengths and challenges that are likely to influence their Relationship adjustment. Military couples' strengths include stable employment, financial security, and subsidized health and counseling services. At the same time, military couples often experience long periods of separation and associated difficulties with emotional disconnect, trauma symptoms, and reintegrating the family. This paper describes best practice recommendations for working with military couples, including: addressing the distinctive challenges of the military lifestyle, ensuring program delivery is seen as relevant by military couples, and providing Relationship Education in formats that enhance the accessibility of programs.
-
Reasons for Divorce and Recollections of Premarital Intervention: Implications for Improving Relationship Education.
Couple and Family Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Shelby B. Scott, Scott M Stanley, Galena K Rhoades, Elizabeth S. Allen, Howard J. MarkmanAbstract:The study presents findings from interviews of 52 divorced individuals who received the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) while engaged to be married. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study sought to understand participant reasons for divorce (including identification of the “final straw”) in order to understand if the program covered these topics effectively. Participants also provided suggestions based on their premarital Education experiences so as to improve future Relationship Education efforts. The most commonly reported major contributors to divorce were lack of commitment, infidelity, and conflict/arguing. The most common “final straw” reasons were infidelity, domestic violence, and substance use. More participants blamed their partners than blamed themselves for the divorce. Recommendations from participants for the improvement of premarital Education included receiving Relationship Education before making a commitment to marry (when it would be easier to break-up), having support for implementing skills outside of the Educational setting, and increasing content about the stages of typical marital development. These results provide new insights into the timing and content of premarital and Relationship Education.
-
a more optimistic perspective on government supported marriage and Relationship Education programs for lower income couples
American Psychologist, 2013Co-Authors: Alan J. Hawkins, Howard J. Markman, Galena K Rhoades, Scott M Stanley, Frank D. Fincham, Philip A Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, Steven R H Beach, Andrew P. DaireAbstract:In the past decade, the federal government, some states, and numerous communities have initiated programs to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages and Relationships in order to increase family stability for children. Thus, we value the attention given to this emerging policy area by the American Psychologist in a recent article (Johnson, May–June 2012). However, it is important to challenge some of Johnson’s points about the effectiveness and reach of interventions to lower income couples and couples of color and his suggested prioritization of basic over applied research. Johnson (2012) questioned whether marriage and Relationship Education (MRE) initiatives targeted to lower income individuals and/or minorities can be effective in anything like their current forms because much of the research on MRE has been based on middle-class, Caucasian couples. Johnson pointed to two large, rigorous evaluation studies with lower income, racially and ethnically diverse couples: Building Strong Families (BSF; Wood, McConnell, Moore, Clarkwest, & Hsueh, 2010) and Supporting Healthy Marriages (SHM; Hsueh et al., 2012). As Johnson accurately noted, the statistically significant effects in one study (SHM) were small, and in the other (BSF), significant results were confined mostly to one large site that was successful in retaining participants for substantial doses of the intervention (Oklahoma City). The significant effects in these two trials are indeed modest; improvements are needed. But we believe these and other studies provide some basis for optimism in this area of preventive Education, especially in light of the fact that many more costly government-supported programs, including teen pregnancy prevention, drug abuse interventions, and employment services, have struggled to document significant impacts (see the 2011 GAO report on jobs programs, where the rarely documented effects tend “to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to shortterm impacts” [United States Government Accountability Office, 2011, p. 11]). Given Johnson’s (2012) primary arguments about couples of color, it is noteworthy that he gave brief and no attention, respectively, to findings from the largescale trials he mentioned that minority couples were more likely to show significant benefits (African American couples in BSF [Wood et al., 2010] and Hispanic couples in SHM [Hsueh et al., 2012]). There are other studies that Johnson did not mention, and that he may not or could not have known about in writing his critique, that support our basis for more optimism in MRE efforts. In a recent meta-analysis of 50 programs supported by federal funds (reaching nearly 50,000 lower income participants) and evaluated by program providers with pre–post field data (no control group), statistically significant, generally moderate effect sizes were found for each target population and outcome assessed, and these effects were generally stronger for less educated participants (Hawkins & Fellows, 2011). In a rigorous randomized controlled trial study of nearly 500 young and married Army couples in a stressful context (e.g., deployments), those receiving one of the most tested MRE programs had a significantly lower likelihood of divorce one year following training (Stanley, Allen, Markman, Rhoades, & Prentice, 2010). These participants were lower income couples (although they cannot be compared to low-income civilian couples with less access to various resources). Moreover, the two-year outcomes in this study (being prepared for publication) showed the significant divorce reduction effect was maintained and that minority couples received the largest divorce reduction effect. Other studies also are demonstrating significant impacts from MRE efforts with lower income and/or minority couples (Bradley, Friend, & Gottman, 2011). In addition, one such study even showed positive effects on parenting and children’s problem behaviors (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009). Another study suggests that impacts from these government-supported programs may be beginning to register at the demographic level (Hawkins, Amato, & Kinghorn, in press). Johnson (2012) also suggested that lackluster impacts from the recent efforts were based on inadequate basic science about the risks and developmental course of Relationships for low-income and minority couples. We agree that there needs to be more research on basic risk and protective factors, and we think the emphasis he places on the role of stress in the lives of low-income couples is particularly promising. In fact, such research was influential in the adaptation of interventions in the largescale intervention studies cited earlier. Further, there was more reliance on empiricism in many efforts than the subtitle of Johnson’s article would suggest. We also are not convinced by his assertion that there is, at present, one “best supported model of marriage” (Johnson, 2012, p.
-
where s the action understanding what works and why in Relationship Education
Behavior Therapy, 2012Co-Authors: Martha E Wadsworth, Howard J. MarkmanAbstract:Abstract The field of couples Relationship Education has come to a critical junction. We have generally demonstrated that our interventions work (at least in the short run) but to what extent have we shown that the skills and processes we teach are in fact responsible for the success of the intervention? In this paper we review progress made in understanding mechanisms of change in Relationship Education, explore limitations of this body of research, explicate the barriers that interfere with progress in understanding mechanisms of change in intervention research, and present recommendations on how to proceed from here. Although our goal in this paper is to focus more on issues in the field rather than to present a comprehensive review of the literature, we provide overarching research summaries to illustrate some of our points. We conclude with offering recommendations for the next generation of research in the couples Relationship Education field.
-
Relationship Education research current status and future directions
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2012Co-Authors: Howard J. Markman, Galena K RhoadesAbstract:The overarching aim of this article is to review the research on Relationship Education programs and approaches that has been published or accepted for publication since the last review article in 2003. This article provides a critical overview of the Relationship Education field and sets an agenda for research and practice for the next decade. A theme weaved throughout the article is the ways in which Relationship Education is similar and different from couples therapy, and we conclude that there can be a synergistic, healthy marriage between the two. We then provide recommendations for future directions for research in the Relationship Education field. Finally, the coauthors comment on our experiences in both the Relationship Education field and the couples therapy field as both researchers and interventionists.
Kim W Halford - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Empirically Based Couple Relationship Education
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2014Co-Authors: Kim W Halford, Jemima Petch, Karina BateAbstract:Couple Relationship Education (CRE) is the provision of structured Education intended to promote healthy couple Relationships and prevent future Relationship distress. CRE usually is brief, ranging in length from a single session (involving an assessment of the Relationship with discussion of current strengths and challenges) to 12 to 14 hours of a skill-training curriculum. Research indicates that 10 or more hours of curriculum-based CRE produces short-term improvements in couple communication and Relationship satisfaction; these findings have been well replicated. Though there is less research investigating the long-term effects of CRE, the available evidence suggests there is a benefit of CRE for couples at elevated risk of future Relationship problems. Future research needs to further clarify which couples benefit from CRE, refine how CRE curriculum is tailored to address couples’ Relationship needs, and enhance the reach of CRE to increase its community impact.
-
effects of Relationship Education on maintenance of couple Relationship satisfaction
Clinical Psychology Review, 2013Co-Authors: Kim W Halford, Guy BodenmannAbstract:Couple Relationship Education (RE) is the provision of structured Education intended to promote healthy couple Relationships, and prevent future Relationship distress. There is a well-replicated finding that 9–20 hours of curriculum-based RE produces short-term improvements in couple communication and Relationship satisfaction, but that established finding does not test whether RE helps couples maintain high Relationship satisfaction. The current paper summarizes 17 published studies evaluating RE that have follow up assessments of at least 1 year, of which 14 studies found RE helped maintenance of Relationship satisfaction. Couples with elevations of modifiable risk factors benefit substantially from RE, while benefits for couples with low risk have not yet been reliably demonstrated. Couples with elevations on risk factors not readily modified by current forms of RE are likely to show little or no benefit. Future research needs to clarify the mediators of RE effects, and how those mediators are moderated by couple risk profiles.
-
marriage and Relationship Education what works and how to provide it
2011Co-Authors: Kim W HalfordAbstract:Grounded in extensive research and clinical experience, this indispensable book addresses the "whats," "whys," and "how-tos" of conducting effective marriage and Relationship Education. Leading authority W. Kim Halford reviews a range of contemporary models and provides an in-depth description of his own approach, Couple CARE. Session-by-session guidelines for therapists show how to help groups or individual couples—including those facing major life changes or stressors—foster closeness and communication, manage conflicts, and prevent common Relationship problems. The book also explains how to use commercially available online assessment tools to help each couple develop their own Relationship goals. [Book summary from publisher]
-
Processes of Change in Self-Directed Couple Relationship Education
Family Relations, 2008Co-Authors: Keithia Lynne Wilson, Kim W HalfordAbstract:The current study examined the learning processes involved in professionally supported self-directed couple Relationship Education (CRE). Fifty-nine couples completed Couple CARE, a systematic, self-directed CRE program designed in flexible delivery mode to be completed at home. Couples watched a DVD introducing key Relationship ideas and skills and then completed a structured guidebook. The learning process was supported by telephone-based coaching sessions from a professional Relationship educator. Couples completed the learning tasks associated with the programe and successfully implemented a wide range of Relationship self-change, and most reported continuing implementation of program learning at 6 months follow-up. These findings suggest that Couple CARE is readily accessible and results in effective skill acquisition for couples.
-
benefits of flexible delivery Relationship Education an evaluation of the couple care program
Family Relations, 2004Co-Authors: Kim W Halford, Keithia Lynne Wilson, Elizabeth Moore, Charles Farrugia, Carmel Mary DyerAbstract:The current study evaluated Couple CARE, a flexible delivery Relationship Education program. Fifty-nine couples were randomly assigned to either Couple CARE or a control condition and assessed on Relationship self-regulation, satisfaction and stability, and communication. Retention, engagement, and satisfaction with the program were all high. As predicted, Couple CARE increased Relationship satisfaction and stability and increased report of Relationship self-regulation, but did not have the predicted effect on communication.
Scott M Stanley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reasons for Divorce and Recollections of Premarital Intervention: Implications for Improving Relationship Education.
Couple and Family Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Shelby B. Scott, Scott M Stanley, Galena K Rhoades, Elizabeth S. Allen, Howard J. MarkmanAbstract:The study presents findings from interviews of 52 divorced individuals who received the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) while engaged to be married. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study sought to understand participant reasons for divorce (including identification of the “final straw”) in order to understand if the program covered these topics effectively. Participants also provided suggestions based on their premarital Education experiences so as to improve future Relationship Education efforts. The most commonly reported major contributors to divorce were lack of commitment, infidelity, and conflict/arguing. The most common “final straw” reasons were infidelity, domestic violence, and substance use. More participants blamed their partners than blamed themselves for the divorce. Recommendations from participants for the improvement of premarital Education included receiving Relationship Education before making a commitment to marry (when it would be easier to break-up), having support for implementing skills outside of the Educational setting, and increasing content about the stages of typical marital development. These results provide new insights into the timing and content of premarital and Relationship Education.
-
a more optimistic perspective on government supported marriage and Relationship Education programs for lower income couples
American Psychologist, 2013Co-Authors: Alan J. Hawkins, Howard J. Markman, Galena K Rhoades, Scott M Stanley, Frank D. Fincham, Philip A Cowan, Carolyn Pape Cowan, Steven R H Beach, Andrew P. DaireAbstract:In the past decade, the federal government, some states, and numerous communities have initiated programs to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages and Relationships in order to increase family stability for children. Thus, we value the attention given to this emerging policy area by the American Psychologist in a recent article (Johnson, May–June 2012). However, it is important to challenge some of Johnson’s points about the effectiveness and reach of interventions to lower income couples and couples of color and his suggested prioritization of basic over applied research. Johnson (2012) questioned whether marriage and Relationship Education (MRE) initiatives targeted to lower income individuals and/or minorities can be effective in anything like their current forms because much of the research on MRE has been based on middle-class, Caucasian couples. Johnson pointed to two large, rigorous evaluation studies with lower income, racially and ethnically diverse couples: Building Strong Families (BSF; Wood, McConnell, Moore, Clarkwest, & Hsueh, 2010) and Supporting Healthy Marriages (SHM; Hsueh et al., 2012). As Johnson accurately noted, the statistically significant effects in one study (SHM) were small, and in the other (BSF), significant results were confined mostly to one large site that was successful in retaining participants for substantial doses of the intervention (Oklahoma City). The significant effects in these two trials are indeed modest; improvements are needed. But we believe these and other studies provide some basis for optimism in this area of preventive Education, especially in light of the fact that many more costly government-supported programs, including teen pregnancy prevention, drug abuse interventions, and employment services, have struggled to document significant impacts (see the 2011 GAO report on jobs programs, where the rarely documented effects tend “to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to shortterm impacts” [United States Government Accountability Office, 2011, p. 11]). Given Johnson’s (2012) primary arguments about couples of color, it is noteworthy that he gave brief and no attention, respectively, to findings from the largescale trials he mentioned that minority couples were more likely to show significant benefits (African American couples in BSF [Wood et al., 2010] and Hispanic couples in SHM [Hsueh et al., 2012]). There are other studies that Johnson did not mention, and that he may not or could not have known about in writing his critique, that support our basis for more optimism in MRE efforts. In a recent meta-analysis of 50 programs supported by federal funds (reaching nearly 50,000 lower income participants) and evaluated by program providers with pre–post field data (no control group), statistically significant, generally moderate effect sizes were found for each target population and outcome assessed, and these effects were generally stronger for less educated participants (Hawkins & Fellows, 2011). In a rigorous randomized controlled trial study of nearly 500 young and married Army couples in a stressful context (e.g., deployments), those receiving one of the most tested MRE programs had a significantly lower likelihood of divorce one year following training (Stanley, Allen, Markman, Rhoades, & Prentice, 2010). These participants were lower income couples (although they cannot be compared to low-income civilian couples with less access to various resources). Moreover, the two-year outcomes in this study (being prepared for publication) showed the significant divorce reduction effect was maintained and that minority couples received the largest divorce reduction effect. Other studies also are demonstrating significant impacts from MRE efforts with lower income and/or minority couples (Bradley, Friend, & Gottman, 2011). In addition, one such study even showed positive effects on parenting and children’s problem behaviors (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009). Another study suggests that impacts from these government-supported programs may be beginning to register at the demographic level (Hawkins, Amato, & Kinghorn, in press). Johnson (2012) also suggested that lackluster impacts from the recent efforts were based on inadequate basic science about the risks and developmental course of Relationships for low-income and minority couples. We agree that there needs to be more research on basic risk and protective factors, and we think the emphasis he places on the role of stress in the lives of low-income couples is particularly promising. In fact, such research was influential in the adaptation of interventions in the largescale intervention studies cited earlier. Further, there was more reliance on empiricism in many efforts than the subtitle of Johnson’s article would suggest. We also are not convinced by his assertion that there is, at present, one “best supported model of marriage” (Johnson, 2012, p.
-
exploring programmatic moderators of the effectiveness of marriage and Relationship Education programs a meta analytic study
Behavior Therapy, 2012Co-Authors: Alan J. Hawkins, Scott M Stanley, Victoria L. Blanchard, Michael AlbrightAbstract:This study uses meta-analytic methods to explore programmatic moderators or common factors of the effectiveness of marriage and Relationship Education (MRE) programs. We coded 148 evaluation reports for potential programmatic factors that were associated with stronger intervention effects, although the range of factors we could code was limited by the lack of details in the reports. Overall, we found a positive effect for program dosage: moderate-dosage programs (9–20 contact hours) were associated with stronger effects compared to low-dosage programs (1–8 contact hours). A programmatic emphasis on communication skills was associated with stronger effects on couple communication outcomes, but this difference did not reach statistical significance for the Relationship quality/satisfaction outcome. There was no evidence that institutionalized MRE programs (formal manuals, ongoing presence, formal instructor training, multiple evaluations) were associated with stronger effects. Similarly, there was little evidence of differences in program setting (university/laboratory vs. religious). We discuss possible explanations for these findings and implications for program design and evaluation.
-
Using Individual-oriented Relationship Education to Prevent Family Violence
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 2011Co-Authors: Galena K Rhoades, Scott M StanleyAbstract:Relationship aggression has negative effects on adults, children, and society. In this article, we outline the potential benefits of using Relationship Education programs that are designed for and delivered to individuals (rather than couples) for preventing Relationship aggression. Next, we briefly review one such program, Within My Reach, and related research on its effectiveness in preventing Relationship aggression. Implications of this research for future research, clinical practice, and policy are also discussed.
-
Relationship Education in Emerging Adulthood: Problems and Prospects
Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood, 2010Co-Authors: Frank D. Fincham, Scott M Stanley, Galena K RhoadesAbstract:The literature on emerging adulthood (EA) has focused heavily on basic research, a reflection no doubt of continuing debate about fundamental features of this stage of development (see the special issue of Child Development Perspectives , 2007). Therefore it is not surprising that examination of applied issues relating to romantic Relationships in EA has been limited to documenting an association between romantic Relationships and psychological adjustment (see Chapter 14) and to showing that the quality of such Relationships mediates the link between earlier parent–adolescent Relationships and later mental health outcomes (Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2007). The purpose of this chapter is to broaden attention to applied issues in the EA literature by considering how to facilitate what seems to be a prerequisite to entering adulthood: the ability to initiate and sustain an intimate romantic Relationship with another person. WHAT IS Relationship Education AND IS IT NECESSARY? Historically, Relationship Education has taken the form of marriage Education and has been offered almost exclusively to couples. Such marriage Education has its roots in religious institutions, and the precursor to modern programs was Pre-Cana premarital counseling now required of couples wishing to marry within the Catholic Church (Ooms, 2005). Until quite recently, most Relationship Education occurred in religious contexts, thereby excluding those who do not profess a religious faith or who are uncomfortable in such settings. Nonetheless, a substantial minority of marrying couples (44%) in the 1990s received some type of Relationship Education before marriage (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006).