SHM PROJECT-12 month data collection OMB Justification statement.Section B

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR OMB CLEARANCE

PART B

DHHS/ACF

SUPPORTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE (SHM)

PROJECT EVALUATION

LOW-INCOME MARRIED COUPLES DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES –

12-MONTH FOLLOW-UP DATA COLLECTION

November 26, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION USING STATISTICAL METHODS

B1. Sampling for 12-month survey sample 3

B2. Procedures for collection of information 5

B2.1. Procedures for the 12-month data collection 6

B3. Maximizing response rates 7

B4. Pre-testing 7

B5. Consultants on statistical aspects of the design 8

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION USING STATISTICAL METHODS

B1. Sampling for 12-month survey sample

The 12-month survey sample will be fielded with approximately 800 respondents in each site, divided equally between the program and control groups. Our goal is to achieve an 80 percent response rate, resulting in completed surveys for approximately 640 men and 640 women in each site. Because the low-income married population is so heterogeneous, the universe of respondents for the survey will include individuals who differ by age, race, income, level of marital distress, and a host of other factors.

The evaluation literature often discusses the appropriateness of the sample size for a study by focusing on the smallest program impacts that are likely to be detected with a specified level of confidence, assuming a sample of a given size and characteristics. These are usually called the program’s “minimum detectable effects” (MDEs). Analysis of MDEs is also referred to as “power analysis,” as it estimates the study's power to measure the effects it was designed to find.

Exhibit B1.1 shows the minimum detectable effects (MDEs) that can be achieved with different sample sizes using the survey data. Because the literature on marriage education often expresses results in effect sizes (that is, in terms of the number of standard deviations of the outcome), the first column shows minimum detectable effect sizes. The remaining columns show the expected MDEs for several key outcomes — marital satisfaction, divorce rates, child well-being, and parental earnings — expressed as percentages of likely control group levels, based on recent experiments with low-income families.

Exhibit B1.1

As stated above, we expect each site to randomly assign 400 couples to a program group and 400 couples to a control group. We expect 80 percent of the sample (320 control and 320 program group couples in each site) to complete surveys at the 12-month follow-up. The exhibit therefore shows MDEs for several sample sizes: (1) 160 in each research group, which could represent a subgroup of half of the sample in a site, (2) 320 in each research group, representing a single site, (3) 640 in each research group, representing results for the two curricula that will be used in two sites, (4) 960 in each research group, representing results for the curriculum that will be used in three sites, and (5) 2,560 in each research group, representing results for all sites pooled.

As the exhibit indicates, the MDE in each site is 0.20 standard deviations. This means that if the true effect of an intervention is 0.20 standard deviations, then the difference in survey-based outcomes between program and control groups would be statistically significant in 80 percent of experimental tests of that intervention. Compared with many marital interventions studied using random assignment with middle-class white couples, a short-term impact of 0.20 standard deviations is not especially large. Meta-analyses of marriage education and marital and family therapy have found average effect sizes at post-program assessment of 0.50 standard deviations or more.

If sites are pooled, the study has a much better chance of finding statistically significant impacts on survey-based outcomes. For the two curricula being testing in two sites, for example, the MDE is about 30 percent lower when the two sites are combined than when they are looked at separately. For the curriculum being tested in three sites, the MDE is more than 40 percent smaller when the three sites are pooled. Finally, since it might be difficult to find statistically significant impacts in any individual site, we plan to estimate results pooling all eight sites. This will reduce the MDE by nearly two thirds.

Exhibit B1.2 shows the minimum detectable effects (MDEs) that can be achieved with different sample sizes using the observational data at the 12-month follow-up. The first column of the table shows minimum detectable effect sizes. The remaining columns show the expected MDEs for several key outcomes using observational data of couple and family interactions – positive and negative couple communication, as well as supportive parenting outcomes – expressed as percentages of likely control group levels, based on recent experiments with married couples with children (Halford, et al., 2004; Cowan & Cowan, 2000).

Exhibit B1.2

As stated above, we expect that 306 couples in each site will be asked to participate in the observational study. We expect that 72 percent of the sample (110 control and 110 program group couples in each site) will complete the videotaped observations of couple, parent-child, and/or co-parenting interactions. The exhibit therefore shows MDEs for several sample sizes: (1) 110 in each research group, which could represent the sample in a site, (2) 220 in each research group, representing results for the two curricula that will be used in two sites, (4) 330 in each research group, representing results for the curriculum that will be used in three sites, and (5) 880 in each research group, representing results for all sites pooled.

As the exhibit indicates, the MDE in each site is 0.34 standard deviations. This means that if the true effect of an intervention is 0.34 standard deviations, then the difference in observational study outcomes between program and control groups would be statistically significant in 80 percent of experimental tests of that intervention. Compared with many marital interventions with mostly white middle-class couples, a short-term impact on observed couple interactions of 0.34 standard deviations is about average. Meta-analyses of marriage education and marital and family therapy have found average effect sizes at post-program assessment of 0.34 standard deviations using observational data.

Because our power to detect statistically significant effects of the intervention using observational data is somewhat limited, we plan to estimate results for observational outcomes by pooling across multiple sites. If sites are pooled, the study has a much better chance of finding statistically significant impacts. For the two curricula being testing in two sites, for example, the MDE is about 29 percent lower when the two sites are combined than when they are looked at separately. For the curriculum being tested in three sites, the MDE is more than 44 percent smaller when the three sites are pooled. Furthermore, since it might be difficult to find statistically significant impacts in any individual site, we plan to estimate results pooling all eight sites. This will reduce the MDE by nearly 65 percent. Lastly, any subgroup analyses using the observational data will require pooling across all eight sites so that the resulting subgroup sample sizes will be sufficient to detect statistically significant intervention effects.

B2. Procedures for Collection of Information

The following approaches will be used to collect the follow-up data:

• About 6 month following their random assignment, couples enrolled in the SHM study will be contacted by Abt Associates with a letter asking them to update their contact information. (See Appendix E.)

• About 12 months following their random assignment, couples enrolled in the SHM study will be contacted by Abt Associates with a letter reminding them of their participation in the SHM study and informing them that they will soon receive a phone call from an Abt representative who will want to interview them over the phone about their marriage and children. (See Appendix F.)

• Abt Associates interviewers will call the specified contact numbers for SHM study participants and administer the 50-minute follow-up survey to all willing participants.

• For the observational study, Abt will contact a subset of SHM study participants to ask them if they would be willing to participate in some in-home observations with an Abt representative. Abt representatives will then enter the homes of willing participants and videotape 41 minutes of interactions for intact couples—21 minutes of couple interactions and 20 minutes of co-parenting and parenting interactions (for intact couples at follow-up)—and 10 minutes of parent-child interactions (for couples who are separated at follow-up).

All completed interviews will be reviewed to ensure that all applicable questions are correctly completed and that all relevant interviewer notes are included in the data set. Any open ended and “other, please specify” items will be coded based on codes approved by MDRC. A preliminary data file will be created in the first few months of data collection and provided, with documentation, to MDRC.

B2.1 Procedures for the 12-Month Data Collection

Interviewer training. We propose having the same field interviewers who administer the 12-month survey conduct the videotaped observations in study participants’ homes. MDRC will work with Abt Associates and other members of the research team to ensure sufficient interviewer training. In the past, this has typically involved two training sessions, each of which lasts about three to four days. Personnel who are new to interviewing will be trained in general interviewing techniques and approaches in the first day of the session. Interviewers will then be trained on the administration of the videotaped observations for the remaining three days of the training session. They will receive extensive training in how to administer these assessments. This training will consist of pre-training exercises and mock set ups of the videotaping equipment and protocol for the activity and discussion-based interactions. In the next 3-day training session, interviewers will be trained on the administration of the survey and will receive a refresher on the administration of the videotaped observations. Some pre-training exercises are likely to be required, and the actual training will include an item-by-item or task-by-task review of the survey instrument, practice interviews and administrations, and critiques of those interviews. Finally, each interviewer will undergo a certification process prior to fielding to ensure that the interviewer is qualified to set up the videotaped observations. The SHM research team will also work with Abt Associates to monitor early interviews and conduct periodic reviews of the observations over the course of fielding the data collection instruments to ensure that interviewers are following procedures and protocols with a high degree of fidelity.

In addition, the interviewer training will include extensive training on a protocol for handling adverse events while fielding the data collection instruments at the 12-month follow-up. We are currently developing a protocol for handling adverse events in the field with Abt Associates. This protocol will be submitted for review by IRBs at MDRC, Abt, and relevant sites prior to fielding any of the data collection activities.

Training will take place close to the time when the first cohorts of research subjects reach the 12-month anniversary of their random assignment date.

All interviewers will sign a confidentiality pledge during training. They will be instructed on the importance of maintaining confidentiality and told that breaches of confidentiality will lead to dismissal.

MDRC will also work with Abt Associates to monitor early interviews for each interviewer and periodically monitor interviews and administrations over the course of fielding the data collection instruments (e.g., listening in on telephone interviews, reviewing videotapes of administrations of direct child assessments). Feedback will be provided to the interviewers based on these monitoring efforts.

All interviewers will also undergo a certification process before administering any videotaped observations in the field to ensure that interviewers are qualified to collect this information and that a high quality of data is collected.

B3. Maximizing Response Rates

The goal will be to administer the 12-month survey to all sample members in each site, and the observational study will be targeted to 306 randomly selected couples in each site. Procedures for obtaining the maximum degree of cooperation include:

• Conveying the purposes of the study and follow-up survey to respondents so they will thoroughly understand the purposes of the data collection and perceive that cooperating is worthwhile;

• Providing a toll-free number for respondents to use to ask questions about the survey;

• Training site staff to be encouraging and supportive, and to provide assistance to respondents as needed;

• Training interviewers to maintain any pre-existing one-on-one personal rapport with respondent; and

• Offering appropriate payments to respondents.

In addition to the above procedures, the discretion that the CAPI follow-up affords respondents during the administration of sensitive questions (e.g., relationship quality, drug use) has been found to increase response rates by decreasing the number of refusals and break offs (Turner, et al., 1998). Moreover, these methods have also been shown to positively affect response rates by enabling people with limited literacy skills (particularly important given that the low-income married population is disproportionately Latino) to respond to sensitive questions while maintaining their privacy (Belcher, et al., 2001).

B4. Pre-testing

Most of the questions proposed for this instrument are either identical to questions used in prior MDRC evaluations or are similar, if not identical, to questions used in previous national surveys or major evaluations. Consequently, many of the items have been thoroughly tested on larger samples.

The proposed SHM 12-month survey has undergone a number of revisions, following critiques by internal staff, by project consultants, and by staff at HHS/ACF. Revisions were also made on the basis of cognitive testing that assessed the comprehensibility of the draft survey instruments on small samples of low-income married couples in Washington, DC, Oklahoma, and Texas. Dr. Lina Guzman and colleagues at Child Trends analyzed the results from the cognitive interviews and recommended appropriate revisions to all of the instruments that will be used to collect follow-up.

The 12-month survey instrument and observational study protocol have yet to be formally pretested by Abt Associates.¹ The pretests will provide information about the length of the various instrument components. The pretests will also be undertaken with the goal of improving the quality of the data the instruments would yield, and thus great care was taken in gleaning information about question wording. Following each pretest, respondents will be debriefed and asked about question clarity and about any problems or confusions that arose. Research personnel assisting 12-month survey and observational study protocol administration will also be debriefed about problems they encountered and about their recommendations for improving the instruments. Based on Abt Associates’ pretest results, we expect to make minor revisions to the instruments. These revisions will be limited to cutting items from the survey to fit within the targeted (and budgeted) times for the instrument administration, streamlining skip patterns within the survey to simplify administration, and improving/clarifying (and often simplifying) the wording of questions.²

B5. Consultants on Statistical Aspects of the Design

There are no consultants on the statistical aspects of the design. We have drawn on the considerable expertise of the SHM team members including Charles Michalopoulos and Howard Bloom of MDRC and Larry Orr and David Fein of Abt Associates.

REFERENCES

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., and Dauber, S. L. 1993. “First-grade classroom behavior: Its short-and long-term consequences for school performance.” Child Development, Vol. 64, No. 3: 801-14.

Amato, P.R. 2004. “Tension between institutional and individual views of marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66: 959-965.

Amato, P. R. 2000. “Consequences of divorce for adults and children.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 1269-1287.

Amato, P. R. and S.J. Rogers. 1999. “Do attitudes toward divorce affect marital quality?” Journal of Family Issues 20, 1: 69-86.

Amato, P.R. and S.J. Rogers. 1997. “A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59, 3: 612-624.

Baucom, D.H., Epstein, M., Sayers, S., and Sher, T.G. 1989. The role of cognition in marital relationships: Definitional, methodological, and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 57: 31-38.

Baucom, D.H., Epstein, N., Rankin, L.A., & Burnett, C.K. 1996. Assessing relationship standards: The inventory of specific relationship standards. Journal of Family Psychology, 10: 72-88.

Belcher, H.M., Butz, AM, Pulsifer M., Marano, N. 2001. Effectiveness of a home intervention for perceived child behavioral problems and parenting stress in children with in utero drug exposure. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Vol.155:1029-1037

Berlin, M., Mohadjer, L., Waksberg, J., Kolstad, A., Kirsch, D., Rock, D., and Yamamoto, K. 1992. “An experiment in monetary incentives.” Proceedings of Survey Research Methods Section of American Statistical Association, 393-8.

Bradbury, T.N. & Fincham, F.D. 1992. Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, 613-628.

Bradbury, T. N., F.D. Fincham, and S.R.H. Beach. 2000. “Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 964-980.

Bramlett, M. D. and W.D. Mosher. 2002. “Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States.” In Vital and Health Statistics 23, 22. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Bringing Baby Home. 2006. Research Evaluation of the Bringing Baby Home Program. Unpublished findings presented on www.bbhonline.org/research.shtml

Bronte-Tinkew, J., et al. 2003. “Conceptualizing and measuring healthy marriages: A review of the literature and annotated bibliography.” Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Carrano, and Guzman, L. 2006. Resident fathers’ perception of their roles and links to involvement with infants. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, Vol. 4, No. 3, 254-285.

Bryant, C. M. and R.D. Conger. 1999. “Marital success and domains of social support in long-term relationships: Does the influence of network members ever end?” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61: 437-450.

Buehler, C. and Gerard, J.M. 2002. Marital conflict, ineffective parenting, and children’s and adolescents’ maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, No. 1: 78-92.

Cabrera, N.J. et al. 2004. Low-income fathers’ involvement in their toddlers’ lives: Biological fathers from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men, Vol. 2, No. 1: 5-30.

Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., and England, P. 2003. “Union formation and dissolution in Fragile Families.”

Carlson, M.J., and McLanahan, S. 2006. Strengthening unmarried families: Could enhancing couple relationships also improve parenting? Social Service Review, Vol. 80, No. 2: 297-321.

Carrano, J., K. Cleveland, J. Bronte-Tinkew, and K. Moore. 2003. “Conceptualizing and measuring healthy marriages.” CD-ROM. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Carrere, S., Buehlman, K.T., Gottman, J.M., Coan, J.A., and Ruckstuhl, L. 2000. Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1: 42-58.

Clements, M.L., S.M. Stanley, and H.J. Markman. 2004. “Before they said "I do": Discriminating among marital outcomes over 13 years based on premarital data.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66: 613-626.

Cohen, S. & Williamson, G. 1988. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S.Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.) The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposium on applied social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Coleman, M., L. Ganong, and M. Fine. 2000. “Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62: 1288-1307.

Conger, R., Conger, K, and Elder, G. 1997. "Family Economic Hardship and Adolescent Adjustment: Mediating and Moderating Processes." Consequences of Growing Up Poor, edited by G. Duncan and J. Brooks-Gunn. New York: Russell Sage, 288-310.

Conger, R.D., G.H. Elder, F.O. Lorenz, K.J. Conger, R.L. Simons, L.B. Whitbeck, S. Huck, and J.N. Melby. 1990. “Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52: 643-656.

Cooper, H. & Hedges, L.V. (Eds.). 1994. Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Cowan, C.P., & Cowan, P.A. 1988. Who does what when partners become parents: Implications for men, women, and marriage. Marriage and Family Review, 13: 1-12.

Cowan, C. P. and Cowan, P.A. 1992. When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. New York: Basic Books.

Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P, and Kerig, P.K. 1993. Marital quality and gender differences in parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, Vol 29, No. 6: 931-939.

Cowan, C.P. and Cowan, P.A. 2006. The Case for Preventive Intervention to Strengthen Couple Relationships: Good for Couples, Good for Children. Presentation at the Evolving Families Conference entitled Marriage and Family: Complexities and Perspectives. Cornell University, April 7-8, 2006.

Cowan, C.P., Cowan P.A., Pruett, M.K., and Pruett, K. 2006. The Supporting Father Involvement Study: The first public report. Department of Social Services, Sacramento, CA, March 27, 2006.

Cummings, E.M. & Davis, P. 1994. Children and marital conflict. New York: Guilford.

Cummings, E. M., Ballard, M., El-Sheikh, M., and Lake, M. 1991. Resolution and children's responses to interadult anger. Developmental Psychology, 27: 462-470.

Cutrona, C. E. 1996. Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D.W., Abraham, W.T., Gardner, K.A., Melby, J.N., Bryant, C., and Conger, R.D. 2003.  Neighborhood context and financial strain as predictors of marital interaction and marital quality in African American couples.  Personal Relationships, 10: 389-409.

Darlington, R. B. 1990. Regression and Linear Models, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., and Kavanagh, K. A. 1992. An experimental test of the coercion model. In J. McCord & R. Trembley (Eds.), The interaction of theory and practice: Experimental studies of interventions (pp. 253-282). New York: Guilford Press.

Edin, K. 2000. “What do low-income single mothers say about marriage?” Social Problems 47, 1: 112-133.

Edin, K. and Kefalas, M. 2005. Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Edin, K. and Lein, L. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ellwood, D.T. and C. Jencks. 2004. The spread of single-parent families in the United States since 1960. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP04-008. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government.

Emery, R.E. 1982. Inter-parental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 92: 310-330.

Erel, O. and Burman, B. 1995. Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 110: 108-132.

Fein, D. et al. 2003. The determinants of marriage and cohabitation among disadvantaged Americans: Research findings and needs. Report prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

Fincham, F.D. 2003. Marital conflict: Correlates, structure and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12: 23-27.

Fincham, F.D., Bradbury, T.N., and Grych, J.H. 1990. Conflict in close relationships: The role of intrapersonal phenomena. In S. Graham and V.S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fivaz-Depeursinge, E. and Favez, N. 2006. Exploring triangulation in infancy: Two contrasted cases. Family Process, Vol. 45, No. 1: 3-18.

Fivaz-Depeursinge, E. and Bungin, D., Corboz-Warnery, A., Lebovici, S., Stern, D., Byrng-Hall, J., and Lamour, M. 1994. The dynamics of interfaces: Seven authors in search of encounters across levels of description of an event involving a mother, father, and baby. Infant Mental Health Journal, 15: 69-89.

Florsheim, P., Moore, D., Zollinger, L., MacDonald, J., Sumida, E. 1999. The transition to parenthood among adolescent fathers and their partners: Does antisocial behavior predict problems in parenting? Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 3, No. 3: 178-191.

Fowers, B. J. 2004. “Conceptualizing and measuring healthy marriages and positive relationships.” Conceptualizing and measuring “healthy marriages” for empirical studies: Recommendation memos from experts in the field. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Frisco, M.L. and Williams, K. 2003. “The Division of Housework, Marital Happiness and Marital Status among Dual-Earner Couples.” Journal of Family Issues, 22(1): 51-73.

Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G., & Strachman, A. 2006. Will you be there for me when things go right? Social Support for Positive Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 904-917.

Gerson, K. 1993. No man's land. New York: Basic Books.

Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrer, S. & Swanson, C. 1998. “Predicting martial happiness and stability from newlywed interactions.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 1: 5-22.

Gottman, J. 1994. Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gottman, J.M., and Levenson, R.W. 1992. Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 2: 221-233.

Gottmann, J.M. and Katz, L. 1989. Effects of marital discord on young children’s peer interaction and health. Developmental Psychology, 25: 373-381.

Greenstein, T.N. 1996. Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 3: 1029-1042.

Grych, J.H. and Fincham, F.D. 2001. Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gudmunson, C.G., Beutler, I.V., Israelsen, C.L., McCoy, J.K, and Hill, E.J. 2007. Linking financial strain to marital instability: Examining the roles of emotional distress and marital interaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 28, No. 3: 1573-3475.

Guzman, L., G. Matthews, J. Hamilton, and K. Moore. 2005. “Summary Report on Cognitive Interviews for Supporting Healthy Marriage.” Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Hair, E., McPhee, B., Moore, K.A., Vandivere, S. 2005. How do parenting behaviors mediate the link between maternal depressive symptoms and child well-being? APPAM Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

Halberstadt, A.G. 1983. Family expressiveness styles and nonverbal communication skills. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8: 15-26.

Halford, W.K., Markman, H.J., Kline, G.H., and Stanley, S.M. 2003. Best practice in couple relationship education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Vol. 29, No. 3, 385-406.

Hawkins, A.J., Fawcett, E.B., Carroll, J.S., Gilliland, T.T. 2006. The marriage moments program for couples transitioning to parenthood: Divergent conclusions from formative and outcome evaluation data. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 4: 561-570.

Hedenbro, M., Shapiro, A., and Guttmann, J. 2006. Play with me at my speed: Describing differences in tempo of parent-infant interaction in the Lausanne Triadic Play Paradigm in two cultures. Family Process, 24: 145-167.

Hetherington, E.M. and Clingempeel, W.G. 1992. Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the Society for Research in Child Development.

Heyman, R.E., D.J. Owen, and A.M. Smith Slep. In press. “The Risk of Partner Aggression Research: Impact of Laboratory Couples Conflict Protocols on Participants.”

Heyman, R. E., Owen, D.J. & Slep, A. M. 2006. “The risk of partner aggression research: Impact of laboratory couples conflict.” Violence and Victims, 21: 483-497.

Hochschild, A. 1989. The second shift. New York: Avon.

Horwitz, A.V. and H. Raskin. 1996. “Becoming married and mental health: A longitudinal study of a cohort of young adults.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 4.

Hops, H. 1992. Parental depression and child behavior problems: Implications for behavioral family intervention. Behavior Change, Vol. 9: 126-138.

House, J.S., D. Umberson, and K. Landis. 1988. “Structures and processes of social support.” Annual Review of Sociology 14: 293-318.

Hughes, D., E. Galinski, and A. Morris. 1992. “The effects of job characteristics on marital quality: Specifying linking mechanisms.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54: 31-42.

Huston, T. L. & Chorost, A. F.  1994.  Behavioral buffers on the effect of negativity on marital satisfaction: A longitudinal study,  Personal Relationships, 1, (3): 223-239.

Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 1999. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Press.

James, T. 1997. Results of the Wave 1 incentive experiment in the 1996 survey of income and program participation. Proceedings of the Survey Research Section of the American Statistical Association.

Jekielek, S.M., K. Moore, J. Carrano, and G. Matthews (eds). 2003. Conceptualizing and measuring ‘healthy marriages’ for empirical research and evaluation studies: Recommendation memos from experts. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Johns, A.L., Newcomb, M.D., Johnson, M.D., & Bradbury, T.N. 2007. Alcohol-related problems, anger, and marital satisfaction in monoethnic Latino, biethnic Latino, and European American newlywed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24: 255-275.

Jordan, P.L., Silliman, B., Stanley, S.M., Coffin, W., and Markman, H.J. 2001. Preventive interventions for couples. In H. Liddle, D. Santisteban, R. Levant, and J. Bray (Eds.), Family Psychology: Science-Based Interventions (pp. 123-146). Washington, D.C.: APA Publications.

Karney, B.R. and T.N. Bradbury. 1995. “The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method and research.” Psychological Bulletin 118: 1.

Kessler, R.C., et al. 2003. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 60: 184-189.

Kurdek, L.A. 1993. “Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 221-242.

Mack, S., Huggins, V., Keathley, D., and Sundukchi, M. 1998. Do monetary incentives improve response rates in the survey of income and program participation? U.S. Bureau of the Cnesus, Demographic Statistical Methods Division, Washington D.C.

Martin, S. and Parashar, S. 2003. Divergent trends in educational attainment and attitudes towards marital dissolution from 1974-2000: An emergent source of societal inequality? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA. <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p106925_index.html.>

McBride, B.A., Rane, T.R., and Bae, J. 2001. Father/male involvement in prekindergarten at-risk programs: An exploratory study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 16, 77-93.

McHale, J.P. and Cowan, P.A. 1996. Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families. Jossey-Bass Publishing, 112.

McHale, J.P., Kuersten-Hogan, R., Lauretti, A., Rasmussen, J.L. 2000. Parental reports of coparenting and observed coparenting behavior during the toddler period. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2: 220-236.

McLanahan, S. and G. Sandefur. 1994. Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLoyd, V. 1990. “The impact of economic hardship on African-American families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socio-emotional development.” Child Development 61, 2: 311-46.

Melby, J.N., Hoyt, W.T., and Bryant, C.M. 2003. A generalizability approach to assessing the effects of ethnicity and training on observer ratings of family interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20: 171-191.

Melby, J.N., and Conger, R.D. 2001. The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary. In Kerig and Lindahl (Eds.). Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research (pp. 33-58). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Melby, J.N., Ge, X., Conger, R.D., and Warner, T.D. 1995. The importance of task in evaluating positive marital interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57: 981-994.

Minton, C. and Pasley, K. 1996. Fathers’ parenting role and father involvement: A comparison of nondivorced and divorced, nonresident fathers. Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 17, No. 1: 26-45.

Moffitt, Robert A. 2001. Policy interventions, low-level equilibria, and social interactions. In Social Dynamics, edited by S.N. Durlauf and H.P. Young. Cambridge: MIT Press, 25-82.

Moore, Kristin A., J. Bronte-Tinkew, S. Jekielek, L. Guzman, S. Ryan, Z. Redd, J. Carrano, G. Matthews.  2007. Developing Measures of Healthy Marriages and Relationships.  Handbook of Measurement Issues in Family Research, S. Hofferth and L. Casper, Eds. Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moore, K. A., D. Hogan, B. Brown, L. Lippman, G. Sandefur, F. Goldscheider, and M. Msall. 2005. “Indicators of child well-being, positive outcomes measures and indicators of child disability: Summary of accomplishments (1993-2005).” Report prepared for the NICHD Family and Child Well-Being Research Network.

Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., Vandivere, S., McPhee, C. B., McNamara, M., & Ling, T. 2006. Depression among moms: prevalence, predictors, and acting out among third grade children. research brief. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.

Moore, K.A. & Vandivere, S. 2005. Turbulence: The Effects of Change. In Cosby, A, R. Greenberg, L. Southward and M. Weitzman (Eds.), About Children. Mississippi State University: The Social Science Research Center.

Moos, R.H. and Moos, B.S. 1994. Family environment scale manual: Development, applications, research (3^rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Morrison, D.R., and Corio M. 1999. Parental conflict and marital disruption: Do children benefit when high-conflict marriages are dissolved? Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 61, No. 3: 626-637.

Mosher, W.D., Pratt, W.F., and Duffer, A.P. 1994. CAPI, event histories, and incentives in the NSFG cycle 5 pretest. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association, 1: 59-63.

Oliker, S.J. 1989. Best friends and marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press

Pasch, LA., and Bradbury, T.N. 1998. Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 2: 219-230.

Perry-Jenkins, M., and Crouter, A.C. 1990. Men’s provider role attitudes: Implications for household work and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 11: 126-156.

Pinderhughes, E.E., Nix, R.E., Foster, M., and Jones, D. Parenting in context: Impact of neighborhood poverty, residential stability, public services, social networks, and danger of parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 63, No. 4: 941-953.

Presser, H.B. 2000. Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (1): 93–110.

Reardon-Anderson, J., Stagner, M., Macomber, J.E., and Murray, J. 2005. Systematic review of the impact of marriage and relationship programs. Washington D.C.: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Reichman, N. E., H. Corman, and K. Noonan. 2003. “Effects of child health on parents’ relationship status.” Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Well-being Discussion Paper #03-21-FF. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Reis, H.T., and Shaver, P. 1988. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367-389). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Ribar, D. C. 2004. What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage? A Review of Quantitative Methodologies. Discussion Paper No. 998. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor. Available from www.iza.org

Rusbult, C.E. and Buunk, B.P. 1993. Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 10, No. 2: 175-204.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., Mangelsdorf, S.C., Frosch, C.A., and McHale, J.L. 2004. Associations between coparenting and martial behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1: 194-207.

Shapiro, A.F. & Gottman, J.M. 2005. Effects on marriage of a psycho-communicative-educational intervention with couples undergoing the transition to parenthood: Evaluation at 1-year post intervention. Journal of Family Communication, 5: 1-24.

Shapiro, A.F., Guttmann, J.M, and Carrere, S. 2000. The baby and the marriage: Identifying factors that buffer against decline in marital satisfaction after the first baby arrives. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1: 59-70.

Silliman, B., Stanley, S.M., Coffin, W., Markman, H.J., & Jordan, P.L. 2002. Preventative interventions for couples. In H.A. Liddle, D.A. Santisteban, R.F. Levant, & J.H. Bray, Family Psychology Science-Based interventions, pp. 123-145, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Smock, Pamela J. and Wendy Manning. 2004. Living Together Unmarried in the United States: Demographic Perspectives and Implications for Family Policy. Law and Policy, 26: 87-117.

Spain, D. and Bianchi, S.M. 1996. Balancing act: Motherhood, marriage and employment among American women. Russell Sage Foundation: New York.

Sprecher, S., Metts, Burleson, B., Hatfield, E., & Thompson, A.  1995.  Domains of  expressive interaction in intimate relationships:  Associations with satisfaction and  commitment.  Family Relations, 44, 203-210.

Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D.  1992.  The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships:  A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54: 888-900.

Stanley, S.M. 2003. Assessing couple and marital relationships: Beyond form and toward a deeper knowledge of function. Paper presented at Healthy Marriage Interventions and Evaluation Symposium of the Measurement Issues in Family Demography Conference, Washington D.C.

Stanley, S.M., S.L. Blumberg, and H.J. Markman. 1999. “Helping couples fight for their marriages: The PREP approach.” Pages 279-303 in R. Berger and M.R. Hannah (eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Stanley, S.M. and Markman, H.J. 1992. Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54: 595-608.

Stith, S.M, Smith, D.B, Penn, C. Ward, D. and Tritt, D. 2004. Risk factor analysis for spouse physical maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 10, 65-98.

Stoneman, Z., Brody, G.H, Churchill, S.L, and Winn, L.L. 1999. Effects of residential instability on Head Start children and their relationships with older siblings: Influences of child emotionality and conflict between family caregivers. Child Development, Vol. 70, No. 5, 1246-1262.

Sullivan, K.T., Pasch, L.A., Eldridge, K.A., & Bradbury, T.N. 1998. Social support in marriage: Translating research into practical applications for clinicians. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 6, 263-271.

Taj, N., Devera-Sales, A., and Vinson, D.C. 1998. Screening for problem drinking: Does a single question work? Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 46, 328-335.Thomson, E. and Colella, U. 1992. Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment? Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 54, No. 2: 259-267

Thornton, A. and L. Young-DeMarco. 2001. “Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63, 4: 1009-1037.

Tucker, M.B. 2000. Marital values and expectation in context: Results from a 21-city survey. In L. Waite, C. Bacharach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, and A. Thornton (Eds.). The Ties that Bind: Perspective on Marriage and Cohabitation. Aldine de Gruyter, 166-187.

Turner, C.F., Ku, L, Rogers, S.M., Lindberg, L.D., Pleck, J.H., Sonenstein, F. L. 1998. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, Vol. 8: 867-873.

Umberson, D., M.C. Chen, J.S. House, K. Hopkins, and E. Slaten. 1996. The effect of social relationship on psychological well-being: Are men and women really so different? American Sociological Review, 61: 837-857.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 2000. “Highlights from the Tenth Special Report to Congress: Health risks and benefits of alcohol consumption.”  Alcohol Research and Health 24, 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available on the World Wide Web at www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh24-1/toc24-1.htm.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Studies. 2003. 2003 National Survey on Drug Use & Health:  Results. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available on the World Wide Web at www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/2k3NSDUH/2k3 results.htm#ch2.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S. & Cox, C. L. 1997. Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 1373-1395.

Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. 2000. The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Doubleday.

Walker, A.J. and Thompson, L. 1983. Intimacy and intergenerational aid and contact among mothers and daughters Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 45, No. 4: 841-849.

Webster-Stratton, C. and Taylor, T. 2001. Nipping early risk factors in the bud: Preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adolescence through intervention targeted at young children (0-8). Prevention Science, 2: 165-191.

Wheaton, B. 1985. “Models for the stress-buffering functions of coping resources.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 26: 352-364.

Whitton, S. Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J. 2002. Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41(4), 659-675.

Yamaguchi, K. and D.B. Kandel. 1985. “On the resolution of role incompatibility: A life event history analysis of family roles and marijuana use.” American Journal of Sociology 90: 1284-1325.

Yoshioka, M., E. Thomas and R. Ager. 1992. “Nagging and other drinking control efforts of spouses of uncooperative alcohol abusers: Assessment and modification.” Journal of Substance Abuse 4: 309-318.

1 Drafts of the 12-month data collection instruments will be tested prior to fielding the actual instruments. The survey will be pre-tested with up to nine parents and the protocol for the observational study will be tested with up to nine parents and nine children. The pre-test sample will be similar in demographic characteristics to the study sample. None of the pre-test respondents will be part of the actual study sample. The design of the pre-test is intended to reflect the realistic conditions that of the actual full-scale fielding of the data collection instruments. By doing so, the research team aims to mimic those conditions that are likely to pose difficulties during fielding. As such, the survey will be administered to pre-test respondents in person and/or over the phone. Videotaped observations will be conducted in person.

2 While using a larger number of items increases the reliability of the information gathered, we felt that, in some cases, fewer measures would also provide adequate reliability for measuring the constructs of interest, and we did not expect those cuts to have a substantial impact on the quality and the reliability of the data being collected.

20