PARENT PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND REDUCING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT FOLLOWING DIVORCE

PARENT PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND REDUCING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF

INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT FOLLOWING DIVORCE

Matthew Goodman Darya Bonds Irwin Sandler

Sanford Braver

This article reviews psychoeducational programs to reduce interparental conflict in divorcing families and the negative impact of conflict on children. The authors initially identify factors shown in the basic psychosocial research literature to be related to the effects of interparental conflict on children. They then review the content of programs currently being delivered and evaluate the evidence from well-controlled studies concerning their effectiveness. Finally, the article considers directions for future program development and evaluation.

Keywords: psychoeducational programs; prevention: parenting: interparental conflict; divorre

Interest in developing interventions to reduce the effects of interparental conflict in divorcing families is motivated by findings that 10% to 25% of divorced families remain highly conflicted long after separation (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992), that children from high- conflict divorce families are at greater risk for adjustment problems (Hetherington, 1999), and that high-conflict divorced families use a disproportionate amount of court resources (Kline Pruett, Nangle, & Bailey, 2000). The purpose of this article is to discuss current parent psychoeducational programs in terms of their focus on interparental conflict. First, we present a multidimensional conceptualization of interparental conflict and identify the different potential targets of these programs. We then describe current approaches to reducing the effects of conflict in terms of the content of the programs and evidence concerning their effects. Our review includes programs that are targeted to the full population of divorcing families (universal programs) and those that are designed specifically for high-conflict divorcing families (targeted programs). Finally, we discuss directions for future research and interventions to reduce the negative effects of interparental conflict in divorcing families.

RESEARCH ON INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR INTERVENTIONS

MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT

We conceptualize interparental conflict as including three main types: legal conflicts, interpersonal conflicts, and attitudinal conflict. Legal conflict involves actions in the court

Authors’ Note: Requests for reprints should be sent to Invin Sandler: Department of Psychology, Prevention Research Center: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104: e-mail: [email protected].

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 42 No. 2, April 2004 263-279 0 2004 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

263

264 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

Table 1 Multidimensional Anu1ysi.s of Interparental Conflict and Children S Adjuvtmenr

Father’s Mother’s Attitude Attitude

Interpersonal Legal About About Children’s Conflict Conflict Mother Father Adjustment

lnterpersonal conflict 1 .oo Legal conflict 0.39** 1 .oo

Children’s adjustment 0.30** 0.14 0.20 0.19 1 .oo

Father’s attitude about mother 0.35** 0.24* 1 .oo Mother’s attitude about father 0.46** 0.24* 0.06 1 .oo

*I, < .05. **p < .01.

system such as continued litigation, requests for change in decrees, and enforcement actions for noncompliance with the decree. Interpersonal conflict involves a wide range of conflict behavior between the parents including verbal disputes, physical violence, and badmouthing. Attitudinal conflict involves the parents’ anger and hostility toward their ex-spouse, including their negative attitude toward their ex-spouse in the parenting role. Within this typology of interparental conflict there are also four important conflict dimensions to consider: topics (i.e., child custody), tactics (i.e., physical aggression), intensity (i.e., degree of hostility), and frequency (Johnston, 1994).

Table 1 displays the correlations between interpersonal conflict, legal conflict, attitudinal conflict, and child adjustment problems from a reanalysis of survey data collected by Braver and Griffin (2000) of 94 matched pairs of mothers and fathers 4 to 10 months after the final- ization of divorce. This sample was obtained as a random sample from public divorce records. The following criteria were used to determine eligibility for participation: (a) both members of the couple resided in Maricopa County, (b) both members of the couple were willing to participate in an interview about the relationship (because we were seeking matched reports between spouses), and (c) the couples had one child aged 4 to 12. Parents were paid $20 each for their participation. Interpersonal conflict was assessed by a cornpos- ite of mother and father reports on two measures. One of the measures was the 13-item Chil- dren’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale developed by Grych and Fincham ( I 992) (sample item: “The child knows that my ex and I argue or disagree a lot”) and the other measure was the 15-item Braver Conflict Breadth Scale developed specifically for this study (in which the parents were asked how much conflict they currently had about such matters as child support payments, discipline of the child, and dating relationships). Legal conflict was measured by a composite of mother and father reports on one item (“Following your divorce, how much conflict between you and your ex has been expressed through the legal system?”). Mother and father reports of attitudinal conflict were uncorrelated, and thus were not summed to form a composite measure. Attitudinal conflict was measured by the 4-item Incompetent Parent Scale from Ahrons and Wallisch (1987) (sample item: “I have felt my ex is an irresponsible parent”). Child adjustment problems were measured by the composite of mother and father reports on the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). As depicted in Table 1, interpersonal, legal, and attitudinal conflict were moderately related to each other. Furthermore, only interpersonal conflict, not legal or attitudinal conflict, was significantly related to children’s adjustment problems. This analysis suggests that the different types of interparental conflict are interrelated, yet they have differing effects on child adjustment problems.

Goodman et al. I PROGRAMS FOR INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT 265

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Legal interparental conflict. Although it is logical to believe that ongoing legal conflict between parents is associated with problem outcomes for children, there is relatively little empirical evidence on this issue. Clinical observations indicate that children in extremely high-conflict families (who are high on legal, interpersonal, and attitudinal conflict) are two to four times more likely to have high levels of behavioral and mental health symptoms compared to national norms (Johnston & Campbell, 1988). However, evidence is more mixed concerning the relations between litigation and child adjustment in the general population of divorcing families, with some studies finding that use of an attorney is actually related to lower child adjustment problems (Kline Pruett, Williams, Insabella, & Little, 2003; Wolman & Taylor, 199 1). These relations are currently not well understood and may reflect a correla- tion between litigation and other family variables such as parental socioeconomic status or parental mental health.

Research also has examined factors that influence the level of children’s adjustment problems in divorcing families experiencing high legal conflict. Johnston, Kline, and Tschann (1989; Johnston, 1994) reported that within these high-legal conflict families, children with more frequent visitation with the noncustodial parent tended to be more aggressive, depressed, and withdrawn, and had more somatic symptoms. Further analysis indicated that the relations of noncustodial parent visitation with children’s behavior problems was par- tially accounted for by higher aggression between the parents and children being caught in the middle of the conflict. Although the authors rightly recommend caution in interpreting this finding, the statistical model they present is consistent with other findings concerning the negative relation between noncustodial parent visitation and child adjustment in high- conflict divorced families (Amato & Rezac, 1994).

Attitudinal interparental conflict. Investigations of the effects of attitudinal interparental conflict on child adjustment are few and far between because previous studies have failed to make the distinction between the different types conflict. As described above, results from the current study indicated that attitudinal conflict was not a significant predictor of child adjustment problems after controlling for the effects of legal and interpersonal conflict. Sim- ilarly, Kline Pruett et al. (2003) reported that having a positive view of the ex-spouse (i.e., low attitudinal conflict) was not a significant predictor of child internalizing and externalizing problems. The results of their study also indicated that attitudinal conflict and interpersonal conflict were significantly related, and interpersonal conflict was a significant predictor of child adjustment problems. Another study reported that parental hostility (i.e., attitudinal conflict) following divorce was significantly related to the amount of legal conflict (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). To date, the research provides no support for a relation between attitudinal conflict and child adjustment in divorced families; however, further research is needed to adequately study this issue.

Interpersonal interparental conflict. A large body of research indicates that interpersonal conflict negatively affects children’s emotional and cognitive functioning, placing children at risk for externalizing and internalizing disorders (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 2001). Illustratively, laboratory studies have shown that exposure to interparental conflict and expressions of anger between parents leads to negative emotional arousal in children and adolescents (Davies & Cummings, 1994). This research also finds that repeated exposure to interparental conflict leads to greater distress when witnessing subsequent con-


flicts. These findings have important implications concerning the continuing high levels of interpersonal conflict that occurs following some divorces.

Two models have been used to describe the internal emotional and cognitive processes affected by children’s exposure to interpersonal conflict: the emotional security hypothesis (Davies & Cummings, 1994) and the cognitive contextual framework (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Davies and Cummings (1994) described emotional security as a set goal by which children regulate their own functioning and form internal representations of themselves and their family as secure or insecure. Research has indicated that exposure to interparental conflict threatens children’s emotional security, which then leads to child adjustment problems (Davies & Cummings, 1998).

The cognitive contextual framework implies that children’s internal representations of the family are determined by their assessment of self-relevance, relative threat, and adequacy of coping skills in response to interparental conflict. Research has supported this model by showing that children who have been exposed to higher levels of interparental conflict tend to evaluate conflicts more negatively and perceive interparental conflicts as more threat- ening (Grych, 1998). Furthermore, the literature has identified several important cognitive processes that affect child adjustment after divorce: positive illusions about the divorce si tu- ation, negative cognitive errors about the divorce situation (i.e., overgeneralizing; Mazur, Wolchik, & Sandler, 1992), and fear of abandonment (Wolchik, Tein, Sandler, & Doyle, 2002).

Research has also shown that the effect of conflict on children is affected by messages about conflict resolution. Cummings and Davies (1994), on the basis of numerous studies, concluded that children’s negative responses to interparental conflict are significantly reduced when the conflicts are resolved. They reported that children’s distress reactions to conflict were reduced even when apologies were delivered with an angry tone (Shifflett- Simpson & Cummings, 1996) and when parents told the child that the conflict would be resolved soon (Cummings & Wilson, 1999). In addition to resolution strategies, the frequency of occurrence, intensity, or whether the conflict involves the child may also be important factors (Grych & Fincham, 1990; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001).

Mediators and moderators of the effects of interparental conflict. Interparental conflict may also affect children’s adjustment indirectly, through its influence on other processes, particularly parenting (Davies & Cummings, 1994). The evidence indicates that interparental conflict is associated with a deterioration of positive parenting practices (i.e., responsiveness), as well as an escalation of negative parenting practices (i.e., harshness; Harold & Conger, 1997). In addition, research has identified parenting as a mediator of the effects of interparental conflict on children (Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990). This process applies to father’s parenting (Kline h e t t et al., 2003) and mother’s parenting (Sturge-Apple, Gondoli, Bonds, & Salem, in press).

From a family systems perspective, the effects of interparental conflict may be mediated by the relationship the child has with both parents (Minuchin, 1985). That is, research has found that one of the mechanisms by which the effects of interparental conflict affects child adjustment is through the children being caught in loyalty conflicts between the parents and by role reversal in which the child takes on a protective role with one of the parents (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991).

Another factor that may mediate the negative effects of interparental conflict on children of divorce is parental mental health problems. Research has indicated that parents involved in high-conflict divorces are at greater risk for severe psychopathology and substance abuse

Goodman et af. / PROGRAMS FOR INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT 267

i i : 1

D

Figure 1. Model of research-supported factors that influence the effects of interparental conflict on children of divotre.

Interoarental Conflict A Ongoing Litigation

problems (Johnston, 1994), suggesting that parental psychopathology may be part of the chain of events that lead to child adjustment problems in high-conflict divorce families. In support of this notion, interparental conflict has been identified as a significant predictor of parental psychopathology, and the link between parental psychopathology and poor child adjustment has been well documented (Zahn-Waxler, Duggal, & Gruber, 2002). Interest- ingly, recent research supports a bidirectional effect between interparental conflict and parental psychopathology. Thus, interparental conflict may exacerbate parental psychopathology, while at the same time parental psychopathology may impede positive interparental relations (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Child Adjustment Problems

SUMMARY

Figure 1 presents a model of the pathways by which interparental conflict influences the adjustment of children of divorce. The box at the far left lists the aspects of conflict that are found to influence child adjustment. The evidence is limited and mixed for ongoing litigation, but indicates that very high levels of continued litigation that co-occur with high levels of interpersonal conflict are associated with elevated adjustment problems. Other factors, such as repeated exposure to interpersonal conflict and involvement of the child in the conflict, are clearly linked to child adjustment problems in multiple studies. Notably absent is evidence concerning what we have termed attitudinal conflict, the degree to which the parents are hostile to each other or view parenting by the other in an unfavorable light. The middle box shows multiple factors that mediate or moderate the linkage between conflict and child adjustment, including factors having to do with the child (i.e., emotional security or cognitive evaluation of the conflict) or the parents (i.e.. the quality of parenting or psychopathology). Notably absent are factors such as amount (rather than quality) of contact with the parents, which are more complexly related to child adjustment, particularly in very high- conflict families. The circle at the upper left indicates that these factors are potential targets for interventions to improve child adjustment following divorce. Multiple intervention strategies might follow from this model, and we know little about their relative effectiveness. For


example, children’s exposure to conflict may be reduced either by actually decreasing the level of interpersonal conflict between the parents or by teaching parents to keep the child out of the war zone by not enmeshing them in the conflict. Alternatively, giving the child reassuring messages about the conflict (i.e., that it is not their fault, that the child will con- tinue to be cared for by the parents, and that the conflict will be resolved) may be important in reducing the negative effects of conflict exposure. In addition, the negative effects of conflict may be reduced by directly strengthening the factors that mediate and moderate the effects of interparental conflict on child adjustment. For example, one of the most consistent mediators of the effects of conflict is the quality of parenting, and programs that directly support high quality parenting by the custodial or noncustodial parent may reduce the negative impact of conflict on children. We now turn to reviewing the intervention literature with divorcing families to examine the variables actually targeted for change, and their efficacy in improving these outcomes.

PARENT PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Multiple models of psychoeducational programs have been developed to address the problem of continuing conflict between divorced parents. Our review will address two issues: (a) What are the goals and the content of the programs? We will be particularly interested in the degree to which the programs address factors supported by research as affecting either the occurrence or effects of interparental conflict. (b) What are the demonstrated effects of these programs? We are interested in effects on any aspect of conflict, including attitudinal conflict (i.e., attitude toward parenting role for the other parent), interpersonal conflict (i.e., how much parents fight or involve the children), or legal conflict (i.e., ongoing litigation). We also review factors that have been demonstrated to influence the degree to which conflict affects children’s postdivorce adjustment, such as quality of parenting by the custodial or noncustodial parent and children’s interpretations of the conflict. We will review programs that are designed for all divorcing families (universal) because interparental conflict is related to child adjustment for the general population of divorced families, as well as programs that are specifically targeted for high-conflict families (targeted). Finally, we will consider a more comprehensive approach that brings together the strengths of different programs.

UNIVERSAL PROGRAMS

Content of Universal Programs

Parent education programs for divorcing parents have become extremely widespread and, as of the late 1990s, 1,5 16 counties offered such programs (68% of respondents in a national survey; see Geasler & Blaisure, 1999). These programs are generally short (mode of 2 hours for court-provided programs and 4 hours for community-provided programs), and may either be mandated for all families or be widely available but not required. These programs are generally rated as positive and helpful by parents and court personnel (Geasler & Blaisure, 1999). Two surveys of short-term parent education programs provided information about their content (Braver, Salem, Pearson, & DeLusC, 1996; Geasler & Blaisure, 1999). Geasler and Blaisure (1999) report that many programs target reducing children’s exposure to conflict (64%), improving parenting skills (55%) and decreasing legal complaints (32%).

Goodman et al. / PROGRAMS FOR INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT 269

Braver et al. (1996) report that three of the most intensively covered topics involved interparental conflict (i.e., benefits of cooperation vs. conflict, impact of badmouthing, conflict resolution skills). Parenting skills received somewhat less coverage, and legal options for dispute resolution received still less coverage. In addition, several studies of experimental parent-focused programs designed to improve adjustment of children following divorce have recently been published (i.e., Wolchik et al., 2000). Although these programs are not specifically designed for high-conflict families, they target factors that affect children’s adjustment to interparental conflict (i.e., parenting skills and children’s exposure to conflict).

Techniques to decrease interparental conflict. Several change techniques are used to reduce interparental conflict. We discuss them in order of least intensive to most intensive. At the least intensive end of the continuum, most of the programs provide information attempting to convey to parents that interparental conflict negatively affects children. This information might be in written form or simply presented verbally.

Next, some of the short-term programs provide information about resources that may help parents resolve their legal conflict. The PEACE program (Atwood, 2001) provides parents with a description of the legal process and how custody disputes are resolved. The Chil- dren in the Middle Program (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996) provides parents with a list of different legal services and outlines not only the legal costs and benefits of these approaches but also the cost and benefit to the parents and children.

Next, many of the programs attempt to motivate parents to decrease interparental conflict by using videotaped vignettes to describe how interparental conflict affects children. The Children First program (L. JSramer & Washo, 1993) presents several video vignettes of interparental conflict and incorporates a discussion of the impact that conflict has on children. The discussion and videos are used to motivate parents to put the needs of their children before the conflict with their child’s other parent.

A fourth technique is that many programs specifically focus on how involving children in the conflict lead to increased child adjustment problems. For example, the Children in the Middle Program (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996) shows parents video vignettes of children: (a) carrying stressful messages between parents, (b) seeing their parents criticizing each other, (c) becoming involved in money-related issues, and (d) telling a parent about the other parent’s life. After the video, the parents discuss how the destructive behaviors affected the children. Another program, New Beginnings (Weiss & Wolchik, 1998), addresses badmouthing between parents and why parents might be tempted to bad-mouth each other.

The fifth, most intensive technique is that many programs teach parents problem-solving and communication skills that will help them resolve their conflict. The Dads for Life program (Braver, Griffin, Cookston, Sandler, & Williams, in press) illustrates effective and inef- fective methods of resolving conflict using video vignettes. The program postulates that conflict becomes unproductive when parents try to win the argument or when one of the parents “checks out” or avoids conflict. The videos highlight and the parents practice productive methods of resolving conflict. The New Beginnings program (Weiss & Wolchik, 1998) encourages parents to develop self-statements (e.g., “Just because he is a jerk, I don’t have to be one”) to help them manage their anger when their children are present. In addition, it encourages parents to practice talking to their friends and family about not bad-mouthing their child’s other parent. Programs (i.e., Children in the Middle) also encourage “I” statements to help parents clearly articulate what they want and not what the other parent is doing wrong.


Techniques ro improve parenting. Several different approaches are used to improve parenting. Some programs focus primarily on increasing contact between children and the noncustodial parent (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996), but others attempt to improve the quality of the relationship that the child has with the custodial and noncustodial parent (i.e., Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Weiss & Wolchik, 1998). The programs that target contact use a variety of techniques to increase the amount of time that children spend with the noncustodial parent. The Children in the Middle Program (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996) presents a video interview with a parent describing why he avoids contact with his children. The program hypothesizes that one reason why parents avoid spending time with their children is that they do not want to argue with the other parent. As aresult, the program highlights communication skills such as active listening that decrease the level of conflict with the other parent. It is notable that this approach encourages parallel parenting by both parents rather than cooperation between the parents.

Programs that target the quality of parenting teach positive parenting skills (i.e., warmth) and negative parenting skills (i-e., limit setting) that relate to better child adjustment in divorced and nondivorced families (i.e., Wolchik et al., 2000). Consistent with the research reviewed above, by improving the quality of parenting, these programs may dilute the impact that interparental conflict has on children’s adjustment.

Helping parents plan family activities is one way these programs improve the positive quality of parenting (i.e., Braver et al., in press; Devlin, Brown, Beebe, & Parulis, 1992; Wolchik et al., 2000). For example, the New Beginnings program teaches parents to plan short (15-minute) periods of one-on-one time with the child. During this period, the child chooses the activity and the parent gives his or her child undivided attention and focuses on what the child is doing well and does not criticize the child. During the program, parents watch a videotape of a one-on-one activity and are given an opportunity to role-play. After the role-play, the parents discuss the benefit that children receive from this activity and the importance of warmth and acceptance are highlighted. Programs that were developed for fathers also emphasize the importance of planning activities that allow parents to interact with their child in natural environments. Another technique is to teach communication skills between the parent and child (i.e., Braver et al., in press; Devlin et al., 1992; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Wolchik et al., 2000). For example, Dads for Life uses a video with a base- ball metaphor in which listening skills are portrayed as catching the ball.

Other techniques focus on limit setting with their children (i.e., Braver et al., in press; Devlin et al., 1992; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Wolchik et al., 2000). For example, the New Beginnings program takes a three-tier approach to helping parents improve their discipline skills. The first is to discuss the importance of clear, consistent, and age-appropriate limits. The second step is to discuss the consequences for misbehavior. Attention is placed not only on consequences that are meant to punish negative behavior but also consequences that are meant to reinforce positive behavior. Parents are also provided with an opportunity to role- play implementing these consequences and are encouraged to be consistent with these limits. The last step of the program is developing a specific behavior plan for the child. Parents are taught how to monitor progress, evaluate effectiveness, and actually practice implementing their plan.

EVALUATION OF UNIVERSAL PARENTING PROGRAMS

The criteria we use for considering evidence of program effects are that the evaluation report be available in the published professional literature (or dissertation abstracts), that the

Goodman et al. / PROGRAMS FOR INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT 27 I

research design includes at least a comparison between the program and a control group (randomly assigned or other: the nonequivalent control group), that pretesting and post- testing be included to assess program effects on change over time (particularly critical where groups are not randomly assigned to conditions; see Cook & Campbell, 1979), that a quanti- tative measure be used to assess the outcomes, and that appropriate statistical tests be employed to assess differences in change between those in the program and control condi- tion. Although several evaluations utilize posttest-only assessment with a nonrandom control group, we did not include them because this design allows only very weak inferences concerning program effects (see Braver, Smith, & DeLusC, 1997).

Table 2 includes results from four separate short-term parent education programs. None of the studies used a randomized experimental design, which allows for the strongest conclusions concerning program effects. One study (DeLusC, 1999) used a regression disconti- nuity design that has been advocated as a powerful design for detecting program effects (see Cook & Campbell, 1979), and the others used a nonequivalent control group design. The sample sizes of the evaluations are large, with four of the five studies having sample sizes of more than 100 and one study having a sample size of more than 400. This indicates that the studies have adequate power to detect treatment effects (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Most of the evaluations used only parent report measures to assess treatment outcomes, which may positively bias the results because parents may be aware of intended program effects and may respond in the direction that is desired by the program. One strength of these evaluations is that three of the four programs were connected with local family courts and were provided in community agencies, showing that the programs were studied under “real-world” conditions.

Short-termprograms. Based on the studies reviewed in Table 2, there is some support that one of the short-term programs affected interpersonal conflict but only mixed support that other programs affect interparental conflict. An evaluation of the Children in the Middle program (K. M. Kramer, Arbuthnot, Gordon, Rousis, & Hoza, 1998) indicated that the families who received the program, when compared to families who did not receive the program, reported less conflict on two of the four different measures of interparental conflict. Parents in the treatment group reported they improved their parental communication and reduced their children’s exposure to conflict significantly more than a comparison group. There were no significant differences in parents’ report of domestic violence or reports of actual overt conflict. Another program, Children First, was evaluated in two separate investigations (K. M. Kramer et al., 1998; L . Kramer & Washo, 1993). In one evaluation (L. Kramer & Washo, 1993), the study did not indicate that the families who received the program reported lower levels of interparental conflict than the control group, but follow-up analysis suggested that parents who were identified as high-conflict families may have benefited from the program. The results from the other study (K. M. Kramer et al., 1998) suggested that the program had an impact on only one of the four measures of interparental conflict. A third program, Kids in Divorce and Separation, was evaluated by a study that used six measures of interparental conflict (Shifflett & Cummings, 1999). On three of these measures there was a significant difference between the treatment and control group. However, the conclusions from these analyses are limited because of large pretest differences between the groups (more than 1 SO) that violates the assumptions of an analysis of the nonequivalent control group design (Reichart, 1979). Taken together, the results indicate that there is some evidence that the Children in the Middle program influences interparental conflict, but only a

N

4

N

Tabl

e 2

Evul

uutio

ns of

Sho

rt-G

rm P

sych

oedu

catio

nal P

mgr

ams

Stud

y

Hig

h-

Inte

rper

sona

l A

ttitu

de

Lega

l Q

ualit

y C

hild

ren

Prog

ram

n

Des

ign

Mea

sure

Se

tting

C

onfl

ict

Con

flic

t C

onfl

ict

Pare

ntin

g A

djus

tmen

t

Shol

t-ter

m p

rogr

ams

Kra

mer

& W

ash0

(199

3)

Chi

ldre

n Fi

rst

21 1

Non

equi

vale

nt

Pare

nt

Com

mun

ity

Kra

mer

& K

owal

(19

98)

Chi

ldre

n Fi

n1

21 1

N

oneq

uiva

lent

A

rchi

val r

etrie

val

Com

mun

ity

Shiff

lett

& C

umm

ings

( 19

99)

Kid

s 39

N

oneq

uiva

lent

Pa

rent

N

ot re

porte

d K

ram

er e

t al.

( 199

8)

Kra

mer

et a

l. (1

998)

D

eLus

C ( 1

999)

b

Long

-term

pro

gram

s W

olch

ik e

t al.

(200

0, 2

003)

Wol

chik

et a

l. (1

993)

Forg

atch

et a

l. (1

999,

200

1)

Dev

lin e

t al.

(199

2)

Chi

ldre

n in

the

189

Non

equi

vale

nt

Pare

nt

Com

mun

ity

Chi

ldre

n Fi

rst

166

Non

equi

vale

nt

Pare

nt

Com

mun

ity

Man

date

d D

ivor

ce 4

12

Reg

ress

ion

Arc

hiva

l ret

rieva

l C

omm

unity

Mid

dle

disc

ontin

uity

New

Beg

inni

ngs

157

Expe

rimen

tal

Mul

tiple

Met

hod

Res

earc

h

New

Beg

inni

ngsb

70

Ex

perim

enta

l M

ultip

le M

etho

d R

esea

rch

Pare

ntin

g 23

8 Ex

perim

enta

l M

ultip

le M

etho

d R

esea

rch

Thro

ugh

Cha

nge

Educ

atio

n fo

r Fat

hers

Pare

nt

30

Non

equi

vale

nt

Pare

nt

Com

mun

ity

Non

sign

ific

ant

No

lest

N

o te

st

Non

sign

ifica

nt

No te

st

No

test

N

onsi

gnifi

cant

' N

o te

st

3 of 6

sign

ifica

nt'

No

test

N

o te

st

No

test

2

of 4

sig

nific

ant

No

test

N

o te

st

No

test

I of 4

sig

nific

ant

No

test

N

o te

st

No

test

N

o te

st

No

test

N

onsi

gnifi

cant

N

o te

st

Non

sign

ifica

nt'

Sign

ifica

ntd

No

test

4

of6

Non

sign

ifica

nt

Non

sign

ifica

nt

No

test

6

0f9

No

test

N

o te

st N

o te

st Si

gnifi

cant

sign

ifica

nt"

sign

ific

ant

No

test

Non

sign

ifica

nt

No

test

4

of6

Y

igni

fican

t

Non

sign

ifica

nt

No

test

No te

st

Non

sign

ifica

nt

Non

sign

ifica

nt

No

test

30

f4

sign

ific

ant

sign

ific

ant

2o

f5

Sign

ifica

nt

No

test

a. A

rticl

e re

porte

d gr

oup

diff

eren

ces,

but t

he a

naly

sis v

iola

tes

assu

mpt

ions

of

an A

NO

VA

, whi

ch m

ade

the

resu

lts d

iffic

ult t

o in

terp

ret.

b. D

isse

rtatio

n.

c. R

eliti

gatio

n ra

tes

are

sign

ifica

nt o

nly

for h

igh-

conf

lict

fam

ilies

. d.

Tre

atm

ent b

y ba

selin

e in

tera

ctio

ns c

hang

e th

e re

sults

.


sparse amount of evidence to suggest that other parenting programs affect interparental conflict.

Table 2 also indicates that some studies examined the impact that short-term programs had on relitigation. One of the studies (DeLuse‘, 1999) indicated that parents who received a short-term program did not have lower relitigation rates than comparison families. Another study (Kramer & Kowal, 1998) also indicated that parents who received the program did not have lower relitigation rates than a comparison group; however, the results did suggest that high-conflict families who received the program relitigated less than a high-conflict control group. Taken together, this suggests that whereas the short-term programs do not influence relitigation rates for most families, they may influence relitigation rates for high-conflict families.

The evaluations also indicate that there is no evidence to suggest that short-term programs impact high-quality parenting or attitudinal conflict. One reason that high-quality parenting was not assessed is that the programs were not specifically designed to affect high-quality parenting. The one study that did examine this (Kramer & Washo, 1993) did not report any significant differences. None of the programs examined the impact that the short-term programs had on attitudinal conflict.

The evaluations also suggest that short-term programs do not affect children’s adjustment. Four evaluations did examine how short-term programs affected children’s adjustment, and none of the programs reported any significant differences between the treatment and comparison families. This indicates that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that short-term parenting programs improve children’s well-being.

Long-term programs. Table 2 also presents the results of the studies examining the effectiveness of longer term parenting programs. The table indicates that the evaluations of these programs were more rigorous than the evaluations of the short-term programs. For example, three of the four studies listed used a randomized experimental design to examine the results. In addition, four of these evaluations used multiple measures from multiple reporters as outcome variables to test program effects. A weakness of these studies is that they were primarily conducted in research settings rather than under real-world conditions of the courts.

The table indicates that none of the studies examined how the long-term programs affected legal conflict, and only the New Beginnings program evaluations examined how the programs affected interpersonal conflict. One of the studies indicated that the program did not influence interpersonal conflict (Wolchik et al., 1993), and the other study indicated that the program affected conflict for the high-conflict families but did not for the other families. This weak effect may be attributed to the lack of emphasis the program placed on interparental conflict (2 out of 1 1 sessions) compared to high-quality parenting (9 sessions). One promising program (Dads for Life) that did put more emphasis on interparental conflict is currently being evaluated, and initial analyses do suggest that it has an impact of reducing interparental conflict as measured by parental report and behavioral observation (Braver et al., in press).

Three of the four evaluations also examined how the long-term programs affected attitudinal conflict, assessed as parental attitude toward the child’s relationship with the other parent. The results indicate that for two of the evaluations (Devlin et al., 1992; Wolchik et al., 1993), there were no significant differences between the treatment and control families in attitudinal conflict. Another evaluation (Wolchik et al., 2000) indicated that the impact is different depending on the initial level of conflict. This evaluation indicated that for parents


who initially had a more negative attitude, the program led to an improvement in their attitude to the other parent.

Although the effect that longer parenting programs have on interparental conflict remains unclear, there is strong evidence that several of these programs promote high-quality parenting. All of the studies indicate that the programs had an impact on the majority of the measures of high-quality parenting. Two of the studies indicate that impact is different, depending on the parents’ initial relationship with their child (Wolchik et al., 1993, 2000). The results for both New Beginnings studies suggest that parents who initially had worse relationships with their children benefited more from the program than the parents who initially had better relationships with their children.

Additionally, the evaluations find that children benefit from the longer parenting programs (Martinez & Forgatch, 2001; Wolchik et al., 2000; Wolchik, Sandler et al., 2002). For example, evaluation of the New Beginnings program found short-term effects for the program to improve children’s externalizing problems, particularly for those who had higher levels of problems at the time they entered the program (Wolchik et al., 2000). A long-term evaluation of the program (Wolchik, Sandler et al., 2002) indicates that children benefit from the program 6 years after the intervention on a wide range of measures, including reduced levels of mental health problems and reduced use of alcohol, marijuana, and drugs. Further analyses revealed that children who were at the highest risk of developing mental health problems (due to high levels of parental stress, interparental conflict, and child externalizing problems) benefited the most from this program (Dawson-McClure, Sandler, Wolchik, & Milsap, in press). Illustratively, there was a 46% reduction in the prevalence of diagnosed mental disorder 6 years later in the high-risk children whose mothers participated in the program as compared with the high-risk children in the comparison group.

In summary, the results of the longer term programs provide encouraging evidence about improving parenting and child adjustment, and a newly emerging program shows promise of reducing the occurrence of interparental conflict. There is some evidence that short-term programs reduce interpersonal conflict but no evidence that they improve parenting or child adjustment.

TARGETED INTERVENTIONS

Psychoeducational Programs for High-Conflict Families

Targeted psychoeducational programs have also been developed specifically for high- conflict families. According to a survey of court-connected parenting education programs (Geasler & Blaisure, 1999), a substantial (N= 75) number of communities offer some type of psychoeducational programs to high-conflict families. A review of these programs indicates that long (i.e., Kibler, Sanchez, & Baker-Jackson, 1994; McIsaac & Finn, 1999) and short formats (ie., Maricopa County Family Court, 2001) are used to provide services to these high-conflict families. A review of the targeted high-conflict programs indicates that they include activities to reduce interparental conflict, but it remains unclear if they provide activities directed at high-quality parenting. The programs reviewed (i.e., Kibler et al., 1994; McIsaac & Finn, 1999) discuss the impact that interparental conflict has on children and present skills to reduce conflict, but they do not include activities that focus on the parents’ relationship with their children (i.e., parental warmth or limit setting). Although a substantial number of counties implement psychoeducational programs for high-conflict families (Geasler & Blaisure, 1999), we have not found any published evaluations using appropriate


control groups on the effectiveness of these programs. Future research, therefore, is needed to determine if these programs indeed reduce interparental conflict and improve children’s adjustment.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The goal of this review was to examine psychoeducational programs aimed at reducing interparental conflict and preventing the harmful effects of interparental conflict on children’s adjustment in divorced and separated families. We reviewed a broad range of programs, from those that are delivered universally to those that are targeted at high-conflict families, and including shorter and more intensive programs. The findings from the review will be summarized in terms of four questions: What factors are programs currently trying to change? How does that compare to the factors that research supports as positively affecting the adjustment of children to interparental conflict? What is the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of these programs? and What are directions for future program development?

What factors are targeted for change? Programs are currently targeting a broad range of factors. The most prominent focus of programs is on reducing some aspect of interparental conflict. Universal programs attempt to reduce conflict by providing information about how conflict affects children and legal options to resolve conflicts, attempting to arouse motiva- tion to not expose children to conflict, and teaching skills to reduce conflict. Short-term programs tend to focus more on providing information and motivational films, whereas longer term programs spend more time on skill building. Programs that are targeted for high- conflict families focus most intensively on strategies to reduce conflict.

Programs also focus, but to a lesser extent, on parenting. The greatest emphasis of the short-term universal programs is on promoting contact between children and the noncustodial parent, either by emphasizing the importance of both parents or by teaching skills to remove barriers to parenting. Although some programs attempt to teach cooperation between the parents, others focus on parallel parenting. Despite its demonstrated relations to children’s adjustment, fewer programs teach quality of parenting, and those tend to be the longer programs that focus extensively on parenting skills.

How does the program content relate to the research evidence on factors that affect children’s adjustment to interparental conflict? Figure l provides an encouraging menu of factors that might be the targets of interventions. Programs are currently targeting multiple aspects of interparental conflict that are identified in Figure 1. However, it is less clear that programs are targeting the multiple mediators or moderators of the effects of conflict on children. For example, messages about conflict resolution, children’s cognitions or emotional security, and quality parenting of the custodial and noncustodial parent provide important directions for future program development. In addition, many programs focus on factors that have no known relationship to improving children’s adjustment such as stages of divorce or grief stages. More intensive programs do focus more on issues such as quality of parenting.

What is the scientijic evidence of program effectiveness? There are very few studies that provide scientifically credible evidence concerning the effects of these programs. Thus, although the programs enjoy a high level of satisfaction from the public and by the courts, we know relatively little about their effects. It may be appropriate and natural in the


development of new services to meet a public need that strong evaluation of the effects of those services follows assessment of public acceptability of the program. However, now that the programs have clearly established their acceptability to the public and are widespread, evaluation of their effects becomes an urgent issue. Some evaluations of short programs provide evidence of reducing interparental conflict, but few programs report on effects on ongoing litigation, parenting, or effects on children’s adjustment. The longer term parenting programs have been evaluated in well-designed studies and have shown very encouraging evidence to improve quality parenting and children’s adjustment. The most intensive programs to work with high-conflict families have received only limited evaluation.

What are the directions forfuture program development? Three directions for future program development are suggested. First, there is a need for a stronger partnership between program development and evaluation. Although it is difficult to conduct strong evaluations for court programs with proper research designs and control groups, without such studies we cannot learn whether innovative services are having their intended effects. Second, findings from more basic research on interparental conflict provide significant leads about factors that might be targeted in future programs. Third, future programs might integrate and combine effective strategies to better address the needs of divorcing families. For example, short-term programs might be used to motivate parents to become involved in more intensive programs that address their needs. Also, strategies with demonstrated efficacy might be combined to develop multicomponent packages that best meet the needs of high-conflict families. For example, strategies that are effective in reducing conflict might be combined with strategies that improve the quality of parenting to have the maximal effect to reduce conflict and improve the lives of children in these families.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. ( 199 I ). Munuulforfhe Child Behavior Checklist. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Ahrons, C. R., & Wallisch, L. (1987). Parenting in the binuclear family: Relationships between biological and step- parents. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and steppurenting: Current research and theory (pp. 225-2.56). New York: Guilford.

Amato, P. R., & Rezac, S. J . (1994). Contact with nonresidential parents, interparental conflict, and children’s behavior. Journal qfFamily Issues, 15, 191-207.

Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D. A. ( 1 996). Does mandatory divorce education for parents work? A six month outcome evaluation. Fumily and Conciliation Courts Review, 34.60-8 I .

Atwood, J. D. (2001). The family therapist in the courts: The PEACE program. Journal of Prevention and fnferven- tion in the Communi@ 21, 1 13- 124.

Braver, S. L., &Griffin, W. A. (2000). Engaging fathers in the post-divorce family. Marriage and Family Review,, 29, 241-261.

Braver, S. L., Griffin, W. A., Cookston, J. T., Sandler, I . N., &Williams, J. (in press). Promoting better fathering among divorced nonresident fathers. In W. M. Pinsoff & L. Lebow (Eds.), Fantilypsychology: Theurl qfsciencu. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Braver, S. L., Salem, P., Pearson, J., & DeLuse, S . R. ( 1996). The content of divorce education programs: Results of a survey. Family and Crmciliation Courts Review, 34, 41-59.

Braver, S. L., Smith, M. C., & DeLusC, S . R. (1997). Methodological considerations in evaluating family court programs: A primer using divorced parent education programs as a case example. Family and Conciliution Courts Review, 35, 9-36.

Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008-1 029.


Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. ( 1 994). Children and marital conflict: The impact offamily dispute and resolution. New York: Guilford.

Cummings, E. M., & Wilson, A. (1999). Contexts of marital conflict and children’s emotional security: Exploring the distinction between constructive and destructive contlictn from the children’s perspective. In M. J. Cox & J . Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Conflict and cohesion infiimilies: Causes and consequences (pp. 105- 129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davies, P. T.. & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital contlict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-41 1.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1998). Exploring children’s emotional security as a mediator of the link between marital relations and child adjustment. Child Developmenr, 69, 124-139.

Dawson-McClure. S. R., Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., & Milsap, R. E. (in press). Risk as a moderator ofthe effects of prevention programs for children of divorce: A six-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

DeLusC, S. R. (1999). Mandatory divorce education: A program evaluation using a “quasi-random” regression dis- continuity design (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Absrracts Infernational, 60, 1349.

Devlin, A. S., Brown, E. H., Beebe, J., & Parulis, E. (1992). Parent education for divorced fathers. Family Relations, 41, 290-296.

Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Develop- ment,61, 1112-1123.

Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. (1999). Parenting through change: An effective prevention program for single mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,7 1 1-724.

Geasler, M. J., & Blaisure, K. R. (1999). 1998 nationwide survey of court-connected divorce education programs. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 36-63.

Grych, J. H. (1998). Children’s appraisals of interparental conflict: Situational and contextual influences. Jounialoj Family Psychology, 12,437-453.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital contlict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psycho/ogica[ Bulletin, 108,267-290.

Grych, J . H., & Fincham, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and childdevelopment: Theory, research, and applica- tions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, E D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63,558-572.

Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. ( 1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68,333-350.

Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Should we stay together for the sake of the children? In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Cop- ing with divorre. singleparenting, and remarriage: A riskand resiliency pers~ective (pp. 93- I 16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnston, J. R. (1994). High contlict divorce. Future of Children, 4, 165-182. Johnston, J. R., & Campbell, L. E. G. (1 988). Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and resolution offamily conflicr.

New York: The Free Press. Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Tschann, J. M. (1989). Ongoing postdivorce conflict: Effects on children ofjoint cus-

tody and frequent access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatty, 59, 576-592. Kibler, S., Sanchez, E. & Baker-Jackson, M. (1994). Pre-contemptkontemnors group diversion counseling pro-

gram: A program to address parental frustration of custody and visitation orders. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 62-7 1.

Kline Pruett, M., Nangle, B., & Bailey, C. (2000). Divorcing families with young children in the court’s family services unit: Profiles and impact of services. Family and Conciliarion Courts Review, 38,478-500.

Kline Pruett, M., Williams, T. Y., Insabella, G., & Little. T. D. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child adjustment to divorce among families with young children. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 17, 169- 180.

Kramer, K. M., Arbuthnot, J., Gordon, D. A,, Rousis, N. J., & Hoza, J. (1998). Effects of skill based versus information based divorce education programs on domestic violence and parental communication. Family and Concilia- tion Courts Review, 36,9-3 I .

Kramer, L., & Kowal, A. ( 1998). Long term follow up of a court based intervention for divorcing parents. Family and Conciliation Courts Revieu; 36,452-465.


Kramer, L., & Washo, C. A. (1993). Evaluation of a court-mandated prevention program for divorcing parents: The children first program. Family Relations, 42, 179.186.

Maccoby, E. E., &Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley.

Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Margolin,G., Gordis, E. B.. & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-

Maricopa County Family Court. (2001). Parent conflict resolution. Unpublished Leader’s Manual. Martinez, C., & Forgatch, M. (2001). Preventing problems with boys’ noncompliance: Effects of a parent training

intervention for divorcing mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69,416-428. Mazur, E., Wolchik, S. A., & Sandler, I. N. (1992). Negative cognitive errors and positive illusions for negative

divorce events: Predictors of children’s psychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 523-542.

McIsaac, H., &Finn, C. (1999). Parents beyond conflict: A cognitive restructuring model for high-conflict families in divorce. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 74-82.

Minuchin, P. (1 985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56,289-302.

Reichart, C. S. (1979). The statistical analysis of data from nonequivalent group designs. In T. D. Cook & D. T. Campbell (Eds.), Quasi-experimental design & analysis issues for$eld studies. Chicago: Rand McNully.

Shiftlett, K., & Cummings, E. M. (1999). A program for educating parents about the effects of divorce and conflict on children: An initial evaluation. Family Relations. 48, 79-89.

Shifflett-Simpson, K., & Cummings, E. M. (1996). Mixed message resolution and children’s responses to interadult conflict. Child Development, 67,437-448.

Sturge-Apple, M. A., Gondoli, D. M., Bonds, D. D., & Salem, L. N. (in press). Mothers’ responsive parenting practices and psychological experience of parenting as mediators of the relation between marital conflict and mother-preadolescent relational negativity. Parenting: Science and P mctice.

Weiss, L., & Wolchik, S. (1998). New Beginnings: An empirically based intervention program for divorced mothers to help their children adjust to divorce. In J. M. Briesmeister & C. E. Schafer (Eds.), Handbook ofparent truin- ing: Parents as co therapists for children’s behaviorproblems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wolchik, S. A,, Sandler, I. N., Millsap, R. E., Plummer, B. A,, Greene, S. M., Anders0n.E. R., et al. (2002). Six-year follow-up of preventative interventions for children of divorce: A randomized controlled trial. Journal oj the American Medical Association, 288, 1874-1 88 I .

Wolchik, S. A., Tein, J. Y., Sandler, 1. N., & Doyle, K. W. (2002). Fear of abandonmentas a mediator of the relations between divorce stressors and mother-child relationship quality and children’s adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormul Child Psychology, 30,401-41 8.

Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Sandler, I., Tein, J., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L., et al. (2000). An experimental evaluation oftheory-based mother and mother-child programs for children of divorce. Journal ofConsulting and Clini-

Wolchik, S. A,, West, S. G., Westover, S., Sandler, 1. N., Martin, A., Lustig, J., et al. ( 1993). The children of divorce parenting intervention: Outcome evaluation of an empirically based program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2 I , 293-33 1.

Wolman, R., & Taylor, K. (1991). Psychological effects of custody disputes on children. Behuviorul Sciences and the Law, 9, 399-417.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Duggal, S., & Gruber, R. (2002). Parental psychopathology. In M. H. Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 203-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

parent families. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 15,3-2 1 .

cal PSychology, 68,843-856.

Mutthew Goodman, Ph.D., is a postdoctorul fellow at the Prevention Research Center ut Arizona State University.

Durya Bonds. Ph.D.. isapostdoctora1,fellow at the Prevention Research CenteratArizonaState Universit).

Irwin Sandler; Ph. D., is a ptwfessor ofpsychology and director of the Prevention Research Center at Arizona State University. He is also coprincipal investigator ofthe New Beginnings Program.


Sanford Bravez Ph.D., is a professor ofpsychology and coprincipal investigator qf the Prevention Research Center at Arizona State Univer,sity. He is also the principal investigator of the Dads for Life pmgrum.

Documents

PARENT PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND REDUCING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT FOLLOWING DIVORCE