Marital RelationshipsSHMNCT02112058
The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation
A study testing A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families in people with Marital Relationships and Family Relations, run by MDRC at 8 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation was launched in 2003 to test the effectiveness of a skills-based relationship education program designed to help low- and modest-income married couples strengthen their relationships and to support more stable and more nurturing home environments and more positive… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Marital Relationships, Family Relations, Low-Income Population
- What is being tested?
- A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 6,298 participants
- Where
- 8 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2007to Jul 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- To be eligible for the study, couples were supposed to be low income, married, at least 18 years old, and either expecting a child or parents of a child under age 18 who was living in their home -- though couples were not required to provide any documentation verifying that they met these eligibility criteria.
- They also had to understand one of the languages in which SHM services were offered (English or, in some locations, Spanish).
Who cannot join
- Indication of domestic violence in the relationship
Trial locations and contacts
8 sites in 1 country.
8 sites in 1 country
United States8 sites
Texas Department of Health and Human Services
Houston, Texas, 75901
MDRC
New York, New York, 10016
Public Strategies, Inc
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73104
Community Prevention Partnership of Berks County
Reading, Pennsylvania, 19601
Becoming Parents Program, Inc
Seattle, Washington, 98102
Center for Human Services
Shoreline, Washington, 98155
University Behavioral Associates
The Bronx, New York, 10016
Catholic Charities
Wichita, Kansas, 67212
About this study
The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation was launched in 2003 to test the effectiveness of a skills-based relationship education program designed to help low- and modest-income married couples strengthen their relationships and to support more stable and more nurturing home environments and more positive outcomes for parents and their children. The evaluation was led by MDRC with Abt Associates and other partners, and it was sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
SHM was a voluntary, year long, marriage education program for lower-income, married couples who had children or were expecting a child. The program provided group workshops based on structured curricula; supplemental activities to build on workshop themes; and family support services to address participation barriers, connect families with other services, and reinforce curricular themes. The study's random assignment design compared outcomes for families who were offered SHM's services with outcomes for a similar group of families who were not but could access other services in the community.
- Conditions
- Marital Relationships, Family Relations, Low-Income Population, Child Behavior, Adolescent Behavior
- Being tested
- A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families
- Medical subject headings
- Child Behavior, Adolescent Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income FamiliesBehavioural
The program's central and most intensive component was a series of relationship and marriage education workshops for groups of couples that was offered in the first four to five months of enrollment in the program.
Complementing the workshops was a second component, offered for the year after enrollment, that consisted of supplemental activities: educational and social events that were intended to build on and reinforce lessons from the curricula.
The third component, family support services, paired couples with a specialized staff member who maintained contact with them and facilitated their participation in the other two components throughout the duration of the program.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Program | Experimental | A series of relationship and marriage education workshops for groups of couples that was offered in the first four to five months of enrollment in the program. Complementing the workshops was a second component, offered for the year after enrollment, that consisted of supplemental activities: educational and social events that were intended to build on and reinforce lessons from the curricula. The third component was family support services. Receives: Behavioral: A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families |
| Control | No intervention | Business as usual |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percent Married at 12 Months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. A couple is considered married if both spouses report that they are married or in a committed relationship. If either respondent indicates that the couple is separated, divorced, or had the marriage annulled, the outcome is coded with a negative (0) response. If only one spouse responds, that response is used for the couple.
Measured: 12 months
Couples' average report of relationship happiness at 12 Months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked how happy they are with their marriages. If both spouses respond to this question, the average of the responses is used. If only one spouse responds, the single response is used.
Measured: 12 months
Either spouse reported marriage in trouble at 12 Months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked whether they thought that their marriage was in trouble in the past three months. If either spouse answers by saying that they were "divorced more than three months ago," the outcome is not created. Otherwise, if either spouse indi-cates that he or she had thought that their marriage was in trouble, an affirmative outcome is created.
Measured: 12 months
Reports of warmth and support at 12 Months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Warmth and support is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing warmth and support in a couple's relationship. Example items include "My spouse expresses love and affection toward me"; "My spouse listens to me when I need someone to talk to"; and "I trust my spouse completely."
Measured: 12 months
Reports of positive communication skills at 12 Months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Positive communication skills is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing how the couple communicates during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse understands that there are times when I do not feel like talking and times when I do"; "We are good at working out our differences"; and "During arguments, my spouse and I are good at taking breaks when we need them."
Measured: 12 months
Reports of negative behavior and emotions at 12 Months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Negative behavior and emotions is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing negative interactions that occur during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse was rude and mean to me when we disagreed"; "My spouse seemed to view my words or actions more negatively than I meant them to be"; and "My spouse has yelled or screamed at me."
Measured: 12 months
Neither spouse reported infidelity at 12 Months
This outcome is examined at the couple level. It measures whether either respondent reported cheating on the spouse with someone else or either respondent believes that the spouse had "definitely" cheated with someone else in the past three months.
Measured: 12 months
Reports of psychological abuse at 12 Months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. Psychological abuse is the average of the responses to six items. Example items include "Have you felt afraid that your spouse would hurt you?" "Has your spouse accused you of having an affair?" and "Has your spouse tried to keep you from seeing or talking with your friends or family?"
Measured: 12 months
Reports of any physical assault at 12 Months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure indicates any physical assault in the past three months. The measure is created from responses to questions adapted from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale.*
Measured: 12 months
Individual psychological distress at 12 Months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure is created from responses to the K6 Mental Health Screening Tool.
Measured: 12 months
Men's and women's reports of cooperative coparenting at 12 Months
Cooperative coparenting reflects the average of five responses to parent-reported items. An example item is "How well the respondent gets along with the spouse when it comes to parenting."
Measured: 12 months
Paternal and maternal supportiveness of child
Two subconstructs are included in this outcome: warmth (reported by parents and children) and involvement (reported by parents and children). The supportiveness outcome is the average of items in both subconstructs, for each reporter. Examples of parent-reported items (for warmth and involvement, respectively) are "Over the past month, how often respondent has told [focal child] that respondent loves him/her" and "In the past month how often respondent talked with [focal child] about his/her friends." Examples of child-reported items (for warmth and involvement, respectively) are "How often [mother/father] tells respondent that he/she is doing a good job" and "In the past month, did respondent go with [mother/father] on an outing to a library, park, or playground?"
Measured: 30 months
Paternal and maternal responsiveness to child
Both parent reports and child reports are used to measure parental responsiveness. An example of a parent-reported item is "In the past month, how often respondent has considered [focal child's] thoughts and feelings when making rules for him/her." An example of a child-reported item is "Whether [fa-ther/mother] respects respondent's feelings."
Measured: 30 months
Paternal and maternal hostility toward child
Both parent reports and child reports are used to measure parental hostility. An example of a parent-reported item is "How often respondent has yelled, shouted, screamed at, or threatened [focal child] because he/she was mad at [him/her]." An example of a child-reported item is "How often [fa-ther/mother] gets really mad at respondent."
Measured: 30 months
Paternal and maternal harsh discipline
This outcome is created from a single parent-reported item: "How often respondent has hit, spanked, grabbed, or used physical punishment with [focal child] over the past month."
Measured: 30 months
Child self-regulation
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using three direct child assessment scores* and maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures reflect the averages of responses to ten items, including "[Focal child] thinks before acting." The child-reported measure reflects the average of responses to sixteen items, including "Respondent waits his/her turn during activities."
Measured: 30 months
Child internalizing behavior problems
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures reflect the average of responses to eight items for children ages 2 to 4 and twelve items for children ages 2 to 17, including "[Focal child] is unhappy, sad, or depressed." The child-reported measure reflects the average of responses to twelve items, including "Respondent worries about things."
Measured: 30 months
Child externalizing behavior problems
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures reflect the average of responses to fourteen items for children ages 2 to 4 and fifteen items for children ages 2 to 17, including "[Focal child] is disobedient at home." The child-reported measure reflects the average of responses to nine items, including "Respondent argues a lot."
Measured: 30 months
Child cognitive and academic performance
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using two direct child assessment scores* and maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures are based on a single item: "Based on respondent's knowledge of [focal child's] schoolwork, how well is he/she currently doing in school?" The child-reported measure is also based on a single item: "Overall, what grades did the respondent receive last year or the last full year of school that he/she completed?"
Measured: 30 months
Percent Married at 30 Months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. A couple is considered married if both spouses report that they are married or in a committed relationship. If either respondent indicates that the couple is separated, divorced, or had the marriage annulled, the outcome is coded with a negative (0) response. If only one spouse responds, that response is used for the couple.
Measured: 30 months
Couples' average report of relationship happiness at 30 Months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked how happy they are with their marriages. If both spouses respond to this question, the average of the responses is used. If only one spouse responds, the single response is used.
Measured: 30 months
Either spouse reported marriage in trouble at 30 Months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked whether they thought that their marriage was in trouble in the past three months. If either spouse answers by saying that they were "divorced more than three months ago," the outcome is not created. Otherwise, if either spouse indi-cates that he or she had thought that their marriage was in trouble, an affirmative outcome is created.
Measured: 30 months
Reports of warmth and support at 30 Months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Warmth and support is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing warmth and support in a couple's relationship. Example items include "My spouse expresses love and affection toward me"; "My spouse listens to me when I need someone to talk to"; and "I trust my spouse completely."
Measured: 30 months
Reports of positive communication skills at 30 Months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Positive communication skills is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing how the couple communicates during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse understands that there are times when I do not feel like talking and times when I do"; "We are good at working out our differences"; and "During arguments, my spouse and I are good at taking breaks when we need them."
Measured: 30 months
Reports of negative behavior and emotions at 30 Months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Negative behavior and emotions is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing negative interactions that occur during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse was rude and mean to me when we disagreed"; "My spouse seemed to view my words or actions more negatively than I meant them to be"; and "My spouse has yelled or screamed at me."
Measured: 30 months
Neither spouse reported infidelity at 30 Months
This outcome is examined at the couple level. It measures whether either respondent reported cheating on the spouse with someone else or either respondent believes that the spouse had "definitely" cheated with someone else in the past three months.
Measured: 30 months
Reports of psychological abuse at 30 Months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. Psychological abuse is the average of the responses to six items. Example items include "Have you felt afraid that your spouse would hurt you?" "Has your spouse accused you of having an affair?" and "Has your spouse tried to keep you from seeing or talking with your friends or family?"
Measured: 30 months
Reports of any physical assault at 30 Months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure indicates any physical assault in the past three months. The measure is created from responses to questions adapted from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale.*
Measured: 30 months
Individual psychological distress at 30 Months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure is created from responses to the K6 Mental Health Screening Tool.
Measured: 30 months
Men's and women's reports of cooperative coparenting at 30 Months
Cooperative coparenting reflects the average of five responses to parent-reported items. An example item is "How well the respondent gets along with the spouse when it comes to parenting."
Measured: 30 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Apr 2014 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2007
- Primary completionJul 2012
- Study completionJul 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Marital RelationshipsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 6,298 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- MDRC
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Abt Associates, Child Trends, Optimal Solutions Group, Public Strategies
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, JoAnn Hsueh, MDRC
- Investigators
- JoAnn Hsueh, PhD, Principal investigator, MDRC
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02112058
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HHS-233-03-0034
- Acronym
- SHM
- Status last verified
- Apr 2014
- First submitted
- 25 Mar 2014
- Last updated
- 11 Apr 2014
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Supporting Healthy Marriage Toolkit: Resources for Program Operators from the Supporting Healthy Marriage Demonstration and Evaluation. 2011. MDRC.
Fein, David J. (2009). Spending Time Together: Time Use Estimates for Economically Disadvantaged and Nondisadvantaged Married Couples in the United States. Working Paper.
Knox, Virginia and David J. Fein (2008). Designing a Marriage Education Demonstration and Evaluation for Low-Income Married Couples. Working Paper.
Fein, David J. (2004). Married and Poor: Basic Characteristics of Economically Disadvantaged Couples in the U.S. Working Paper.
Lundquist, Erika, JoAnn Hsueh, Amy E. Lowenstein, Kristen Faucetta, Daniel Gubits, Charles Michalopoulos, and Virginia Knox (2014). A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families: Final Impacts from the Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation. OPRE Report 2014-09A. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Lowenstein, Amy E., Noemi Altman, Patricia M. Chou, Kristen Faucetta, Adam Greeney, Daniel Gubits, Jorgen Harris, JoAnn Hsueh, Erika Lundquist, Charles Michalopoulos, and Vinh Q. Nguyen (2014). A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families: Final Impacts from the Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation, Technical Supplement. OPRE Report 2014-09B. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Gubits, Daniel, Amy E. Lowenstein, Jorgen Harris, and JoAnn Hsueh (2014). Do the Effects of a Relationship Education Program Vary for Different Types of Couples? Exploratory Subgroup Analysis in the Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation. OPRE Report 2014-22. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Lloyd, Chrishana M., Ashley Weech, Jennifer Miller Gaubert (2014). Perspectives of Low-Income African-American and Latino Couples on Relationship Education. Working Paper.
Hsueh, JoAnn, Desiree Principe Alderson, Erika Lundquist, Charles Michalopoulos, Daniel Gubits, David Fein, and Virginia Knox (2012). The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Early Impacts on Low Income Families. OPRE Report 2012-11. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hsueh, JoAnn, Desiree Principe Alderson, Erika Lundquist, Charles Michalopoulos, Daniel Gubits, and David Fein (2012). The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Early Impacts on Low-Income Families, Technical Supplement. OPRE Report 2012-27. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Miller Gaubert, Jennifer, Daniel Gubits, Desiree Principe Alderson, and Virginia Knox (2012). The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Final Implementation Findings. OPRE Report 2012-12. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Miller Gaubert, Jennifer, Virginia Knox, Desiree Principe Alderson, Christopher Dalton, Kate Fletcher, and Meghan McCormick. Early Lessons from the Implementation of a Relationship and Marriage Skills Program for Low-Income Married Couples. 2010. MDRC.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Apr 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02112058
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SHM / HHS-233-03-0034
- Conditions
- Marital Relationships, Family Relations, Low-Income Population, Child Behavior, Adolescent Behavior
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 6,298 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- MDRCUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Abt Associates, Child Trends, Optimal Solutions Group, Public Strategies
- Study start
- Feb 2007
- Primary completion
- Jul 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Apr 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation was launched in 2003 to test the effectiveness of a skills-based relationship education program designed to help low- and modest-income married couples strengthen their relationships and to support more stable and more nurturing home environments and more positive outcomes for parents and their children. The evaluation was led by MDRC with Abt Associates and other partners, and it was sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
SHM was a voluntary, year long, marriage education program for lower-income, married couples who had children or were expecting a child. The program provided group workshops based on structured curricula; supplemental activities to build on workshop themes; and family support services to address participation barriers, connect families with other services, and reinforce curricular themes. The study's random assignment design compared outcomes for families who were offered SHM's services with outcomes for a similar group of families who were not but could access other services in the community.
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Program | Experimental | Behavioral: A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income FamiliesA series of relationship and marriage education workshops for groups of couples that was offered in the first four to five months of enrollment in the program. Complementing the workshops was a second component, offered for the year after enrollment, that consisted of supplemental activities: educational and social events that were intended to build on and reinforce lessons from the curricula. The third component was family support services. |
| Control | No intervention | –Business as usual |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- To be eligible for the study, couples were supposed to be low income, married, at least 18 years old, and either expecting a child or parents of a child under age 18 who was living in their home -- though couples were not required to provide any documentation verifying that they met these eligibility criteria.
- They also had to understand one of the languages in which SHM services were offered (English or, in some locations, Spanish).
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Indication of domestic violence in the relationship
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income FamiliesThe program's central and most intensive component was a series of relationship and marriage education workshops for groups of couples that was offered in the first four to five months of enrollment in the program. Complementing the workshops was a second component, offered for the year after enrollment, that consisted of supplemental activities: educational and social events that were intended to build on and reinforce lessons from the curricula. The third component, family support services, paired couples with a specialized staff member who maintained contact with them and facilitated their participation in the other two components throughout the duration of the program. | Behavioural | Program |
Primary outcome
Percent Married at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. A couple is considered married if both spouses report that they are married or in a committed relationship. If either respondent indicates that the couple is separated, divorced, or had the marriage annulled, the outcome is coded with a negative (0) response. If only one spouse responds, that response is used for the couple.
Couples' average report of relationship happiness at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked how happy they are with their marriages. If both spouses respond to this question, the average of the responses is used. If only one spouse responds, the single response is used.
Either spouse reported marriage in trouble at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked whether they thought that their marriage was in trouble in the past three months. If either spouse answers by saying that they were "divorced more than three months ago," the outcome is not created. Otherwise, if either spouse indi-cates that he or she had thought that their marriage was in trouble, an affirmative outcome is created.
Reports of warmth and support at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Warmth and support is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing warmth and support in a couple's relationship. Example items include "My spouse expresses love and affection toward me"; "My spouse listens to me when I need someone to talk to"; and "I trust my spouse completely."
Reports of positive communication skills at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Positive communication skills is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing how the couple communicates during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse understands that there are times when I do not feel like talking and times when I do"; "We are good at working out our differences"; and "During arguments, my spouse and I are good at taking breaks when we need them."
Reports of negative behavior and emotions at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Negative behavior and emotions is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing negative interactions that occur during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse was rude and mean to me when we disagreed"; "My spouse seemed to view my words or actions more negatively than I meant them to be"; and "My spouse has yelled or screamed at me."
Neither spouse reported infidelity at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
This outcome is examined at the couple level. It measures whether either respondent reported cheating on the spouse with someone else or either respondent believes that the spouse had "definitely" cheated with someone else in the past three months.
Reports of psychological abuse at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. Psychological abuse is the average of the responses to six items. Example items include "Have you felt afraid that your spouse would hurt you?" "Has your spouse accused you of having an affair?" and "Has your spouse tried to keep you from seeing or talking with your friends or family?"
Reports of any physical assault at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure indicates any physical assault in the past three months. The measure is created from responses to questions adapted from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale.*
Individual psychological distress at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure is created from responses to the K6 Mental Health Screening Tool.
Men's and women's reports of cooperative coparenting at 12 Months
Time frame: 12 months
Cooperative coparenting reflects the average of five responses to parent-reported items. An example item is "How well the respondent gets along with the spouse when it comes to parenting."
Paternal and maternal supportiveness of child
Time frame: 30 months
Two subconstructs are included in this outcome: warmth (reported by parents and children) and involvement (reported by parents and children). The supportiveness outcome is the average of items in both subconstructs, for each reporter. Examples of parent-reported items (for warmth and involvement, respectively) are "Over the past month, how often respondent has told [focal child] that respondent loves him/her" and "In the past month how often respondent talked with [focal child] about his/her friends." Examples of child-reported items (for warmth and involvement, respectively) are "How often [mother/father] tells respondent that he/she is doing a good job" and "In the past month, did respondent go with [mother/father] on an outing to a library, park, or playground?"
Paternal and maternal responsiveness to child
Time frame: 30 months
Both parent reports and child reports are used to measure parental responsiveness. An example of a parent-reported item is "In the past month, how often respondent has considered [focal child's] thoughts and feelings when making rules for him/her." An example of a child-reported item is "Whether [fa-ther/mother] respects respondent's feelings."
Paternal and maternal hostility toward child
Time frame: 30 months
Both parent reports and child reports are used to measure parental hostility. An example of a parent-reported item is "How often respondent has yelled, shouted, screamed at, or threatened [focal child] because he/she was mad at [him/her]." An example of a child-reported item is "How often [fa-ther/mother] gets really mad at respondent."
Paternal and maternal harsh discipline
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is created from a single parent-reported item: "How often respondent has hit, spanked, grabbed, or used physical punishment with [focal child] over the past month."
Child self-regulation
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using three direct child assessment scores* and maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures reflect the averages of responses to ten items, including "[Focal child] thinks before acting." The child-reported measure reflects the average of responses to sixteen items, including "Respondent waits his/her turn during activities."
Child internalizing behavior problems
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures reflect the average of responses to eight items for children ages 2 to 4 and twelve items for children ages 2 to 17, including "[Focal child] is unhappy, sad, or depressed." The child-reported measure reflects the average of responses to twelve items, including "Respondent worries about things."
Child externalizing behavior problems
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures reflect the average of responses to fourteen items for children ages 2 to 4 and fifteen items for children ages 2 to 17, including "[Focal child] is disobedient at home." The child-reported measure reflects the average of responses to nine items, including "Respondent argues a lot."
Child cognitive and academic performance
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined for children ages 2 to 17 and is measured using two direct child assessment scores* and maternal, paternal, and child reports. Maternal- and paternal-reported measures are based on a single item: "Based on respondent's knowledge of [focal child's] schoolwork, how well is he/she currently doing in school?" The child-reported measure is also based on a single item: "Overall, what grades did the respondent receive last year or the last full year of school that he/she completed?"
Percent Married at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. A couple is considered married if both spouses report that they are married or in a committed relationship. If either respondent indicates that the couple is separated, divorced, or had the marriage annulled, the outcome is coded with a negative (0) response. If only one spouse responds, that response is used for the couple.
Couples' average report of relationship happiness at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked how happy they are with their marriages. If both spouses respond to this question, the average of the responses is used. If only one spouse responds, the single response is used.
Either spouse reported marriage in trouble at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
The outcome is examined at the couple level. Respondents are asked whether they thought that their marriage was in trouble in the past three months. If either spouse answers by saying that they were "divorced more than three months ago," the outcome is not created. Otherwise, if either spouse indi-cates that he or she had thought that their marriage was in trouble, an affirmative outcome is created.
Reports of warmth and support at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Warmth and support is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing warmth and support in a couple's relationship. Example items include "My spouse expresses love and affection toward me"; "My spouse listens to me when I need someone to talk to"; and "I trust my spouse completely."
Reports of positive communication skills at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Positive communication skills is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing how the couple communicates during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse understands that there are times when I do not feel like talking and times when I do"; "We are good at working out our differences"; and "During arguments, my spouse and I are good at taking breaks when we need them."
Reports of negative behavior and emotions at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
The outcome is examined separately for men and women. Negative behavior and emotions is the average of the responses to seven items aimed at capturing negative interactions that occur during disagreements. Example items include "My spouse was rude and mean to me when we disagreed"; "My spouse seemed to view my words or actions more negatively than I meant them to be"; and "My spouse has yelled or screamed at me."
Neither spouse reported infidelity at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined at the couple level. It measures whether either respondent reported cheating on the spouse with someone else or either respondent believes that the spouse had "definitely" cheated with someone else in the past three months.
Reports of psychological abuse at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. Psychological abuse is the average of the responses to six items. Example items include "Have you felt afraid that your spouse would hurt you?" "Has your spouse accused you of having an affair?" and "Has your spouse tried to keep you from seeing or talking with your friends or family?"
Reports of any physical assault at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure indicates any physical assault in the past three months. The measure is created from responses to questions adapted from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale.*
Individual psychological distress at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
This outcome is examined separately for men and women. The measure is created from responses to the K6 Mental Health Screening Tool.
Men's and women's reports of cooperative coparenting at 30 Months
Time frame: 30 months
Cooperative coparenting reflects the average of five responses to parent-reported items. An example item is "How well the respondent gets along with the spouse when it comes to parenting."
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Apr 2014.
- BackgroundSupporting Healthy Marriage Toolkit: Resources for Program Operators from the Supporting Healthy Marriage Demonstration and Evaluation. 2011. MDRC.
- BackgroundFein, David J. (2009). Spending Time Together: Time Use Estimates for Economically Disadvantaged and Nondisadvantaged Married Couples in the United States. Working Paper.
- BackgroundKnox, Virginia and David J. Fein (2008). Designing a Marriage Education Demonstration and Evaluation for Low-Income Married Couples. Working Paper.
- BackgroundFein, David J. (2004). Married and Poor: Basic Characteristics of Economically Disadvantaged Couples in the U.S. Working Paper.
- Results publicationLundquist, Erika, JoAnn Hsueh, Amy E. Lowenstein, Kristen Faucetta, Daniel Gubits, Charles Michalopoulos, and Virginia Knox (2014). A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families: Final Impacts from the Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation. OPRE Report 2014-09A. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Results publicationLowenstein, Amy E., Noemi Altman, Patricia M. Chou, Kristen Faucetta, Adam Greeney, Daniel Gubits, Jorgen Harris, JoAnn Hsueh, Erika Lundquist, Charles Michalopoulos, and Vinh Q. Nguyen (2014). A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families: Final Impacts from the Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation, Technical Supplement. OPRE Report 2014-09B. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Results publicationGubits, Daniel, Amy E. Lowenstein, Jorgen Harris, and JoAnn Hsueh (2014). Do the Effects of a Relationship Education Program Vary for Different Types of Couples? Exploratory Subgroup Analysis in the Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation. OPRE Report 2014-22. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Results publicationLloyd, Chrishana M., Ashley Weech, Jennifer Miller Gaubert (2014). Perspectives of Low-Income African-American and Latino Couples on Relationship Education. Working Paper.
- Results publicationHsueh, JoAnn, Desiree Principe Alderson, Erika Lundquist, Charles Michalopoulos, Daniel Gubits, David Fein, and Virginia Knox (2012). The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Early Impacts on Low Income Families. OPRE Report 2012-11. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Results publicationHsueh, JoAnn, Desiree Principe Alderson, Erika Lundquist, Charles Michalopoulos, Daniel Gubits, and David Fein (2012). The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Early Impacts on Low-Income Families, Technical Supplement. OPRE Report 2012-27. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Results publicationMiller Gaubert, Jennifer, Daniel Gubits, Desiree Principe Alderson, and Virginia Knox (2012). The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Final Implementation Findings. OPRE Report 2012-12. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Results publicationMiller Gaubert, Jennifer, Virginia Knox, Desiree Principe Alderson, Christopher Dalton, Kate Fletcher, and Meghan McCormick. Early Lessons from the Implementation of a Relationship and Marriage Skills Program for Low-Income Married Couples. 2010. MDRC.
Related trials for Marital Relationships
Not yet recruiting
Mobile Prenatal Education for Expectant Fathers and Its Effects on Bonding, Stress, Breastfeeding and Marital Satisfaction
Breastfeeding Attitudes, Breast Feeding
Not yet recruiting
Comparative Effects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Treatment-as-Usual on Depression Among People With Marital Crisis
Depression - Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Marital Adjustment Strategies on Emotional Divorce Among Married Women
Marital Relationship
Active, not recruiting
Effects of a Financial Literacy and Gender-Transformative Couples Intervention on Parenting Practices in India
Parenting Practices, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
Recruiting
Sexual Health Education During Pregnancy
Sexuality, Depression
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
JoAnn Hsueh, PhD principal investigator
MDRC
8 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income Families in people with Marital Relationships and Family Relations, run by MDRC at 8 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Apr 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 8 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percent Married at 12 Months (time frame: 12 months). The study lists 30 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02112058, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Apr 2014.