| Popis: |
In recent years it has been discussed whether high-risk couples benefit more from Couple Relationship Education programs (CREs) than low-risk couples due to larger room for improvement, or profit less due to greater vulnerability. Pertinent response prediction studies yielded inconclusive results. Careful review suggests this may be due to: statistical handling (not disentangling room for improvement and vulnerability effects), time frame analyzed (not disentangling opposing effects during intervention and follow-up), sampling, and selection of risk factors. We used an analytic strategy that maximized odds for replicability and tested two hypotheses: (1) room for improvement: pre-intervention relationship dissatisfaction predicts gain in satisfaction during intervention, and decline during follow up, and (2) vulnerability: when adjusted for room for improvement (pre-intervention relationship dissatisfaction), risk factors show negative or negligible, but no positive associations with gain in satisfaction. Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) was employed in 79 self-referred (SR) couples and 50 clinician-referred (CR) couples who had completed the 'Hold me Tight' program, a CRE based on Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy. Our findings supported both the room for improvement hypothesis, with pre-intervention dissatisfaction predicting more gain during intervention (both samples) and decline during follow-up (SR sample, for the CR sample the effect was negligible), and the vulnerability hypothesis, as several negative, but no positive effects of risk factors were observed during intervention and follow-up. Specific risk factors did not replicate between samples. To promote replicable results in future research, we advocate disentangling room for improvement and vulnerability effects, separately testing effects during intervention and follow-up, purposeful sampling, and studying a large set of risk factors including partner variables.近年来，高风险夫妇相对低风险夫妇而言是否从伴侣关系教育项目中获得更多益处，这方面的讨论不少，原因是他们有更大的改进空间，或者由于更脆弱而获利更少。相关的反应预测研究得出了不确定的结果。细致的文献研究表明，这可能是由于:统计处理(没有分清改善空间和脆弱性的影响)，分析的时间框架(没有分清干预和跟踪期间的对立影响)，抽样，以及风险因素的选择。我们使用了一种分析策略，最大限度地提高了可复制性的几率，并测试了两个假设:(1)改善空间:干预前的关系不满意预测了干预期间满意度的提高，以及后续的下降；(2)脆弱性:当对改善空间(干预前的关系不满意)进行调整时，风险因素与满意度的提高显示出消极或可忽略的，但没有积极的关联。在79对自我推荐的夫妇和50对临床医生推荐的夫妇中，采用了演员-伴侣相互依赖模型(APIM)，这些伴侣已经完成了“紧紧抱住我” 项目，这是一个基于情感集中的伴侣治疗的CRE。我们的研究结果支持改进的空间假说，即干预前的不满意预示着在干预期间会有更多的收获，而在随访期间则会下降；同时也支持脆弱性假说，因为在干预和随访期间观察到了风险因素的一些负面作用，但没有正面作用。具体的风险因素在样本之间没有复制。为了促进未来研究结果的可复制性，我们主张将改进空间和脆弱性效应分开，分别测试干预和随访期间的效应，有目的的取样，以及研究包括伙伴变量在内的大量风险因素. |
Plný text