TOGETHER: A Couple's Model to Enhance Relationships and Economic Stability
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 终止
- 入组人数
- 584
- 试验地点
- 3
- 主要终点
- Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory- Baseline/Pre-test (Time1)
研究概览
简要总结
The current study sought to evaluate an intervention to promote healthy couple relationships and economic stability and mobility for low-income couples living in Northern Virginia (VA) and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties (MD). The approach proposed integrated two components:(1) a 20-hour evidence-informed couple group workshop called TOGETHER that integrates relationship and financial education, followed by an optional three-hour booster session three months after TOGETHER workshop and (2) case management (assessment of participant needs, development of Individual and Couple Development Plan(ICDP), referrals for social and mental health services, and referrals and coordination with job and career enhancement services, linking and coordination of all services as needed). The 20-hour workshop was offered in 8 sessions facilitated by couple and financial experts. The effectiveness of the program was evaluated through a randomized control trial in which couples were randomly assigned to a control group (n=147) or an intervention group (n=145). The control group received no intervention but a three-hour financial workshop after the last assessment was completed whereas the intervention couples participated in the 20-hour interventions and received case management. An independent local evaluator(AVAR, Consulting) participated in the design, implementation, and most of the data analysis. Participants had to be at least 18 years-old, living together for at least a year, and had no severe domestic violence issues, or untreated substance abuse or severe psychiatric disorders. If both partners were retired, couples were excluded from participation. Couples participated in an intake and enrollment meeting and were randomly assigned by a computer generated system to either the intervention or control group. Couples in both groups completed three sets of self-report measures: (1)Pre-test in first workshop session or at intake for control couples, (2)post-test in the last workshop session, or 8 weeks after the pre-test for control couples, and (3)follow-up six months after the post-test. After the six-month follow-up assessment, participation in the program was concluded. The study was largely funded by a Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant awarded by the Administration of Children and Families.
详细描述
The current project sought to promote healthy couple relationships and economic stability and mobility for low-income couples living in Northern Virginia (VA) and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties (MD) This project was funded by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) under the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) program from the beginning of the study until May 10, 2018. As of May 10, 2018 ACF continued to fund the intervention component but data collection and analysis for couples that had been randomized by then and continued to receive services and to complete assessments were funded by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The evaluation plan that included a randomized control trial (RCT) and was approved of by ACF for years 2016, 2017, and 2018 until the local evaluation was discontinued by ACF included the enrollment of 720 couples, out of which 360 couples would be randomly assigned to the intervention group and 360 couples to a control group. However, due to the unexpected termination of funding for the local evaluation, the program was evaluated with 292 couples (145 intervention group couples and 147 control group couples).
This project was developed and conducted by Project Director, Mariana Falconier, Ph.D. at Virginia Tech and Associate Director until December, 2018 and since then at the University of Maryland (UMD), and Jinhee Kim, Ph.D. at UMD. UMD was a subawardee of Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech subcontracted with SkillSource Group, Inc. for delivery of employment services and University of Maryland contracted with Family Services, Inc. for delivery of workshop services. ACF required the grantee to have an independent local evaluator and for that purpose Virginia Tech contracted with AVAR Consulting, involved in the implementation and outcome evaluations until August 31, 2018. Additional analyses were conducted by D. Mark Lachowicz from UMD.
Our approach integrated two components (1) a 20-hour evidence-informed couple group program called TOGETHER workshop that integrates relationship education and financial literacy skills and (2) case management (assessment of participant needs, development of Individual and Couple Development Plan, referrals for community services, and referrals and coordination with job and career enhancement services).
Short-term outcomes of this project's core intervention were expected immediately after completion of the last session of the TOGETHERR workshop whereas medium-term outcomes were anticipated six months after that last session. Expected measurable outcomes among program participants for objective 1 (improved personal well-being) included increased frequency of positive stress management, reduced psychological distress, decreased financial stress. Expected measurable outcomes for objective 2 (improved couple's relationship skills) included increased frequency of positive communication behaviors, increased frequency of positive conflict management behaviors, increased frequency of positive dyadic stress management, increased frequency of conjoint problem solving behaviors, increased satisfaction with couple's relationship, and increased comfort with financial styles and roles. Expected measurable outcomes for objective 3 (improved parenting and co-parenting) included increased frequency of positive parenting behaviors, increased closeness to children, and increased satisfaction with co-parenting. Expected measurable outcomes for objective 4 (improved financial literacy and capability) include increased financial literacy skills, increased financial self-efficacy, decreased use of alternative financial services, and increased financial management behaviors. Finally, expected measurable outcomes for objective 5 (improved employability, job placement, and retention) include decreased perceived barriers to employability, increased intentions and motivations for work, increased confidence in job skills, and increased employability, employment status, and retention. These outcomes were expected by comparing the intervention and control group outcomes in the RCT.
Outcomes were evaluated through self-report measures provided ACF and additional standardized measures selected by the Project Director and Associated Project Director. Measures were completed at baseline, 8 weeks after, and six-month follow up. Couples received gift cards for survey completion.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Prevention
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 —（Adult, Older Adult）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- •Lliving together for at least a year
- •Being at least 18 years
- •English speaking.
排除标准
- •Current physical domestic violence and/ or feeling unsafe to participate with your partner in a psycho-educational group in the last twelve months
- •Current diagnosis of a severe psychiatric disorder that required hospitalization in the last 12 months
- •Cognitive impairment that prevent comprehension of materials and participation in a psycho-educational group
- •Severe untreated substance abuse disorder
- •Both partners fully retired.
研究组 & 干预措施
Control group
Control group of couples will receive no intervention
Intervention
Intervention group of couples received the intervention: case management (connection to community services), 20 hour pscycho-educational workshop on communication, conflict resolution, problem-solving, stress management, and financial management, booster session, and employment support services if needed
干预措施: Employment Support Services (Behavioral)
Intervention
Intervention group of couples received the intervention: case management (connection to community services), 20 hour pscycho-educational workshop on communication, conflict resolution, problem-solving, stress management, and financial management, booster session, and employment support services if needed
干预措施: Connection to community services through case management (Behavioral)
Intervention
Intervention group of couples received the intervention: case management (connection to community services), 20 hour pscycho-educational workshop on communication, conflict resolution, problem-solving, stress management, and financial management, booster session, and employment support services if needed
干预措施: TOGETHER Workshop (Behavioral)
结局指标
主要结局
Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory- Baseline/Pre-test (Time1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997)This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale - Stress Subscale Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Lovibond \& Lovibond (1995). The stress subscale has 7 items and scale range is 0-21. Higher scores represent more symptoms of stress
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale - Stress Subscale Six-month Follow up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Lovibond \& Lovibond (1995). The stress subscale has 7 items and scale range is 0-21. Higher scores represent more symptoms of stress
Financial Services Survey From FINRA - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by FINRA for the National Financial Capability Study. This is a 5-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's use of financial services. Examples of specific items included "Taken out an auto title loan," "Taken out a short term "payday" loan," and "Used a pawn shop.". The measurement used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (4 or more times). Scale ranges from 5-25. Higher sores represent higher use of non-banking borrowing/alternative borrowing methods.
Shared Goals and Values - Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Archuleta, Grable, \& Britt (2010) . This is a 4-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of the extent to which he or she share financial goals and values with his/her partner. Scale range: 4-28. Higher scores represent more sharing
Shared Goals and Values - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Archuleta, Grable, \& Britt (2010) .This is a 4-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of the extent to which he or she share financial goals and values with his/her partner. Scale range: 4-28. Higher scores represent more sharing
Shared Goals and Values - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Archuleta, Grable, \& Britt (2010) .This is a 4-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of the extent to which he or she share financial goals and values with his/her partner. Scale range: 4-28. Higher scores represent more sharing
Perceived Employment Barriers - Post--test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Hong (2013). This is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of employment barriers. It has the following subscales: Physical and mental health (6 items, scale range: 6-30), Labor Market Exclusion (3 items: scale range: 3 -15), Child Care (3 items: scale range: 3 -15). Human Capital (5 items, scale range: 5-25), and Soft Skills (5 items, scale range: 5-25). Higher scores represent higher/more barriers in that area.
Employment Hope Scale - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Hong, Sheriff \& Naeger, (2009) This is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's psychological readiness and hope for employment. Subscales included in the study are: Utilization Skills (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Worth (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Motivation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Perceived Capability (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Goal Orientation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Future Job Outlook (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Psychological Empowerment (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120); and Moving to Future Goals (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120). Higher scores represent higher readiness or hope.
Perceived Employment Barriers - Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Hong (2013). This is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of employment barriers. It has the following subscales: Physical and mental health (6 items, scale range: 6-30), Labor Market Exclusion (3 items: scale range: 3 -15), Child Care (3 items: scale range: 3 -15). Human Capital (5 items, scale range: 5-25), and Soft Skills (5 items, scale range: 5-25). Higher scores represent higher/more barriers in that area.
Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management (nFORM)- Post-test at 8 Weeks After Pre-test (Time2)
时间窗: Post-test (8 weeks after pre-test/Time1)
nFORM survey was developed by Mathematica. Subscales: Depression (4 items; Range: 4-20); Anxiety (2 items; Range: 2-10); Positive conflict management (7 items; Range: 7-28); Negative conflict management (5 items; Rrange: 5-20); Emotional abuse (2 items; Range: 2-8); Conflict management Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Relationship quality (5 items; Range:5-20); Time with partner (3 items; Range: 3-12); Relationship Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Parenting stress (1 item; Scale range: 1-4); Banking (3 items; Range: 0-3); Difficulty to pay bills (1 item; Scale range: 1 - 4); Relationship Commitment (1 item; Range: 1-4); Budgeting (1 item; Range: 0-1). Range is Scale Range. Higher scores means higher levels on that variable.
Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management (nFORM)- Baseline/Pretest (Time1)
时间窗: Pre-test/Baseline (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
nFORM survey was developed by Mathematica. Subscales: Depression (4 items; Range: 4-20); Anxiety (2 items; Range: 2-10); Positive conflict management (7 items; Range: 7-28); Negative conflict management (5 items; Rrange: 5-20); Emotional abuse (2 items; Range: 2-8); Conflict management Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Relationship quality (5 items; Range:5-20); Time with partner (3 items; Range: 3-12); Relationship Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Parenting stress (1 item; Scale range: 1-4); Banking (3 items; Range: 0-3); Difficulty to pay bills (1 item; Scale range: 1 - 4); Relationship Commitment (1 item; Range: 1); Budgeting (1 item; Range: 0-1). Range is Scale Range. Higher scores means higher levels on that variable. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory in Relation to Financial Problems - Baseline/Pre-test (Time1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997).This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. We have repeated the same 28 items but respondents had to answer about coping strategies in relationship to coping with financial issues in particular. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy.
Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory in Relation to Financial Problems - Post- Test (Time2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997). This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. We have repeated the same 28 items but respondents had to answer about coping strategies in relationship to coping with financial issues in particular. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy.
Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management (nFORM)- Six-month Follow-up (Time3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
nFORM survey was developed by Mathematica.Subscales: Depression (4 items; Range: 4-20); Anxiety (2 items; Range: 2-10); Positive conflict management (7 items; Range: 7-28); Negative conflict management (5 items; Rrange: 5-20); Emotional abuse (2 items; Range: 2-8); Conflict management Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Relationship quality (5 items; Range:5-20); Time with partner (3 items; Range: 3-12); Relationship Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Parenting stress (1 item; Scale range: 1-4); Banking (3 items; Range: 0-3); Difficulty to pay bills (1 item; Scale range: 1 - 4); Relationship Commitment(1 item; Range: 1-4); Budgeting (1 item; Range: 0-1). Range is Scale Range. Higher scores means higher levels on that variable.
Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory in Relation to Financial Problems - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997). This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. We have repeated the same 28 items but respondents had to answer about coping strategies in relationship to coping with financial issues in particular. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy.
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Gratz and Roemer (2004). This is a 36-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent difficulties in emotion regulation. Scale range: 36-180. Higher scores represent more difficulties in emotion regulation
Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory - Post- Test (Time2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997).This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Family Economic Strain Scale - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Hilton and Devall (1997). This is a 15-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's level of economic strain.As not all couples had children, the two items related to children were excluded. Scale range: 13-65. Higher scores represent higher economic strain
Family Economic Strain Scale - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Hilton and Devall (1997). This is a 15-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's level of economic strain.As not all couples had children, the two items related to children were excluded. Scale range: 13-65. Higher scores represent higher economic strain
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Gratz and Roemer (2004). This is a 36-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent difficulties in emotion regulation. Scale range: 36-180. Higher scores represent more difficulties in emotion regulation
Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997).This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Family Economic Strain Scale - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Hilton and Devall (1997). This is a 15-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's level of economic strain.As not all couples had children, the two items related to children were excluded. Scale range: 13-65. Higher scores represent higher economic strain
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Gratz and Roemer (2004). This is a 36-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent difficulties in emotion regulation. Scale range: 36-180. Higher scores represent more difficulties in emotion regulation
Conflict Tactics Scales-R - Six Month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Straus, Comby, Boney-McCoy, \& Sugarman (1996). This 78-item self report instrument measures physical assault (12 items), physical injury (6 items), psychological aggression (8 items), sexual coercion (7 items) and negotiation (6 items) by the respondent and by the partner. Only the physical assault and psychological aggression subscales were considered for analysis in this study. A total prevalence score for each subscale was calculated. Total prevalence scores ranged 0 to 12 for the physical assault subscale and from 0 to 8 for the psychological aggresion subscale. Higher total scores represented higher levels of the variable. For the psychological aggression and physical assault subscales only the partner with the higher score was considered due to underreporting of these behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Conflict Tactics Scales-R Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Straus, Comby, Boney-McCoy, \& Sugarman (1996). This 78-item self report instrument measures physical assault (12 items), physical injury (6 items), psychological aggression (8 items), sexual coercion (7 items) and negotiation (6 items) by the respondent and by the partner. Only the physical assault and psychological aggression subscales were considered for analysis in this study. A total prevalence score for each subscale was calculated. Total prevalence scores ranged 0 to 12 for the physical assault subscale and from 0 to 8 for the psychological aggresion subscale. Higher total scores represented higher levels of the variable. For the psychological aggression and physical assault subscales only the partner with the higher score was considered due to underreporting of these behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Conflict Tactics Scales-R - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Straus, Comby, Boney-McCoy, \& Sugarman (1996). This 78-item self report instrument measures physical assault (12 items), physical injury (6 items), psychological aggression (8 items), sexual coercion (7 items) and negotiation (6 items) by the respondent and by the partner. Only the physical assault and psychological aggression subscales were considered for analysis in this study. A total prevalence score for each subscale was calculated. Total prevalence scores ranged 0 to 12 for the physical assault subscale and from 0 to 8 for the psychological aggresion subscale. Higher total scores represented higher levels of the variable. For the psychological aggression and physical assault subscales only the partner with the higher score was considered due to underreporting of these behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Dyadic Coping With Economic Stress Inventory - Post-Test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
This 34-item self-report instrument is an adaptation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory to economic stress and measures how couples cope with economic stress. Only the communication (2 items by self and 2 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5. A total was caculated for each subscale by adding all responses. The total score for stress communication ranged from 2 to 10, supportive from 5 to 25, negative from 4 to 20, and common dyadic coping from 5 to 25. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
The Brief Communication Patterns Questionnaire - General and In Relation to Money Problems - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Futris, Campbell, Nielsen, \& Burwell (2010). This is an 11-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the couple's demand/withdraw communication patterns as well as their level of constructive communication when there is a problem. Each item is responded on a scale from 1 to 9. The Demand/Withdraw Total Scale has 6 items. and the total score for the subscale ranges from 6 to 54 . The constructive communciation subscale includes 3 items and. the total score for the subscale ranges from 3 to 27. Higher scores represent more occurrence of the communication pattern.The same eleven items were asked about communication behaviors in relation to money problems and scored in the same way. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Financial Self-Efficacy Scale - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Dietz, Carrozza \& Ritchey (2011). This is a 3-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial self-efficacy. Scale range 4-12. Higher scores represent higher financial self-efficacy
Revised Financial Management Behavior Scale - Six-month Follow-up(Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Dew and Xiao (2011). This is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial management behavior. It includes four subscales: Insurance (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Credit management (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Savings (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Cash management (4 items; scale range: 4-20). Higher scores for each of the subscale depict healthy financial management practices. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale - Stress Subscale Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Lovibond \& Lovibond (1995). The stress subscale has 7 items and scale range is 0-21. Higher scores represent more symptoms of stress
Dyadic Coping Inventory - Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Guy Bodenmann (2008). This 37-item self-report instrument measures how couples cope with stress in general. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (4 items by self and 4 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5 . Total scores for each subscale were computed. Subscale total scores ranged from 4 to 20 for Stress Communication, 5 to 25 for Supportive, 4 to 20 for Negative, and 5 to 25 for Common Dyadic Coping. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
The Brief Communication Patterns Questionnaire - General and In Relation to Money Problems - Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
This is an 11-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the couple's demand/withdraw communication patterns as well as their level of constructive communication when there is a problem. Each item is responded on a scale from 1 to 9. The Demand/Withdraw Total Scale has 6 items. and the total score for the subscale ranges from 6 to 54 . The constructive communication subscale includes 3 items and. the total score for the subscale ranges from 3 to 27. Higher scores represent more occurrence of the communication pattern.The same eleven items were asked about communication behaviors in relation to money problems and scored in the same way. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Financial Self-Efficacy Scale - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Dietz, Carrozza \& Ritchey (2011). This is a 3-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial self-efficacy. Scale range 4-12. Higher scores represent higher financial self-efficacy
Revised Financial Management Behavior Scale - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Dew and Xiao (2011). This is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial management behavior. It includes four subscales: Insurance (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Credit management (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Savings (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Cash management (4 items; scale range: 4-20). Higher scores for each of the subscale depict healthy financial management practices. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Dyadic Coping Inventory - Post-Test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test: 8 weeks after Pre-Test ; Follow-up: 6 months after Post-Test
Developed by Guy Bodenmann (2008). This 37-item self-report instrument measures how couples cope with stress in general. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (4 items by self and 4 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5 . Total scores for each subscale were computed. Subscale total scores ranged from 4 to 20 for Stress Communication, 5 to 25 for Supportive, 4 to 20 for Negative, and 5 to 25 for Common Dyadic Coping. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Dyadic Coping With Economic Stress Inventory - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
This 34-item self-report instrument is an adaptation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory to economic stress and measures how couples cope with economic stress. Only the communication (2 items by self and 2 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5. A total was caculated for each subscale by adding all responses. The total score for stress communication ranged from 2 to 10, supportive from 5 to 25, negative from 4 to 20, and common dyadic coping from 5 to 25. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
The Brief Communication Patterns Questionnaire - General and In Relation to Money Problems - Post-test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)
Developed by Futris, Campbell, Nielsen, \& Burwell (2010). This is an 11-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the couple's demand/withdraw communication patterns as well as their level of constructive communication when there is a problem. Each item is responded on a scale from 1 to 9. The Demand/Withdraw Total Scale has 6 items. and the total score for the subscale ranges from 6 to 54 . The constructive communciation subscale includes 3 items and. the total score for the subscale ranges from 3 to 27. Higher scores represent more occurrence of the communication pattern.The same eleven items were asked about communication behaviors in relation to money problems and scored in the same way. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Dyadic Coping Inventory - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Guy Bodenmann (2008). This 37-item self-report instrument measures how couples cope with stress in general. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (4 items by self and 4 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5 . Total scores for each subscale were computed. Subscale total scores ranged from 4 to 20 for Stress Communication, 5 to 25 for Supportive, 4 to 20 for Negative, and 5 to 25 for Common Dyadic Coping. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Financial Self-Efficacy Scale - Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time1Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Dietz, Carrozza \& Ritchey (2011). This is a 3-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial self-efficacy. Scale range 4-12. Higher scores represent higher financial self-efficacy
Financial Services Survey From FINRA - Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by FINRA for the National Financial Capability Study. This is a 5-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's use of financial services. Examples of specific items included "Taken out an auto title loan," "Taken out a short term "payday" loan," and "Used a pawn shop.". The measurement used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1(never) to 5 (4 or more times). Scale ranges from 5-25. Higher sores represent higher use of non-banking borrowing/alternative borrowing methods. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Dyadic Coping With Economic Stress Inventory - Baseline/Pre-Test (Time 1)
时间窗: Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
34-item self-report instrument adapted from the Dyadic Coping Inventory to describe coping with economic stress. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (2 items by self and 2 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5. A total was caculated for each subscale by adding all responses. The total score for stress communication ranged from 2 to 10, supportive from 5 to 25, negative from 4 to 20, and common dyadic coping from 5 to 25. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Revised Financial Management Behavior Scale - Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Dew and Xiao (2011). This is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial management behavior. It includes four subscales: Insurance (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Credit management (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Savings (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Cash management (4 items; scale range: 4-20). Higher scores for each of the subscale depict healthy financial management practices. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Financial Services Survey From FINRA - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by FINRA for the National Financial Capability Study. This is a 5-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's use of financial services. Examples of specific items included "Taken out an auto title loan," "Taken out a short term "payday" loan," and "Used a pawn shop.". The measurement used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (4 or more times). Scale ranges from 5-25. Higher sores represent higher use of non-banking borrowing/alternative borrowing methods. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.
Couple Financial Management Roles and Satisfaction - Post-Test (Time 2)
时间窗: Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1
Developed by Archuleta (2008). This is a 13-item self-report questionnaire. There are two different 7-point Likert-type scales used for Financial Management Roles (FMR). The first part assesses spousal involvement in specific financial management roles. The scale ranges from 1 (FMR was primarily the participant's responsibility) to 7 (FMR was the spouse's primary responsibility). Scores were recoded (1 recoded to -3; 4 recoded to 0; and 7 recoded to 3). Scale ranges from -39 to 39. Lower score indicates the participant is more responsible and higher score the participant is less responsible for the FMR in his/her household. Second part of the FMR assesses respondents' level of satisfaction of their involvement in financial roles. The scale ranges from 1 (participant unsatisfied in his/her involvement) to 7 (participant satisfied in his/her involvement). Higher score indicates participant's satisfaction of involvement in specific financial role. Scale ranges from 13 to 91.
Couple Financial Management Roles and Satisfaction - Pre-Test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
There are two different 7-point Likert-type scales used for Financial Management Roles (FMR). The first part assesses spousal involvement in specific financial management roles. The scale ranges from 1 (FMR was primarily the participant's responsibility) to 7 (FMR was the spouse's primary responsibility). Scores were recoded (1 recoded to -3; 4 recoded to 0; and 7 recoded to 3). Scale ranges from -39 to 39. Lower score indicates the participant is more responsible and higher score the participant is less responsible for the FMR in his/her household. Second part of the FMR assesses respondents' level of satisfaction of their involvement in financial roles. The scale ranges from 1 (participant unsatisfied in his/her involvement) to 7 (participant satisfied in his/her involvement). Higher score indicates participant's satisfaction of involvement in specific financial role. Scale ranges from 13 to 91. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query.
Couple Financial Management Roles and Satisfaction - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Archuleta (2008). This is a 13-item self-report questionnaire. There are two different 7-point Likert-type scales used for Financial Management Roles (FMR). The first part assesses spousal involvement in specific financial management roles. The scale ranges from 1 (FMR was primarily the participant's responsibility) to 7 (FMR was the spouse's primary responsibility). Scores were recoded (1 recoded to -3; 4 recoded to 0; and 7 recoded to 3). Scale ranges from -39 to 39. Lower score indicates the participant is more responsible and higher score the participant is less responsible for the FMR in his/her household. Second part of the FMR assesses respondents' level of satisfaction of their involvement in financial roles. The scale ranges from 1 (participant unsatisfied in his/her involvement) to 7 (participant satisfied in his/her involvement). Higher score indicates participant's satisfaction of involvement in specific financial role. Scale ranges from 13 to 91.
Employment Hope Scale - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Hong, Sheriff \& Naeger, (2009) This is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's psychological readiness and hope for employment. Subscales included in the study are: Utilization Skills (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Worth (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Motivation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Perceived Capability (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Goal Orientation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Future Job Outlook (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Psychological Empowerment (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120); and Moving to Future Goals (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120). Higher scores represent higher readiness or hope.
Perceived Employment Barriers - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)
时间窗: Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)
Developed by Hong (2013). This is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of employment barriers. It has the following subscales: Physical and mental health (6 items, scale range: 6-30), Labor Market Exclusion (3 items: scale range: 3 -15), Child Care (3 items: scale range: 3 -15). Human Capital (5 items, scale range: 5-25), and Soft Skills (5 items, scale range: 5-25). Higher scores represent higher/more barriers in that area.
Employment Hope Scale - Pre-test (Time 1)
时间窗: Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)
Developed by Hong, Sheriff \& Naeger, (2009) This is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's psychological readiness and hope for employment. Subscales included in the study are: Utilization Skills (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Worth (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Motivation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Perceived Capability (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Goal Orientation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Future Job Outlook (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Psychological Empowerment (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120); and Moving to Future Goals (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120). Higher scores represent higher readiness or hope.
次要结局
未报告次要终点