Impacts of Parents Forever on Parental Behavior and Adjustment During Divorce: A Short-Term...

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 29 April 2015, At: 11:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Divorce & RemarriagePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

Impacts of Parents Forever on ParentalBehavior and Adjustment DuringDivorce: A Short-Term Follow-UpEvaluation StudySean E. Brotherson a , Christina Rittenbach a & Joseph M. White ba Department of Human Development and Family Science , NorthDakota State University , Fargo , North Dakota , USAb Foundation for Family Life , Riverton , Utah , USAPublished online: 21 May 2012.

To cite this article: Sean E. Brotherson , Christina Rittenbach & Joseph M. White (2012)Impacts of Parents Forever on Parental Behavior and Adjustment During Divorce: A Short-Term Follow-Up Evaluation Study, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53:4, 267-291, DOI:10.1080/10502556.2012.671655

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.671655

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10502556.2012.671655

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.671655

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53:267–291, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1050-2556 print/1540-4811 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10502556.2012.671655

Impacts of Parents Forever on ParentalBehavior and Adjustment During Divorce:A Short-Term Follow-Up Evaluation Study

SEAN E. BROTHERSON and CHRISTINA RITTENBACHDepartment of Human Development and Family Science, North Dakota State University,

Fargo, North Dakota, USA

JOSEPH M. WHITEFoundation for Family Life, Riverton, Utah, USA

The focus of this research project was to investigate the perceivedusefulness and impacts of a 4-hour divorce education workshopoffered to adults. The program, Parents Forever, is a parent edu-cation program designed to assist adults dealing with the divorceor separation process and educate them about the effects on chil-dren and strategies for effective coparenting. Participants included238 individuals who completed the workshop and then partici-pated in an initial postprogram survey and a follow-up survey2 months later, with 82 individuals completing the follow-up sur-vey. The questionnaires evaluated the participants’ perceptionsregarding program usefulness, program impacts on their behav-ior, and demographic and participation variables of interest.Participants indicated positive views of program usefulness andsignificant adjustments in specific divorce-related behaviors. Theimplications of the findings for support of divorce educationprograms are explored.

KEYWORDS coparenting, divorce, divorce education, parenteducation, parents and divorce, program evaluation

Address correspondence to Sean E. Brotherson, Associate Professor, Department ofHuman Development and Family Science, Dept. #7260, P.O. Box 6050, North Dakota StateUniversity, Fargo, ND 58108–6050, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15

268 S. E. Brotherson et al.

Among the challenges faced by families in modern society, the processof parental separation or divorce ranks among the most common in itsoccurrence and the most significant in its lasting impact on children andadults (Amato, 2000). Educational programs, including divorce educationfor adults, have the potential to help and strengthen individuals and fam-ilies involved in such challenging family situations (Campbell & Palm,2004). Typically, parental separation or divorce triggers anxiety, stress, andlong-term adjustment for family members (Emery, 1999). Parent and fam-ily education programs are specifically intended to assist family memberswith understanding family transitions, coping with challenges, and access-ing resources to minimize further difficulties (Arcus, Schvaneveldt, & Moss,1993). When separation or divorce occurs, adults tend to feel a heightenedneed for knowledge about the process, support, and guidance in copingwith new or unfamiliar processes and issues (Whitworth, Capshew, & Abell,2002). Campbell and Palm (2004) argued, “Group parent education remainsa viable and powerful educational format to meet parent needs for support,information, a sense of community, and direct contact with other parents”(p. 4). A significant question regarding such educational interventions fordivorcing parents is whether the parents perceive them as useful and to whatdegree they are perceived to assist parents in their coping and adjustmentfollowing participation.

Because parental separation or divorce can be difficult for adults andpainful for children, many divorce education programs have been devel-oped to inform parents about the possible effects of the divorce processon themselves and their children. Such programs can also provide parentswith suggestions on how to prevent or mitigate potential negative effects forthemselves and their children, as well as coping with the transition process.Research on parental separation and divorce suggests the experience canimpact children and adults in a variety of ways (Amato, 2000). The particu-lar act of divorce or separation may not be the sole contributor to negativeoutcomes. Children and adults may be affected by related conditions suchas ongoing parental conflict, diminished father involvement, economic chal-lenges and other factors (Amato, 2000; Amato & Booth, 2000; Emery, 1999).Therefore, interventions and educational programs that target these condi-tions and seek to facilitate improvement can be a beneficial resource fordivorcing families. Specifically, divorce education programs for parents canbe an important step in mitigating some of the potential negative effectsthat adults experience and also enable them to assist their children moreeffectively in the process.

Divorce education programs might vary somewhat in their content andlength, but most of them seek to further individual adjustment, access toinformation and resources, and a sense of group support (Arbuthnot &Gordon, 1996). In particular, a substantial majority of programs fit the pro-file of what has been termed brief divorce education (Brotherson, White, &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15

Impacts on Parental Behavior During Divorce 269

Masich, 2010). The common characteristics of brief divorce education pro-grams include: (a) program instruction given to participants that varies from1 to 6 hours of content; (b) program delivery centered on learning andsupport that occurs in one to three class sessions; (c) program emphasison understanding the divorce experience, minimizing family conflict, andmeeting children’s needs; and (d) program goals to fulfill community needs,satisfy court requirements, and further the well-being of participants andtheir children (Brotherson et al., 2010). Research by Blaisure and Geasler(1996) indicated that such programs are typical in divorce education efforts,with 95% of court-affiliated programs matching the profile of one to threemeetings with program participants. Although such programs have becomecommonplace and many states now mandate participation as an approachto minimizing the difficulties associated with divorce, an understanding ofprogram effectiveness based on systematic research is emerging more slowly(Whitworth et al., 2002). Brandon (2006) argued that currently “research onthe effectiveness of these classes in actually changing parenting practices isvery limited in quantity and quality” (p. 172). We would argue both in favorof continuing careful research on how and why such divorce education pro-grams influence participants and being realistic about the potential impactsthat a brief educational intervention can have on those parents who separateor divorce.

CURRENT RESEARCH ON DIVORCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

A careful review of current research on divorce education programs andtheir effectiveness shows a variety of brief format interventions have beenexamined and illustrates some evidence of program value and short-termbehavioral effects (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996; Brandon, 2006; Fackrell,Hawkins, & Kay, 2011; Laufer & Berman, 2006; Lee, Picard, & Blain, 1994;Whitworth et al., 2002). This brief review focuses on findings related to per-ceived program value, short-term impacts on knowledge and behavior, theinfluence of demographic and other variables on outcomes, and research onthe Parents Forever program.

Research efforts that address the effectiveness of parent education pro-grams must consider the outcomes that are most likely to be impacted byprogram participation (Lee et al., 1994). Among such possible outcomes, theperceived value or usefulness of the program to participants is a basic andyet important dimension of a program’s impact to consider. It is impor-tant because participants who perceive a program as potentially usefulto them are more likely to participate, more likely to encourage others’participation, and more likely to act on what they have learned (Brothersonet al., 2010; Zepeda, Varela, & Morales, 2004). Additionally, communitystakeholders (e.g., judges, attorneys, etc.) are more likely to refer clients for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


participation and provide clear support to such programs if they perceivethem to be useful (Taylor, 1999). Typically, program participants involved indivorce education rate their experience as valuable and indicate the educa-tional experience has been of substantive usefulness to them (Arbuthnot &Gordon, 1996; Feng & Fine, 2000; McKenry, Clark, & Stone, 1999). For exam-ple, Brandon (2006) found that participants in a 4-hour divorce educationclass “reported great satisfaction” and over 90% felt it was worthwhile andwould recommend it to others. Participants often report that such programshave been useful to them because of such benefits as increased under-standing of divorce, enhanced awareness of how to help children cope,greater insight into adjustment and communication skills, and perceived sup-port from others (Laufer & Berman, 2006; Stone, McKenry, & Clark, 1999).Examining the perceptions of participants regarding program usefulness canprovide further insight into how such programs make a difference and canbe improved.

Because the majority of divorce education programs match the briefprogram model, it is important to construct evaluation efforts that exam-ine outcome variables that fit with a program’s potential impacts andare subject to change (Hughes & Kirby, 2000). Common variables exam-ined in research on short-term effects of such programs include attitudes,knowledge, perceived support, coping efforts, and behaviors such as cou-ple conflict and communication patterns with children (Hughes & Kirby;Lee et al., 1994; Whitworth et al., 2002). Research studies assessing theeffects of brief divorce education programs show generally positive imme-diate and short-term outcomes associated with program participation (Leeet al.). For example, participants in a 4-week small-group divorce inter-vention showed significant short-term improvements in parental attitudesregarding communication and some conflictual behaviors (Zibbell, 1992).A 2-hour mandated course that was assessed regarding effects was found toassist parents in becoming more knowledgeable about the effects of divorceon children and in reducing behaviors that place children between parentsin conflict (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996). Research on such brief programapproaches continues to grow incrementally and add to our understandingof how such programs might affect participants during their adjustment todivorce.

The growing body of evaluative research on brief divorce educa-tion programs sheds light on the variety of programs that exist andthe contributions they make. Shifflett and Cummings (1999) conducted acomparison-group study of the Kids in Divorce and Separation program, a4-hour divorce education workshop, and found it to be effective in increas-ing knowledge of divorce conflict issues and reducing parental conflicts.Participants who engaged in the program made gains that nonparticipantsdid not and the positive changes in knowledge and behavior were sustained1 month after the program. In studies of the PEACE program (Parents’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


Education About Children’s Emotions), a 2.5-hour single-session workshop,participants appeared to improve in their relationships with children and alsoreported increases in divorce-related knowledge and decreases in behav-iors that put children in conflictual situations (McKenry et al., 1999; Stone,Clark, & McKenry, 2000). However, findings were also somewhat mixed,as participants showed no difference from nonparticipants in areas suchas co-parental relationship quality and adjustment to custody and visita-tion arrangements. Participants in other brief divorce education programs,such as Focus on Kids and Parent Education Programs (Israel), have alsoexpressed high satisfaction with program participation (Feng & Fine, 2000;Laufer & Berman, 2006). Brandon’s (2006) study of the Parenting Apart:Effecive Co-Parenting program (4-hour program) in Tennessee showed highlevels of satisfaction and significant decreases in negative divorce-relatedbehaviors among participants. Such findings in regard to brief divorce edu-cation programs suggest promising but modest results in positively affectingparticipant knowledge, attitudes, and targeted behaviors in at least the shortterm following participation.

As research on brief divorce education programs progresses, furtherinvestigation of factors affecting the influence of such programs on partici-pants needs to continue. For example, does the influence of such programsshift based on variables such as gender, socioeconomic status, number ofchildren, length of marriage, or other conditions? What effect do such vari-ables as court-mandated attendance or program type have on participantsand their experience? Such variables are just beginning to receive carefulexamination in divorce education research. Thus far, research suggests thatthe influence of demographic and family variables is minimal in how theyaffect participant experiences in divorce education. Feng and Fine (2000)showed no differences for participants in perceived program impact dueto gender, race or ethnicity, education level, household income, cohabi-tation status, or reason for attending the program. Only age and lengthof marriage had an influence on participant scores, with those who wereolder or married longer rating the program as less helpful. The researchers’primary conclusion was that such programs typically “[fit] the needs of par-ticipants from varying socioecomic and divorce-related backgrounds” (Feng& Fine, 2000, p. 16). Other variables that have been suggested as poten-tially important in their influence include timing of class participation inthe divorce process, mandated attendance, motivation to participate, andother “participatory” variables (Brandon, 2006). There remains substantialopportunity for further research on how demographic, family, and partic-ipatory variables do or do not impact participant experiences in divorceeducation.

Specific research on the Parents Forever divorce education programremains extremely limited at this time; however, this is not unusual, as mostsuch programs have either no or limited research on program effects. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


existing research that has been conducted on the Parents Forever programis promising. Dworkin and Karahan (2005) contacted participants 4 monthsto 1 year after participation and conducted a pilot evaluation of the programwith 89 randomly selected parents using telephone interviews. In responseto open-ended questions, participants indicated that the program helpedthem to better understand and communicate with former partners, bet-ter understand and communicate with their children, and use informationgained in managing the legal and financial issues associated with divorce.Additionally, a significant proportion of parents reported improvements inmanaging conflict with the other parent, putting children in the middle ofconflict, and reducing other negative behaviors. Brotherson et al. (2010)also examined the program in the brief divorce education context, assessingthe responses of 342 course participants using a retrospective questionnairefollowing participation. They reported high participant satisfaction with theprogram and significant gains among participants in all areas of divorce-related knowledge that were assessed. Also, they examined demographicand participatory variables, but found gender, relationship status, mandatedattendance, level of motivation, barriers to participation, and referral sourcehad no substantive impact on perceived program value or knowledge gainamong participants.

As brief divorce education programs continue to flourish and expand,continuing research is needed to determine their effects and establish thebasis for supporting such efforts with divorcing families. This study seeksto expand research on the perceived value and impact of the ParentsForever program in a brief divorce education context. Specifically, it usesa short-term follow-up study design to establish the next step in researchon the program and examine perceived effects on program value and short-term behaviors, as well as the influence of a variety of demographic andparticipatory variables on such outcomes.

METHODS

The focus of this study was on examining the perceived value and effectsof the Parents Forever program on divorce-related behaviors among partici-pants using a brief longitudinal approach. The following research questionswere used to inform the study:

● How do adult participants in Parents Forever rate the value and compara-tive usefulness of the program?

● What effects does participation in Parents Forever have on self-reporteddivorce-related behaviors for adults following the program?

● How are participant responses to the program influenced by specificdemographic and participatory variables (e.g., gender, mandated status,etc.)?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


Information collected for this study was limited to participants in the ParentsForever workshop in the state of North Dakota. Research procedures andevaluation measures were reviewed and approved through the university’sinternal review board.

Program Description

Parents Forever: Education for Families in Divorce Transition is a curriculum-based educational program intended to benefit individuals and familiesexperiencing the challenges of separation or divorce through participa-tion in a multisession workshop (Dworkin & Karahan, 2005). The pro-gram’s intent is to further understanding of concerns affecting childrenwhen separation or divorce occurs and to furnish parents with motiva-tion and abilities to assist children in coping with the divorce processand encourage adult communication and responsibility in parenting. TheUniversity of Minnesota Extension Service developed and supports theprogram. The North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension Serviceadopted and implemented a 4-hour single-session portion of the ParentsForever program in 2007, which is offered statewide to interested clientele.In the state of North Dakota, extension educators and program facili-tators partner to facilitate the program, which is administered via theNDSU Extension Service and regularly delivered to participants experi-encing the separation or divorce process. Annual evaluation efforts areconducted to understand participant characteristics, obtain perceptions ofprogram value, and further refine the administration and delivery of theprogram.

Topics addressed in the seminar include grief and loss, differences inchildren’s responses to divorce, communication between parents, parentalassistance in divorce adjustment for children, and approaches to minimizingconflict between parents. Resources utilized in teaching the seminar typi-cally involve discussion of short video segments portraying adult and childresponses to divorce situations, as well as provision of a Parents Foreverbooklet and program handouts (University of Minnesota Extension Service,2000). The seminar sessions take place regularly (monthly or quarterly)and are available to all interested parties. Program sessions are conductedby two-person facilitator teams of individuals who have been given train-ing in the program and hold an educational and work background incounseling, family life education, or related areas. Individuals who partic-ipate in the program typically are required to attend by a judge, referredby their attorney or social services, or learn of it through other means(Brotherson et al., 2010). Seven sites with the largest volume of participantswere selected to administer the assessment process for a 1-year period in2009.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


Participants

Study participants included 238 adults who were involved in the single-session (4 hours) Parents Forever seminar during the year 2009. Womenconstituted 53% of class participants (vs. 45% men). Current relationship sta-tus among participants consisted of considering separation or divorce (2.7%),separated from partner (2.7%), in the divorce process (42.7%), completed thedivorce process (34.2%), or never having been married to the child’s otherparent (13.8%). Among participants, 159 agreed to complete the follow-upsurvey, with 82 actually completing it (51.6% response rate among thosewho agreed; 34% overall response rate).

Procedures

Participants involved in the seminar were given the opportunity to com-plete two questionnaires surveying their perceptions of the program and itsvalue, what they learned, and any potential impacts on their behavior. Aftercompleting the program session, participants received the first retrospec-tive postprogram questionnaire and were invited to provide their responses.Code numbers were assigned to each participant to ensure anonymousparticipation. The completed questionnaires were gathered by program facil-itators on conclusion, program certificates were provided, and the surveyswere sent to the state Extension office for analysis.

Participants indicating willingness to continue the study (by providingcontact information) were administered the follow-up questionnaire via mail,e-mail, or telephone 6 to 8 weeks after completing the program. Participantscontacted through mail were given the survey along with a self-addressed,postage-paid envelope in which to return the completed survey. If they pre-ferred e-mail, they received an e-mail that contained a link to an onlinesurvey site where they could complete the questionnaire. Participants con-tacted by telephone were called by one of the researchers and asked eachfollow-up question on the phone. If participants did not respond duringthe first attempt at contact, they were contacted two to three more timesto give them an opportunity to respond to the follow-up questionnaire.Gathering data several weeks after completion provided information aboutthe perceived short-term effects of the program.

Measures

Two study questionnaires were utilized to investigate participant responsesto the Parents Forever seminar. First, a retrospective postprogram ques-tionnaire was developed, which participants completed at the end of thesingle-session seminar. Next, a second follow-up questionnaire (with someretrospective elements) was constructed for use with participants several

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


weeks following the program. Both questionnaire instruments containeditems relating to perceptions of program value and usefulness, knowledge ofprogram content, and perceived effects relating to overall divorce adjustmentand specific parental behaviors. As research on the Parents Forever pro-gram is limited, we designed specific questionnaires to be used in evaluatingperceived program value and effects.

Each questionnaire was developed to match program objectives andassess research questions regarding perceived program value and effectson participant knowledge and behaviors. Both questionnaires also under-went a pilot testing process with participants, program facilitators, anduniversity professionals prior to implementation. Feedback provided throughthe review process suggests that questions utilized on both instrumentshave face validity. The initial postprogram questionnaire is composed of27 items including multiple-response questions, Likert scales, and open-ended response questions. The follow-up questionnaire includes 28 itemsof a similar nature. Specific items arranged by topic area are discussed next.

PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM VALUE AND USEFULNESS

Nine questions on the two questionnaires reflect perceptions of programvalue and usefulness. A pair of questions asked respondents to evaluate theworkshop’s value for themselves or others using a 5-point Likert-type scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Another item ques-tioned whether those participating would endorse the program to someoneelse and provided a dichotomous yes–no response option. In the follow-upsurvey, a 5-item scale focused on workshop usefulness and impact relatedto aspects of divorce adjustment such as managing difficulties in the divorceprocess utilizing a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).A final question on the follow-up survey requested participants to rate howuseful each source of information among 11 sources had been to them in theseparation and divorce process. The rating scale used a 5-point Likert-typesystem ranging from 1 (not at all useful) to 5 (very useful).

PERCEPTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE AND BEHAVIORS RELATED TO DIVORCE

All questions regarding specific divorce-related behaviors were included inthe follow-up survey. One set of items consisted of five questions regardinghow the program was perceived to influence the respondent in such areasas “understanding of children and divorce” or “skills in helping children withthe divorce process.” These five items were grouped into a scale on gen-eral program impact and responses were organized on a 5-point range from1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Ten questions asked participants to retrospec-tively rate the behavioral frequency of specific divorce-related behaviors inthe period prior to the workshop (3-month period before participation) and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


at the time of survey completion (2 months following participation). Thus,a “before” and “after” rating was provided for each divorce-related behavioron a 5-point behavioral frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (veryoften). Six questions dealt with positive divorce-related behaviors and fourof them dealt with negative divorce-related behaviors.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND PARTICIPATION VARIABLES

Participants furnished information on demographic and participation vari-ables in their responses. The initial postprogram survey included demo-graphic questions regarding course location, gender, current relationshipstatus, and caregiver status. Participation variables included several itemssuch as motivation to attend the class, mandated status (dichotomous), andbarriers to workshop participation (dichotomous).

FINDINGS

Findings from the study highlight participant views of the program’s valueand usefulness to them, perceptions of program impacts on their divorce-related behaviors, and the influence of demographic and participatoryvariables on participant behaviors and adjustment 2 months following theprogram.

Perceptions of Program Value and Usefulness

Individuals participating in the Parents Forever session expressed highlevels of satisfaction and strong perceptions of the program’s value andusefulness to them. When asked if they believed the class session was worth-while for them, 84.5% agreed it was worthwhile. The same question wasasked in the follow-up survey and, once again, 84.2% agreed the programwas worthwhile. Additionally, 90% of participants in the follow-up surveyagreed that participating in the workshop would be beneficial for otherdivorcing parents. Finally, when asked if they would recommend involve-ment in the program to others, 98% agreed they would recommend suchparticipation.

An additional measure of workshop value was assessed throughresponses on the follow-up survey to statements reflecting its usefulnessin assisting participants to help children or themselves adjust to the divorceprocess. Further, a composite score for workshop impact was computedas the mean of these five items (Cronbach’s α = .88). Respondents in thefollow-up survey indicated the program was useful in helping them be moreattentive to children’s needs in the divorce process (M = 3.62), assisting chil-dren in the coping process (M = 3.37), and helping the participant manage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


difficulties in the divorce process better (M = 3.23). Participants indicatedthat program content materials had also been useful to them (M = 3.16) andthe workshop assisted them in working more effectively in the coparentingprocess (M = 2.71).

In addition, participants provided a view of the program’s comparativevalue by rating the usefulness of the program and several other sources ofinformation during the divorce or separation process. Participants completedratings on the follow-up survey 2 months following the program. The infor-mation sources were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with responses rangingfrom 1 (not at all useful) to 5 (very useful). Means and standard deviationsare highlighted in Table 1.

Participants rated six information sources as being of similar value tothem in the divorce process. The six information sources rated as mostuseful included personal friends (M = 3.84, SD = 1.22), their own parents(M = 3.74, SD = 1.45), attorneys (M = 3.74, SD = 1.39), counselors(M = 3.72, SD = 1.47), the Parents Forever class and materials (M =3.69, SD = 1.19), and divorced friends or acquaintances (M = 3.67, SD =1.25). Participants generally rated the Parents Forever program as “useful”and significantly higher than several other sources such as judge or courtsystem, other relatives or in-laws, books or magazines, and the Internet.A series of one-sample t tests indicated that the mean score of the ParentsForever program response was statistically similar to the other top-rankinginformation sources, suggesting participants found the program to be asuseful as attorneys, parents, and friends during the divorce process. Not sur-prisingly, participants considered the least useful information source to bethe child’s other parent (M = 1.76, SD = 1.17), a likely indication of negativeperceptions that evolved between parents in the divorce process. To ourknowledge, this is the first time that comparative value ratings of programusefulness have been utilized for a brief divorce education program.

TABLE 1 Mean Participant Ratings for Usefulness of Information Sources

Information sources used in the divorce process M SD

Parents (of participant) 3.74 1.45Child’s other parent 1.76 1.17Other relatives or in-laws 2.97 1.31Personal friends 3.84 1.22Attorneys 3.74 1.39Judge or court system 2.85 1.48Divorced friends or acquaintances 3.67 1.25Counselors or social workers 3.72 1.47Books, magazines, or newspapers 2.85 1.38The Internet 2.88 1.30Parents Forever class and materials 3.69 1.19

Note. N = 82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


Assessing Program Impacts on Divorce-Related Behaviors

The second research question for this study focused on assessing pro-gram impacts on participant divorce-related behaviors at 2 months followinginvolvement in the program. Respondents to the follow-up survey answeredfive questions regarding various aspects of divorce-related adjustment.Additionally, participants provided a retrospective assessment of the fre-quency of 10 specific divorce-related behaviors during the 2 months priorto class participation and also currently at 2 months following involvementin the seminar. A paired sample t-test analysis was employed to investigateparticipants’ self-reported behavior and analyzed for statistical differencesbefore and after program participation.

First, participants were asked several questions about perceived impactsof the program in general on the follow-up questionnaire. These questionswere rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (verymuch). Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations wereused to evaluate the participants’ responses to these questions. Participantsnoted the program had a moderate to substantial influence on each itemasked regarding perceived impacts. For example, participants displayed asubstantive influence on their understanding relative to divorce issues andchildren as they indicated the program “increase[d] [my] understanding ofchildren and divorce” (M = 3.69, SD = .88) and also “increase[d] [my] knowl-edge of healthy parenting” (M = 3.62, SD = .87). Further, the participantsindicated the program positively influenced their skills in “helping [their]children with the divorce process” (M = 3.55, SD = 1.06), changed theirbehavior moderately as a parent (M = 3.21, SD = 1.01), and positively influ-enced their relationship with their child (M = 3.29, SD = 1.04). To facilitatefurther analysis, a composite variable for program impact was also computedas the combined mean of these five items (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Of the 10 questions asked regarding divorce-related behavior, 6 ofthem focused on increases in positive behaviors (e.g., encourage child tospend time with other parent) and 4 of them focused on decreases in nega-tive behaviors (e.g., child observing conflict between parents). Paired t-testanalyses were conducted to assess whether the program had any impacton increasing positive participant behaviors. Table 2 includes the averageparticipant mean scores and standard deviations before and following theprogram, as well as mean score differences, t-test findings, and effect sizes.Results indicated each of the before-and-after mean comparisons were sig-nificant (p < .001). Thus, mean scores for self-reported positive behaviorsafter participation were significantly higher than mean scores for behaviorbefore participation. Each difference indicates improvement in divorce-related behaviors between the two time periods. Several weeks followingprogram participation, parents were significantly more likely to encouragechildren to spend time with the other parent, talk to children about their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15

TAB

LE2

Mea

nCom

par

isons

and

t-Te

stSt

atis

tics

for

Par

ticip

ants

’Sel

f-Rep

orted

Posi

tive

Beh

avio

rs

Bef

ore

par

ticip

atio

nA

fter

par

ticip

atio

n

Div

orc

ebeh

avio

r—posi

tive

MSD

MSD

Mea

ndiffe

rence

td

Enco

ura

gech

ildto

spen

dtim

ew

ithoth

erpar

ent

3.37

1.12

3.79

.98

0.41

∗−5

.428

.40

Tal

kto

child

aboutfe

elin

gsin

the

div

orc

epro

cess

2.85

1.08

3.27

.98

0.42

∗−4

.563

.41

Cooper

ate

effe

ctiv

ely

inco

par

entin

gef

forts

3.20

1.09

3.66

1.05

0.45

∗−4

.865

.43

Com

munic

ate

succ

essf

ully

aboutpar

entin

gis

sues

with

oth

erpar

ent

2.58

1.14

3.17

1.20

0.58

∗−5

.394

.50

Controlan

gry

or

neg

ativ

ere

sponse

sto

oth

erpar

ent

3.34

1.08

3.92

.82

0.58

∗−5

.317

.61

Dis

cuss

par

alle

lpar

entin

gag

reem

ents

with

oth

erpar

ent

2.20

1.16

2.68

1.25

0.48

∗−4

.947

.40

Not

e.N

=77

,d

f=

76.

∗ p<

.01.

279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


feelings in the divorce process, cooperate effectively in coparenting efforts,communicate successfully with the other parent about parenting issues, andcontrol angry or negative responses to the other parent (see Table 2). Thelargest behavioral differences were noted in communicating successfullyabout parenting issues with the other parent (M = 2.58 before programvs. M = 3.17 after program) and in controlling angry or negative responsesto the other parent in handling family issues (M = 3.34 before program vs.M = 3.92 after program). Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d andindicated medium effects ranging from .40 to .61.

Program effects on negative divorce-related behaviors were also impres-sive. Table 3 includes mean scores, standard deviations, mean scoredifferences, t-test comparisons, and effect sizes. These items were scoredso that lower scores represent improvement in behavior or a decrease inthe negative behavior. Paired t-test comparisons were utilized to assess dif-ferences in self-reported negative behaviors following participation in theprogram. Study findings showed statistically significant decreases betweenretrospective preprogram and postprogram negative behavior scores for par-ticipants on every indicator assessed. All t-test comparisons were significant(p < .001), indicating significantly lower scores on all items following partic-ipation. This finding suggests the program produced significant reductionsin negative divorce-related behaviors (in at least the short term), includ-ing talking badly about or putting down the other parent in front of children(M = 1.87 before vs. M = 1.34 after program), experiencing conflict with theother parent that is observed by the child (M = 2.90 before vs. M = 2.06 afterprogram), putting children “in the middle” of a difficult situation betweenoneself and the other parent (M = 2.77 before vs. M = 2.23 after program),and feeling angry or upset due to communication difficulties with the otherparent (M = 4.10 before vs. M = 3.65 after program). Effect sizes were cal-culated using Cohen’s d and indicated medium to large effects ranging from.43 to .77.

Demographic and Participation Variables Influencing Responses tothe Program

A third research question in this project examined specific demographic andparticipatory variables and their influence on responses to the program. Onlytwo demographic variables, gender and relationship status, were included inthis analysis. In addition, three “participation variables” utilized were man-dated status, participant motivation level, and barriers to participation. Eachof these items was included as an independent variable in a series of statisti-cal analyses utilizing analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the influenceof these factors on responses to the program. Responses were analyzedusing the subsample of individuals who completed both the initial surveyand the follow-up survey at 2 months (N = 82).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15

TAB

LE3

Mea

nCom

par

isons

and

t-Te

stSt

atis

tics

for

Par

ticip

ants

’Sel

f-Rep

orted

Neg

ativ

eB

ehav

iors

Bef

ore

par

ticip

atio

nA

fter

par

ticip

atio

n

Div

orc

ebeh

avio

r—neg

ativ

eM

SDM

SDM

ean

diffe

rence

td

Tal

kbad

lyab

outor

putdow

noth

erpar

entin

frontof

child

ren

1.87

.80

1.34

.55

0.53

∗6.

842

.77

Exp

erie

nce

conflic

tw

ithoth

erpar

entth

atch

ildobse

rves

2.90

1.25

2.06

.99

0.84

∗7.

008

.74

Inte

ract

ion

with

oth

erpar

entputs

child

“in

the

mid

dle

”ofa

difficu

ltsi

tuat

ion

2.77

1.29

2.23

1.10

0.55

∗5.

020

.46

Feel

san

gry

due

toco

mm

unic

atio

ndifficu

lties

with

oth

erpar

ent

4.10

1.01

3.65

1.10

0.45

∗4.

677

.43

Not

e.N

=77

,d

f=

76.

∗ p<

.01.

281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


Relationship status was restricted to two conditions, those who were inthe divorce process and those who had completed a divorce. Participationvariables included barriers to workshop participation (timing, distance, orcost), whether individuals were mandated to participate (by court or socialservices), and their level of motivation to be involved in the program.Each variable regarding barriers to participation was dichotomous (yes–noresponses), with one in five individuals (19.5%) noting that timing of theclass was a barrier to involvement, and slightly lower numbers indicatingthat distance (11.7%) and cost (13%) were barriers to their participation.Mandated status was also a dichotomous variable, with 63.9% of individu-als noting they were “required by court” to attend the class and 36.1% ofparticipants indicating they were “not required” to attend. Finally, level ofmotivation to attend the program included those who “did not really wantto attend” (9.4%), those who were “neutral about attending” (21.6%), andthose who were “interested in and willing to attend” the workshop (70.3%).

To examine the potential association between the identified indepen-dent variables and participant behaviors in response to the program, a seriesof ANOVAs were conducted. Three dependent variables were involvedin this analysis: general program impact (GPI), positive behavior change(PBC), and negative behavior change (NBC). GPI was calculated as thecomposite mean score of five items in which participants rated general-ized program impacts on various aspects of divorce adjustment. Change inpositive divorce-related behavior was calculated as a composite mean scoreof the difference between pre- and postcourse positive behavior ratings onsix items. Change in negative divorce-related behavior was calculated as acomposite mean score of the difference between pre- and postcourse neg-ative behavior ratings on four items. The significance level for p was set at.05 for the statistical analyses. Means and standard deviations are includedin Table 4.

The first ANOVA assessed the influence of gender as an independentvariable related to GPI, PBC, and NBC. Results showed the influence ofgender on GPI approached statistical significance, with men tending to ratethe program’s general behavioral impact marginally higher (M = 3.72, SD =.70) than women who participated (M = 3.36, SD = .87), F(1, 73) = 2.89,p = .094. However, the difference bordered statistical significance but didnot reach the p < .05 level. No significant influence was shown on ratings ofPBC between men and women; however, results indicated that men noted asignificantly higher decline in negative divorce-related behaviors (M = −.83,SD = .70) than did women who participated (M = −.48, SD = .59), F(1,75) = 1.99, p < .05. Effect size (η2 = .063) was minimal, thus explainingonly 6% of the variance in negative behavior change.

The next ANOVA determined whether relationship status was relatedto any of the dependent variables. Current relationship status was notrelated to GPI, PBC, and NBC. Results suggest that relationship status does

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


TABLE 4 Means and Standard Deviations on Program Impact and Behavior Change byDemographic and Participation Variables

Program impact

Positivebehaviorchange

Negativebehaviorchange

Variables M SD M SD M SD

SexMale (n = 24) 3.72 .70 .64 .68 −.83∗ .70Female (n = 53) 3.36 .87 .42 .53 −.48 .59

Relationship statusIn the divorce process (n = 39) 3.40 .87 .55 .59 −.50 .71Completed the divorce process (n = 26) 3.43 .90 .38 .56 −.55 .49

Mandated class participationMandated (n = 48) 3.42 .96 .46 .60 −.54 .62Nonmandated (n = 26) 3.54 .56 .56 .55 −.65 .69

Level of motivation to attendDid not want to attend (n = 6) 2.93 .99 .22 .42 −.32 .47Neutral (n = 16) 2.90 1.00 .22 .47 −.37 .41Interested and willing (n = 52) 3.70∗ .66 .60∗ .59 −.67 .70

Barrier: TimingYes (n = 15) 3.39 1.09 .46 .61 −.43 .36No (n = 62) 3.48 .76 .50 .58 −.63 .69

Barrier: DistanceYes (n = 9) 3.44 .89 .54 .57 −.72 .68No (n = 68) 3.47 .84 .48 .59 −.57 .64

Barrier: CostYes (n = 10) 3.58 .95 .53 .73 −.58 .94No (n = 66) 3.45 .82 .48 .56 −.67 .60

∗p < .05.

not significantly affect how participants rate program impact or behavioralchanges following program participation.

A third series of ANOVAs explored whether barriers to workshop par-ticipation were related to GPI, PBC, and NBC. The independent variable wasthe barrier of timing, distance, or cost. There were no significant differenceswhether individuals indicated they had barriers to participation or not (seeTable 4). Although barriers might affect ease of workshop involvement, theyare not related to GPI for participants or changes in behavior.

The next analysis explored whether mandated class participation influ-enced GPI, PBC, or NBC. Results indicated no significant differencesbetween those mandated to attend versus those who participated volun-tarily (see Table 4). The absence of a significant effect in this case suggestsparticipants experience similar positive changes in divorce-related behaviorswhether or not they are mandated to attend the program.

A final ANOVA explored whether level of motivation to participate influ-enced GPI, PBC, and NBC. As expected, individuals with higher motivationto participate rated the general impact of the program significantly higher(M = 3.70, SD = .66) than individuals who were “neutral” or did not wish to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


attend (see Table 4), F(2, 71) = 8.07, p < .05. Effect size (η2 = .18) explained18% of the variance in GPI. Further, individuals more highly motivated toparticipate showed substantially higher levels of positive behavior change(M = .60, SD = .59) than others who were neutral or not interested (seeTable 4), F(2, 71) = 3.46, p < .05 (effect size of .089). Changes in nega-tive divorce-related behavior were not related to motivation. These findingssuggest that motivation level has an influence on how program participantscarry out efforts to adjust their behavior in the weeks immediately followingtheir participation.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this study demonstrate positive feedback on both immediateand short-term program effects for participant attitudes and behaviors relatedto divorce. Satisfaction with the program experience was high. On aver-age, more than 8 out of 10 individuals indicated workshop participationwas worthwhile in both the immediate and follow-up surveys. Additionally,98% agreed they would recommend the program to others. Highly positiveresponses to participation in brief divorce education programs are generallycommon and reinforce findings from previous research that suggest mostparticipants find value in participation, whether in Parents Forever or otherbrief divorce model programs (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996; Brandon, 2006;Brotherson et al., 2010; Dworkin & Karahan, 2005; Fackrell et al., 2011;Feng & Fine, 2000). Positive reactions to the program among participantsseem more likely to result in responsiveness to other educational opportuni-ties, encouragement of others to participate, and support among communityinstitutions.

A key inquiry in the study concerned how adult participants would ratethe value and comparative usefulness of the program. In essence, furtherin-depth investigation of program impacts is not particularly helpful if par-ticipants do not perceive their experience to be useful in the first place.In responding 2 months after participation, participants felt the program washelpful in several areas of divorce adjustment. Items with the highest rat-ings were related to helping parents be attentive to children’s needs andassisting children with coping; however, participants noted that the work-shop was also moderately helpful in aiding them to work more effectively incoparenting. This pattern suggests it might be easier for brief divorce edu-cation programs to impact how parents focus on and support their childrenin the divorce process than to affect how they negotiate and communicatewith a former partner in coparenting. Fackrell et al. (2011) showed in ameta-analysis of court-affiliated divorce education programs that substan-tively larger program effect sizes occur with child-focused outcomes (e.g.,d = .53 for child well-being) versus coparent-focused outcomes (e.g., d =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


.36). Also, this finding supports a primary objective of most brief divorceeducation programs to focus on the needs and adjustment of children inthe divorce process, as well as the expressed intent of most parents attend-ing to “help themselves and their children to better handle the stresses andchallenges of the divorce process” (Brotherson et al., 2010, p. 481).

This research study is the first to examine program usefulness using a“comparative value” approach by comparing participant ratings of the pro-gram’s value with other sources of information. The participant responseswere enlightening. A series of one-sample t tests demonstrated no statisticaldifference in the participant ratings for the top six information sources. Themost highly rated sources of information included personal friends, theirown parents, attorneys, counselors, the Parents Forever class and materials,and divorced friends or acquaintances. This finding suggests several issuesto consider. First, it is clear that divorce education programs are competingin a vigorous marketplace of opinion and resources that can be relied on bydivorcing parents. Next, it is likely that divorcing parents find informationsources useful to them for different reasons. The informal advice andsupport offered by a divorced friend is likely to be valued differently thanthe technical, research-based recommendations that are provided in thedivorce education setting; however, both sources of information are valuedas useful to the divorcing parent. Finally, it is encouraging to find that abrief program like Parents Forever is perceived to be as useful as otherprimary sources of information on divorce adjustment at 2 months followingparticipation, and even more helpful than other possible sources (i.e., judgeand court system, books, etc.).

The second major research question in the study explored the effects ofparticipation in Parents Forever on self-reported divorce-related behaviorsin the short term following the program. Participants rated their normal pat-tern of behavior in the 3 months prior to the program and also at 2 monthsfollowing participation using a retrospective assessment about positive (sixitems) and negative divorce-related behaviors (four items). Findings indi-cated significant statistical increases in positive divorce-related behaviorsamong participants on every item assessed with effect sizes ranging fromd = .40 for encouraging children to spend time with the other parent tod = .61 for controlling negative responses to the other parent. Improvedbehavior scores thus represented increases in positive divorce-related behav-iors that were 12% to 25% better than they had been prior to the workshop.Previous research on Parents Forever and other brief divorce educationprograms shows that reported improvements in divorce-related behav-iors are expected (Criddle, Allgood, & Piercy, 2003; Dworkin & Karahan,2005; Kurkowski, Gordon, & Arbuthnot, 1993; Shifflett & Cummings, 1999).In sum, this pattern fits well with the finding that participants in such pro-grams tend to show an improvement in coparental behavior that is up to 40%better than those who do not participate (Fackrell et al., 2011). Fackrell et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


(2011) correctly noted that, given the large number of divorces in the UnitedStates, “even a small increase in the proportion of parents who are ableto minimize co-parental conflict is significant for public policy purposes”(p. 113).

In addition to the increases in positive behaviors, participants recordedstatistically significant reductions in all negative divorce-related behaviorsassessed. Again, effect sizes ranged from .43 to .77, with reductions thatresulted in participants being less likely to criticize the other parent orengage in coparental conflict in front of the child. Such results portendthat participants perceive positive adjustments in their own divorce-relatedbehaviors at 2 months following the program that are meaningful.

Among the study’s unique contributions, further insight emerged fromexamining the influence of demographic and participation variables onparticipant responses to the program. Previous divorce education researchsuggests that the influence of such variables tends to be minimal in impactinghow participants benefit from such programs (Brandon, 2006; Feng & Fine,2000). Brotherson et al. (2010) showed that gender and current relationshipstatus had no impact on perceptions of program value or knowledge gain.Additionally, although mandated class participation and level of motivationaffected perceptions of program value, knowledge gain among participantswas unaffected by such variables. However, this study provided additionalinsight into how such factors might influence short-term adjustment andbehavior following program participation.

The gender analysis indicated men perceive a greater benefit due toparticipation than women at 2-month follow-up. Although the differencewas not statistically significant, men tended to rate general program impacthigher than women and the finding trended toward significance. Furtherevidence supporting this pattern emerged when men reported a greaterdecline than women in negative divorce-related behaviors following classparticipation. In fact, the decline was nearly twice that which womenreported. Most published studies of divorce education programs have notcarefully examined the influence of gender or other demographic variableson participant outcomes (Lee et al., 1994; Whitworth et al., 2002). However,Whitehurst, O’Keefe, and Wilson (2008) reported in their study that womenshowed significant changes in coparenting behavior, whereas men did not.Alternatively, Vukalovich and Caltabiano (2008) found that “group inter-vention did not contribute to notable gender differences” and “males andfemales proceeded similarly in adjusting to separation” (p. 160). Arbuthnotand Gordon (1996) studied divorce adjustment outcomes and stated that“few differences were found as a function of gender” (p. 73), but did notethat men showed greater improvements than women on a few skills. Thus,the findings regarding the influence of gender on divorce-related behaviorsfollowing a divorce intervention are mixed, although this study indicated aslightly greater impact with male than female participants.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


Relationship status (those in the divorce process vs. legally divorcedindividuals) did not influence participant scores regarding program impactand behavior change. This finding supplies confidence that individuals willbenefit from the program regardless of where they are in the divorce pro-cess. It should be noted that some research has shown greater benefits whenindividuals participate in educational interventions early in the process (seeArbuthnot & Gordon, 1996), although there were not sufficient numbers inthe study who fit that criteria to test this question. Barriers to workshop par-ticipation also showed no influence on postparticipation behavior changes,which supports previous research indicating that such barriers do not influ-ence participant assessments of program value or knowledge gained in theprogram (Brotherson et al., 2010).

Because participants in the program were either mandated to attend(64%) or attended voluntarily (36%), we were able to examine the influ-ence of mandated attendance status on postprogram outcomes. The issueof mandating participation for adults experiencing the transition of sepa-ration or divorce has been a subject of considerable interest and debate(Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996; Fackrell et al., 2011; Pollet & Lombreglia, 2008).Relatively little research has directly investigated the impact of mandated sta-tus on divorce education participants. In this study, mandated attendance didnot affect how participants rated program impact or levels of positive andnegative behavior change 2 months after completing the program. This con-firms previous research that suggests mandated status might affect attitudesbut rarely seems to affect participant knowledge or behaviors (Brothersonet al., 2010; Whitworth et al., 2002). We would agree with Fackrell et al.’s(2011) suggestion that there seems to be “no empirical reason for courtsto pull back on mandated DPEs (divorcing parent education programs) fordivorcing parents, even brief interventions” (p. 115).

Finally, we examined the participants’ level of motivation to be involvedin the program. This item has received modest attention in previous research.Arbuthnot and Gordon (1996) first noted that more highly motivated partici-pants do not necessarily gain greater benefits from being in the class. Otherscholars have further noted that level of motivation might be of minimalinfluence on the participants’ experience and outcomes (Stone et al., 2000).Research does suggest that more motivated participants rate their satisfac-tion with the class experience more highly; however, more highly motivatedparticipants do not gain greater levels of knowledge than less motivated par-ticipants (Brotherson et al., 2010). It could be, though, that higher participantmotivation does affect individual commitment to implementing new ideasand applying skills learned in the course, at least in the short term. In ourinvestigation, more interested participants rated the program impact signifi-cantly higher than those who were “neutral” or lacked interest. Even moresignificantly, rates of positive behavior change were three times higher forhighly motivated participants than those who were neutral or uninterested

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


and rates of negative behavior reduction were twice as high between groups.Thus, in the short term, level of participant motivation might be a significantfactor that aids individuals in carrying through and applying the knowledgeand skills from the workshop, whereas less motivated individuals strugglemore with such implementation.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Findings from this study suggest that brief divorce education programs cangenerate perceptions of significant value to participants, increase positivedivorce-related behaviors and decrease negative behaviors in the short term,and encourage positive behavioral adjustment among divorcing parents ina variety of conditions (particularly when motivation is high). Evaluationefforts allow stakeholders to assess the value of such programs, under-stand their impacts on participants, and plan approaches that maximize thepositive influence of such educational interventions. This study utilized theretrospective post- then premodel of assessment, which allowed participantsto reflect on their divorce-related behaviors and perceived adjustments fol-lowing course participation (Marshall, Higginbotham, Harris, & Lee, 2007).Although this research approach has limitations, it fit well with the studyobjectives for this program and suggested positive evidence for continuingfurther careful evaluation of this program and similar efforts. The find-ings regarding positive impacts on short-term, divorce-related behaviors aresimilar to evaluation of other brief divorce education programs that indi-cate meaningful short-term gains following participation in such programs(Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996; Brandon, 2006; Criddle et al., 2003; Fackrellet al., 2011; Feng & Fine, 2000; Whitehurst et al., 2008). We suggest thatdivorce-related behavioral shifts as a result of such interventions are likelyto be modest but meaningful, as well as quite specific to the behaviorsaddressed, and thus evaluation efforts should use variables and approachestailored to assess such possibilities.

Limitations associated with this study include study design, responserate, participant self-reports, and demographic information available. Thestudy utilized a retrospective post- then prestudy design to match thesingle-session workshop design and maximize participant reflection on theirexperience. The study included both postworkshop and follow-up question-naires, however, to strengthen the design and place greater confidence inthe findings. Another limitation is that our study was limited to programparticipants. Use of a more rigorous research design that includes com-parison with nonparticipants would be recommended for future research.The design allowed for maximal response (97%) to the initial postprogramsurvey; however, follow-up questionnaires were distributed only to partici-pants who agreed to further participation (meaning some self-selected out

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


of the follow-up survey) and slightly over half (52%) of those individualsresponded. Although this is a commendable response rate, interpretation offindings should be done cautiously with the likelihood that participants whoresponded favorably to the program might have been more likely to partic-ipate in the follow-up survey. Participants provided self-reports in answerto the questionnaires and such reports might be more likely to result inresponses biased in favor of the participant; however, confidentiality wasassured to minimize such pressure and all communication emphasized accu-rate reporting of attitudes and experiences. Future studies would benefitfrom adding information on such variables as age, race or ethnicity, lengthof couple relationship, educational level, income level, and other relevantfactors. Thus, care should be taken in generalizing findings to populationsthat might be significantly different than the population in this study.

The practical implications of this study relate to understanding the influ-ence of brief divorce education programs and approaches to heighteningtheir lasting impact. This profile of the Parents Forever program and itsimpacts suggests its worth as a valued resource to participants who willlikely experience positive adjustments in divorce-related behaviors. To sus-tain long-term influence, it is likely that such programs would benefit fromcomplementary support mechanisms that extend their scope and impact.Such strategies might include the following:

● Additional educational sessions that link with the initial course offering (asimple process with Parents Forever, as there are four additional sessionsfor up to 12 hours).

● Use of social networking technologies to leverage program support amongparticipants, such as online support groups, virtual education, or othermeaningful supports.

● Support of participants through mailed information such as a programnewsletter.

● Establishment of a support or discussion group opportunity for interestedparticipants following their participation.

● Connection of participants to other viable educational or support resourcessuch as family support centers, books and other educational materials, andonline offerings.

Thus, the study not only affirms the potential for participant change,but suggests possibilities for magnifying such impacts through participantmotivation and extended program support.

Brandon (2006) asked whether one 4-hour workshop “can make a dif-ference in the behaviors of divorcing parents” (p. 172). This study tackledthe question regarding Parents Forever and found the answer to be “Yes.”Among brief divorce education programs, the Parents Forever model offersa valuable educational resource that can significantly assist participants inadjusting to divorce and helping their children cope with the experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


REFERENCES

Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1269–1287.

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (2000). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era offamily upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D. A. (1996). Does mandatory divorce education for par-ents work? A six-month outcome evaluation. Family and Conciliation CourtsReview, 34(1), 60–81.

Arcus, M. E., Schvaneveldt, J. D., & Moss, J. J. (Eds.). (1993). Handbook of familylife education: The practice of family life education (Vol. 2). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Blaisure, K. R., & Geasler, M. J. (1996). Results of a survey of court-connected parenteducation programs in U.S. counties. Family and Conciliation Courts Review,34, 23–40.

Brandon, D. J. (2006). Can four hours make a difference? Evaluation of a parenteducation program for divorcing parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,45(1–2), 171–185.

Brotherson, S. E., White, J., & Masich, C. (2010). Parents Forever: An assessment ofthe perceived value of a brief divorce education program. Journal of Divorce &Remarriage, 51, 465–490.

Campbell, D., & Palm, G. F. (2004). Group parent education: Promoting parentlearning and support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Criddle, M. N., Jr., Allgood, S. M., & Piercy, K. W. (2003). The relationship betweenmandatory divorce education and level of post-divorce conflict. Journal ofDivorce & Remarriage, 39(3–4), 99–111.

Dworkin, J. D., & Karahan, A. (2005). Parents Forever: Evaluation of a divorce edu-cation curriculum. Journal of Extension, 43(1) [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/rb6.shtml

Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fackrell, T. A., Hawkins, A. J., & Kay, N. M. (2011). How effective are court-affiliateddivorcing parents education programs? A meta-analytic study. Family CourtReview, 49(1), 107–119.

Feng, P., & Fine, M. A. (2000). Evaluation of a research-based parenting educationprogram for divorcing parents: The focus on kids program. Journal of Divorce& Remarriage, 34(1–2), 1–23.

Hughes, R., Jr., & Kirby, J. J. (2000). Strengthening evaluation strategies for divorcingfamily support services: Perspectives of parent educators, mediators, attorneys,and judges. Family Relations, 49(1), 53–61.

Kurkowski, K. P., Gordon, D. A., & Arbuthnot J. (1993). Children caught in the mid-dle: A brief educational intervention for divorced parents. Journal of Divorce &Remarriage, 20(3–4), 139–151.

Laufer, H., & Berman, A. (2006). Surviving the earthquake: Parent education pro-gram for separated and divorced families—Examining the effectiveness. Journalof Divorce & Remarriage, 46(1–2), 135–149.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15


Lee, C. M., Picard, M., & Blain, M. D. (1994). A methodological and substantivereview of intervention outcome studies for families undergoing divorce. Journalof Family Psychology, 8(1), 3–15.

Marshall, J., Higginbotham, B., Harris, V., & Lee, T. (2007). Assessing pro-gram outcomes: Rationale and benefits of posttest-then-retrospective-pretestdesigns. Journal of Youth Development: Bridging Research and Practice, 2(1),0701RS001 [Online]. Retrieved from http://data.memberclicks.com/site/nae4a/JYD_070201_final.pdf

McKenry, P. C., Clark, K. A., & Stone, G. (1999). Evaluation of a parent educationprogram for divorcing parents. Family Relations, 48(2), 129–137.

Pollet, S. L., & Lombreglia, M. (2008). A nationwide survey of mandatory parenteducation. Family Court Review, 46(2), 375–394.

Shifflett, K., & Cummings, E. M. (1999). A program for educating parents aboutthe effects of divorce and conflict on children: An initial evaluation. FamilyRelations, 48(1), 79–89.

Stone, G., Clark, K., & McKenry, P. (2000). Qualitative evaluation of a parent educa-tion program for divorcing parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 34(1–2),25–40.

Stone, G., McKenry, P., & Clark, K. (1999). Fathers’ participation in a divorce edu-cation program: A qualitative evaluation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,30(1–2), 99–113.

Taylor, R. J. (1999). Attitudes of professionals toward parenting programs afterdivorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 32(1–2), 159–165.

University of Minnesota Extension Service. (2000). Impact of divorce on children.St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service.

Vukalovich, D., & Caltabiano, N. (2008). The effectiveness of a community groupintervention program on adjustment to separation and divorce. Journal ofDivorce & Remarriage, 48(3–4), 145–168.

Whitehurst, D. H., O’Keefe, S. L., & Wilson, R. A. (2008). Divorced and separatedparents in conflict: Results from a true experiment effect of a court man-dated parenting education program. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 48(3–4),127–144.

Whitworth, J. D., Capshew, T. F., & Abell, N. (2002). Children caught in the conflict:Are court-endorsed divorce-parenting education programs effective? Journal ofDivorce & Remarriage, 37(3–4), 1–18.

Zepeda, M., Varela, F., & Morales, A. (2004). Promoting positive parenting prac-tices through parenting education. In N. Halfon, T. Rice, & M. Inkelas(Eds.), Building state early childhood comprehensive systems series, No. 13.Los Angeles, CA: UCLA National Center for Infant and Early Childhood HealthPolicy.

Zibbell, R. A. (1992). A short-term, small-group education and counseling programfor separated and divorced parents in conflict. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,18(1–2), 189–203.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:29

29

Apr

il 20

15

Impacts of Parents Forever on Parental Behavior and Adjustment During Divorce: A Short-Term...

Documents

Transcript of Impacts of Parents Forever on Parental Behavior and Adjustment During Divorce: A Short-Term...