. - if 5.
Wm... nWMﬁWuWi 5

.45,

mw ..
. awwé
9 . m ”My Ag,

.nuwwﬁﬁ, um

run

.3
Lung

.. ..
Fast 9
.,.,.....I..i

. .5...

A.
. an;
. 3...,“ “van-.3
.51

. Iii.

$.12...
In t. n
.‘L... ..

 

 

 

. ha...

It...

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

EVALUATING THE SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PREPARE
2000 PREMARITAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAM: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY OF CHANGE IN PREMARITAL COUPLES

presented by
Joseph Milton Hoedel

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Family and Child Ecology

 

 

Bali 1?. ﬁg

Major professor Q

Date Mauser! 4 3 z»!

 

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Eq ua! Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

a

r“
—\

I D
"1
1...;

 

01'

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6’01 CJCIRC/Dateouep65-p. 15

 

 

EVALUATIING THE SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PREPARE
2000 PREMARITAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAM: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY OF CHANGE IN PREMARITAL COUPLES
By

Joseph Milton Hoedel

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2001

ABSTRACT
EVALUATIING THE SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PREPARE
2000 PREMARITAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAM: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY OF CHANGE IN PREMARITAL COUPLES
By

Joseph Milton Hoedel

The authors of the PREPARE 2000 premarital enrichment program are the
ﬁrst to combine a regimented premarital program with a premarital assessment
questionnaire (PAQ) and offer it as an integrated program. However, this six-
exercise program has never been empirically evaluated to determine the
effectiveness of the program The purpose of this exploratory study was two-fold.
First, this study evaluated the short-term effectiveness of PREPARE 2000 by
measuring change in relational attributes of premarital couples who completed the
premarital emichment program. Speciﬁcally, this study compared diﬁerences
between Time 1 and Time 2 scores for couple typology, positive couple agreement,
male and female individual scores and dyadic adjustment. Secondly, feedback ﬁ'om
couples and clergy participating in the study was collected.

To accomplish these objectives, a multi-method design emploring a
combination of quantitative and qualitative procedures was utilized. Clergy
members from Michigan who were certiﬁed to use the PREPARE 2000 program
were recruited. The sample consisted of couples who agreed to be married by one of
the clergy members. Utilizing a pre—post design, couples ﬁlled out the PREPARE

PAQ, completed the six-exercise PREPARE 2000 program with their clergy and

ﬁlled out the PREPARE FAQ for the second time. Changes in scores between Time
1 and Time 2 were compared.

Results indicated no statistically signiﬁcant differences on any of the
dependent variables and each null hypothesis was accepted. However, using more
qualitative ideographic procedures, it was discovered that many couples
categorically changed ﬁ'om one typology to another after completing the program.
Over 50 percent of the conﬂicted, traditional and harmonious couples shifted to a
higher typology, while 86 percent of the vitalized couples maintained their typology.
Finally, feedback was collected from couples and clergy who participated in the
study. Verbatim responses were coded for content analysis and compared with past
literature and actual changes in couples. Implications and recommendations for

theory, research and practice are discussed.

This PhD. is dedicated to my father. I wish you could have been here to witness the

improbable. I hope I have made you proud. Thanks for everything!

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When a person attains the improbable, it is usually the result of a
collaborative process between family, ﬁnds and mentors. In my case, this
sentiment could not be more accurate. As a young high school sophomore with a
solid 1.80 GPA, I never thought I would somday earn a PhD. That type of
tm'naround could not have been accomplished without a tremendous amount of
encouragement, afﬁrmation and wisdom from those around me. I want to thank
those who helped make all of this possible.

To Jim Brandt, who believed in that skinny, high school sophomore and
gave him the conﬁdence to dream his dreams. To Paul Weikert, who was kind
enough to give me a start in this ﬁeld and guided me toward a career in marriage
and family therapy. I will always value your tutelage and your ﬁiendship. To
David Imig, who logged countless hours in his office with me, discussing theory,
paradigms and the next great idea. Those are the moments I treasure most fondly
when I think of my graduate career. I believe I learned more from those scribbles
than I ever did from any book. Thanks for giving me a ﬁrst-rate graduate student
experience. To Norma Bobbitt, who always believed in me. Thank you for giving
me my ﬁrst genuine opportunity. Okinawa inspired me and enabled me to hold my
head high. Over the past several years, many graduate students would ask me what
programI was in. I proudly told them that I was earning my PhD. in Norma
Bobbitt. To Bob Lee, who taught me more about therapy and theory than any

person alive. I really wish I could have bottled up some of your lectures. By the

time I could fully appreciate your wisdom and humor, it was time for me to leave. I
will always cherish the conference comradery and the Friday golf matches at Forrest
Akers. I am still sorry about sleeping through the 7:45 am. tee-time ©. Thank you
one and all. I am a better nnn because of your guidance and ﬁiendship.

I can’t forget those that I struggled with. In particular, I wanted to thank
Stan Meloy, Laura Mohr and Bernadette Chlopan for being there through the thick
and the thin. Everyone should be lucky enough to know ﬁ'iendships like these.

My family is very important to me. I am indebted to my Mother for all that
she has done for me. I admire her integrity, work ethic and courage. The only way
I can ever repay her for her love and guidance is to pass on those values and
characteristics to my own children someday. I also want to thank my Grandmother
for just being the strong woman that she is. I mean it when I tell her that she is the
greatest woman to ever walk the face of the earth. You will never be forgotten.
Also, my last Michigan family connection can not be forgotten or underestimated.
Thank you Aunt Emilee for your bi-yearly visits and the hour-long phone calls.
However, we both know that The Outback is far better than Mountain Jacks.

And just like any good acceptance speech at the Oscars, I have saved the
best for last. My wife Sally is the most creative and talented woman that I know.
You inspire me to be better tomorrow than I am today. I thank you for the
yesterdays and I can’t wait for the tomorrows. Thank you for your patience,
persistence and editorial guidance. I sure can pick ‘em. What a life this is going to
be!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Introduction ............................................................................ 1
Scope of the Problem ................................................................. 2
Statement of the Problem ............................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study .................................................................. 4
Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................................ 5
Deﬁnition of Terms ................................................................... 7
Theoretical Framework ............................................................... 9
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model ....................................... 9
Kantor & Lehr’s Ecological Model ....................................... 10
Ecological Framework for Understanding PAQ’s ...................... ll
Ecological Framework for Understanding PREPARE 2000.... . . . . .. 12
Using Ecological Theory As A Measuring Stick ....................... 12
Use of A Theoretical Map ................................................. 13

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction ........................................................................... 16
Section 1: Progression of Premarital Enrichment ................................ 16
Section 2: New Movement to Logic and Empiricism ........................... 21
Section 3: Instrument Development ................................................ 27
Section 4: Efficacy of Premarital Enrichment Programs ........................ 36
Section 5: Limitations of the Research ........................................... 37
Section 6: Future Direction of Research .......................................... 38
Conclusion ............................................................................. 39
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLGY
Introduction .......................................................................... 43
Research Objectives ................................................................. 45
Research Questions .................................................................. 47
Research Hypotheses ................................................................ 48
Research Design ..................................................................... 49
Instrumentation ....................................................................... 51
PREPARE 2000 ............................................................ 51
Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) ............................. 52
Six-Exercise PREPARE 2000 Premarital Enrichment Program .............. 52
Sampling Procedures ............................................................... 56

vii

Description of Population .......................................................... 57

Demographic Composition ............................................... 57
Couple Composition ....................................................... 60
Family of Origin Composition ............................................ 62
Data Collection ...................................................................... 64
Data Analysis ........................................................................ 64
Research Objective #1 ..................................................... 64
Research Objective #2 ..................................................... 65
Research Objective #3 ..................................................... 65
Research Objective #4 ..................................................... 65
Research Objective #5 ..................................................... 66
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
Introduction ........................................................................... 68
Statistical Analyses .................................................................. 68
Research Objective #1 ..................................................... 68
Research Objective #2 ..................................................... 79
Research Objective #3 ..................................................... 86
Research Objective #4 ..................................................... 95
Research Objective #5 ................................................... 101
Summary ............................................................................ 1 12
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
Introduction ......................................................................... 114
Discussion ........................................................................... l 15
Research Objective #1: .................................................. 115
Research Objective #2: .................................................. 116
Research Objective #3: .................................................. 118
Research Objective #4: .................................................. 121
Research Objective #5: .................................................. 124
Implications ........................................................................ 127
Implications for Researchers ............................................. 127
Implications for PREPARE 2000 Program ........................... 128
Implications for Clergy/Counselors/Family Life Educators. . .. . ....13O
Limitations ......................................................................... 131
Limitations of PREPARE and other Premarital Programs .......... 131
Limitations of Study ...................................................... 133
Recommendations for Future Research ......................................... 134

viii

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Recruitment Letter .......................................................................... 136
Appendix B

Instructions for Clergy ..................................................................... 139
Appendix C

Consent Forms .............................................................................. 142
Appendix D

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) ............................................. 145
Appendix E

Questionnaires Filled Out by Couples and Clergy ..................................... 148
Appendix F

Six Tables Comparing Couples that Increase and Decrease

On a Couple by Couple Basis ............................................................. 153
Appendix G

Couple Responses Verbatim ............................................................... 160
Appendix H

Clergy Responses Verbatim ............................................................... 170
Appendix I

Ottawa County Community Marriage Statement ....................................... 173
REFERENCES .............................................................................. 176

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1

Relationship Between Premarital Variables and Five PAQ ’s .......................... 30
Table 2-2

Psychometric Properties of Five PA Q’s ................................................... 31
Table 2-3

Relationship Between Couple Typology and Marital Outcome ........................ 34
Table 3-1

Demographic Composition of Sample ..................................................... 59
Table 3-2

Couple Composition of Sample ............................................................ 61
Table 3-3

Family of Origin Composition of Sample ................................................. 63
Table 3-4

Dependent Variable Table .................................................................. 67
Table 4-1

Paired Samples t-test for PCA scores ...................................................... 69
Table 4-2

Paired Samples t-test for Individual Male Scores ....................................... 72
Table 4—3

Paired Samples t-test for Individual Female Scores .................................... 74
Table 4-4

Paired Samples t—test for Dyadic Adjustment Scores .................................... 76
Table 4-5

5x5 Cross Tabulation for Couple typology

with Expected Frequencies Under Log-Linear Model of Independence .............. 78
Table 4-6

Categorical Change of Couple Typology ................................................. 83

Table 4-7
A Rank Order of the Mean Diﬂerences for Couples that
Increased in Typology (across-case matrix) ............................................. 91

Table 4-8
A Rank Order of the Mean Diﬂerences for Couples that
Decreased in Typology (across-case matrix) ............................................. 92

Table 4-9
Determining Level of Change for Antecedent Variables ................................ 96

Table 4.10
The Inﬂuence of Antecedent Variables on Typology Movement ....................... 97

Table 4-11
What Three Things Did You Like Best
About the Premarital Enrichment Program ............................................. 104

Table 4-12
What Three Things Did You Like Least
About the Premarital Enrichment Program ............................................. 105

Table 4-13
What Three Suggestion Would You Make to Improve
the Premarital Enrichment Program .................................................... 106

Table 4-14
What Parts of the Program Do You Think
Will Have the Biggest Impact ............................................................. 107

Table 4-15
An Across-Case Categorical Matrix of the Feedback
From Clergy and Couples ................................................................. 109

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1

Theoretical Map .............................................................................. 14
Figure 1-2

The Relationship Between PREPARE PAQ and

Six Exercises in PREPARE 2000 ........................................................... 15
Figure 2-1

Progression of the Premarital Enrichment Field ........................................ 41
Figure 2-2

Progression of PREPARE 2000 ............................................................ 42
Figure 3-1

Operational Map .............................................................................. 46
Figure 4-1

MacrooMovement of Couple Typology .................................................... 81
Figure 4-2

Micro-Movement of Couple Typology ..................................................... 82
Figure 4-3

PCA Scores of Couples who Increased in Typology .................................... 87
Figure 4-4

PCA Scores of Couples who Decreased in Typology .................................... 87
Figure 4-5

Individual Male Scores of Couples Who Increased in ijology ....................... 88
Figure 4-6

Individual Male Scores of Couples Who Decreased in Typology ..................... 88
Figure 4-7

Individual Female Scores of Couples Who Increased in Typology .................... 89
Figure 4-8

Individual Female Scores of Couples Who Decreased in Typology ................... 89
Figure 4—9

The Codes for Feedback from Premarital Couples and Clergy ...................... 102

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

“We believe that marriage is the most risky undertaking routinely taken
by the greatest number of people in our society. ”
(Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, I 994)

Introduction

The divorce rate in America has stabilized around 50 percent for the past several
decades (Bagarozzi & Rauen, 1981; Boland & Follingstad, 1987; Gottman, 1991;
Giblin, 1994; Olson & Olson, 2000). To address this arguably high rate of divorce,
many family life educators and therapists believe it is best to take a proactive approach
and attempt to improve the relationships of those who are not yet married. Advocated
are premarital enrichment programs as a strategy for increasing future marital
satisfaction and decreasing divorce. Premarital testing can reasonably predict divorce,
and our society places a large amount of faith in them. However, is a brief program
efﬁcacious for premarital couples to undertake? This study investigates the merits of a
major premarital enrichment program.

This premarital enrichment strategy for reducing divorce is complicated by two
factors. First, premarital couples seem unconcerned about the possibility of divorce.
Only six percent of a sample of couples surveyed agreed that they were not adequately
prepared for marriage. Conversely, well over 90 percent of the couples did not
anticipate any problems that they couldn’t handle, and believed that their marriages

l

would be happy and long lasting (Williams, 1992). Olson (1996) refers to this
phenomenon as approaching marriage with “rose colored glasses.” Larson (1992)
writes about individuals who have unrealistic expectations about marriage. The more
unrealistic the couple’s expectations, the more likely they will experience frustration,
disillusionment and disappointment during marriage. The combined unrealistic and
idealistic perceptions of many premarital couples render them unaware and unmotivated
to help themselves succeed in the very institution they are not adequately prepared to
face.

The second major obstacle is the lack of clarity researchers and practitioners
possess in the area of premarital enrichment. For the most part, the ﬁeld of premarital
enrichment has been ﬁlled with atheoretical premarital programs, ﬂawed methodology
and research devoid of empirical ﬁndings (Bagarozzi & Bagarozzi, 1982). Clergy and
practitioners are trying to improve marital satisfaction and decrease the divorce rate
with premarital enrichment programs that researchers have not yet determined to be
eﬂ‘ective. Certainly, these are admirable efforts. However, if clergy, practitioners and
premarital couples are going to devote their time and effort to these programs, it seems
logical that they should be assured that the programs can make a meaningful difference.
Scope of the Problem

After reviewing the literature, it can be interpreted that recemly a more scholarly
approach has been used in the development and administration of premarital enrichment
programs. This scholarly approach began in the late 1960s and early 19703. Many
researchers studied marriages that possessed high marital satisfaction, thereby
identifying variables associated with healthy marriages (Larson & Holman, 1994).

2

Others built on this research by developing premarital assessment questionnaires
(PAQ’s) that were designed to incorporate these variables. Several PAQ’s were then
developed including FOCCUS, CDEM, RELATE, PREPARE, and PMIP (Larson et al.,
1995). Studies were conducted to test the predictive ability of three of these premarital
instruments. Williams & Jurich (1995) found that by using FOCCUS scores, they could
identify 75 percent of the couples who would later develop distressed marriages. Using
PREPARE scores, researchers could predict with about 80 percent accuracy which
couples would divorce and which couples would still be happily married at three year
follow-ups (Larsen and Olson, 1989; Fowers & Olson, 1986). After studying RELATE
scores, it was found that couples who were happily married had scores one full standard
deviation higher than those who were dissatisﬁed with their marriage (Holman, Larson
& Harmer, 1994). Aided by the use of PAQ’s, researchers and practitioners know what
a divorce prone relationship looks like. The more important question has not been
answered. Do the researchers and practitioners have the knowledge to improve a
relationship prior to marriage?

In the past 70 years, many premarital enrichment programs have been developed
to prepare couples for marriage (see chapter 2). Conversely, ﬁve PAQ’s have been
developed exclusively for working with premarital couples. Only Olson has combined
a speciﬁc enrichment program with a PAQ and offered it as an integrated program. This
program is called PREPARE 2000 (Olson, 1996).

The authors of FOCCU S have advocated using the PAQ as a source of feedback
for couples planning to marry. The authors of RELATE allow couples to ﬁll out the
PAQ and obtain results on the intemet. However, only the authors of PREPARE 2000

3

(Olson, 1996) have developed a recommended program to be followed by clergy and
practitioners. It is a six-exercise program to be administered by a clergy member prior
to marriage.
Statement of the Problem

This study will evaluate the short-term effectiveness of PREPARE 2000 by
measuring change in relational attributes of premarital couples who complete a
premarital em'ichment program based on the PREPARE 2000 model. Sﬂiﬁcally, this
study proposes to compare—the differences between Tim_e_1__an__d Time 2 scores for
cguple mlogy, msitive couple marent, male and female individLaleREPARE)

scores, and dya_dic adjp' stment after premarital couples complete a premarital proggam
based on PREPARE 2000. Finally, both premarital couples and clergy will complete

feedback questionnaires. The goal of this is to suggest improvements for the
intervention piece of the premarital program with the intent of nmking it more effective.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the eﬂ‘ectiveness of a premarital
emichment program, PREPARE 2000. There are several reasons this particular
premarital program was chosen for study. The ﬁrst reason is the strong development of
the PREPARE (PAQ). The PREPARE PAQ is predicated on established predictors of
marital quality and hence contains 89 percent of those variables (Stahmann & Heibert,
1997). Further, studies indicate that data collected using the PREPARE PAQ can be
used to predict with 80-85 percent accuracy which couples would divorce ﬁom those
that would rennin happily married (Larsen & Olson, 1989; Powers & Olson, 1986).
The second reason is the frequency of use. Concurrently, over 30,000 clergy/counselors

4

are certiﬁed to administer the PREPARE PAQ and over 1,000,000 couples have ﬁlled
out the PREPARE PAQ and submitted it for scoring (Olson & Olson, 2000).

The third reason is that the authors of PREPARE 2000 are the ﬁrst to combine a
speciﬁc enrichment program with a PAQ and offer it as an integrated program. The six-
exercise program was initially offered in response to my clergy/counselors who did
not know how to help the premarital couples they were working with. In effect, they
were saying, “ok, I can predict wlmt will happen to this couple based on the inventory,
but how can I help?” However, since the authors of PREPARE have integrated the six-
exercise program with the PAQ, no research has been conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program.

Signiﬁcance of the Study

This research is important because the effectiveness of this premarital
enrichment program, PREPARE 2000, is unclear. By studying the short-term eﬁects of
this premarital program based on a PAQ, this research will help the ﬁeld understand if,
and how much, these comprehensive programs help premarital couples prepare for
marriage. This study is a natural progression within the ﬁeld of premarital enrichment.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the PREPARE PAQ (F ournier, 1979;
Fowers & Olson, 1986; Larsen & Olson, 1989; Fowers & Olson, 1992). Psychometrics
of the PAQ are strong, and it is proported to have high predictive validity. However, to
date, no research has been done to assess the effectiveness of this six-exercise
premarital enrichment program.

As the ﬁrst integrated premarital em'ichment program, it is assumed that many
changes will be made in the upcoming years. This study will highlight the relational

S

areas that increase and decrease as a result of this premarital program. This study will
also collect feedback ﬁ'om both clergy and premarital couples who participated in the
study.

The results of this study are intended to help the authors and providers of
PREPARE better understand the beneﬁts and weaknesses of this premarital program
Authors of other PAQ’s will hopefully beneﬁt ﬁ'om the results of this study as they
build the enrichment aspects of their premarital program It is also assumed that clergy,
counselors and family life educators who are providing these premarital programs have
a vested interest in the effectiveness of the program they are providing. Likewise,
premarital couples who are participating in these programs will be interested in whether
or not these programs are indeed helping them achieve stronger marriages.

The purpose of this study is to inﬂuence the improvement of the premarital
enrichment programs currently offered to premarital couples. It is important to
understand if this program does what is intended to do; improve relational attributes and
prepare couples for marriage. If it doesn’t obtain the intended results, what type of
feedback can the providers and receivers provide? This information is important
because large numbers of the clergy in this country are currently providing premarital
em'ichment programs. Building better models or improving existing models is

important to them as well as to the future engaged couples who might someday be

participating in these programs.

Deﬁnitions of the Terms (Conceptual & Operational)

Indemndent Variable:

l) Premarital Enrichment Program
Cowl Deﬁnition: A program that occurs before marriage that is intended to
improve the likelihood of future marital success and marital satisfaction.

rational Deﬁnition: The PREPARE 2000 program that consists of six feedback
exercises and a workbook entitled Building A Strong Marriage. The program is
intended to increase 1) couple typology, 2) PCA 3) male and female individual and 4)
dyadic adjustment scores. These factors are correlated with ﬁxture marital success and
marital satisfaction.

Demndent Variables:

1) Level of Positive Couple Agreement (PCA) Scores
Conceptual Deﬁnition: The degree to which a couple agrees on an element in their
relationship and identiﬁes it in a positive light.

ional Deﬁnition: Couple responses on the PREPARE Instrument that are
identical or within one point of each other (4-4, 4-5, or 5-5), and they agree with
positive items or disagree with negative items (Olson, 1996). These scores are ﬁgured
for 17 of the 20 categories.

Method of Testing: Couples will take the PREPARE PAQ at Time 1 and again after
completing the premital program at Time 2. Differences between Time 1 and Time 2
PCA scores will be analyzed. These scores are part ofthe feedback process that is
scored by researchers at Life Innovatiom, Inc. and sent back to the researcher/clinician.

2) Level of Couple Typology
Conceptual Deﬁnition: Different types of couples with different levels of relational
skills and similarities on various relational issues.

ratiorml Deﬁnition: An ordinal scale that ranks couples; conﬂicted, traditional,
harmonious, and vitalized according to couple health. Couples are placed into couple
typologies based on their mean PCA scores. These couple typologies are highly
correlated with various levels of future marital success and marital satisfaction.

Method of Testi_ng: The level of couple typology is based on PCA scores from the
PREPARE PAQ. This feedback will be ascertained at Time 1 and Time 2.

3) Level of Dyadic Adjustment
Co Deﬁnition: The way each person assesses their level of happiness with their
mate and relationship.

rational Deﬁnition: The score for each individual on the Revised Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (RDAS).

Method of Testmg' : The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale will be administered at
Timel and Time 2. Differences between the tests will be compared and analyzed.

Other Essential Deﬁnitions

Premarital Couple

Concgptual Deﬁnition: This is any couple that has decided to marry and has established
a wedding date. These couples are not wavering about whether or not to get married and
are not looking for “intensive therapy.” These couples are simply looking to enhance
their relationship.

ional Deﬁnition: Any couple that is planning to get married by one of the clergy
participating in the study between the dates of May 1999 and September 2000.

Vitalized Couple Typology: Couples who have the highest Positive Couple Agreement
(PCA) scores across most of the areas. They tend to have the happiest marriages and
are the least likely to divorce (Olson, 1996).

Harmonious Couple Typology: Couples who have rather high PCA scores in most
areas except ﬁnancial management and children and parenting. They tend to be
generally happy and are at low risk for divorce (Olson, 1996).

Traditional Couple Typology: Couples who have lower PCA scores in the
interpersonal areas (communication and conﬂict resolution), but higher scores in the
more traditional external areas (children and parenting, family and ﬁ'iends, and spiritual
beliefs). While a few of these couples divorce, many of them stay together and are
unhappily married compared to the vitalized and harmonious types. Only a small
percentage of these couples are happily married (Olson, 1996).

Conﬁicted Couple Typology: Couples who have low PCA scores across many of the
content areas. They tend to be at the highest risk for divorce and they tend to be
unhappily married (Olson, 1996).

Categorical Change: Couples who shift ﬁ'om one couple typology to another between
Time 1 and Time 2.

Premarital Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ) - A standardized instrument that is
speciﬁcally designed and used to assess premarital couples.

Integrated Premarital Program — Any program that combines a PAQ with a
standardized premarital program to help couples prepare for marriage.

Theoretical Framework

A review of the theoretical and empirical literature indicates that marital
outcome is based on many complex psychological, relational, developmental and
societal factors. Many variables have been linked with future marital outcome; there is
no one magic variable that can be used to predict marital outcome. Attempting to
understand who will stay married and who will someday divorce is complicated
business. In much the same way, many factors must be considered when strengthening
relationships and preparing couples for marriage. One theoretical approach that is
encompassing enough to recognize and deal with these complex factors is ecosystemic
theory. Human ecological theory is general theory that can be used to study a wide
range of problems related to families and their relationship with various environments
(Bubolz & Sontag, 1993).
Bronfenbrenner’s Human Ecological Theory

The ecosystemic ﬁamework proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) describes an
individual’s environment on multiple levels. This systemic View of the environment is
coupled with a recognition that the individual is a system as well, and brings a complex
array of characteristics to these environments. “The human organism is conceived as a
ﬁrnctional whole, an integrated system in its own right in which various psychological
processes-cognitive, affective, emotional, motivational and social-operate not in
isolation, but in coordinated interaction with each other,” (Bronfenbrenner, 1993, pg 4).
This is a ﬁamework for looking at ways in which intrafamilial processes are inﬂuenced
by extrafamilial conditions and environments. Each level is interconnected with the

other.

1. Microsystem- the family unit itself, and the activities, roles and interpersonal
relations of the primary participants in that setting.
2. Mesosystem - relationships between the family unit and other environments
where development takes place.
3. Exosystem - inﬂuences from external environments where others outside the
family unit participate and affect family members.
4. Macrosystem - the cultural milieu; the expectations held by society based on
broader ideological values and norms of a culture which inﬂuence family
members (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
In 1986, Bronfenbrenner proposed a developmental concept termed chronosystem. This
dimension recognizes that development within the person and within the environment
occurs over time.
Kantor and Lehr’s Ecological Model
Kantor and Lehr proposed that the family system is composed of “three sub-
systems that interact with each other as well as with the world outside,” (Kantor and
Lehr, 1975, pg 23). The three components are the family-unit system, the interpersonal
sub-system and the personal sub-system They suggest that all family trafﬁc takes place
on a six-dimensional, social-space grid and can be analyzed as members attempt to gain
access to targets. The three target dimensions are affect, power and meaning. The three
access dimensions are time, space and energy. “Members of families gain access to
targets of affect, power and meaning through the way in which they and their families
regulate the media of space, time and energy,” (pg 37). All of these relational
dimensions are interconnected.

10

While Bronfenbrenner’s model emphasizes the interdependent relationship
between individual and environment, Kantor and Lehr’s model focuses on the
interconnectedness of the access and target dimensions in a relationship. Clearly, these
theorists endorse the idea that marital outcome is the product of multiple variables on
multiple levels. This echoes the battle cry of ecosystemic theory, “the sum of the parts
is greater than the whole.”

Ecological Framework For Understanding Premarital Assessment Questionnaires
One way to interpret the advances in premarital enrichment is through an
ecosystemic lens. Human ecological theory provides an overarching theoretical scheme

for organizing the ﬁndings of premarital predictors of marital outcome. This theory
allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the mate selection process and
increases the ability to predict probable outcomes of marriages. Relationships develop
at a number of different levels, including the individual, couple and contextual levels
(Larson & Holman, 1994).

Theoretical developments and methodological advances that began in the 19608
led to a different way of predicting marital success for the 80s and 90s (Larson &
Holman, 1994). Wamboldt and Reiss (1989) were the ﬁrst to organize the predictors of
marital success into an ecological perspective. They divided the variables into three
different levels; background factors, personality characteristics and interactional
processes. This classiﬁcation has been modiﬁed slightly several times. Stahmann and
Hiebert (1997) use 1) background and contextual factors, 2) individual traits and 3)

behavior and couple interactional processes.

11

Ecological Framework for Understanding PREPARE 2000

The feedback from the PREPARE PAQ has ﬁve categories: 1) background
information, 2) personath issues, 3) intrapersonal issues, 4) interpersonal issues and 5)
external issues. This evidence suggests that the authors of the PREPARE 2000 program
understand that enriching the lives of premarital couples should consider multiple
factors, addressing all ﬁve levels. For instance, the exercise that focuses on the couple
and family map is intended to help the couple better understand the family of origin
sub-scale, which is located in the external issues category, and the couple closeness sub-
scale, located in the interpersonal issues category.
Using Ecological Theory As A Measuring Tool

The authors of PREPARE 2000 never claim that their PAQ or six-exercise
premarital emichment program is ecosystemic. It is the author of this study who is
attempting to conceptualize this program and this study using an ecosystemic
perspective. The reason for this is the similarities between the two ecological models
and the PREPARE 2000 program The authors of PREPARE conceptualize premarital
relationships on a multivariate model. The PREPARE PAQ assesses 20 different
relational sub-scales. The feedback from PREPARE is organized into ﬁve different
categories; 1) background information, 2) personality issues, 3) intrapersonal issues, 4)
interpersonal issues and 5) external issues. Much like Bronfenbrenner’s and Kantor and
Lehr’s model, PREPARE focuses on different levels. At least, it can be argued that the
authors of PREPARE take miro (ex. spirituality and sexuality sub-scales) and meso
layers (family and ﬂ'iends sub-scale) into consideration. An argument can be made that
looking at differences between family ﬂexibility and couple ﬂexibility allows the

12

couple to observe changes between the family of origin and the family of procreation,
thereby addressing the chronosystem

The primary dilemma, however, is the applicability of ecological theories to the
premarital emichment program Clearly, the exercises address multiple aspects of a
relationship. Most of the premarital enrichment programs cited in chapter two only
attempt to improve a single variable e. g. communication or unrealistic expectations.
However, the enrichment element of PREPARE appears to neglect exo- and macro-
factors, and issues of couple development (chronosystem) are only superﬁcially
addressed. And even if the program attempts to enrich on multiple levels, the author is
not convinced that the connection between the levels and categories are emphasized.
Use of A Theoretical Map

A theoretical map was created to demonstrate the relationship between
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, Stahmann & Hiebert’s ecological model and the
PREPARE 2000 program (see Figure 1-1).

A second ﬁgure (see Figure 1-2) illustrates the direct relationship each feedback
session (on the right side of the page) lms with the predictor variables found within the
PREPARE PAQ (on the left side of the page). The predictors are assembled on
multiple levels, the PREPARE PAQ assesses on multiple levels, and the PREPARE

2000 program attempts to enrich on multiple levels.

13

Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecosystemic Model
(1979, 1986)

System

System

Chrono-
System

Figure 1-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theoretical Map
Ecological Model for Ecological Model
Premarital Relationships for PREPARE 2000
Stahmann & Heibert (1997) (Olson, 1996)
Background
Information:
30 Questions
Background
& Contextual
Factors
Personality
Issues:
4 sub-scales
Individual
Traits
Intrapersonal
Issues:
5 sub-scales
Behavior &
Couple
Interactional
Processes Interpersonal
Issues:
7 sub-scales
External
Issues:
4 sub-scales

 

 

 

l4

Figure l-2
The Relationship Between Variables and
Six Exercises in PREPARE 2000

Variables

1) Background Issues
Background Issues

2) Personality Issues
Assertiveness
Self-conﬁdence
Avoidance
Partner Dominance

3) Intrapersonal Issues
Idealistic Distortion
Personality Issues
Spiritual Beliefs
Leisure Activities
Marriage Expectations

4) Interpersonal Issues
Communication
Conﬂict Resolution
Children and Parenting
Couple Closeness & Flexibility
Role Relationship
Sexual Relationship

5) External Issues
Family Closeness & Flexibility
Family & Friends
Financial Management

Six Exercises

#1: Strength and Growth Areas
(2,3,4’5)

#2: Creating A Wish List
(2)

#3: Assertiveness and Active Listening

(4)

#4: Couple and Family Map
(4.5)

#5: Creating A Financial Budget
(5)

#6: Creating Personal, Couple
and Family Goals
(3,4,5)

15

CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature

Introduction

This chapter addresses the literature on premarital enrichment. It is divided into
ﬁve sections. The ﬁrst section identiﬁes a) the progression of premarital enrichment
since its inception in 1924, b) the diversity of the premarital enrichment programs that
have been developed and 0) examines the inadequacies of these programs and the lack
of viable research to prove their effectiveness. The second section a) identiﬁes the
change from the conglorneration of atheoretical premarital enrichment programs to a
more scientiﬁc approach and b) examines the variables connected to healthy marriages.
The third section focuses on a) the development of the PAQ’s based on these variables,
b) the psychometrics of these PAQ’s, and c) the predictability of these PAQ’s. The
fourth section is a) a critical scrutiny of the enrichment pieces of the premarital
enrichment programs and b) discusses the literature on these programs and the voids
that exist. The ﬁfth section addresses the limitations of the research It a) offers
recommendations for future study and b) provides the rationale for conducting this
study.
Section 1: Progression of Premarital Enrichment

The idea of premarital enrichment is increasingly given notoriety and interest,
particularly among groups concerned with the divorce rate in America. Different
legislative bodies at the state and local levels are contemplating making premarital
counseling mandatory before a couple can legally marry. Members of the clergy are
instigating local proposals, such as the Community Marriage Statement for Ottawa

16

County (MI), whereby clergy as well as judges agree to marry couples only after they
complete premarital counseling. With all of this recent attention, one might think that
premarital enrichment is a novel idea. However, the premise of helping individuals and
couples achieve a happy and long-lasting marriage before the occurrence of the
wedding ceremony, evolved early in the 20th century.

“The ﬁrst premarital intervention occurred in 1924 when Ernest Groves taught
the ﬁrst course in preparation for family life at Boston University, (Stahmann &
Hiebert, 1997, pg 5).” The ﬁrst premarital educational program was developed at the
Merrill-Palmer Institute in Detroit, Michigan in 1932 (Bagarozzi & Bagarozzi, 1982).
Another early premarital program was developed at the Philadelphia Marriage Council
in 1941. The goals of this standardized program focused on:

3) Providing education and information about married life to couples
contemplating marriage, and

b) Helping prospective spouses resolve whatever interpersonal difficulties they

were experiencing at the time (Bagarozzi & Rauen, 1981).

In their book, Premarital and Remarital Counseling, Stahmann & Hiebert
(1997) dissect the chronology of premarital enrichment into two categories: 1) before
World War II and 2) after World War H. In the former group, the majority of these
programs were constructed by counseling professionals and clergy. At that time period,
divorce was seen as a deviation from the norm and could easily be blamed on individual
pathology. Therefore, most of these programs focused on the mental health of the
individuals getting married. The clergy were more interested in the marital obligations

of each person and the sanctity of the marriage.

17

Post World War_I_I_: With the introduction of pastoral counseling and marriage
and family cormseling, the focus of these programs slowly began to shift from
pathology to the interpersonal dynamics of a relationship. “It became clear that it really
was possible to have an unhealthy marital relationship between two rehtively healthy
people,” (Stahmann & Hiebert, 1997, pg 10), which initiated the investigation of
variables that often lead to longer and happier marriages. Still, in 1966, it was reported
that members of the American Association of Marriage and Family Counselors
performed very little formal premarital counseling. The clergy still performed most of
the premarital counseling and were seen as screening agents able to assess the health of
the couples who planned to marry (Stahmann & Hiebert, 1997). Due to the lack of
professionals involved in the premarital ﬁeld, a minimal amount of research exists on
the eﬂicacy of these previous programs. Despite the lack of evidence of success for
these programs, by the 703 and 808, the expansion of premarital programs was well
underway.

The most prevalent form of premarital programs endorsed a behaviorally based
model stressing communication skills (Markman, Jamieson & Floyd, 1983; Gottman
1991; Ridley & Avery, 1981). Gottman identiﬁed fom' indicators of poor
communication in married couples: 1) criticism, 2) contempt, 3) defensiveness and 4)
stonewalling. Likewise, Markman discovered four destructive communication patterns
prevalent in marriages: l) escalation, 2) invalidation, 3) withdrawal and avoidance, and
4) negative interpretations. These investigators assert, “It’s not how much you love
each other that can best predict the future of your relationship, but rather how conﬂicts
and disagreements are handled,” (Marknurn, Stanley & Blumberg, 1994).

18

Theoretically then, the goal of these programs was to equip couples with the
essential tools to effectively deal with the inevitable conﬂicts that arise during marriage.
These skills include self-disclosure and empathy (Avery Ridley, Leslie & Hilholland,
1980); sharing expectations, clarifying statements, and “I” statements (Marknum, 1979);
negotiation, problem solving and decision making skills (Senediak, 1990). Stanley,
Markman, and Blumberg (1994) developed the speaker-listener technique as a way to
strengthen marriages. They hypothesized that couples who learn positive
communication skills will be better equipped to handle future marital conﬂicts more
effectively.

Vande Kamp (1985) speciﬁcally utilized a mchodynamic, obiect relations
point of view which involved a seminar-based format focused on mate selection factors,
presumably operating at the unconscious level. This particular program states that,
“people have a remarkable skill in choosing mates who will meet their needs, although
they may insist later they married the unexpected,” (pg 162). The goal of this program
was to identify the unconscious needs of each individual and recognize them in overt
conscious ways.

A similar design produced by Muncy (1983) centered on Erickson’s Stages of
Development. He links the diﬁiculty of individuals forming intimacy with a previous
ability to form an identity. “A person whose sense of identity was not well formed will
have high dependency needs,” (pg 246). These high dependency needs may leave a
person so aﬁaid that he/she will not be able to establish intimacy or trust. The problem

is that intimacy includes a certain vulnerability, which is highly threatening to a person

19

with a weak identity. The end result could be jealousy, control issues and insecurities in
married relationships.

Other programs examined the unrealistic exmtations of premarital couples.
The research suggests that couples contemplating marriage hold idealistic and perhaps
euphoric ideas about what married life entails. Larson (1992) said, “If individuals have
unrealistic beliefs or expectations about mate selection, they are more likely to
experience ﬁ'ustration, disillusionment, and disappointment in relationship
development,” (pg 243). One of the unrealistic expectations premarital couples held
about marriage includes “the love is enough belief.” Larson argues, simply because we
are l) profoundly attracted to somebody and 2) have passionate feelings of love for
him/her, does not mean for a moment that we should marry them. “Falling in love is
easy, making it last is the hard part,” (pg 245). The goal of this program is to challenge
these unrealistic beliefs and replace them with alternative beliefs that are compatible
with enduring relationships.

Still other programs emphasized a Bowenian multi-generational concept to

 

prepare couples for marriage. Primarily, these programs examined each person’s family
system and its impact on the formation of their relationship. Wood & Stroup (1990)
state, “It is erroneous to believe that 1+1=2. Although it appears that only two persons
are marrying, in reality, each person’s family is present in powerful and hidden ways,
ready to exert its inﬂuence over values, rules, and assumptions at every opportunity,”
(pg 112). These programs utilized genograms to understand values, roles, beliefs and

styles of parenting. They explored role models ﬁom each person’s family of origin,

20

discussed how each person would like to see their marriage differ ﬁ'om that of their
parents and how they expected to change their own marriage.
Section 2: New Movement to Logic and Empiricism

The majority of these programs have neither been empirically or longitudinally
tested. The intervention program sometimes lacked logic and a theoretical perspective.
To address these issues, a movement began in the 705 and 805 that continues to ﬂourish
in the 903. This new generation of researchers and clinicians took logical steps within
the ﬁeld and used solid empirical research to document the progression of their
ﬁndings. A generation of researchers built upon each other’s research and study to
validate the ﬁeld of premarital enrichment. This movement began with researchers
studying marriages tlmt ended in divorce, as well as studying successful marriages with
high levels of satisfaction. They identiﬁed the variables associated with each type of
marital outcome. Then, these researchers built instruments/models to include and
assess these variables experienced by premarital couples. These researchers attempted
to predict the future marital status and/or marital satisfaction premarital couples would
encounter. Some researchers developed premarital programs to decrease divorce and
increase marital quality. The following pages summarize the logical and empirically
based movement within the ﬁeld of premarital enrichment (See ﬁgure 2-1).

In the latter part of this century, the ﬁeld has discovered many predictors of
marital success and marital satisfaction. To provide some continuity, these variables
have been divided into three categories; 1) background and contextual factors, 2)
individual traits and behavior and 3) couple interactional processes (Larson & Holman,
1994).

21

Contextual Factors: Age at marriage is consistently documented in the literature
as having a major impact on marital status. Age at marriage was the best single
predictor of divorce (Btunpass & Sweet, 1972). Teenage marriages are expected to end
in divorce at a rate of twice that of those who many in their mid twenties (Martin &
Bumpass, 1989). Even when controlling for other intervening variables such as
educational attainment, premarital pregnancy, religious afﬁliation, and parental marital
stability, nothing signiﬁcantly altered the correlation between age and marital status.
However, there may be a bi-modal distribution between age and marital status.
Individuals who marry early (before age 20) and late (after age 27) have higher rates of
divorce than individuals who married in their early 205 (Booth & Edwards, 1985).

Other contextual variables, such as education, income, socioeconomic status
and occupation have also been well documented. These variables are closely related
because one usually depends on the other. For example, a person’s income is based on
the type of occupation, which is usually dependent upon a person’s level of education
and so on. The relationship between these variables and marital quality/status is quite
linear; the higher the level of education, occupation, socioeconomic status and income,
the lower the divorce rate (Martin & Bumpass, 1989). It was found that educated
couples who never experienced unemployment were most likely to be married at a nine
year follow-up (Bahr & Galligan, 1984). A few contradictions exist. For instance,
women with graduate degrees may have higher separation rates than women with
bachelor degrees (Houseknecht & Spanier, 1980).

Several research studies oﬂ’er ﬁndings that differ on race as a predictor of
marital status. Bahr & Galligan (1984) say race has been a poor predictor, while Whyte

22

(1990) found that Aﬁ'ican Americans had signiﬁcantly less stable marriages than
Caucasians, even when controlling for other intervening variables. Regardless, this
variable and the other contextual variables previously mentioned have little
consequence for premarital programs. They are worth noting, but it is quite unlikely
and sometimes even impossible to change these variables to increase the likelihood of
staying married.

The same argument can be made about the effect of no-fault divorce on divorce
statistics in this country. Many argue that no-fault divorce has eroded the norms of
lifetime obligation to one another in matrimony (Whyte, 1990). This legislative
decision might very well have major impacts upon marital longevity, but once again has
little to do with the work of a premarital em'ichment program

Background Factors: A tremendous amount of research has been documented
on the relationship between a person’s family of origin and future marriage. In a review
of the literature, Larson & Holman (1994) declare there is an undeniable relationship
between parental marital quality and adult children’s marital quality. McLanalmn &
Bumpass (1988) found that women who spend at least part of their life with a single
parent are more likely to have their own marriages end in divorce. Parents’ marital
quality has also played a signiﬁcant role. Women who divorced “early” were more
likely to have come from tense, less close and unstable families than women who did
not divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987). Similarly, highly conﬂictual family environments
predicted lower marital quality (Wamboldt & Reiss, 1989).

It has been argued that marital quality is not the only role that parents play in the
future of subsequent marital status and satisfaction. Research continues to show

23

evidence that support of the marriage from parents, family and friends enhance
marital quality and stability. Additionally, as expected, parental opposition was
correlated with future marital problems and probability of divorce (Whyte, 1990).
Families can also put pressure on their children to marry. This pressure has been shown
to have deleterious effects on these marriages. The greater the independence ﬁ'om such
pressures in the decision to marry, the greater the subsequent marital quality (Larson &
Holman, 1994). This might explain an interesting ﬁnding that enmeshed relationships
between mother-son contributes to marital disruption (Kelly & Conley, 1987).

Individual Traits a_nd Behavior: Various studies have focused on the importance
of mental health characteristics of individuals who marry. Studies on self-esteem,
depression and neuroticism have demonstrated a strong correhtion with divorce and
low marital quality. These ﬁndings are signiﬁcant, but with the limitations of a
premarital enrichment program, it is argued that little can be done to alter such factors
without referring the person/couple to therapy. Other variables under the personality
heading are more amenable to change. The more conventional (Whyte, 1990) and less
impulsive (Kelly & Conley, 1987), the more stable the marriage. In a closely related
study, a positive correlation was found between unrealistic expectations about
marriage and subsequent levels of ﬁ'ustration and disappointment during marriage
(Olson, 1992). The degree of sociability has also been found to be positively related to
marital stability and quality (Larson, Holman, Klein, Busby, & Stahnnnn, 1992).

_C_'o_uple Interactional Processes: This category of variables has been divided into
three sub-categories of 1) homogamy, 2) interpersonal similarity and 3) interactional
processes (Stahmann & Hiebert, 1997).

24

Homogamy: Research on homogamy has been scarce, but that which has been
done provides some support for the ﬁve propositions that marital quality will be higher
for couples who are similar in race, socioeconomic status, religious orientation,
intelligence and age (Larson & Holman, 1994). The more homogamous the couple, the
more similar they are in these important categories. The premise behind these ﬁndings
is that the more people have in common, the less they will disagree and argue.
Religious homogamy has been explored extensively. It Ins been concluded that the
more similar in religious orientation, the greater the marital quality. However, one
study concluded that homogamy was not important unless religious involvement was
high. In other words, if a couple declared themselves Catholic, but did not go to church
often, it did not affect the marriage. On the other hand, if a couple is heterogamous and
attends a church regularly, it created greater levels of dissatisfaction in their marriage
(Heaton, 1984).

Interpersonal Similarity: In much the same way, similarity of attitudes, values
and beliefs were also related to marital stability and quality. The way in which people
see the world inﬂuences how they arrange their lives. People who see the world
diﬁerently may struggle over how to design and accomplish even the most menial of
tasks. Thus, similarity on values, attitudes and beliefs increase marital quality. Couple
consensus on a number of attitude and belief scales have been highly predictive of
marital stability and marital quality in three year follow-ups (Fowers & Olson, 1986;
Larsen & Olson, 1989). Similarities of gender roles also appear to have an effect on

marital quality. Although egalitarian relationships appear to be more conducive to

25

building stronger marriages, the most important element is the similarity in attitudes
about the roles in a marriage (Larson & Holman, 1994).

The interactional processes of the past and the present have been studied for
years. The length of courtship has been cited in many studies. Overwhelmingly, the
ﬁndings suggest the shorter the dating period, the higher the divorce rate (Kurdek,
1991). Researchers suggest that minimal dating periods do not allow couples to screen
for compatibility. Paradoxically, cohabitation before rmrriage increases the divorce
rate by as much as 50 percent compared to non-cohabitators (Larson & Holman, 1994).
This variable does not serve as an additional screening device. Instead, it is reasoned
that people who break the societal norm of living together will also be willing to break
another societal norm making divorce easier. Another essential variable is premarital
pregnancy/childbirth. Put simply, premarital childbearing increases the risk of
divorce and decreases marital satisfaction, especially in the ﬁrst few years of marriage.
However, couples who get married before the birth of the child have much higher rates
of marital success than those who wait until after the birth (Stahmann & Hiebert, 1997).

Current Interactional Processes: Communication skills have been correlated
with ﬁrture marital satisfaction. Markman (1979) conducted the ﬁrst longitudinal study
to assess the effectiveness of premarital counseling. This study speciﬁcally highlighted
a behavioral perspective of communication and problem solving skills. This study
found that “the more positively the couples rated their interaction at Time 1, the more
satisﬁed they were at Time 3," (Markman, Jamieson & Floyd, 1983). They believe this
indicates that unrewarding communication precedes the development of relationship
dissatisfaction. In this study, however, no correlation was found between Time 1

26

ratings and Time 2 satisfaction. The authors hypothesize that it may take time for the
unrewarding communication to effect the satisfaction of a relationship. Further, this
might also suggest that wuples might be able to rely on other strengths in their
relationship for relatively short periods of time, but these strengths cannot overcome
destructive communication for extended periods of time.

Floyd & Markman (1983) indicate tlmt "unrewarding communication precedes
the development of relational dissatisfaction," (pg. 746). Likewise, they found
distressed couples rate their communication more negatively and use more negative
verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Replicated studies in Germany (Markman & Hahlweg,
1993) produced similar results. In another study, premarital conﬂict predicted future
marital maladjustment for wives married two to three years (Kelly, Houston, & Cate,
1985).

Section 3: Instrumentation Development

Various instruments have been developed to include and assess the variables
correlated with marital success and satisfaction. Other instruments not designed for
premarital couples have been used in premarital programs, such as the MMPI and the
Taylor Johnson Inventory. Larson, et aL (1995) attempted to set a standard for
premarital instruments. The criteria for the instruments are as follows:

1) Be designed primarily or exclusively for assessing the prenmrital relationship.

2) Collect comprehensive data that are relevant to the cormseling or educational

process.
3) Be easy to administer and widely applicable.

4) Be easy to interpret.
5) Be reliable and valid.

27

After establishing these criterion, Holman, Klein, Busby, Stahmann and
Peterson (1995) reviewed the instruments designed for, and used in, various premarital
programs. Of the many instruments that were reviewed, only ﬁve met their standards.

A brief summary of each instrument follows:

1)FOCCUS (Facilitating Opgn Couple Communication, Understanding, and

Study)
This is a 156-item instrument published by the Archdiocese of Omaha, Nebraska. It

assesses 78 percent of the established predictors of marital satisfaction. It is estimated
to take 45 minutes to complete. It was designed to reﬂect the values of a “sacramental
marriage” such as permanency, ﬁdelity, openness to children, forgiveness, the roles of
faith and unconditional love. F OCCUS can be administered to individual couples or to
groups of couples. Studies on content, construct and predictive validity have been
conducted. Internal consistency ranges ﬁ'om .86 to .98. Nothing on test-retest reliability
has been done. Results can be hand or computer scored ($10).

2) CDEM (Cleveland Diocese Evaluation for Marriage)
This is a 275-item measure developed for use by Catholic clergy. The CDEM evaluates

10 areas related to marriage as understood by Catholic principles. It assesses 81
percent of the premarital factors that predict marital quality. It is estimated to take 45-
60 minutes to complete. It may be used in premarital or marital counseling, but is not
intended for teaching situations or group premarital counseling. The instructor’s
manual provides no information concerning reliability or validity. However, the author
reported that the internal consistency reliabilities for the sub-scales range ﬁom .78 to
.81 . Nothing on test-retest has been done. Content validity studies were also conducted.
Results are computer scored for $15.

3) RELATE (RELATionship Evaluation)

This is a 271-item instrument published by the Marriage Study Consortium at Bringham
Young University. Until 1998, it was known as the PREP-M (PREParation for
Marriage Questionnaire). It assesses 96 percent of the premarital factors that predict
marital quality. The questionnaire can be used with a premarital couple or non-
romantically involved couple. It is estimated to take 60-90 minutes to complete. It is
also highly useful with groups or in a classroom environment. Studies on the content,
construct and predictive validity have been conducted. Internal consistency reliabilities
for ﬁve sub-scales range from .64 to .88. Nothing on test-retest has been done. The
alpha for the total scores is .75. Results are computer scored for $8.

28

4) PREPARE (PREmarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation)
This is a l95-item instrument published by Life Innovations, Inc. PREPARE assesses

89 percent of the premarital factors that predict marital quality. A 28-page workbook,
Building a Strong Marriage, designed for use in the feedback sessions, is also provided.
It is estimated to take 45 minutes to complete. This inventory is the most studied of all
the premarital assessment questionnaires. Studies on content, construct, concurrent and
predictive validity have been conducted. Internal consistency reliabilities for the sub-
scales range from .64 to .85. The test-retest reliability is .73. The instrument is
intended for use with premarital couples. PREPARE-MC is available for use when
either partner has children. Results are computer scored for $30.

5) PMIP (Premarital Inventog Proﬁle)

This is a l70-item instrument published by Intercommunication Publishing in North
Carolina. The PMIP measures 78 percent of the premarital factors related to later
marital quality. It is estimated to take 30-45 minutes to complete. The partners are
provided with a couple ’s workbook aimed at improving communication skills and
discussing issues identiﬁed by the instrument. Internal consistency reliabilities for the
sub-scales range ﬁom .64 to .79. Nothing on test-retest has been done. Evidence for
construct validity is also reported. Results are computer scored for $14.

29

Table 2-1
Relationship Between Premarital Variables and Five PAQ’s

F OCCUS CDEM RELA TE PREPARE PMIP

1) Background and Context

Family of Origin
Parental Divorce
Parental Mental Illness
Family Dysﬁmction
Parental/In-law Support

Sociocultural Factors
Age at Marriage
Education
Income/Occupation
Social Class
Race

Current Contexts
Support From Friends
Internal/External Pressures

2) Individual Traits
Emotional Health

Interpersonal Skills
Conventionality
Physical Health

3) Couple Interactions
Homogamy
Similarity of race
Similarity of S.E.S.
Similarity of Religion
Similarity of Age
Similarity of Intelligence
Similarity of Absohrte Status
Interpersonal Similarity
Values, Attitudes, Interests, Roles X
Interactional Processes
Degree of Acquaintance X
Cohabitation 0
X
X

°><><><>< ><><°><
><><><><>< ><°°><
><>< ><><><><>< ><><><><
><>< ><><><><>< ><><¢><
><°><><>< ><><°><

><><
xo
xo

><><><><
><><><><
><><><><
><><><><
><><><><

ocxxxo
°><><><><><
°><><><><><
°°><><><><
°°><><><><

Premarital Sex
Premarital Pregnancy/Childbirth
Communication Skills X

><><><°>< ><
><><><><>< ><
><><°><>< ><
><><><°>< ><

Percent. of Factors Measured 78% 81% 96% 89% 78%
Source: Larson, et al. (1995) and Larson (1 995)

30

Instrument

FOCCUS

CDEM

PREPARE

PMP

No. of
Items

156

271

204

195

140

Table 2-2

Psychometric Properties of Five PAQ’s

Time to Cost Per
Administer Couple
45-60 $10
45-60 $15
60-90 $8
30-45 $30
30-45 $14

Sources: Larson, et aL (1995) and Larson (1998)

31

Validity

Content
Construct
Predictive

Content
Consistency

Content
Construct
Predictive

Content
Construct
Concurrent
Predictive

Construct

Reliabil'

Internal
Consistency
.86 - .98

Internal
.78-.81

Internal
Consistency
.70 or higher

Internal
Consistency
.73-.85
Test Retest
.74 - .93

Internal
Consistency
.64-.79

To date, only three of the ﬁve instruments have been used in studies that address
predictive validity. Although this is limited data, the research illustrates that
practitioners have the potential ability to predict, with reasonable accuracy, what will
happen to couples before they marry via the use of a PAQ. In some instances, the
predictive ability is renmkable.

PREPARE: A three-year follow-up with 164 couples, who had taken the
PREPARE PAQ during their engagement, was conducted. The couples were divided
into three groups based on their marital status at a three-year follow-up: 1) happily
married; 2) separated or divorced and 3) never married. Discriminate analyses of the
data predicted each couple’s marital status with 74-84 percent accuracy (Fowers &
Olson, 1986). In 1989, Larsen and Olson produced similar results in a replicated study.
In this longitudinal study, PREPARE predicted, with about 80 percent accuracy,
couples who got divorced from those that were happily married.

F OCCUS: A four-year follow-up with 207 couples, who had taken the FOCCUS
PAQ during their engagement, was conducted. FOCCUS scores were able to predict
successfully in 67 to 74 percent of the cases the couples with high quality marriages
versus those with poor quality marriages. A second ﬁnding suggests that FOCCUS
scores could be used to identify 75 percent of the couples who would later develop
distressed marriages. Finally, the classiﬁcation rates were between 80 and 82 percent,
which is very comparable to the predictive abilities of PREPARE. These differences

were statistically signiﬁcant in 12 out of the 13 sub-scales (Williams & Jurich, 1995).

32

)1

REM: A 12-month follow-up with 85 couples, who had taken RELATE (at
that time known as PREP-M) during their engagement, was conducted. In general,
higher PREP-M scores were associated with higher subsequent marital satisfaction and
marital stability scores. All but one scale (Wives’ Home Environment) was in the
hypothesized direction, and 59 percent of the scales were signiﬁcant (p<.05). Not only
were the differences statistically signiﬁcant, but the nutrried satisﬁed means were a ﬁrll
standard deviation above the means for the married dissatisﬁed and canceled/delayed
groups. Looking at a gender component, the husbands’ premarital scores had stronger
correlations with marital satisfaction than wives’ scores (r=.44) (r=.23) (Holman,
Larson & Harmer, 1994).

In a 1996, researchers took the predictive validity of the PREPARE PAQ a step
further by developing couple typologies. The following section is an overview of that
study and the important implications it has for the ﬁeld.

In a study that included 4,618 couples, Fowers and Olson (1992) identiﬁed four types of
premarital couples based on PCA scores.

Vitalized 1,279 couples 28% of the sample
Harmonious 1,245 couples 27% of the sample
Traditional 1,053 couples 23% of the sample
Conﬂictual 1,037 couples 22% of the sample

The procedure used to categorize these couples was complex, but merits mentioning
here. A national convenience sample of 5,030 couples, who completed the PREPARE
Inventory before marriage, were included in the study. The typology was developed in
three stages.

1) Using an exploratory sample, 412 couples were randomly selected to examine
the structure of similarities. A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis was
used to explore the “natural” number of clusters. This was followed by a series
of k-means cluster analysis with relocation to ﬁu'ther assess the goodness of ﬁt
by setting the number of clusters at several levels above and below the number
indicated by the original analysis.

33

2) The second stage involved randomly dividing the remaining sample into two
groups. Using a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis, 2,355 couples were
placed into the cluster developed with the exploratory sample. The couples
were compared across clusters on various demographic variables to assess
relevant differences between the groups.

3) The third stage of the analysis used the remaining part of the sample, 2,263
couples, as a cross-validation sample. This procedure was used to maximize the
distance between clusters. The cross-validation was constructed by assigning

these couples within the established clusters. Goodness of ﬁt was checked
between the two large samples (Fowers & Olson, 1992).

In 1996 (Fowers, Montel & Olson), a sample of 328 premarital couples were
followed for three years after marriage to see how couple type inﬂuenced marital
stability and satisfaction. The following is a visual summary of that study.

Table 2-3
Relationship Between Couple Typology and Marital Outcome

Vitalized Harmonious Traditional Conﬂicted Total

 

 

 

 

Happily

Married 38 30 17 10 95
60% 46% 34% 17%

Less

Happily 15 19 25 18 77

Married 23% 29% 50% 30%

Separated/

Divorced 11 16 8 32 67
17% 25% 16% 53%

Total 64 65 50 60 239
100% 100% 100% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ﬁndings demonstrate that having a certain couple style inﬂuences the
marital status and level of marital satisfaction at a three-year follow-up. It is cautioned
that the data cannot be interpreted as a predictive measure at three years. This is

because the sampling methods do not reﬂect actual rates of marital outcome. With that

34

in mind, the following results were uncovered in this study (F owers, Monte] & Olson,

1996).

Canceled Marriage Catggog
0 Conﬂicted couples were the most likely to have canceled their marriage
plans, followed by traditional, harmonious and vitalized couples.
- Conﬂicted couples were 1.62 times as likely to cancel their marriages as
traditional couples and 1.75 times as likely as harmonious couples.

0 Forty percent of the couples who canceled their marriages were of the
conﬂicted type.

Separated/Divorced Catggoﬂ

0 Couples who had separated or divorced at follow-up were 4.0 times as likely
to be conﬂicted as traditional, 2.0 times as likely to be conﬂicted as
harmonious couples and 2.91 times as likely to be conﬂicted as vitalized.

0 Traditional couples were the least likely to be in this category, with a lower
likelihood than harmonious and vitalized.

o Harmonious couples were twice as likely to have separated or divorced as
traditional couples.

Happigy Married (Satisﬁed) Catggogy
o Vitalized couples had the highest level of marital satisfaction, followed by
harmonious, traditional and conﬂicted couples.

Unhappily Married (Dissatisﬁed) Catggog
0 Traditional couples were 1.47 items as likely to be in this category.
C

Conﬂicted couples were 1.80 times as likely to be dissatisﬁed as opposed to
being in the married/satisﬁed category.

0 Although traditional couples were the least likely to divorce, their
satisfaction with the dyadic aspects of their relationship was relatively low
both before and after marriage.

Many ﬁndings came out of this study (Fowers, Montel, & Olson, 1996), but
maybe the most important ﬁnding is that couples at risk for divorce and unsatisfactory
marriages can be identiﬁed prior to marriage. PREPARE and other PAQ’s have
demonstrated their ability to predict marital outcomes with reasonable accuracy.
Indeed, according to the research cited in this chapter, PAQ’s are theoretical in nature,
have sound psychometrics and demonstrate high degrees of predictability based on

scores ﬁom the PAQ’s.

35

The literature on these PAQ’s is thorough. However, has the ﬁeld improved on
its ability to help couples prepare for marriage? Can these programs improve the
relationships of the premarital couples, prepare them for marriage, and ultimately
decrease divorce rates? The next section of this paper addresses this question by
examining the intervention piece of these premarital enrichment programs.

Section 4: Efﬁcacy of Premarital Enrichment Programs

Some family authorities have been pessimistic about the beneﬁts of premarital
programs. For example, Bagarozzi & Bagarozzi performed a literature review in 1982
and discerned that, “no empirical data exist to support the notion that premarital
programs reduce the incidence of divorce or separation for those couples who
participate...due to ﬂawed follow up procedures,” (pg 27). Another author agreed with
those sentiments stating, “Although the concept of preparation for marriage is a good
one, the current value of these programs is limited,” (Senediak, 1990). Finally, Edwin
Friedman, a prominent researcher in this area recently declared, “Premarital counseling
is an absolute waste of time. There is no way that anybody can say anything to any
couple before they get married that’s really going to have an effect,” (Keynote address
to the annual meeting, AAMFT, 1996). This author believes blanket statements such as
this, either negatively or positively stated, can be harmﬁrl to the ﬁeld. All premarital
programs are not created equal and should not be regarded as such.

Indeed, several programs have produced positive results. Ridley & Bain (1983)
demonstrated tlmt couples who participated in a premarital program targeted at
increasing communication skills, made signiﬁcant increases on all dependent variables

(empathy, warmth, genuineness, and expression of feelings) as compared to couples in

36

the control group. In a pilot study conducted in 1984, it was discovered that irrational
beliefs could be decreased and rewarding statements could increase between pre and
post-test (Bagarozzi, Bagarozzi, Anderson & Pollane, 1984).

One study found a roller coaster type response. Couples increased signiﬁcantly
on all measures at immediate post-test. However, marital adjustment returned to pre-
test levels within a 5-month follow up. Couples who go through Olson’s PREPARE
program (study conducted 17 years before the six exercise program was developed)
report more marital satisfaction, less negative and more positive communication and
lower levels of physical aggression (F ournier, Olson & Druckman, 1983). Finally, in a
meta-analysis of 85 studies, it was suggested that the average person who participated in
enrichmem was better oﬂ‘ following intervention than 67 percent of those who did not
(Giblin, Sprenkle & Sheehan, 1985). In one large-scale study, Markmn found that
only 12 percent of couples who had taken PREP had broken up, separated or divorced
after ﬁve years, in contrast to 36 percent ofcouples who had not taken it (Markman &
Hahlweg, 1993).

Additionally, Giblin found particularly high increases in the areas of
communications skills and constructive problem-solving techniques for premarital
couples who participated in a premarital program However, be forewarned
practitioners that participants generally underwent initial negative changes before
subsequent improvement occurred (Giblin, Sprenkle &. Sheehan, 1985).

Section 5: Limitations of Research
There are some obvious limitations in the outcome research for the intervention

piece of prermrital enrichment programs. As identiﬁed previously, there is a paucity of

37

longitudinal studies in the literature. Follow-up studies of one year or less are of limited
value in determining the success of premarital counseling simply because the majority
of divorces in this country take place after the ﬁrst year of marriage. Random
assignment and control groups were almost non-existent, making it difﬁcult to
determine effects of the treatment. Additionally, many of the programs were not guided
by sound theoretical reasoning. Particularly absent was evidence of family process
and/or family development theory (Pinsof & Wynne, 1995). Finally, the premarital
programs associated with the PAQ’s have not been empirically or longitudinally tested.
Section 6: Future Direction of Research

It appears that some researchers in this ﬁeld have had success in predicting
marital satisfaction and/or marital success from PAQ. Researchers and practitioners
should then turn their efforts towards the scholarly testing of those programs that are
designed to help couples improve the variables associated with higher levels of marital
success/satisfaction. Of the programs associated with the PAQ’s, the PREPARE
program seems to be a prime candidate for this stage of testing due to its recent
changes. With the latest revision of PREPARE, PREPARE 2000 (Olson, 1996), a six-
exercise premarital program has been developed, and a workbook entitled Building A
Strong Marriage accompanies the program. Over 30,000 clergy/counselors have
participated in a one day workshop to use PREPARE 2000. This means that thousands
of couples will take the PREPARE PAQ and complete the premarital program based on
PREPARE 2000. The ﬁeld should beneﬁt from knowing how effective this program is
and how others like it are at improving variables associated with marital

success/satisfaction.

38

Currently, Markman’s PREP, which focuses exclusively on building
communication skills, has the longest longitudinal study in existence. However, this
study only reports a 12 percent difference in divorce rates between experimental and
control groups, which is not statistically signiﬁcant (Markman & Hahlweg, 1993). The
PREPARE 2000 program is more comprehensive in that it attempts to improve many
factors associated with future marital success/satisfaction. Thus, this study is designed
to compare the differences between Time 1 and Time 2 scores for couple typology,
dyadic adjustment and positive couple agreement after premarital couples completed a
premarital program based on PREPARE 2000.

Conclusion

The latter part of this chapter has summarized the progression of PREPARE.
The PAQ was predicated on established predictors of marital success and marital
satisfaction. The PAQ includes 89 percent of the predictor variables and it was
subjected to a battery of psychometric tests to validate the instrument. One of those
studies focused on predictive validity. The instrument demonstrates 80-85% accuracy
in predicting ﬁrture marital success and marital satisfaction. Finally, a six-exercise
premarital enrichment program was developed to help couples prepare for marriage, and
hopefully, increase ﬁxture marital success and marital satisfaction. This is where a gap
exists in the research

The next step in the progression of this model is to empirically test the
premarital enrichment program. Based on ﬁndings from that research, there is a need to
assess the effectiveness of the model and possibly make appropriate changes to improve

the model Figure 2-2 addresses this development and demonstrates the contribution of

39

this study. The following chapters will discuss the speciﬁcs of this study. Chapter 3
will discuss the research questions posed and the methodology. Chapter 4 will discuss
the ﬁndings of those research questions. Chapter 5 will be a discussion of the ﬁndings

and implications for further research.

40

Figure 2-1
Progression of the Premarital Enrichment Field

 

 

Identify predictors of Make constructive
f' marital success & changes that improve
: marital satisfaction. the programs.

 

 

 

 

 

3 Develop instruments ~ Test the premarital
* that include the . Programs empirically
f variables of MS. & and longitudinally.

M's. .

it Based on premarital
;' instruments, predict
M.S. & MS.

4‘ n -.

 

 

 

 

 

L Create premantal'
programs that prepare
‘ couples for marriage.

 
 

 

 

I!

4]

Figure 2-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Progression of PREPARE 2000
. . I .
. Researchers identify : Provide constructive
; predictors of marita' l l ‘ feedback to improve
success & marrta' l : PREPARE 2000
satisfaction. I program.
I ,
I I . 7
I
l
I
, I
PREPARE Instrument I . .

' is developed (1979) as a : Empirically assess the
guide for working with I PREPARE 2000
premarital couples. : premarital enrichment

' I program.
I
I
I

I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

A premarital enrichment ‘
, program is devised to
help clergy work with
1 couples (1996).
A . ‘
Couple typologies are
created to rank order
—' couples according to
couple health (1996).

“Inside dotted line indicates contribution of this study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

42

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction

Given that the effectiveness of PREPARE 2000 as a premarital enrichment
program has never been formally assessed in the ﬁeld, it seems reasonable to categorize
this investigation as an exploratory ﬁeld study. Exploratory studies, according to
Kerlinger (1964) have three purposes: a) the identiﬁcation of signiﬁcant variables, b)
the discovery of relationships among variables, c) and to lay the groundwork for the
systematic and rigorous test of hypotheses. It is in the latter two areas that the focus of
this study is oriented.

In order to assess the short-term effectiveness of PREPARE 2000 and to
accomplish the ﬁrst objective of determining statistically signiﬁcant differences for all
dependent variables, it was decided to utilize a pre-post test design. Based on Cohen’s
formula (Cohen, 1960), a sample size of 348 is needed to establish signiﬁcance at the
.05 level. The initial sample (Time 1) will be targeted to include 70 couples. However,
since this is a ﬁeld study that will utilize ministers to administer the program, and
unpaid premarital couples as subjects, a large attrition rate is anticipated. Given the
possibility tint the Time 2 sample size could be in the 30-40 couple range, it was
decided to utilize a multi—method exploratory approach to analyze the couple change
scores. A paired-means t-test will be used to assess statistical signiﬁcance of change for
l) PCA, 2) individual male, 3) individual female and 4) dyadic adjustment scores. In

assessing for statistically signiﬁcant change in couple typology, a cross tabulation, with

43

expected frequencies estimated under the log-linear model of independence, will be
used.

To identify categorical change in couple typology, the second research
objective, the following procedures will be used. Assuming that the effect of
PREPARE 2000 will not be monolithically unidirectional, it was reasoned that couples
could be aggregated by direction of typology movement (increase, maintain, decrease)
for comparative analysis. Once aggregated, each group will be counted to determine
the number in each group. Those that shifted in typology (increased and decreased) are
operationally deﬁned as having categorical change.

The third objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between couple
typology movement and the 15 sub-scales of PREPARE. To better understand this
relationship, groups will be established based on the level of couple typology movement
(increase vs. decrease) in each of the 15 PREPARE sub-scales for PCA, individual male
and female (PREPARE) scores. This procedure may allow the researcher to better
understand what sub-scales of the relationship are affected by the PREPARE 2000
program.

The fourth objective is to investigate the relationship of antecedent variables
with changes in couple typology. These 59 variables will be considered in an effort to
better understand why some couples increased in typology and others decreased in
typology.

The ﬁfth and ﬁnal objective is to gather feedback from clergy and couples who
participated in this premarital enrichment program. A content analysis of the feedback

will serve as the method of analysis.

Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of
PREPARE 2000 by measuring change in relational attributes of premarital couples who
completed a premarital enrichment program based on the PREPARE 2000 model.
' M113; this study will compare the differences between Time 1 a_pdfTime 2
outcome measures for couple mlog , PCA scores. ma_le_a_nd female individual
(PREPARE) scores. and male and female dyadic a_djustment scores after memarital
couples crmrpleted a six-exercise premarital prom Premarital couples and clergy
who participated in the study provided program feedback. The goal of collecting
additional comments is to suggest design and structural changes for the PREPARE 2000
premarital program The following is a review of the ﬁve research objectives for this
study.

Research Objective #1: To test for statistically signiﬁcant changes among all

dependent variables between Time 1 and Time 2.

Research Objective #2: To identify categorical change in couple typology.

Research Objective #3: To investigate the relationship between couple

typology and changes in 15 sub-scales of PREPARE.

Research Objective #4: To investigate the relationship of antecedent variables

with changes in couple typology.

Research Objective #5: To obtain feedback from couples and clergy.

45

amuse

Eotewoﬁo

guano
“seesaw

 

 

 

 

 

N 085. ﬂ 08$.
953:.— bozuushvdeo 93‘ among biota—EH

he: Eggnog
E 2:5

A multi-method approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative procedures,

is used to complete the objectives of this study. An operational map depicting a visual

representation of the research objectives is provided (See Figure 3-1).

Research Questions

Derived from the ﬁve research objectives are nine research questions.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Will the PCA scores of couples who complete a premarital program
based on PREPARE 2000 significantly change between Time 1 to
Time 2?

Will the individual scores (PREPARE) for melee who complete a
premarital program based on PREPARE 2000 signiﬁcantly change
between Time 1 and Time 2?

Will the individual scores (PREPARE) for females who complete a
premarital program based on PREPARE 2000 significantly change
between Time 1 and Time 2?

Will the dyadic adjustment scores of nudes who complete a premarital
program based on PREPARE 2000 signiﬁcantly change between Time 1
and Time 2?

Will the dyadic adjustment scores of females who complete a
premarital program based on PREPARE 2000 significantly change
between Time 1 and Time 2?

Will the couple typology of couples who complete a premarital
em'ichment program based on PREPARE 2000 signiﬁcantly change
between Time 1 and Time 2?

Will there be a categorical diﬂ‘erence between Time 1 and Time 2 in

couple typology for couples who complete a premarital em'ichment
program based on PREPARE 2000?

A. Conﬂicted couples have the lowest PCA scores. These couples have
the highest possibility of upward typology mobility. They can not
categorically decline. This study is interested in whether these
conﬂicted couples will categorically improve to a higher typology.

B. Traditional couples have low PCA scores. These couples have the
potential to improve or decline categorically. This study is interested

47

in whether these traditional couples will categorically improve or
decline to a different typology.

C. Harmonious couples have high PCA scores. These couples have the
potential to improve or decline categorically. This study is interested
in whether these couples will categorically improve or decline to a
different typology.

D. Vitalized couples have the highest PCA scores. These couples can
not improve categorically, they can only decrease their typology.
This study is interested in whether these couples stay the same or
categorically decline to a lower typology.

An additional objective of this study focuses on enhancing the effectiveness of
the six-exercise premarital enrichment program based on the PREPARE 2000 model.
In order to do this, clergy/counselors are asked about their reﬂections regarding the
program Likewise, couples who participate in the program are asked about their
reﬂections regarding the program (see Appendix B). These questions are ultimately
intended to make constructive changes and improve the PREPARE 2000 program

8) What feedback will the couples provide as a potential means of

improving PREPARE 2000?
9) What feedback will the clergy provide as a potential means of
improving PREPARE 2000‘?
Research Hypotheses

Hol: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on PREPARE
2000 will show no difference on PCA scores between Time 1 and Time 2.

Hal: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will imve significantly increased PCA scores between
Time 1 and Time 2.

H02: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on PREPARE
2000 will show no diﬁ‘erences on individual male (PREPARE) scores between
Time 1 and Time 2.

4s

H03:

H04:

H05:

H06:

Ha2: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will have signiﬁcantly increased individual male
(PREPARE) scores between Time 1 and Time 2.

Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on PREPARE
2000 will show no differences on individual female (PREPARE) scores
between Time 1 and Time 2.

Ha3: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will have significantly increased individual female
(PREPARE) scores between Time 1 and Time 2.

Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on PREPARE
2000 will show no differences on male dyadic adjustment between Time 1 and
Time 2.

Ha4: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will have signiﬁcantly increased male dyadic
adjustment between Time 1 and Time 2.

Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on PREPARE
2000 will show no differences on female dyadic adjustment between Time 1
and Time 2.

Ha5: Couples who complete a premarital emichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will have signiﬁcantly increased female dyadic
adjustment between Time 1 and Time 2.

Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on PREPARE
2000 will show no difference on couple typology between Time 1 and Time 2.

Ha6: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will signiﬁcantly increase on couple typology between
Time 1 and Time 2.

Research Design

The proposed study was exploratory in nature. To test the dependent variables,

a ﬁeld study was used to explore differences in Time 1 and Time 2 test scores among

premarital couples who completed a premarital enrichment program based on

PREPARE 2000. The independent treatment variable was the six-exercise premarital

em'ichment program. Dependent variables were the differences between premarital

49

couples’ Time 1 and Time 2 test scores for couple typology, PCA, individual male and
female (PREPARE), and the male and female dyadic adjustment scores. A cohort study
was established to determine differences between Time 1 and Time 2 test scores. The
unit of analysis was the couple for couple typology and PCA. The unit of analysis was
the individual for individual male scores, individual female scores, and male and female
dyadic adjustment.

Clergy ﬁ'om Michigan were recruited to provide the premarital programs to the
subjects. Eligibility for subject participation in either group related to two criteria: 1)
couples must be nmried by one of the clergy members who agreed to participate in the
study, and 2) couples had to lurve a wedding date set between May 1999 and October
2000.

Twenty-one clergy members initially agreed to be a part of the study. Couples
completed the PREPARE PAQ and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale at Time 1.
They completed a six-exercise premarital enrichment program based on the PREPARE
2000 model. The couples completed their participation in the study by ﬁlling out the
PREPARE PAQ, the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale and questionnaires to gain
feedback about their perceptions of the premarital program. Likewise, the clergy ﬁlled
out similar questionnaires regarding their experience after providing the premarital
program This researcher also administered the program to two couples. One completed

the study while the other decided not to marry.

50

Instrumentation
PREPARE

To measure the dependent variables, two instruments were utilized. The
PREPARE Instrument was used to measure couple typology, PCA, individual male and
individual female scores. PREPARE is a 195-item inventory designed to identify
strengths and weaknesses in 20 content areas. Each couple’s scores are calculated by
computer and organized in the PREPARE Counselor’s Report. This report reﬂects the
exact responses couples gave on their PREPARE questionnaire and then identiﬁes their
relative strengths and weaknesses within each of the 20 sub-scales as a: (1) relationship
strength, (2) possible relationship strength, (3) possible grth area or (4) a growth
area.

An individual score for each spouse is generated for each sub-scale. A positive
couple agreement (PCA) score is computed for each sub-scale. The PCA score is a
measure of the couple’s consensus for each relationship area. This creates three
separate scores: 1) individual male, 2) individual female and 3) PCA. Each of these
scores has a possible range of 0 to 100 (worst to best).

Couple typology is a categorical variable based on the PCA scores. Couples are
ranked according to four types of marriages. (1) Conﬂicted couples are, “low on nmny
of the internal aspects of their relationship, such as personality issues, communication,
conﬂict resolution and sexuality.” (2) Traditional couples are, “dissatisﬁed with their
sexual relationship and with the way they communicate, but they have strong
satisfactory relationships with the extended family and friends.” (3) Harmonious

couples are, “highly satisﬁed with each other, and with the expression of affection and

51

sexual life in their marriage.” (4) Vitalized couples are characterized by a, “high level
of satisfaction with most every dimension of their relationship,” (Olson, 1996).
Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS)

The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) was used to measure male and
female dyadic adjustment. The RDAS was originally developed to assess both married
and cohabitating couples (Spanier, 1976). The original version (DAS) contained over
200 items, which were pared down to 32 items. The scale was revised again in 1995
because of validity problems in two of the four sub-scales (Busby, Cln'istensen, Crane
& Larson, 1995). The questions were cut down once again to 14 questions. Tests of
construct validity, criterion validity (81 percent) and internal reliability (Cronbach’s
Alpha - .90) were higher than the original DAS.

The dyadic adjustment variable, measured by the RDAS, was treated as a
continuous variable with scores ranging from 0-69. Scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were
measured and analyzed for differences.

Six-Exercise PREPARE 2000 Premarital Enrichment Program

In 1996, the authors of PREPARE developed a six-exercise format as an
em‘ichment strategy for working with premarital couples. The following is the format
of those six exercises.

Feedback Exercise #1 - Sh;an_ng' Strength and Growth Areas

Initially, each individual is provided a worksheet entitled Sharing Strength and Growth
Areas. They include marriage expectations, personality issues, communication,
conﬂict resolution, ﬁnancial management, leisure activities, sexual expectations,
children and parenting, family and ﬁiends, relationship roles and spiritual beliefs. The

sub-scales that are excluded from the worksheet are couple and family closeness, couple
and family ﬂexibility, and couple and family map.

52

Suggestions to Clergy

Have the couple tear out and complete the “Couple Communication Exercise I”
found on page 7 and 9 of the Building A Strong Marriage workbook. Ask them to
read through the list of areas. Have them independemly identify three relationship
strengths and three grth areas they believe exist in their relationship.

Invite each partner to share what he/she believes the strengths are in his or her
relationship. The clergy/counselor should interject results found in the inventory as
partners take turns sharing their perceptions of strengths. Also explore the
similarities and differences in the partners’ perceptions concerning these strengths.

The same procedure is followed for discussing the grth areas in the relationship.
If problems arise during this discussion, it may be appropriate to help the couple
focus on ways of resolving their differences.

Feedback Exercise #2 - Creatm' g A Wish List
The goal is to increase the assertiveness skills and active listening skills of each person.

Suggestions to Clergy

Counselor should describe assertiveness and active listening skills. Additionally,
counselor should explain the negative cycle of partner dominance and avoidance, as
well as the positive cycle of assertiveness and self-conﬁdence.

Counselor should ask both partners to describe their levels of efficiency at being
assertive and using active listening skills with each other.
Ask if each agrees with the partner’s assessment.
Share each partner’s level of assertiveness, avoidance, self-conﬁdence and
partner dominance from the computer report.

0 Discuss items and scores ﬁom the communication area (page 8 of the report)
with the couple.

The clergy/counselor should direct the individuals to each nuke a ‘Vvish list”
consisting of three things they would like their partner to do more or less often
(page 8 & 10 ﬁom the Building a Strong Marriage workbook). Again, this list is
completed privately and without discussing the contents.

When completed, the partners take turns disclosing the items on their “wish list.”
During the discussion, the counselor focuses on “assertiveness” and “active
listening skills.”

Have one partner share one wish; ask the other partner to repeat back what he/she
heardthepartnersay. Thefocus should notbeonwhetherornotthepersoncan
complete the wish, but rather on the ability of the listener to understand and
paraphrase. The partner completes the dialogue by verifying whether the listener
was correct.

53

o Counselor provides feedback and coaching on their assertiveness and active
listening skills.

Feedback Exercise #3 - Assertiveness and Active Listening Skills

Suggestions to Clergy

The PREPARE 2000 endorses a lO-step procedure for teaching and subsequently using
conﬂict resolution. An exercise entitled, “Ten Steps for Resolving Couple Conﬂict” is
located on page 13 of the workbook. This exercise takes them through this process step
by step. For the third session, the counselor guides them through this process.

After the couple has completed the process in the presence of the counselor and
discussed their comfort level, the couple is asked to perform it on their own in the
course of the next week.
The following is a summary of the lO-step exercise.

1) Set a time and place for discussion.

2) Deﬁne the problem or issue of disagreement.

3) How do each of you contribute to the problem?

4) List past attempts to resolve the issues that were not successful.

5) Brainstorm and list all possible solutions.

6) Discuss and evaluate these possible solutions.

7) Agree on one solution to try.

8) Agree on how each individual will work toward this solution.

9) Setup another meeting. Discuss your progress.

10) Reward each other, as you each contribute toward the solution.

Feedback Exercise #4 - Overview of Couple and Family Map

Suggestions for Clergy

The counselor should play a more prominent role in this session. He/she uses results
from the computer report (page 13-15) to obtain the necessary information for this
exercise. Once the counselor has these elements in hand, psycho-education becomes
the focus of the session.

0 Counselor deﬁnes couple and family closeness and balancing separateness
versus togetherness.
o Counselor deﬁnes couple and family ﬂexibility and balancing stability
versus change.
0 Counselor describes the 25 possible types of couples and families
categorized as three more general types:
- Balanced types (9 types)
0 Mid-range types (12 types)
0 Unbalanced types (4 types)
0 Counselor provides a brief overview of the “Couple and Family Map” and
his/her personal experience using the map with other couples. During this

54

portion, the counselor shows each person how he/she perceived their family-
of-origin in terms of closeness and ﬂexibility (page 15).
o Counselor should facilitate a discussion of similarities and differences on the
Couple and Family Map:
A) Ask each person and their partner to react to the description of each
family-of-origin.
B) Discuss the similarities and differences in your description of your
relationship.
C) Discuss your description of how your couple relationship relates to
your family-of origin.
D) Discuss the similarities and differences in your families-of-origin.
E) Discuss what you want to bring from your family-of-origin into your
marriage.
F) Discuss what you don’t want to bring from your family-of-origin into
your marriage.

Feedback Exercise #5 - Creatmg' A Financial Budget

Suggestions for Clergy

In the workbook, a budget worksheet is provided (page 20-21). It allows a couple to
ﬁgure income and expenses. The exercise also allows the couple to list both short- and
long-term ﬁnancial goals. Unlike the previous exercises, this one is completed together.
After this is completed, the counselor facilitates a discussion surrounding this exercise.

Couple discusses what they learned from working on the budget worksheet.
Couple discusses their ﬁnancial plans individually, and as a couple.
Counselor reviews ﬁnancial management section (page 9 ﬁ‘om computer
report) with the couple focusing on strengths and growth areas.

Feedback Exercise #6 - Creatmg' Personal, Couple and Family Goals

Suggestions for Clergy

On page 22 and 23 of the workbook, there is an exercise that is focused around creating
goals. Each person ﬁlls out his or her personal, couple and family goals separately.
Following this exercise, the counselor facilitates a discussion surrounding the exercise.

0 Partners take turns sharing their three personal goals, three couple goals and
three family goals.

- Counselor focuses on the similarities and differences between the goals and
summarizes the discussion.

0 Counselor also gives feedback on the assertiveness and active listening skills
of each person.

An attachment in the ﬁnal exercise is designed to help the couple achieve goals by

using the CHANGE Model. Each partner should select one couple goal to work on
while using the CHANGE Model. This model is an active method of helping couples

55

take the necessary steps to achieve goals. The six steps in the CHANGE Model are
illustrated below.

Commit yourselfto a speciﬁc goal

Habits - break old and start new

Action - take one step at a time

Never give up - lapses may occur

Goal oriented - focus on the positive

Evaluate and reward yourself
Sampling Procedures

The sample was obtained through a convenience quota sampling method. The
sampling frame consisted of premarital couples who were getting married by a clergy
member who was certiﬁed to use the PREPARE 2000 premarital enrichment program,
between the months of May 1999 and October 2000. To obtain this sample, clergy
within the state of Michigan, who were certiﬁed to use the PREPARE 2000 premarital
enrichment program, were recruited. The researcher received lists of trained clergy who
were certiﬁed to use PREPARE from Life Innovations, Inc. The researcher contacted
these people by phone and recruited them to take part in the study (see Appendix A).
Using these recruitment strategies, 21 clergy agreed to conduct the PREPARE 2000
program and research. Large portions of these clergy were from two counties in west
Michigan. They were targeted because of their recent commitment to a Community
Marriage Statement (see Appendix 1), whereby these clergy agreed to only marry
couples after they completed a premarital enrichment program. These clergy represent
churches ﬁom several different Christian denominations.

The sample came directly ﬁom the rosters of couples that these clergy were

scheduled to marry during the course of this study (May 1999 through October 2000).

56

Thus, a convenience quota sampling method was utilized to obtain this sample. Each
couple gave their informed consent before partaking in the study (see Appendix C).
Description of Population

A variety of background information was gathered about the premarital couples
who completed the study. This information was gathered by obtaining the results of the
PREPARE PAQ. The ﬁrst 30 questions of the PREPARE PAQ asked a variety of
questions that target the couple’s background information. Each question was included
in the inventory because each correlates with ﬁrture marital success and satisfaction.
The following is a list of the backgron information for the couples in the study.

Demographic Composition: There were 31 couples who completed the
requirements of the study. Of those, 61 percent of the males and 58 percent of the
females were between the ages of 20 and 30. Only three men (9 percent) and ﬁve
women (16 percent) in the study were under 20 years of age. Eighty-four percent of the
males, and 87 percent of the females self-reported to be Caucasian. There was only one
African American female, and one Asian American male in the sample. There were
two Hispanic Americans and two individuals who self-reported being “mixed.” Forty-
ﬁve percent of the males and 48 percent of the women earned an income between
$10,000 and $29,999 per year. Only 6 individuals made more than $50,000, while nine
people earned less than $10,000. Eighty-two percent of the individuals were employed
full-time. Two women reported that they were unemployed. Only two individuals in
the study did not complete high school. Fifteen of the males and 14 of the females at

least graduated ﬁ'om a four-year college.

57

Forty—ﬁve percent of the males and 48 percent of the females listed their
religious affiliation as Protestant. There were eight Catholic individuals and one Jewish
male. Thirty-eight percent of the females and 35.5 percent of the males listed their
religious afﬁliation in the “other” category. This was the ﬁrst marriage for 74 percent of

the males and 61 percent of the females.

58

Table 3—1
Demigraphic Composition ofka

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male age <20 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 >40 Total
n 3 11 8 2 4 3 31
% 9.7% 35.5% 25.8% 6.5% 12.9% 9.7% 100%
Female age <20 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 >40 Total
n 5 12 6 3 4 l 31
% 16.1% 38.7% 19.4% 9.7% 12.9% 3.2% 100%
Male ethnicity Asian Caucasian Hispanic Mixed Other Total
n 1 26 1 1 2 31
% 3.2% 83.9% 3.2% 3.2% 6.5% 100%
Female ethnicity Asian Caucasian Hispanic Mixed Other Total
n 1 27 1 l 1 31
% 3.2% 87.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 100%
Male income <10K 10K - 29K 30K - 49K 50K - 75K Total
n 4 14 8 4 30
% 12.9% 45.2% 25.8% 12.9% 100%
Female income <10K 10K -— 29K 30K - 49K 50K - 75K Total
n 5 15 9 2 31
% 16.1% 48.4% 29.1% 6.5% 100%
Male employment Full-Time Part-time Unemployed Total
n 26 5 0 31
% 83.9% 16.1% 0% 100%
Female employment Full-Time Part-time Unemployed Total
n 25 3 2 30
% 80.6% 9.7% 6.5% 100%
Male education Some H.S. H.S. College Graduate Total
n 2 14 9 6 31
% 6.5% 45.1% 29.0% 19.4% 100%
Female education Some H.S. H.S. College Graduate Total
n 0 l7 8 6 31
% 0% 54.9% 25.8% 19.4% 100%

 

59

Table 3-1 (cont’d.)

 

 

 

Male religion Catholic Jewish Protestant Other Total
n 4 1 14 1 1 30
% 12.9% 3.2% 45.2% 35.5% 100%
Female religion Catholic Jewish Protestant Other Total
n 4 0 15 12 31
% 12.9% 0% 48.4% 38.7% 100%
Male marital status Never married Previously married Total
n 23 8 31
% 74.2% 25.8% 100%
Female marital status Never married Previously married Total
n 19 12 31
% 61.3% 38.7% 100%

 

Couple Composition: The median amount of time couples say they knew each
other prior to marriage was 1-2 years (39 percent). Sixteen percent of the couples knew
each other for less than one year. Forty-two percent of the couples were between three
and six months away ﬁ-om marriage at Time 1. Thirty-nine percent were less than two
months from marriage, while only three couples were more than a year away from their
wedding date. There was one female out of 31 who reported to be pregnant at the time.
Over the course of their relationship, 32 percent of the females reported that she and her
partner had broken up at least once. In the sample, only one female reported any abuse
in their relationship, while no male reported any abuse by his current partner. Only 23
percent of the couples were living together. Forty-eight percent of the males and 36
percent of the females were living alone, while 23 percent of the males and 29 percent

of the females were living with their parents.

60

Table 3-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple Composition of Sample

Years known partner <1 1-2 3-4 >5 Total

n 5 12 9 5 31

% 16.1% 38.7% 29.0% 16.1% 100%
Months until marriage 0-2 3-6 7-12 >13 Total

n 12 13 3 3 31

% 38.7% 41.9% 9.7% 9.7% 100%
Currently pregnant No Yes Total

n 30 1 31

% 96.8% 3.2% 100%
Ever broken up No Yes Total

n 21 10 31

% 67.7% 32.3% 100%
Male abused by partner Never Seldom Sometimes Often Total

n 31 0 0 0 31

% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Female abused by partner Never Seldom Sometimes Often Total

n 30 l 0 0 31

% 96.8% 3.2% 0% 0% 100%
Male residence Alone Partner Others Parents Total

n 15 7 2 7 31

% 48.4% 22.6% 6.5% 22.6% 100%
Female residence Alone Partner Others Parents Total

n 1 1 7 4 9 31

% 35.5% 22.6% 12.9% 29.0% 100%

 

61

Family of Origin Composition: Sixty-one percent of the couple’s parents in this
study are still married. Forty percent of the participants reported at least some abuse
between their parents. Twenty-nine percent of the participants also reported that they
were abused by one of their parents. Ninety-two percent of the subjects felt their

parents either positively or very positively supported their plans to marry.

62

Table 3-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family of Origin Composition of Sample
Male parent
marital status Married Separated Widowed Divorced Total
n 18 l 3 9 31
% 58.1% 3.2% 9.7% 29.1% 100%
Female parent
marital status Married Separated Widowed Divorced Total
n 20 0 5 5 30
% 64.5% 0% 16.2% 16.2% 100%
Male, abuse
between parents Never Seldom Sometimes Often Total
n 20 4 4 3 31
% 64.5% 12.9% 12.9% 9.7% 100%
Female, abuse
between parents Never Seldom Sometimes Often Total
n 17 4 8 2 31
% 54.8% 12.9% 25.8% 6.4% 100%
Male, abuse
by parents Never Seldom Sometimes Often Total
n 21 5 4 1 31
% 67.7% 16.1% 12.9% 3.2% 100%
Female, abuse
by parents Never Seldom Sometimes Often Total
n 23 1 4 3 31
% 74.2% 3.2% 12.9% 9.7% 100%
Male parental
support Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Total
n 0 3 11 17 31
% 0% 9.7% 35.5% 54.8% 100%
Female parental
support Negative Neutral Positive Very positive Total

n
%

0 2 12 17 31
0% 6.5% 38.7% 54.8% 100%

63

Data Collection

Data collection began in May of 1999 and was completed in September of 2000.
At the clergy’s pace, couples were given the PREPARE PAQ and the RDAS at Time 1.
The clergy member would then send the PREPARE PAQ to Life Innovations Inc. to be
scored. The RDAS was sent to this researcher to be scored. After receiving the
PREPARE scores, the clergy conducted the PREPARE 2000 program. Upon
completing the program, the clergy would once again administer the PREPARE PAQ
and the RDAS. The clergy followed the same protocol with the instrument scoring
procedures in Time 2 as they did for Time 1. At Time 2, the couples and the clergy
were asked to complete a qualitative questionnaire. Subsequently, the clergy then
forwarded all materials to this researcher for analysis. The researcher obtained the
PREPARE scores directly from Life Innovations, Inc.
Data Analysis

A multi-method design emploring a combination of quantitative and qualitative
procedures was used to address the research questions in this study.

Research Objective #1: To test for statistically significant change among all
dependent variables between Time 1 and Time 2

A paired-means t-test was used to investigate the differences in mean scores for
ﬁve of the six dependent variables. This t-test was used to identify:

1) Differences in PCA scores between Time 1 and Time 2.

2) Differences in individual male scores between Time 1 and Time 2.

3) Differences in individual fennle scores between Time 1 and Time 2.

4) Differences in male dyadic adjustment scores between Time 1 and Time 2.
5) Differences in female dyadic adjustment scores between Time 1 and Time 2.

A 5 x 5 cross tabulation, with expected frequencies estimated under the log-
linear model of independence, was used to assess statistical signiﬁcant differences in
couple typology between Time 1 and Time 2.

Research Objective #2: To identify categorical change in couple typology

To address categorical change in couple typology, it was mapped on a macro-
level and a micro-level. On a macro-level, couple typology was identiﬁed for all
couples at Time 1 and again at Time 2. Couples that shifted in typology were deﬁned
as having categorical movement. Numbers for couples that increased, maintained and
decreased in typology will be counted and tallied. On a micro-level, couples were
separated at Time 1 by couple typology, creating four different groups (conﬂicted,
traditional, harmonious and vitalized). Categorical change was assessed by following
the couples in each of the four groups. A macro- and micro-ﬁgure was produced to
demonstrate the amount of categorical change among the couples in the four typologies.

Research Objective #3: To investigate the relationship between couple typology
and changes in 15 sub-scales of PREPARE

Couples were aggregated based on direction of movement (increase in typology
vs. decrease in typology) for comparative analysis. This comparative analysis of
couples by groups was conducted by examining the 15 sub—scales that comprise the
PREPARE PAQ. These 15 sub-scales were rank-ordered and placed in a table for easy
reference. This table also serves as a useful tool to cross reference couple movement
(increase vs. decrease) with PCA, individual male and female scores.

Research Objective #4: To investigate the relationship of antecedent variables
with changes in couple typology

Fifty-nine variables were at the disposal of this researcher for investigation. Cross tabs

were used to investigate the median differences between couples that increased and

65

couples that decreased. Median was used because it is the best measurement of central
tendency for ordinal variables. A table was created to assign the level of impact (major,
substantial, moderate, minimal and none) for each variable based on the median
difference. These variables were then rank-ordered according to level of impact.
Research Objective #5: To obtain feedback from couples and clergy

Feedback was gathered from clergy and couples who participated in this study.
Upon completion of the program, clergy and couples completed questionnaires
consisting of four questions. Couples were asked these four questions:

1) In order of importance, what three things did you like best about the premarital
enrichment pro gram?

2) In order of importance, what are the three things that you liked least about the
premarital enrichment program?

3) In order of importance, what three suggestions would you make to improve the
premarital enrichment program?

4) In order of importance, what parts of the premarital enrichment program do you
think will have the biggest impact on your marriage?

The clergy members were asked the same four questions, with the following small
change in the last question.

4) In order of importance, what parts of the premarital enrichment program do you
think made the biggat inspect with the couple you worked with?

A content analysis of the feedback was conducted. This is a ﬁve-step process: 1)
list all the responses verbatim, 2) color-code the responses by theme, 3) create
categories by theme, 4) report categories and 5) rank-order the categories by ﬁequency
of content (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A table is provided below to demonstrate how

the dependent variables will be analyzed over the course of this study (See Table 3-4).

Table 3-4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Variable Table
Dependent Type of Range of Instrument Methodology
Variable Variable Variable
1. Cross-tabs with
Couple . 5 RE log-linear model
Typology Ordmal 2-5 PREP 2. Mapping and
Charting
Couple PCA Interval 0-100 PREPARE Paired Means t
Individual
Male & Interval 0-100 PREPARE Paired Means t
Female Scores
Male &
Female Dyadic Interval 0-69 RDAS Paired Means t
Adjustment
Feedback Questionnaire Content Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

67

 

 

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

The goal of this research was two-fold. The ﬁrst goal was to evaluate the short-
term effectiveness of the six-exercise premarital enrichment program based on the
PREPARE model. To achieve this, a multi-method design was used to explore
differences in six dependent variables; 1) positive couple agreement, 2) individual male,
3) individual female, 4) male dyadic adjustment, 5) female dyadic adjustment and 6)
couple typology. The second goal was to collect feedback on the six-exercise program
from the premarital couples and the clergy who participated in the study.
Statistical Analysis

Research Objective #1: To test for statistically signiﬁcant change among all
dependent variables between Time 1 and Time 2

1) Positive Couple Agreement: A paired means t-test was used to compare mean
scores between Time 1 and Time 2 for positive couple agreement. PCA scores were
ﬁgured for 1) 15 different sub-scales and 2) overall mean scores. These scores come
directly from the PREPARE PAQ. The possible range of scores varies ﬁom 0-100
(worst to best). Results for the 15 different sub-scales are displayed in the following

table (4-1).

68

Table 4-1
Paired Samples t-test for PCA scores

 

Variable T1 T2 t p

Marriage expectw'ons
M 36.45 42.58 -1.36 .184
SD 21.99 27.44

Personality issues
M 55.81 54.19 .298 .768
SD 29.86 29.64

Communication
M 68.71 68.06 .138 .891
SD 29.41 31.88

Conﬂict resolution
M 50.65 53.87 -.736 .468
SD 28.04 25.91

Financial management
M 43.23 50.00 -1.360 .184
SD 27.37 29.66

Leisure activities
M 63.55 70.65 -1.23 .227
SD 2.14 22.65

Sexud expectaions
M 60.00 67.10 -1 .74 .092
SD 18.80 18.65

Children 8 parenting
M 61.61 67.10 -1.52 .140
SD 18.64 26.10

Family 8. friends
M 75.48 74.19 .271 .789
SD 17.48 21.26

Role relationship
M 70.32 68.71 .445 .660
SD 16.2 19.62

Spiritud beliefs
M 70.98 74.84 -.786 .438
SD 28.33 28.62

Couple closeness
M 85.81 88.06 -.508 .615
SD 15.23 16.21

Couple flexibility
M 70.65 69.67 .142 .888
SD 2.35 27.51

Fanily closeness
M 67.42 54.84 1 .759 .089
SD 25.69 30.32

Family ﬂexibility
M 43.23 51.94 -1.578 .125
SD 23.86 26.26

Overall mean PCA
M 61.59 63.72 -2.13 .537
SD 13.95 16.09

 

69

 

The mean scores for nine of the 15 sub-scales increased, while six decreased.
The six sub-scales that decreased were personality issues (-1.61), communication (-.65),
family and ﬁ'iends (-l .29), role relationship (-1.61), couple ﬂexibility (-.97) and family
closeness (-12.58). The scores for three sub-scales increased less than ﬁve points;
couple closeness (2.26), conﬂict resolution (3.23) and spiritual beliefs (3.87). The
scores for six sub-scales increased more than ﬁve points. These sub-scales were
children and parenting (5.48), marriage expectations (6.13), ﬁnancial management

(6.77), leisure activities (7.09), sexual expectations (7.09) and family ﬂexibility (8.71).

 

The sub-scales that had the biggest difference between Time 1 and Time 2 were family i
closeness (-12.58) and family ﬂexibility (8.71). Ironically, these are the only two sub-
scales where movement would not be anticipated. This is because these questions ask
the participants to assess their family of origin on closeness and ﬂexibility. All other
sub-scales deal with couple issues and are thought to be capable of change.
Overall PCA mean scores were also analyzed. To obtain these overall mean
scores, the 15 sub-scales were summed and divided by 15. The mean scores at Time 1
were 61.59 and at Time 2 were 63.72, with a mean difference of 2.12.
There were no signiﬁcant differences in the sub-scales or for overall mean PCA
scores between Time 1 and Time 2 since none of the p-values (.089 was the closest)

were greater than .05. In the absence of statistical signiﬁcance, H01 was accepted.

H01: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on the
PREPARE 2000 model will show no signiﬁcant differences on PCA
scores between Time 1 and Time 2 positive couple agreement scores.
<ACCEPTED>

70

2) Individual Male Scores: A paired means t-test was used to conrpare mean
scores between Time 1 and Time 2 for individual male scores. Individual male scores
were ﬁgured for 1) 15 different sub-scales and 2) overall mean scores. These scores
come directly from the PREPARE Instrument. The possible range of scores varies ﬁom
0-100 (worst to best). Results for the 15 different sub-scales are displayed in the

following table (4-2).

71

 

Table 4-2
Paired Samples t-testfor Individual Male Scores

 

Variable T1 T2 t p
N=31

Marriage expectation
M 41.00 51.67 -2.066 . 048’
SD 31.40 30.78

Personality issues
M 47.65 48.42 -.l71 ..865
SD 25.27 24.90

Communication
M 64.77 63.94 .217 .830
SD 24.92 25.62

Conﬂict resolution
M 48.03 49.26 -.301 766
SD 27.30 26.40

Financial management
M 57.35 61.61 -1.267 .215
SD -25.43 25.49

Leisure activities
M 60.29 68.84 -1.632 .1 13
SD 21.17 22.55

Sexual expectations
M 49.97 55.58 -1.030 .31 1
SD 23.02 21.54

Children & parenting
M 64.42 50.29 -1 . 174 .250
SD 23.72 27.95

Family & friends
M 50.29 52.16 -. 345 .733
SD 21.22 23.64

Role relationship
M 61.13 61.97 -. 275 .785
SD 16.93 17.29

Spiritual beliefs
M 62.55 68.13 -1 .247 . 222
SD 16.93 17.29

Couple closeness
M 67.42 69.52 -. 593 . 558
SD 12.70 12.99

Couple ﬂexibility
M 64.90 71.13 -2.208 . 035‘
SD 12.69 13.30

Family closeness
M 56.84 57.23 -. 140 .889
SD 10.79 15.98

Family ﬂexibility
M 59.10 63.23 -1.377 .179
SD 11.07 17.07

Overall mean individual male score
M 54.41 58.30 -1.627 .114
SD 10.31 12.93

 

72

 

The mean scores for 14 of the 15 sub-scales increased, while one decreased. The
scale that decreased was communication (.84). The scores for six sub-scales increased
by ﬁve or more points. These sub-scales were sexual expectations (5.61), spiritual
beliefs (5.58), children and parenting (6.09), couple ﬂexibility (6.22) and marriage
expectations (10.68). The latter two sub-scales (couple ﬂexibility (.035) and marriage
expectations (.048)) were statistically signiﬁcant to the .05 level.

3) Individual Female Scores: A paired means t-test was used to compare mean scores
between Time 1 and Time 2 for individual female scores. These scores are listed by
sub-scale on the counselor’s feedback form. Results for the 15 different sub-scales are

displayed in the following table (4-3).

73

 

Table 4-3

Paired Samples t-test for Individual Female Scores

 

Variable T1 T2 t p
N=31

Marriage expectation
M 48.81 59.45 -2.066 .048“
SD 30.30 29.09

Personality issues
M 48.52 46.74 -.171 .865
SD 24.04 24.97

Communication
M 68.68 64.94 .217 .830
SD 24.62 24.84

Conﬂict resolution
M 52.74 53.39 -.301 .766
SD 25.96 24.84

Financial management
M 53.55 59.84 -1.267 .215
SD 25.96 24.84

Leisure activities
M 73.52 71.52 -l.632 .113
SD 19.79 21.44

Sexual expectations
M 56.45 60.55 -1.030 .311
SD 20.81 18.95

Children & parenting
M 57.71 65.48 -1.174 .250
SD 25.60 20.79

Family & friends
M 63.16 62.29 .345 .733
SD 20.86 19.85

Role relationship
M 61.52 58.55 -.275 .785
SD 19.23 16.68

Spiritual beliefs
M 66.42 71.26 -1.247 .222
SD 24.48 23.05

Couple closeness
M 72.77 72.81 -.593 .558
SD 13,48 11.09

Couple ﬂexibility
M 64.39 66.74 -2.208 .035“
SD 12.43 14.14

Family closeness
M 56.61 53.06 -. 140 .889
SD 17.45 18.48

Family ﬂexibility
M 58.55 57.42 -l.377 .179
SD 16.87 18.93

Overall mean individual female score
M 58.22 59.71 -.664 .512
SD 11.2] 9.86

 

I"p < .05

74

The mean scores for nine of the 15 sub—scales increased, while six decreased.
The six sub-scales that decreased were personality issues (-1.77), communication
(-3.74), leisure activities (-2.00), family and friends (-.87), role relationships (2.97) and
family closeness (-3.55). The scores for three sub-scales increased more than ﬁve
points. These sub-scales were marriage expectations (10.65), children and parenting
(7.77), and ﬁnancial management (6.29). The only sub-scale that had a signiﬁcant
difference to the .05 level was marriage expectations (.033).

Individual male and individual female overall mean scores were also analyzed.

To obtain these overall mean scores, the scores from the 15 categories were summed
and divided by 15. The overall mean scores for males at Time 1 and Time 2 were 54.41
and 58.39. The mean scores for females were 58.22 and 59.71. The level of
signiﬁcance for overall mean individual male was (.114) and individual female was (.512).

There were no signiﬁcant differences in the overall mean scores for males or

females since none of the p-values were greater than .05. When analyzing the data by
sub-scales, only two of the male sub-scales and two of the female sub-scales were
signiﬁcant. This evidence suggests that Ho 3 and Ho 4 should be accepted given that
ﬁve percent of the sub-scales would be signiﬁcantly different just based on chance. In
the absence of statistical signiﬁcance, H02 and H03 were accepted.

H02: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will show no signiﬁcant differences on individual
male (PREPARE) scores between Time 1 and Time 2. <ACCEPTED>

H03: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on
PREPARE 2000 will show no signiﬁcant diﬂerences on individual

female (PREPARE) scores between Time 1 and Time 2.
<ACCEPTED>

75

 

4) Dyadic Aaj’ustment: In an eﬁon to determine if mean scores for dyadic adjustment
differed between Time 1 and Time 2, a paired-means t-test was utilized. The Revised
Dyadic Adjustment Scale measured dyadic adjustment scores. The range of answers

could range from 0-69 (worst to best). Results are shown in the following table (4-4).

 

 

 

Table 4-4
Paired Means t-testfor Dyadic Adjustment Scores
Yar_iable T1 T2 t p
N=3 1
Male dyadic adjustment
M 54.52 54.92 -.622 .540
SD 6.01 5.25
Female dyadic adjustment
M 54.42 54.25 .246 .808
SD 5.66 5.64
*p<.05

Results of this test show minimal movement between Time 1 and Time 2 for
males and females. The scores for males increased slightly and the female scores
decreased slightly after completing the premarital emichment program. Male mean
scores changed from 54.52 to 54.92. Female mean scores changed from 54.42 to 54.25.

There were no signiﬁcant differences in dyadic adjustment scores since p= .540
for males and p = .808 for females. In the absence of statistical signiﬁcance, H04 and
H05 were accepted.

Ha4: Males who complete a premarital enrichment program based on the
PREPARE 2000 model will show no signiﬁcant differences on dyadic
adjustment scores between Time 1 and Time 2. <ACCEPTED>

Ha5: Females who complete a premarital enrichment program based on the

PREPARE 2000 model will show no signiﬁcant differences on dyadic
adjustment between Time 1 and Time 2. <ACCEPTED>

76

5) Couple Typology: Quantitative procedures were used to analyze statistical
differences in means between Time 1 and Time 2. Speciﬁcally, 1) overall means were
compared, 2) a log-linear 5x5 classiﬁcation model with expected frequencies estimated
under a log-linear model of independence was applied and 3) a chi-square was
performed to look at signiﬁcant deviations from the independence model The range of
this ordinal variable was 2-5 (conﬂicted =2, traditional =3, harmonious =4, vitalized =
5). Results are shown in the following table (4-5).

Results from comparing means: The mean at Time 1 was 3.94 and at Time 2 was
4.10. This means the scores increased slightly (.16), with the mean changing from just
below harmonious to just above lmrmonious, producing no statistically signiﬁcant clmnge.
Results from the log-linear independence model:

The log-linear independence model calculates adjusted residuals for each cell.
A high positive residual indicated that couples moved into a particular cell more
ﬁequently than expected based on the independence model. Larger negative residuals

indicated that fewer couples than expected moved into this cell.

77

 

Table 4-5

5x5 Cross- Tabulation for Couple Typology with Expected Frequencia Estimated
Under the Logg-linear Model of Independence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N=3 1
Couple type 2 3 4 5 Total
Conﬂicted
Count 1 1 0 1 3
Expected count .4 .7 .2 1.7 3
Std. residual 1.0 .4 -.4 -.6
Adjusted residual 1.1 5 - 5 -.9
Traditional
Count 2 3 2 3 10
Expected count 1.3 2.3 .6 5.8 10
Std. residual .6 .5 1.7 -1.2
Adjusted residual 8 7 2.1 -2 2
Harmonious
Count 1 1 0 2 4
Expected count .5 .9 .3 2.3 4
Std. residual .7 .1 -.5 -.2
Adjusted residual 8 1 -.6 - 4
Vitalized
Count 0 2 0 12 14
Expected count 1.8 3.2 .9 8.1 14
Std. residual -1.3 -.7 -1.0 1.4
Adjusted residual -1.9 -l.0 -1.3 2.8
Total at Time 2
Count 4 7 2 18 31
Expected count 4 7 2 18 31

 

Level of signiﬁcance for Pearson Chi-square = .201

78

Results from the Pearson Chi-square: The .201 level of signiﬁcance indicates that
there were no signiﬁcant deviations ﬁ'om the independence model. The results of these
three analyses suggest that nothing statistically signiﬁcant occurred between Time 1 and
Time 2 for couple typology. In the absence of statistical signiﬁcance, H06 was
accepted.

H06: Couples who complete a premarital enrichment program based on the
PREPARE 2000 model will show no signiﬁcant differences on couple
typology between Time 1 and Time 2. <ACCEPTED>

Research Objective #2: To identify categorical change in couple typology

Couple Typology: A major focus of this study was to investigate change in couple
typology. Thus, in addition to conducting quantitative statistics to analyze statistical
signiﬁcance, a more qualitative approach using non-empirical, ideographic procedures
was used to em'ich the understanding of the change dynamics related to this variable.
Several steps led to ﬁrrther exploration of changes and shifts among and between
couples as they participated in the PREPARE 2000 premarital enrichment program.

Step I : A pie chart was created to investigate the macro-movements of
typologies for the full sample. Figure 4-1 examines the macro-movement of typologies
ﬁ'om Time 1 to Time 2.

Initially, there were 14 vitalized couples at Time 1. At Time 2 there were 18
vitalized couples. The harmonious group shifted ﬁom four to two. The traditional
group shifted from 10 to seven. Finally, the conﬂicted group started with three
conﬂicted couples and ended up with four at Time 2 (see Figure 4-1). From this ﬁgure,
it was evident that movement was happening, but it was not possible to discern the

movement of each couple.

79

 

Step 2: To better understand movement of individual couples from one typology
to another, a second step was used to separate each couple by typology at Time 1 and
follow their progress to the end of the program. Figure 4-2 separates the couple by
typology at Time 1 and illustrates the movement of this variable for each couple (see

Figure 4-2).

80

Figure 4-1: Macro-Movement of Couple Typology

 

81

Figure 4-2
Micro-Movement of Couple Typology from Time 1 to Time 2

Time 1 Time 2

 

82

Findings Earn F imes 4-1 and 4-2:

1. The arrows demonstrate a substantial amount of categorical change was occurring,

despite the lack of statistical signiﬁcance. Nine couples increased in typology

(29%), 16 retained their typology (51%) and six decreased in typology (19%). Table

4-6 provides another way to present the shifts in typologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4-6
Categorical Change g[ Couple T ypology
T1 T2 Conﬂicted T2 Traditional T2 Harmonious T2 Vitalized
14 Vitalized 2 12
4 Harmonious 1 1 2
10 Traditional 2 3 2 3
3 Conﬂicted 1 1 1

 

2. More categorical change occurred in the lower three typologies than the vitalized

typology. The following is a breakdown of change between Time 1 and Time 2 for

each typology.

Vitalized Couples: Fourteen couples were initially classiﬁed as vitalized. Twelve

couples (86%) remained in the vitalized category and only two (14%) of those

couples decreased in typology, both moving to traditional.

Harmonious Coyples: Four couples were initially classiﬁed as harmonious.

However, none of them remained in that typology after completing the premarital

enrichment program. Two increased to vitalized (50%), one decreased to

traditional, and one decreased to conﬂicted (25%).

83

 

Traditional Com: Ten couples were initially classiﬁed as traditional. Two (20%)

decreased to conﬂicted, three (30%) remained in the same category at Time 2, two

(20%) increased to harmonious and three (30%) increased to vitalized.

Conﬂicted Couple_s: Three couples were initially classiﬁed as conﬂicted. One

(33%) remained in the conﬂicted category, one (33%) increased to traditional, and

one (33%) increased to vitalized.
Decision Rule For Answering Research Objective #2

A numerical decision rule was established by this researcher to answer the
question, “Will there be a categorical change between Time 1 and Time 2 in couple
typology for couples who complete a premarital emichment program based on
PREPARE 2000?” Speciﬁcally this study was interested in the categorical changes that
occurred for each typology. A decision rule of 25 percent change was originally
thought to be fair because no premarital enrichment program had been proven to
positively beneﬁt more than 25 percent of their sample (Russo, 1997). However, after
consultation, this researcher established a more rigorous decision rule of 50 percent.
This was chosen for two reasons: 1) due to a small sample size (n=31) change would be
more susceptible to chance and 2) no control group was available to compare results.
This study was interested in clarifying whether conﬂicted couples would shift to

a higher typology. Sixty-six percent of these couples did improve. Since 66 percent is
higher than the 50 percent decision rule, it is concluded that conﬂicted couples can shift
to a higher typology. This study was interested in whether traditional couples would
shift to a higher typology. Fifty percent of these couples did improve. Since 50 percent

is equal to the decision rule, it is concluded that traditional couples can shift to a higher

typology. This study was interested in whether harmonious couples would shift to a
higher typology. Fifty percent of these couples did improve. Since 50 percent is equal
to the decision rule, it is concluded that harmonious couples can shift to a higher
typology. This study was interested in whether vitalized couples would maintain their
typology. Eighty-six percent of these couples maintained their typology. Since 86
percent is higher than the 50 percent decision rule, it is concluded that vitalized couples
can maintain their typology.

From these results, it is apparent that categorical change was occurring for the
couples in three of the four typologies. This runs contrary to the “no statistically
signiﬁcant” conclusion reported earlier using strictly quantitative measures. Perhaps,
since the categorical changes lacked a speciﬁc direction, this might explain the absence
of statistical signiﬁcance between the means at Time 1 and Time 2. Because of these
inconsistencies, a few questions arose:

1. Some couples increased in typology between Time 1 and Time 2, while others
decreased in typology. How would these two groups compare when analyzing
change in the 15 categories of PREPARE?

2. Was there some way to explain why some couples increased and some couples

decreased in typology?

85

Research Objective #3: To investigate the relationship between couple typology
and changes in 15 sub-scales of PREPARE

Step I: To answer the ﬁrst question, couples were aggregated based on
direction of movement (increases in typology vs. decrease in typology) and analyzed
ideographically, on a couple-by-couple basis. Tables that report the PCA, individual
male and individual female scores of the nine couple who increased and the six couples
who decreased in typology can be found in Appendix F. Line graphs were also created

to graphically display this data (see Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8).

86

pca scores

it

Figure 4-3

PCA Scores of Couples Who Increased in Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 J — —
T1
10 - _
0 T2
Qcyoo,/¢,156r%%s%qo ﬁ,’
it» 0», 66% ‘4 . to,
PREPARE variables
Figure 4-4
PCA Scores of Coupla Who Decreased in Typology
100
ml
80:
70-
we
50.
40-
ao-l
20- —'—
T1
10! .—
o________‘_____ 12
0.1;, s or eggs» e, ’6 ’* %%,@é°e% 4' ’t 4‘9, saga-g
PREPAREvariables

87

individual male scores

individual male scores

Figure 4-5
Individual Male Scores for Couples that Increased In T ypology

 

100

 

T1
10 l _
0 T2

'

tab ‘4 '0‘ 32%} '4’, '6 -1} 6,4954% ‘4‘ T3 in, his, 44,-,

 

 

 

PREPARE variables

Figure 4-6
Individual Male Scores of Couples Who Decreased in Typology

 

100
90..
so.
7O-l

 

20- ——
T1
101 __

0 T2
I" 4* 4‘ . o e ,
O42 Cb 9' $94) 0’ ‘5' G %%06c% o 0’ 68+ 0’0; 66x

 

 

 

PREPARE variables

88

individual female scores

indiw‘dual female scores

Figure 4-7
Individual Female Scores of Couples Who Increased in Typology

 

 

T1
01 __
0 T2

- *— — —

(kg-Q: ‘0' ‘thQ ’56. ’5 0‘ @Q;%;% ‘4' i’) 1‘ 22).? %

 

 

 

PREPARE varidﬂes

Figure 4-8
Individual Female Scores of Coupla Who Decreased in Typology

 

100

 

 

 

 

313% QQ‘ng‘ ea e8%%%%4

PREPARE variables

89

Findin s om Fi res 4-3 — 4-8:

The six ﬁgures in the preceding pages allowed the researcher to analyze the
couples individually. Of the nine couples who increased, no couple increased on every
sub-scale. Of the six couples who decreased in couple typology, only couple six did not
increase on any sub-scale. No male or female decreased on every sub-scale. Thus, it
can be said that the premarital enrichment program did not positively or negatively
change individual and couples scores on all aspects of their relationship.

Step 2: The ﬁnal step was to rank-order the mean differences for each sub-scale
and compare the couples that increased and decreased in couple typology on the
following variables: PCA, individual male and individual female scores. Two tables

were created for easier comparisons (see Table 4-7 and 4-8).

....".I..

 

Table 4-7
A Rank Order of the Mean Differences
For Couples that Increased in Couple Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Difference of Difference of Difference of
PCA Means Male Means Female Means
Personality Issues 21.1 16.33 17.00
Leisure Activities 20 12.89 6.22
Family Flexibility 20 4.22 -2.11
Financial Management 20 8.44 20.33
Couple Flexibility 16.7 6.22 7.78
Conﬂict Resolution 16.6 7.67 11.89
Sexual Relationship 15.6 1 1.33 9.89
Communication 14.4 9.56 3.89
Family & Friends 12.2 17.22 4.22
Spiritual Beliefs 10 3.22 1 1.1 1
Couple Closeness 10 12.1 1 7.67
Children and Parenting 7.8 7.44 17.78
Family Closeness 5.6 5.00 -3.22
Marriage Expectations 0 4.89 8.22
Role Relationship -2.2 -0.44 -3.11
External Issues 14.06 8.50 5.12
Interpersonal Issues 13.15 7.70 7.97
Intrapersonal Issues 12.76 10.00 8.71
Total 12.5 7.6 6.4

 

 

 

 

91

 

 

Table 4-8

A Rank Order of the Mean Differences

For Couples that Decreased in Couple Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

KI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Difference of Difference of Difference of
PCA Means Male Means Female Means
Personality Issues -38.33 -26.33 -l8.50
Family Closeness -36.67 -6.50 -7.67
Communication -26.67 -15.17 -16.83
Family & Friends -26.67 -19.83 -1.00
Couple Flexibility -21.67 4.17 -0.83
Conﬂict Resolution -20.00 -13.00 -9.50
Leisure Activities -18.33 -9.33 -15.50
Sexual Relationship -15.00 -8.00 -0.50
Role Relationship -13.33 -0.50 .33
Children and Parenting -10.00 -8.00 -3.33
Family Flexibility -10.00 5.50 0.67
Financial Management -8.33 -3.50 3.50
Marriage Expectations -6.67 0.83 11.00
Couple Closeness -3.33 8.83 0.00
Spiritual Beliefs -3.33 2.00 —4.50
External Issues -19.78 -6.15 -1.32
Intrapersonal Issues -16.67 -8.7 -7.07
Interpersonal Issues -15.71 -4.52 -4.47
Total -17 .22 -6.43 -2.10

 

 

 

 

 

92

findings From Across-case Mrurixfor Couples 77201 Increased (Table 4-2:

A. Only one sub-scale (personality issues) increased by over 10 points on PCA (21.1),
male (16.33) and female (17.00) scores.

B. Seven sub-scales (leisure activities, ﬁnancial management, couple ﬂexibility,
conﬂict resolution, sexual relationship, couple closeness, and children and
parenting) increased by over ﬁve points on PCA, male and female scores. F

C. Only one sub-scale (role relationship) decreased in mean scores for PCA (-2.2),
male (-0.44) and female (-3.11).

D. All three ecological categories increased on PCA, male and female scores.

 

E. PCA means (12.5) increased almost twice as much as male (7.6) and ferrule (6.4)
means.

F. Scores for sub-scales do not increase or decrease in unison. For instance, PCA for
family ﬂexibility increased 20 points, but only increased 4.22 points for males and
decreased by —2.11 points for females. The mean of PCA for children and parenting
increased by 7.8. The male mean increased similarly (7.44) while the mean for
females increased by 17.78.

Findings [50m across-case Matrixfor Couples tluu Decreased (Z a bIe 4-8):
A. Two sub-scales (personality issues and communication) decreased by over 10 points

 

on PCA (-38.33) (-26.67), mle (-26.33) (-15.17) and female (-18.50) (-16.83)
scores.

B. Three sub-scales (family closeness, conﬂict resolution and leisure activities)
decreased by over 5 points on PCA, male and female scores.

C. No sub-scales increased on PCA, male and female scores.

93

 

7. Other Important Findings

A.

All three ecological categories decreased on PCA, male and female scores.

PCA scores (-17.22) decreased almost three times more than male scores (-6.43) and
eight times more than females scores (-2.10).

Sub-scales did not increase or decrease in unison. For instance, PCA for couple
ﬂexibility decreased by —21.67 points. However, scores for females only decreased

by -0.67 and increased for males by 4.17 points.

For couples that increased in couple typology, 13 out of the 15 PCA sub-scales

 

increased. Marriage expectations did not change and role relationship decreased. H-
For couples that decreased in couple typology, all 15 of the PCA sub-scales
decreased.
For couples that increased in couple typology, only one of the 15 male sub-scales
decreased (role relationship) in mean scores. For couples that decreased in couple
typology, 4 out of 15 sub-scales increased (couple ﬂexibility, family ﬂexibility,
marriage expectations and couple closeness).
For couples that increased in couple typology, only 3 out of 15 female sub-scales
decreased (role relationship, family closeness and ﬂexibility) in mean scores. For
couples that decreased in couple typology, four out of 15 categories increased (role
relationship, family ﬂexibility, ﬁnancial mamgement, and marriage expectations).
When analyzing the ecological categories (interpersonaL intrapersonal and external
issues), none of these categories changed more signiﬁcantly than the other.
The program did not seem to dranurtically change one ecological category more

than any other.

94

 

Research Objective #4: To investigate the relationship of antecedent variables with
changes in couple typology

Step 1: In an effort to better understand the impact of antecedent variables on
couple typology movement, cross tabs were produced. F iﬁy—nine cross tabs were
completed.

Step 2: After these cross-tabs were completed, table 4-10 was created. The ﬁrst
column is a listing of all the antecedent variables available to the researcher in this
study. The second column provides the difference of median values between Time 1
and Time 2 for the nine couples that increased (1) in typology and the six couples that
decreased (D) in typology. Medians were used because they are the best measure of
central tendency for ordinal variables. Based on median differences, antecedent
variables were rank-ordered from biggest difference to smallest. The third column is
the meaning of the median values for each demographic variable. For instance, for
female income, “less income = increase in typology” means that women with less
income in the sample tended to increase more in typology between Time 1 and Time 2
than females with more income. The ﬁnal column provides the median difference
between the couples that increased and decreased in typology. There is an ordinal value
attached to the median difference in that box. The meanings for these values can be

found in the following table (see Table 4-9).

95

Table 4-9
Determining Level of Change for Antecedent Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difference Between Couples that Type of Impact
Increased and Decreased
Median Difference of 2.00 Major Impact
Median Difference of 1.50 Substantial Impact
Median Difference of 1.00 Moderate Impact
Median Difference of .50 Minimal Impact
No Median Difference No Impact

 

 

 

 

There are 59 demographic variables. Forty-eight of these variables were
obtained through the counselor fwdback report via PREPARE. The other 11 variables

were obtained via the questionnaire that the males and females ﬁlled out after

completing the program

96

Table 4-10
The Inﬂuence of Antecedent Variabla on Typology Movement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Median Meaning Impact of
Values variable
Female income I: 2.00 Less income = 2.00
D: 4.00 increase in typology Major Impact
Male income I: 2.00 Less income = 2.00
D: 4.00 increase in typology Major Impact
Male parent I: 3.00 Less parent divorce = 2.00
marital status D: 1.00 increase in typology Major Impact
Female parent I: 1.00 Less parent divorce = 1.50
marital status D: 2.50 increase in typology Substantial Impact
Male, program I: 4.50 M. program will make 1.50
make a difference D: 3.00 difference = increase Substantial Impact
in marriage in typology
Years known I: 2.00 Known partner longer 1.00
partner D: 3.00 = increase in typology Moderate Impact
Female education I: 2.00 More education = 1.00
D: 3.00 increase in typology Moderate Impact
Male employment I: 1.00 More employment = 1.00
D: 2.00 increase in typology Moderate Impact
Male birth order I: 2.00 Later birth position = 1.00
D: 1.00 increase in typology Moderate Impact
Male parental I: 5.00 More parent support = 1.00
support D: 4.00 increase in typology Moderate Impact
Female abuse I: 1.00 Less female parent 1.00
between parents D: 2.00 abuse = increase Moderate Impact
Female happy with I: 4.00 Less happy with life = 1.00
life D: 5.00 increase in typology Moderate Impact
Male, glad you I: 5.00 More male gladness = 1.00
participated D: 4.00 increase in typology Moderate Impact
M. program made I: 4.00 M. program made diff 1.00
a difference in rel D: 3.00 = increase in typology Moderate Impact
Male age I: 2.00 Younger males = .50
D: 2.50 increase in typology Minimal Impact
Male education I: 2.50 Less education = .50
D: 3.00 increase in typology Minimal Impact
Female birth order I: 2.00 Later birth position = .50
D: 1.50 increase in typology Minimal Impact
Male abused by I: 1.00 Less abuse by anyone .50
anyone D: 1.50 = increase in typology Minimal Impact
Female abused by I: 1.00 Less abuse by anyone .50
anyone D: 1.50 = increase in typology Minimal Impact

 

97

 

Table 4-10 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male happy I: 4.00 Less happy with life = .50
with life D: 4.50 increase in typology Minimal Impact
F. program made I: 4.50 F. program made diff = .50
a diff- i" '31 D: 4.00 increase in tyology Minimal Impact
Female, program I: 4.50 F. program make a diff = .50
make a difference D: 4.00 increase in typology Minimal Impact
1n mamage
Female age I: 2.00 No differences 0
D: 2.00 No Impact
Months till I: 2.00 No differences 0
marriage D: 2.00 No Impact
Male mital I: 1.00 No differences 0
status D: 1.00 No Impact
Female marital I: 1.00 No differences 0
status D: 1.00 No Impact
Pregnancy 1: 1.00 No differences 0
status of woman D: 1.00 No Impact
Male # of I: 2.00 No differences 0
children desired D: 2.00 No Impact
Female # of I: 2.00 No differences 0
children desired D: 2.00 No Impact
Female parental I: 5.00 No differences 0
support D: 5.00 No Impact
Male friend’s I: 4.00 No differences 0
support D: 4.00 No Impact
Female ﬁiend’s I: 5.00 No differences 0
support D: 5.00 No Impact
Couple ever I: 1.00 No differences 0
broken up D: 1.00 No Impact
Male parent I: 1.00 No differences 0
alcohol abuse D: 1.00 No Impact
Female parent I: 1.00 No differences 0
alcohol abuse D: 1.00 No Impact
Male self I: 1.00 No differences 0
alcohol abuse D: 1.00 No Impact
Female self I: 1.00 No differences 0
alcohol abuse D: 1.00 No Impact
Male ﬁance I: 1.00 No differences 0
alcohol abuse D: 1.00 No Impact
Female ﬁance I: 1.00 No differences 0
alcohol abuse D: 1.00 No Impact
Male abuse I: 1.00 No differences 0
between parents D: 1.00 No Impact

 

 

 

98

 

Table 4—10 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male abused by I: 1.00 No differences 0
parents D: 1.00 No Impact
Female abused I: 1.00 No differences 0
by parents D: 1.00 No Impact
Male abused by I: 1.00 No difference 0
partner D: 1.00 No Impact
Female abused I: 1.00 No differences 0
by partner D: 1.00 No Impact
Male, excited I: 4.00 No differences 0
for program D: 4.00 No Impact
Female, excited I: 4.00 No differences 0
for program D: 4.00 No Impact
M. conﬁdent in I: 4.00 No differences 0
program D: 4.00 No Impact
F. conﬁdent. in I: 4.00 No differences 0
program D: 4.00 No Impact
Female, glad I: 5.00 No differences 0
you participated D: 5.00 No Impact
Male Nominal Good Variance No impact
occupation Variable
Female Nominal Good Variance No impact
occupation Variable
Male religion Nominal Mostly Protestants and Not enough variance
Variable others
Female religion Nominal Mostly Protestants and Not enough variance
Variable others
Male ethnicity Nominal 26 out of 30 are Not enough variance
Variable Caucasian
Female Nominal 27 out of 30 are Not enough variance
ethnicity Variable Caucasian
Male living Nominal Good variance No impact
arrangement Variable
Female living Nominal Good variance No impact
arrangement Variable

 

 

 

 

99

 

Findings 30m Table 4—10:

A.

Twenty-two of the ﬁfty-nine demographic variables had at least a .50 median
difference between couples that increased and couples that decreased in couple
typology.

Twelve of those twenty-two demographic variables were male variables. Nine were
female variables and one was a couple variable.

Of the twenty-ﬁve variables, seven variables were on that list for both males and
females (income, parent marital status, think program made a difference in
relationship, think program will make a difference in your marriage, education, birth

order, abuse by anyone).

. The two variables that had the largest median differences were rmle and female

income. The variables that had the second largest median differences were male
and female parent marital status.

Five of the 11 variables from the questionnaire sheet had a median difference of at
least .50. All of these questions asked the participants to reﬂect on the program
after the program was completed. Of the questions that asked participants about

their views prior to participating in the program, no median difference was found.

100

 

Research Objective #5: To obtain feedback from couples and clergy

There were 31 couples who participated in this study and 11 clergy members.
Twenty-three males and females ﬁlled out the questionnaire upon completion of the
premarital program Six clergy members ﬁlled out similar questionnaires.

Step I : There were four questions on the questionnaires. All responses ﬁ‘om the
questions were written down verbatim (see Appendix G & H for these responses).

Step 2: The next step was to create codes for the responses. The following

ﬁgure displays the codes that were created (see Figure 4-9).

101

 

Figure 4-9
The Codes for Feedback from Premarital Couples & Clergy

l. Paperwork Associated with Premarital Program
A. Inventory (invent)
B. Counselor Feedback Forms (forms)
C. Workbook (wbook)
1. Strength & Growth Issues (5 & g)
2. Family and Couple Map (map)
3. Personal, Couple, and Family Goals (goals)

2. Content of Premarital Program
Idealistic Distortion (I.D.)
Personality Issues (P.I.)
Spiritual Beliefs (sprit)

Leisure Activities (leis)
Marriage Expectations (M.E.)
Communication (comm)
Conﬂict Resolution (con)
Children and Parenting (C & P)
Couple Closeness (C.C.)
Couple Flexibility (C.F.)

Role Relationship (R.R.)
Sexual Relationship (Sex)

. Family Closeness and Flexibility (f.o.o.)
Family Flexibility (F .F .)
Financial Management (ﬁn)
Family and Friends (F & F)

rpzzraeraerwpoee

3”

Atmosphere of Premarital Program
A. Support (supp)
B. Normalizing (norm)
C. Breadth and Depth (b & d)
D. Atmosphere (atrnos)

LII

. Protocol of Premarital Program
Sessions (sess)

Timing (time)

Homework (h.w.)

Format (form)

Additional Training (train)
Additional Resources (res)

FWPOF’?

6. Comments About Pastor (past)
7. Comments that Would Not Be There Except For The Research (res)
8. Comments that Address Components Received Outside PREPARE (outside)

9. Comments that Could Apply to Any Premarital Program (gen)

102

 

Step 3: The next step was to code all the responses. The codes were exhaustive and
mutually exclusive. This process was done for both couple and clergy responses.

Step 4: The next step was to break the coded responses down by question. Since
there were four questions, four within-case matrices were created. A table was created
for 1) what the participants liked best about the program; 2) what participants liked
least about the program; 3) the suggestions participants had for improving the program;
and ﬁnally, one was created for 4) what participants thought made the biggest impact

on their marriage. Those four tables now follow (see Tables 4-11, 4-12, 4-13 and 4-44).

103

 

Table 4-11
What Three Things Did You Like bat About the Premarital Program?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple Feedback I” Clergy Feedback
Ranking Feedback Area # of g Ranking Feedback Area # of
Responses E .~ Responses
1. General 18 J 1. Counselor 7
Comments i Feedback Form
2. Financial 15 ‘ 2. Communication 6
Management ? g
3. Communi- 14 p 3. Inventory 2
cation
4. Strength and 12 ' 1 4. F & C Map 1
Growth Areas
5. Conﬂict 10 5. P, C & F Goals 1
Resolution .
6. Idealistic 9 6. Breadth and 1
Distortion Depth
7. Comments 8 3
About Pastor 1
8. Inventory 7
9. Couple 7
Flexibility
10. Counselor 6 g
Feedback 5
Forms 3
11. Non-Prepare 6
Comments
12. P, C, & F 4 ‘1
Goals '3
13. Marriage 3
Expectations
14. Atmosphere 3
15. Couple 2 C ;
Closeness ‘:
16. Family of 2 : 5
Origin ' r
17. Workbook 1 i "
18. Spiritual 1
Beliefs
19. Supportive 1
Environment
20. Normalizing 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

 

 

Table 4- l 2
What Three Things Did You Like least About the Premarital Program?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple Feedback =‘ "f; ClergLFeedback
Ranking Feedback Area # of q Ranking Feedback Area # of
Responses 9 I Responses
1. Inventory 14 i 7'? 1. Conﬂict 2
i Resolution
2. Timing 7 E If 2. Financial 2
i . Management
3. Research 7 1 3. Counselor 1
Comments : ' Feedback Form
4. Sessions 4 - 4. Breadth and 1
‘ Depth
5. Atmosphere 3 i '. 5. Additional 1
‘ Training
6. Breadth and 3
Depth
7. Financial 2 i -
Management 5
8. Homework 2 *
9. Comments 2
About Pastor
10. Conﬂict 2
Resolution
11. Non-Prepare 2
Comments
12. Strength and 1
Growth Areas
13. Spiritual 1
Beliefs
14. Family of l r _
Origin
15. Additional 1
Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

105

 

 

Table 4-13
What Three Suggestions Would You Make
to Improve the Premarital Enrichment program?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple Feedback F3 Clergy Feedback
Ranking Feedback Area # of .2 ; Ranking Feedback Area # of
Responses 5‘ 5 Responses
1. Sessions 7 ‘ ; 1. F & C Map l
2. Timing 6 2. Marriage 1
Expectations
3. Inventory 5 E 3. Personality 1
. Issues
4. Breadth and 4 4. Sexual 1
Depth " Relationship
5. Spiritual 4 5. Spiritual Beliefs 1
Beliefs
6. Counselor 3
Feedback
Forms
7. Homework 3
8. Family of 2
Origin
9. Financial 2
Management
10. Atmosphere 2
11. Format 2 g
12. Research 2 ‘
Comments
13. Workbook 1
14. Communi- 1
cation
15. Family and 1
Friends
16. Supportive 1
Environment
17. Additional 1
Resources
1 8. Comments 1
About Pastor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

 

 

Table 4-14

What Parts of the Program Do You Think Will
Have the Biggest Impact on Your Marriage?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple Feedback Clergy Feedback
Ranking Feedback Area # of g 9», Ranking Feedback Area # of
Responses g Regronses
1. Financial 13 E: i 1. Strength and 2
Management E Grth Areas
2. Communi- 12 2. Communication 2
cation
3. Conﬂict l 1 3. Financial 1
Resolution Management
4. Strength and 7 I 4. Timing 1
Growth Areas
5. Marriage 6 5. Additional 1
Exgctations Resources
6. Non-Prepare 5
Comments
7. Counselor 3 .
Feedback 5 i
Forms i
8. P, C, & F 3
Goals
9. General 3
Comments
10. Leisure 2 ‘ i
Activities
11. Normalizing 2 L
l
12. Homework 2
13. Workbook 1
14. Idealistic 1 i
Distortion E
15. Couple 1 E‘ ‘5
Flexibility 5
l6. Supportive 1 l
Environment .
17. Comments 1 5
About Pastor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

M

 

Step 5: An across-case categorical matrix (see Table 4-15) was created to combine
the forms of feedback into a cohesive chart. This chart allows the researcher to easily
identify the total number of responses for each category. It also allows the researcher to
see the breakdown of the responses by question (best, least, suggestion, impact).
Finally, a total comments category was created to tally the total responses from all

participants.

108

Table 4-15: A Categorical Analysis of the Feedback From Clergy and Coupla

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feedback Areas Couple Feedback Clergy Feedback Total Feedback
Inventory (28) B: 7 L: 14 B: 2 L: B: 9 L: 14
S: 5 I S: I: S: 5 I:
Counselor(20) B: 6 L B: 7 L: l B: 13 L: 1
FeedbackForms S: 3 I 3 S: I: S: 3 I: 3
Workbook (3) B: 1 L B: L: B: 1 L:
S: 1 I 1 S: I: S: 1 I: 1
S&GAreas B: 12 L 1 B: L: B: 12 L: 1
(22) S: I 7 S: I: 2 S: I:
F&CMap(2) B: L B: 1 L: B: 1 L:
S: I S: 1 I: S: l I:
P, C,&FGoals B: 4 L B: 1 L: B: 5 L:
(8) S: I 3 S: I: S: I: 3
Idealistic B: 9 L B: L: B: 9 L:
Distortion(10) S: I 1 S: I: S: I: 1
Personality B: L B: L: B: L:
Issues (1) S: I S: 1 I: S: 1 I:
Spiritual Beliefs B: l L l B: L: B: 1 L: 1
(7) S: 4 I S: 1 I: S: 5 1:
Leisure B: L B: L: B: L:
Activities (2) S: I 2 S: I: S: I: 2
Marriage(10) B: 3 L B: L: B: 3 L:
Expectations S: I 6 S: 1 I: S: 1 I: 6
Communication B: 14 L: B: 6 L: B: 20 L:
(35) S: 1 I: 12 S: I: 2 S: 1 I: 14
Conﬂict (25) B: 10 L: 2 B: L: 2 B: 10 L: 4
Resolution S: I: 11 S: I: S: I: 11
Children and B: L‘ B: L: B: L:
Parenting (0) S: I S: I: S: I:
Couple (2) B: 2 L B: L: B: 2 L:
Closeness S: I S: I: S: I:
Couple (8) B: 7 L B: L: B: 7 L:
Flexibility S: I 1 S: I: S: I: 1
Role (0) B: L B: L: B: L:
Relationship S: I S: I: S: 1:
Sexual (1) B: L B: L: B: L:
Relationship S: I S: 1 I: S: l I:
FamilyofOrigin B: 2 L 1 B: L: B: 2 L: l
(5) S: 2 I S: I: S: 2 I:
Financial(35) B: 15 L: 2 B: L: 2 B: 15 L: 4
Management S: 2 I 13 S: I: 1 S: 2 I: 14

 

 

 

 

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Familyand B: L: B: L: B: L:
Friends (1) S: 1 I: S: I: S: 1 I:
Supportive (3) B: 1 L: B: L: B: l L:
Environment 8: 1 I: 1 S: I: S: l I: 1
Normalizing (3) B: 1 L: B: L: B: l L:
S: I: 2 S: I: S: I: 2
Breadthand B: L: 3 B: l L: 1 B: 1 L: 4
Depth(9) S: 4 I: S: I: S: 4 1:
Atmosphere (8) B: 3 L: 3 B: L: B: 3 L: 3
s: 2 I: s: I: s: 2 I: I
Sessions(11) B: L: 4 B: L: B: L: 4
S: 7 I: S: I: S: 7 1:
Timing (14) B: L: 7 B: L: B: L: 7
S: 6 I: S: I: l S: 6 I: l
Homework (7) B: L: 2 B: L: B: L: 2
S: 3 I: 2 S: I: S: 3 I: 2 I
Format (2) B: L: B: L: B: L:
S: 2 I: S: I: S: 2 I:
Additional(l) B: L: B: L: 1 B: L: 1
Training S: I: S: I: S: 1:
Additional (3) B: L: 1 B: L: B: L: 1
Resources S: 1 I: S: I: 1 S: l I: 1
Comments about B: 8 L: 2 B: L: B: 8 L: 2
Pastor(12) S: 1 I: 1 S: I: S: l I: l
Research(9) B: L: 7 B: L: B: L: 7
Comments S: 2 I: S: I: S: 2 I:
Non-PREPARE B: 6 L: 2 B: L: B: 6 L: 2
Comments (13) S: I: 5 S: I: S: I: 5
General (21) B: 18 L: B: L: B: 18 L:
Comments S: I: 3 S: I: S: I: 3
Total B: 130 L: 52 B: 18 L: 7 B: 148 L: 59
S: 48 I: 74 S: 5 I: 7 S: 53 I: 81

 

B = Answers to the question, “In order of importance, what three things did you like
best about the premarital enrichment program?”

L = Answers to the question, “In order of importance, what are the three things that you
liked least about the premarital enrichment program?”

S = Answers to the question, “In order of importance, what three suggestions would
you make to improve the premarital enrichment program?”

I = Answers to the question, “In order of importance, what parts of the premarital
em'ichment program do you think will have the biggest impact on your marriage?”

110

Findingsﬁom Table 4-15:

A. There were 341 total comments. Of those, 148 (43%) were positive, 59 (17%) were
negative, 53 (16%) were suggestions and 81 (24%) were in the improved
relationship category.

B. There were 304 comments from the premarital couples who completed the
premarital enrichment program Of those, 130 (43%) were positive, 52 (17%) were
negative, 48 (16%) were suggestions and 74 (2%) were in the improved relationship

category.

 

C. There were 37 comments from the clergy who provided the premarital enrichment
program. Of those, 18 (49%) were positive, 7 (19%) were negative, 5 (13%) were
suggestions and 7 (19%) were in the improved relationship category.

D. Of the aspects of the PREPARE premarital program that participants liked best,
ﬁnancial management, communication, and strength and growth areas had the most
comments ﬁom couples. Counselor feedback forms, communication and the
inventory ranked the highest ﬁom clergy members.

E. Of the aspects of the PREPARE premarital program that participants liked least, the
inventory, timing of the program and amount of sessions had the most comments
from couples. Conﬂict resolution and ﬁnancial management are the only aspects
tlmt received at least two comments.

F. Of the aspects of the PREPARE premital program that participants had
suggestions for improvement, amount of sessions, timing of sessions and inventory
had the most comments from couples. No single aspects had more than one

comment ﬁom the clergy.

111

G. Of the aspects of the of the PREPARE premarital enrichment program that
participants thought had the greatest impact on their relationship, ﬁnancial
management, communication and conﬂict resolution had the most comments from
couples. Only strengths and growth areas and communication had multiple
responses from clergy.

H. Of the 16 sub-scales in PREPARE, seven had two or less comments about them
from the participants (children and parenting, role relationship, personality issues,

sexual relationship, family and ﬁ'iends, couple closeness and leisure activities).

 

Summary L.
This chapter has included the research ﬁndings for each of the research objectives

posed in chapter 3. To summarize, each null hypothesis was accepted because no

statistical signiﬁcance differences were found on the dependent variables between Time

1 and Time 2. However, using more qualitative ideographic procedures, many couples

categorically changed from one typology to another after completing the program

Over 50 percent of the conﬂicted, traditional and harmonious couples shifted to a higher

typology, while 86 percent of the vitalized couples maintained their typology (see

Figure 4-2). Due to the inconsistencies in these ﬁndings several procedures were

conducted to better understand the changes that occurred in this study.

To better understand the relationship between changes in couple typology and
changes in PCA, individual male and individual female scores, groups were aggregated
and compared. Results can be found in Figures 4-3 — 4-8. In an effort to understand
why some couples increased and other decreased in typology, demographic variables

were cross-tabulated with couple typology. Results indicate that ﬁve variables were

112

concluded to have a substantial or major impact on changes in couple typology (female
and male income, male and female parental marital status and whether or not the male
thought the program will make a difference in the marriage (see Table 4-10). Finally,
feedback was collected from couples and clergy who participated in the study.
Verbatim responses were coded for content analysis and placed into across-case and
within-case matrices (see Tables 4-11 - 4.15). The next chapter presents the overall
summary of the study, discussion and conclusions followed by implications and

recommendations.

113

.. — . r—u ‘v —._--a v

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Introduction

Premarital enrichment programs have ﬂourished in the last 50 years. Numerous
programs with divergent theoretical frameworks have been created and administered to
premrital couples. Several PAQ’s have also been created and used for assessment
purposes for premarital couples. PREPARE 2000 is the ﬁrst to combine a PAQ with a
premarital enrichment program, thereby offering an integrated program to premarital
couples. The authors of PREPARE 2000 began offering this integrated program in
1997. Since the introduction of PREPARE 2000, no piece of research has been
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. Because over 30,000 clergy
members are providing these services and over 1,000,000 prennrital couples have
participated in this program, it was reasoned that research on the effectiveness of this
program was warranted.

The intention of this study was to assess the short-term effectiveness of the
PREPARE 2000 premarital enrichment program. This was broken down into ﬁve
research objectives: 1) to test for statistical signiﬁcant change among all dependent
variables; 2) to identify categorical change in couple typology; 3) to investigate the
relationship between couple typology and changes in the 15 sub-scales of the
PREPARE PAQ; 4) to investigate the relationship of antecedent variables with changes
in couple typology and 5) to collect feedback ﬁ'om couples and clergy regarding their
personal experience with the premarital enrichment program. A discussion of the results

in this study follows.

114

 

Discussion

Research Objective #1: To test for statistically signiﬁcant change among all
dependent variables between Time 1 and Time 2

Paired mean t-tests were conducted to investigate statistical signiﬁcance
between Time 1 and Time 2 for: 1) PCA, 2) individual male, 3) individual female, 4)
male dyadic adjustment and 5) female dyadic adjustment. Results ﬁom the t-tests
concluded no signiﬁcant differences for any of the variables. A 5x5 cross-tabulation
with expected ﬁ'equencies estimated under the log-linear model of independence and a

chi-square concluded no signiﬁcant differences in couple typology. Further, t-tests

 

were conducted on 15 of the 20 sub-scales of PREPARE for male, female and PCA
scores. Only male couple ﬂexibility, male marriage expectations, female couple
ﬂexibility and female marriage expectations increased enough to result in statistically
signiﬁcant change at the .05 level.

Results ﬁom this study suggest that couples did not signiﬁcamly increase on any
of the dependent variables between Time 1 and Time 2. There are several possible
reasons for this non-signiﬁcant change. First, the program may not be effective enough
to produce signiﬁcant changes in the participants as reﬂected in the dependent
variables. Second, it might not be possible to produce signiﬁcant change in a short-term
program. Couples met with the clergy member between 3-6 times. The amount of time
usually spans 4-6 weeks. It might not be possible to produce statistically signiﬁcant
change in critical relationship areas in the span of a month Third, the sample size of
this study was small. Only 31 couples completed the requirements of this study. Thus,
changes in the dependent variables needed to be larger in order to produce signiﬁcant

clumges. In addition, the standard deviations were quite large; meaning that some

115

couples substantially changed while others did not change at all. Finally, over 80
percent of the couples in the sample were within six months of marriage when they
initiated the premarital enrichment process (see Table 3-2). Accordingly, the related
literature can be interpreted to suggest that premarital programs administered within six
months of marriage do not ﬁnd couples particularly motivated to change (Sillirnan &
Schumm, 1989). Their rose-colored glasses (Olson, 1996) seemingly skews relational
perception in such a way to protect themselves ﬁ'om addressing anything meaningful
enough to produce signiﬁcant changes.

Research Objective #2: To identify categorical change in couple typology

Of particular interest for this study was the question of whether or not couples in
this study would categorically change from one typology to another (vitalized,
harmonious, traditional, conﬂicted) from Time 1 to Time 2. Previous research suggests
that couple typology is highly correlated with future marital outcome (Fowers, Montel
& Olson, 1996). In this study it was of particular interest to understand if couples could
improve enough to produce a change in couple typology.

Upon completion of the premarital program, analysis of PCA scores indicated
that nine couples increased their typology, 16 retained their typology and six decreased
in typology. Twenty-ﬁve out of 31 retained or positively shifted their typology (81
percent). This means 19 percent of the sample decreased from one typology to another.

Since a control group was not used, it is not possible to conclude that the
prermrital program caused shifts in couple typology. However, several important
pieces of information were attained from assessing change in couple typology. First, it

is possible for couples to shift in couple typology. This means that couple typology is

116

amenable to change, even over the limited time span of six weeks. Twenty-nine percent
of the sample increased, while 19 percent decreased in typology (see Table 4-6).
Contrary to the lack of signiﬁcant differences via the quantitative procedures, results
using a more qualitative approach revealed that change was occurring for this variable.
It is suspected that the categorical changes in both directions cancelled out the
signiﬁcant differences, creating a small aggregate change (mean at Time 1 was 3.94;
mean at Time 2 was 4.10).

Second, the premarital program has more positive beneﬁts than negative
beneﬁts associated with it. Twenty-one out of thirty-one couples had desirable
outcomes (68 percent). Speciﬁcally, 12 out of 14 vitalized couples retained their
typology and nine out 17 couples that could categorically improve, did so.

Third, only two vitalized couples decreased in typology after completing the
program. This is positive because it would be alarming if couples in the healthiest
typology shifted to a lower typology after participating in this program. Couples from
the lower typologies (harmonious, traditional and conﬂicted) are also capable of
change. Results ﬁ'om this study suggest that over 50 percent of the non-vitalized
couples increased in typology after completing this program.

The ﬁndings ﬁom the above stated research are important due to the related
research conducted by Fowers, Montel & Olson (1996). These authors suggest tint
couple typology is highly related to subsequent marital outcome. For example, at 3-year
follow-up, only 17% of vitalized couples were divorced as compared to 53% of the
conﬂicted couples. Following the same pattern, 60% of vitalized, 46% of harmonious,

34% of traditional and 17% of conﬂicted couples reported being happily married after

117

 

three years of marriage. Due to these ﬁndings, it can be argued that one goal of the
PREPARE 2000 program should be to shift couples to a higher typology.
Subsequently, two critical ﬁndings of this study were that over half of the non-vitalized
couples shifted to a higher typology and that most vitalized couple retained their
typology. This should give clergy and counselors some conﬁdence that the PREPARE
2000 program has more positive than negative beneﬁts associated with it. At best,
shifting couples to a higher typology might decrease the divorce rate. At worst, it
demonstrates that couples are improving their relational skills and becoming more
perceptually aligned on several content areas.

Due to the small sample size, it is not possible to say that any of these typologies
have a higher likelihood to increase in typology. Future studies might focus on whether
or not couples from the conﬂicted category beneﬁt more from the program than the
other typologies. It is also not known if these changes will be sustained into their
marriage. This latter point is critical and future studies should investigate the long-term
effects of this program on marital outcome.

Research Objective #3: To investigate the relationship between couple typology
and changes in 15 sub-scales of PREPARE

Results from this section suggest that couples have divergent responses to the
premarital program This my seem like a simplistic idea, but it is one that warrants
mentioning. No one couple responded in the same way. Men do not respond alike, and
neither do women. This makes it hard to predict the outcome for a particular couple or
to stereotype the different typologies.

When comparing the couples that increased in typology with the couples that

decreased in typology, several ﬁndings are worthy of discussion. First, couples that

118

 

increased, increased on 14 out of 15 PCA sub-scales. Couples that decreased, decreased
on all 15 PCA sub-scales. It can be said tint when the program works, it really works.
When the program does not work, it really does not work.

The author of this premarital program recently published a book that rank orders
the areas of a relationship that discriminate happily married couples ﬁ'om unhappily
married couples based on results ﬁ'om ENRICH (Olson & Olson, 2000). In rank-order,
the top 10 areas are: 1) communication, 2) couple ﬂexibility, 3) couple closeness, 4)
personality issues, 5) conﬂict resolution, 6) sexual relationship, 7) leisure activities, 8)

family and ﬁ'iends, 9) ﬁnancial management and 10) spiritual beliefs.

 

Theresults ﬁ'omthis study suggestthatcouples do not increase inthe areasthat
are critical to a happy marriage. Couples that increased in typology, increased the most
on personality issues, leisure activities, family ﬂexibility and ﬁnancial management.
Couples that decreased, did not increase on any sub-scale. However, they decreased the
most on personality issues, family closeness, communication, ﬁlmily and friends, couple
ﬂexibility and conﬂict resolution. Perhaps this means that the exercises in the
prennrital program should be oriented toward the content areas associated with
subsequent positive marital outcome. Speciﬁcally, for individuals in this sample, the
sub-scale communication decreased on PCA (-.65), male (-.83) and female (-3.74)
scores. If communication is the number one sub-scale that discriminates happily
married couples from unhappily married couples (Olson & Olson, 2000), perhaps the
couple exercises dealing with communication and conﬂict resolution are not producing

the intended results. Finally, if ﬁnancial management ranks so low, maybe a whole

119

exercise should not be devoted to ﬁnancial management. Instead, a session might be
added to focus on couple closeness and couple ﬂexibility.

Two other ﬁndings are worthy of discussion. The ecological categories, as
created by Stahmann and Hiebert (1997) increased or decreased (pending) roughly the
same. This means that the premarital program is not just affecting one or two categories.
The program appears to affect external issues as much as it affects intrapersonal and
interpersonal issues.

Finally, results from this section demonstrate that the premarital program
dramatically affects the personality issues sub—scale. For couples that increased,
personality issues increased 21.1 points for PCA, 16.32 points for males and 17.00
points for females. For couples that decreased, personality issues decreased —38.33
points, -26.33 points for males and —18.50 points for females. It is the only sub-scale to
lmve such a dramatic and consistent change in score. In the context of the PREPARE
PAQ, personality is described as having four main constructs: (l) jealousy, (2) control,
(3) temper and (4) responsibility (Olson, 1996). The speciﬁc questions relating to
personality are as follows:

7) There are times when I feel jealous because of my partner’s behavior.

17) Sometimes I am concerned about my partner’s temper.

32) I am sometimes concerned that my partner appears to be unhappy and withdrawn.
47) My partner has some personal habits that bother me.

62) I wish my partner were more reliable and followed through on more things.

77) I am sometimes upset or embarrassed with my partner’s behavior.

92) Sometimes my partner is too stubborn.

106) I wish my partner were less critical or negative about some topics.

119) Sometimes I have difﬁculty dealing with my partner’s moodiness.
133) Sometimes my partner seems to be too controlling.

120

 

It is difﬁcult to objectively identify why personality plays such a substantial role
in the change process and strongly correlates with change in typology. None-the-less,
individuals seem to have a heightened awareness of their partner’s personality (as
deﬁned by Olson, 1996) after participating in the program, albeit positive or negative
characteristics. For instance, if one person in the relationship is jealous and controlling,
perhaps the partner is better able to identify those characteristics. E

Research Objective #4: To investigate the relationship of antecedent variables with
changes in couple typology

If some couples increased in typology and others decreased in typology, it was

 

questioned whether or not it might be possible to determine which couples might be
better or worse candidates for the program. Subsequently, if program leaders (i.e.
clergy in this study) could identify those couples that would decrease in typology as a
consequence of participating in this program, the program leader might consider
advising couples not to participate in this particular program. These couples could
possibly do something more constructive to prepare for marriage.

To understand how certain variables might inﬂuence change scores in a
premarital program, it is suggested to return to established literature. Research has
documented certain variables that correlate with future marital outcome. For instance,
more education and higher income (Martin & Bumpass, 1989), less parental divorce
(McLenahan & Bumpass, 1988), longer courtship periods (Kurdek, 1991) and better
communication skills (Kelly, Houston, & Cate, 1985) are predictive of positive marital
outcome. From the purposes of this research, this author hypothesized that couples with
antecedent variables correlating with poor marital outcome would improve the most

after completing the premarital program, because they have more room to improve.

12]

Results indicate that ﬁve variables from this study have a substantial or major
impact on changes in couple typology. These variables are female and male income,
male and female parental marital status and whether or not the male believes the
program will make a difference in their future relationship. In other words, individuals
who increased in typology had a mean income of 810,000-829,000, whereas
individuals who decreased in typology had a mean income of $50,000 to $75,000.
Likewise, individuals with more parental divorce and men who believe the program will
positively affect their marriage had a higher likelihood of increasing in typology
between Time 1 and Time 2. These ﬁndings were consistent with the previously stated
hypothesis. However, many of the variables hypothesized to have an impact on
programmatic outcome had minimal or no impact (see Table 4-5).

The qualitative questionnaire that couples ﬁlled out after completing the
program asked two questions about their initial attitudes before participating in the
program. These questions were designed to assess their excitement and conﬁdence
level in the program before participating. Neither one of these questions had any
impact on program outcome.

Three additional questions referenced the couple’s experiences after completing
the program. These three questions were asked of males and females, thereby creating
six variables. Of these six variables, ﬁve of these variables had an impact on program
outcome. The ﬁrst two questions were: “Do you think this program made a
difference?” and “Do you believe this program will improve your future rehtionship?”
For males, these questions produced moderate (mean difference of 1.00) and substantial

impact (mean difference of 1.50) on programmatic outcome. For females, the same

122

questions produced minimal impact (mean difference of .50). Another question
assessed the individual’s level of happiness after participating in the program. For
males, this produced a moderate impact and for females it produced no impact (0.00).
Thus, it can be said that there is a correlation between an increase in typology and how
individuals perceive their experience after completing the program. This is particularly
true for males.

The assessment of the information derived ﬁom this research objective is both
discouraging and encouraging. First, it is discouraging because the results indicate it is
not possible to distinguish between couples who will increase in typology and couples
who will decrease by assessing attitudes and demographic variables beforelmnd. A
clear proﬁle of a person who will be a better or worse candidate for this program could
not be identiﬁed using the antecedent variables in this study. Of course, if the results
ﬁom this study were to be taken literally, it would be recommended that individuals
who come from intact families and earn large incomes, should not partake in this
premarital em'ichment program. However, due to the small sample size and the
exploratory nature of this study, it would be inappropriate to make such inferences.

The information ﬁom this research objective is encouraging because it appears
that couples, who believe they gained something substantial from the program, actually
beneﬁted ﬁ'om the program. This is particularly true for males (see Table 4-5). One
possible way to interpret this information is to say that it is critical to get males invested
in the process from the beginning. Males that do not invest into the program may

actually keep the couple ﬁom increasing to a higher typology.

123

Research Objective #5: To obtain feedback from couples and clergy

The PREPARE PAQ has been revised several times since its inception in 1979.
However, the premarital program tlmt accompanies it has not undergone a change since
it was created in 1996. It was thought that gaining feedback ﬁ'om the premarital
couples and clergy might be valuable to the authors for future reﬁnement of the
program.

The results ﬁom the feedback revealed that 43 percent of the responses were
positive, 17 percent were negative, 16 percent were suggestions and 24 percent were in
the improved relationship category. Both clergy and couples had more positive than
negative statements by a two-to-one margin. Perhaps this is because of the positive
experiences they had with the program, or perhaps it is because it is diﬁ'rcult for people
to disclose critical feedback.

Couples had more positive statements about speciﬁc content areas. These areas
included ﬁnancial management, communication and idealistic distortion. Some of the
responses to the question, “What three things did you like best about the premarital
emichment program,” were, 1) “The ﬁnancial planning education,” 2) “Allowed us to
openly express our ideas without problems,” and 3) “Talking about things you don’t
realize will change.” Clergy were more prone to praise the materials they used while
working with couples such as the counselor feedback forms and the inventory. Some of
their responses included, 1) “The tools for quick survey of strength and growth areas,”
2) “I have the support of an authority,” and 3) “Practice sessions of assertiveness/active

listening and conﬂict resolution.”

124

Couples were more critical of the materials and the protocol of the program
Some responses to the question, “What three things did you like least about the
premarital enrichment program,” included, 1) “The wording on questions were
conﬁrsing at times,” 2) “It was too long. One weekend would be better than 5 weeks,”
and 3) “Time harm; it was too much too close to the wedding.” Clergy had very few
negative comments. The only categories to receive two comments were conﬂict
resolution and ﬁnancial management. Some responses included, 1) “The conﬂict
resolution steps are too lengthy,” and 2) “The ﬁnancial section is too brief. More
materials are needed.”

Couples and clergy provided suggestions to improve the premarital program.
Once again, couples focused on the materials and the protocol. Typical responses to the
question, “What three suggestions would you make to improve the premarital
enrichment program,” included, 1) “Results from the survey may cause unnecessary
concerns for some couples. To avoid that I suggest beginning and ending the session
with an emphasis on positive points about relationship.” 2) “Call more attention to
notebook and how to follow along in it,” and 3) “Spend more time on each topic.”
Unfortunately, clergy only provided ﬁve suggestions. No category received multiple
responses on this question. None-the-less, some speciﬁc suggestions included, 1)
“Increase the detail of the spiritual category for couples who are bom-again Christians,”
2) “More tools to deal with sexual issues,” and 3) “Evaluations on marriage
expectations.”

Perhaps the most important question was the one that dealt with the parts ofthe

program that will make the biggest impact on the upcoming marriage. Couples once

125

 

again focused on the content areas: ﬁnancial management, communication and conﬂict
resolution. Some responses to the question, “What parts of the premarital emichment
program do you think will have the biggest impact on your marriage,” included, 1)
“Information given to help us through our problems will make a big difference,” and 2)
“The ﬁnancial inventory/planning portion.” Couples also seemed to beneﬁt ﬁ'om the
ﬁrst session focusing on a discussion of couples’ strength and growth areas. Comments
included, 3) “The counseling we received after identifying the weak areas,” and 4) “The
discussion of results of the survey — seeing where we differed and having tools and
education to plan for addressing our differences (growth areas) and celebrating our
strengths.” Only two categories had multiple responses for clergy: strength and growth
areas and communication.

There are two other issues worthy of discussion. First, couples report that they
beneﬁted the most from the content categories of ﬁnancial management,
communication and conﬂict resolution. However, mean differences on these sub-scales
do not portray an inﬂuence (see Table 4-36). Financial management has a mean
difference of 6.77, communication has a mean difference of -0.65 and conﬂict
resolution has a difference of 3.22. In this case the quantitative results do not match the
qualitative feedback ﬁ'om the couples. Perhaps the type of impact that the couples are
talking about does not translate to a paper/pencil PAQ. Conversely, perhaps the
participants perceptually over—estimated the impact of various elements (e. g. ﬁnancial
matters, communication, etc.) of the program.

Finally, the most important contribution of this section might be the lack of

comments directed toward several sub-scales. Of the 16 sub-scales in PREPARE, seven

126

 

received two or less comments about them. These sub-scales were children and
parenting, role relationship, personality issues, sexual relationship, family and ﬁ'iends,
couple closeness and leisure activities. Perhaps the premarital program could beneﬁt
from improving these facets of the program. This is especially pertinent because,
according to Olson & Olson (2000), some of these sub-scales distinguish happily
married couples from unhappily married couples.

Implications for Researchers

One strength of this study was the use of a multi-method approach. The
combined use of quantitative and qualitative methodologies resulted in a more complete
understanding of the inﬂuence of PREPARE 2000 on change in couple relationships as
assessed using the PAQ. Either method used alone would have resulted in very
different conclusions. Quantitative analysis only revealed that the program was not
eﬂ‘ective enough to make statistically signiﬁcant changes on the dependent variables.
However, qualitative analysis revealed a tremendous amount of couple typology
movement was happening. Without the multi-method approach, half of the story would
have been lost.

The ﬁnal component of the study, a content analysis of the qualitative
questionnaire, revealed altogether different insights ﬁom the participants in this study.
However, much more research needs to be conducted in this area. An entire study
could be dedicated to attaining feedback ﬁ'om clergy who provide these programs and
ﬁ‘om the premarital couples who participate in the program. The open~ended questions

provided enough ﬁ'eedom for participants to speak their mind. This author believes that

127

speciﬁc questions about the content areas should be included in future studies. This
would attain more speciﬁcs and fewer generalities.

Finally, a few apects of the RDAS should be mentioned. The RDAS was a nice
compliment to the study because it served as an external assessment instrument. It

helped guard against “teaching to the test” and a monolithic way of assessing change

“I

among couples. Consistent with the change scores on the PREPARE PAQ, limited
differences were discovered between Time I and Time 2 on this particular instrument.

Participants slightly improved for overall PCA (2.13), nule (3.89) and female (1.49)

 

scores on the PREPARE PAQ, while male (.4) and female (-.17) dyadic adjustment
scores changed slightly on the RDAS.

If ﬁrture studies are to be undertaken, another external assessment instrument
should be considered for comparison. Despite the consistency in ﬁndings between the
two measures, it is questioned if the RDAS is too simplistic in scope. The instrument
only contains 14 questions and the total range of scores is 0-69. Perhaps a more
comprehensive external assessment instrument should be considered for future studies.
Implications for The PREPARE 2000 Program

The sample was small, no comparison group was used and long-term follow up
procedures were not used in this study. However, two points are clear. Aggregately,
couples did not signiﬁcantly increase on any dependent variable or on almost any sub-
scale. Conversely, categorical change among couple typology occurred for 48 percent
of the sample (15 out of 31 couples). It is clearly possible for couples to increase and

decrease in typology.

128

The mixed results between the quantitative and qualitative procedures
demonstrate that the premarital program has not reached its full potential. Several
suggestions are offered to the authors of PREPARE. For the pmses of this study. the
PREPARE 2000 program has been Med through an ecosystemic lens. To make the
integrated program more ecosystemic, the program could be more explicth inter-
related. Currently, the program focuses on one area at a time. Some literature could be
implemented to help couples understand how one area is related to many others. For
instance, if a couple has idealistic distortion of their relationship, unrealistic
expectations might be set. Once married, these unrealistic expectations could affect
couple ﬂexibility. If couple ﬂexibility is strained, individuals might not necessarily
want to be close to one another, thus altering levels of couple closeness.

The PREPARE PAQ assesses the relationship on 20 different sub-scales or areas
of content. However, the six exercises constituting the premarital program explicitly
focus on the content in primarily seven sub-scales, (communication, conﬂict resolution,
ﬁnancial management, couple ﬂexibility, couple closeness, family ﬂexibility and family
closeness). That leaves 13 areas to be discussed in the ﬁrst exercise (strength and
growth areas). If certain areas are not discussed at that point, they probably will not be
discussed again during the program.

One suggestion is to add more exercises. This is complicated by research that
clearly states that couples will not devote more than six sessions to a program prior to
marriage (Sillirnan & Schumm, 1989). Another suggestion is to decrease the focus on
ﬁnancial matters because this sub-scale ranks second to last when discriminating

between happily and unhappily married couples three years into marriage (Olson &

129

Olson, 2000). Ifﬁnancial matters ranks so low and minimal change occurred on this
variable for the individuals in this study, the authors should consider whether an entire
exercise should be devoted to this topic area. Finally, a follow-up program in the ﬁrst
year of marriage could be designed to focus on some of these critical relationship areas,
particularly for couples that score in the conﬂicted typology.

Implications for Clergy/Counselors/Family Life Educators

The ﬁndings from this research illustrate that the individual who provides the
program does not determine positive or negative outcomes for the couple. Clergy
members who provided the program to multiple couples had divergent results. Couples
respond differently to the program and to the person who is delivering it.

Most couples seemed to have beneﬁted from participating in the program The
program can be improved, but providers should feel a certain degree of comfort
knowing that the majority of couples will at least maintain scores on the sub-scales, if
not improve. Unfortunately, at this time, it is not possible to identify or predict whom
will beneﬁt/not beneﬁt ﬁ'om the program. One implication of this study does suggest
that a goal should be to solicit men ﬁ'om the beginning and talk to them about the
beneﬁts of this program. Men who do not think the program is making an impact on
their relationship, do not respond as positively to the program.

If the authors of PREPARE 2000 do not improve the program, it is this
researcher’s assumption that adding one’s own interventions or unique contributions to
the sessions could be beneﬁcial. The program is far from perfect. Modiﬁcations to

communication and conﬂict resolution areas might signiﬁcantly beneﬁt couples.

130

Here are several suggestions for the providers of this premarital program. 1)
Providers should try to deliver the program in a much more systemic way. Couples
might beneﬁt from seeing the inter-relatedness of the different relationship areas. They
are not isolated areas in a relationship; rather a common thread connects them all. A
change in one area can create a change in another area. 2) Trained providers should
also pay particular attention to personality issues. The research ﬁom this study presents
a strong case that it may be the make or break issue for the couple. This means issues
of jealousy, control, temper and responsibility appear to be critical. Additional time
should be allocated to focusing on the personality issues ﬁom the counselor feedback
report (page 8). 3) If time permits, as a regular part of the premarital process, providers
should have couples ﬁll out the PREPARE PAQ after completing the program. This
might show couples where they improved and other areas that still need their continued
attention. This researcher does not work for Life Innovations, Inc. and will not receive
any proceeds ﬁ'om a second scoring. This is just a simple way to track the progress of a
couple before marriage. Finally, for those couples who decrease in typology or remain
conﬂicted, continued support in the form of marital counseling might be beneﬁcial for
the future success of their relationship.

Limitations of PREPARE and Other Premarital Programs

Research clearly demonstrates that no “one” variable can make or break a
relationship. Thus, multiple variables need to be assessed and treated when preparing
couples for nurrriage. If Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979; 1986) is used as a measuring
stick for PREPARE 2000, it can be argued that PREPARE has some gaps to ﬁll if the

intent is to improve all aspects of a couple’s relationship.

131

 

Almost exclusively, the 20 sub-scales focus on the micro-level of the couple
relationship with a little emphasis on the meso-level. Exo-, macro- and chrono- levels
are almost entirely neglected. Furthermore, little effort appears to be placed on
discussing the interdependence of the sub-scales or administering the program in an
ecosystemic manner. Maybe these shortcomings play a role in the lack of couple
movement on the dependent variables.

At the same time, it is hard to be critical of a program that typically has a four-
to six-session window of opportunity. How many topics can the program cover? How
many different levels should the program focus on? These are difﬁcult questions, but it
can be stated with reasonable conﬁdence, that this and other premarital programs are
not truly ecosystemic in nature. Premarital programs will have to deal with more
developmental and societal issues before they can make claims of being holistic and
comprehensive.

This leads to an interesting discussion as to whether premarital programs should
be attempting to improve many relational attributes on several levels or focusing on one
single variable. Many of the programs cited in chapter 2 focused on helping couples
understand or improve on one speciﬁc variable. For instance, Wood & Stroup (1990)
developed a program to better understand each person’s family of origin, while
Markman (1979) stressed a particular form of communication skills. If the results from
this exploratory study are replicated in other studies, it might indicate that given the
time constraints and the amount of sessions allowable, focusing all efforts on one

variable might be more effective than dividing efforts to address multiple levels of a

132

relationship. It just might be an impossible task to intervene on multiple levels of a
relationship and achieve sustained and systemic change.
Limitations of Study

This study has several limitations. The most signiﬁcant limitation is the sample
size. Only 31 couples met the requirements of this study. More than 70 couples
initially agreed to participate in this study over the course of two years, but attrition
rates for clergy and couples signiﬁcantly decreased the sample size of the study.
Because of this small sample size, the sample is not representative and the study should
not be generalized to the larger population.

This study was limited by the lack of a control group. Without a control group,
it is impossible to control for maturation, history, initiation effects, testing, spontaneous
remission or other extraneous variables (Saccuzzo, 1984). A control group was
initially planned for this study, but after three couples were placed in the control group,
not only did the couples drop out of the study, but so did the three clergy members. The
control group was formally dropped ﬁom the study after these episodes. This
researcher discovered that clergy members are extremely busy people tending to the
needs of large congregations.

Another complication is inevitable and the importance of it should not be
neglected. The assessment and the enrichment are provided at the peak time for
idealistic distortion and cognitive dissonance (Larson, 1992). Eighty percent of the
sample was within six months of marriage at Time 1. This means that most of these
couples have invested a great deal of money in rings, dresses, halls and photographers.

Furthermore, most of these couples were “mandated” to take the premarital program by

133

their ministers as a precursor for getting married. This combination means that many of
these couples might not be receptive to the “learning process” and are more invested in
putting their best foot forward. One can not be too certain about any of the data
collected ﬁ'om participants with such “rose-colored glasses” (Olson, 1996).

Finally, there are some limitations to the type of data collected. The primary
objective of this study was to determine if the six-exercises of the PREPARE 2000
program could categorically shift couples in typology. Unfortunately, couple typology
is a categorical variable with only four values. Limited room for change was possible.
To complicate things, almost half of the sample (14 out of 31) scored in the highest
category (vitalized) at Time 1. This means that very little upward movement could
occur with this particular sample.

Due to the limitations of this study, it was decided early on that this study should
be exploratory in nature. This is the ﬁrst time the enrichment elements of the
PREPARE 2000 program have been assessed. The primary purpose was to set a
foundation for ﬁrture studies in the area.

Recommendations for Future Study

The premise of combining premarital programs with PAQ’s is relatively new.
The authors of PREPARE 2000 are the ﬁrst to create such an integrated prograrrr.
Future studies need to be completed that focus on evaluating and improving the
PREPARE 2000 premarital program Development of other similar integrated
programs is needed. It is the opinion of this researcher that the ﬁeld does not need new
premarital programs or new premarital assessment questionnaires. The ﬁeld really

needs to integrate the two parts of the equation and create integrated holistic models.

134

The use of a multi-method approach using both quantitative and qualitative
procedures appear to be warranted. To study integrated programs, comprehensive
analyses should be the choice of study. Likewise, control groups should be used to
isolate the treatment of the premarital programs. Ideally, the leading programs in the
ﬁeld should be longitudinally tested against one another. For instance, couples
participating in PREPARE 2000, FOCCU S or RELATE could be compared to couples
that received no enrichment at all.

Finally, there must be ways to reach out to conﬂicted couples. The research
clearly demonstrates that these couples have the highest probability of low marital
satisfaction and divorce. To deliver the premarital program and then forget about them
is a mistake for the couple and society. These couples need more specialized

intervention that follows them throughout their marriage.

135

 

Appendix A

Recruitment Letter

136

Reason for This Letter: I am a Ph.D. student in Marriage & Family Therapy at
Michigan State University. The proposed study is my dissertation. I have begun
working with the “Building Healthy Families” group in Ottawa County as they have
expressed interest in this project. Now, I am looking for clergy/counselors who are
certiﬁed to use PREPARE 2000 and are planning to use it with couples to be a part of
this study. To successfully complete the study, I need data from 60-80 couples. This is
a landmark study. If the ﬁeld of premarital enrichment is going to progress, we need
to know if the programs we are using are effective. PREPARE is used more than any
other and there is no existing research to tell us if it works in any way. This study will
not only identify immediate effects, but the project will also be set up longitudinally so P
we can track these couples for up to 20 years. David Olson will drop the scoring fee L.-
ﬁ'om $30 to $10 for any clergy/counselor who participates in the study. If you are
interested in partaking in this study, please contact me:

 

(504) 734-6556
hocdclio©msuedu

5802 Cedar Creek Drive
Apt. 307
River Ridge, LA 70123

Joe Hoedel i

Title of Project: The Effectiveness of PREPARE 2000 on Premarital Couples: Can a
Premarital Program Based on PREPARE 2000 Improve Factors Associated with Marital
Success and Relational Satisfaction?

Imp_ortance of the Study: Over 1 million couples have used the PREPARE instrument
and over 30,000 clergy/counselors are certiﬁed to administer it. PREPARE is the most
often used prennrital inventory in America. The instrument has been extensively tested
and boasts excellent validity and reliability. In fact, the instrument has demonstrated 80-
85 percent accuracy in predicting future marital success and satisfaction. The instrument
is truly remarkable. However, nobody has ever tested the 6 session premarital
enrichment program that accompanies the PREPARE 2000 package. This means
we don’t know if the enrichment element of the program does anything at all to
help couples. We hope that it is, but we need to determine what and how much the
inventory is helping. If the goal is to help couples improve their relationships and build
long-term successful marriages, we need to know what does and does not work.

Purpose of the Study: In plain language, the purpose of this study is to see if the 6-
session program works. Can the program increase factors associated with future marital
success and satisfaction? We know ﬁom previous research that we can predict the
outcome of a marriage based on couple typology: vitalized, harmonious, traditional
and conflicted. The prediction rates are on the next sheet.

137

 

 

 

 

Happily 38 30 17 10 95
Married 60% 46% 34% 17%

Less Happily 1 5 19 25 l 8 77
Married 23% 29% 50% 30%

Separated] 11 16 8 32 67
Divorces 17% 25% 16% 53%

Total 64 65 50 60 239
100% 100% 100% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on this research, it would seem logical that we would want couples to be in the
vitalized typology. Unfortunately, this does not match reality. The next best goal should
be to increase the couple typology in order to give them a better chance of achieving a
successful marriage.

Therefore, this study is interested in the movement of a couple from on couple typology
to another. For example, if a couple rated conﬂictual before going through the program,
can they improve their typology to traditional? Likewise, can a traditional couple
improve to a harmonious couple or a harmonious couple improve to a vitalized
couple? This study is laid out below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-test Emichment Post-test
Program
r r
__, Traditional
6 session
Treatment
raditional of ’ .
Harmomous
PREPARE
2000
armonio ' —' Vitalized
k J

 

 

 

138

Appendix B

Instructions for Clergy

139

This meet is established to help clergy as they work with couples for the duration of this

study.
(Any additional questions should be directed to Joe Hoedel (517) 646-7357)

Step 1: Have all couples that you will be marrying before January 1, 2000 complete the
following Inventories as soon as possible:

A) PREPARE Inventory

B) Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) (14 questions)

Step 2: Send the completed RDAS Inventories to:
Joe Hoedel
220 Devonshire
Dimondale, MI 48821 (a self addressed envelope will be provided)

Step 3: Send the completed PREPARE Inventories to:

Life Innovations Inc.

C/O Sharlene Eye

P.O. Box 190

Minneapolis, MN 55440-0190
Include a note that says, “the inventories are part of Joe Hoedel’s study” and only
include a check for $10 (not the usual 830). They will send me the results. I will
immediately record the results in a data ﬁle and forward the materials to you.

Step 4: Based on date of marriage and ﬂexibility of clergy/couple, couples will either
I) begin the feedback sessions right away (experimental group) or 2) wait eight weeks
before starting the feedback sessions (control group). The purpose of this is to show
that the improvements of the couples are due to the effects of the premarital program
and not other factors. Without a control group, this study would have limited
credibility.

Step 5: Conduct feedback sessions with couple (except those in the control group). For
the sake of research, please stick closely to the protocol that you were trained on. If you
feel couples need more sessions, please administer the post-test materials before doing
so.

Step 6: On the last night or an agreed upon date shortly after the last session (based on
your own time constraints and convenience) administer:

A) PREPARE Inventory

B) Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale

140

Step 7: In an effort to improve the PREPARE 2000 premarital program, I have
developed a short questionmire based on their and your experience of working with the
program.
A) Have couple ﬁll out Qpestionnaire for Couple (one for each)
B) Clergy ﬁll out the Qpestionnaire for Clergy (only do it once, not once for
each couple).

Step 8: Send completed questionnaires and RDAS to Joe Hoedel
Step 9: Send completed PREPARE Inventories to Life Innovations Inc. Do not send
any money. Just simply add a note tlmt says “this is a part of Joe Hoedel’s study and

these inventories are post-tests.” The results will be forwarded to me. These results
will not be forwarded to you unless you speciﬁcally request them for your records.

141

Appendix C

Consent Forms

142

Consent Form for Clem

This study is interested in the beneﬁts of premarital couples going through a premarital
enrichment program based on PREPARE 2000. Over 500,000 couples have participated
in this program and over 3,000 clergy/counselors are certiﬁed to use PREPARE 2000.
However, research on the effectiveness of this program is lacking. We do not know how
much it helps couples improve their relationship. Further, we do not know if
participating in this program can decrease the likelihood of divorce or improve ﬁrture
marital satisfaction. We hope that it does, but we can not make such claims without
pertinent research. F

As part of your agreement to marry couples, you will be administering the PREPARE
Instrument and then leading them in the six-session prermrital program. This study does
not ask you to alter this procedure. We are asking you to administer this program in the
very same way tlmt you have been trained by Life Innovations, Inc. However, in order ’

 

to test the effectiveness of the PREPARE 2000 program, we are asking you to do a few
other things. 1) Administer the PREPARE Instrument to the couple again once they
have completed the six-session program 2) Administer the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
along with the PREPARE Instrument both before and after the couple has completed
the program. 3) We are interested in what you and the couple thought of the premarital
program. To get this feedback, we will ask you to ﬁll out a one page questionmire as
well as administer a similar questionnaire to the couple upon completion of the
program. With this feedback, we intend to improve the premarital program.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate in this
study without penalty. Further, once you volunteer to be in the study, you can refuse to
administer any questions or to discontinue your involvement at any time. Please
understand that all materials you ﬁll out will remain strictly conﬁdential and your name
and the names of the couple will be removed from any documents and replaced with a
research number.

Participation in this study will not result in any additional costs. The usual cost of
scoring the PREPARE inventory is $30. The authors of that instrument agreed to reduce
the scoring fee to $10. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale has no cost for scoring. No known
adverse effects of ﬁlling out the additional forms have been reported or are anticipated.

If you have any further questions or concerns about this study, please contact either:
Joe Hoedel, M.A., (504) 734—5456, or David Imig, PhD., (517) 353-3998

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by signing below:

 

Clergy Member

143

Consent Form for Couples

This study is interested in the beneﬁts of premarital couples going through a premarital
enrichment program. The clergy member who is marrying you is also going to lead you
through a group of exercises before you get married. These exercises will take place in a
series of six sessions prior to your marriage. All exercises are geared toward improving
your relationship and increasing your chances of future marital success. The issues you
will be discussing include relationship strengths and growth areas, communication and
conﬂict resolution, family of origin issues, ﬁnancial matters, and developing future
individual, couple and family goals.

As per an agreement between you and your clergy member, you will be participating in
a premarital enrichment program. The name of the program is PREPARE 2000. This
means you will ﬁll out the PREPARE inventory and then participate in the six session
program.

Your minister/priest has been trained to use this premarital em'ichment program.
Thousands of couples have participated in this program. However, research on the
effectiveness of the program is lacking. We do not know how much it helps couples
improve their relationship. In order to test this, we will be asking you to ﬁll our a few
extra forms. First off, you will ﬁll out the PREPARE inventory after you have
completed the program. Secondly, you will also ﬁll out an additional instrument called
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale before and after the program. Finally, we are interested in
what you thought of the premarital program. To get this feedback, we will ask you to
ﬁll out a one page questionnaire. We estimate that it will take 45 minutes to complete
the PREPARE inventory, ﬁve minutes to complete the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and 15
minutes to complete the one page questionnaire.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate in this
study without penalty. Further, once you volunteer to be in the study, you can refuse to
answer any questions or to discontinue your involvement at any time. Please understand
that all materials you ﬁll out will remain strictly conﬁdential and your name(s) will be
removed from any documents and replaced with a research number.

Participation in this study will not result in any additional costs. The usual cost of
scoring the PREPARE inventory is $30. The authors of that instrument agreed to reduce
the scoring fee to $10. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale has no cost for scoring. No known
adverse effects of ﬁlling out the additional forms lave been reported or are anticipated.

If you have any further questions or concerns about this study, please contact either:
Joe Hoedel, M.A., (504) 734-5456, or David Imig, PhD., (517) 353-3998
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by signing below:

 

 

Female Male

144

 

Appendix D

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS)

145

Circle Gender: Male Female Couple Research #

 

Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the

approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for
each item on the following list.

Almost Occ- F re- Almost
Always Always sionally quently Always Always
Agree Agzee Agree Agree Dls_agr' ee Diggree

1. Religious matters

2. Demonstration of
affection

3. Making major
decisions

4. Sex relations

5. Conventionally
(Correct or proper
behvaior)

6. Career decisions

More
All the Most of often Occas-
lir_n_§ the time than not ionally Rarely Never

7. How often do you
discuss/consider
divorce, separation
or terminating
your relationship?

8. How often do you
and your partner
quarrel?

9. Do you ever regret
your decision to
marry?

10.How often do you
and your mate “get
on each other’s
nerves?”

 

 

 

Every Almost Occas-
my Evegy day ionally Rarely Never
11.Do you and your
mate engage in
outside interests
together?

 

146

 

 

 

Less than Once or Once or
Once a twice a twice a Once a More.
Never month month week d_ay pf_t§r_l

12.Have a stimulating

exchange of ideas
13.Work together on

a project
14.Calmly discuss

something

 

 

147

Appendix E

Questionnaires Filled Out by Couples and Clergy

148

Clergy Name:

 

I.D. #:

Questionnaire for Clem/Counselor

This questionnaire is to allow people who administer the PREPARE 2000 premarital
em'ichment program to reﬂect on their experiences with using it. Through this feedback
you provide, we hope to improve the program and make it more effective for ﬁrture
couples who participate. Please be as speciﬁc and as comprehensive as you can. We
thank you in advance for this participation.

 

Training
When did you go through your ﬁrst PREPARE training program to get certiﬁed?

 

How many certiﬁable trainings have you been through regarding PREPARE?

 

Did any of your trainings discuss the PREPARE 2000 feedback sessions developed in
1996?
A. Yes B. No

Expgrience with PREPARE 2000 Premarital Enrichment Pmram

How long have you been using the PREPARE 2000 premarital enrichment program?
years months

Approximately how many couples have you used the PREPARE 2000 premarital
enrichment program with?

Not counting the administering of the PREPARE Instrument, how many session do you
normally spend with each couple? How long each session?

Do you pretty much stick to the premarital program laid out by Olson or do you change
the program to ﬁt your style (delete some facets and add others)?

A. Yes B. No
While partaking in the study, did you pretty much stick to the premarital program laid
out by Olson or did you change the program to ﬁt your style (delete some ﬁicets and

add others)?
A. Yes B. No

149

 

1) In order of importance (most to least), what are the three things that you like best
about the premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

2) In order of importance, what are the three things that you like least about the
premarital em‘ichment program of PREPARE 2000?

3) In order of importance, what three suggestions would you make to improve the
premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

4) In order of importance, what parts of the premarital enrichment program do you think
make the biggest impact with the couples you work with?

150

Please Circle Your Gender M F Couple Research #

 

Questionnaire for Couples Who Completed PREPARE 2000 Premarital Pmram
This questionnaire is to allow couples who completed the PREPARE 2000 premarital

enrichment program to reﬂect on their experiences with using it. Through the feedback
you provide, we hope to improve the program and make it more effective for future
couples who go through the program. Please be as speciﬁc and as complete as possible.
Please do not gear your comments toward taking the instrument, i.e. ﬁlling the
forms out twice. . . Rather, we are interested in your comments surrounding the actual
premarital counseling.

1) Before beginning the premarital program, how much were you looking forward to
participating in this premarital program?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Neutral Enthusiastic

2) Before beginning the premarital program, how much did you think this would make a
difference in your current and future relationship?

1 2 3 4 5
No difference No opinion Big Difference

3) Now that you have completed the program, how glad are you that you went through
the program?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Neutral Very glad

4) Now that you have completed the program, how much do you think this program
made a difference in your current relationship?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Enough to make Big difference
it worthwhile

5) Now that you have completed the program, how much do you think this program will
improve your future relationship?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all Enough to make Big difference
it worthwhile

151

1) In order of importance (most to least), what are 3 things that you liked best about the
premarital enrichment program?

2) In order of importance, what are the 3 things that you liked least about the premital
enrichment program?

 

3) In order of importance, what 3 suggestions would you make to improve the
premarital enrichment program?

4) In order of importance, what parts of the premarital enrichment program do you think
will have the biggest impact on your marriage?

152

 

Appendix F

Six Tables that Compare Couples That Increase Decrease
On a Couple by Couples Basis

153

Table A-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PCA Scam or Couples Who Increased in T
Ecological Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Mean
Variables 40 24 8 10 12 l 2 196 37

Intrapersonal 30.5 10 67.5 47.5 60 37.5 42.5 55 52.5 44.8
Issues 30 90 57.5 67.5 67.5 57.5 47.5 62.5 37.5 57.5
Personality 30 10 50 50 50 40 0 40 30 33.3
Issues 10 90 50 80 60 70 30 50 50 54.4
Spiritual Beliefs 60 10 80 60 80 50 40 90 70 60

50 100 80 50 90 90 30 90 50 70
Leisure 20 20 60 60 70 40 70 60 70 52.2
Activities 60 l 00 60 90 90 50 60 90 50 72 .2
Marriage 10 0 80 20 40 20 60 30 40 33.3
Expectations 0 70 40 50 30 20 70 20 0 33.3
Interpersonal 62.9 25.7 65.7 75.7 74.3 67.1 57.1 55.7 51.4 59.5
Issues 62.9 85.7 70 60 72.9 75.7 62.9 78.6 68.6 70.8
Communication 50 l 0 50 100 80 70 30 60 80 58.9

50 90 l 00 70 70 60 40 80 100 73 .3
Conﬂict 40 0 80 70 50 60 20 40 10 41 . 1
Resolution 50 80 90 60 70 50 3O 60 30 57 .8
Children and 50 30 30 40 80 50 80 50 60 52.2
Parenting 40 80 10 40 90 70 90 80 40 60
Couple 90 40 80 90 9O 9O 90 100 70 82.2
Closeness 90 100 80 90 90 100 80 100 100 92.2
Couple 90 10 60 80 90 60 70 30 50 60
Flexibility 80 100 70 60 90 100 30 80 80 76.7
Role 60 70 90 80 70 90 70 40 70 71 . 1
Relationship 80 70 70 50 50 8O 90 70 60 68.9
Sexual 60 20 70 70 60 50 40 70 20 51 . 1
Relationship 50 80 70 50 50 70 80 80 70 66.7
External 67.5 22.5 60 52.5 52.5 67.5 45 37.5 22.5 47.5
Issues 60 92.5 67.5 65 40 77.5 52.5 70 32.5 61.9
Family 70 30 60 80 90 100 60 30 0 57.8
Closeness 80 100 70 50 0 100 80 80 10 63.3
Family 60 30 40 30 1 0 20 40 20 20 60
Flexibility 30 70 70 60 40 80 40 60 0 76.7
Financial 80 0 50 10 3O 80 20 20 10 33.3
Management 70 100 60 50 30 50 10 70 40 53.3
Family & 60 30 90 90 80 70 60 8O 60 68.9
Friends 60 100 70 100 90 80 80 70 80 81.1
Total Time 1 55.3 20.7 64.7 62 64.7 59.3 50 50.7 44 52.4
Total Time 2 53.3 88.7 66 63.3 62.7 71.3 56 72 50.7 64.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

 

Table A-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PCA Scam for Co la Who Decreased in T ypolgL
Ecological Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Mean
Variables 6 7 9 11 104 38

Intrapersonal 45 82.5 65 60 50 22.5 54.2
Issues 5 32.5 47.5 42.5 50 47.5 37.5
Personality 70 90 90 90 10 30 63.3
Issues 20 20 40 30 0 40 25
Spiritual Beliefs 0 100 60 40 90 30 53.3

0 20 50 90 100 40 50
Leisure 80 90 90 90 60 10 70
Activities 0 50 80 30 80 70 5 1 .6
Marriage 30 50 20 20 40 20 30
Expectations 0 40 20 20 20 40 23.3
Interpersonal 70 72.9 72.9 72.9 50 58.6 66.2
188008 8.6 60 54.3 72.9 41.4 64.3 50.3
Communication 60 80 80 90 20 70 66.7

10 70 30 60 0 70 40
Conﬂict 70 60 20 80 20 50 50
Resolution 10 20 40 60 20 30 30
Children and 30 50 60 60 60 70 55
Parenting 10 40 30 90 40 60 45
Couple 100 90 90 80 80 50 81.7
Closeness 20 100 90 90 70 100 78.3
Couple 90 80 100 80 50 60 76.7
Flexibility 0 90 60 60 40 80 55
Role 70 80 90 50 60 80 71 .7
Relationship 10 50 7o 80 60 80 58.3
Sexual 70 70 70 70 60 30 61.7
Relationship 10 50 60 70 60 30 46.7
External 70 52.5 87.5 60 42.5 60 62.1
Issues 5 25 40 80 40 60 41.7
Family 90 80 100 80 30 60 73.3
Closeness 0 20 40 90 30 40 36.7
Family 50 20 80 40 50 50 48.3
Flexibility o 20 20 70 3o 90 38.3
Financial 50 20 70 70 40 70 53.3
Mamgement 0 10 60 80 60 60 45
Family & 90 90 100 50 50 60 73.3
Friends 20 50 40 80 40 50 46.7
Total Pre-Test 63.3 70 74.7 66 48 49.3 61.9
Total Post-Test 7.3 43.3 48.7 66.7 43.3 58.7 44.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

 

 

Table A-3

Individual Male Scam for Couples Who Increased in Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecological Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Mean
Variables 40 24 8 10 12 1 2 196 37
Intrapersonal 37.2 25 58.8 51 59.6 45.8 45.2 57.6 44 47.1
Issues 31.6 85.8 57.2 74.2 61.2 55.6 50.6 52.2 45.6 57.1
Personality 33 10 46 66 54 10 10 39 l l 3 1
Issues 10 80 54 80 56 62 18 39 27 47.3
Spirituality 48 10 59 59 83 80 25 87 48 55.4
10 91 58 47 95 72 48 73 34 58.7
Leisure 34 34 64 39 47 55 66 91 77 56.3
Activities 72 98 70 88 64 1 5 72 79 65 69.2
Marriage 10 10 87 30 45 10 87 10 14 33.7
Expectations 10 72 30 68 37 37 69 14 10 38.6
Interpersonal 61.6 21.4 57.9 56 62.3 60.7 52.6 66.7 39.3 53.2
Issues 45.1 76.3 67.1 55.3 66.6 61.9 62.6 57 55.9 60.9
Communication 67 21 56 87 79 41 l 1 83 66 56.8
49 79 87 76 73 39 50 62 82 66.3
Conﬂict 42 10 70 49 36 26 14 61 10 35.3
Resolution 31 82 81 46 49 25 37 26 10 43
Children and 48 10 26 10 83 69 91 48 47 48
Parenting 10 83 25 24 88 77 91 56 45 55.4
Couple 70 23 68 68 64 71 62 81 43 61 .l
Closeness 62 81 78 81 64 83 61 75 74 73.2
Couple 72 36 60 68 71 8O 73 60 40 62.2
Flexibility 53 79 62 82 75 83 69 60 53 68.4
Role 79 40 59 61 84 78 71 71 59 66.9
Relationship 59 50 59 60 79 90 75 71 55 66.4
Sexual 53 10 66 49 19 60 46 63 10 41.8
Relationship 52 80 78 l 8 38 36 55 49 72 53.1
External 60.5 42 53.3 46.5 66 58.5 31.8 57.3 41.5 50.8
Issues 53 80.8 64.8 67.5 58.5 63.6 44.3 60 42.3 59.4
Family 64 52 48 50 62 62 37 62 48 53.9
Closeness 65 77 58 52 52 62 63 64 37 58.9
Family 61 57 42 40 52 42 58 62 50 51.6
Flexibility 46 71 76 76 6O 52 40 60 22 55.9
Financial 86 44 77 44 75 87 20 24 38 55
Management 76 91 61 69 62 73 29 56 54 63.4
Family & 31 15 46 52 71 43 12 81 30 42.3
Friends 25 84 64 73 60 68 45 60 56 59.4
Total Pre- 53.7 27.8 53.2 48.8 58.7 55.5 45.1 59.5 41.3 49.3
Test
Total Post- 42.9 73.5 60.4 59.5 62.9 55.5 54.3 53.3 49.3 56.3
Test

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

 

 

Table A-4
Individual Male Scores For Couples Who Decreased in Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecological Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Total
Variables 6 7 9 11 104 38
Intrapersonal 52.5 75.2 56 52 49.8 20.6 51.1
Issues 26 49.4 44.6 66.2 48.2 39.2 45.6
Personality 75 66 68 64 10 14 49.5
Issues 21 1 l 34 42 10 21 23.2
Spiritual Beliefs 10 89 29 34 89 13 44
17 24 43 88 87 17 46
Leisure 78 79 63 78 72 10 63.3
Activities 10 25 64 96 72 57 54
Marriage 10 82 37 10 24 10 28.8
Expectations 30 37 30 10 18 53 29.7
Interpersonal 47.7 63.1 51.8 56 38.3 49.7 51.1
Issues 21.4 41.8 42.3 81.2 31.9 60.9 46.6
Communication 81 61 69 78 10 49 58
14 63 37 83 10 50 42.8
Conﬂict 81 49 10 71 26 17 42.3
Resolution 21 17 37 80 1 l 10 29.3
Children and 14 56 38 14 63 76 43.5
Parenting 10 15 15 81 15 78 35.7
Couple 85 73 71 71 57 52 68.2
Closeness 37 68 64 87 48 72 62.7
Couple 77 62 68 60 38 62 61 .2
Flexibility 36 78 62 87 49 80 65.3
Role 56 61 60 36 l 7 82 52
Relationship 22 40 59 70 36 82 5 1 .5
Sexual 72 80 47 62 57 10 54.7
Relationship 10 12 22 81 54 54 38.8
External 58.5 56.3 60.5 54.3 55.8 54.3 56.6
Issues 38.5 25.3 54.3 86.8 53.5 52 51.7
Family 50 58 62 60 57 50 56.2
Closeness 28 48 62 90 44 26 49.7
Family 58 56 56 58 58 56 57
Flexibility 42 32 61 87 76 77 62.5
Financial 49 39 55 75 88 80 64.3
Management 34 20 56 91 84 80 60.8
Family & 77 72 69 24 20 31 48.8
Friends 10 l 38 79 10 25 27.2
Total Pre-Test 57.9 58.6 50.8 52.5 46.3 43.8 51.7
Total Post-Test 24.6 35.4 44.1 73.2 42.4 51.7 45.2

 

157

 

 

Table A-5

Individual Female Scam For Couples Who Increased in Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecological Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Mean
Variables 40 24 8 10 12 1 2 196 37

Intrapersonal 65.4 23.3 64.8 54.4 59.2 53.4 53.4 48.4 62.6 53.9
Issues 44.4 87.2 52.8 68.8 55.8 68.8 42.8 58.8 59.8 59.9
Personality 24 10 25 33 29 52 37 28 54 32.4
Issues 37 86 24 49 45 72 18 54 60 49.4
Spiritual 64 17 70 38 83 42 16 88 77 55
Beliefs 34 91 54 69 87 91 10 86 73 66.1
Leisure 57 10 84 98 79 55 71 47 71 63.5
Activities 49 98 39 96 79 88 57 70 52 69.8
Marriage 10 18 99 30 45 30 60 10 37 37.7
Expectations 14 78 86 61 18 10 91 10 45 45.9
Interpersonal 60.7 23.7 48.1 81.4 52 72.3 72.3 58.3 58.4 58.6
Issues 62.1 81.1 57.6 61.3 56.4 79.4 53.3 67.4 73.3 65.8
Communi- 75 10 43 87 67 85 84 66 86 67
cation 58 85 87 66 55 82 38 81 86 70.9
Conﬂict 35 10 63 87 49 69 47 26 30 46.2
Resolution 40 82 72 53 50 80 10 65 71 58.1
Children and 47 10 15 31 48 24 83 62 69 43.2
Parenting 67 78 10 62 72 61 90 62 47 61
Couple 77 23 62 77 68 90 78 77 44 66.2
Closeness 61 87 62 66 81 85 64 79 80 73.9
Couple 74 3 1 56 73 60 94 68 54 40 61 . 1
Flexibility 79 83 62 75 78 79 32 60 82 70
Role 59 50 79 74 50 84 78 45 90 67.7
Relationship 58 70 61 59 40 88 71 56 78 64.6
Sexual 58 32 19 82 22 60 68 78 50 52.1
Relationship 72 83 49 48 19 81 68 69 69 62
External 68.5 65 68.5 57 .5 50.8 67.5 63.5 54 27.5 58.1
Issues 60.8 75.8 53.3 69.5 48.8 74.5 63.8 58.3 37 60.2
Family 64 88 66 64 38 75 87 52 18 61.3
Closeness 61 58 64 58 18 79 85 62 18 55.9
Family 76 76 60 81 54 28 58 60 18 56.8
Flexibility 44 71 58 61 58 52 75 58 15 54.7
Financial 91 10 62 10 44 91 28 28 10 41.6
Management 74 92 71 79 51 81 10 55 44 61.9
Family & 43 10 86 75 67 77 81 76 65 64.4
Friends 64 86 20 80 68 86 85 58 71 68.7
Total Pre- 58 26.4 52.9 61.6 50 65.3 64.2 51.6 52.1 53.6
Test

Total Post- 55.6 76 50.7 61.6 54.3 70.3 52.6 58.6 60 60
Test

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

 

Table A-6
Individual Female Scam F or Coupla Who Decreased in Typology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecological Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Cpl Mean
Variables 6 7 9 11 104 38
Intrapersonal 60 78.6 71 51.8 57.4 64 63.8
Issues 56.2 55.2 58.8 35.6 57.4 71.6 55.8
Personality 66 61 76 55 10 55 53.8
Issues 50 44 33 14 10 61 35.3
Spiritual Beliefs 24 87 68 48 89 77 65.5
24 38 69 69 97 69 61
Leisure 88 94 97 79 83 83 87.3
Activities 79 88 96 10 66 92 71.8
Marriage 61 95 19 17 45 45 47
Expectations 76 45 37 24 76 82 56.7
Interpersonal 53.1 67.1 80.6 60.7 47 67.7 62.7
Issues 58.3 58.9 50.6 57.9 46.4 78 58.4
Communication 61 84 78 77 21 88 68.2
55 85 3o 42 10 86 51.3
Conﬂict 42 67 75 49 10 72 52.5
Resolution 50 31 53 36 10 78 43
Childrenand 19 56 82 56 76 76 60.8
Parenting 32 40 39 81 65 88 57.5
Couple 75 75 85 73 79 75 77
Closeness 71 93 71 68 80 79 77
Couple 68 60 81 62 56 71 66.3
Flexibility 80 75 54 62 37 85 65.5
Role 50 71 84 59 31 61 59.3
Relationship 56 50 59 59 45 89 59.7
Sexual 57 57 79 49 56 31 54.8
Relationship 64 38 48 57 78 41 54.3
External 63.5 44.5 78.8 55 17.3 71.3 55.1
Issues 60.5 48.3 44.5 70.5 45.3 74.5 57.3
Family 68 38 75 62 24 60 36.3
Closeness 64 27 37 71 34 48 46.8
Family 58 39 69 58 55 69 58
Flexibility 80 58 28 61 4o 85 58.7
Financial 61 28 87 76 39 79 61.7
Management 45 24 83 9o 62 87 65.2
Family & 67 73 84 24 31 77 39.6
Friends 53 84 30 60 45 78 58.3
Total Pre-Test 52.4 60.7 71.9 53.3 43 64.2 57.6
Total Post-Test 58.2 53.4 48.9 51.4 50 70.8 55.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

 

Appendix G

Couples Responses Verbatim

160

 

' Qualitative Feedback from Couples

A) In order of importance (most to least), what are the three things that you like best
about the premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

Ml’s)

M2’s)

-It made our relationship better.

-Ta1king to the pastor

-We talked more often.

-The ﬁnancial advice

-Program on budgeting and ﬁnances

-Organization of relationship issues

-Conﬂict resolution

-Brought issues to the table that had not been discussed

-The materials

-Spiritual guidance

-Discovering things about my bride-to-be

-Finding our differences

-It opened our eyes to things that we really didn’t discuss.

-Discussing important issues

-Sitting down and talking things out

-Being able to have both of us open up and talk about certain issues

-I really like the information given

-Made me think about things and talk about things that I normally would
not

-The discussions with the pastor about normalcy

-Learning about myself

-Helped me understand my wife better

-Leaming new ways to deal with problems

-The method of taking care of problems

-It pointed out our strengths and weaknesses.
-Sharing our feelings

-We spent more time together.

-Pastor Ben

-Comparative percentages of male/ female
—Marita1/compatibility inventory

-Financial planning

-Hearing that other couples had similar problems
-The recommended reading

-Awareness of divorce/typical problematic areas
-Feedback discussions with priest

Discussing our differences

-It forced us to open up and share our feelings.
-Strategies for working through tough times

161

M3’s)

Fl’s)

-Taking a different look at our love

-Creating a road map for the ﬁlture

-I liked the person giving the program, very friendly

-It made us talk about important issues outside of counseling
-Talking about the inventory results

-Learning about and understanding my partner

-Helped bring us closer together

-Finding out new things about my partner

-Talking about things you don’t realize will change

-It pointed out where I was on the family scale.

-Spending time with my future wife

-The communication

-Items to be concerned about

-The exchange of ideas

-The ﬁnancial advice

-The topics for discussion

-Suggestions for maintaining a long, healthy and prosperous rmrriage
-The questionnaire made me explore my feelings.

-Having a third person there to lead as we talked about our differences
-It aﬁirmed our belief that we have a good foundation for marriage.
-Learning more about each other

-Taking another look at ﬁnances

-I really enjoyed the atmosphere of the program

-Allowed us to openly express our ideas without problems

-The discussion of money

-Thinking and planning for the future

-Helped us to ﬁnd time to spend together

-Learning new ways to deal with Sarah’s dad

-The communication skills that I learned with my partner

-Learning new ways to think about my mate

-We talked more often.

-The rmterials

-Financial meeting

-Deeper levels of discussion

-Relaxed atmosphere

-The discussion about conﬂict resolution

-The prepare survey and discussion one-to-one regarding results and
planning for the future

-The prepare test and seeing the results

-Discussing diﬂ‘erences/similarities of answers of major aspects of
relationship/ﬁlture

-It pointed out areas to work on.

162

F2’s)

F3’s)

-Discussion of issues with the pastor

-Learning new ideas on how to settle our problems

-We spent more time with each other.

-The tests

-Prepare tests and results

-Objective inventory of compatibility

-Financial planning

-Financial advisement

-'I'he tools and education for each area which help us as a couple to plan
together and to understand our individual perceptions/ideas.

-The budgeting/ ﬁnancial advise

-Homework — working on some of the strengthening exercises

-It opened up new things about my partner.

-It encouraged conversation.

-Looking at good ways to handle conﬂict resolution

-Working on a budget

-Active listening

-Learning compromise

-Discussing all aspects of marriage — good and bad.

-Inventory

-Made me stop and think about some things that I didn’t before.

-Helped us really think about certain issues

-Learning new things

-Goals

-Exercises

-I enjoyed the environment and the teacher.

-The teacher

-The ﬁnancial advise

-Testimony on videotapes (Especially last session)
-Prepare questionnaire and discussion

-The ﬁnancial planning education

-Watching the video to learn suggestions ﬁ‘om other married couples

-It brought up to surface many issues we have not discussed yet. Therefore,
we talked about those things.

-It pointed out areas of nmrriage that I might have been unfamiliar with.

-It helped us to see the strengths and possible weaknesses in our
relationship.

-Finding out our suengths and weaknesses

-Learning where we need to grow as a couple

-Gave us a better understanding of why and how we are

-Talking with pastor about the results of the inventory

-Got us involved in

163

looking at who we are and what kind of peOple we are
and how we ﬁt together
-Mentally, it helped us understand each other’s views better.
-Opening up to each other
-Budget

B) In order of importance, what are the three things that you like least about the
premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

M1 ’5) -There was too much reading.
-Too many of the same questions were asked
-It was too long. One weekend would be better than 5 weeks
-Doing it outside of class
-Marriage myths
-It was a very negative program. I received a long list of pitfalls, can’t do’s
and consequences.
-The questionnaire was at times redundant.
-Driving to Midland to attend the meetings
-Hard to answer scantron questions
~Finding times to get together
-Did not talk about spiritual things at all
-The discussion of money
-Short time span to meet
-The tests
-Tbe wording on the questions

M2’s) -There were too many tests.
-Too unoﬁ‘ensive
-The lack of personal expert evaluation
-The questionnaire was sometimes vague.
-We didn’t always dig deeply into things.
-Rushed through material
-Taking the premarital test
-Figuring out my spots in my life that I need to work on.
-All of the meetings

M3’s) -There were no snacks during sessions.
-The lack of time to review the material.
-The questionnaire was long.
-Too short
-The family tree

F1 ’3) -Time ﬁ'ame; it was too much too close to the wedding.

164

-There were too many tests.

F2’s)

F3’s)

-The test was too long.

-Not being able to take the test results home

-More time should be given to couples for evaluation of their test results.
-It was very repetitive.

-Having to give yes or no answers to ambiguous questions

-Hard at times to discuss personal disagreements

-Budget planning

-Some questions were tough to answer yes or no.

-Disagreeing

-Too time consuming

-Be more speciﬁc on questions

-Only skimmed over certain subjects like raising family, fmances,e tc.
-Number of times we came

-It’s too much like school

-The test
-The wording on questions was confusing at times.

C) In order of importance, what three suggestions would you make to improve the
premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

Ml’s)

M2’s)

-Make the questions clearer

-Don’t repeat the questions

-Be more to the point

-Have a cmmselor review the answers with couples for both times
completing.

-More class time for questionnaire results

-Having real couples share their marital experiences

-A new instructor with a positive view on marriage

-More concise questionnaire

-Make the program more intensive/more in depth

-Maybe make it longer and more in depth

-Spend more time on each topic

-More counseling time

-Have the people give more ideas/situations and then talk about them

-Have teachers like ours - Pastor Metcalf

-Less tests

-Make the questions easier to understand
-Have a weekend seminar — too much downtime with current format.
-Complete questionnaire during class instead

165

-More class time (hands on) for ﬁnancial planning

M3’s)

Fl’s)

F2’s)

-Have snacks and juice available

-Have more homework assignments

-Stress the importance of communication over and over
-Attack more problems the couple might have

-Talk about more spiritual things

- Less visits

-Have snacks available

-More time for interaction

-Ability to ask for clariﬁcation on some questions while taking the test

-Give direction for next step in ﬁnancial planning — continued ed.

-The results ﬁom the survey may cause unnecessary grief— possible way to
avoid that.

-Make the couple feel more at home

-Reassure the couple that no matter what happens, this isjust going to help
them down the road.

-Shorter classes

-Stretch out the program more and have it not so close to the ceremony

-Have the teacher go over the entire test with the couples.

-Don’t repeat the questions.

-Possibly make it longer

-Call more attention to notebook and how to follow along in it.

-More time and attention given to ﬁnancial matters.

-Results ﬁ'om survey may cause unnecessary concerns for some couples.
To avoid that I suggest beginning and ending the session with an
emphasis on positive points about relationship.

-Change the family life questions to include adult family life. I think that is
as important as understanding the way we were raised.

-Not to have so many questions on children

-Maybe get couples together to talk to married couples.

-Perhaps spend more time with couples

-Go more in depth

-Make it more in depth

-Provide a list of books for couples to help them with problems after the
program - topics like money, family, etc.

-Shorter test

-It should be said that you can have a good relationship without the
involvement of the church.

-More stress on the biblical basis of the program
-Tie the bible and speciﬁc verses into class more

166

-Maybe to touch base on what place in-laws should have in your new
married life.

-Would like to hear more about what works in a marriage

-Having a chance to go through test questions together with counselor

-Work more on family of origin

-Need to set more time for discussion

-Longer sessions, less times

F 3’s) -Require at least one session where couples are paired with “mature” or
older long married couples to discuss some of the challenges of marriage.
~Ideas to open up discussions on areas that might be problem areas.

D) In order of importance, what parts of the premarital enrichment program do
you think will have the biggest impact on your marriage?

M1 ’3) -The counseling we received after identifying the weak areas.

-The goal setting portion

-We will talk more and spend more time together.

-The ﬁnancial section

-Gave me conﬁdence in my relationship because of high scores in
communication, conﬂict resohltion and spiritual beliefs

-The budgeting information

-Financial management

-It has prepared me for the unexpected.

-Practical applications of communication, commitment and ﬂexibility

-Leaming each others growth areas

-How to better communicate about differences

-The way it opened our eyes to ﬁnancial and family planning matters.

-Conﬂict resolution

-Finances

-Conﬂict resolution

-Worksheets

-Information given to help us through our problems will make a big
difference.

-It will help us talk and communicate better.

-The reinforcement that certain things are normal.

-I learned a lot about myself and I thought of a few things I could change
too.

-Leisure time

-Talking to the minister about new ways to deal with things

167

 

M2’s)

M3’s)

Fl’s)

-The ﬁnancial portion

-The homework assignment

-The communication skills

-Understanding that our weaknesses, martial expectations and sexual
expectations are not problems, just areas we must pay special attention to.

-Learning each others strength areas

-Not to walk away when I have a difference with my partner

-The way it made me realize that we need to work to maintain a good
marriage.

-Active listening

-Communication

-Recreational interests

-Watching middle issues like ﬁnancial management
-Not to be quiet of say nothing when my partner and I have a difference

-Communication skills

-Helping us work through our disagreements

-We will talk more.

-The videos

-The things that I learned about my relationship through the Prepare test

-The ﬁnancial advice

-The ﬁnancial inventory/planning portion

-Realization of the weaknesses in our relationship, i.e. conﬂict resolution,
communication

-The discussion of results of the survey - seeing where we differed and
having tools and education to plan for addressing our differences (growth
areas) and celebrating our strengths.

-The advice/ input from the video about how to understand each other when
there is a conﬂict.

-Communication skills

-I think that we may be able to recognize certain areas that might cause small

issues in our future together.

-Ta1king about our expectations

-Having a plan for resolving conﬂict and understanding what works best

-Resolving conﬂict

-Communication steps

-Active listening

-The discussion we had with our pastor about marriage and divorce. I was
able to forgive myselfand embrace my wonderful new relationship.

-The way Pastor Metcalf talked to us and made us feel comfortable and
welcome- it made a big difference.

-The test that showed our weaknesses will help us with working on those

168

F2’s)

F3’s)

areas.

-The discussions we had and the things I learned.
-Help ﬁgure out om' goals and budget for those goals

-Having the materials to refer to

-The homework assignment

-The communications skills and conﬂict styles

-Financial portion

-Ability to build bridges

-Expectations

-Finding out what we want more/less/same of from each other

-The suggestion of sharing goals for the future and acting on them

-Active listening

-Conﬂict resolution

-Knowing that most people face the same things in life and that if you work
together, you can get through it.

-We can ﬁgure out common goals to work towards.

-The stress on religion and Christ in a centered rmrriage

Budgeting properly

—Understanding the ways my partner feels about me and my weaknesses
-Handling ﬁnances ,

-Better understanding of why and who we are

169

Appendix H

Clergy Responses Verbatim

170

Qualitative Feedback from Clem

C) In order of importance (most to least), what are the three things that you like best
about the premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

1’5)

2’3)

3’3)

-It forces couples to work on communication skills.

-It is systematic and thorough.

-The tools for communication

-Practice sessions on assertiveness/active listening and conﬂict resolution
-Gives an orderly way to address matters

-Couple communication exercises

-It puts a big emphasis on skills.

-It identiﬁes strengths and growth areas (otherwise they would think that
everything is ﬁne).

-The tools for quick survey of strengths and grth areas

-Ability to zero in on a couple’s strengths and work areas

-Helps me to deal with what’s real to them

-Couple and family map

-It reveals their relationship style and dynamics.

-It is reasonably objective.

-The goal setting materials

-It’s reputation for face validity, statistical validity, and readability helped
me to introduce it with conﬁdence and exuberance.

-I have the support of an authority.

-Conﬂict resolution exercise

D) In order of importance, what are the three things that you like lean about the
premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

1’s)

-It doesn’t touch on unresolved anger issues coming from childhood
situations.

-The ﬁnancial section is too brief. More materials are needed.

-I would encourage more questions related to ﬁnancial goals.

-I wish there was advanced training offered in counseling with
Prepare/Enrich.

-The problem solving/conﬂict resolution section is too simplistic.
-The conﬂict resolution steps are too lengthy.

-Assertiveness needs clariﬁcation so not to be confused with “neediness”
or other less mature motivations.

171

C) In order of importance, what three suggestions would you make to improve the
premarital enrichment program of PREPARE 2000?

1’s)

-Increase the detail of the spiritual category for couples who are born-again
Christians.

-Personality relating style — questions/survey.

-I have used a genogram with couples. Maybe something like this could be
added.

-Evaluations on marriage expectations

-More tools to deal with sexual issues

E) In order of importance, what parts of the premarital enrichment program do you
think make the biggest impact with the couples you work with?

1’3)

2’5)

3’3)

-The identiﬁcation of strength and growth areas

-Practical skills training — listening and conﬂict resolution

-He1ps to perceive/accept what really is and gives more honesty to dealing
with these things.

-Communication

-Communication exercises

-Finances
-Time in counseling to talk to each other
~Conﬂict resolution

-Re-evaluation of strengths and weaknesses
-Resources for continued growth

172

 

Appendix I

Ottawa County Community Marriage Statement

173

Ottawa County Community Marriage Statement

Preamble

As a community we recognize that our entire society beneﬁts profoundly from families
founded on healthy, stable marriages. Healthy marriages are understood to be those
based upon a deep respect and love between partners, consistently engaged in and
expressed through a committed relationship.

We believe in the importance of the family. Children who have been nurtured in
healthy families have more resources available to them to develop the values of
kindness, compassion, respect, commitment and self-discipline. Children raised in such
environments are more likely to establish healthy marriages and families of their own.
With these resources our children are at lower risk of delinquency, substance abuse,
truancy, dropout, teenage pregnancy, domestic violence and are less likely to be
afﬂicted by poverty.

The objective is to empower couples to form healthy, lifelong marriages with the
resulting beneﬁts to the family and the community at large. We propose the adoption of
this community marriage statement — an agreed upon set of guidelines for premarital
preparation and community support for rmrriage.

The Statement

The community will encourage engaged couples to allow sufﬁcient time before their
marriage to engage in an intentional process of marital preparation designed to enhance
relationship skills, foster mutual respect and address domestic violence issues. Such
preparation is to include the use of a premarital inventory and guided counseling.
Couples beneﬁt ﬁ'om marriage preparation by gaining a greater understanding of
themselves and their partner. Couples who engage in marital preparation will enter
marriage with the knowledge that there are supportive and skilled helpers in our
community. The hope is that marital preparation will increase the possibility that
couples will seek successful and timely intervention in the time of crisis.

174

Recommendations

We invite and challenge all member of our community to mutually support and
encourage the building of healthy families. We hope to heighten our capacity as an
entire community to support and strengthen couples and families through these
proposed action steps:

Promote ﬁdelity in marriage and responsible human relationships that
respect personal boundaries.

Support the development of curricular or extra-curricular offerings through
the area school systems in “Marriage and the Family.”

Encourage clergy, health care professionals, counselors and judicial leaders
to promote em'ichment opportunities for marriages and families and to
support intervention services for families in distress.

Encourage congregations and their staff to train married couples to serve as
mentors to those who are engaged, newlywed or experiencing distress.
Encourage churches and civic organizations to cooperate by sharing
resources in creating a positive climate in which all marriages and families
are helped to succeed.

Urge each of us to examine within our vocations, ways in which current
pollicies and practices may unwittingly undermine marriage formation and
stability.

Urge each of us to implement changes in our network of relationships that
will effectively support healthy marriages and families.

175

REFERENCES

Avery, A.W., Ridley, C.A., Leslie, L.A., & Hilholland, T. (1980). Relationship
enhancement with premarital dyads: A six-month follow-up. American Journal of

Family Therapy, 8, 23-30

Bagarozzi, D.A., & Bagarozzi, M. (1982). A theoretically derived model of
premarital interventions: The building of a family system. Clinical SocLal Work Joumpl,
ﬂ, 52-63.

Bagarozzi, D.A., & Bagarozzi, J.I., Anderson, S.A., & Pollane, L. (1984).
Premarital education and training sequences (PETS): A 3-year follow-up of an
experimental study. Journal of Counseling_and Development, 63, 91-100.

Bagarozzi, D., & Rauen, P. (1981). Premarital counseling: Appraisal and status.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 9, 13-20.

Bahr, S.J., & Galligan, RI. (1984). Teenage marriage and marital stability.
Youth and Society, 15, 387-400.

Boland, J.P., & Follingstad, DR. (1987). The relationship between
communication and martial satisfaction: A review. Journal of Sex Q Marital The—rapy,
1_3, 286-313.

Booth, A., & Edwards, J. (1985). Age at marriage and marital instability.
Journal of Ma_rr1__'pge and the Family, 47, 67-75.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments
by n_ature and depigp. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research
models and fugitive ﬁndings. In R H. Wozniak & K.W. Fischer (Eds), Development
in context: Actlrg' and thinking in smciﬁc environments (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Bubolz, M.M., & Sontag, MS. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P.G. Boss,
W.J. Doberty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of

family theories and methpds: A contextual apprpacp (pp. 419-448). New York:

Plenum

Bumpass, L.L., & Sweet, J.A. (1972). Differentials in marital instability:
American Sociological Review 37. 754-766.

176

Busby, D.M., Christensen, C., Crane, D.R., & Larson, J.H. (1995). A revision
of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples:
Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family 1 he_rapy,
2_1, 289-308.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefﬁcient of agreement for nominal scales. Education and
Psychological Mepsuremept, 20, 37-46.

Floyd F.J., & Markman, H.J. (1983). Observational biases in spouse
observation: Toward a cognitive/behavioral model of marriage. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 51, 450-457.

Fournier, D.G. (1979). Validation of PREPARE: A premarital inventogy.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

 

Fournier, D.G., Olson, D.H., & Druckman, J.M. (1983). Assessing rmrital and
premarital relationships: The PREPARE-ENRICH Inventories. In E.E. Filsinger (Ed.),
Mm’ e and family assessment (pp. 229-250). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

Fowers, B.J., MonteL K.H., & Olson, DH. (1996). Predicting marital success
for premarital couple types based on PREPARE. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 22(1), 103-119.

Fowers, B.J., & Olson, DH. (1986). Predicting marital success with PREPARE:
A predictive validity study. Jom'nal of Marital and Family Thmpy, 12, 403-413.

Fowers, B.J., & Olson, DH. (1992). Four types of premarital couples: An
empirical study based on PREPARE. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 10-21.

Giblin, P. (1994). Premarital preparations: Three approaches. Pastoral
Pachology, 42(3), 147-161.

Giblin, P., Sprenkle, D.H., & Sheehan, R. (1985). Em'ichment outcome research:
A meta-analysis of premarital, marital and family interventions. Journi of Marital and
Family Thempy, 11, 257-271.

Gottman, J.M. (1991). Predicting the longitudinal course of marriage. Journal
of Marital and Family lh_e_rapy, 17, 3-7.

Heaton, T.B. (1984). Religious homogamy and marital satisfaction reconsidered.
Journpl of Marrigge and Family, 46, 720-733.

177

Holman, T.B., Larson, J.H., & Harmer, S.L. (1994). The development and
predictive validity of a new premarital assessment instrument: The preparation for
a marriage questionrmire. Family Relations, 43, 46-52.

Houseknecht, S.K., & Spanier, GB. (1980). Marital disruption and higher
education among women. U.S. Sociological Quarterly, 21. 375-390.

Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family: Toward a theog of family
process. Stan Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.

Kelly, E.L., & Conley, J .J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective
analysis of martial stability and marital satisfaction. Jourrpl of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 27-40.

Kelly, C., Houston, T.L., & Cate, RM. (1985). Premarital relatiomhip correlates of

the erosion of satisfaction in marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relatio_m_hrp§,' 2, 167-
178.

Kurdek, LA. (1991). Predictors of increases in marital distress: A 3-year
perspective longitudinal study. Development Psychology, 27, 627-636.

Larsen, A.S., & Olson, DH. (1989). Predicting marital satisfaction using
PREPARE: A replication study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, 311-322.

Larson, J.H. (1992). “You’re my one and only”: Premarital counseling for
unrealistic beliefs about mate selection. The Ameripan Journal of Family Therapy,
22(3), 242-253.

Larson, J.H., & Holman, T.B. (1994). Premarital predictors of martial quality
and stability. Family Relatiog 43, 228-237.

Larson, J.H., Holman, T.B., Klein, D.M., Busby, D.M., Stahmann, R.F., &
Peterson, D. (1995). A review of comprehensive questionnaires used in premarital
education and counseling. Family Relations, 44, 245-252.

Markman, H.J. (1979). The application of a behavioral model of marriage in
predicting relationship satisfaction of couples planning marriage. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760-762.

Markman, H.J. & Hahlweg, K. (1993). The prediction and prevention of marital
distress: An international perspective. Clinical Psychology Review. 13. 29-43.

178

Markman, H.J., Jamieson, K.J., & Floyd, F .J. ( 1983). The assessment and
modiﬁcation of premarital relationships. Advances in Family Intervention. Assessment
and Theory, 3, 41-90.

Markman, H.J., Stanley, 8., & Blumberg, S.L. (1994). Fightipg for your
p1_ar_ri_ag§ San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Martin, T.C., & Bumpass, LL. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption.
Demogmphy, 26, 37-51.

McLanahand, S., & Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of
family disruption. Ameripan Journpl of Sociology, 94, 130-152.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M.J. (1994). Qp_a11t_p' tive data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Muncy, M.W. (1983). The contribution of life cycle theory to pastoral
premarital and marriage counseling. Pastoral Pachology, 31(4), 244-253.

Olson, DH. (1983). How effective is marriage preparation? In David Mace
(Ed.), Prevenition in fgmily services (pp. 65-75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

Olson, DH. (1996). PREPARE/ENRICH counselor’s manual. Minneapolis,
MN; Life Innovations. Inventory descriptions and information used with permission.

Olson, D.H., & Olson, AK. (2000). Emppwemg’ couples: buildinﬂn your
strepgths. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Life Innovations, Inc.

Pinsof, W.M. & Wynne, LC. (1995). The efﬁcacy of marital and family
therapy: An empirical overview, conclusions and recommendations. Journal of Marital

and Family Therapy, 21, 585-613.

Ridley, C.A., & Avery, AW. (1981). Conﬂict management: A premarital

training program in mutual problem solving. The American Jourml of Family flfhirgpy,
2(4), 23-32.

Ridley, C.A., & Bain, AB. (1983). The effects of a premarital relationship
enhancement program on self-disclosure. Family Therapy, 10, 13-24.

179

Russo, F. (1997). Can the government prevent divorce. Atlantic Monthly,
October, 28-42.

 

Sillirnan, B., & Schumm, W.R. (1989). Topics of interest in premarital
counseling: Clients’ views. Journpl of Sex and Marital Therapy, 15, 199 — 205.

Spanier, GB. (1976). A new measure for assessing the quality of marriage and
similar dyads. Journpl of Marplpg' e and the Family, 38, 15-28.

Stahmann, R.F., & Heibert, W.J. (1997). Premarital and remarital counseling.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

VandeKamp, H. (1985). Mate selection and marriage: a psychodynamic family
oriented course. Teaching of Psychology, 12(3), 161-164.

Wamboldt, F.S., & Reiss, D. (1989). Deﬁning a family heritage and a new
relationship identity: Two central tasks in the making of a marriage. F_ami1y Process.
3, 317-335.

Whyte, L.K. (1990). Determinants of divorce: A review of research in the
eighties. Journal of Mm’ e and the F2_1mily. 52. 904-912.

Williams, L.M. (1992). Premarital counseling: A needs assessment among
engaged individuals. Contempppag Family Therapy, 14(6), 505-518.

Williams, L., & Jurich, J. (1995). Predicting marital success after ﬁve years:

Assessing the predictive validity of FOCCUS. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
21, 141-153.

Wood, N.S., & Stroup, H.W. (1990). Family systems in premarital counseling.
Pastoral Psychology, 39(2), 111-119.

180