A Person‐Oriented Analysis of Couple and Relationship Education

• Author: Steven M. Harris,Devin G. DuPree,Jason B. Whiting
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12222
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Date: 01 December 2016

D G. DP  J B. W Texas Tech University

S M. H University of Minnesota

A Person-Oriented Analysis of Couple

and Relationship Education

Couple and relationship education (CRE) has

effectively improved communication and rela-

tionship satisfaction, but some question its

effectiveness for couples who are at risk. Mixed

ndings may derive from focusing on aggregated

sample results. This study exploredthe benet of

using a person-oriented analysis for evaluating

CRE program effectiveness with low-income

couples and individuals. Couple participants

reported moderate improvement in communi-

cation and relationship satisfaction, but the

magnitude of reported improvement varied for

male participants from different ethnic groups.

An outcomes-focused cluster analysis showed

that variance in reported improvement can be

explained by pre-workshop outcome measures,

with couples starting in the middle range of

scores reporting the most improvement. Similar

patterns were found for individual participants.

Researchers and practitioners should further

investigate the use of person-oriented methods

in CRE program evaluation and the use of

pre-workshop assessments to adjust CRE inter-

ventions on the basis of the state of participants’

relationships at intake.

Couple relationships play an important role in a

person’s physical health and general well-being

Department of Community, Familyand Addiction Sciences,

Texas TechUniversity, 16130 SE 258th St., Covington, WA

98042 (devingdupree@gmail.com).

Key Words: Couple education, person-oriented research.

(Whisman & Uebelacker, 2003). Federal and

state governments have devoted large amounts

of funding to provide couple and relationship

education (CRE) in order to help prevent couple

distress (Hawkins & Erickson, 2015), but there

has been disagreement about the effectiveness of

this CRE initiative. For example, in the initial

ndings for the Building Strong Families (BSF)

project, researchers concluded that the BSF pro-

grams had little to no effect on participants’ rela-

tionships (Wood, Moore, Clarkwest, & Kille-

wald, 2014). Some researchers argued that the

aggregated results from the multiple sites did

not accurately capture the effectiveness of the

varying CRE interventions at the different sites,

and another study of the results found that the

BSF programs were more effective for the most

disadvantaged couples (Amato, 2014). This dis-

crepancy in arguments and evidence regarding

the effectiveness of CRE may suggest that its

effectiveness cannot be answered with a simple

yes or no question: Is CRE effective? As with

other person-centered interventions, the overall

question might be better answered through more

person-oriented questions: Who benets from

CRE? Who does not? What is the difference

between these subgroups of participants? What

implications does this have for adapting CRE to

be more effective?

Researchers have begun to address these

questions, but the methods employed in CRE

research are still predominantly variable ori-

ented. Variable-oriented methods are those in

which the results for a preselected sample are

Family Relations 65 (December 2016): 635–646 635

DOI:10.1111/fare.12222