Treatment Intervention for Diverse Couples: Results of A Relationship Survey

Purpose: Relationship difficulties often motivate couples to seek counseling and left untreated may lead to depressive episode and domestic violence (Whisman, 2001). Time constraints and the stigma of admitting personal difficulty often limit couples' willingness to seek professional assistance (Cordova et al., 2001). This study, based on attachment and family systems theory, sought to reduce the expense and stigma of couples therapy by offering free, single session treatment. The study also sought to test the efficacy of a relationship survey used within session to pinpoint strengths and challenges of the relationship as well as the need for further intervention.

Methods: A convenience sample of survey participants in urban, suburban, and rural locales were recruited through newspaper, television, and radio outlets. Primary inclusion criteria included being over 18, signed informed consent, ability to speak English, and being in an intimate relationship of any duration (married, cohabitating, dating, heterosexual, homosexual). Following completion of a demographic form, the Powell Checklist (Powell, 1991) a 23 item, self-administered Likert scale survey was completed by each partner and includes aspects of coupling such as giving compliments. Partners rated their agreement with relationship statements (“we can talk about almost anything”) and the strength of various relationship domains (“basic values”). Therapists reviewed the survey with couples, discussed their relationship, and made recommendations if warranted. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations, and cluster analysis.

Results: Sample size was 819 (430 males, 419 females) with a mean age of 42. Couple ethnicity included Caucasian (n=531), Black (n=26), Asian (n=77), Hispanic (n=6), and First Nations (n=21). There were 383 heterosexual couples, 7 lesbian couples, and 13 gay couples. Mean relationship length was 14 years with an average of 2 children. Mean scores and standard deviations of survey items revealed strengths such as common values and parenting while liabilities included conflict resolution and sex. Analysis of couples' average and difference scores indicated lifestyle and parenting as strengths while anger and decision making as liabilities. A cluster analysis was done to see if differences between couples, based on the ratings, could predict differences in therapists' evaluations of couples' relationship quality. Difference and average variables were entered into a Two-Step Cluster analysis to see if groupings could be discerned and a significant difference on therapists' relationship ratings emerged (t (145) = 7.22, p < .001). Cluster two couples had significantly better relationship ratings (M = 1.76, SD = 0.61) than cluster one couples (M = 2.61, SD = 0.76) suggesting the Powell checklist is a clinically relevant tool.

Implications: Use of the Powell checklist to measure couple strengths and challenges appears empirically valid. As ethnically and sexually diverse couples responded to the media announcement, therapists should develop competencies to treat the specific challenges faced by these couples. Analyses support systemic work with couples that attend to individuals' perceptions and the similarities and differences of partners' perceptions. Authors will discuss the findings within the context of competency-based principles for work with couples.