This study examined the psychometric properties of the "original" seven factored scales derived by Aldwin et al. from Folkman and Lazarus' Ways of Coping Checklist (WCCL) versus a revised set of scales. Four psychometric properties were examined including the reproducibility of the factor structure of the original scales, the internal consistency reliabilities and intercorrelations of the original and the revised scales, the construct and concurrent validity of the scales, and their relationships to demographic factors. These properties were studied on three distressed samples: 83 psychiatric outpatients, 62 spouses of patients with Alzheimer's disease, and 425 medical students. The revised scales were consistently shown to be more reliable and to share substantially less variance than the original scales across all samples. In terms of construct validity, depression was positively related to the revised Wishful Thinking Scale and negatively related to the revised Problem-Focused Scale consistently across samples. Anxiety was also related to these scales, and in addition, it was positively related to the Seeks Social Support Scale across samples. The Mixed Scale was the only original scale that was consistently related to depression and anxiety across the three samples. Evidence for concurrent validity was provided by the fact that medical students in group therapy had significantly higher original and revised scale scores than students not participating in such groups. Both sets of scales were shown to be generally free of demographic biases.

Raw scores (frequency of efforts) versus relative scores (percentage of efforts) were compared on the five scales of the revised Ways of Coping Checklist. It was hypothesized that, conditional on the source of and appraisal of a stressor, problem-focused coping should be inversely related and Wishful Thinking should be positively related to depression when relative scores were used but that raw problem-focused scores would be less clearly related to depression in such a way. It was further hypothesized that these relationships would hold for very diverse samples: psychiatric outpatients (n = 145), spouses of patients with Alzheimer's disease (n = 66), and medical students (n = 185). Given the maladaptive status of the psychiatric outpatients, it was hypothesized that they would report more emotion-focused strategies and less problem-focused coping than the nonclinical samples and that these differences would be better observed using relative rather than raw scores. The hypotheses were generally supported.

The goodness of fit among the appraised changeability of a stressor, coping, and depression in people with psychiatric, physical health, work, and family problems was examined (N = 746). It was expected that problem-focused coping (as opposed to emotion-focused coping) would be used more and be more adaptive in situations appraised as changeable as compared with situations appraised as not changeable. Although few relationships existed between appraisal and coping, tests of fit between coping and depressed mood (maladaption) were much stronger. In people with nonpsychiatric conditions, problem-focused coping and depressed mood were negatively related when a stressor was appraised as changeable but were unrelated when a stressor was appraised as not changeable. Emotion-focused coping was positively related to depression when a stressor was appraised as changeable. No general relations were observed in the people with psychiatric conditions.

This study used the following model of distress: Distress = [Exposure to Stress + Vulnerability]/[Psychological and Social Resources]. The constructs in the model were operationalized as (a) distress in response to caregiver experiences (burden); (b) exposure to stress (care recipient functional impairment in activities of daily living [ADLs]); (c) vulnerability (caregiver health problems, anger, and anxiety); and (d) resources (coping, outlook on life, and social supports). Long-term burden (15-18 months after entry) was predicted by several baseline variables: burden, care recipient ADLs, vulnerability and resource variables, and specific interactions of burden, ADLs, vulnerability, and resource variables. The interactions showed that caregivers with high vulnerability and low resources had higher burden scores than caregivers with other combinations of these variables.

The Screen for Caregiver Burden (SCB) is a measure designed to identify distressing caregiver experiences rapidly. The 25-item SCB, created specifically for spouse caregivers of Alzheimer's care recipients, provides scores for objective burden (OB; number of potentially negative experiences) and subjective burden (SB; appraised distress in response to the experiences). Three separate studies (total N = 191) demonstrate the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity (content, divergent, convergent, and criterion) of the scales. Finally, evidence suggests that changes in OB and SB over time are explained by changes in care-recipient functioning and caregiver distress.

We empirically surveyed and analyzed existing standards for the treatment of perpetrators of domestic violence across the United States. Specific areas examined included: presence and scope; administrative entity for certifying; screening and risk assessment protocols; minimum length of treatment; theoretical or conceptual orientation; treatment content; preferred or allowable modalities of treatment; whether research findings are mentioned; methods for revising standards; and minimum education and training required for providers. We examined trends using several methods including comparisons between present and previous survey data (Maiuro et al., 2001). Positive trends were evident including increased use of multivariate models of treatment content, use of an intake assessment prior to treatment, use of a danger/lethality assessment to manage risk, recognition of the need for program evaluation and supportive research, and the requirement of a minimum level of formal education as a prerequisite for providers. We identify specific areas for further research and development and make recommendations for improving existing practice and standards of care.

This study provides important information about current knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of health care providers toward the diagnosis and management of DV. This information should prove useful to all who attempt to design clinical strategies and educational programs to address this issue.

Anger, hostility, and depression were examined across four groups: a clinical sample of domestically violent men, two samples of more generally assaultive men, and a nonviolent control group. All subjects (JV = 129) were assessed using the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, the Hostility and Direction of Hostility Questionnaire, and the Beck Depression Inventory. The domestically violent men and the generally assaultive men evidenced significantly higher levels of anger and hostility than the control subjects. The anger and hostility scores were very similar in the domestically violent and the generally assaultive men. However, the domestically violent men were more likely to be significantly depressed. The findings support the idea that anger dyscontrol is a key issue in the psychological profile of domestically violent men and indicate the need for clinical attention to depression as well as anger.