In this meta-analytic study, the authors examined the efficacy of marriage and relationship education (MRE) on 2 common outcomes: relationship quality and communication skills. A thorough search produced 86 codable reports that yielded 117 studies and more than 500 effect sizes. The effect sizes for relationship quality for experimental studies ranged from d = .30 to .36, while the communication skills effect sizes ranged from d = .43 to .45. Quasi-experimental studies generated smaller effect sizes, but these appeared to be due to pretest group differences. Moderate-dosage programs produced larger effect sizes than did low-dosage programs. For communication skills, published studies had larger effects than those of unpublished studies at follow-up; there were no publication differences for relationship quality. There was no evidence of a gender difference. Unfortunately, a lack of racial/ethnic and economic diversity in the samples prevented reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of MRE for disadvantaged couples, a crucial deficit in the body of research. In addition, intervention outcomes important to policy makers, such as relationship stability and aggression, rarely have been addressed.

This meta-analysis probes into previous research substantiating the positive effects of marriage and relationship education (MRE) on couples' communication skills. We reviewed 97 MRE research reports that yielded 143 distinct evaluation studies. We found modest evidence that MRE functions both as a universal prevention and as a selective or indicated prevention. That is, MRE demonstrates program effects at longer term follow-ups for well-functioning couples and at postassessment and shorter term follow-ups for more distressed couples. In addition, we found that observational assessments produced larger effects than self-report assessments, although interpreting the meaning of this difference is difficult.

No abstract

This study uses meta-analytic methods to explore programmatic moderators or common factors of the effectiveness of marriage and relationship education (MRE) programs. We coded 148 evaluation reports for potential programmatic factors that were associated with stronger intervention effects, although the range of factors we could code was limited by the lack of details in the reports. Overall, we found a positive effect for program dosage: moderate-dosage programs (9–20 contact hours) were associated with stronger effects compared to low-dosage programs (1–8 contact hours). A programmatic emphasis on communication skills was associated with stronger effects on couple communication outcomes, but this difference did not reach statistical significance for the relationship quality/satisfaction outcome. There was no evidence that institutionalized MRE programs (formal manuals, ongoing presence, formal instructor training, multiple evaluations) were associated with stronger effects. Similarly, there was little evidence of differences in program setting (university/laboratory vs. religious). We discuss possible explanations for these findings and implications for program design and evaluation.

Previous studies (J. S. Carroll & W. J. Doherty, 2003) have asserted that premarital education programs have a positive effect on program participants. Using meta‐analytic methods of current best practices to look across the entire body of published and unpublished evaluation research on premarital education, we found a more complex pattern of results. We coded 47 studies and found that premarital education programs do not improve relationship quality/satisfaction when unpublished studies are included in the analysis, although studies that follow couples past the honeymoon stage to detect prevention effects are rare. In contrast, premarital education programs appear to be effective at improving couple communication, with studies that employed observational measures rather than self‐report measures producing large effects. Still, given the mixed, modest results, there is ample room and a real need to improve the practice of premarital education.

No abstract

In this article, we report the results of an evaluation study of a program for couples during the transition to parenthood on father involvement in child care. One-hundred-twenty couples were assigned to 1 of the 3 groups: a treatment group that received the Welcome Baby new-parent, home-visiting program focused on infant development and health, supplemented with the self-guided Marriage Moments program focused on strengthening couple relationships; a comparison group that received just the Welcome Baby program; or a control group. The study revealed that the treatment group fathers were more involved in child care than control group fathers, and this finding was replicated in a second evaluation study. Family life educators must be open to the possibility that they may miss a primary intervention target, yet hit a secondary one.

Children of immigrants often are viewed as posing challenges to the American health and education systems because of various circumstances that disadvantage them, such as lack of fluency in English. But first-and secondgeneration children in many immigrant groups are, in fact, doing about as well as or better than their peers in native-born families along many dimensions, a phenomenon which has been referred to as the immigrant paradox because it is contrary to the broadly held view just described. In this context, the purpose of this chapter is threefold.In this chapter, we first present new results for children in immigrant families from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) for 2005-2007 to describe important family and socioeconomic circumstances separately for children whose parents differ in their English fluency. These circumstances reflect resources, constraints, and opportunities available in families and communities that shape the developmental progress of children and that are influenced by public policies. (See http://www.albany.edu/csda/ children for more detailed results from the ACS.) Insofar as the aim is to portray important features of the demographic circumstances of children in immigrant families as a backdrop for this and subsequent chapters in this volume,