An Implementation Study of Relationship Checkups as Home Visitations for Low‐Income At‐Risk Couples

Abstract

Couples with the greatest need for relationship health maintenance and intervention are often least able to afford and access it; therefore, accessible, affordable, effective, and brief interventions are needed to improve relationship health for those who need it most. Consequently, this paper examined whether a brief relationship intervention could be effectively implemented with a low‐income, underserved population. All enrolled participants (N = 1,312) received the Relationship Checkup, which consists of an assessment and a feedback session delivered in their homes or at a local clinic at their request. Measures assessed relationship satisfaction, communication, psychological and physical aggression, and intimacy at baseline and 1‐month follow‐up, and program and relationship satisfaction at 6‐month follow‐up. All participants reported significant improvements on all outcomes with small effect sizes. However, moderation analyses suggested that distressed couples reported significantly larger effects across the board. Overall, participants reported that they were highly satisfied with the intervention both immediately after its delivery and 6 months later. Findings provide preliminary support for the effectiveness of this brief checkup and point to the utility of offering these kinds of low‐cost brief interventions in flexible formats for those who might have the most difficulty accessing them.

An Uncontrolled Trial of Flexibly Delivered Relationship Education With Low‐Income, Unmarried Perinatal Couples

“…A promising potential MINC in the content area of the present study is the Relationship Checkup (RC), a brief motivational assessment and feedback intervention (Cordova et al, 2014). A recent open trial of the RC in a large sample of low-income, underserved couples demonstrated that the 90-minute intervention had clinically significant (albeit small) effects on outcomes of interest in the present study (i.e., relationship satisfaction, IPV), with large effects on relationship satisfaction for couples who were in distressed relationships at baseline (Gordon et al, 2019). More than half of the couples in the RC open trial had a child under 18 years of age living in the home, providing a different context for the delivery of the intervention than our sample of couples with a newborn.…”

University–church partnerships: A mechanism to enhance relationship health

“…Some participants had already recommended the program to others. Personal referrals are a common way for programs to reach community members and other community-based interventions have found word-of-mouth to be an effective recruitment strategy (e.g., Gordon et al, 2019). Future studies should track how participants heard about the program and whether they made any referrals.…”

The impact of a marriage checkup with transgender couples

“…The MC showed effectiveness across some demographics for cisgender couples. Coop Gordon et al (2019) found the MC improved relationship satisfaction across race/ethnicity differences and income differences. The MC was helpful for cisgender heterosexual military couples (Cigrang, 2016), and cisgender lesbian and gay couples Dykeman, 2019, Minten andDykeman, 2020).…”

“…The MC was helpful for cisgender heterosexual military couples (Cigrang, 2016), and cisgender lesbian and gay couples Dykeman, 2019, Minten andDykeman, 2020). The MC was successfully offered in clinic, home (Coop Gordon et al, 2019), and private practice (Trillingsgaard et al, 2016) settings. No research exists using the MC with transgender couples.…”