Controversies in couple relationship education (CRE): Overlooked evidence and implications for research and policy.

Abstract

Government interest in strengthening families in the United States and Great Britain has contributed to a rapid growth in couple relationship education (CRE) interventions, with a recent increase in programs for low-income families. We describe the policy contexts that initially led to increased support for CRE in both countries but now threaten its continuation. We summarize meta-analytic research and discussions of single studies by authors who draw opposing inferences about CRE effectiveness, often from the same studies. We discuss three sets of findings not featured in previous reviews, all of which focus on the potential benefits of CRE for the well-being of children. First, without intervention, average couple relationship satisfaction declines, with negative consequences for children. Second, including both parents in father involvement and parenting interventions results in value-added contributions to family functioning. Third, we describe 9 CRE intervention trials that include child outcomes, 8 of which support the assumption that CRE benefits children. These studies represent only a first step in determining what happens to children when their parents experience CRE. From both research and policy perspectives, there are too many positive findings to give credence to the claim that CRE programs should be discontinued and funding directed elsewhere. But there are too many negative findings to support the conclusion that CRE has been an unqualified success and that existing programs should be offered more widely. The negative findings and criticisms have much to teach us about potential modifications to CRE programs that will lead to more effective CRE approaches.

The Effects of Relationship Education in Low‐Income Couples: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized‐Controlled Evaluation Studies

“…Because RE mostly did not elicit statistically significant effects in fathers and father‐specific RE programs, future evaluation studies need to examine how men can be approached with regard to program content, workshop settings, and general teaching methods. Up to now, it can be concluded that working with both partners is the most effective approach (see Table ; Cowan & Cowan, ), and this might also hold for programs focusing on fatherhood.…”

Changing Families: A Preventive Intervention Perspective

“…Skepticism about CRE has been countered in a series of meta‐analyses and rejoinders by Hawkins and colleagues (Fawcett, Hawkins, Blanchard, & Carroll, ; Hawkins et al, ), showing that CRE programs, using many program models (with PREP as a leading systematically researched example; Stanley, Blumberg & Markman, ; Stanley et al, ) do in fact tend to produce improvements in couple communication. Our review of this issue (P. A. Cowan & Cowan, ) concluded that “from both research and policy perspectives, there are too many positive findings to give credence to the claim that CRE programs should be discontinued and funding directed elsewhere” (p. 361), while acknowledging that there are too many negative findings to assume automatically that every couples group program will be effective. Meta‐analyses, in effect, reported the average effect size of the CRE programs included in the analysis.…”

The Effects of Mother Participation in Relationship Education on Coparenting, Parenting, and Child Social Competence: Modeling Spillover Effects for Low‐Income Minority Preschool Children

“…Variations in effectiveness were found between sites. A critique of these larger studies suggests that more can be learned from disaggregating sites and uncovering and learning more about site/program‐specific implementation designs and outcomes (Cowan & Cowan, ).…”