Couple Therapy for Military Veterans: Overall Effectiveness and Predictors of Response

PTSD and conflict behavior between veterans and their intimate partners

“…High internal reliability has been reported in prior studies (α = .94 for men, α = .95 for women; Doss et al, 2011) along with evidence for convergent and discriminant validity (Heyman, Sayers, & Bellack, 1994). The QMI correlates highly ( r = .85 for women, .87 for men) with the widely used 32-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), and has been found to be equivalent to that measure for many purposes (Heyman et al, 1994).…”

Couples’ agreement on presenting problems predicts engagement and outcomes in problem-focused couple therapy.

“…Women at the San Diego site (M = 25.7, SD = 10,2) were significantiy more satisfied than women at the Charleston site (M = 20,8, SD = 9.8; i(143) = 2,95, p = ,004). Men at the San Diego site (M = 25,8, SD = 20,8) were also significantly more satisfied tiian men at tiie Charleston site (M = 24,6, SD = 9,6; i(141) = 2,60, p = ,01), Individuals who began treatment in the distressed range experienced larger treatment gains (men: d = 0,61, women: d = 0,58) than individuals who started in the nondistressed range (men: d = 0,19, women: d = 0,22), There were no site/treatment modality differences in change in relationship satisfaction from preto posttreatment for either men, i(144) = -0,21, p = ,98; or women, i(146) = 0,53, p = ,60, Similarly, there were no site differences for cUnically significant change, men: x^(l) = 0,22, p = ,64, women: x^(l) = 158, p = ,21, Analyses of variability in these outcomes across sites suggested that change in relationship satisfaction was more variable at the San Diego site than at the Charleston site; men: F(\) = 8,61, p < ,01, women: F(l) = 11,7, p < .001, There were scattered differences in demographic variables between sites (see Doss et al,, 2012, for more information); however, none of these demographic variables were related to pretreatment agreement on presenting problems (analyses available fi'om the authors).…”

“…For instances, problemfocused therapists were more likely to focus on teaching communication skills, x^(l) = 56,4, p < ,001, while integrative therapists tended to emphasize relationship cognitions. x^(l) -HI 97, p < .001, empathetic joining, x^(l) = 121,89, p < ,001, behavioral homework, x^(l) = 92.32, p < ,001, problem-solving training, X^ = 10.41, p < ,01, and discussion of upcoming events, x^ = 4,6, p < .05, For a more detailed description of the study procedure, see Doss et al, (2012),…”

“…Although most couple therapy trials typically involve a minimum of 10-15 sessions and as many as 26 sessions , there is also evidence to suggest that short-term, problem-focused couple therapy can yield important improvements in relationship functioning (e.g., Davidson & Horvath, 1997;Doss et al, 2012), However, it may be that short-term, problem-focused treatment is most effective when there is an identified-and agreed-upon-problem on which to focus. Altematively, longer-term integrative treatment may be less influenced by agreement or disagreement in the presenting problem as the problem definition is likely to change and evolve over the course of treatment.…”

Web-Based Couple Interventions: Do They Have a Future?

“…Couple therapy, the most empirically validated resource for relationships, with small-to-medium effect sizes in community settings ( d = .44–.47; e.g., Anker, Duncan, & Sparks, 2009; Doss, Morrison, Libet, Birchler, Madsen, & McQuaid, 2011), was accessed by less than one third of the sample. Combining these effect sizes of couple therapy in the community and the percent utilization in our sample, the impact score of couple therapy then is only 0.13 (0.29 × 0.45).…”