Examining the Effects of Relationship Education for Same-Sex Couples: A Randomized Control Trial

Barden, Sejal M.; Carlson, Ryan G.; Toomey, Thomas M.; Locklear, Lauren Rachel; Taylor, Dalena Dillman; Silverio, Nicole

doi:10.1080/01494929.2021.1921896

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, our study does not provide evidence of the effectiveness of this approach with same‐sex couples. Research on the effectiveness HMRE services for LGBTQ populations is just beginning and is an important focus for future research (Barden et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of healthy marriage and relationship education with integrated economic stability services

Moore

Wood

2023

Family Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the effectiveness of Empowering Families, a healthy marriage and relationship education (HMRE) program for low‐income couples with children supplemented with intensive employment and financial education services.BackgroundPrevious research found that programs offering both HMRE and economic stability services improved couples' relationship quality but not their economic outcomes. Those programs did not fully integrate economic stability and relationship education content, and take‐up rates for employment services were low.MethodEight hundred seventy‐nine eligible couples were randomly assigned to either (a) a program group that was offered Empowering Families or (b) a control group that was not offering this program. Key outcomes were measured 1 year after study enrollment through surveys of both members of the couple.ResultsEmpowering Families improved all examined aspects of couples' relationship quality (the effect size of impacts ranges from 0.20 to 0.30); it did not affect relationship status. Empowering Families did not improve employment outcomes, but it did reduce economic hardship (the effect size of the impact is −0.13).ConclusionEmpowering Families achieved its central goal of strengthening couples' relationship quality. The fact that Empowering Families reduced economic hardship points to the potential value of offering financial literacy services in conjunction with relationship education.ImplicationsHMRE programs that offer intensive and integrated economic stability content can improve the outcomes of low‐income couples with children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of healthy marriage and relationship education with integrated economic stability services

Moore

Wood

2023

Family Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that a greater percentage of this shift occurred in treatment participants because the relationship education training validated relationship concerns that they may have had prior to enrollment. Barden et al (2021) discussed this trend in their qualitative study of couples who participated in similar relationship education training. Couples reported that the information they learned contributed to an initial increase in relationship concerns because they realized things that may not be going well in their relationships.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the stability of emotional regulation and psychological distress for low‐income individuals: A latent transition analysis

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous relationship education research has focused on investigating healthy relationships at the couple level, with limited research conducted on individual‐oriented relationship education programs for economically disadvantaged individuals. More specifically, there is a lack of research on how individual‐oriented relationship education programs contribute to changes in unique attributes of individuals who enroll in these programs and who would benefit most from relationship education programs. The primary aim of this study is to understand the stability of economically disadvantaged individuals' psychological distress and emotion regulation over two time points, comparing individuals randomly assigned to the relationship intervention using Prevention and Relationship Education's (PREP) Within My Reach (WMR) versus those assigned to a wait‐list control. Using a sample of 1129 economically disadvantaged individuals enrolled in the study, results indicated that the three‐class model for psychological distress and emotion regulation was the most appropriate for the latent transition analysis. Treatment group participants were more likely to transition to more adaptive models than their wait‐list control counterparts, although a small percentage of participants did transition to a less adaptive model. Implications, future directions, and limitations are discussed.

show abstract

“…Research included both using relationship programs originally designed for heterosexual cisgender partners to work with GRSM partners and adapting or creating relationship education programs specifically for GRSM relationships, and both have been effective. GRSM partners expressed high appreciation for programs developed with them in mind (Buzzella et al, 2012;Buzzella & Whitton, 2009;Feinstein et al, 2018;Hatch et al, 2021;Newcomb et al, 2017;Pepping et al, 2020;Pepping & Halford, 2014;Scott et al, 2019;Barden et al, 2022;Whitton et al, 2013;Whitton et al, 2017;Whitton et al, 2018;Whitton et al, 2016). This research, spanning now over a decade, provides information on education programs for GRSM relationships and might provide crossover information for checkups as well-including suggestions for new content, reducing heterosexist bias, reducing implicit bias for clinicians, and more (Buzzella et al, 2012;Buzzella & Whitton, 2009;Feinstein et al, 2018;Newcomb et al, 2017;Pepping et al, 2020;Scott et al, 2019;Whitton et al, 2013;Whitton et al, 2017;Whitton et al, 2018;Whitton et al, 2016).…”

Section: Relationship Wellness Programs For Grsm Relationships Existi...mentioning

confidence: 96%

Adapting the Marriage Checkup for Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minority Relationships: Responses From 18 LGBTQ Partners Completing a Pilot Program

Minten

2023

The Family Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eighteen lesbian, gay, and transgender partners (gender, romantic, and sexual minority, acronym GRSM, for this article) responded to two questions about their experience with the Marriage Checkup (MC): (1) the helpfulness of the checkup and (2) what they would like added to the checkup. Participants included six lesbians, six gay males, and six individuals in relationships where at least one partner identified as gender diverse. On the helpfulness of the checkup, the Likert scale offered three choices: helpful, a mix of helpful and not helpful, and not helpful. Of 18 participants, 17 chose “helpful.” One participant chose “a mix of helpful and not helpful.” Regarding what to add to the MC topics, top responses were “defining and managing roles,” “coping with discrimination and prejudice,” and “handling relationship disclosures.” In responses to open-ended questions, participants explored both topics in more depth. Two topics emerged to add to the MC: aging and adding additional time.

show abstract

Examining the Effects of Relationship Education for Same-Sex Couples: A Randomized Control Trial

Cited by 4 publications

References 57 publications

Impacts of healthy marriage and relationship education with integrated economic stability services

Impacts of healthy marriage and relationship education with integrated economic stability services

Examining the stability of emotional regulation and psychological distress for low‐income individuals: A latent transition analysis

Adapting the Marriage Checkup for Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minority Relationships: Responses From 18 LGBTQ Partners Completing a Pilot Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About