This chapter’s purpose is to review and illustrate some self-report assessment instruments commonly used with couples. Obviously, other assessment modes besides self-report can be utilized with couples as noted in chapter 3and chapter 5. A semistructured interview method called the Adult
COUPLES ASSESSMENT 155 Attachment Interview (AAI) bears specific mention in this chapter although it is covered in more detail in chapter 3.
The effects of failed or problematic infant–mother attachment on person- ality development, identity formation, and ability to form and sustain intimate interpersonal relationships as an adult have been receiving much attention recently (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Assessing the type of attachment an individual is capable of forming is important to take into consideration when a therapist is attempting to treat marital struggles that revolve around issues of intimacy and interpersonal closeness and separateness. The AAI (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996) is a clinical procedure that may be used by therapists to help individuals and couples identify their unique attachment patterns and dynamics that may be causing difficulties in forming committed, long-term intimate relationships.
The AAI allows the trained interviewer to identify four types of adult attachment patterns that have been shown to correspond to the four types of infant–mother attachment patterns identified by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978): secure/autonomous (secure); dismissing (avoidant); preoc- cupied (resistant or ambivalent); and unresolved/disorganized (disorganized/
disoriented). The interview is a semistructured, 1-hour protocol consisting of 18 open-ended questions. The entire interview is recorded verbatim. A scoring and classification system is then used to type individual attachment styles.
The interviewee is asked to give a general description of relationships with parents during childhood and then to give five adjectives or descriptive phrases that best describe the relationship with each parent. He is also asked to recall specific memories that can be used to illustrate and support why each descriptor was chosen; he is also asked to describe how his parents responded to unsettling events in his life such as being emotionally upset, physically hurt, or ill. Significant losses, separations, rejections, threats regarding disci- pline, incidents of abuse, or any other negative experiences that might have affected the interviewee’s development are also investigated.
The central task of the interviewer is to determine whether the inter- viewee can recall and reflect upon memories related to attachment while simultaneously maintaining coherent conceptualizations and a consistent and collaborative discourse with the interviewer. Based upon this interview, the interviewee’s state of mind is determined. From the interviewer’s determina- tion of this state, attachment style is inferred and categorized. Scales have been devised for each category; for example, two scales—coherence of transcript and metacognitive monitoring—make up the secure/autonomous category. Idealization of the speaker’s primary attachment figures; insistence on lack of memory for childhood; and active and derogating dismissal of attachment-related experiences and/or relationships are associated with dismissing adult attachments. Anger-involved attachment to a primary attach- ment figure and passivity or vagueness in discourse are scales associated with preoccupied adult attachments.
Empirical work regarding the Adult Attachment Interview is substantial and cannot be reviewed adequately in this addendum. For a detailed discus- sion of AAI research findings, the reader should consult Hesse (1999).
Research on the AAI can be broken down into four categories: psychometric properties; predictive validity studies; comparison group studies showing discriminant validity; and longitudinal studies. Rigorous training is required before one can become proficient in this highly sophisticated interviewing, scoring, and classification system. Only a handful of individuals are certified to conduct the special 2-week training institutes offered.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psycho- logical study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (1983). Methodological developments in measuring social exchange perceptions in marital dyads (SIDCARB): A new tool for clinical intervention. In D. A. Bagarozzi, A. P.
Jurich, & R. W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives in marital and family therapy: Issues in theory, research and practice (pp. 79–104). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (1989). Family diagnostic testing: A neglected area of expertise for the family psychologist. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 17, 261–274.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (1990). Intimacy needs questionnaire. Unpublished Instrument, Human Resources Consultants: Atlanta.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (2001). Enhancing intimacy: A clinician’s guide. New York: Brunner–Routledge.
Bagarozzi, D. A., & Pollane, L. (1983). A replication and validation of the Spousal Inventory of Desired Changes and Relationship Barriers (SIDCARB): Elaborations on diagnostic and clinical utilization. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 9, 303–315.
Baucom, D. H. (1982). A comparison of behavioral contracting and problem solving/communica- tions training in behavioral marital therapy. Behavior Therapy, 13, 162–174.
Birchler, G. R., & Webb, L. J. (1977). Discriminating interaction behaviors in happy and unhappy marriages. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 494–495.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.
Cromwell, R. E., Olson, D. H., & Fournier, D. G. (1976). Diagnosis and evaluation in marital and family counseling. In D. H. Olson (Ed.), Treating relationships. Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic Publishing.
Cross, D. G., & Sharpley, C. F. (1981). The Locke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Test reconsidered:
Some psychometric findings as regards its reliability and factorial validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1303–1306.
Duck, S. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships IV: Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 1–30). London: Academic Press.
Flowers, C., Robinson, B., & Carroll, J. (2000). Criterion-related validity of the marital disaffec- tion scale as a measure of marital estrangement. Psychological Reports, 86, 1101–1104.
George, C., Kaplan, J., & Main, M. (1996). Adult attachment interview protocol, 3rd ed. Unpub- lished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
Haynes, S. N., Fallingstad, D. R., & Sullivan, J. C. (1979). Assessment of marital satisfaction and interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 789–791.
Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com
COUPLES ASSESSMENT 157
Hesse, E. (1999). The adult attachment interview: Historical and current perspectives. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applica- tions. New York: Guilford.
Hoon, E. F., Hoon, P. W., & Wincze (1976). The SAI: An inventory for the measurement of female sexual arousability. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5, 291–300.
Hudson, W. (1992) The WALMYR assessment scales scoring manual. Tempe, AZ: WALMYR Pub- lishers.
Hunt, R. A. (1978). The effects of item weighting on the Locke–Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 651–661.
Kayser, K. (1993). When love dies: The process of marital disaffection. New York: Guilford.
Kayser, K. (1996). The marital disaffection scale: An inventory for assessing emotional estrange- ment in marriage. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 83–86.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction test: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.
L’Abate, L., & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1992). Sourcebook of marriage and family evaluation. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Mead, D. E., & Vatcher, G. (1985). An empirical study of the range of marital complaints found in the Areas of Change Questionnaire. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 421–422.
Olson, D. H. (2002). PREPARE/ENRICH counselor’s manual. Minneapolis: Life Innovations, Inc.
Olson, D. H., & Norem, R. (1976). Evaluation of five pre-marital programs. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
Olson, D. H., Fournier, D. G., & Druckman, J. M. (1982). Counselor’s manual for PREPARE/
ENRICH (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 2385–2386B.
Roberts, S. (1988). Test–retest reliability of the Comprehensive Areas of Change Questionnaire.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Family Sciences Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
Spanier, G. (1976) Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–30.
Spanier, G. B., & Thompson, L. (1982). A confirmatory analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 731–738.
Snyder, D. K. (1979). Marital Satisfaction Inventory. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Snyder, D. K. (1981). Manual for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory. Los Angeles: Western Psycho- logical Services.
Snyder, D. K. (1997). Marital Satisfaction Inventory–revised. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Snyder, D. K., & Regts, J. M. (1982). Factor scales for assessing marital disharmony and disaffec- tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 736–743.
Spector, I. P. (1992). Development and psychometric evaluation of a measure of sexual desire. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, New York.
Spector, I., Carey, M., & Steinberg, L. (1996). The Sexual Desire Inventory: Development, factor structure, and evidence of reliability. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 22, 175–190 Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
Straus, M. (1995). Manual for the Conflict Tactics Scales. Durham, NH: Family Research Labora- tory, University of New Hampshire.
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of family measurement techniques: Vol. III. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vatcher, G. (1988). An empirical study of the Comprehensive Areas of Change Questionnaire. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Family Sciences Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
www.Ebook777.com
Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital conflict, a technology for altering it, some data for evaluating it. In F. W. Clark & L. A.
Hamerlynck (Eds.), Critical issues in research and practice: Proceedings of the 4th Banff Inter- national Conference on Behavior Modification. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
159
CHAPTER 8
Child and Family Assessment
Strategies and Inventories