CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120Attachment and Relationship DynamicsCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Community-Based Prevention of Marital Dysfunction: Multilevel Modeling of a Randomized Effectiveness Study.

Laurenceau, Jean-Philippe, Stanley, Scott M., Olmos-Gallo, Antonio, Baucom, Brian, Markman, Howard J.·2004·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-006x.72.6.933
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study is a cluster randomized controlled trial of the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP; H. J. Markman, S. M. Stanley, & S. L. Blumberg, 2001). Fifty-seven religious organizations (ROs), consisting of 217 newlywed couples, were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention conditions: PREP delivered by university clinicians (U-PREP), PREP delivered by RO clergy (ROPREP), and naturally occurring (NO) marriage preparation. Self-reported relationship satisfaction, negative behavior, and positive behavior were assessed at preintervention, postintervention, and 1-year follow-up. Trajectories of relationship satisfaction showed no change over time and did not differ across conditions. Trajectories of negative behavior for RO-PREP wives showed significantly greater linear declines in comparison with NO trajectories. Trajectories of positive behavior for NO and U-PREP partners showed significant declines compared with RO-PREP trajectories. Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of marital distress prevention programs in community settings are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.72.6.933

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of the 38 methodologically most rigorous marital instability studies, 35 (92%) reported significant relationships between R/S and greater marital stability.

    “Of the 38 methodologically most rigorous studies, 35 (92%) reported significant relationships between R/S and greater marital stability [255–265].”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [257]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Laurenceau, J.-P., Stanley, S. M., Olmos-Gallo, A., Baucom, B., & Markman, H. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Denver (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2004
Volume
72
Issue
6
Pages
933-943
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
DOI
10.1037/0022-006x.72.6.933
OpenAlex
W2049319606
Cited by
120
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (K01MH64779, R01MH035525, R01MH35525, K01MH064779)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
newlyweds, religious organizations, relationship satisfaction, community-based intervention, dissemination, marriage preparation
MeSH terms
Adult, Community Mental Health Services, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Marriage, Preventive Health Services, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cluster Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review