Working As A School Psychologist With Children From Divorce Family

Fifteen-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial of a Preventive Intervention for Divorced Families: Effects on Mental Health and

Substance Use Outcomes in Young Adulthood

Sharlene A. Wolchik, Irwin N. Sandler, Jenn-Yun Tein, Nicole E. Mahrer, Roger E. Millsap, Emily Winslow, Clorinda Vélez, Michele M. Porter, Linda J. Luecken, and Amanda Reed

Arizona State University

Objective: This 15-year follow-up assessed the effects of a preventive intervention for divorced families, the New Beginnings Program (NBP), versus a literature control condition (LC). Method: Mothers and their 9- to 12-year-olds (N � 240 families) participated in the trial. Young adults (YAs) reported on their mental health and substance-related disorders, mental health and substance use problems, and substance use. Mothers reported on YA’s mental health and substance use problems. Disorders were assessed over the past 9 years (since previous follow-up) and 15 years (since program entry). Alcohol and marijuana use, other substance use and polydrug use, and mental health problems and substance use problems were assessed over the past month, past year, and past 6 months, respectively. Results: YAs in NBP had a lower incidence of internalizing disorders in the past 9 years (7.55% vs. 24.4%; odds ratio [OR] � .26) and 15 years (15.52% vs. 34.62%; OR � .34) and had a slower rate of onset of internalizing symptoms associated with disorder in the past 9 years (hazard ratio [HR] � .28) and 15 years (HR � .46). NBP males had a lower number of substance-related disorders in the past 9 years (d � 0.40), less polydrug (d � 0.55) and other drug use (d � 0.61) in the past year, and fewer substance use problems (d � 0.50) in the past 6 months than LC males. NBP females used more alcohol in the past month (d � 0.44) than LC females. Conclusions: NBP reduced the incidence of internalizing disorders for females and males and substance-related disorders and substance use for males.

Keywords: divorce, prevention, young adults, mental health, substance use

Although the rate of divorce in the United States has stabi- lized or decreased somewhat since the 1970s (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005), it is estimated that

30%–50% of youths in the United States will experience pa- rental divorce in childhood or adolescence (National Center for Health Statistics, 2008). Although most youths do not experi- ence significant adjustment problems after parental divorce (e.g., Amato, 2001; Hetherington, 1999), there is compelling evidence demonstrating that divorce confers increased risk for multiple problems in childhood and adolescence, including mental health problems and disorders (e.g., Amato, 2001; Fer- gusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1994), elevations in substance use (e.g., Eitle, 2006; Paxton, Valois, & Drane, 2007), early onset of sexual activity (Hetherington, 1999), and physical health problems (Troxel & Matthews, 2004). For a sizeable subgroup, the negative effects of parental divorce continue into adulthood. Multiple prospective studies with epidemiologic samples have shown that parental divorce is associated with substantial increases in clinical levels of mental health prob- lems, substance abuse, mental health service use, and psychi- atric hospitalization in adulthood (e.g., Afifi, Boman, Fleisher, & Sareen, 2009; Kessler, Davis, & Kendler, 1997). Illustra- tively, in the National Comorbidity Study, Kessler et al. (1997) found that parental divorce was related to elevated rates of multiple mental (odds ratio [OR] range � 1.39 –2.61) and substance-related (OR range � 1.46 –2.38) disorders, control- ling for demographics including age, sex, race, and family socioeconomic status (SES). Similarly, Chase-Lansdale, Cher- lin, and Kiernan (1995) reported a 39% increase in the odds of being above the clinical cut-point on mental health problems at

This article was published Online First June 10, 2013. Sharlene A. Wolchik, Irwin N. Sandler, Jenn-Yun Tein, Nicole E.

Mahrer, Roger E. Millsap, Emily Winslow, Clorinda Vélez, Michele M. Porter, Linda J. Luecken, and Amanda Reed, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University.

Clorinda Vélez is now at the Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College.

Sharlene A. Wolchik, Irwin N. Sandler, and Michele M. Porter declare the following competing financial interest: Partnership in Family Transi- tions—Programs That Work LLC, which trains and supports providers to deliver the New Beginnings Program. This research was funded by National Institute of Mental Health Grants 5R01MH071707, 5P30MH068685, and 5P30MH039246 (Trial Registration: clinicaltrials .gov; Identifier: NCT01407120). We thank Philip G. Poirier and Linda Sandler for their support throughout this project; the mothers and young adults for their participation; Monique Nuno, Toni Genalo, and Michele McConnaughay for their assistance with data collection and management; the interviewers for their commitment and dedication to this project; and Janna LeRoy for her technical assistance. We also thank the group leaders and graduate students for their assistance with implementing the programs.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sharlene A. Wolchik, Prevention Research Center, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 876005, Tempe, AZ 85287-6005. E-mail: sharlene.wolchik@asu.edu

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 81, No. 4, 660 – 673 0022-006X/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0033235

660

 

 

age 23 as a function of parental divorce, controlling for pre- divorce emotional problems, school achievement, and SES.

Because of the high prevalence of divorce and its association with multiple problem outcomes, divorce has a considerable im- pact on population rates of youth and adult problems (Scott, Mason, & Chapman, 1999). The population attributable risk (PAR; the proportion of an outcome in the population due to a risk factor or percent of cases that could be prevented by removing the factor or its consequences) provides an important perspective on the public health significance of preventive interventions for this at- risk group. Illustratively, using data from a nationally representa- tive survey of adults (Kessler et al., 1997), and controlling for demographics, prior disorders, and adversities, the PAR of parental di- vorce for drug dependence is 23% (OR � 1.73). Given these data, the development and evaluation of interventions for youths in di- vorced families have clear public health significance.

To date, several randomized experimental trials of programs for either youths or parents from divorced families have shown pos- itive short-term effects on youths’ mental health outcomes (Braver, Griffin, & Cookston, 2005; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Pedro- Carroll & Cowen, 1985; Stolberg & Garrison, 1985; Wolchik, Sandler, Weiss, & Winslow, 2007; Wolchik et al., 2000, 1993). Further, some studies have documented maintenance of these effects 2–9 years following program completion, with a few dem- onstrating program effects when youths were in mid- to late adolescence (DeGarmo & Forgatch, 2005; DeGarmo, Patterson, & Forgatch, 2004; Forgatch, Patterson, DeGarmo, & Beldavs, 2009; Pedro-Carroll, Sutton, & Wyman, 1999; Stolberg & Mahler, 1994). However, two limitations of these follow-up evaluations are notable. First, none have examined program effects on measures of onset (i.e., incidence) of mental health or substance-related disor- ders subsequent to participation in the intervention. Second, none have examined the impact of prevention programs delivered in childhood on outcomes when the offspring are young adults. Examining the effects of prevention programs on the incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders in young adulthood is an important indicator of long-term prevention effects because it has been found that 75% of lifetime cases of such disorders have their onset by age 24 (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Jin, & Walters, 2005). Illustratively, several of the mental disorders that are asso- ciated with parental divorce and have significant public health burden, such as depression and substance-related disorders, have a median age of onset (Burke, Burke, Regier, & Rae, 1990) and/or increase or peak in prevalence during this stage (e.g., Kessler et al., 2005). Further, research has consistently shown that young adult- hood is a period when individual trajectories related to psychopa- thology become more firmly established so that having a mental disorder in young adulthood has implications for both concurrent and future functioning (e.g., Arnett & Tanner, 2006). For example, chronic, heavy substance use in young adulthood is associated with current and future mental health and physical health difficulties, criminal behavior, and antisocial personality disorders (Arnett & Tanner, 2006).

Assessment of whether the effects of preventive interventions last into young adulthood is also interesting from a theoretical perspective. Prevention programs are designed to modify social environmental risk and protective factors as well as individual- level competencies and problems. The underlying theory is that changing these risk and protective factors will impact the devel-

opment of problems and disorder at later developmental periods (Coie et al., 1993; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine [NRC/IOM], 2009). Because 75% of mental disorders have their onset by young adulthood, testing the long-term mental health and substance use outcomes in young adulthood of a pre- ventive intervention delivered in childhood provides a stringent test of this theoretical proposition (NRC/IOM, 2009).

This article reports on a 15-year follow-up in young adulthood of a randomized controlled trial that compared a parenting pro- gram for divorced mothers, a dual-component program consisting of the program for mothers and a child coping program, and a literature control condition that were provided when the youths were between ages 9 and 12 (Wolchik et al., 2000). The underlying conceptual model of the program is based on elements from a person– environment transactional framework and a risk and pro- tective factor model. In transactional models, aspects of the social environment affect the development of problems and competen- cies in an individual, which in turn influence the social environ- ment and development of competencies and problems at later developmental stages (e.g., Sameroff, 2000). Derived from epide- miology (Institute of Medicine, 1994), the risk and protective factor model posits that the likelihood of mental health problems is affected by exposure to risk factors and the availability of protec- tive resources. Cummings, Davies, and Campbell’s (2000) “cas- cading pathway model” integrates these two models into a devel- opmental framework. From this perspective, stressful events, such as divorce, can lead to an unfolding of failures to resolve devel- opmental tasks and increase susceptibility to mental health prob- lems and impaired competencies. Parenting is viewed as playing a central role in facilitating children’s successful adaptation, and the skills and resources that are developed in successful resolution of developmental tasks, such as effective coping and academic suc- cess, are viewed as important tools when youths face challenges in subsequent developmental periods.

Prior research has shown (a) positive effects of the parenting program versus the literature control condition on externalizing problems at posttest and 6-month follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2000); (b) positive effects of the parenting program versus the literature control condition and the dual-component condition versus the literature control condition on multiple mental health and sub- stance use outcomes, including mental disorder, at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002); and (c) no difference in the effects of the parenting program and the dual-component program on mental health outcomes at posttest, 6-month, or 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002, 2007, 2000). Mediational analy- ses indicated that improvements in mother– child relationship qual- ity at posttest accounted for program-induced effects on increased coping efficacy and active coping as well as reduced internalizing and externalizing problems for those with high baseline risk for maladjustment at the 6-year follow-up. In addition, improvements in effective discipline at posttest accounted for program-induced effects on reduced externalizing problems at the 6-month follow-up and higher grade point average (GPA) at the 6-year follow-up (Tein, Sandler, MacKinnon, & Wolchik, 2004; Zhou, Sandler, Millsap, Wolchik, & Dawson-McClure, 2008).

The current study examined program effects on the incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders; levels of internal- izing, externalizing, and substance use problems; and frequency of substance use 15 years after participation. Mental health and

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

661FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES

 

 

substance-related disorders were assessed in two ways. First, the incidence of disorder with onset during the 9-year period since the last follow-up assessment, which occurred 6 years after program completion, was assessed. Developmentally, this measure repre- sents disorders that have their onset during mid-adolescence to young adulthood. Second, the incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders with onset since program entry (i.e., during the last 15 years) was assessed. The 9-year interval was used so that program effects on incidence of disorder would be distinct from previously reported findings at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002); the 15-year interval was used to assess the overall effects of the program on incidence of mental health and substance-related disorders. It was hypothesized that young adults (YAs) in the mother program or dual-component program would have a lower incidence of disorders than those in the literature control condition. Given that baseline risk moderated program effects at earlier assessments (Wolchik et al., 2002, 2007, 2000), with stronger effects occurring for those at higher risk at program entry, risk was examined as a moderator. Also, given the associ- ation between gender and mental health problems and substance use in young adulthood (e.g., Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2008), gender was examined as a moderator.

Method

Participants

Participants were YAs and their mothers from 240 divorced families who participated in a randomized controlled trial of a preventive intervention 15 years earlier. Of the YAs interviewed, 50% were female. Average age of YAs was 25.6 (SD � 1.2, range � 24 –28). Ethnicity was 88.7% non-Hispanic White, 6.7% Hispanic, 2.1% African American, and 2.5% other. Educational attainment of YAs was as follows: less than high school—2.6%; high school only—22.1%; some college— 45.4%; college graduate—29.4%; post-graduate—3.1%. Of the YAs, 51% were married or living as if married. YA median annual income was in the $30,000 range (choices were $5,000 categories ranging from �$5,000 to �$200,000).

The primary method of recruitment for the trial involved the use of randomly selected court records of divorce decrees that in- volved children and were granted within 2 years of the interven- tion’s start. Eighty percent of the sample was recruited in this way; the remainder responded to media advertisements. Families were first sent a letter about the study, which was followed by a phone call to assess eligibility criteria and invite mothers to participate in an in-home recruitment visit. Eligibility was assessed at pretest as well.

Eligibility criteria were (a) divorced in past 2 years; (b) primary residential parent was female; (c) at least one 9- to 12-year-old child resided (at least 50%) with the mother; (d) neither mother nor any child was in treatment for mental health problems; (e) mother had not remarried, did not plan to remarry during the program, and did not have a live-in boyfriend; (f) custody was expected to remain stable; (g) family resided within an hour drive of program site; (h) mother and child could complete assessments in English; (i) child was not learning disabled or in special education; and (j) if diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, child was taking med- ication. The criterion of maternal residential living arrangements

was selected because at the time of the trial, about 80% of children lived primarily with their mothers after divorce (Cancian & Meyer, 1998). In families with multiple children in the age range, one was randomly selected as the target child for the assessment of program effects to ensure independence of responses. Because of the pre- ventive nature of the program and ethical concerns, families were excluded and referred for treatment if the child scored above 17 on the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985), en- dorsed an item indicating that she/he wanted to kill herself/himself, or scored above the 97th percentile on the Externalizing Subscale (Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL]; Achenbach, 1991).

The trial was conducted at Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe, Arizona. The study was approved by the ASU Institutional Review Board. Assessments (i.e., pretest; posttest; and 3-month, 6-month, 6-year, and 15-year follow-ups) were typically con- ducted in the participants’ homes; a few occurred at the university. Interviews for three YAs who lived abroad were conducted via skype; the items in the self-administered questionnaires were read aloud in these cases. The intervention groups were held at the university. Assessments were conducted by trained interviewers who were blind to program condition. Parents and youths older than 18 signed informed consent forms; children signed informed assent forms. Families received $45 compensation for participating in the interviews at pretest, posttest, 3-month, and 6-month follow- ups. At the 6-year follow-up, adolescents and parents each re- ceived $100; at the 15-year follow-up, young adults received $225, and parents received $50.

Sample Size, Power, and Precision

A sample size of 240 was selected so that small to medium effects, the magnitude of the effects found in the pilot study of the mother program (Wolchik et al., 1993), could be detected with power of �.80. Hypothesis tests were conducted using two-tailed tests with � � .05. Assuming the covariates account for 25% of the variance, power to detect small to medium (Cohen’s d � 0.32) effects of mean differences is .80 using analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs). Assuming a 30% base rate of diagnosis in the literature control condition (LC), power is over .90 to detect an OR of 2 with logistic regression. Assuming a .25 control hazard rate, power to detect a risk ratio of .5 is .87 in survival analyses.

Measures

Mental health outcomes. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule IV (DIS; Robin et al., 2000) was administered to YAs to assess internalizing and externalizing disorders. The DIS has adequate reliability and validity (Compton & Cottler, 2000) and has been used in numerous epidemiologic studies of mental disorder (e.g., Grant et al., 2004). The presence of disorder was scored according to the DIS manual. YAs met criteria for a disorder if they endorsed the required symptoms and reported that the symptoms caused impairment (problems) in social, occupational, or other areas of functioning. Disorders were classified as internalizing or external- izing based on the consensus of three doctoral-level clinicians.

As noted earlier, the incidence of disorder was assessed over two periods of time: past 9 years and past 15 years. To assess program effects on disorders that were distinct from those reported at the 6-year follow-up, dichotomous disorder scores were created

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

662 WOLCHIK ET AL.

 

 

based on whether criteria for any externalizing disorder, any internalizing disorder, and any internalizing or externalizing dis- order were met with symptom onset in the past 9 years using the standard DIS methods for dating onset (Robin et al., 2000). To ensure that the disorders reported on the DIS with onset in the last 9 years were new disorders rather than continuations of disorders reported at the 6-year follow-up, scores on the Diagnostic Inter- view Schedule for Children (C-DIS; Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dul- can, & Schwab-Stone, 2000) at the 6-year follow-up were also examined to check that disorders dated as having their onset in the past 9 years were not present when youth were interviewed at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002; C-DIS, algorithm version J). None of the disorders with onset during the last 9 years represented the continuation of a disorder that was reported at the 6-year follow-up. To assess overall effects of the program on incidence of disorder, the same scores as above were calculated with the time frame being since program entry (during the last 15 years).

To assess recent mental health problems, the internalizing prob- lems and externalizing problems subscales of Adult Self-Report (ASR; YA; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003) and Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL; mother; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003) were used. These scales, which assess mental health problems in the past 6 months, have adequate reliability and validity (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003). Alphas for internalizing problems were .90 and .92 for YA and mother reports, respectively; alphas for external- izing problems were .84 and .92 for YA and mother reports, respectively. Mother and YA scores were standardized and then averaged.

Substance use outcomes. A dichotomous disorder score for presence of any substance-related disorder and a continuous score for number of substance-related disorders with symptom onset in the last 9 years were assessed using the standard DIS method for dating onset. As with mental health disorders, scores on the C-DIS at the 6-year follow-up were also examined to check that disorders dated as having their onset in the past 9 years were not present when youths were interviewed at the 6-year follow-up. None of the substance-related disorders reported on the DIS with onset during the last 9 years represented a continuation of a disorder reported at the 6-year follow-up. Scores for any substance-related disorder and number of substance-related disorders during the last 15 years were assessed using the standard DIS methods for dating onset.

Age of onset of regular drinking was derived from the DIS. Items from the Monitoring the Future Scale (MTF; Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1993) were used to assess alcohol use and marijuana use in the past month (1 � 0 occasions, 7 � 40 or more) and other drug use (i.e., mean of ratings for 13 drugs other than alcohol and marijuana; 1 � 0 occasions, 7 � 40 or more) and polydrug use (count of different drugs used) in the past year. The MTF has adequate internal consistency reliability and validity (Johnston et al., 1993). To maximize validity, MTF items were self-administered (Gribble, Miller, Rogers, & Turner, 1999). Sub- stance use problems in the past 6 months were assessed by stan- dardizing and averaging mother (ABCL) and YA (ASR) reports. Achenbach and Rescorla (2003) noted that alpha is not applicable for this subscale. Binge drinking was measured using an adaptation of an item from the Quantity and Frequency of Alcohol and Drugs Scale (Sher, Walitzer, Wood, & Brent, 1991) that assessed the frequency of binge drinking in the past year (1 � less than five

times, 2 � more than 5 times but less than once a month, 3 � 1–3 times a month, 4 � 1–2 times a week, 5 � 3–5 times a week, 6 � every day). This item is highly similar to those typically used to define binge drinking behavior (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011).

Covariates. Baseline risk, internalizing problems, and self- esteem were used as covariates in all analyses. Risk, as defined by (Dawson-McClure, Sandler, Wolchik, and Millsap (2004), was a composite score (i.e., equally-weighted sum of standardized scores) of the following: (a) mother and child reports of child externalizing problems at baseline (the 33-item externalizing sub- scale of the CBCL [Achenbach, 1991; � � .86] for mother report; the 27-item Divorce Adjustment Project Externalizing Scale [Pro- gram for Prevention Research, 1985; � � .87] for child report) and (b) environmental stressors (i.e., a multicomponent measure of interparental conflict, negative life events that occurred to the child, maternal distress, missed visits with the non-custodial father, current per capita annual income). This composite risk measure had been found to predict child mental health problems in the control group of the randomized trial of New Beginnings Program (NBP) at the 6-year follow-up and to moderate the NBP’s effects on internalizing problems, externalizing problems, substance use, mental disorder, and competence at the 6-year follow-up, such that stronger intervention effects were found for youths at higher risk at program entry (Dawson-McClure et al., 2004). Accordingly, we included the risk measure as a covariate and examined whether risk interacted with NBP’s effects at the 15-year follow-up. The inclusion of internalizing problems and self-esteem was based on results of analyses comparing non-respondents and respondents at the 15-year follow-up on 16 baseline variables (Jurs & Glass, 1971), which showed no significant Attrition � Group interactions but two significant main attrition effects. On average, respondents had significantly lower self-esteem (20.45 vs. 21.53; p � .03) and higher levels of internalizing problems (�0.06 vs. �0.30; p � .03) than non-respondents. Pretest internalizing problems was a com- posite of standardized scores on the CBCL Internalizing subscale (� � .87, mother report), the CDI (� � .87, child report), and Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (C. R. Reynolds & Richmond, 1978; � � .90, child report). Pretest self-esteem was assessed with the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985; � � .71, child report).

Intervention and Control Conditions

Intervention conditions. The mother program consisted of 11 group sessions (1.75 hr each) that focused on four family processes that had been shown to predict children’s post-divorce adjustment problems and could potentially be changed by working with moth- ers (Wolchik et al., 2000). The program taught skills to improve mother– child relationship quality and effective discipline, de- crease barriers to father– child contact and reduce children’s ex- posure to interparental conflict. Clinical methods, based on social learning and cognitive behavioral theories, were derived from intervention research (e.g., relationship quality: Guerney, Coufal, & Vogelsong, 1981; discipline: Patterson, 1976; anger manage- ment: Novaco, 1975). The specific skills that were taught in the program are provided in Figure 1. Based on Marlatt and Gordon’s (1985) work, maintenance strategies included leaders providing many opportunities for parents to practice and get feedback on

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

663FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES

 

 

program skills and to address problems with their use, giving parents handouts on skills and forms to track use of the skills after the program, and leaders attributing change to maternal efforts. The highly structured program used active learning methods, vid- eotaped modeling, and role plays. Homework assignments focused on practicing the program skills. Two individual sessions were held: One focused on ways to increase use of the program skills; the other focused on ways to increase use of the program skills and ways to decrease barriers to father– child contact. There were 18 mother groups (9 in the mother program condition and 9 in the dual-component condition); average group size was 9 (range � 8 –10).

In the dual-component program, mothers participated in the mother program and children participated concurrently in an 11- session group program. The child program targeted active coping, avoidant coping, threat appraisals of divorce stressors, and mother– child relationship quality. The change strategies, based on social learning and social cognitive theory, were derived from intervention research (e.g., coping and appraisals: Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985; relationship quality: Guerney et al., 1981). The dual-component program included one conjoint group session in which mothers and children practiced listening/communication skills. The specific skills that were taught in the program are provided in Figure 2. Didactic presentations, videotapes, leader modeling, role plays, and engaging games were used to teach the program skills. Homework involved practicing the program skills. There were nine child groups with an average group size of 9 (range � 9 –10). For more information about the programs, see Wolchik et al. (2007, 2000).

Each group was led by two master’s-level clinicians (13 leaders for mother groups; 9 for child groups). The leaders used highly detailed session manuals to deliver the groups. Extensive training (30 hr prior to the start of the program and 1.5 hr per week during delivery) and weekly supervision (1.5 hr per week) were provided by doctoral-level clinicians. Prior to delivery of each session, leaders were required to score 90% on a quiz of the content of the session. Average scores were 97% (SD � 3%) and 98% (SD � 1%) for leaders in the mother and child groups, respectively.

Control condition. In the literature control condition (LC), mothers and children received three books each about children’s divorce adjustment and a syllabus to guide their reading. Books were mailed to families at 1-month intervals.

Random Assignment

After completion of the pretest, families were randomly as- signed to one of three conditions: mother, dual-component, or LC. Randomization was conducted by project staff other than the investigators and interviewers. A computer-generated algorithm developed by a researcher not involved in the trial was used to assign families to condition. Randomization was conducted within the evening availability pool (Tuesday vs. Thursday) because some families could attend on only one of the two nights the groups were offered.

Masking

Interviewers were given no information about families’ program condition. To reduce the likelihood that interviewers would learn about the condition, at the beginning of the interview, participants were asked not to discuss their program. After the assessment was complete, interviewers completed a question about knowledge of the participant’s intervention condition. At the 15-year follow-up,

Mother-Child Relationship

Quality

• Family Fun Time • One-on-one Time • Catch’em being good • Listening Skills

Effective Discipline

• Set clear, consistent & appropriate expectations

• Monitor misbehavior • Implement change plan • Use consequences

consistently

Interparental Conflict

• Self talk to keep children out of conflict

• Anger management • Talk to adults when angry

at ex-spouse • Respectful requests to

prevent others from saying negative things about ex- spouse to children

Father-child Contact

• Education about importance of child’s relationship with father

• Reduction of obstacles to visitations

Figure 1. Risk and protective factors and change strategies mother pro- gram.

• Problem solving training

• Positive cognitive restructuring

• Feeling awareness

• Relaxation

• Information about divorce

• Information about divorce

• Positive reframing

Mother-Child Relationship

Quality

Active Coping

Avoidant Coping

Negative Appraisals

• Communication Skills

Figure 2. Risk and protective factors and change strategies child pro- gram.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

664 WOLCHIK ET AL.

 

 

95% (mother interviewers) and 96% (YA interviewers) were blind to assignment.

Data Analytic Approach

Given the lack of differences between the mother and dual- component programs in prior evaluations (Wolchik et al., 2002, 2007, 2000), preliminary analyses comparing these two conditions on all outcome measures at the 15-year follow-up were conducted using logistic regression for dichotomous outcome variables and ANCOVAs for continuous outcomes. The two conditions differed on 4% of the comparisons. Because fewer differences than would be expected by chance were found, these conditions were combined and labeled the New Beginnings Program (NBP). Inter- vention effects were evaluated by comparing the NBP and LC.

Baseline equivalence of the NBP and LC on demographic and child functioning variables was tested using �2 (categorical) or t statistics (continuous). Attrition analyses (Jurs & Glass, 1971; analyses of variance [continuous]; �2 test or logistic regression [dichotomous]) were conducted to examine whether attrition rates differed across condition and whether attrition or Attrition � Intervention effects were related to baseline demographic or child functioning variables.

Intervention effects were examined with logistic regression (di- chotomous), ANCOVAs (continuous), and Cox proportional haz- ards survival analysis (i.e., onset of drinking, onset of internalizing symptoms for those who developed an internalizing disorder, onset of externalizing symptoms for those who developed an external- izing disorder), controlling for baseline risk. For each outcome, differential program effects were first examined across baseline risk and YA gender. If an interaction were significant, tests of simple effects were conducted. If an interaction were not signifi- cant, the analysis was re-run without the interaction term.

An intent-to-treat approach with the original 240 families was employed in all analyses except those that used DIS disorder scores (i.e., presence of internalizing disorder, presence of exter- nalizing disorder, presence of an internalizing or externalizing disorder, presence of substance-related disorder, and number of substance-related disorders) and onset of regular drinking. In the analyses of DIS scores in the last 9 years (since the last follow-up), YAs who reported a disorder with any broadband symptom onset more than 9 years earlier (i.e., internalizing symptom, externaliz- ing symptom, substance use symptom), as assessed on the DIS, or who met criteria for an internalizing, externalizing, or substance- use disorder on the C-DISC at the 6-year follow-up, were not included (internalizing disorder [43 excluded]; externalizing dis- order [14 excluded]; substance-related disorder and number of substance-related disorders [29 excluded]). In the analyses of DIS scores since the program began (i.e., last 15 years), YAs who reported a disorder on the DIS with symptom onset prior to the beginning of the program were excluded (substance use [3 ex- cluded]; internalizing disorders [26 excluded]; externalizing dis- orders [4 excluded]). In the analyses of onset of regular drinking, YAs who reported that they started drinking before the program began were excluded (4 excluded).

The rates of missing data for study variables and covariates ranged from 0% to 23% (Mdn � 19%). Because missingness was related to baseline self-esteem and internalizing problems, missing at random (MAR) was assumed. Mplus software (Muthén &

Muthén, 1998 –2010) was employed for analyzing continuous variables, using full-information maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data. Due to the inability of Mplus to handle missing data with categorical or count variables, SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, 2010)—incorporating the multiple imputation procedure for missing data—was used for analyzing dichotomous variables and time of onset (Ake & Carpenter, 2002). Both methods are based on expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm of handling missing data and are comparable in performance (Schafer & Gra- ham, 2002).

Because the intervention was delivered in a group format, NBP participants were nested within group. The intra-class correlations (ICCs) for binary variables were computed using Guo and Zhao’s (2000) procedure. ICCs across all of the study variables for the intervention group were very low with a mean of 0.02 (SD � 0.03).

To adjust for multiple tests, the false discovery rate (Benjamini & Hochberg, 2000), which controls for the expected proportion of false positives among all significant hypotheses, was applied to the main and interaction effects separately for mental health and substance use outcomes. We interpreted effects as reliable if the false discovery rate (FDR) was � 10% and the observed p value met Benjamini–Hochberg’s adaptive FDR criterion (Benjamini & Hochberg, 2000).

Results

Participant Flow

Figure 3 depicts the screening and enrollment process. As shown in Figure 3, of the 1,331 families contacted by phone, 709 (53%) did not meet eligibility criteria, 218 (16%) did not complete the recruitment visit, 112 (8%) declined participation, 26 (2%) did not complete the pretest, 49 (4%) were ineligible at pretest, and 26 (2%) terminated participation between pretest and random assign- ment to condition, which occurred after the pretest. Two hundred forty families (38% of those that were eligible) were randomly assigned to the mother program (n � 81), dual-component pro- gram (n � 83), or LC (n � 76). In accord with intent-to-treat designs, all participants who were randomly assigned to condition were included in the analyses.

Families were recruited for participation in the randomized trial from 3/1992 to 12/1993. Data for this report are from the 15-year follow-up (4/2007–1/2009), which occurred an average of 15.3 years (SD � 0.10) after the posttest. At the 15-year follow-up, data were collected from 89.6% of the families (194 YAs; 204 of the mothers) randomly assigned to condition. Rate of attrition at 15-year follow-up did not differ significantly across the NBP condition (9.8%) and the LC condition (11.8%), �2(1, N � 240) � 0.24, p � .65. Length of follow-up did not differ across condition (p � .36).

Treatment Integrity

Using lists of session content areas (number of areas ranged from 7 to 11), independent observers rated videotapes for the degree of completion of each content area. Inter-rater reliability, assessed for a randomly selected 20% of the sessions, averaged 98%. The average rate of completion of session activities was high

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

665FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES

 

 

(2.86 [SD � 0.39] for the mother groups and 3.00 [SD � 0.02] for the child groups; 1 � not at all, 3 � completed).

Mothers attended an average of 77% (M � 10.2, SD � 3.56) of the 13 sessions (11 group, 2 individual). Children attended an average of 78% (M � 8.55, SD � 2.97) of the 11 group sessions. Attendance in the mother program did not differ significantly for the mother program (M � 9.72, SD � 3.53) and dual-component program (M � 10.33, SD � 3.44) conditions (p � .28). LC participants reported reading about half the books (mothers: 3.04 [SD � 0.92]; children: 3.22 [SD � 1.01]; 1 � not at all, 5 � whole).

Preliminary Analyses

Sample representativeness was assessed by comparing the base- line demographics and child functioning variables in Table 1 across families assigned to condition (N � 240) and eligible families that refused to participate but agreed to complete the

pretest (N � 62). Families assigned to condition reported signifi- cantly higher incomes (t � 2.54, p � .01) and maternal education (t � 2.73, p � .01). There were no significant differences across the NBP and LC on demographic variables and child functioning at baseline (see Table 1).

Analyses of Intervention Effects

Table 2 presents the analyses of program main effects and Program � Gender interaction effects. None of the Program � Baseline Risk interaction effects had a FDR � .10. This table presents program effects on mental health and substance-related abuse disorders with onset in the past 9 years. Thus, these results are not redundant with previously reported findings on program effects on disorder at the 6-year follow-up (Wolchik et al., 2002).

Mental health outcomes within past 9 years. There were two significant main effects that had a FDR � .10 and met the adaptive FDR criterion. A smaller percentage of YAs in the NBP

Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 14)

Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 6) Unable to Locate (n = 2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessed for eligibility (n=1331)

Excluded (n= 1091) ♦ Not meeting inclusion criteria (n=709) ♦ No recruitment visit (n=218) ♦ Declined to participate (n= 112) ♦ No pretest (n=26) ♦ Terminated between pre-test and

assignment (n= 26)

Lost to follow-up: Refused (n=14), Unable to reach/locate (n=13), Deceased (n=3) Data collected: (n = 134)

Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 4)

Assigned to intervention (MP/ MPCP) (n=164) ♦ Received assigned intervention (n= 164) ♦ Did not receive allocated intervention (n= 0)

Lost to follow-up (n = 0)

Assigned to control (n=76) ♦ Received control condition (n=76) ♦ Did not receive allocated intervention (n= 0)

Lost to follow-up: Refused (n=5), Unable to reach/locate (n=11) Data collected: (n = 60)

Wave 1 (Pretest)

Wave 6 (15-year)

Wave 2 (Posttest)

Randomized (n= 240)

Data Analyzed: (n=164) Data Analyzed: (n=76)

Analysis

Wave 5 (6-year)

Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 3) Lost to follow-up: Refused (n = 1)

Wave 3 (3-mo)

Lost to follow-up: Refused (n= 4) Lost to follow-up: Refused (n = 2)

Wave 4 (6-mo)

Figure 3. Participant flow. MP � mother program; MPCP � mother program and child program.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

666 WOLCHIK ET AL.

 

 

than YAs in the LC developed an internalizing disorder in the last 9 years (7.55% vs. 24.40%; p � .007; OR � .26; 95% CI [.09, .72]; absolute risk reduction � 16.85%; 95% CI [1%, 34%]). Also, a smaller percentage of YAs in the NBP than in LC developed either an internalizing disorder or an externalizing disorder (8.00% vs. 19.5%; p � .04; OR � .33; 95% CI [.10, .94]; absolute risk reduction � 11.50%; 95% CI [7%, 16%]). Table 3 shows the percentage of YAs in the NBP and LC conditions who met diagnostic criteria for specific disorders. Given the limited number of cases for most disorders, we were able to analyze the data for major depression only. The NBP significantly reduced the onset of major depression relative to the LC, �2(1) � 3.85, p � .04.

The results of the survival analysis show that, compared to YAs in the LC, the rate of onset of internalizing symptoms during the past 9 years for YAs in the NBP who developed an internalizing disorder decreased by 72% (hazard ratio [HR] � .28; 95% CI [.10, .74]; p � .01). Figure 4 shows the hazard functions for the NBP and LC conditions.

There were no significant program effects on internalizing or externalizing problems in the past 6 months. Analyses conducted separately for mother and YA report of internalizing problems and externalizing problems (i.e., ABCL/ASR) in the past 6 months showed a similar pattern of findings (i.e., program effects were non-significant). None of the program by gender interaction effects was significant.

Substance use outcomes within the past 9 years. There were six significant Program � Gender effects that had a FDR � .10 and met the adaptive FDR criterion. Post hoc analyses within gender found that males in the NBP had a lower number of substance-related disorders in the past 9 years (adjusted Ms � �0.06 vs. 0.29; p � .05; Cohen’s d � 0.40) than males in the LC. Also, males in the NBP reported less polydrug use (adjusted Ms � 2.88 vs. 3.80; p � .05; Cohen’s d � 0.55) and other drug use in the past year (adjusted Ms � 1.10 vs. 1.24; p � .03; Cohen’s d � 0.61) and fewer substance use problems (composite of ABCL/ASR scores) in the last 6 months (adjusted Ms � 54.28 vs. 56.99; p � .02; Cohen’s d � 0.50) than those in the LC. Analyses conducted separately for mother and YA reports of substance use problems in the last 6 months (i.e., ABCL/ASR) showed a similar pattern of effects as the analysis that used the composite score; the Program � Gender interaction was marginally significant for YA report and significant for mother report. The direction of the simple effects tests was consistent with that for the composite variable. The Program � Gender interaction for substance-related disorder was significant but the simple effects tests comparing NBP and LC for males and females did not reach p � .05. Unexpectedly, females in the NBP reported more alcohol use in the past month than those in the LC (adjusted Ms � 3.86 vs. 3.13; p � .02; Cohen’s d � 0.44). The difference across condition on this variable for males was non-significant.

Table 1 Demographics and Child Functioning Variables at Baseline

Demographic/variable Control NBP Difference

Demographics Male youths, No. (%) 37 (48.68%) 86 (52.44%) p � .59 Youth mean age, years (SD) 10.27 (1.06) 10.38 (1.15) p � .59 Sole maternal legal custody, No. (%) 48 (63.16%) 104 (63.41%) p � .96 Mother

Ethnicity, No. (%) p � .57 White, non-Hispanic 66 (88.41%) 145 (88.68%) Hispanic 8 (10.53%) 10 (6.10%) Black 1 (1.32%) 3 (1.83%) Asian American/Pacific Islanders 0 (0%) 3 (0.07%) Other 1 (1.67%) 3 (1.83%)

Education,a years (SD) 4.93 (1.10) 5.04 (1.20) p � .53 Age, years (SD) 36.47 (4.63) 37.74 (4.85) p � .06 Gross income, U.S. $ (SD) 5.68 (2.61) 5.88 (3.26) p � .65

Father Ethnicity, No. (%) p � .81

White, non-Hispanic 68 (90%) 139 (84.33%) Hispanic 5 (6.58%) 14 (8.54%) Black 2 (2.63%) 5 (3.05%) Asian American/Pacific Islanders 0 (0%) 2 (1.22%) Other 1 (1.32%) 5 (3.05%)

Education, years (SD) 4.62 (1.43) 4.62 (1.56) p � .99 Age, years (SD) 38.82 (5.39) 40.04 (5.74) p � .12

Father (ex-spouse) remarried,b No. (%) 12 (15.79%) 22 (13.41%) p � .64 Time since separation, months (SD) 27.91 (18.86) 26.41 (16.45) p � .53 Time since divorce, months (SD) 12.43 (6.39) 12.12 (6.43) p � .73

Child functioning variables Internalizing problems—Mother � child report, M (SD) �0.050 (0.71) 0.023 (0.78) p � .49 Externalizing problems—Mother � child Report, M (SD) �0.197 (0.70) �0.001 (0.91) p � .10 Self-esteem—Child report, M (SD) 20.82 (2.80) 21.06 (6.75) p � .76

Note. NBP � New Beginnings Program. a Education was defined as 1 � elementary, 2 � some high school, 3 � high school graduate, 4 � technical school, 5 � some college, 6 � college graduate, 7 � graduate school. b Remarriage of mother was an exclusion criterion.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

667FOLLOW-UP OF AN INTERVENTION FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES

 

 

T ab

le 2

N B

P In

te rv

en ti

o n

E ff

ec ts

a t

1 5 -Y

ea r

F o ll

o w

-U p

A ct

ua l

pr op

or ti

on (S

D )/

A ct

ua l

m ea

ns (S

D )a

M ai

n ef

fe ct

P ro

gr am

� G

en de

r ef

fe ct

N B

P C

on tr

ol A

dj us

te d

re gr

es si

on w

ei gh

tb [9

5% C

I] p

va lu

e A

dj us

te d

re gr

es si

on w

ei gh

t [9

5% C

I] p

va lu

e M

ea su

re (n

� 16

4) (n

� 76

) (O

R )

(F D

R p

va lu

e) (C

oh en

’s d )c

(F D

R p

va lu

e)

M en

ta l

he al

th pr

ob le

m s

C om

po si

te A

B C

L /A

S R

in te

rn al

iz in

g t

sc or

e (M

) 55

.0 2

(4 .8

4) 55

.4 8

(5 .7

1) �

.9 1

[� 2.

38 ,0

.5 6]

.2 3

(. 28

) �

1. 80

[� 4.

75 ,1

.1 5]

.2 3

(. 53

) C

om po

si te

A B

C L

/A S

R ex

te rn

al iz

in g

t sc

or e

(M )

49 .1

5 (9

.1 1)

49 .0

0 (9

.0 4)

� .3

6 [�

2. 83

,2 .1

1] .7

8 (.

78 )

� 1.

57 [�

6. 53

,3 .3

9] .5

3 (.

53 )

In te

rn al

iz in

g di

so rd

er pa

st 9

ye ar

s (%

)d 4.

55 %

(2 .6

9) 16

.7 %

(3 .2

5) �

1. 36

[� 2.

41 ,�

0. 32

] .0

07 (.

03 )

.7 1

[� 1.

29 ,2

.7 1]

.3 7

(. 53

) (O

R �

.2 6)

E xt

er na

li zi

ng di

so rd

er pa

st 9

ye ar

s (%

)d 0%

(0 )

3. 64

% (.

04 )

� .8

6 [�

0. 96

,0 .3

1] .1

2 (.

27 )

� .7

4 [�

2. 78

,1 .2

9] .4

3 (.

53 )

In te

rn al

iz in

g or

ex te

rn al

iz in

g di

so rd

er pa

st 9

ye ar

s (%

)d 8.

0% (2

.7 1)

19 .5

% (6

.1 9)

� 1.

19 [�

2. 33

,� 0.

06 ]

.0 4

(. 09

) �

1. 19

[� 3.

41 ,1

.0 4]

.3 0

(. 53

) (O

R �

.3 0)

S ub

st an

ce us

e A

ge st

ar te

d re

gu la

r dr

in ki

ng (M

) 18

.3 6

(2 .3

0) 18

.8 4

(2 .6

2) �

.4 7

[� 1.

31 ,0

.3 6]

.1 7

(. 49

) 1.

94 [0

.2 7,

3. 61

] .2

2 (.

28 )

B in

ge dr

in ki

ng pa

st ye

ar (M

) 1.

10 (1

.1 4)

.9 3

(1 .2

3) .1

6 [�

0. 14

,0 .4

6] .2

9 (.

49 )

� .6

4 [�

1. 44

,0 .1

7] .1

2 (.

15 )

A lc

oh ol

us e

pa st

m on

th (M

) 3.

22 (1

.5 2)

2. 98

(1 .7

0) .2

3 [�

0. 26

,0 .7

2] .3

5 (.

57 )

� 1.

12 [�

2. 06

,� 0.

18 ]

.0 2

(. 08

) (d

� 0.

44 [f

em al

e] )

M ar

ij ua

na us

e pa

st m

on th

(M )

1. 66

(1 .5

3) 1.

98 (1

.8 8)

.0 0

[� 0.

47 ,0

.4 7]

.9 9

(. 99

) �

.2 7

[� 1.

17 ,0

.6 4]

.5 7

(. 64

) P

ol yd

ru g

us e