TY - JOUR
T1 - Self-report measures of coercive process in couple and parent–child dyads.
AU - Mitnick, Danielle M.
AU - Lorber, Michael F.
AU - Smith Slep, Amy M.
AU - Heyman, Richard E.
AU - Xu, Shu
AU - Bulling, Lisanne J.
AU - Nichols, Sara R.
AU - Eddy, J. Mark
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Psychological Association
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - One of the most influential behavioral models of family conflict is G. R. Patterson’s (1982) coercive family process theory. Self-reports for behaviors related to coercion (e.g., hostility toward a family member) abound; however, there are no self-report measures for coercive process itself, which is, by definition, a dyadic process. Operationalizations of coercive process are measured with behavioral observation, typically including sequential analyzed, microcoded behaviors. Despite its objectivity and rigor, coding of behavior observation is not always feasible in research and applied settings because of the high training, personnel, and time costs the observation requires. Because coercive process has been shown to predict a host of maladaptive outcomes (e.g., parent–child conflict, aggression, negative health outcomes) and given the complete absence of self-report measures of coercive process, we recently designed brief questionnaires to assess coercive process in couple (Couple Coercive Process Scale [CCPS]) and parent–child interactions (Parent–Child Coercive Process Scale [PCCPS]) and tested them via Qualtrics participant panels in samples recruited to mirror socioeconomic generalizability to U.S. Census data. The CCPS and PCCPS exhibited initial evidence of psychometric quality in measuring coercive process in couple and parent–child dyads: Both measures are unifactorial; have evidence of reliability, especially at higher levels of coercive process; and demonstrate concurrent validity with constructs in their nomological networks, with medium to large effect sizes.
AB - One of the most influential behavioral models of family conflict is G. R. Patterson’s (1982) coercive family process theory. Self-reports for behaviors related to coercion (e.g., hostility toward a family member) abound; however, there are no self-report measures for coercive process itself, which is, by definition, a dyadic process. Operationalizations of coercive process are measured with behavioral observation, typically including sequential analyzed, microcoded behaviors. Despite its objectivity and rigor, coding of behavior observation is not always feasible in research and applied settings because of the high training, personnel, and time costs the observation requires. Because coercive process has been shown to predict a host of maladaptive outcomes (e.g., parent–child conflict, aggression, negative health outcomes) and given the complete absence of self-report measures of coercive process, we recently designed brief questionnaires to assess coercive process in couple (Couple Coercive Process Scale [CCPS]) and parent–child interactions (Parent–Child Coercive Process Scale [PCCPS]) and tested them via Qualtrics participant panels in samples recruited to mirror socioeconomic generalizability to U.S. Census data. The CCPS and PCCPS exhibited initial evidence of psychometric quality in measuring coercive process in couple and parent–child dyads: Both measures are unifactorial; have evidence of reliability, especially at higher levels of coercive process; and demonstrate concurrent validity with constructs in their nomological networks, with medium to large effect sizes.
KW - coercive family process
KW - couple conflict
KW - health outcomes
KW - parent–child conflict
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088454019&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088454019&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/fam0000729
DO - 10.1037/fam0000729
M3 - Article
C2 - 32658518
AN - SCOPUS:85088454019
SN - 0893-3200
VL - 35
SP - 388
EP - 398
JO - Journal of Family Psychology
JF - Journal of Family Psychology
IS - 3
ER -