New advances in measurement
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 156

New Advances in Measurement PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

New Advances in Measurement. Ronald D. Rogge. TOPICS. RELATIONSHIP QUALITY T1 : IRT Optimization Study 1 T2 : Responsiveness to Change Studies 2-5 T3 : Bi-Dimensional View Studies 6-7 T4 : Implicit Measures Studies 8-11 ATTENTION T5 : Screening for Error Variance Studies 12-16.

Download Presentation

New Advances in Measurement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


New Advances in Measurement

Ronald D. Rogge


TOPICS

  • RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

    • T1: IRT Optimization

      • Study 1

    • T2: Responsiveness to Change

      • Studies 2-5

    • T3: Bi-Dimensional View

      • Studies 6-7

    • T4: Implicit Measures

      • Studies 8-11

  • ATTENTION

    • T5: Screening for Error Variance

      • Studies 12-16


Acknowledgements

  • Couples Satisfaction Index

    • Janette Funk, Mike Maniaci, Maria Saavedra, Soonhee Lee

  • Positive-Negative Relationship Quality

    • Frank Fincham, Richard Mattson, Matt Johnson

  • C.A.R.E. Program

    • Tom Bradbury, Rebecca Cobb, Matt Johnson, Erika Lawrence, Lisa Story, Lexi Rothman

  • Implicit Assessment

    • Soonhee Lee, Harry Reis

  • Attention / Effort

    • Mike Maniaci, Janette Funk, Soonhee Lee, Maria Saavedra


  • Relationship Quality

    • Relationship satisfaction

      • Self-report scales (DAS, MAT, QMI)

      • 30-50 years of research (over 4K studies)

      • Excellent correlational validity

      • Level of noise?

      • Responsive to change over time?

      • Are these the “best” items?


    TOPIC 1: IRT Optimization

    • Large sample method

      • N at least 1,000 in smallest group

  • Large item pool

    • Unidimensional

    • Non-redundant

  • Used by ETS

    • SAT, GRE, MCAT, LSAT

  • Quality of each item

    • Information

    • Noise

  • Advantages

    • Over correlations

    • Over small sample methods


  • IRT Approach

    • Latent scores (q) for each subject

      • Like GRE scores

      • Assessing relationship satisfaction

  • Parameters for each item

    • Response curves

    • Higher q’s  higher responses?

  • Item Responsiveness

    • How informative?

    • Where informative?

  • Creates information profiles

    • For individual items

    • For sets of items


  • Study 1 - Measures

    • 141 satisfaction items:

      • DAS, MAT, RAS, KMS, QMI, SMD

      • 71 additional items

  • 7 anchor scales:

    • Neuroticism (EPQ-N)

    • Conflict / Communication (MCI, CPQ, IAI)

    • Stress (PSS)

    • Sexual Chemistry (Eros)

    • Instability (MSI)

  • 2 validity scales:

    • Inconsistency (PAI)

    • Infrequency (PAI)


  • Study 1 - Sample

    • 5,315 online respondents

      • After removing:

        • Incomplete or invalid responses

        • Multivariate outliers

      • 26yo (10yrs)

      • 83% Female

      • 76% Caucasian

      • 26% High school ed. or lower

      • $27K average income

      • 24% married, 16% engaged, 60% dating


    Evaluating Previous Scales

    • IRT results

      • Simultaneous analysis

      • 66 items of existing scales

      • Some very informative items

      • Many poor items


    DAS-31(Degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship)

    Response Curves

    Information Curve


    DAS/MAT 5Agreement on: FRIENDS

    Response Curves

    Information Curve


    MAT 12In leisure time, do you (and does your mate) prefer to be “on the go” or to stay at home?

    Response Curves

    Information Curve


    From Items to Scales

    • A scale’s information

      = sum of information from each item

    • How informative

      Across different levels of happiness


    Test Info for Current Measures


    Analysis of Existing Measures

    • Many uninformative items

      • Particularly for DAS and MAT

         noise / error

  • Modest test information

    • For all scales

    • Notably poor for MAT and DAS

  • Room for improvement


  • Creating the CSI

    • 141 item pool

      • Screen for contaminating items

      • Screen for redundant items

      • IRT on remaining 66 items

      • Select 32 most effective


    Test Info for CSI Scales


    Basic Psychometrics


    Correlations with Anchors


    What have we gained?

    • Identical correlational results

      • Strong convergent validity

      • Strong discriminant validity

      • Strong construct validity

         Measuring same thing

  • Higher information…

  •  Should have

    • Lower Noise

    • Higher Precision

    • Greater Power


  • Satisfaction Groups

    • IRT satisfaction estimates

      • For each subject

      • Based on MAT, DAS, & CSI items

      • (equivalent of GRE scores)

  • Created satisfaction groups

    • N = 265

    • HIGHLY similar SAT within each group

  • MAT, DAS & CSI scores also similar?


  • Precision: CSI-32 vs. DAS


    Effect Size

    • Ability to detect difference

      • Between groups

      • Pre – Post

  • Effect Size = M1 – M2.

    pooled SD

  • Difference in SD units

  • Power for detecting D’s in SAT groups


  • Power: CSI-32 vs. DAS


    STUDY 1 - Conclusions

    • CROSS-SECTIONALLY

      • CSI assess same construct

      • Higher precision

      • Higher power

  • NEXT STEP

    • Longitudinal analysis

    • Responsiveness to change over time


  • TOPIC 2: Responsiveness

    • Detecting change

      • Assumption

      • Longitudinal

  • External Criteria

    • Treatment effect

    • Clinician

    • Interviewer

    • Global report

  • SERM (Sdiff)

    • Noise over time

    • Estimating

  • Two main applications

    • Individual change

    • Clinically distinct groups


  • Studies 2 through 4

    • Study 2

      • 267 online respondents

        • 1 & 2wk follow ups

        • 468 change scores

    • Study 3

      • 156 online respondents

        • 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 12mo follow ups

        • 455 change scores

    • Study 4

      • 545 online respondents

        • 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 & 12mo follow ups

        • 1,552 change scores


    Studies 2-4: Measures

    • Relationship satisfaction scales:

      • DAS-32

      • MAT-15

      • CSI-32

      • CSI-16*

      • CSI-4*

  • 3 global relationship change items

    • Change since last assessment


  • Individual Change

    • How many points of change needed?

      (to show significant change)

      • SERM in “No Change”

        • RCI (Jacobson & Truax, 1991)

        • MDC95 (Stratford et al., 1996)

        • MDC95 (SD units) = 1.96*SERM.

          SD

      • PRESENTING

        • Meta-Analytic Summary

        • Standardized Units


    Reliable Individual Change

    C

    C

    C

    B

    A


    Detecting Change

    • Individual Change

      • IRT optimization

      • Longer scales

  • Distinct Groups

    • Can scales distinguish?

      • Mild deterioration

      • No change

      • Mild improvement


  • Perceived Change

    • How much have these changed?

      • Overall happiness in the relationship

      • Feeling close and connected

      • Stability of the relationship


    Perceived Change

    • Averaged responses

      • Alpha = .92

  • Created change groups


  • Distinct Change Groups


    Quantifying Group-Level Responsiveness

    • MCID

      (Guyatt, Walter & Norman, 1987)

      • Noise over time (SERM)

      • Effect Sizes:

        (Avg Change)IMPROVE – (Avg Change)NO CHANGE

        SERM

        (Avg Change)DETERIORATE – (Avg Change)NO CHANGE

        SERM


    Analytic Strategy

    • Improving method

      • Multi-wave data

      • Global change continuous

      • Moderation

  • HLM

    • PV: Global change score

    • Moderators:

      • Gender

      • T0 Satisfaction

    • DV: Change scores on scales (n = 2475)

       Change scores ≈ 1pt global change

       MCID effect sizes

  • Meta-Analytic Summary


  • Responsiveness in Dissatisfied (1SD below M)

    A

    B

    C

    C

    C

    D

    C

    B

    A

    A


    Responsiveness in Satisfied (1SD above M)

    A

    A

    B

    B

    B

    E

    D

    C

    B

    A


    Responsiveness Conclusions

    • Can be quantified

      • Scale selection

      • Power estimates

  • Responsive scales

    • Greater power

      • Individual

      • Group

  • Cross-sectional  Longitudinal

    • Precision & Power translate

  • NEXT STEP  Treatment Effects


  • Topic 3: Bi-Dimensional View

    • Uni-Dimensional view

      • Positive feelings opposite negative feelings

  • Bi-Dimensional view

    • Pos/Neg independent

    • Moderately “dissatisfied”

      • Ambivalent

      • Indifferent

    • Uni-Dimensional obscuring?


  • Background

    • Fincham & Linfield (1997)

      • PN-QIMS

        • Two 3-item scales

          • Qualities of spouse

          • Feelings toward spouse

          • Feelings about marriage

        • Considering only (pos/neg)

        • Separated in survey

      • CFA in 123 couples

      • Unique information


    Study 5

    • Mattson et al. (under review)

    • New pos-neg scale

      • 7 SMD items of CSI

      • Pos / neg separately

    • Large online sample

      • Ambivalent

      • Indifferent


    Study 5 - Sample

    • 1656 online respondents

      • Demographics

        • 28yo (7yrs)

        • 94% Female

        • 87% Caucasian

        • 30k income

        • 5% ≤ high school

      • Romantic relationships

        • 38% married (6.5yrs)

        • 19% engaged (3.6yrs)

        • 41% dating – exclusive (2.4yrs)


    Ambivalence vs. Indifference

    • Median Splits


    Ambivalence vs. Indifference

    • Median Splits


    Uni-Dimensional Satisfaction


    Negative Conflict


    Negative Affect


    Study 6

    • IRT Optimized Positive & Negative Scales

      • Item Pools

        • 20 positive items

        • 20 negative items

      • Large sample

        • UG respondents

      • Analyses

        • EFA

        • Redundancy

        • IRT

    • Precision / Power / Validity


    Study 6 - Sample

    • 1,814 undergrad respondents

      • Demographics

        • 19yo (2yrs)

        • 77% Female

        • 72% Caucasian

        • Together 2.6yrs

        • 26% dissatisfied

      • Close relationships

        • 54% romantic partners

        • 38% friends

        • 5% family members

        • 3% roommates

      • Romantic relationships

        • 76% dating – exclusive

        • 21% dating – non-exclusive


    Positive-Negative Relationship Qualities

    • New PN-RQ scales

      • Best 4 & 8 items by IRT


    PN-RQ Correlations


    Information Provided


    NEG: Information Provided


    Power: Positive-Quality Groups


    Power: Negative-Quality Groups


    Uni-Dimensional Satisfaction


    Negative Conflict


    Forgivingness


    PN-RQ

    • Power from Optimization

      • More precise

  • Unique Information

    • Ambivalent vs. Indifferent

  • NEXT: Responsiveness


  • Study 7

    • PREP

      • Psycho-educational workshop

      • Speaker-Listener Technique

  • CARE

    • Psycho-educational workshop

    • Acceptance based techniques (IBCT)

  • Awareness

    • Self-guided

    • Semi-strutured

  • No Treatment


  • Study 7

    • 173 Newlywed couples

      • Engaged or married <6mo

      • Screened for severe discord (MAT below 85)

  • Demographics

    • AGE 29

    • CaucasianH: 58% W: 54%

    • Latino/aH: 17% W: 23%

    • Asian AmH: 9% W: 11%

    • African AmH: 5% W: 5%

  • Assessed

    • MAT, PN-QIMS

    • 6 points over 3yrs


  • Slope-Intercept HLM Results

    • MAT

      • Drops over time for Men

  • Negative Qualities

    • ns

  • Positive Qualities

    • Drops only in No Treatment*

    • TX: Sig better slopes in Men


  • Bi-Dimensional View

    • Distinct individuals

    • Distinct treatment effects

    • Enhance

      • Theories

      • Clinical work


    Topic 4: Implicit Assessment

    • Limitations of Self-Report

      • Insight

      • Biases

  • Limitations of Observational Coding

    • Costly

    • Evaluation apprehension

    • Not all constructs observable

  • Implicit assessment

    • Indirect

    • Inexpensive

    • Unique insights


  • Previous Work

    • Me/Not-Me task

      Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson (1991), Aron & Fraley (1999), Slotter & Gardner (2009)

    • Rxn Time on Evaluations

      Fincham, Garnier, Gano-Phillips, & Osborne (1995)

    • Partner-focused IAT

      Zayas & Shoda (2005)

      Banse & Kowalick (2007)

      Scinta & Gable (2007)

    • Self-focused IAT

      Dewitt, de Houwer, & Buysse (2008)

    • Sequential priming task

      Scinta & Gable (2007)


    Go/No-Go Association Task

    • Partner-GNAT

      • Sort three types of words

        • Good

        • Bad

        • Partner

      • Presented

        • One at a time

        • In random order

      • Spacebar for targets


    GNAT Stimuli

    • Partner words

      • First name

      • Nick name

      • Pet name / Distinguishing characteristic


    GNAT Procedure

    • Procedure

      • Obtain partner stimuli

      • Sorting task

        • 16 practice trials: good as target

        • 16 practice trials: bad as target

        • 70 trials: partner + good as targets

        • 70 trials: partner + bad as targets

      • Complete counterbalancing

    CriticalTrials


    GNAT

    • Fast task (600msec)

      • Accuracy

      • D’ index

  • Proposed

    • High performance on P-good

       Strong positive implicit attitude

    • High performance on P-bad

       Strong negative implicit attitude


  • Studies 8 & 9: Samples

    • Study 8

      • 122 online respondents

        • 39% married (for 3.3yrs)

        • 13% engaged (together for 2.7yrs)

        • 58% dating (for 2.4yrs)

      • 79% Caucasian

      • 87% Female

      • 43% provided follow-up data

      • 8 ended their relationships

    • Study 9

      • 100 online respondents

        • 10% married (for 3.6yrs)

        • 12% engaged (together for 3.2yrs)

        • 77% dating (for 1.8yrs)

      • 77% Caucasian

      • 86% Female

      • 63% provided follow-up data

      • 11 ended their relationships


    Method Variance

    • P-good and P-bad

      • r = .45

      • Shared method variance

        • Ability

        • Effort

        • Attention

        • Comfort with computers

    • Enter as pairs

      • Simultaneous PVs

      • Partial correlations

      • Shared variance dropped

  • Examine interaction

    • Pos & Neg attitudes might interact


  • Study 8: Correlations


    LEVEL 2:

    p0 = b00

    p1 = b10+ b11(relationship satisfaction)

    + b12 (hostile conflict)

    + b13 (neuroticism)

    + b14 (partner-good)

    + b15 (partner-bad)

    + b16 (partner-good X partner-bad)

    + r1

    Self-Report Controls

    Partner-GNAT

    Performance

    Studies 8 & 9: Analytic Strategy

    • Discrete-time hazard modeling in HGLM

    LEVEL 1:

    Prob(Breakup) = P

    log[ P/(1-P) ] = p0 + p1(time) + e


    Study 8: Prediction of Relationship Breakup over 1 year

    NOTE: B = unstandardized beta; SE = standard error. † p < .10; * p < .05


    Study 8: Probabilities of Breakup


    Study 9: Correlations


    Study 9: Prediction of Relationship Breakup over 1 year

    NOTE: B = unstandardized beta; SE = standard error. † p < .10; * p < .05


    Study 9: Probabilities of Breakup


    Studies 8 & 9: Summary

    • Partner-GNAT

      • Predicts Breakup over 1yr

        • After controlling for SR scales

        • Possible interaction

    • Suggests

      • Partner-GNAT provides unique information

        • P’s unable to report

        • P’s unwilling to report

    • Next Step: Mechanism of action


    Study 10

    • Partner-GNAT

      • Generic good or bad words

        • Good stimuli: freedom, pleasure, gift

        • Bad stimuli: death, accident, poverty

    • Behavioral coding

      • Two 10-minute Problem discussions

      • Two 10-minute Social Support discussions

      • Two teams of naïve coders

    • Self-report data


    Coding Process

    • Two separate teams (5 and 7 coders)

      • Weekly meetings

  • Spouses coded in separate passes

    • 30sec intervals

    • Global codes

  • Counterbalancing

    • Order of couples

    • Order of spouses (within each interaction)

    • Order of topics (H vs. W)

  • Rated 15-18 dimensions

  • All coders coded all tapes

    • Codes averaged within coders & interactions

    • Codes averaged across coders

    • Created composite codes


  • Composite Codes

    • Support Behavior/Affect

      • Emotional Support

      • Negative Behavior

  • Conflict Behavior/Affect

    • Empathic Listening

    • Affection

    • Negative Behavior


  • Study 10: Sample

    • 57 couples

      • 48% engaged to be married (in 4.8mo)

      • 52% married (for 3.7mo)

  • Relationships

    • Together 3.3yrs

    • Highly satisfied (avg. CSI = 141)

    • 81% premarital cohabitation

    • 93% living together at T0

    • 14% had children at T0

  • Demographics

    • Age 28yo

    • 91% Caucasian

    • 53k joint income

    • 9% ≤ HS education


  • Study 10: Analytic Strategy

    • Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling in HLM

    • Modeling trajectories over time

      • Two level model

        • Level 1 – Individual differences

          • GNAT indices

          • Coded behavior

          • Initial self-report

        • Level 2 – Dyadic variables

          • Relationship length

          • Number of children


    Male Emotional Support(during support interaction)


    Male Negative Behavior (during support interaction)


    Female Empathic Listening(during conflict interaction)


    Female Affection(during conflict interaction)

    Female Affection


    Male Negative Behavior(during conflict interaction)

    Male Negative Behavior


    Study 10: Summary

    • Partner-GNAT

      • Linked to own behavior

      • Linked to partner’s behavior

      • Across domains

         Might shape each other

  • Tailoring GNAT

    • Implicit assessment of attachment?


  • Self Report Attachment Scales

    • ECR-R

      • Attachment Anxiety

        “I worry a lot about my relationship”

      • Attachment Avoidance

        “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners”

      • Difficult to disentangle

        • Attachment

        • Preoccupied / Dismissive Behaviors

      • Requires insight / honesty


    Study 11

    • Standard Battery of SR scales

    • Implicit Attachment

      • Partner-GNAT*

      • Self-GNAT*

      • *New Valence Categories

        • Relationally Worthy

        • Relationally Worthless

      • Hypotheses

        • Partner-GNAT*  internal working model of others

        • Self-GNAT*  internal working model of self


    Partner words

    First name

    Nick name

    Pet name / characteristic

    Self words

    First name

    Last name

    Nick name / characteristic

    GNAT Stimuli


    Study 11: Sample

    • Recruitment underway

    • First 48 couples

      • 79% committed dating relationships (1.6yrs)

      • 4% engaged (2.9yrs)

      • 17% married (4.5yrs)

  • Relationships

    • Quite satisfied (CSI-16 = 70)

    • Dissatisfied

      • 6% of married

      • 9% of dating

  • Demographics

    • Age 24yo

    • 76% Caucasian

    • 37k joint income

    • 9% ≤ HS education


  • Study 11: Correlations


    Study 11: Correlations


    Future Directions

    • Unique information

      • Beyond SR

      • Clinically useful?

  • Shapes behavior

    • Longitudinal mediation?

    • Change over time?

  • Can be Tailored

    • Attachment?

  • Alternate Targets

    • Family

    • Friends

    • Behaviors

  • Moderators

    • Mindfulness

    • Assimilation of Partner into Self-Concept

      • IOS

      • RISC


  • Topic 5: Attention / Effort

    • Inattention

      • Adds error / noise

      • Reduces power

  • Quantifying

    • Large Clinical Inventories (e.g., PAI)

      • Infrequency

      • Inconsistency

    • Experimental Research

      • Instruction reading (IMC; Oppenheimer, 2009)

    • Survey Research

      • Unknown


  • Study 12

    • Quantifying Inattention

      • Behavioral Measures

        • 7 directed responses

        • 20 pronoun task

        • 2min video

      • Self-Report

        • Inattentive

        • Patterned

        • Rushed

        • Instruction skipping


    Study 12 - Sample

    • 575 online respondents

      • 54% Mturk.com

      • 13% online forums

      • 33% UG psychology students

  • Demographics

    • 29yo (12yrs)

    • 70% Female

    • 77% Caucasian

    • 21% ≤ High School

    • 30% ≤ $30k / year


  • Behavioral Inattention


    Self-Reported Inattention


    Distinct from Desirability


    Screening for Inattention

    • Developing ARS

      • Item pool

        • Infrequent items

        • Inconsistent pairs

      • 3 large online samples

      • Ability to discriminate

        • P responses

        • Random data

        • Random responders


    Studies 13 through 15

    • Study 13

      • 1195 online respondents

        • 85% female

        • 77% Caucasian

        • 26yo (SD = 8.4)

    • Study 14

      • 1878 online respondents

        • 91% female

        • 85% Caucasian

        • 28yo (SD = 7.1)

    • Study 15

      • 547 online respondents

        • 74% female

        • 72% Caucasian

        • 20yo (SD = 1.3)


    Final ARS scales

    • Two scales

      • 11 infrequency items

        • I enjoy the music of Marlene Sandersfield

        • I look forward to my time off

      • 11 inconsistency item pairs

        • I am an active person

        • I have an active lifestyle

  • Agreement with PAI

    • Study 14

      • Continuous: r’s = .64 and .83

      • Categorical: kappa = .72


  • Ability to Detect Inattention


    Convergent Validity

    • Study 12 indices

    • ARS inattentive respondents

      • Higher on inattention indices?

        • Behavioral Markers

        • Self-Report

      • Comparable regression results?


    ARS Inattentive P’s


    ARS Inattentive P’s

    • Robins et al. (2001)

      • Big 5  Self Esteem

      • R2 = .34**

      • 3 sig coeffs

  • Attentive P’s

    • N = 621

    • R2 = .41**

    • 3 sig coeffs

  • Inattentive P’s

    • N = 55

    • R2 = .08 ns

    • no sig coeffs

  • ns


    ARS Convergent Validity

    • ARS inattentive respondents

      • Higher inattention

        • Behavioral Markers

        • Self-Report

      • Adding noise

        • Lowering power


    Study 16

    • Reading instructions?

    • ARS vs. IMC

      • Oppenheimer (2009)

      • IMC: Instructional Manipulation Check

        • Single paragraph / item

        • Eliminates 20-40% of P’s

        • Enhances power

          • Paragraph manipulations

            • Sports ticket

            • Can of pop


    Sports Participation

    Most modern theories of decision making recognize the fact that decisions do not take place in a vacuum. Individual preferences and knowledge, along with situational variables can greatly impact the decision process. In order to facilitate our research on decision making we are interested in knowing certain factors about you, the decision maker. Specifically, we are interested in whether you actually take the time to read the directions; if not, then some of our manipulations that rely on changes in the instructions will be ineffective. So, in order to demonstrate that you have read the instructions, please ignore the sports items below, as well as the continue button. Instead, simply click on the title at the top of this screen (i.e., “Sports Participation”) to proceed to the next screen. Thank you very much.

    Which of these activities do you engage in regularly?

    (click all that apply)

    skiing

    soccer

    snowboarding

    running

    hockey

    football

    swimming

    basketball

    tennis

    cycling

    Continue


    Sports Participation

    Most modern theories of decision making recognize the fact that decisions do not take place in a vacuum. Individual preferences and knowledge, along with situational variables can greatly impact the decision process. In order to facilitate our research on decision making we are interested in knowing certain factors about you, the decision maker. Specifically, we are interested in whether you actually take the time to read the directions; if not, then some of our manipulations that rely on changes in the instructions will be ineffective. So, in order to demonstrate that you have read the instructions, please ignore the sports items below, as well as the continue button. Instead, simply click on the title at the top of this screen (i.e., “Sports Participation”) to proceed to the next screen. Thank you very much.

    Which of these activities do you engage in regularly?

    (click all that apply)

    skiing

    soccer

    snowboarding

    running

    hockey

    football

    swimming

    basketball

    tennis

    cycling

    Continue


    Study 16 - Sample

    • 652 online respondents

      • 60% Mturk.com

      • 40% UG psychology students

  • Demographics

    • 28yo (11.5yrs)

    • 70% Female

    • 74% Caucasian

    • 27% ≤ High School

    • 30% ≤ $30k / year


  • ARS – IMC Agreement


    Inattention Indices


    Sunk Cost Task (Thaler, 1985)

    Imagine that your favorite football team is playing an important game that you

    [have paid handsomely for.]

    [have received from a friend.]

    However, on the day of the game, it happens to be freezing cold. What do you do?

    ns


    Soda Pricing Task (Thaler, 1985)

    You are on the beach on a hot day. For the last hour you have been thinking about how much you would enjoy an ice cold can of soda. Your companion needs to make a phone call and offers to bring back a soda from the only nearby place where drinks are sold, which happens to be a

    [run-down grocery store.] [fancy resort.]

    Your companion asks how much you are willing to pay for the soda and will only buy it if it is below the price you state. How much are you willing to pay?

    ns

    ns


    Inattention Summary

    • Inattention

      • Skipping instructions

        • As high as 20-40%

      • Skimming items

        • 5-10%

      • ARS effectively screens

        • Enhances power


    Summary

    • RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

      • T1: IRT Optimization

        • Study 1

      • T2: Responsiveness to Change

        • Studies 2-5

      • T3: Bi-Dimensional View

        • Studies 6-7

      • T4: Implicit Measures

        • Studies 8-10

    • ATTENTION

      • T5: Screening for Error Variance

        • Studies 11-15


    Limitations

    • Online samples

    • Largely female

    • Largely Caucasian

    • Lacking behavioral criteria


    Thank You.


    Existing Measures


    Criterion Validity

    • DAS Distress groups

      • Current gold-standard

      • DAS score < 97.5

      • 1027 DAS distressed P’s

      • ROC’s to identify CSI cut scores

      • Identified CSI distressed P’s

      • 91% agreement w/ DAS


    Precision: CSI-16 vs. MAT


    Power: CSI-16 vs. MAT


    Studies 2-4: Demographics

    • SAMPLE

      • N = 2,056 initial respondents

      • N = 968 (47%) respondents with longitudinal data

    • AGE

      • M = 27.7yo (9.3yrs)

    • GENDER

      • 71% Female

      • 29% Male

    • RACE

      • 83% Caucasian

      • 5% Asian

      • 4% African American

      • 4% Latino

    • SES

      • 10% High school diploma or less

      • 25K avg yearly income


    Studies 2-4: Relationships

    • Relationship Types

      • 37% Married: 7.9 yrs (7.9 yrs)

      • 13% Engaged: 3.2 yrs (2.4 yrs)

      • 50% Dating: 1.8 yrs (1.9 yrs)

  • Relationship Satisfaction (MAT)

    • Married: 108 (32)

    • Engaged: 122 (24)

    • Dating: 116 (24)

  • Dissatisfied Respondents

    • 24% (n = 487)


  • Study 2 - Sample

    • N=596 initial respondents

      • 27yo (SD = 10yrs)

      • 77% Female

      • 84% Caucasian

      • 8% ≤ High school

      • 22K income

      • 30% married, 14% engaged, 55% dating

      • 16% dissatisfied

  • 372 provided email (62%)

  • 267 completed follow ups (71%)

  • NS differences on

    • Length of relationshipRelationship satisfaction

    • AgeEducation

    • Gender


  • Study 3 - Sample

    • N=398 initial respondents

      • 26yo (SD = 8yrs)

      • 86% Female

      • 80% Caucasian

      • 9% ≤ High school

      • 20K income

      • 30% married, 12% engaged, 58% dating

      • 24% dissatisfied

  • 252 provided email (63%)

  • 156 completed follow ups (62%)

  • NS differences on

    • Length of relationshipRelationship satisfaction

    • GenderEthnicity


  • Study 4 - Sample

    • N=1062 initial respondents

      • 29yo (SD = 9yrs)

      • 79% Female

      • 83% Caucasian

      • 11% ≤ High school

      • 29K income

      • 44% married, 13% engaged, 43% dating

      • 28% dissatisfied

  • 746 provided email (70%)

  • 545 completed follow ups (73%)

  • NS differences on

    • Length of relationship

    • AgeEthnicity


  • RCI and MDC95 Equations

    • RCI

      • SERM = √2*SD2(1 – rxx)

      • SERM = √2*MSE

      • RCI = (x2 – x1) / SERM

      • If RCI > 1.96

         Sig individual change

  • MDC95

    • Solve RCI eq for (x2 – x1)

    • MDC95 = 1.96*SERM


  • Estimating Noise &Reliable Individual Change

    Guyatt, Walter & Norman (1987); Jacobson & Truax (1991)

    NOISE

    =

    SEM(Standard Error of Repeated Measurement)

    =

    2*MSE(MSE = Mean Squared Error from a Repeated Measures ANOVA on the T0, F1, & F2 scores of ‘No Change’ individuals)

    Dx

    Signal

    RELIABLE CHANGE

    =

    =

    =

    1.98

    Noise

    SEM

    Dx = Minimal Detectable Change (MDC95)(smallest change in scores needed in an individual to suggest reliable change)


    Reliable Individual Change


    Estimating Powerfor Detecting Perceived Change

    Guyatt, Walter & Norman (1987)

    Sensitivity to Perceived Change(difference in avg change scores between adjacent perceived change groups)

    Signal

    POWER

    (Effect size)

    =

    =

    Noise

    SEM(Standard Error ofRepeated Measurement)


    Sensitivity to Perceived ChangeCSI-16 vs. MAT


    Responsiveness Model

    • Level 1 – repeated assessments

      X2 – X1 = p0 + p1*(global change) +

      p2*(deterioration) + e

    • Level 2 – individuals

      p0 = b00

      p1 = b10 + b11*(T0 rel sat) + b12*(male) + r1

      p2 = b20 + b21*(T0 rel sat)


    Differences by Gender

    • Scales showed slightly smaller effect sizes in men

    *

    *

    *

    *


    Study 5

    • Responsiveness to Mild Intervention

      • Reissman, Aron, & Bergen (1993)

        • Pos. activities over 10wks

        • Fun/Exciting  Enhanced satisfaction

      • 158 randomly assigned to:

        • Control

        • Fun / Exciting Activities Feedback

      • 2wk follow up

        • 25 Fun / Exciting behaviors

        • Satisfaction

    • Scales

      • CSI-32DAS-32MAT-15QMI

      • SMDRASKMSPN-RQ


    Fun/Exciting Activities Feedback

    • Background

      There is a large body of research supporting the importance of fun in relationships.

      Unfortunately, many couples slowly forget to make time to do fun things together the longer they are together.

    • Request

      As part of this study, we would like you and your partner to make an effort to have more fun with each other over the next 2 weeks.

      Specifically, we would like you to try to do some fun activities that get you out of the house and/or out of your normal routines.

      • These activities should be fun and exciting for both of you.

      • These activities should also involve things that you can do together (like going to dinner) rather than more solitary activities (like reading).


    Fun/Exciting Activities Feedback

    Based on your responses, here is a list of activities you rated as most fun and exciting:


    Study 5 - Sample

    • 158 initial respondents (first 3 ½ days of recruitment)

      • 30yo (SD = 11yrs)

      • 74% Female

      • 83% Caucasian

      • 18% ≤ High school

      • 53K income

      • 39% married, 10% engaged, 51% dating

      • 18% dissatisfied

  • xxx completed follow ups (73%)

  • NS differences on

    • Length of relationship

    • AgeEthnicity


  • PREPPrevention and Relationship Enhancement Program

    • 14 hour workshop over 4 sessions

      • One weekend day

      • Three weeknights

  • Communication Skill Focus

    • Speaker-Listener Technique

    • Problem-Solving skills

    • Time Outs

    • Building Positive Behaviors

  • Goals

    • prevent conflict escalation (improve resolution)

    • enhance/protect positive aspects of relationship


  • CARECompassionate and Accepting Relationships through Empathy

    • 14 hour workshop over 4 sessions

      • One weekend day

      • Three weeknights

  • 3 Acceptance based skill modules

    • Support skills

    • Conflict skills

    • Forgiveness skills

  • Goal: increase understanding/acceptance

    • To buffer ‘rough spots’

    • To smooth out conflict discussions

    • To protect positives


  • Awareness Condition

    • “Movie” Treatment

      • List of relationship-focused movies

      • Watched 5 movies together

      • 40 min guided discussion after each

      • First movie in a group setting (at UCLA)

  • Yoked Control Group

    • Equivalent time together

    • Equivalent time discussing relationship

    • No active psycho-educational component


  • Treatment Conditions


    Hypotheses

    • All treatment conditions would show better marital quality than no tx

    • CARE and PREP would show better marital quality than the minimal tx

    • CARE would demonstrate comparable tx effects to PREP


    Longitudinal Assessments

    • T0 – 1-2 months prior to workshop

    • T1 – start of workshop

    • T2 – 6 months after workshop

    • T3 – 1 year

    • T4 – 2 years

    • T5 – 3 years


    Previous Work

    • Me/Not-Me task

      • Implicit Closeness  3mo shift in SR closeness

        Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson (1991), Aron & Fraley (1999), Slotter & Gardner (2009)

  • Rxn Time on Evaluations

    • High Accessibility  Stronger effects among SR scales

      Fincham, Garnier, Gano-Phillips, & Osborne (1995)

  • Partner-focused IAT

    • Pos Implicit Atttitude  Secure attachment (& lower attch avoidance)

      Zayas & Shoda (2005)

    • Pos Implicit Attitude  Criterion validity (separating groups)

      Banse & Kowalick (2007)

    • Pos Implicit Attitude  Current relationship satisfaction

      Scinta & Gable (2007)

  • Self-focused IAT

    • Implicit Relational Worthiness  lower attachment anxiety & preoccupation

    • Implicit Relational Anxiety  preoccupied attachment

      Dewitt, de Houwer, & Buysse (2008)

  • Sequential priming task

    • Neg Implicit Attitude  3mo shift in SR satisfaction

      Scinta & Gable (2007)


  • Composite Codes

    • Support Behavior/Affect

      • Emotional Support

        • UnderstandingReassuring

        • ResponsiveRelieving blame

      • Negative Behavior

        • FrustrationHostility

        • DisagreeingBlaming

        • Tension

  • Conflict Behavior/Affect

    • Empathic Listening

      • Tuned into P’s feelingsSupportive

      • ValidatingInterested / Curious

    • Affection

      • Warm / AffectionateHumorous / Playful

    • Negative Behavior

      • HostileFrustrated

      • AngryBlaming


  • Study 10: Analytic Strategy

    • Actor-Partner modeling in HLM

    LEVEL 1:

    Relationship Behavior =

    + p1(male X own satisfaction) + p2(male X spouse’s satisfaction)

    + p3(female X own satisfaction) + p4(female X spouse’s satisfaction)

    + similar sets of APIM terms for hostile conflict & neuroticism

    + p13(male X own partner-good) + p14(male X spouse’s partner-good)

    + p15(female X own partner-good) + p16(female X spouse’s partner-good)

    + p17(male X own partner-bad) + p18(male X spouse’s partner-bad)

    + p19(female X own partner-bad) + p20(female X spouse’s partner-bad)

    + APIM terms for interactions between partner-good and partner bad

    + e

    Self-Report Controls

    Partner-GNAT

    Performance

    LEVEL 2:

    p1 = b10

    p2 = b20

    p3 = b30 + b31(rel length) + b32(# of kids)+ r3

    p4 = b40

    (similar equations for remaining lvl2 effects)


    POS-RQ Distinct Change Groups


    NEG-RQ Distinct Change Groups


    POS-RQ Distinct Change Groups


  • Login