Children From Divorce Family 2

Table of Contents

Children From Divorce Family

Following are assignment description on syllabus

Children From Divorce Family

Research Paper: Working with Special Populations (due Dec. 5th). School psychologists are often

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Children From Divorce Family 2
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

asked to work with students with unique learning needs. For this assignment you will research the

legal and ethical issues related to working with a special population of students, and how these affect

a school psychologist’s role. The topic may be selected from the list provided on page 13. The paper

must be written consistent with APA style guidelines and address:

• Literature and research in the area

• Legal issues and implications (referencing applicable federal, state, and local laws)

• Related ethical issues (referencing NASP and APA codes)

• Implications for school psychology practice


The research paper need to be at least 10 pages, APA style with references. 

My topic focus on working with children from divorce family.

I will attach

Children From Divorce Family
  • one interview report which introduces the role of school psychologists in a school setting
  • some articles I found that might be able to use in the paper
  • in-class powerpoints offering legal and ethical code of school psychology
  • one sample paper 
  • required textbook for my class
  • NASP ethic code
  • APA ethic code

Book Reviews – Comptes rendus 633

Divorce Shock: Perspectives on Counselling and Therapy Edited by Adrian R. Tiemann, Bruce L. Danto, and Steve Vinton Gullo

Reviewed by LEE HANDY, The University of Calgary, University Counselling Services

The fact that divorce has been normative within North American society has not for some time been a contentious issue. There remains, however, a great diversity in the reactions to divorce both by the public at large and relevant health professionals. What is not in question is that divorce, with near univer- sality, has a very significant impact on both society and individuals. In recent years the number of useful resources in the literature dealing with such issues as the impact of divorce on children, divorce and self-esteem, therapeutic programs for recovery from divorce for both parents and children, and concerns regarding subsequent marriages and relationships have increased both in quantity and quality. By the same token, if one looks at the more recent books in the area of marital therapy and family therapy which are often used in the training of psychologists you will find overall very little, if any, space devoted to the issues of divorce.

Children From Divorce Family

Divorce Shock enters the professional literature into what, at least to some I’m sure, is a surprisingly uncrowded arena. The majority of books currently available, I would suggest, fall into the pop psychology, self-help category. In reviewing Divorce Shock it is tempting to make comparisons to some of the existing valuable books in the area, however I believe this would be unfair both to them and this particular volume. While Divorce Shock is subtitled Perspectives on Counselling and Therapy and thus might lead readers to believe that they would find within it a major source of “how to do it” clinical information – they would be largely disappointed. The book is in fact what it purports to be; a collection of perspectives on divorce, the divorce process, and interventions aimed at recovery from divorce. This is not to say that there is not reference in some instances to very specific clinical information, but its scope and goal is clearly broader than that. It is in this broader arena of identifying, exploring, and in some cases expanding many of the issues related to divorce, both in the individual and societal context, that this volume offers a great deal.

The book itself is a collection of fifteen papers, really sixteen counting the very extensive introduction, and I believe it has been well organized in terms of the content of the individual papers and their order of presentation. Readers used to a parsimonious and at times even terse research style of writing will have some difficulty in getting past the wordy introduction which contains more than its share of generalizations of a nature which will make an empiricist shudder. The introduction does provide a very good

634 Handy

overview of the rest of the book and allows one to knowledgeably select desired readings from the fifteen chapters which follow.

Children From Divorce Family

The first four chapters of this volume provide a context for the subsequent chapters in a way that few books in the area have. Philosophical underpinnings of divorce and grief, divorce trends from both a societal and personal experience perspective, and divorce from a particular clinical socio- logical perspective represent the broad ranging areas of the first three chapters. The fourth chapter focusses on the issue of betrayal as a major component of the divorce experience while exploring its role in a variety of other contexts.

Beginning with chapter five the topics become somewhat more focussed. Chapter five presents not only information as to what courts may or may not do, but explores their role in the continuing relationship of the soon-to-be ex-spouses. Chapter six reports largely survey data as to how ex-spouses respond to the death of a divorced spouse. The information provided in this chapter may well better prepare clinicians for dealing with this increasing phenomenon. Chapter seven returns to a somewhat more multi-level analysis in terms of looking at the psychological, cultural and political considerations of women who are divorcing. This chapter goes considerably and usefully beyond the usual information which indicates that the impact of divorce is gender related. Helping professionals are challenged to examine their own attitudes as they relate to specific modes of intervention which are suggested as beneficial. This chapter in particular struck me as a useful integration of both therapeutic, developmental, gender and crisis areas of knowledge as they relate to individual responses to divorce. Chapter eight deals with an overview of grief as a major component in separation and divorce in a very brief but competent fashion. Chapter nine deals with divorce and the loss of self by defining four stages of a possible intervention in a very brief manner which I believe many readers will find somewhat lacking in desired specificity. Chapter ten is also a very brief chapter looking at the idea of the perfect couple as often a much more apparent than real phenomenon. The concepts raised in this context regarding co-dependency and subsequent disillusionment, while thought-provoking, are not dealt with extensively enough to leave the reader satisfied. Chapter eleven uses a variety of case examples to explore divorce and depression in a manner which emphasizes its context within the broader area of dealing with loss. A strong message is presented here that practitioners working in the area of divorce need to be at least competent, if not experts, in dealing with such directly related areas as depression, which is either precipitated by or combined with divorce in a manner that often raises the possible question of suicide risk.

Chapter twelve is written in an effective first person style dealing with a particular therapeutic approach to the “therapy and management” of the shock of the loss of a love relationship. A particular intervention is generally described which is designed to facilitate moving through the stages of loss or grief in the most proactive manner possible. Chapter thirteen, entitled “Love, Loss and Divorce: The Risk of Suicide”, 1 believe to be clearly the weakest,

Book Reviews – Comptes rendus 635

but fortunately also the shortest chapter in the volume. We arc presented a post-hoc analysis of Marilyn Monroe in a manner which, compared with other resources available in the literature, offers little. Chapters fourteen and fifteen go together very well. Chapter fourteen examines in some detail the notion of divorce as betrayal in a manner quite different, and yet complemen- tary, with that presented in chapter four. Central to a significant portion of this material is the concept of “projecrive identification”, which is also utilized in chapter fifteen and quite interestingly examines divorce within the context of the original complementary patterns of relationship interaction which lead to the attraction of the partners in the first place. This chapter provides both a brief theoretical overview as well as an annotated transcript of therapy with a selected couple.

In summary, I believe this book’s greatest value to most psychologists may well be perceived by many as its greatest weakness. It provides a variety of perspectives in a manner and from a point of view that is not the everyday fare of most psychologists. It leans heavily on psychoanalytic foundations and lacks specificity that many psychological practitioners might generally desire. As a stimulus to widen our perspectives beyond what becomes in practice often a very narrow focus, I believe the book Divorce Shock overall to be a valuable addition to the literature.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994. Vol. 62, No. 1. 147-156

Copyright 1994 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-006X/94/S3.00

Enhancing Treatment Gains in a School-Based Intervention for Children of Divorce Through Skill Training, Parental

Involvement, and Transfer Procedures

Arnold L. Stolberg and Jeffrey Mahler

The school-based Children’s Support Group procedure teaches skills to cope with divorce-related events and provides strategies for mastering disrupted developmental tasks. Ss were 103 3rd- through 5th-grade children of separated or divorced parents who were assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: support; support and skill building; support, skill building, transfer, and parent training procedures; or no-treatment control. Twenty-six children from intact homes served as nonstressed controls. The two skill-building conditions yielded durable improvements in adjustive behaviors in the home. Transfer components yielded additional improvements in affect, but the absence of substantial in- crements in benefits suggests the need for a closer look at the format and expectations of the transfer vehicle. The benefits of the support-alone condition were experienced most by children who entered the intervention with significant problems, with the greatest reductions in clinical symptomatology at follow-up being found in this group.

The alarming divorce rate in the United States has placed a severe demand on children’s educational and mental health facilities. Among the strategies developed to meet the needs of children of divorce are child-centered groups offered in schools and social service agencies (Grych & Fincham, 1992). The child-centered groups have received substantial attention both because of their practical advantages and because of the increas- ing body of empirical literature supporting their effectiveness (Kalter, Pickar, & Lesowitz, 1984; Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985; Stolberg & Garrison, 1985). Because most children at- tend school daily, school-based groups have the advantage of serving the largest number of children. Peers in the group may serve as active intervention elements through the unique health- promoting impact of their social support and shared perspec- tives and experiences.

A predominant conceptual theme that underlies several school-based prevention strategies (Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985; Stolberg & Garrison, 1985) attempts to mitigate the harmful effects of environmental changes and interparent hos- tility that often accompany divorce. The processes of change and conflict are significant sources of distress and confusion to children (Stolberg & Anker, 1984) and serve to disrupt chil- dren’s mastery of important developmental tasks (Wallerstein, 1983). Reduced parental availability, limited financial re- sources, and altered living circumstances may result in in- creased feelings of anger and frustration. Interparent hostility

Arnold L. Stolberg and Jeffrey Mahler, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.

This research was supported by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation. We thank the staffof the elementary schools of Chesterfield County, Virginia, for their assistance in this project.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ar- nold L. Stolberg, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 810 West Franklin Street, Richmond, Virginia 23284-2018.

and new life demands facing parents often interfere with par- enting roles and effectiveness. Stolberg and his colleagues Chil- dren’s Support Group and the Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) by Pedro-Carroll and her colleagues respond to these conceptual underpinnings. Anger control, relaxation, and communication skills are taught to help children cope with the stressors associated with divorce. Alternative systems to as- sist children in the mastery of developmental tasks, such as identity and internal controls are provided.

Program evaluation results support current programs and provide direction for their evolution. The Divorce Adjustment Project (Stolberg & Garrison, 1985) investigated the impact of three interventions on 82 children of divorce whose parents had been separated for 9 to 33 months. Seven- to 13-year-old chil- dren were assigned to a children’s support group condition, a single parents’ support group, to concurrent children’s support and single parents’ support groups, or to a no-treatment control group. The children’s groups provided structured peer support, worked to clarify misunderstandings about the divorce, and taught cognitive-behavioral skills to assist children in coping with divorce-related stressors (e.g., anger control, communica- tion skills) and in mastering developmental tasks that may have been disrupted by the divorce (e.g., impulse control skills, self- definition, social skills). Parents’ groups attempted to foster adults’ divorce adjustment, provided support, and taught skills to facilitate adult development. Secondary efforts provided in- formation and training to enhance single parenting. Evaluation data suggested that participation in the children’s support group alone yielded increased self-esteem immediately after treatment and improved social skills at the 5-month follow-up. Participation in the single parents’ support groups resulted in adult adjustment gains in the absence of parenting skill and child adjustment gains. Parent participation, it was concluded, yields immediate benefits to the children only if the interven- tion is directly aimed at improving parenting competence. En-



hancing adult adjustment did not yield immediate improve- ments in parenting competence.

CODIP (Alpert-Gillis, Pedro-Carroll, & Cowen, 1989; Pe- dro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985) expanded the Children’s Support Group program to include younger children and children from economically disadvantaged homes and improved on the for- mat of the program. The structure of the sessions was given a game-like format, thus increasing children’s interest and active participation in the program. Comparisons of CODIP (Pedro- Carroll & Cowen, 1985) and the Children’s Support Group (Stolberg & Garrison, 1985) procedures and evaluation results indicated a wider range of psychological gains in the former project, perhaps resulting from the more engaging format of CODIP. Teachers rated treatment-group children as displaying fewer shyness, anxiety, and learning problems and greater adap- tive assertiveness, peer sociability, rule compliance, and toler- ance to frustration than control-group children (Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985). Treatment-group children’s self-reported anx- iety was significantly reduced, and their parents reported sig- nificant increases in overall adjustment.

The influence of participants’ age on program content is most clearly seen in the Children of Divorce Developmental Facilita- tion Group (Kalter et al., 1984). The program is based on the conceptualization that older children experience divorce as a predominantly cognitive experience (Kalter, 1989). Thus, pro- gram content was oriented toward dynamic, psychosocial, and sex role issues. Support was provided by peers, reflecting ado- lescents’ normal reliance on peers over parents for emotional assistance. Improvements in boys’ aggression and externalizing problems and improvements in all children’s sad and insecure feelings were found (Plunkett & Kalter, 1984).

Current evaluation models for prevention programs for chil- dren of divorce surfer from four major limitations: (a) Idiosyn- cratic measures lack requisite demonstrations of validity and reliability (Emery, Hetherington, & Dilalla, 1984); (b) Adjust- ment gains are typically defined by unidimensional instruments that hamper the assessment of the program’s overall impact (Warren & Amara, 1984); (c) Assessment strategies frequently use only one rater of children’s adjustive gains, giving limited and perhaps biased views of program benefits; finally, (d) al- though programs may report statistical improvement of sub- jects, the clinical relevance of these findings is unclear. Using standardized, multidimensional instruments, that are com- pleted by raters who view children’s behaviors in different set- tings and that include a linkage to clinical dimensions may re- solve the aforementioned problems.

Five important directions for modification of interventions for children of divorce are drawn from the previous studies. First, adult involvement should be directed toward parenting skill development to yield immediate, adjustive gains for chil- dren. Intentional procedures to transfer therapeutic gains to real-world demands should be integrated into the intervention strategy (Goldstein, 1981). Overlearning and repeated rehearsal (Kanfer, 1979), the use of therapeutic homework (Shelton, 1979), maximizing parents’ use of “real-life reinforcers” (Nay, 1979), and increasing social support and modifying the social environment (Price, 1979) are relevant examples. Third, the role of support as an active intervention ingredient should be explored. The game-like format of program elements to maxi-

mize children’s interest is the fourth revision element. Improv- ing evaluation methodology is the fifth direction for revision.

Our study builds on earlier evaluation studies (Stolberg & Garrison, 1985; Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985). Added to ex- isting intervention strategies are therapeutic home workbooks for children and parents and the increased use of game-like ac- tivities to engage participants. The workbooks have been inte- grated into the program to facilitate the transfer of children’s therapeutic gains, to increase parent support, and to enhance parenting behaviors specifically along dimensions that are per- tinent to their children’s divorce adjustment. The relative con- tributions of peer and parent support on program outcomes is being investigated. The assessment strategy has been expanded to include clinically relevant dimensions of adjustment, rated by individuals who observe the children in different settings.


Subjects and Conditions

Letters describing the intervention program were sent to parents of all children in third through fifth grades in 11 suburban elementary schools. This procedure yielded all of the 103 subjects of separated or divorced parents. Twenty-six intact-family children were recruited sep- arately from participants in a school-based program to prepare children for entrance into one of the county’s middle schools and served as a nonstressed, intact-control group. Some of the divorce-group children participated in the middle school preparation program. Sample com- position was 55% female (n = 71) and 45% male (n – 58). Subjects ranged in age from 8 to 12 years, with a mean age of 9.8 years. Racial composition of the sample was 86% White and 13% African-American; 1 % were of another race. Thirteen percent of the sample were third graders, 29% were fourth graders, and 57% were fifth graders.

Eighty percent of the subjects (n = 103) consisted of children whose parents had been separated or divorced for less than 48 months. Chil- dren whose parents had been separated or divorced for more than 4 years or had a history of using mental health services for more than 1 year before participation in the study were excluded. The average time between the initial marital separation and beginning the intervention was 37.26 months. Parents had divorced in 47% of these families, were separated in 32% of the families, and had remarried in 21% of the fam- ilies. Mothers were custodians in 74% of the cases, and fathers were custodians for 9% of the children. Joint custody was established in 17% of the families. The nonstressed, intact-control group appeared to be a normally distributed group of children along adjustment dimensions. Preintervention, Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) means and standard deviations are equivalent to the distributions for the normative samples on the CBCL (M = 50, SD = 10).

Average family income ranged from below $5,000 to over $75,000, with a mean of $26,100. Sixty-two percent of the families earned less than $23,000 annually, and 23% had annual incomes of between $23,000 and $45,000. The remaining 15% of the sample earned annual incomes in excess of $45,000.

Analysis of preintervention, Child Assessment Schedule (CAS) in- terviews indicated that 58% of the subjects (n = 75) did not meet criteria for diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.; DSM-III; American Psychiatric Associa- tion, 1980), whereas 42% (n = 54) received a clinical diagnosis (see Ta- ble 1). Prevalence of diagnosis differed significantly by marital status, with 48% of the children of divorce (n = 50) and 15% of intact-family children (n = 4) receiving a diagnosis, X

2(l, N = 129) = 9.38, p < .01.


Table 1 Frequencies of Diagnoses

Type of diagnosis

Attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity

Attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity

Separation anxiety disorder Overanxious disorder Oppositional disorder Enuresis Major depression Dysthymic disorder Simple phobia Obsessive-compulsive

disorder No diagnosis



1 20 6 6 2 4 5 3

4 75

% sample


0.8 15.5 4.7 4.7 1.6 3.1 3.9 2.3

3.1 58.0


Groups were jointly led by doctoral students in clinical psychology and by school guidance counselors and vice principals. Graduate stu- dents and school personnel were trained in the administration of pro- gram procedures and used procedure manuals to ensure consistency of program procedures across groups. Student co-leaders received weekly supervision.


The comprehensive, 14-week intervention consisted of three major components: support or special topics; skill building; and skills transfer. For consistency of intervention procedures, all program procedures were manualized in the LeadersGuide (Stolberg, Zacharias, & Cam- plair, 1991). The support or special topics component of the Children’s Support Group procedure operated as an independent, eight-session in- tervention in the support-alone condition and as half of eight of the sessions in the transfer, skills, and support condition and in the skills and support condition. The discussion of specific themes for each ses- sion was accomplished through the use of cartoon and pictorial stimulus material, writing newspaper articles, and games developed for the inter- vention.

The skill building component consisted of part of five sessions dedi- cated to teaching children to label feelings, to associate them with causal events, and to combine the feelings and events into statements to others. Part of four sessions were devoted to teaching children self-control and problem-solving skills and to helping children apply these skills to di- vorce-related problems. Children were taught to determine whether problems were solvable and whose responsibility it was to solve them. Anger control was the focus of part of the final two treatment sessions. Three sessions were devoted to introductory and termination activities.

In summary, the transfer, skills, and support condition and the skills- and-support condition were composed of two initial sessions that were devoted to introductory activities. Half of the next eight sessions were devoted to support or special topics activities. The other half of these sessions focused on teaching children about feelings and self-control techniques. Self-control and anger control procedures were taught in all of the next three sessions. The final session was devoted to termination activities.

The skills transfer component comprised a combined KidsBook and ParentsBook (Stolberg et al., 1991) and a series of four parent work- shops. The KidsBook is an activity and home workbook that helps chil- dren prepare for upcoming sessions, provided practice opportunities for

skills learned in the group, and encouraged parent-child communica- tion. Through drawing and writing exercises, the KidsBook encouraged children to examine their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to divorce and to evaluate their progress. Material in the KidsBook corre- sponded to the sequencing and content of the in-school sessions.

The ParentsBook encouraged parents to be involved in their child’s experience with the transfer, skills, and support condition. It directed parents to encourage the use of skills learned and to initiate the discus- sion of important divorce-related topics. It recommended procedures to address issues that may have affected the parent-child relationship and suggested ways in which parents could give support and understand- ing to their child. Material in the ParentsBook corresponds to the se- quencing and content of the in-school sessions and KidsBook activities.

Treatment groups were configured in three ways; transfer, skills, and support; skills and support; and support alone. The session content of the two skills and support groups included three meetings entirely de- voted to introductory or termination activities. Eight sessions were equally divided into skill-building and support activities. The remaining three sessions focused on skill-building exercises alone. The skills transfer components supplemented the skills-and-support activities in transfer, skills, and support. The support-alone groups devoted three sessions to combined introductory or termination activities and support activities and all of the remaining five sessions to support activities.

Random assignment of schools to conditions yielded a transfer, skills, and support group (n – 29); a skills and support group (« = 28); a sup- port-alone group (n = 23); and a divorce, no-treatment control group (n = 23). The intact, no-treatment control group comprised 26 children. Because the project spanned 3 years, many schools participated in sev- eral intervention phases. Participating schools were randomly assigned to treatment condition each semester. Thus, one school may have offered different intervention configurations at different times. Once schools had agreed to participate during a semester, children were re- cruited. Children’s acceptance into their school’s assigned intervention was based only on their family’s willingness to participate in all aspects of the intervention and evaluation.

Within each of the divorce intervention cells, five intervention groups of 5 to 8 children were held. Because of parents’ wishes not to partici- pate in the research component of the project, a few groups included children who did not complete evaluation instruments. The total num- ber of nonresearch subjects was less than 5. The additive effect of step- wise increases in intervention elements on adjustment was assessed by adding the skills activities to the support program, yielding the skills and support condition, and by adding the transfer procedures to the later intervention to produce the transfer, skills, and support interven- tion. Inclusion of the divorce, no-treatment control group facilitated determining the effects of time on the adjustment of children of divorce. Comparisons with the intact, no-treatment control group enabled us to determine how close to nonstressed peers the children of divorce were after treatment.


Measures of child adjustment were divided into four clusters: affect, cognition, behavior in the home, and behavior in the school. The affect cluster comprised the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAI-C; Spielberger, 1973) and the Children’s Depression Inventory. The Self-Perception Profiles (SPP) scales made up the cognition cluster. The cluster for behavior in the home included the CBCL scales (Activi- ties, Social, School, Internalize, Externalize, and the standardized, total pathology score Sum t). Six of the Teacher’s Rating Form scales (Aca- demics, Adaptive Functioning, Happy, Learning, Internalize, External- ize, Sum t) constituted the cluster for behavior in the school.

Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI). The GDI (Kovacs, 1981) is a 27-item self-report rating scale that assesses affective, behavioral, so- cial, attitudinal, and vegetative symptoms of depression in children.


Children select one self-rating from a group of three, ranging from nor- mal to clinically significant symptoms that best describes his or her ex- perience over the past 2 weeks. The measure has established norms for both clinical and normal populations (Kovacs, 1981: Smucker, Craig- head, Craighead, & Green, 1986). Internal consistency estimated by coefficient alpha was .84 and 3-week test-retest reliability with fifth graders ranged between .74 and .77 (Smucker etal., 1986). Validity stud- ies support its usefulness in discriminating between emotionally dis- tressed and normal children (Saylor, Finch, Spirito, & Bennett, 1984).

STA1-C. The STAI-C (Spielberger, 1973) is composed of two 20- item scales measuring the child’s level of state and trait anxiety. Chil- dren select the statement that best describes how they usually feel. The measure has norms for elementary school children. Six-week test-retest reliability coefficients for A-Trait scale were .65 for boys and .71 for girls. Evidence for concurrent validity of A-Trait scale was based on its .75 correlation with the Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (Spielberger, 1973).

SPP. The SPP (Harter, 1983) is a 36-item scale designed to assess perceived competence in six areas of children’s self-concept: cognitive competence, athletic competence, social acceptance, physical appear- ance, conduct and behavior, and general self-worth. Children rate each self-description on a 4-point scale. Psychometric data suggest that the measure is appropriate for boys and girls in Grades 3 through 9 and for group administration. Factor analysis supports the validity of the subscales across ages. Test-retest reliabilities ranged from .69 to .87 (Harter, 1983).

Child Assessment Schedule (CAS). The CAS (Hodges, Kline, Stern, McKnew, & Cytryn, 1982) is a standardized diagnostic interview for children designed to be administered by interviewers with experience in childhood psychopathology. It is designed for use with children aged 7 to 12 years old and yields a DSM-III diagnosis. The interview is di- vided into three sections: content area questions, onset and duration questions, and interviewer observational judgments. The completed in- terview yields both diagnostic information and a total psychopatholog- ical index.

Studies have demonstrated interrater reliability of the CAS with kap- pas ranging from .47 to .71, indicating moderate-to-good rater agreement. Evidence for the validity of the CAS includes concordance with the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School- Age Children (K.-SADS) interview (Hodges, McKnew, Burbach, & Roe- buck, 1987) and correlations with overall psychiatric ratings ranging between .82 to .87 (Verhulst, Berden, & Sanders-Woudstra, 1985). Inter- rater reliability estimates calculated for the current study yielded Co- hen’s kappa values ranging from .51 to .91, with an overall mean of .78.

Child Behavior Checklist-Parent Form (CBCL). The CBCL (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) contains 118 items, for which parents rate frequency of occurrence on a 3-point scale. The measure yields normed scores on nine problem behavior scales for each sex, a normed total pathology scale, two broad-band second-order factors (Externaliz- ing and Internalizing) and three social competence scales. Higher scores are keyed to frequency of the behavior and reflect either greater proso- cial skills or maladaptive behavior. The t scores on internalizing, exter- nalizing, and total pathology (Sum t) and the three prosocial scales were used in this study. Studies have demonstrated the measure’s ability to discriminant between normal and disturbed children (see Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983, for a review). Test-retest and interparent correlations of .89 and .74 respectively, have been reported (Achenbach & Edel- brock, 1983).

CBCL-Teacher’s Rating Form (TRF). The TRF developed by Achenbach and Edelbrock (1986) was designed to obtain teachers’ re- ports of children’s problem behavior, school performance, and adaptive functioning. Teachers rate the frequency of occurrence of each of the 133 items. Higher scores indicate greater maladaptive behavior, aca- demic achievement, and adaptive functioning. The t scores on the in-

ternalizing, externalizing, and total pathology (Sum t) scales and the four prosocial scales were used in this study. Two-month test-retest co- efficients for boys aged 6-11 averaged .74 for behavior scales (Achen- bach & Edelbrock, 1986). Teacher-teacher aid agreement was .57.


Teacher, parent, and child pretreatment ratings of all children were collected 1 to 2 weeks before the beginning of the programs. Testing of the children and their parents was done in groups of about 20. Teachers completed their ratings during the school day. Project staff who were unaware of the subjects’ group assignment administered the CASs at the school during the school day. Posttesting of all children was per- formed at the conclusion of the intervention. Follow-up data were col- lected 1 year after completion of the intervention. Teachers and parents were not informed of the multiple formats of the intervention and were, thus, not apprised of the unique aspects of the group to which their children had been assigned. Teachers may have been aware of the larger evaluation project because of their school’s involvement with the pro- gram.


Following recent trends in outcome research methodology, analyses were divided into two major groupings to provide out- come and normative evaluations of program impact (Kendall & Grove, 1988). The outcome analyses questioned whether treatment had produced any adjustive changes through com- parisons of groups of children of divorce in treatment and no- treatment control conditions. The normative analyses com- pared the status of the treatment groups at postassessment and follow-up assessment periods with that of a normative control group of nonstressed, intact-family peers.

Outcome data were clustered into four dimensions: affect, cognition, behavior in the home, and behavior in the school to provide information on the specific levels of program impact (Kendall & Norton-Ford, 1982; Strupp & Hadley, 1977). In the first step of the outcome analyses, we calculated eight sets of repeated measures, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) using either measures of affect (GDI, STAI-C: Trait, STAI-C:State), cognition (the six SPP scales, CAS-Total Pathology), behavior in the home (CBCL), or behavior in the school (TRF) as dependent measures and time (either pre- to postassessment [pre-post] or pre- to postassessment and postas- sessment to follow-up [pre-post-follow-up]) and divorce group membership as the independent variables. Analyses were con- ducted separately for pre-post and pre-post-follow-up data be- cause of the reductions in power resulting from subject attrition at follow-up. When the MANOVAs were significant, repeated measures (ANOVAs) and Duncan’s multiple range tests were used as post hoc tests. Comparisons reported are significant at p < .05.

In the second step of the outcome analyses, divorce-group children were rated either as having moderate-to-severe adjust- ment problems or as relatively symptomfree, using pre-inter- vention TRF and CBCL Sum t scores. We then calculated two sets of two chi-square coefficients, first using the sample of chil- dren with adjustment problems and then using the sample that was symptomfree. The four levels of divorce groups and the presence or absence of adjustment problems at posttesting con- stituted the categorization variables. The analyses were re-


peated with follow-up adjustment ratings. The calculations us- ing the sample of children with adjustment problems at pretest- ing yielded information on which interventions most helped in reducing adjustment problems. Analyses of well-adjusted chil- dren provided some understanding of the deleterious effects of an intervention.

For the normative comparisons, a series of four M ANOVAs were conducted. Affect, cognition, behavior in the home, and behavior in the school clusters at postassessment and then fol- low-up were used as dependent measures, and four of the child groups, excluding the divorce controls, served as the indepen- dent variable. This analysis provided social validation of pro- gram impact and helped to determine similarities between chil- dren of divorce and their nonstressed peers after treatment (Kazdin, 1977).

Table 2 presents preassessment, postassessment, and follow- up group means and standard deviations for each of the study’s dependent variables, MANOVA Fs for the Group X Time in- teractions for pre-post and pre-post-follow-up repeated mea- sures analyses, and ANOVA Fs for the Group X Time interac- tions for the pre-post comparisons. Repeated measures MANOVAs calculated on pre-post data yielded significant Group X Time interactions for the affect cluster, F(3, 95) = 1.76, p < .05, and the behavior in the home cluster, F(3, 90) = 1.75, p < .05. Repeated measures ANOVAs calculated on the individual affect scales identified a significant Group X Time interaction for the STAI-C: Trait measure, F(3, 95) = 3.68, p < .01. Significant univariate Fs for the Group X Time interactions were found for the scales of behavior in the home: Internalizing, F(3, 90) = 4.50, p < .005; Externalizing, F(3, 90) = 6.20, p < .001; and Sum /, F(3, 90) = 6.12, p < .001. Duncan’s multiple range tests calculated on pre-post change scores for the previous four variables indicated that the greatest decreases in Interna- lizing scores (M = 8.23), Externalizing scores (M – 8.54), and Sum / scores (M = 9.42) were found in the skills and support condition. These decreases were significantly greater than those found in the transfer, skills, and support condition (Externaliz- ing [M = 2.63] and Sum t scores [M = 3.42]), in the support- alone condition (Internalizing [M = .09], Externalizing [M = .22], and Sum t scores [M = .23]), and in the divorce controls (Internalizing [M = 2.05], Externalizing [M = .82], and Sum t scores [M = 1.59]). Decreases in trait anxiety were greatest in the transfer, skills, and support condition (M = 6.50), compared with STAI-C: Trait scores in the skills and support condition (M = 2.48) and the support-alone condition (M = 1.87).

Analyses of pre-post-follow-up data yielded significant Group X Time interaction effects in the repeated measures MANOVAs on the behavior in the home cluster, F(3,65) = 2.07, p < .001 (see Table 2). We did not find significant interaction effects for the affect cluster, F(3, 80) = 1.45, ns; cognition clus- ter, F(3, 40) = 1.14, ns; and behavior in the school cluster, F(3, 57) = 0.74, ns. Significant univariate Fs for the Group X Time interactions were found for individual behavior in the home scales: Internalizing, F(3, 65) = 8.46, p < .001; Externalizing, F(3, 65) = 4.12,p < .01; and Sum /, F(3, 65) = 8.24, p < .001. Duncan’s multiple-range tests calculated on the four preassess- ment-to-follow-up change scores indicated that the greatest im- provements were in the transfer, skills, and support condition Internalizing scores (M = 7.63), Externalizing scores (M =

8.31), and Sum t scores (M = 8.88) and in the skills and support condition Externalizing scores (M = 7.77) and Sum t scores (M = 8.54), compared with the scales for divorce controls: Interna- lizing (M = .32), Externalizing (M = 1.64), and sum t (M = 1.86).

In the second stage of outcome evaluations, divorce-group children were rated either as having adjustment problems at program entry or as well-adjusted. Moderate-to-severe adjust- ment problems at program entry were operationalized by either TRF Sum t scores or CBCL Sum t scores greater than or equal to 60 (n = 66). Children with pre-intervention TRF Sum t and CBCL Sum t scores less than 60 (n = 37) were considered to be relatively symptomfree. Divorce group and adjustment ratings at posttesting were used as categorization variables in chi- square analyses on the sample with adjustment problems, yield- ing significant differences in adjustment ratings by group post- treatment, x2(3, N = 60) = 8.70, p < .05. Eight of 21 children in the skills and support condition displayed clinically significant signs of improvement, whereas only 2 of 20 children in transfer, skills, and support, 2 of 11 children in support alone, and none of the children in divorce controls showed similar clinical im- provement (see Table 3). Chi-squares on the same subgroups and categorizations found significant differences in adjustment ratings by group at follow-up, x2(3, N = 41) = 11.46, p < .01. Four of 11 skills and support children and 7 of 10 support-alone children displayed improvements in adjustment, whereas none of the divorce controls and 3 of 14 transfer, skills, and support children showed such gains.

Investigations of children rated relatively well-adjusted be- fore treatment yielded significant differences in posttreatment adjustment patterns, x2(3, N = 32) = 7.61, p < .05. Four of 9 children in the support-alone condition displayed clinically significant adjustment problems, whereas only 2 of 7 children in the transfer, skills, and support condition and 2 of 6 children in the skills and support condition showed deteriorated func- tioning. Again, no changes in adjustment were noted in chil- dren in the divorce controls condition. No significant differ- ences in adjustment ratings by group preintervention to follow- up intervention were found for this initially well-adjusted group, x2(3, N=2\)= 3.86, ns, perhaps because only 1 child in each of the skill-building conditions met the initial adjustment criteria. Interestingly, 5 of 7 support-alone children displayed significant deteriorations in adjustment from pre-intervention to follow-up.

MANOVAs calculated in the normative evaluation indicated no significant posttesting differences in affect, F(9, 339) = 1.05, ns; cognition, F(21, 156) = 1.40, ns; or behavior in the home, F(21, 258) = 1.51, ns, of children of divorce in the treatment groups and intact-family controls. A significant model effect was found for the behavior in the school cluster at posttesting, F(21, 216) = 1.96, p < .01. See Table 2 for group means and standard deviations. After treatment, teachers rated children of divorce as being more poorly adjusted than their intact-family peers on the three TRF pathology subscales: Sum t, F(3, 81) = 4.45, p < .01; Internalizing, F(3, 81) = 4.81, p < .01; and Externalizing, F(3, 81) = 3.89, p < .01. MANOVAs were also calculated with follow-up scores as the dependent measures. No significant differences were found between treatment-group children and their intact-family peers in affect, F(9,282) = 0.97,


er ac

tio ns

Ti m

e In




ir ia

te F


.g :§

‘v ar

ia te

a an

d M

ul t

vi at

io ns

Ta bl

e 2

G ro

up M

ea ns

a nd

S ta

nd ar

d D


a P O

y 8 E’ —

e co

nt ro




c o. 3


c s up

po rt




ill s,

& s


% V) C


a 3 C”

5 ii •3 c £ *” ^ S”



*- <N


a 3 2″

5 II U. ~^

** *N

^QM ‘I

a 3 ̂


£7a. u o.^

_0 II



/ a nd


o f s

ca le



M — — — (N (N _ —

£S “» S- R- “8 3~ «- — — — , _ — rs rs —


CL3 O *n >n — • oo *n »n P*- — oo rs o> !oo

! I~ H 11 11 H H 11 i E” 2″ 6″ E” “” ‘” RS g S* £”> ^* 2-* 2« 2r” Si^

^j- OSP*- w~iO Oso t^-oo O-^ mos — rs

1 oom asm r-m oo^t r-m oo-^t O’O

2 soo — in ^-r- 0*^1 — oo rsrs “to


% m oooo m «n m- -* so oo

91 so ̂ oo m r~- <n r^ ^ oo rs oo mi o O

‘5 Ofi

r-^m oo’^t r*-*m r^^ oom osrs o —

— . — — , _* « — r^rs

3 o v

S c « – » * – • ^ 1 2 S S * a. g “g ^ c

S 6

r– oo m -S

O m O §

f^l O ^ Os OO Os “O

— < oo so os so rs so <^i rs P*- — ^t

rs m

r-. p^ r- r- O os

*/*i m o *n m os »n Tt O »n — oo

I I • — – Os Os ” t̂ O O OO O w*> o — f”> O «n

sd ^ i — P*- m cs m rs rs

rZ t/*> sO “n O r*i — – ^ so rs m oo — os J Os P*- rS sO sO ^t

î rr o os p- m rs

*- r** ^ m \o m rj-

« •* oo rs r- — rf — g> Tf O v» ^- — O Q, P*- oo “-” Os in *n

rs m*

• m so f**i *n so *n “•̂ ^- \o fS Os — ••

^ rs r^

m s— • m oo so Tf rs so U, T* O 00 O sO -<t

uj rs ma > rs m ^ ^r so r^u m os O oo <n P-

CL Os *n ^ oo P^ so 7! rs m

O sO so ^- 00 — OS_ oo oo P- — ^t »n < m m — « —s u, *i Q in oo m so os 3 o m rs so os — 7j Os in rs in so so i|_( rs fi

(S *̂ p- Tt in oo O m

r«- rs so — — os oo *n o P*1 *<o *n

Os r^ so rs so P^ O — O •* p »n OP- P- so O sO


1 , >> C “En *̂ 4j i*i

•5-0 J5. ̂

to O


a P n


8 g o ed C

: c

on tr

ol s

ao 3

a Q. 3





1 V)





a 3 C” i fN .2 II

£ ~

Ŝ’ U fN

cu n


£ n


1 0_ II

s: a 3 C~

0 II


3S £ “

O> fN

a 3 CT i *”* ,0 1!

U, “-“




*- °^

£ “


p M

a nd

•$ £

of sc

al e

(* =

•o -V

fN OO O O O <N V) O rr vi <N — O O O rf sd sd

m vj vjrf — • — • ONVJ P*— sOOO rroo Ooo P- rf f N f N sovi sov» ON sO NO fN ^D Vj ro O fN P— rf ON rr vi fN rf — vj — • vi vi

OOP- rf m O\O fNso v> so P-fN viO OP- SOON r fOO SOON f N V > — P-” m od fN*od — ON O ON — O* V)*—” VJ — Vj — •» VJ Vj VI — i

m V) m vj O V j m fN 1 — ON P-vj p- rr r r f N r- <N m rr rr m rrrr

# ONSO OOP- P-m mO <NOs f N O

S fN Vioo p-m P- — ONrf fNO rfsO

O N — 1 P-VJ P-p- virf oo— — « ro ONSO — • rf vi p-* mo” m — r f f N

^ rf s O f N r T VJ — Vj — Vj —

rT”‘ vj — V)O -^ P- sOsO SOON OOVi ^” ON P- vip- ON m OOCO m OO sO fi O. ooso rf O SOP- — O — — O fN 3 rf rf — • rf Vj — Vj — . i/-i — .

— v i — sooo fNoo moo sooo rrso *O sOrT ONSO OOO rf— Vi OO P- — *””‘ ON P- p-“sd SOP- m — • — – fN* — r*S t/5 rf rf rf vi — Vj — in-

tod sorr m rf vjrf P-so vi fN CNVJ

> OsP- ONrf sdod f*Ssd rfo* VJP- w rf rr — rf vi vi Vi

vi virT oom f N r r viOs r^ifN r^so p- vioo sorr OOON OP- P-rf fNr f — •+ p- p- r^i ON so ON ON r*« P— OO ON P—


ON r f f N rfso P-vj f N r f f N f ^ Vjso Ooo VisO sor^i ONP- rf— P-OO

Q odsd sdrn r f O N OO’ON P-o6 oo’odr^ rj- rf — rf vi vj vj

O, OOON v i fN r fv i fN — • vim v j i — r»iso — oo oom SOP- — so — so

JJ -^ p-* rr oo P- oo* v! oo vj p-* vi p-“

“̂ oorf moo oorr ONOO OOP- oorf >• vim < N m Ofn sorr viso V > O N O rfo” mp-* f N v J f N O N r fod mod 2; rr — • rr rr — v> vi vi

2s SOP- — oo — oo soso mp- mo (_ O<^i — – f N vjrf oovi Orn rr — • £ OOOO OO O— O N O N mod f N O N _) rT r f — – r f — vj sO so

“o IU P mvi r f O Oso P – — rfOs OOVi Q vioo Osvi Ooo rTvj ONrT vjso J3 O v V j r fOO fNOO O N O N P-Ov ONO £ rf rf rT Vi vi Vi —

c **r ^ t-~ ON ON P- p— rr vi i-̂ rr P- fN tn Orr — – f N f N V i Or«1 mo P-v>

.2 ONSO f N O O VJvj ONO* ON*O ON —

S CQ ^CM Ovi p-rf OP- Oso OP-

ON*^ r f O N Virf O N f N (NO sOf^ OOQQ OO sot — r f O N f N f N rf —

1 ° 2 .£ > tn _ N .H

*£ < (^ C/5 £ W 5


3 ON P-VI sorf P-fN f N r f r fVi Q V jP- sOsO vjf^ sOf*^ fNOO ONC’N Orf ^-sd rfo rf — • so O odsd virf rfso” so— sOfN sO<N sO<N rf rf rf

p-m r*”im ONOO ONOO OsfN sooo mm — vj ONP- — rf OVi vjvi soso moo P-<N sofN p-fN P-<N rr rr rr

soo sorf oom rfso oooo vjrf Om fNP- Orf v jm \ o — r rm mrr oooo — so VjsO OOVi sosO P-V) P-sO rfp-

rj-p- O p – — fN— m— mm f N O N — o ONV> j| SOOO fNso r*”)O\ <^lfN P-Vi sOON ro\O

*~*. P-VJ so-^ sO— — ON so — * ViO vifN P- Vj-^ V j f N Vi(N \ O — Vi— V j — Vi — •

m^ tt^ — ON O<^ oovj vim rroo fNO sorf ^ r f r r Orf — fN mo fNso oooo P-SO 3 virf SOP- OOsO — ON — sO f N O O — ON

« v i — rf rf vj vj vj vj


“3 VjO «— ivi vjO P-P- P-sO f N V i r*^vi £Z OsO P-rf OOO SOON sOP- vivj r f (N (/» COON od’—’ ONOO m — « mod r fo m — • > vj rf— rf vi — vi Vi — « vi —

— O ONOO mrf fN*1^ P-P- r fOO soc*”t ^ — f<l OOrf r^rf p – — — . p- rTP- OrT

P-fN i — m r f r^ vim ONSO O V j OOsO C v i — i v j « – « v i — v i — rf vi rf


11 vim p^sd odod fN*vJ m o N — ON fN —

5. m” V>ON OOON f i fN p-m OOP- rro — ̂ fN j-‘ p^—, OOP- OOON oorr mo vjp- fN —

*5 v> rf rr— vi vi — vi vi —

> OOP- mo sooo ooso spoo ONVJ OON j. O O f N ViO P-ON OO— Ovj VjOO OP- .>- V*ON P-sO* O*vj O N V J fNP- vSod r f o N

O O N O N r f O N OOOO O — < •— « ( N msO O N I — *-jp oo so ^O ON •”• O v> ••• fN ̂ ^ O P— ~™

< p- fN OOON — P- ONSO fNP- SOON rTOrf— rf— v i — r f — Vi Vi vi —

*J VJON ONP- r f O N ONVI O<N — r^i sorf t« OOP- O— O N O N fNf ‘ l OON ON-^ OsO 3, vioN f N O N sdos sdo v>r-” odo odo* o rr rf rf rf — vi vi — vi — .

j u Ov» Oso OON vjoo v jm or- virf *f P–^ soso mp- vjO OO sovi OOsO $ — ON fNoo vip-* sdod mp-‘ moN fNO •g Vi i/^ «. v-i — VI — VJ VJ VJ —


O P-oo P-VI ooO vio r f v j oorf r f f N •5 oorf ONrf vio m— ooO vjvj ON — * rt 1̂ 1 rf vim oovi O f N rfod vioo rfos

& r rO P-rf rro «rr rr— ViO m — sOVj sOVj so*— • ONP- sovj OOON P–^ m f N rfO r f f N OOON vip- sooo SOON irt *^ ^> « Tf *-< rf v> vi vi

I | of) ^

• § 3 C ^« g u. •- .£

g< < z -j £ w 3>

lil d

A ss

es sm

en t


1 g

% g>

“8 g o


“o c g tfl 3

f 1 *o



13 V)

• w

SS11 1 !•?** ° « B-^ n §•=

• c °^ c^l W 1> ^^

f* g-

JV «/<

*. M



A =

m ul

ti va

ri at

e a i

1 .F

s p er

ta in

to d

iv or

ce g

ro up

s o nl

y. Sc

he du

le a

t p os

t a nd

f ol

lo w

-u p

te st

i */

> <

-0 5.


/7 <

.0 1.


*p <

.O C


Table 3 Frequencies ofPosttreatment and Follow-Up Normative Adjustment Ratings

Adjustment problems at pretesting (n = 66)

No adjustment problems at pretesting (n = 37)

Posttreatment ratings3



Transfers, skills, and support

Skills and support Support Divorce control


18 13 9 8


90 62 82


Im- proved


2 8 2 0


10 38 18 0


20 21 11 8

Follow-up ratings’1



11 7 3 6


78 64 30


Im- proved


3 4 7 0


21 36 70 0


14 11 10 6

Posttreatment ratings3



5 4 5



71 66 55


Deter- iorated


2 2 4 0


29 33 45 0


1 6 9


Follow-up ratings’1



0 1 2



0 100 29 83

Deter- iorated


1 0 5 2


100 0

71 17


1 1 7


1X 2 (3 ,A’=60) = 5. bx 2(3,JV = 41) = 1 l.46,p< .01. c x2(3, N= 32) = 7.61, p< .05. d x2(3,A r= 21) = 3.86, T

/MY cognition, F(2l, 120) = 1.06, ns; behavior in the home, F(21, 150) = 0.63, ns; or behavior in the school, F(21, 162) = 0.97, ns.


This study identified effective intervention components and promising elements in need of revision. Participation in the skill-building components yielded significant, adjustive gains beyond those displayed by the divorce controls. The skills and support condition yielded the most immediate gains, specifi- cally in reductions in internalizing and externalizing behavior and total pathology in the home. Supplementing skill-building interventions with transfer procedures and structured, parental involvement resulted in immediate improvements in children’s self-ratings of reduced trait anxiety but delayed the report of behavioral gains in the home until the 1-year follow-up. At fol- low-up, the adjustment associated with both of these conditions was greater than that found in the divorce controls. The adjust- ment patterns of the two skill-building conditions were neither significantly different from each other nor different from the adjustment patterns of the support-only condition. Further- more, children in the skills and support condition displayed greater improvements in clinical symptomatology than chil- dren in all other conditions at posttesting. The skills and sup- port intervention resulted in reductions in clinical symptom- atology in 8 of 21 children at posttesting, in contrast to similar clinical improvements in only 2 of 20 children in the transfer, skills, and support condition, 2 of 11 children in the support- only condition, and in none of the children in the divorce con- trols in the same time span. Children in the support-only con- dition displayed greater improvements in clinical symptomatol- ogy at follow-up than children in all other conditions. Rates of deteriorated adjustment should be given little attention because of the small sample sizes. Normative evaluations of the inter- vention suggest that children’s affective and cognitive adjust- ment and behaviors in the home equaled those of their non- stressed peers from intact homes immediately posttreatment. Functioning in all domains was comparable for intervention and nonstressed controls at the 1-year follow-up.

The addition of transfer procedures and structured parental involvement to skill building and supportive interventions for children of divorce yielded improvements in self-rated, trait anxiety. Self-rated gains were not reported in any other treat- ment condition. One year posttreatment, children from the transfer, skills, and support condition reported fewer pathologi- cal symptoms and were rated by their parents as displaying sig- nificantly fewer pathological symptoms than children from no- treatment controls. A similar pattern of immediate, internally rated gains, and delayed, external ratings of improvement was reported by Stolberg and Garrison (1985), who concluded that time to practice learned skills was needed before others noticed gains in behavior.

The absence of parental involvement in the skills and support condition may have inflated parents’ ratings of adjustive gains in their children in part reflecting a lower threshold for viewing their children as psychologically healthy. Parents in the Transfer, skills, and support condition were intimately involved with the details of the intervention through books and workshops and were directed to engage their children in discussions of feelings about the divorce and its related events. These parents had de- tailed information about their children’s internal states. Their subsequent appraisal of that adjustment may have reflected what they learned from their children. Contrasts of the patterns of parent-reported gains in the two conditions without parent involvement, the support-alone groups, and the skills and sup- port groups, speak against the exclusive operation of an halo effect in the reported adjustment gains in the later group.

Significant increments in adjustive gains did not result from the addition of the transfer procedures. Although affective dis- tress was reduced in the all-components intervention, the pro- cedures may have resulted in delays in adjustive benefits to the children. Because substantial empirical support for the inclu- sion of parenting and transfer elements in program procedures can be drawn from the literature (Cherlin et al., 1991; Ellwood & Stolberg, in press; Goldstein, 1981; Kanfer, 1979; Stolberg & Bush, 1985), it is essential to understand the failure of the procedures to yield incremental benefits.

Two problems may account for the failure of the transfer ve-


hides. Although no data were collected, one may conclude that the imposing 250 pages of the document and the 10 pages of weekly homework assignments for the children may have inhib- ited their interest and assignment completion. Parents’ access to the manual through their children may have limited children’s sense of privacy and their willingness to relinquish the manuals for weekly parent assignments. Thus, rehearsal, preparation, and parental support may have been limited.

Parents’ abilities to meet program expectations and chil- dren’s consequent appraisals of their parents’ emotional avail- ability (Zacharias, 1992) may have influenced transfer. Prelim- inary investigations of transfer procedures and family function- ing interactions suggest that children from low-functioning homes benefit more from interventions without parent involve- ment. In contrast, children from high-functioning homes display greater gains when parents are integrated into the transfer procedures.

Support-alone interventions yielded a variable pattern of im- provements over the project’s three observation periods. The greatest impact of this condition was found in the adjustment of children who entered the intervention with clinically significant problems. Reductions in clinical symptomatology at follow-up were greater for this group than for all other conditions. No differences were found at either postassessment or follow-up testing in the affective, cognitive, and behavioral adjustment of children in the support-alone condition, compared with those in the divorce controls. Children in the support-alone condition displayed adjustment patterns that were not significantly different from their peers in the transfer, skills, and support and the skills and support conditions at follow-up. The limited im- pact of this condition may be a result of the reduced amount of treatment time to children. The skill-building conditions in- volved 43% more therapeutic contact (14 sessions), whereas the support-alone condition comprised 8 sessions.

Broader implications spring from this intervention research (Grych & Fincham, 1992). First, this is a treatment program, not prevention. Almost 50% of the treatment sample in this study displayed behaviors rated as clinically significant. Parents in this and other studies were separated for many years before the interventions were offered (Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985; Kalter et al., 1984). Second, the relationship between the theo- retical model (which serves as the intervention’s foundation) and processes fostered in the interventions (e.g., homework completion and skill application) hypothesized to promote ad- justive gains has yet to be documented. Third, attention to sig- nificant family processes facing divorcing families, such as hos- tility reduction, must be added to the current strategy. Finally, age-related variations in patterns of parent and peer support, in children’s cognitive sophistication, and in the developmental tasks to be mastered must be considered when expanding the populations to be served by these structured interventions.

Three findings from this study may be applied to other school-based intervention strategies yielding benefits to all such interventions. First, designing and evaluating individual pro- gram components may facilitate their export to other school- based interventions, including drug abuse prevention and sex education. As with the work of Finch and Kendall (1979) and Shure (1988), the work of others helped to make the Children’s Support Group procedure more effective. The importance of

cognitive-behavioral skill building as a key ingredient of the program design is the second general application principle. Substantial outcome gains resulted from teaching skills to help children master developmental tasks hindered by divorce. Fi- nally, developing defined roles for parents in ameliorating the adverse effects of family problems is supported both by data and by common sense. Further exploration and refinement of procedures is required. Schools are faced with the immense burdens of meeting educational, health, mental health, and child-care demands of children and their families. One can only conclude that, in the absence of substantial increases in staff and financial support, weekly interventions can never be as effective as continuous intervention by parents throughout the child’s waking hours.


Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Be- havior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1986). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and Teacher Version of the Child Behavior Checklist. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Alpert-Gillis, L. J., Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Cowen, E. L. (1989). The Chil- dren of Divorce Intervention Program: Development, implementa- tion, and evaluation of a program for young urban children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 583-589.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Cherlin, A. J., Furstenberg, F. F. Jr., Chase-Lansdale, L., Kiernan, K. E., Robins, P. K., Morrison, D. R., & Teitler, J. O. (1991). Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 1386-1389.

Ellwood, M. S., & Stolberg, A. L. (in press). The effects of family com- position, family health, parenting behavior and environmental stress on children’s divorce adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Stud- ies.

Emery, R. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Dilalla, L. F. (1984). Divorce, children and social policy. In H. W. Stevenson & A. E. Siegal (Eds.), Child development, research and social policy (pp. 189-266). Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.

Finch, A. J., & Kendall, P. C. (1979). Impulsive behaviors: From re- search to treatment. In A. J. Finch & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), Clinical treatment and research in childpsychopathology (pp. 137-156). New York: Spectrum Publications.

Goldstein, A. P. (1981). Psychological skill training. Elmsford, NY: Per- gamon Press.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Interventions for children of divorce: Toward greater integration of research and action. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 111, 434-454.

Harter, S. (1983). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Un- published manuscript, University of Denver.

Hodges, K., Kline, J., Stern, L., McKnew, D., & Cytryn, L. (1982). The development of a child assessment schedule for research and clinical use. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 173-189.

Hodges, K., McKnew, D., Burbach, D. J., & Roebuck, L. (1987). Diag- nostic concordance between the Child Assessment Schedule (CAS) and the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS) in an outpatient sample using lay interviewers. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles- cent Psychiatry, 26, 654-661.

Kalter, N. (1989). Growing up with divorce: Helping your child avoid immediate and later emotional problems. New York: Free Press.


Kalter, N., Pickar, J., & Lesowitz, M. (1984). School-based developmen- tal facilitation groups for children of divorce: A preventive interven- tion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 613-623.

Kanfer, F. H. (1979). Self-management: Strategies and tactics. In A. P. Goldstein & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Maximizing treatment gains: Transfer enhancement in psychotherapy (pp. 185-224). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied significance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427-452.

Kendall, P. C, & Grove, W. M. (1988). Normative comparisons in ther- apy outcome. Behavioral Assessment, 10, 147-158.

Kendall, P. C., & Norton-Ford, J. D. (1982). Therapy outcome research methods. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of re- search methods in clinical psychology (pp. 429-460). New York: Wi- ley.

Kovacs, M. (1981). Rating scale to assess depression in school-aged chil- dren. Acta Paedopsychialria, 46, 305-315.

Nay, W. R. (1979). Parents as real-life reinforcers: The enhancement of parent-training effects across other than training. In A. P. Goldstein & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Maximizing treatment gains: Transfer en- hancement in psychotherapy (pp. 249-302). San Diego, CA: Aca- demic Press.

Pedro-Carroll, J. L., & Cowen, E. L. (1985). The Children of Divorce Intervention Program: An investigation of the efficacy of a school- based prevention program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 53, 603-611.

Plunkett, J. W., & Kalter, N. (1984). Children’s beliefs about divorce reactions. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23, 616-621.

Price, R. H. (1979). The social ecology of treatment gains. In A. P. Goldstein & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Maximizing treatment gains: Transfer enhancement in psychotherapy (pp. 383-428). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Saylor, C. F., Finch, A. J. Jr., Spirito, A., & Bennett, B. (1984). The Children’s Depression Inventory: A systematic evaluation of psycho- metric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 955-967.

Shelton, J. L. (1979). Instigation therapy: Using therapeutic homework to promote treatment gains. In A. P. Goldstein & F. H. Kanfer (Eds.), Maximizing treatment gains: Transfer enhancement in psychotherapy (pp. 225-248). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Shure, M. (1988). Teaching children what to think, not how to think. In L. Bond (Ed.), Families in transition: Primary prevention programs that work (pp. 170-199). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Smucker, M. R., Craighead, W. E., Craighead, L. W., & Green, B. J. (1986). Normative and reliability data for the children’s depression inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 25-39.

Spielberger, C. D. (1973). Preliminary manual of the State-Trait Anxi- ety Inventory for Children, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Stolberg, A. L., & Anker, J. M. (1984). Cognitive and behavioral changes in children resulting from parental divorce and consequent environ- mental changes. Journal of Divorce, 7, 23-41.

Stolberg, A. L., & Bush, J. P. (1985). A path analysis of factors predict- ing children’s divorce adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol- ogy, 14, 49-54.

Stolberg, A. L., & Garrison, K. M. (1985). Evaluating a primary pre- vention program for children of divorce. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 13, 111-124.

Stolberg, A. L., Zacharias, M. A., & Camplair, C. W. (1991). Children of divorce: LeadersGuide, KidsBook and ParentsBook. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Strupp, H. H., & Hadley, S. W. (1977). A tripartite mode of mental health and therapeutic outcomes: With special reference to the nega- tive effects of psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 32, 187-196.

Verhulst, F. C., Berden, G. F. M., & Sanders-Woudstra, J. A. R. (1985). Mental health in Dutch children: 2. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders and relationships between measures. Acta Psychiatric Scan- dinavica, 72 (Suppl. 324), 1-44.

Wallerstein, J. S. (1983). Children of divorce: Stress and developmental tasks. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping, and develop- ment in children (pp. 265-302). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Warren, N. J., & Amara, I. A. (1984). Educational groups for single parents: The parenting after divorce programs. Journal of Divorce, 8, 79-96.

Zacharias, M. (1992). The effectiveness of child psychotherapy with chil- dren of divorcing families: An interaction of client and treatment vari- ables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Received February 28, 1992 Revision received October 5, 1992

Accepted May 3, 1993 •

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp