比较高冲突父母的针对性干预方式:一项准实验研究

IF 0.7 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES
Jennifer A. Dealy, B. S. Russell, J. L. Robinson
{"title":"比较高冲突父母的针对性干预方式:一项准实验研究","authors":"Jennifer A. Dealy,&nbsp;B. S. Russell,&nbsp;J. L. Robinson","doi":"10.1111/fcre.12737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>High conflict co-parents engage in recurrent litigation that significantly strains the court system and exacerbates their conflict. Given barriers to their engagement in service delivery (e.g., level of conflict, transportation, child care), it is vital to evaluate targeted interventions and to examine different intervention modalities (e.g., online, hybrid). This study compared court involvement and rates of parental agreement among 178 high conflict cases that received a multi-component intervention, either in-person or in a hybrid version. Results demonstrated no significant differences between groups in the change in number of court negotiations, child-related issues, or court services from before to after-intervention completion or in the proportion of parenting cases who reached an agreement. Both versions demonstrated significant reductions in parents' court involvement from before to after-intervention completion. These findings suggest the need for future research to evaluate the comparative efficacy of hybrid programs and in-person programs for high conflict co-parents with greater methodological rigor in light of the current study's findings and limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"61 3","pages":"602-618"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing targeted intervention modalities for high conflict co-parents: A quasi-experimental study\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer A. Dealy,&nbsp;B. S. Russell,&nbsp;J. L. Robinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fcre.12737\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>High conflict co-parents engage in recurrent litigation that significantly strains the court system and exacerbates their conflict. Given barriers to their engagement in service delivery (e.g., level of conflict, transportation, child care), it is vital to evaluate targeted interventions and to examine different intervention modalities (e.g., online, hybrid). This study compared court involvement and rates of parental agreement among 178 high conflict cases that received a multi-component intervention, either in-person or in a hybrid version. Results demonstrated no significant differences between groups in the change in number of court negotiations, child-related issues, or court services from before to after-intervention completion or in the proportion of parenting cases who reached an agreement. Both versions demonstrated significant reductions in parents' court involvement from before to after-intervention completion. These findings suggest the need for future research to evaluate the comparative efficacy of hybrid programs and in-person programs for high conflict co-parents with greater methodological rigor in light of the current study's findings and limitations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family Court Review\",\"volume\":\"61 3\",\"pages\":\"602-618\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family Court Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12737\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12737","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高冲突的共同父母经常参与诉讼,这大大增加了法院系统的压力,加剧了他们的冲突。鉴于他们参与服务提供的障碍(例如,冲突程度、交通、儿童保育),评估有针对性的干预措施并审查不同的干预模式(例如,在线、混合)至关重要。这项研究比较了178个高冲突案件的法庭介入和父母同意率,这些案件接受了多方干预,无论是亲自干预还是混合干预。结果显示,在干预完成前后的法庭谈判次数、儿童相关问题或法庭服务的变化,以及达成协议的育儿案件比例方面,两组之间没有显著差异。从干预完成前到干预完成后,两种版本都显示出父母法庭介入的显著减少。这些发现表明,鉴于当前研究的发现和局限性,未来的研究需要以更严格的方法来评估混合计划和面对面计划对高冲突共同父母的比较效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing targeted intervention modalities for high conflict co-parents: A quasi-experimental study

High conflict co-parents engage in recurrent litigation that significantly strains the court system and exacerbates their conflict. Given barriers to their engagement in service delivery (e.g., level of conflict, transportation, child care), it is vital to evaluate targeted interventions and to examine different intervention modalities (e.g., online, hybrid). This study compared court involvement and rates of parental agreement among 178 high conflict cases that received a multi-component intervention, either in-person or in a hybrid version. Results demonstrated no significant differences between groups in the change in number of court negotiations, child-related issues, or court services from before to after-intervention completion or in the proportion of parenting cases who reached an agreement. Both versions demonstrated significant reductions in parents' court involvement from before to after-intervention completion. These findings suggest the need for future research to evaluate the comparative efficacy of hybrid programs and in-person programs for high conflict co-parents with greater methodological rigor in light of the current study's findings and limitations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信