Five points and a lament about Range and Cotton's "Reports of assent and permission in research with children: illustrations and suggestions

This comment responds to an article by Range and Cotton (1995) on reporting of parental permission and child assent procedures in published articles for 4 psychology journals. Issue is taken with the assumptions, methodology, interpretations, and implications of listing researchers in the Range and Cotton article. There is no evidence researchers failed in their ethical obligations or that children were put at risk. Reporting permission/assent in publications is not an ethical requirement. Listing researchers as "failing" to do something not part of an ethical code is lamentable. Too many unfortunate implications and problems can be derived from Range and Cotton's analysis and conclusions.     

Randomized, controlled trial of Behavioral Family Systems Therapy for Diabetes: maintenance and generalization of effects on parent-adolescent communication

We report a randomized trial of a revised Behavioral Family Systems Therapy for Diabetes (BFST-D) intervention. Families of 104 adolescents with diabetes were randomized to standard care (SC) or to 6 months of an educational support group (ES) or BFST-D. Family communication and problem-solving skills were assessed at 0, 6, 12, and 18 months by independent rating of videotaped family problem-solving discussions. BFST-D improved individual communication of adolescents and mothers, but not fathers. BFST-D significantly improved quality of family interaction compared to SC (10 of 12 comparisons) and ES (6 of 12 comparisons). Changes in family communication were differentially associated with changes in glycemic control, adherence, and family conflict. BFST-D improved family communication and problem solving relative to SC and modestly relative to ES.