Taking stock of the longitudinal study of romantic couple relationships: The last 20 years

Longitudinal dyadic research provides significant benefits for our understanding of romantic couple relationships. In this systematic review, we begin by providing a broad overview of topical trends and approaches in longitudinal couple relationships research from 2002 through 2021. Then, we narrow our review to dyadic relationship quality articles, highlighting key themes as well as noting important gaps in the research. Using an intersectional perspective that acknowledges multiple ways that disadvantage, power, and oppression may be seen in both research and in couples' lived experience, we note prominent paradigms used in examining couple relationships, what types of questions have been most valued, and what groups and approaches are underrepresented in the literature. Most longitudinal couple relationships research is quantitative, relies on self-report approaches from American couples in the early-to-middle years of their relationships, concentrates more on negative aspects of relationships than positives, and takes a communication-satisfaction paradigm in studying couples. We see a clear need to increase the use of methodologies beyond self-report measures, conduct more studies with within-group minority, older adult, culturally-diverse, and context-specific samples to explore the diversity of relationships, and fully consider both strengths and positive processes in relationships as well as the challenges couples experience.     

Empirically defined symptom scales using the DISC 2.3

Empirically defined scales of depressive, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder, and conduct symptoms from the lay-administered National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC), version 2.3, and evidence of their reliability and validity, are presented. The scales were developed using factor analyses of data obtained from an epidemiologic survey of over 1,200 children drawn from four sites across the U.S. and Puerto Rico (the NIMH Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders, or MECA Study). Their psychometric properties were tested in a subsample of children reinterviewed by clinicians. The findings support the use of these continuous measures. The scales are strongly related to the diagnostic categories and show good test-retest reliability. The scales can be used to characterize severity in children with diagnoses and to describe problems and symptoms in children without diagnoses. Because these scales can measure gradations in symptomatology, they may be more useful than categorical measures. Like categorical measures, the scales based on the DISC are greatly influenced by the informant, whether child or parent.This research was supported by grant MH-46732 from the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland.The MECA Program is an epidemiologic methodology study performed by four independent research teams in collaboration with staff of the Division of Clinical Research, which was reorganized in 1992 with components now in the Division of Epidemiology and Services Research and the Division of Clinical and Treatment Research, of the NIMH, Rockville, Maryland. The NIMH Principal Collaborators are Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH, Ben Z. Locke, MSPH, Peter S. Jensen, MD, William E. Narrow, MD, MPH, and Donald S. Rae, MA; the NIMH Project Officer was William J. Huber. The Principal Investigators and Coinvestigators from the four sites are as follows: Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, UO1 MH46725: Mina K. Dulcan, MD, Benjamin B. Lahey, PhD, Donna J. Brogan, PhD, Sherryl Goodman, PhD, and Elaine Flagg, PhD; Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene at New York State Psychiatric Institute (Columbia University), New York, New York, UO1 MH46718: Hector R. Bird, MD, David Shaffer, MD, Myrna Weissman, PhD, Patricia Cohen, PhD, Denise Kandel, PhD, Christina Hoven, PhD, Mark Davies, MPH, Madelyn S. Gould, PhD, and Agnes Whitaker, MD; Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, UO1MH46717: Mary Schwab-Stone, MD, Philip J. Leaf, PhD, Sarah Horwitz, PhD, and Judith H. Lichtman, MPH; University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, UO1 MH46732: Glorisa Canino, PhD, Maritza Rubio-Stipec, MA, Milagros Bravo, PhD, Margarita Alegría, PhD, Julio Ribera, PhD, Sarah Huertas, MD, and Michael Woodbury, MD.The authors gratefully acknowledge Zenaida González and José Martínez who performed the data nalayses, as well as Elizabeth Pastrana, and Felícita Laboy, secretaries, for their valuable contributions to this work.     

Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability

Reliability coefficients often take the form of intraclass correlation coefficients. In this article, guidelines are given for choosing among six different forms of the intraclass correlation for reliability studies in which n target are rated by k judges. Relevant to the choice of the coefficient are the appropriate statistical model for the reliability and the application to be made of the reliability results. Confidence intervals for each of the forms are reviewed.     

Brightness contrast effects in a pupillometric experiment

The effect of depth displacement of test bars from the induction wedge of the Ponzo illusion was investigated in two experiments. Either two wedges of opposite orientation were presented simultaneously, one at a near and the other at a far distance, or only one wedge was presented at either the near or the far distance. The test bars were stereoscopically either in the plane of the wedge or displaced from the wedge in distance. When the two wedges were presented simultaneously, the direction of the Ponzo illusion was determined by the wedge at the same perceived distance as the test bars. When only one wedge was present, stereoscopic displacement of the bars in front of, but not behind, the wedge decreased the magnitude of the illusion. The results are interpreted in terms of the adjacency principle.

     

Mental health status among Puerto Ricans,Mexican Americans,and Non-Hispanic whites

Compared mental health characteristics of island Puerto Ricans to three groups from the Los Angeles Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study: Mexican American immigrants, U.S.-born Mexican Americans, and Non-Hispanic whites. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule was used to obtain both diagnostic and symptom scale information about affective disorders, alcohol abuse/dependence, somatization, phobic disorder, and psychotic disorder. Mexican American immigrants had the fewest mental health problems of all groups. Puerto Ricans had more somatization disorder, but less affective and alcohol disorders than U.S-born Mexican Americans or non-Hispanic whites. Results are considered in the light of selection factors, relative disadvantage of groups and methodological problems. This research was supported by grants MH36230 and MH45763 from the National Institute of Mental Health, and made use of data from the Los Angeles site of the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program, which is a series of five epidemiologic research studies performed by independent research teams in collaboration with staff of the Division of Biometry and Epidemiology of the National Institute of Mental Health. The NIMH principal collaborators were D. Regier, B. Locke, W. Eaton and J. Burke. The NIMH project officers were C. Taube and W. Huber. The principal investigators and coinvestigators from the five sites were Yale University: J. Myers, M. Weissman, G. Tischler; Johns Hopkins University: M. Kramer, E. Gruenberg, S. Shapiro; Washington University: L. Robins, J. Helzer; Duke University: D. Blazer, L. George; University of California at Los Angeles: M. Karno, R. Hough, J. Escobar, A. Burnam, D. Timbers.     

SHOULD SIGNIFICANCE TESTS BE BANNED?

Abstract— Significance testing of null hypotheses is the standard epistemologicat method for advancing scientific knowledge in psychology, even though a has drawbacks and it leads to common inferential mistakes These mistakes include accepting the null hypothesis when it fails to be rejected, automatically interpreting rejected null hypotheses as theoretically meaningful, and failing to consider the likelihood of Type II errors Although these mistakes have been discussed repeatedly for decades, there is no evidence that the academic discussion has had an impact A group of methodologists is proposing a new approach simply ban significance tests in psychology journals The impact of a similar ban in public-health and epidemiology journals is reported     

Approximate interval estimation for a certain intraclass correlation coefficient

When the raters participating in a reliability study are a random sample from a larger population of raters, inferences about the intraclass correlation coefficient must be based on the three mean squares from the analysis of variance table summarizing the results: between subjects, between raters, and error. An approximate confidence interval for the parameter is presented as a function of these three mean squares.Dr. Fleiss is also with the Biometrics Research Unit of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. This work was supported in part by grant DE 04068 from the National Institute of Dental Research.     

Why is enacted social support associated with increased distress? Using simulation to test two possible sources of spuriousness

Although perceiving that social support is available is often associated with psychological benefits in times of stress, there is evidence that actually receiving support is associated with increased distress. To assess whether this latter association could be spurious, the authors conducted computer simulation studies to examine two theoretical models that could give rise to it. Study 1 examined a process whereby distress leads to provision of support rather than the reverse. Study 2 examined a process whereby an adverse event increases both support and distress. In both cases, substantial spurious associations were produced only when parameter values were markedly unrealistic. It was concluded that these possible sources of spuriousness are insufficient to explain the association between support and distress found in naturalistic studies.