Typology Validity The study conducted by Fowers and Olson(1996) offered clear statistical support for the external validity of the premarital typology. Based on survey of 393 couples who took PREPARE – 237 still married – 89 who cancelled their weddings – 67 couples who were separated or divorced
Concurrent Validity PREPARE tested in comparison to three other marital relationship scales Overall correlation between tests p <.01 129 combinations of scales and criterion variables tested: – 96 tested in the predicted direction at p <.01 – 21 non-significant – 2 tested opposite of predicted at p <.01 (Fowers & Olson, 1986)
Predictive Validity: Two Studies Larsen & Olson (1989) accurate predictions for Married/Satisfied and Divorced/Separated – individual scores 77% – PCA scores 84% Fowers & Olson (1986) combined PCA and individual scores accurately predict: – 91% of couples who would divorce or separate – 93% of couples who would be highly satisfied
Face Validity: Interviews Four practitioners who use the instrument as part of pre-marital counseling 83 administrations among them Items seem appropriate to couples Participants and counselors agree that PREPARE results portray couples accurately
Reliability Internal reliability (scales) mean alpha =.73 Test-retest with two week interval reliability ranges from.64 to.93, mean =.78 (Larsen & Olson, 1989)
Validity & Reliability: as advertised Predictions based on validated typology classification National Norms based on 500,000 couples for PREPARE “PREPARE has validity in that it discriminates premarital couples that get divorced from those that are happily married with about 80-85% accuracy. Reliability is high (alpha reliability of.80 -.85).” (http://www.prepare-enrich.com/about_us.cfm?id=33#Evidence_for_PE)
Burows MMY Report on Reliability Internal consistency reliabilities for the subscales from.73 to.90 Average reliabilities for each of the tests for PREPARE is.75. Test-retest reliability scores (administration interval not reported) are reported at.80.
Burows Report (continued) Both the internal consistency and the test- retest reliabilities have improved from those reported by Larson et al. (1995) for a previous version (e.g., internal consistency range from.64 to.85; test-retest r =.73). Unreliable items dropped for version 2000 Data suggest that the instrument has very good reliability for relationship scales
Advantages High reliability, high validity and large norms(n=250,000) with couples from various ethnic groups. Inventories provide the counselor with a rich array of items that reflect the many dimensions of relationships. Provides the user with a good sense of the clinical and research issues.
Limitations The applicability of these inventories to diverse family groups and family contexts is unclear. Persons with lower reading levels would have some difficulty. It is not designed for one person. It is not designed for individuals with very severe emotional problems and with couples having intense marital conflict. Reliability and predictive validity have not been tested on version 2000.
Summary Facilitate the communication in each couple about meaningful issues in their relationship. Increase their awareness of their relationship strengths and growth areas. Provide them with relationship skills Improve their relationship.
Areas for Further Study Family Adaptability and Cohesion, Evaluation Scales III (FACES III), Olson, Portner & Lavee (2002) Enriching Relationship Issues, Communication and Happiness Inventory, Olson (2002) Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills (PAIRS), Gordon (1994) Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI), Snyder (1991) Family Environment Scale (FES), Moos & Moos (1986) Pre-Marriage Awareness Inventory (PAI), Velander (1978) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), Spanier (1976)
References Barnett, Lindean E., Rev. Personal Interview, 4/4/06. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Mental Measurement Yearbook (Online). SilverPlatter Information, Inc. website: http://libproxy.library.wmich.edu:2048/login?url=http://web 5.silverplatter.com/webspirs/start.ws?customer=c50469&databases=S(YB) Evers, Eric, Rev. Personal Interview, 4/6/06. Evers, Paige G., Rev. Personal Interview, 4/3/06. Fowers, B.J., Montel, K.H., & Olson, D.H.(1996). Predicting Success For Premarital Couple Types Based on PREPARE. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 22 (1), 103-119. Knutson, L. and Olson, D.H. (2003). Effectiveness of PREPARE Program with Premarital Couples in Community Settings. Marriage & Family: A Christian Journal, 6 (4), 529-546. Larson, J.H., Holman, T.B., Klein, D.M., Busby, D. M., Stahmann, R. F., and Peterson, D. (1995). A review of comprehensive questionnaires used in premarital education and counseling. Family Relations, 44, 245-252. Olson, D.H., & Olson, A.K.(1999). Prepare/Enrich Program: Version 2000. Handbook of Preventative Approaches in Couple Therapy. Pages 196-216 New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc. PREPARE/ENRICH website: http://www.prepare-enrich.com/indexm.cfmhttp://www.prepare-enrich.com/indexm.cfm Watson, David G., Rev. Email communication, 4/12/06.