TOGETHER: A Couple's Model to Enhance Relationships and Economic Stability

NCT04227405 | Terminated Results

• 1 other identifier: 15-960
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 584
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 3

Brief Summary

The current study sought to evaluate an intervention to promote healthy couple relationships and economic stability and mobility for low-income couples living in Northern Virginia (VA) and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties (MD). The approach proposed integrated two components:(1) a 20-hour evidence-informed couple group workshop called TOGETHER that integrates relationship and financial education, followed by an optional three-hour booster session three months after TOGETHER workshop and (2) case management (assessment of participant needs, development of Individual and Couple Development Plan(ICDP), referrals for social and mental health services, and referrals and coordination with job and career enhancement services, linking and coordination of all services as needed). The 20-hour workshop was offered in 8 sessions facilitated by couple and financial experts. The effectiveness of the program was evaluated through a randomized control trial in which couples were randomly assigned to a control group (n=147) or an intervention group (n=145). The control group received no intervention but a three-hour financial workshop after the last assessment was completed whereas the intervention couples participated in the 20-hour interventions and received case management. An independent local evaluator(AVAR, Consulting) participated in the design, implementation, and most of the data analysis. Participants had to be at least 18 years-old, living together for at least a year, and had no severe domestic violence issues, or untreated substance abuse or severe psychiatric disorders. If both partners were retired, couples were excluded from participation. Couples participated in an intake and enrollment meeting and were randomly assigned by a computer generated system to either the intervention or control group. Couples in both groups completed three sets of self-report measures: (1)Pre-test in first workshop session or at intake for control couples, (2)post-test in the last workshop session, or 8 weeks after the pre-test for control couples, and (3)follow-up six months after the post-test. After the six-month follow-up assessment, participation in the program was concluded. The study was largely funded by a Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant awarded by the Administration of Children and Families.

Conditions

No Condition

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (51)

• Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management (nFORM)- Baseline/Pretest (Time1)

  nFORM survey was developed by Mathematica. Subscales: Depression (4 items; Range: 4-20); Anxiety (2 items; Range: 2-10); Positive conflict management (7 items; Range: 7-28); Negative conflict management (5 items; Rrange: 5-20); Emotional abuse (2 items; Range: 2-8); Conflict management Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Relationship quality (5 items; Range:5-20); Time with partner (3 items; Range: 3-12); Relationship Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Parenting stress (1 item; Scale range: 1-4); Banking (3 items; Range: 0-3); Difficulty to pay bills (1 item; Scale range: 1 - 4); Relationship Commitment (1 item; Range: 1); Budgeting (1 item; Range: 0-1). Range is Scale Range. Higher scores means higher levels on that variable. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Pre-test/Baseline (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management (nFORM)- Post-test at 8 Weeks After Pre-test (Time2)

  nFORM survey was developed by Mathematica. Subscales: Depression (4 items; Range: 4-20); Anxiety (2 items; Range: 2-10); Positive conflict management (7 items; Range: 7-28); Negative conflict management (5 items; Rrange: 5-20); Emotional abuse (2 items; Range: 2-8); Conflict management Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Relationship quality (5 items; Range:5-20); Time with partner (3 items; Range: 3-12); Relationship Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Parenting stress (1 item; Scale range: 1-4); Banking (3 items; Range: 0-3); Difficulty to pay bills (1 item; Scale range: 1 - 4); Relationship Commitment (1 item; Range: 1-4); Budgeting (1 item; Range: 0-1). Range is Scale Range. Higher scores means higher levels on that variable.

  Post-test (8 weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management (nFORM)- Six-month Follow-up (Time3)

  nFORM survey was developed by Mathematica.Subscales: Depression (4 items; Range: 4-20); Anxiety (2 items; Range: 2-10); Positive conflict management (7 items; Range: 7-28); Negative conflict management (5 items; Rrange: 5-20); Emotional abuse (2 items; Range: 2-8); Conflict management Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Relationship quality (5 items; Range:5-20); Time with partner (3 items; Range: 3-12); Relationship Satisfaction (1 item; Range: 1-3); Parenting stress (1 item; Scale range: 1-4); Banking (3 items; Range: 0-3); Difficulty to pay bills (1 item; Scale range: 1 - 4); Relationship Commitment(1 item; Range: 1-4); Budgeting (1 item; Range: 0-1). Range is Scale Range. Higher scores means higher levels on that variable.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory- Baseline/Pre-test (Time1)

  The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997)This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory - Post- Test (Time2)

  The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997).This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997).This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory in Relation to Financial Problems - Baseline/Pre-test (Time1)

  The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997).This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. We have repeated the same 28 items but respondents had to answer about coping strategies in relationship to coping with financial issues in particular. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy.

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory in Relation to Financial Problems - Post- Test (Time2)

  The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997). This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. We have repeated the same 28 items but respondents had to answer about coping strategies in relationship to coping with financial issues in particular. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory in Relation to Financial Problems - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  The Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory was developed by Carver (1997). This is a 28 item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's individual coping strategies. We have repeated the same 28 items but respondents had to answer about coping strategies in relationship to coping with financial issues in particular. The measure has 14 subscales: Self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Each subscale has two items. Only totals for each subscale are computed. Total subscale range: 0-6 for each. Higher scores represent more use of the particular coping strategy.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Family Economic Strain Scale - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Hilton and Devall (1997). This is a 15-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's level of economic strain.As not all couples had children, the two items related to children were excluded. Scale range: 13-65. Higher scores represent higher economic strain

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Family Economic Strain Scale - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Hilton and Devall (1997). This is a 15-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's level of economic strain.As not all couples had children, the two items related to children were excluded. Scale range: 13-65. Higher scores represent higher economic strain

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Family Economic Strain Scale - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Hilton and Devall (1997). This is a 15-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent's level of economic strain.As not all couples had children, the two items related to children were excluded. Scale range: 13-65. Higher scores represent higher economic strain

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Difficulties in Emotion Regulation - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Gratz and Roemer (2004). This is a 36-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent difficulties in emotion regulation. Scale range: 36-180. Higher scores represent more difficulties in emotion regulation

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Difficulties in Emotion Regulation - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Gratz and Roemer (2004). This is a 36-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent difficulties in emotion regulation. Scale range: 36-180. Higher scores represent more difficulties in emotion regulation

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Difficulties in Emotion Regulation - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Gratz and Roemer (2004). This is a 36-item self-report instrument that measures the respondent difficulties in emotion regulation. Scale range: 36-180. Higher scores represent more difficulties in emotion regulation

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Conflict Tactics Scales-R - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Straus, Comby, Boney-McCoy, \& Sugarman (1996). This 78-item self report instrument measures physical assault (12 items), physical injury (6 items), psychological aggression (8 items), sexual coercion (7 items) and negotiation (6 items) by the respondent and by the partner. Only the physical assault and psychological aggression subscales were considered for analysis in this study. A total prevalence score for each subscale was calculated. Total prevalence scores ranged 0 to 12 for the physical assault subscale and from 0 to 8 for the psychological aggresion subscale. Higher total scores represented higher levels of the variable. For the psychological aggression and physical assault subscales only the partner with the higher score was considered due to underreporting of these behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Conflict Tactics Scales-R Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Straus, Comby, Boney-McCoy, \& Sugarman (1996). This 78-item self report instrument measures physical assault (12 items), physical injury (6 items), psychological aggression (8 items), sexual coercion (7 items) and negotiation (6 items) by the respondent and by the partner. Only the physical assault and psychological aggression subscales were considered for analysis in this study. A total prevalence score for each subscale was calculated. Total prevalence scores ranged 0 to 12 for the physical assault subscale and from 0 to 8 for the psychological aggresion subscale. Higher total scores represented higher levels of the variable. For the psychological aggression and physical assault subscales only the partner with the higher score was considered due to underreporting of these behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Conflict Tactics Scales-R - Six Month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Straus, Comby, Boney-McCoy, \& Sugarman (1996). This 78-item self report instrument measures physical assault (12 items), physical injury (6 items), psychological aggression (8 items), sexual coercion (7 items) and negotiation (6 items) by the respondent and by the partner. Only the physical assault and psychological aggression subscales were considered for analysis in this study. A total prevalence score for each subscale was calculated. Total prevalence scores ranged 0 to 12 for the physical assault subscale and from 0 to 8 for the psychological aggresion subscale. Higher total scores represented higher levels of the variable. For the psychological aggression and physical assault subscales only the partner with the higher score was considered due to underreporting of these behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale - Stress Subscale Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Lovibond \& Lovibond (1995). The stress subscale has 7 items and scale range is 0-21. Higher scores represent more symptoms of stress

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale - Stress Subscale Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Lovibond \& Lovibond (1995). The stress subscale has 7 items and scale range is 0-21. Higher scores represent more symptoms of stress

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale - Stress Subscale Six-month Follow up (Time 3)

  Developed by Lovibond \& Lovibond (1995). The stress subscale has 7 items and scale range is 0-21. Higher scores represent more symptoms of stress

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Dyadic Coping Inventory - Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Guy Bodenmann (2008). This 37-item self-report instrument measures how couples cope with stress in general. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (4 items by self and 4 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5 . Total scores for each subscale were computed. Subscale total scores ranged from 4 to 20 for Stress Communication, 5 to 25 for Supportive, 4 to 20 for Negative, and 5 to 25 for Common Dyadic Coping. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Dyadic Coping Inventory - Post-Test (Time 2)

  Developed by Guy Bodenmann (2008). This 37-item self-report instrument measures how couples cope with stress in general. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (4 items by self and 4 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5 . Total scores for each subscale were computed. Subscale total scores ranged from 4 to 20 for Stress Communication, 5 to 25 for Supportive, 4 to 20 for Negative, and 5 to 25 for Common Dyadic Coping. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Post-test: 8 weeks after Pre-Test ; Follow-up: 6 months after Post-Test

• Dyadic Coping Inventory - Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Guy Bodenmann (2008). This 37-item self-report instrument measures how couples cope with stress in general. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (4 items by self and 4 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5 . Total scores for each subscale were computed. Subscale total scores ranged from 4 to 20 for Stress Communication, 5 to 25 for Supportive, 4 to 20 for Negative, and 5 to 25 for Common Dyadic Coping. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Dyadic Coping With Economic Stress Inventory - Baseline/Pre-Test (Time 1)

  34-item self-report instrument adapted from the Dyadic Coping Inventory to describe coping with economic stress. It includes stress communication, supportive dyadic coping, delegated dyadic coping, common dyadic coping, negative dyadic coping, and evaluation of dyadic coping. Only the communication (2 items by self and 2 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5. A total was caculated for each subscale by adding all responses. The total score for stress communication ranged from 2 to 10, supportive from 5 to 25, negative from 4 to 20, and common dyadic coping from 5 to 25. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Baseline/Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Dyadic Coping With Economic Stress Inventory - Post-Test (Time 2)

  This 34-item self-report instrument is an adaptation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory to economic stress and measures how couples cope with economic stress. Only the communication (2 items by self and 2 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5. A total was caculated for each subscale by adding all responses. The total score for stress communication ranged from 2 to 10, supportive from 5 to 25, negative from 4 to 20, and common dyadic coping from 5 to 25. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Dyadic Coping With Economic Stress Inventory - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  This 34-item self-report instrument is an adaptation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory to economic stress and measures how couples cope with economic stress. Only the communication (2 items by self and 2 items by partner), supportive (5 items by self and 5 items by partner), negative (4 items by self and 4 items by partners), and common dyadic coping (5 items) subscales were used in the present study. Response options range from 1 to 5. A total was caculated for each subscale by adding all responses. The total score for stress communication ranged from 2 to 10, supportive from 5 to 25, negative from 4 to 20, and common dyadic coping from 5 to 25. Higher scores mean higher frequency of use of that coping behaviors. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• The Brief Communication Patterns Questionnaire - General and In Relation to Money Problems - Pre-test (Time 1)

  This is an 11-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the couple's demand/withdraw communication patterns as well as their level of constructive communication when there is a problem. Each item is responded on a scale from 1 to 9. The Demand/Withdraw Total Scale has 6 items. and the total score for the subscale ranges from 6 to 54 . The constructive communication subscale includes 3 items and. the total score for the subscale ranges from 3 to 27. Higher scores represent more occurrence of the communication pattern.The same eleven items were asked about communication behaviors in relation to money problems and scored in the same way. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• The Brief Communication Patterns Questionnaire - General and In Relation to Money Problems - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Futris, Campbell, Nielsen, \& Burwell (2010). This is an 11-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the couple's demand/withdraw communication patterns as well as their level of constructive communication when there is a problem. Each item is responded on a scale from 1 to 9. The Demand/Withdraw Total Scale has 6 items. and the total score for the subscale ranges from 6 to 54 . The constructive communciation subscale includes 3 items and. the total score for the subscale ranges from 3 to 27. Higher scores represent more occurrence of the communication pattern.The same eleven items were asked about communication behaviors in relation to money problems and scored in the same way. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• The Brief Communication Patterns Questionnaire - General and In Relation to Money Problems - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Futris, Campbell, Nielsen, \& Burwell (2010). This is an 11-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the couple's demand/withdraw communication patterns as well as their level of constructive communication when there is a problem. Each item is responded on a scale from 1 to 9. The Demand/Withdraw Total Scale has 6 items. and the total score for the subscale ranges from 6 to 54 . The constructive communciation subscale includes 3 items and. the total score for the subscale ranges from 3 to 27. Higher scores represent more occurrence of the communication pattern.The same eleven items were asked about communication behaviors in relation to money problems and scored in the same way. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Financial Self-Efficacy Scale - Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Dietz, Carrozza \& Ritchey (2011). This is a 3-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial self-efficacy. Scale range 4-12. Higher scores represent higher financial self-efficacy

  Pre-test (Time1Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Financial Self-Efficacy Scale - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Dietz, Carrozza \& Ritchey (2011). This is a 3-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial self-efficacy. Scale range 4-12. Higher scores represent higher financial self-efficacy

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Financial Self-Efficacy Scale - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Dietz, Carrozza \& Ritchey (2011). This is a 3-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial self-efficacy. Scale range 4-12. Higher scores represent higher financial self-efficacy

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Revised Financial Management Behavior Scale - Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Dew and Xiao (2011). This is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial management behavior. It includes four subscales: Insurance (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Credit management (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Savings (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Cash management (4 items; scale range: 4-20). Higher scores for each of the subscale depict healthy financial management practices. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Revised Financial Management Behavior Scale - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Dew and Xiao (2011). This is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial management behavior. It includes four subscales: Insurance (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Credit management (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Savings (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Cash management (4 items; scale range: 4-20). Higher scores for each of the subscale depict healthy financial management practices. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Revised Financial Management Behavior Scale - Six-month Follow-up(Time 3)

  Developed by Dew and Xiao (2011). This is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's financial management behavior. It includes four subscales: Insurance (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Credit management (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Savings (3 items; scale range: 3-15), Cash management (4 items; scale range: 4-20). Higher scores for each of the subscale depict healthy financial management practices. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Financial Services Survey From FINRA - Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by FINRA for the National Financial Capability Study. This is a 5-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's use of financial services. Examples of specific items included "Taken out an auto title loan," "Taken out a short term "payday" loan," and "Used a pawn shop.". The measurement used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1(never) to 5 (4 or more times). Scale ranges from 5-25. Higher sores represent higher use of non-banking borrowing/alternative borrowing methods. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Financial Services Survey From FINRA - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by FINRA for the National Financial Capability Study. This is a 5-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's use of financial services. Examples of specific items included "Taken out an auto title loan," "Taken out a short term "payday" loan," and "Used a pawn shop.". The measurement used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (4 or more times). Scale ranges from 5-25. Higher sores represent higher use of non-banking borrowing/alternative borrowing methods.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Financial Services Survey From FINRA - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by FINRA for the National Financial Capability Study. This is a 5-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's use of financial services. Examples of specific items included "Taken out an auto title loan," "Taken out a short term "payday" loan," and "Used a pawn shop.". The measurement used a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (4 or more times). Scale ranges from 5-25. Higher sores represent higher use of non-banking borrowing/alternative borrowing methods. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query. There is no additional information at this time.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Shared Goals and Values - Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Archuleta, Grable, \& Britt (2010) . This is a 4-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of the extent to which he or she share financial goals and values with his/her partner. Scale range: 4-28. Higher scores represent more sharing

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Shared Goals and Values - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Archuleta, Grable, \& Britt (2010) .This is a 4-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of the extent to which he or she share financial goals and values with his/her partner. Scale range: 4-28. Higher scores represent more sharing

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Shared Goals and Values - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Archuleta, Grable, \& Britt (2010) .This is a 4-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of the extent to which he or she share financial goals and values with his/her partner. Scale range: 4-28. Higher scores represent more sharing

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Couple Financial Management Roles and Satisfaction - Pre-Test (Time 1)

  There are two different 7-point Likert-type scales used for Financial Management Roles (FMR). The first part assesses spousal involvement in specific financial management roles. The scale ranges from 1 (FMR was primarily the participant's responsibility) to 7 (FMR was the spouse's primary responsibility). Scores were recoded (1 recoded to -3; 4 recoded to 0; and 7 recoded to 3). Scale ranges from -39 to 39. Lower score indicates the participant is more responsible and higher score the participant is less responsible for the FMR in his/her household. Second part of the FMR assesses respondents' level of satisfaction of their involvement in financial roles. The scale ranges from 1 (participant unsatisfied in his/her involvement) to 7 (participant satisfied in his/her involvement). Higher score indicates participant's satisfaction of involvement in specific financial role. Scale ranges from 13 to 91. The PI and data for this study are no longer available for query.

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Couple Financial Management Roles and Satisfaction - Post-Test (Time 2)

  Developed by Archuleta (2008). This is a 13-item self-report questionnaire. There are two different 7-point Likert-type scales used for Financial Management Roles (FMR). The first part assesses spousal involvement in specific financial management roles. The scale ranges from 1 (FMR was primarily the participant's responsibility) to 7 (FMR was the spouse's primary responsibility). Scores were recoded (1 recoded to -3; 4 recoded to 0; and 7 recoded to 3). Scale ranges from -39 to 39. Lower score indicates the participant is more responsible and higher score the participant is less responsible for the FMR in his/her household. Second part of the FMR assesses respondents' level of satisfaction of their involvement in financial roles. The scale ranges from 1 (participant unsatisfied in his/her involvement) to 7 (participant satisfied in his/her involvement). Higher score indicates participant's satisfaction of involvement in specific financial role. Scale ranges from 13 to 91.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1

• Couple Financial Management Roles and Satisfaction - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Archuleta (2008). This is a 13-item self-report questionnaire. There are two different 7-point Likert-type scales used for Financial Management Roles (FMR). The first part assesses spousal involvement in specific financial management roles. The scale ranges from 1 (FMR was primarily the participant's responsibility) to 7 (FMR was the spouse's primary responsibility). Scores were recoded (1 recoded to -3; 4 recoded to 0; and 7 recoded to 3). Scale ranges from -39 to 39. Lower score indicates the participant is more responsible and higher score the participant is less responsible for the FMR in his/her household. Second part of the FMR assesses respondents' level of satisfaction of their involvement in financial roles. The scale ranges from 1 (participant unsatisfied in his/her involvement) to 7 (participant satisfied in his/her involvement). Higher score indicates participant's satisfaction of involvement in specific financial role. Scale ranges from 13 to 91.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Perceived Employment Barriers - Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Hong (2013). This is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of employment barriers. It has the following subscales: Physical and mental health (6 items, scale range: 6-30), Labor Market Exclusion (3 items: scale range: 3 -15), Child Care (3 items: scale range: 3 -15). Human Capital (5 items, scale range: 5-25), and Soft Skills (5 items, scale range: 5-25). Higher scores represent higher/more barriers in that area.

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Perceived Employment Barriers - Post--test (Time 2)

  Developed by Hong (2013). This is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of employment barriers. It has the following subscales: Physical and mental health (6 items, scale range: 6-30), Labor Market Exclusion (3 items: scale range: 3 -15), Child Care (3 items: scale range: 3 -15). Human Capital (5 items, scale range: 5-25), and Soft Skills (5 items, scale range: 5-25). Higher scores represent higher/more barriers in that area.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Perceived Employment Barriers - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Hong (2013). This is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's perception of employment barriers. It has the following subscales: Physical and mental health (6 items, scale range: 6-30), Labor Market Exclusion (3 items: scale range: 3 -15), Child Care (3 items: scale range: 3 -15). Human Capital (5 items, scale range: 5-25), and Soft Skills (5 items, scale range: 5-25). Higher scores represent higher/more barriers in that area.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

• Employment Hope Scale - Pre-test (Time 1)

  Developed by Hong, Sheriff \& Naeger, (2009) This is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's psychological readiness and hope for employment. Subscales included in the study are: Utilization Skills (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Worth (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Motivation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Perceived Capability (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Goal Orientation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Future Job Outlook (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Psychological Empowerment (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120); and Moving to Future Goals (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120). Higher scores represent higher readiness or hope.

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Employment Hope Scale - Post-test (Time 2)

  Developed by Hong, Sheriff \& Naeger, (2009) This is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's psychological readiness and hope for employment. Subscales included in the study are: Utilization Skills (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Worth (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Motivation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Perceived Capability (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Goal Orientation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Future Job Outlook (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Psychological Empowerment (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120); and Moving to Future Goals (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120). Higher scores represent higher readiness or hope.

  Post-test (8weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Employment Hope Scale - Six-month Follow-up (Time 3)

  Developed by Hong, Sheriff \& Naeger, (2009) This is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses the respondent's psychological readiness and hope for employment. Subscales included in the study are: Utilization Skills (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Worth (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Motivation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Self-Perceived Capability (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Goal Orientation (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Future Job Outlook (4 items; scale range: 0-40); Psychological Empowerment (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120); and Moving to Future Goals (combined 12 items; scale range: 0-120). Higher scores represent higher readiness or hope.

  Six-month follow up (six months after post-test/Time2)

Other Outcomes (3)

• Experiences in Close Relationships - Post-test (Time 2)

  Post-test (8 weeks after pre-test/Time1)

• Experience in Close Relationships - Pre-Test (Time 1)

  Pre-test (Time 1) (Completed in first workshop session for Intervention Group and int the Intake and Enrollment Meeting for the Control Group)

• Experiences in Close Relationships - Follow-up (Time 3)

  Follow-up (6 months after Post-test/Time2)

Study Arms (2)

Control group

NO INTERVENTION

Control group of couples will receive no intervention

Intervention

EXPERIMENTAL

Intervention group of couples received the intervention: case management (connection to community services), 20 hour pscycho-educational workshop on communication, conflict resolution, problem-solving, stress management, and financial management, booster session, and employment support services if needed

Behavioral: Connection to community services through case management; Behavioral: TOGETHER Workshop; Behavioral: Employment Support Services

Interventions

Connection to community services through case management BEHAVIORAL

Case managers met with couple and conduct a needs assessment for the couple and their family. Then they developed an Individual and Couple Development Plan to take care of those needs, usually by accessing community services. Case managers met every 5 weeks with the couple to check on progress toward meeting the goals of the plan and assess for the present of any new needs.

Intervention

TOGETHER Workshop BEHAVIORAL

Couples were required to participate in a 20 hour workshop (8 sessions of 2 1/2 hours each)in groups of 3 to 8 couples. These groups were facilitated by a financial expert and a couples' expert. The workshop is interdisciplinary and psycho-educational. Couples learn about skills to improve their communication about stress and money problems, conflict resolution, individual and couple stress management in general and about money stress in particular, and financial management

Intervention

Employment Support Services BEHAVIORAL

Only for those participants that were in need of employment support services. If the needs assessment conducted by the case manager indicated an employment or career need. After completion of the TOGETHER workshop, an employment case manager met with the participant, conducted an employment needs assessment and connected the participant with a workforce agency or one-stop employment centers. After doing so, the employment case manager followed through the various steps that the participant had to complete as part of the employment services for a period of 6 months

Intervention

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Lliving together for at least a year
• Being at least 18 years
• English speaking.

You may not qualify if:

• Current physical domestic violence and/ or feeling unsafe to participate with your partner in a psycho-educational group in the last twelve months
• Current diagnosis of a severe psychiatric disorder that required hospitalization in the last 12 months
• Cognitive impairment that prevent comprehension of materials and participation in a psycho-educational group
• Severe untreated substance abuse disorder
• Both partners fully retired.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: lead
• University of Maryland, Baltimore: collaborator
• Family Services, Inc.: collaborator
• The SkillSource Group, Inc.: collaborator
• AVAR Consulting, Inc.: collaborator

Study Sites (3)

University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland, 20742, United States

Location

Family Services, Inc.

Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20877, United States

Location

Virginia Tech Northern Virginia Center

Falls Church, Virginia, 22043, United States

Location

Related Publications (1)

• Falconier MK. Together - a couples' program to improve communication, coping, and financial management skills: development and initial pilot-testing. J Marital Fam Ther. 2015 Apr;41(2):236-50. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12052. Epub 2014 Jun 9.

  PMID: 24910157 BACKGROUND

Related Links

• Program's Website

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Dr. Mariana Falconier, Associate Professor
• Organization: University of Maryland

marianak@umd.edu

301-405-4004

Study Officials

• Mariana K Falconier, PhD

  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: No
• Restrictive Agreement: No

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: PREVENTION
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Model Details: Randomized controlled trial

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: May 9, 2018
• First Posted: January 13, 2020
• Study Start: July 12, 2016
• Primary Completion: February 28, 2019
• Study Completion: February 28, 2019
• Last Updated: February 26, 2024
• Results First Posted: February 26, 2024

Record last verified: 2023-07

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (3)