Data from Cologne study on divorce 1990-1996.

Research Questions/Hypotheses:

Research Design:

Combined Standardized Survey Instruments (Combination of various standardized sections); repeated measurements

Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:

Several methods were used in the 4 study waves,.
(1) The first group was comprised of published test procedures, described only briefly here; reference to the original literature is made. In these methods, standard values for “normal” families are given; divorced families can be characterized by the deviation from these standard values.
“Marburger Behavior List” (Marburger Verhaltensliste, MVL): parent/child behavior problems occurring within the preceding 14 days were described using 80 items. 5 subscales were recorded: Emotional instability, Contact anxiety, unrealistic self-concept, social maladjustment, and inconsistent achievement.
Family Relations Test (FRT): The “subjective reality” of the family structure was captured from the child’s point of view. The child first selected cardboard cutouts indicative of the different ages and sexes of all family members including themselves. 86 cards (40 in the preschool version) contained a statement which expressed a positive or negative feeling. The child assigned the cards to the member of the family to which it best fit. Cards that did not fit were placed on a “Mr. Nobody” cutout. The items were scored for individual family members by categorizing positive/negative feelings the child felt.
Family Diagnostic Test System (FDTS): the following items were selected from the modular test system: spouse relationship (mother and father), family environment (for mother, father, and child), and parenting practices (for mother, father, and child). Test instructions and individual items were adapted for those living separated.

• Spousal relationships: 2 subforms, one for the mother (M) and the other for the father (F). 4 scales are measured: Tenderness (M: 16 Items, F: 27 items), conflict (F: 11 items, M: 8 items), resigned dissatisfaction (M: 10 Items, F: 7 Items) and suppression (M: 6 Items F: 6 Items). The answers were given on a five-point rating scale ranging “always” to “never”. The spouse relationship was not asked in the 4th wave.
• Family Climate: The family climate was recorded in a version for the mother (99 items), for the father (89 items), and child (99 items). The response alternatives were “correct” or “incorrect”. The scales covered cohesion, openness, conflict tendency, independence, achievement orientation, cultural orientation, active recreational activities, religious orientation, organization, and control.
• Parenting practices: The mother’s parenting practices in relation to the daughter from the mother’s point of view (53 items), The father parenting practices in relation to the daughter from the father’s point of view (53 items), the mother’s parenting practices in relation to the son from the mother’s point of view (53 items), The father parenting practices in relation to the son from the father’s point of view (53 items), The mother’s parenting practices from the child’s point of view (44 items), and the parenting practices of the father from the child’s point of view (46 items). Subscales are reward by loving care, material reward, restricted praise, withdrawal of love, withdrawal of material rewards, anger and contempt and physical punishment. The answers are given on a 5-point rating scale with the verbal anchors “always”, “often”, “sometimes”, “rarely”, or “never”.

Used Only in the 4TH wave:

• Hamburger Behavioral Assessment List (Hamburger Verhaltensbeurteilungsliste, HAVEL): This method is used to describe a mother’s take on the child’s current behavioral state. Every 10 items form 1 of the 4 subscales (dominance, vegetative instability, conscientiousness, and work attitude). The answers to the items were given on a 5-point rating scale (always or almost always, frequently, sometimes, rarely, never or almost never).
• Subjective Family Picture: data on the family relationships from the individual point of view of each family member. Child(ren) and parents all assess their relationships with each other based on the potency dimension (degree of individual autonomy) and the valence dimension (degree of emotional closeness) using a semantic differential.

(2) Cologne Questionnaire for Divorced Families
The questionnaire was developed specifically for the present study. The tool maps specific separation problems from the point of view of the mother and the father separately. In preliminary studies, a questionnaire was developed and tested that could be completed independently by the subjects. The 119-item questionnaire given the mother in the first wave covered questions concerning the child, the mother, personal and socio-demographic information, marriage information, the separation, and questions about the period immediately after the separation. In following waves the questions concerning the marriage and separation time were not presented again. There were also questions concerning new partnerships, the use of psychotherapeutic help, and details about the legal divorce and legal guardianship/visitation rights. Responses were partly given in a closed format, some with open formats. For the fathers’ version most of the questions were repeated. Some areas were changed, added, or omitted due to distinctly different life situation the mother and child(ren).

(3) Systematic interaction observation of the mother-child dyad. For this, video observations of mothers and children in the home environment were carried out. 3 standardized play situations were recorded over a period of 10 minutes: Stacking game, building a Lego house, coloring a dream island. A 7-point rating scales was used with reference to the attachment research, the parenting style research, and the divorce research. The scales formed 3 groups: Mother’s behavior (7 scales), Child’s behavior (8 scales), and Dyadic Interaction (10 scales). A rating/training program was developed and implemented. In Wave 4, no systematic interaction observation was carried out.

Further information about the survey instruments and implementation can be found in Schmidt-Denter & Beelmann (1995).

Data Collection Method:

Data collection in the presence of an experimenter

• Individual Administration
• Paper and Pencil
• Photographs, Video and Audio Recordings 

Data collection in the absence of an experimenter

• Mail Survey

Population:

Separated families with a target child aged 4-10 years

Survey Time Period:

Sample:

Simple Random Sample

Gender Distribution: 

43,3% female subjects (n=26, measurement point 1), 

56,7% male subjects (n=34, measurement point 1) 

Age Distribution:  4-10 years (measurmentpoint 1)

Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany/North Rhine Westphalia

Subject Recruitment:

For participant recruitment and information a cover letter and a special brochure was designed. Families received as thanks a list of local counseling services, 75 DM (25 DM per person), and an offer for a psychological consultation with the project staff. Recruitment was accomplished via articles and advertisements in various newspapers, at family centers, word of mouth between families, as well as through project staff and students.

Sample Size:

60 families (=180 individuals)

Return/Drop Out:

During the 2nd Wave only 50 families completed the sessions along with 3 cases in which only the mother or the father and child participated. During the 3rd Wave only 43 families participated while 7 mother/child dyads and 1 father took part. For the 4th Wave data from 46 mothers and children and 37 fathers are available.