Citation

Mitnick DM, Lorber MF, Smith Slep AM, Heyman RE, Xu S, Bulling LJ, Nichols SR, Eddy JM. J. Fam. Psychol. 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/fam0000973

PMID

35324252

Abstract

Reports an error in "Self-report measures of coercive process in couple and parent-child dyads" by Danielle M. Mitnick, Michael F. Lorber, Amy M. Smith Slep, Richard E. Heyman, Shu Xu, Lisanne J. Bulling, Sara R. Nichols and J. Mark Eddy (Journal of Family Psychology, 2021[Apr], Vol 35[3], 388-398). In the original article, the full acknowledgment of funding was missing in the author note and should have read "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Science of Behavior Change Common Fund Program and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research through an award administered by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research [1UH2DE025980-01]." The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-49926-001). One of the most influential behavioral models of family conflict is G. R. Patterson's (1982) coercive family process theory. Self-reports for behaviors related to coercion (e.g., hostility toward a family member) abound; however, there are no self-report measures for coercive process itself, which is, by definition, a dyadic process. Operationalizations of coercive process are measured with behavioral observation, typically including sequential analyzed, microcoded behaviors. Despite its objectivity and rigor, coding of behavior observation is not always feasible in research and applied settings because of the high training, personnel, and time costs the observation requires. Because coercive process has been shown to predict a host of maladaptive outcomes (e.g., parent-child conflict, aggression, negative health outcomes) and given the complete absence of self-report measures of coercive process, we recently designed brief questionnaires to assess coercive process in couple (Couple Coercive Process Scale [CCPS]) and parent-child interactions (Parent-Child Coercive Process Scale [PCCPS]) and tested them via Qualtrics participant panels in samples recruited to mirror socioeconomic generalizability to U.S. Census data. The CCPS and PCCPS exhibited initial evidence of psychometric quality in measuring coercive process in couple and parent-child dyads: Both measures are unifactorial; have evidence of reliability, especially at higher levels of coercive process; and demonstrate concurrent validity with constructs in their nomological networks, with medium to large effect sizes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Language: en