Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 28, 2025

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Do high-risk couples profit more or less from couple relationship education programs than low-risk couples? Room for
Henk Jan Conradi1, Arjen Noordhof1, Pieter Dingemanse2
1Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract:
In recent years it has been discussed whether high-risk couples benefit more from Couple Relationship Education programs (CREs) than low-risk couples due to larger room for improvement, or profit less due to greater vulnerability. Pertinent response prediction studies yielded inconclusive results. Careful review suggests this may be due to: statistical handling (not disentangling room for improvement and vulnerability effects), time frame analyzed (not disentangling opposing effects during intervention and follow-up), sampling, and selection of risk factors. We used an analytic strategy that maximized odds for replicability and tested two hypotheses: (1) room for improvement: pre-intervention relationship dissatisfaction predicts gain in satisfaction during intervention, and decline during follow up, and (2) vulnerability: when adjusted for room for improvement (pre-intervention relationship dissatisfaction), risk factors show negative or negligible, but no positive associations with gain in satisfaction. Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) was employed in 79 self-referred (SR) couples and 50 clinician-referred (CR) couples who had completed the 'Hold me Tight' program, a CRE based on Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy. Our findings supported both the room for improvement hypothesis, with pre-intervention dissatisfaction predicting more gain during intervention (both samples) and decline during follow-up (SR sample, for the CR sample the effect was negligible), and the vulnerability hypothesis, as several negative, but no positive effects of risk factors were observed during intervention and follow-up. Specific risk factors did not replicate between samples. To promote replicable results in future research, we advocate disentangling room for improvement and vulnerability effects, separately testing effects during intervention and follow-up, purposeful sampling, and studying a large set of risk factors including partner variables.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Couples Therapy
Core Principles and Techniques
Couples therapy often incorporates cognitive-behavioral principles to identify and modify negative...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Relationship Formation
Community Based Intervention
Foundations of Community Mental Health Programs
Central to the success of community-based interventions is the...
Criticisms of the Evolutionary Perspective
Evolutionary psychology provides one explanation for these findings, suggesting...
Theory of Romantic Attachment in Adulthood

