The preliminary methodic study describes Children's Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale used in ELSPAC data collection at age 15.Předběžná metodická studie popisuje Škálu dětské percepce konfliktu mezi rodiči, která byla užita v rámci sběru dat projektu ELSPAC ve věku patnácti let respondentů

Ježek Stanislav

Lacinová Lenka

Michalčáková Radka

Univerzitní repozitář Masarykovy univerzity

Masaryk University Faculty of Social Studies Institute for Research on Children, Youth and Family       FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLDS IN BRNO  A SLICE OF LONGITUDINAL SELF-REPORTS Stanislav Ježek & Lenka Lacinová (Eds.)                         Brno 2008    2 This book and relevant research activities were supported by the research plan of  Ministry of  Education, Youth and Sports of  the Czech Republic, MSM 0021622406 „Psychological and social characteristics of  children, youth and families, development of  personality in the time of  changes of  modern society”.                         Reviewed by:  doc. PhDr. Tomáš Urbánek, Ph.D., Institute of Psychology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic PhDr. Petr Květon, Ph.D., Institute of Psychology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic     © Martina Čavnická, Jiří Dalajka, Martin Jelínek, Stanislav Ježek, Tomáš Kohoutek, Štěpán Konečný, Lenka Lacinová, Petr Macek, Jan Mareš, Zuzana Masopustová, Radka Michalčáková, Eva Polášková, Zuzana Sakařová, Lenka Stojanová Škarková, Jan Širůček, Michaela Širůčková, Jan Vančura  © Masaryk University Faculty of Social Studies, Institute for Research on Children, Youth, and Family, Brno, 2008  ISBN 978-80-210-4755-6  13117.  Interparental Conflict as Perceived by Adolescents LENKA LACINOVÁ, RADKA MICHALČÁKOVÁ & STANISLAV JEŽEK  Researchers, as well as psychologists with clinical practice have long been observing that conflicts between parents and certain signs of  maladaptation of  child or adolescent often occur simultaneously. The assumption that the quality of  marital relationship is a key predictor of  problems in development of  child or adolescent is not new in psychology (Davies et al., 2002). A number of  empirical studies carried out during the last quarter of  a century confirm this general hypothesis. Dissatisfaction in marriage and conflict between parents are confirmed to be strong predictors causing a wide range of  adjustment difficulties in children or adolescents (e.g. Grych & Fincham, 2001). Examination of  interparental conflict in connection with divorce situation has come to conclusion that facing interparental conflicts is much more harmful for adjustment of  adolescents, than the fact of  divorce itself  (Emery, 1982; Neighbours, Forehand, & Bau, 1997).  Early studies (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies et al., 2002; Grych & Fincham, 1990) established that interparental conflict is associated with a wide range of  psychological disorders or problems in both children (Grych & Fincham, 2001) and adolescents. Interparental conflict perceptions were found to be related to lower self-esteem and self-efficacy, higher level of  anxiety, anger and aggression (Enos & Handal, 1986) or accelerated maturation and higher vulnerability (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1976), depression and physical disorders (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000), poorer school results and lower ability to solve problems (Long, 1987).  Views of  the period of  adolescence as more emotional and vulnerable in the context of  interparental conflict, makes examination of  the interparental conflict perceptions within this developmental period even more salient (see meta-analysis Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Choice of the instrument To describe the marital conflict in families with adolescents we have chosen a measure that gives the opportunity to judge several dimensions of  the marital conflict by its witnesses – i.e. perception of  an interparental conflict reported by an adolescent. We have chosen this alternative on the basis of  previous research showing that child or adolescent perception of  interparental conflict is a stronger predictor of  adaptation difficulties than the reports of  the persons, i.e. parents, involved in the conflict (Cummings,  132 Davies, & Simpson, 1994; Davern, Steiger, & Luk, 2005). Further we wanted to use a questionnaire to portray the interparental conflict as a multidimensional phenomenon. In previous studies the interparental conflict was operationalized only in terms of  its frequency and intensity (see overview Grych & Fincham, 1990), further progress in investigation was made within studies that had already measured some other aspects of  this phenomenon as well – e.g. the content of  the conflict (e.g. Hanson, Saunders & Kistner, 1992) and the method of  its solution (e.g. Kempton, Thomas, & Forehand, 1989).  Instrument description Children’s Perceptions of  Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC) is an instrument for measuring important dimensions of  the interparental conflict developed by Grych, Seid and Fincham (1992). It is based on one of  the main theoretical approaches to investigating interparental conflict – cognitive-contextual framework of  interparental conflict that presumes the impact of  the conflict depends on how it is perceived by the child or the adolescent. The way child perceives the conflict varies depending on the characteristics (e.g. intensity, content, duration, solution), contextual factors (distal factors: previous experience with the interparental conflict, emotional atmosphere in the family, temperament and gender of  the child; proximal factors: expectation, mood) and level of  development (Grych & Fincham, 1990). CPIC was developed to assess objective characteristics of  conflict (frequency, intensity and solution), as well as child’s evaluation of  the conflict. This evaluation includes the level of  threat perceived by child when exposed to a conflict, and also evaluation of  his/her coping abilities in such a context, how uneasy he/she feels about the conflict and to what extent he/she feels that he/she is involved in the conflict. The original version comprises 49 items measuring the following nine aspects of  parental conflict:  Frequency – perceived frequency of  the conflicts („I often see my parents arguing.”)  Intensity – perceived level of  manifest aggression within rows between parents (shouting, breaking things, physical attacks…) („My parents get really mad when they argue.”)  Resolution – the way how parents usually solve conflicts („When my parents disagree about something they usually come up with a solution.”)  Content – shows whether the child or the adolescent perceives the conflict as an something associated with his/her own personality or his/her deeds („My parents usually argue or disagree because of  thing that I do.”)  Threat – focused on danger perceived by child (adolescent) resulting from the conflict situation between parents (I get scared when my parents argue.”)  Coping efficacy – focused on how he/she copes with the situation of  being exposed to the interparental conflict and on perceived  133chance to interfere in the interparental conflict and potentially affect it („I don’t know what to do when my parents have arguments.”)  Self-blame – perceiving the conflict as his/her own fault (It’s usually my fault when my parents argue.”)  Triangulation – the child perceives that he/she has been „drawn” into the conflict between parents („I feel caught in the middle when my parents argue.”)  Stability – perceiving stable roots of  the conflict (The reasons my parents argue never change.”).  Adaptation of the instrument Two translations were reviewed by three experts, which lead to choice and adjustment of  wording of  individual items. On the basis of  consensus between expert critics and in accordance with previous research results (e.g. items providing the Stability factor, according to the authors – „My parents do quarrel because they are not happy with each other; My parents do quarrel, because they do not really love each other; My parents do quarrel because they do not know how to get on well with each other”), some items had been excluded already before the pilot survey. The resulting version was used in a pilot study in a sample of  nine-graders (n = 256, 56% girls, age 14 to 17, mean age 14.8, SD = .72). Further items were excluded after the pilot due to low variability (e.g.  „My parents push each other in a quarrel” or „Parents break things or throw them when having a quarrel”). The final Czech version of  CPIC comprises 35 items that make 8 dimensions (the dimension Stability was excluded). The respondents evaluate each statement on a three-point scale as true, partly true, or not true.   Based on EFA of  their data Grych, Seid and Fincham (1992) advise to use three secondary scales optimal in terms of  both the theoretical assumptions and the empirical use. High score on the scale of  „conflict properties“, means high frequency, intensity of  conflict and of  its continuation. The scale of  „threat“ reflects the level of  danger perceived by child when exposed to a conflict and his/her ability to cope with the conflict. The scale of   „blame“ represents the frequency of  conflicts related to child and the level of  blaming oneself  for the conflict to have emerged as perceived by child. Conflict properties are a strong predictor of  behavioral and emotional problems, both externalized as well as internalized.  Statistical description of scales The Czech version of  CPIC includes 8 scales – Frequency (FRQ), Resolution (RES), Intensity (INT), Coping efficacy (CPN), Perceived threat (THR), Triangulation (TRG), Self-blame (SBL), and Content (CON). Descriptive statistics for these scales are summarized in Table 17.1. Individual scale scores are computed as means of  responses. Thus they keep the scale of  individual items from 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum).  134 Except the Coping efficacy, all scores are heavily skewed. Correlations among the CPIC scales are shown in Table 17.2. Table 17.1. Moment and ordinal descriptive statistics of  CPIC scales.  FRQ INT RES CON THR CPN SBL TRG N Valid 532 531 532 534 533 529 534 534   Missing 22 23 22 20 21 25 20 20 M 1.56 1.78 2.43 1.22 1.35 1.96 1.21 1.33 SD .54 .56 .53 .37 .40 .50 .31 .37 Skewness *)  .91 .42 -.80 1.89 1.22 .02 1.89 1.24 Kurtosis **) -.12 -.68 -.13 3.61 .90 -.86 4.50 1.15 Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maximum 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 Percentiles 5 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0   10 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0   25 1.2 1.4 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.0   50 1.4 1.8 2.7 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.3   75 2.0 2.2 3.0 1.3 1.6 2.4 1.3 1.5   90 2.4 2.6 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.6 1.5 1.9   95 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.0 2.2 2.8 1.8 2.0 N of items (in original version) 5 (6) 5(7) 3(6) 3(4) 5(6) 5(6) 4(5) 4(5) Internal consistency () .84 .86 .73 .72 .72 .73 .65 .59 *) S.E. = .11;  **) S.E. = .21   Table 17.2. CPIC scale correlations. r FRQ INT RES CON THR CPN SBL INT .74       RES -.67 -.63      CON .16 .10 -.07     THR .39 .50 -.36 .19    CPN -.20 -.32 .27 -.16 -.39   SBL .16 .09 -.10 .68 .13 -.04  TRG .38 .36 -.30 .16 .44 -.17 .14 rcrit for 1% two-tailed significance is .11; for 5% two-tailed significance it is .08.     135Tests of theoretical assumptions about the CPIC We used identical procedure for factoring CPIC as the original authors, i.e. we factored primary scale scores, not items. Based on the results of  EFA, authors write that CPIC is best described by a three correlated factors (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992). Three-factor solution allows us to differentiate between conflict characteristics (intensity and frequency) from adolescent’s subjective meaning of  the conflict (threat presented by the conflict, self-blame related to the conflict). In a two-factor model, all scales but Content and Self-blame join in one factor the substantive meaning of  which is unclear (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992). The fit of  three-dimensional model (Figure 17.1) to our data was estimated by confirmatory factor analysis. Because the fit was not completely satisfactory, we tested several alternative models that differ mainly in the role of  the Triangulation scale. The original model includes Triangulation in the factor of  Threat. That is where it is included in preadolescence studies and we assume it plays the same role in early and middle adolescence. The second model includes Triangulation in the Blame factor. Third model, used for late adolescents, includes Triangulation in the Properties factor. For comparison we estimated three further models – a two-factor model that joins the highly-correlated factors of  Properties and Threat into one factor, a three-factor model that includes Triangulation both in Properties and in Threat and finally a three-factor model completely without the Triangulation scale.  To estimate the models we used robust diagonally weighted least squares method in LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). The fit indices for all six models are included in Table 17.3. It is clear that model 1 (Figure 17.1) fits the data better than model 2, although in either case the fit is far from good.   Based on model 1 we constructed three secondary scales as simple sums of  primary scales – Conflict Properties, Threat and Blame. Descriptive statistics for these scales are presented in Table 17.4. The estimates of  internal consistency are satisfactory for all scales. Table 17.3. Tested models and their fit indices.  Model S-B 2*) 2 df P RMSEA H’s N AGFI CFI1. 3F TRG -> Threat 66.5 119.0 18 < .01 .07 265 .99 .98 2. 3F TRG -> Blame 228.6 411.6 17 < .01 .16 75 .45 .90 3. 3F TRG -> Properties 87.5 158.8 18 < .01 .09 202 .98 .97 4. 2F 138.0 25.1 20 < .01 .11 138 .98 .94 5. 3F without TRG 49.6 91.5 12 < .01 .08 268 .99 .98 6. 3F TRG -> Threat & Properties 72.0 106.8 17 < .01 .07 288 .99 .98 *) Satorra-Bentler scaled 2  136 Figure 17.1. Three-factor model of  CPIC (model 1). DWLS, standardized solution.    Table 17.4. Descriptive statistics of  secondary scales of  CPIC.  Conflict properties Threat Blame N Valid 531 528 534   Missing 23 26 20 M 4.91 4.72 2.44 SD 1.44 .95 .63 Skewness *)  .73 .71 2.03 Kurtosis **) -.29 .42 5.03 Minimum 3.00 3.00 2.00 Maximum 9.00 8.10 5.75 Percentiles 5 3.00 3.40 2.00   10 3.23 3.60 2.00   25 3.73 4.00 2.00   50 4.60 4.60 2.25   75 5.87 5.25 2.58   90 7.12 6.00 3.42   95 7.73 6.50 3.75 N of subscales 3 3 2 Internal consistency ()***) .92 .83 .77 *) S.E. = .11;  **) S.E. = .21; ***) Computed as a linear combination of primary scales.   Conclusion Considering the psychometric properties of  the Czech version of  CPIC it appears to be a sufficiently valid measure of  several aspects of  adolescents’ .26 FRQ .21 INT.42 RES.37 THR .77 CPN.62 TGR .13 CON.35 SBLconflict propertiesthreatblame.80 .57 .59 .37.29.83.93.80.71 .17.26 137perception of  interparental conflict. Even though we shortened most of  the scales, our results are similar to those found by Grych, Seid and Fincham (1992). The measure is far from perfect, though. The scales of  Self-blame and Triangulation have low internal consistency and the role of  the latter scale in the factor structure is unclear. We can hypothesize that Triangulation, i.e. how much the adolescent feels to be drawn into the parents’ conflict, depends on cognitive development, which changes this dimension’s role in the overall representation of  the conflict. Interparental conflict, its perception, evaluations by children or adolescents and its influences on their experiencing and behavior both in short-term and long-term perspective are an important issue in research of  personality development or coping. CPIC can be considered a useful and reliable instrument to capture this important aspect of  family life in mid adolescence. We made it part of  our longitudinal battery with the intention to prospectively follow this construct through adolescence, which should complement the mostly cross-sectional studies (Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1994).    References Bickham, N. L., &  Fiese, B. H. (1997). Extension of the Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale for use with late adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 11 (2), 246 – 250. Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Simpson, K. (1994). Marital conflict, gender a children’s appraisal and coping efficacy as mediators of child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 141 – 149. Davies, P. T. & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387 – 411.  Davies, P. T, Harold, G. T., Goeke-Moery, Cummings, E. M., Shelton, K. & Rasi, J. A. (2002). Introduction and literature review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child development, 67, 1 - 26. Davern, M. T.,  Steiger, P. K., & Luk, E. S. L. (2005). Adolescent and parental perceptions of interparental conflict. E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Social Section, 1, 20 – 25. Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental discord and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310 – 330. Enos, D. M., & Handal, P. J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 820 – 824. Fincham, F. D., Grych, J. H. & Osborne, L. N. (1994). Does marital conflict cause child maladjustment? Directions and challenges for longitudinal research. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 128 – 140. Grych, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267 – 290. Grych, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child adjustment: An overview. In J. H. Grych & F. Fincham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: theory, research and application (1 – 6). New York: Cambridge University Press. Grych, J. H., Seid, M. & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558 - 572.  138 Hanson, R. F., Saunders, B. E., & Kistner, I. (1992). The relationship between dimensions of interparental conflict and adjustment in college-age offspring. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 435 – 453. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL for Windows 8.80.  Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc. Kempton, T., Thomas, A. M., & Forehand, R. (1989). Dimensions of interparental conflict and adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 297-307. Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler,  C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behavior: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25 – 44. Long, N. (1987). Self-perceived and independently observed competence of young adolescents as a function of parental marital conflict and recent divorce. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 15 – 27. Neighbours, B. D., Forehand, R.,  & Bau, J. (1997). Interparental conflict and relations with parents as predictors of young adult functioning. Development & Psychopathology, 9, 169 – 187. Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experineces of the child in later latency. American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 256 – 269.     140                               Stanislav Ježek, Lenka Lacinová (Eds.) Fifteen-year-olds in Brno: A Slice of Longitudinal Self-Reports   Published by Masaryk University in 2008 Supported by the research plan of Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic MSM0021622406  1st edition, 2008             200 copies Printed by MSD, spol. s r.o., Lidická 23, Brno  Cover design: Stanislav Ježek  ISBN 978-80-210-4755-6  

Interparental Conflict as Perceived by Adolescents

https://is.muni.cz/repo/806681/chapter17CPIC.pdf

Interparental Conflict as Perceived by Adolescents

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Univerzitní repozitář Masarykovy univerzity