the dyadic parent-child interaction coding system ii dpics ii: reliability and validity with school aged children

1. The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II (DPICS II): Reliability and Validity with School Aged Children Shelli Deskins, M.S. Auburn University West Virginia University Health Sciences Center

2. What Is PCIT? Parent Child Interaction Therapy EVT Two phases (CDI and PDI) Treatment goals: Improve the quality of the parent-child interaction Improve parenting skills Decrease negative child behaviors Empirically Based Treatment (EBT)Empirically Based Treatment (EBT)

3. PCIT Continued Parent and child play with toys that encourage interaction Assessment based protocol ECBI DPICS TAI

4. PCIT Continued Targeted problems and populations Externalizing behavior problems Abused and neglected children FAS children

5. DPICS Dyadic Parent Child Interaction Coding System Coding system for direct behavioral observations of parent-child interactions Assessment tool for measuring pre/post and ongoing treatment changes Allows for detailed analysis of behaviors

6. DPICS Categories Acknowledgement Answer Behavioral Description Compliance Contingent Labeled Praise Criticism Descriptive/Reflective Question Destructive Direct Command Indirect Command Information Description Information Question Labeled Praise Laugh No Answer No Opportunity for Answer No Opportunity for Compliance Noncompliance Physical Negative Physical Positive Play Talk Reflective Statements Smart Talk Unlabeled Praise Yell Whine Warning

7. DPICS Manual Workbook Criterion tape Transcripts

8. Physical Abuse-Children PA children demonstrate a host of problems: Physical and verbal aggression Depression Peer rejection Decreased school achievement Compulsive compliance

9. Physical Abuse-Parents PA parents tend to: Interact less physically and verbally with their children Be more negative Be less positive Give more commands Have a lower tolerance for child behavior

10. DPICS & DPICS II with Abused and Neglected Children Aragona and Eyberg (1981) found DPICS was useful with neglected children aged 3-7 yrs. Timmer et al. (2002) Chaffin et al. (2004) used DPICS II as an outcome measure for physically abusive families for children 4-12 years.

11. Current Study Provides normative data for 8 to 12-year-old children and their parents Norms only available for 3 to 7-year-old children and their parents Examines DPICS codes for physically abusive and nonabusive dyads Except for Chaffin et al. 2004, no large scale study compares PA and non-PA dyads using DPICS� Chaffin does not compare PA to non-PA families. Except for Chaffin et al. 2004, no large scale study compares PA and non-PA dyads using DPICS� Chaffin does not compare PA to non-PA families.

12. Method Participants n=38 19 PA dyads: 1 documented incident of PA and court ordered for treatment 19 Non PA dyads: Community samples from Auburn University and Northern Illinois Children in matched group had no report of abuse by parent or child Children 8-12 years Groups were matched on demographics �Parent gender� refers to the parent participating in the interaction (i.e. the abusive parent) Procedure Measures-KBIT, CAP, & CTS Pretreatment observation-CDI, PDI, CU with the abusive parent If children finished the CU early, told to remain in room. All parents and children complied with the instructions. Interactions coded using both written transcripts and videotapes 33% segments (one segment per family) randomly selected for reliability

13. Sample Characteristics Variable Abused (n=19) Nonabused (n=19) t Gender of Child 7 female 7 female 12 male 12 male Mean Child Age 10.21 9.94 Standard Deviation (1.79) (1.33) -.53 Gender of Parent 12 female 12 female 7 male 7 male Mean Parent Age 35.24 38.60 1.09 Standard Deviation (10.32) (8.70)

14. Variable Abused (n=19) Nonabused (n=19) Ethnicity African American 6 5 Caucasian 13 14 Marital Status Single 3 3 Married 8 10 Separated 2 1 Divorced 4 5 Other 2 0 Types of Education# Yrs. of Education # <9 1 12 2 <12 3 13 2 High School Diploma 4 14 4 Vocational/Tec School 6 15 4 Some College 3 16 5 College 1 18 2 Unknown 1

15. Sample Characteristics Cont�d Variable Abused (n=19) Nonabused (n=19) t KBIT IQ Composite (Mean) Child Score 96.00 106.47 2.63* SD 8.37 15.18 Parent Score 95.11 108.18 3.21* SD 16.36 6.45

16. Analyses Reliability Kappa Insufficient data= <5 occurrences. Validity Discriminate (Criterion ?) Validity Differences between groups in respective situations and across situations (using t-test) Differences with summary variables across situations (using t tests) Classification with significant codes (logistic regression) Convergent Validity Correlations with the CAP & CTS scores (using Pearson)

17. Results Reliability Parent-child interactions can be reliably coded using the DPICS-II for this age group Kappa reliability estimates across codes and summary variables were above .50 Hypothesis Supported Validity PA children will demonstrate greater compliance and fewer inappropriate behaviors than non-PA children Non-PA children were significantly more compliant during PDI In addition, when looking across situations, Non-PA children demonstrated significantly higher rates of compliance than PA children. No significant differences between PA and Non-PA children on Inappropriate Behavior summary variable. Hypothesis Not Supported

18. Results-cont�d PA parents will display more commands, inappropriate behavior, and negative talk than non-PA parents. PA parents displayed a significantly higher Direct Command ratio than Non-PA parents. Hypothesis supported No differences in the groups on Negative Talk or Total Commands issued. Hypothesis not supported PA children will demonstrate fewer Prosocial behaviors than Non-PA children Non-PA children demonstrated significantly more Prosocial behaviors than PA children Hypothesis supported

19. Results-cont�d PA Parents will show fewer Prosocial behaviors than Non-PA parents No differences in the groups on parental Prosocial behavior Hypothesis not supported DPICS II codes and summary variables will correctly classify dyads into their groups using logistic regression Parents-Laugh and Unlabeled Praise correctly classified observations into groups 82% of the time Child -Acknowledgement, Laugh, and Compliance correctly classified observations 71% of the time. Parent Direct Command Ratio and Child Prosocial correctly classified dyads into their groups 72% and 68% of the time, respectively. Hypothesis supported

20. Results-cont�d 6. DPICS II categories and summary variables for parents will demonstrate convergent validity by correlating with CAP total Abuse score No differences in groups on the CAP total Abuse score Groups differed on the Rigidity scale, but did not correlate with summary variables Hypothesis not supported 7. DPICS II categories and summary variables for parents will demonstrate convergent validity by correlating with CTS scores On the CTS, groups only significantly differed on the Physical Maltreatment Frequency and Occurrence Scales Correlations with summary variables and these two scales not significant Hypothesis not supported

21. Discussion Solid evidence for reliability and criterion validity of this coding system for use with school aged PA and Non-PA dyads. 16 child categories and 17 parent categories had �excellent� or �good� reliability; another 5 child and 4 parent categories had �fair� reliability. Many of the categories that have demonstrated difficulties for coders and poor reliabilities in past, continued to do so in this study. Developmental considerations Demand characteristics Recommendations

22. Discussion-cont�d In general, results point to the tone of the interaction/tone that exists in Non-PA families as the factor that is important. Ex. Non-PA children and parents show more positive behaviors, ex. AK and UP during CDI; LA and CO during PDI; LA during CU Appears that interactions b/w abusive dyads not overly negative, but that Non-PA interactions are just more positive PA children do not show more negative behaviors, but show fewer prosocial behaviors. PA parents issue more DC and children are less compliant�may help explain precursors to an abusive incident Need to take development into consideration

23. Discussion-Cont�d Parent DC ratio and child Prosocial variables are most useful in discriminating PA and Non-PA dyads Poor convergent validity demonstrated in this study Possible explanations

24. Limitations Sample size Manner in which PA was ruled out in the community sample Type I error Few differences on the measures selected Transcripts Intraclass correlations??? These data are nominal; however, DPICS studies have traditionally used ICC as a way to asses reliability.

25. Future Directions Study investigating the use of transcripts Use of other behavioral measures (ECBI, BASC, PSI) Limiting and combining categories Sequential analysis study Treatment outcome study using the 8-12 year old age range