PREPARE: Prediction of Marital Satisfaction

1. PREPARE: Prediction of Marital Satisfaction EMR6410, Spring ‘06 Dr. Warren Lacefield, Professor Hong Zhong, EMR Amy Gullickson, IDPE

2. Overview • PREPARE: Premarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation • A series of tests designed to assess an engaged couple’s relationship • Originally published in 1978 • Revised in 1986, 1996 and 2000

3. Description of the Instrument • 165 items • Assesses 20 areas of relationship quality: • Significant Issues for Couples (12 scales) • Personality Assessment (4 scales) • Family of Origin Map (4 scales)

4. Scoring • Individual scores for each spouse • Positive Couple Agreement (PCA) score • based on the couple’s level of consensus for each area of the instrument • Couples classified into four types

5. PREPARE Typologies • Vitalized couples • Harmonious couples • Traditional couples • Conflicted couples (Fowers, Montel & Olson, 1996)

6. Typology Validity • The study conducted by Fowers and Olson(1996) offered clear statistical support for the external validity of the premarital typology. • Based on survey of 393 couples who took PREPARE • 237 still married • 89 who cancelled their weddings • 67 couples who were separated or divorced

7. (Fowers, Montel & Olson, 1996)

8. Concurrent Validity • PREPARE tested in comparison to three other marital relationship scales • Overall correlation between tests p < .01 • 129 combinations of scales and criterion variables tested: • 96 tested in the predicted direction at p < .01 • 21 non-significant • 2 tested opposite of predicted at p < .01 (Fowers & Olson, 1986)

9. Predictive Validity: Two Studies • Larsen & Olson (1989) accurate predictions for Married/Satisfied and Divorced/Separated • individual scores 77% • PCA scores 84% • Fowers & Olson (1986) combined PCA and individual scores accurately predict: • 91% of couples who would divorce or separate • 93% of couples who would be highly satisfied

10. Face Validity: Interviews • Four practitioners who use the instrument as part of pre-marital counseling • 83 administrations among them • Items seem appropriate to couples • Participants and counselors agree that PREPARE results portray couples accurately

11. Reliability • Internal reliability (scales) mean alpha = .73 • Test-retest with two week interval reliability ranges from .64 to .93, mean = .78 (Larsen & Olson, 1989)

12. Validity & Reliability: as advertised • Predictions based on validated typology classification • National Norms based on 500,000 couples for PREPARE • “PREPARE has validity in that it discriminates premarital couples that get divorced from those that are happily married with about 80-85% accuracy. Reliability is high (alpha reliability of .80 - .85).” (http://www.prepare-enrich.com/about_us.cfm?id=33#Evidence_for_PE)

13. Burows MMY Report on Reliability • Internal consistency reliabilities for the subscales from .73 to .90 • Average reliabilities for each of the tests for PREPARE is .75. • Test-retest reliability scores (administration interval not reported) are reported at .80.

14. Burows Report (continued) • Both the internal consistency and the test-retest reliabilities have improved from those reported by Larson et al. (1995) for a previous version (e.g., internal consistency range from .64 to .85; test-retest r = .73). • Unreliable items dropped for version 2000 • Data suggest that the instrument has very good reliability for relationship scales

15. Advantages • High reliability, high validity and large norms(n=250,000) with couples from various ethnic groups. • Inventories provide the counselor with a rich array of items that reflect the many dimensions of relationships. • Provides the user with a good sense of the clinical and research issues.

16. Limitations • The applicability of these inventories to diverse family groups and family contexts is unclear. • Persons with lower reading levels would have some difficulty. • It is not designed for one person. • It is not designed for individuals with very severe emotional problems and with couples having intense marital conflict. • Reliability and predictive validity have not been tested on version 2000.

17. Summary • Facilitate the communication in each couple about meaningful issues in their relationship. • Increase their awareness of their relationship strengths and growth areas. • Provide them with relationship skills • Improve their relationship.

18. Areas for Further Study • Family Adaptability and Cohesion, Evaluation Scales III (FACES III), Olson, Portner & Lavee (2002) • Enriching Relationship Issues, Communication and Happiness Inventory, Olson (2002) • Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills (PAIRS), Gordon (1994) • Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI), Snyder (1991) • Family Environment Scale (FES), Moos & Moos (1986) • Pre-Marriage Awareness Inventory (PAI), Velander (1978) • Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), Spanier (1976)

19. References • Barnett, Lindean E., Rev. Personal Interview, 4/4/06. • Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Mental Measurement Yearbook (Online). SilverPlatter Information, Inc. website: http://libproxy.library.wmich.edu:2048/login?url=http://web 5.silverplatter.com/webspirs/start.ws?customer=c50469&databases=S(YB) • Evers, Eric, Rev. Personal Interview, 4/6/06. • Evers, Paige G., Rev. Personal Interview, 4/3/06. • Fowers, B.J., Montel, K.H., & Olson, D.H.(1996). Predicting Success For Premarital Couple Types Based on PREPARE. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 22 (1), 103-119. • Knutson, L. and Olson, D.H. (2003). Effectiveness of PREPARE Program with Premarital Couples in Community Settings. Marriage & Family: A Christian Journal, 6 (4), 529-546. • Larson, J.H., Holman, T.B., Klein, D.M., Busby, D. M., Stahmann, R. F., and Peterson, D. (1995). A review of comprehensive questionnaires used in premarital education and counseling. Family Relations, 44, 245-252. • Olson, D.H., & Olson, A.K.(1999). Prepare/Enrich Program: Version 2000. Handbook of Preventative Approaches in Couple Therapy. Pages 196-216 New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc. • PREPARE/ENRICH website: http://www.prepare-enrich.com/indexm.cfm • Watson, David G., Rev. Email communication, 4/12/06.