Psychometric Evaluation of the Multidimensional Co-Parenting Scale for Dissolved Relationships
- 114 Downloads
Instruments that assess parenting behavior after divorce have largely focused on the domains of general support of and conflict in co-parenting. This paper introduces and validates a measurement tool that provides a more nuanced perspective of the quality of co-parenting behaviors, the Multidimensional Co-Parenting Scale for Dissolved Relationships (MCS-DR). Participants were divorced or currently divorcing parents recruited through a Qualtrics panel (N = 569) to take a university-sponsored, state-approved curriculum, “Successful Co-Parenting After Divorce” and respond to a series of surveys about their experiences in the divorce process. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify the underlying factor structure of the initial measurement item pool, which consisted of 48 items. From this, a four factor model emerged, consisting of 23 items; one additional item was removed following tests of measurement equivalence as a function of gender suggesting a final measure which consisted of 22 items across the four subscales. Those subscales include: Overt Conflict, Support, Self-Controlled Covert Conflict, and Externally-Controlled Covert Conflict. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the four factor structure of the MCS-DR. The dimensions of Support and Overt Conflict demonstrate concurrent validity with an existing measure used in the literature on post-divorce co-parenting. Educators and clinicians may find this newly developed scale useful in helping parents identify their strengths and challenges in post-divorce functioning for the well-being of their children. Implications for the field are also discussed in relation to legislatively and judicially mandated divorce classes in many states.
KeywordsDivorce Co-parent Psychometric evaluation Gender Dissolved relationships
This study was funded by the Vandermark Foundation (Grant #F08067).
AJF assisted in the development of the measure, assisted in the collection of data, conducted analyses, and contributed in writing all parts of the manuscript. MLG assisted in the development of the measure, contributed in writing all parts of the manuscript, and edited the manuscript. KOassisted in the collection of data, contributed in writing the literature review and discussion, and edited the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Florida State University Institutional Review Board provided approval for the study.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Adamsons, K., & Pasley, K. (2006). Coparenting following divorce and relationship dissolution. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), The handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 241–261). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ahrons, C. R. (1994). The good divorce: keeping your family together when your marriage comes apart. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Ahrons, C. R., & Rodgers, R. H. (1987). Divorced families: meeting the challenges of divorce and remarriage. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
- Bohannan, P. (1971). Divorce and after: an analysis of the emotional and social problems of divorce.Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Carmines, E., & McIver, J. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Duncan, S. F., Goddard, H. W. (2011). Family life education: principles and practices for effective outreach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Emery, R. E. (2012). Renegotiating family relationships: divorce, child custody, and mediationNew York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
- Gallagher, J. R., Rycraft, J. R., & Jordan, T. (2014). An innovative approach to improving father-child relationships for fathers who are noncompliant with child support payments: a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Adolescent and Family Health, 6(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
- Lamb, M. E. (2010). How do fathers influence children’s development? Let me count the ways. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development. 5th ed (pp. 1–26). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
- Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9 (11). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11