Advertisement

Child Indicators Research

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 319–330 | Cite as

Quantifying the Degree of Interparental Conflict - the Spectrum Between Conflict and Forms of Maltreatment and Abuse

  • Hans-Peter DuerrEmail author
  • Martin Hautzinger
Article
  • 182 Downloads

Abstract

Interparental conflict is detrimental to the development of children. Only few methods for quantifying the degree of interparental conflict exist and this produces controversies about what is detrimental to child well-being and what is not. This is particularly critical in cases where there is a form of child abuse or maltreatment that cannot be diagnosed because of the lack of standards or criteria. The present study describes a method for quantifying the degree of interparental conflict on the basis of a generalizable measure which is scalable, robust, and reproducible. The method is developed on the data basis of a survey study, in which 1146 parents reported 46,720 items on the topic of hostile-aggressive parenting. The algorithm can estimate the degree of child abuse and child maltreatment which is particularly relevant for assessments of non-sexual forms of child maltreatment or abuse. The present methodology differs from classical psychometric approaches and available instruments in that its application yields the practically interpretable measure of a ‘loss of child well-being’ and that this measure can be dynamically adapted to child welfare standards changing in a society over the years. The approach identifies criteria which family courts or child welfare agencies should use for assessing interparental conflicts in a standardized and reproducible manner.

Keywords

Child well-being Hostile-aggressive parenting Interparental conflict Emotional abuse Psychometrics Instrument 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the following persons for contributing to the rating study 2014 (Duerr et al. 2015): Dr. W. Andritzky, Prof. Dr. G. Deegener, Dr. C. Dum, Dr. A. Camps, W. Fischer, F. Godinho, Dr. Li Li, J. Rudolph, Prof. Dr. P. F. Schlottke, Prof. Dr. R. Treptow, Prof. Dr. R. Wulf.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12187_2018_9556_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1060 kb)

References

  1. Ackerman, M. J., & Schoendorf, K. (1992). ASPECT: Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  2. Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well-being across three generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 191–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00014.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult children's psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 900–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amerijckx, G., & Humblet, P. C. (2014). Child Well-Being: What Does It Mean? Children & Society, 28(5), 404–415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axford, N. (2009). Child well-being through different lenses: Why concept matters. Child & Family Social Work, 14(3), 372–383.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00611.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Arieh, A. (2000). Beyond welfare: Measuring and monitoring the state of children - new trends and domains. Social Indicators Research, 52(3), 235–257.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007009414348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Arieh, A. (2008). The child indicators movement: Past, present, and future. Child Indicators Research, 1(1), 3–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-007-9003-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bow, J. N., & Boxer, P. (2003). Assessing allegations of domestic violence in child custody evaluations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(12), 1394–1410.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503258031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Anthony, C., Tittsworth, S., & Stone, G. (1994). Hostile interparental conflict and youth maladjustment. Family Relations, 43(4), 409–416.  https://doi.org/10.2307/585372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buehler, C., Benson, M. J., & Gerard, J. M. (2006). Interparental hostility and early adolescent problem behavior: The mediating role of specific aspects of parenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(2), 265–291.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00132.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Going to extremes: Family structure, children's well-being, and social science. Demography, 36(4), 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duerr, H.-P., Duerr-Aguilar, Y. A., Andritzky, W., Camps, A., Deegener, G., Dum, C., et al. (2015). Loss of child well-being: A concept for the metrics of neglect and abuse under separation and divorce. Child Indicators Research, 8(4), 867–885.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9280-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, V. J., Holden, G. W., Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2003). Relationship between multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community respondents: Results from the adverse childhood experiences study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(8), 1453–1460.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egeland, B. (2009). Taking stock: Childhood emotional maltreatment and developmental psychopathology. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(1), 22–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2005). A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society, 6(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00020.x.
  16. Fallon, B., Trocme, N., Fluke, J., MacLaurin, B., Tonmyr, L., & Yuan, Y. Y. (2010). Methodological challenges in measuring child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(1), 70–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Family Conflict Resolution Services (2010). Risk assessment protocol to evaluate the risk of harm to children and youth caused by Hostile-Aggressive Parenting (HAP) (Release Date: December 3, 2010).Google Scholar
  18. Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10(1), 5–25.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559504271287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. Lancet, 373(9657), 68–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinze, M. C., & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments assessing parenting competencies used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 14(3), 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iffland, B., Brahler, E., Neuner, F., Hauser, W., & Glaesmer, H. (2013). Frequency of child maltreatment in a representative sample of the German population. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 980.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly, J. B. (2000). Children's adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(8), 963–973.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200008000-00007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. KiMiss study 2012 Data Report (in German). http://www.kimiss.uni-tuebingen.de/de/2012studie.html.
  24. Kropp, P. R., & Gibas, A. (2010). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) (Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment). London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2000). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 101–118.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005430904495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurdek, L. A., & Berg, B. (1987). Children's beliefs about parental divorce scale: Psychometric characteristics and concurrent validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(5), 712–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lipman, E. L., Boyle, M. H., Dooley, M. D., & Offord, D. R. (2002). Child well-being in single-mother families. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(1), 75–82.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200201000-00014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacMillan, H. L., Jamieson, E., & Walsh, C. A. (2003). Reported contact with child protection services among those reporting child physical and sexual abuse: Results from a community survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(12), 1397–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O'Hagan, K. P. (1995). Emotional and psychological abuse: Problems of definition. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(4), 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001). Psychological tests used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(4), 491–501.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scaramella, L. V., & Conger, R. D. (2003). Intergenerational continuity of hostile parenting and its consequences: The moderating influence of children's negative emotional reactivity. Social Development, 12(3), 420–439.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.T01-1-00241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seaberg, J. R. (1990). Child well-being - a feasible concept. Social Work, 35(3), 267–272.Google Scholar
  33. Sebre, S., Sprugevica, I., Novotni, A., Bonevski, D., Pakalniskiene, V., Popescu, D., Turchina, T., Friedrich, W., & Lewis, O. (2004). Cross-cultural comparisons of child-reported emotional and physical abuse: Rates, risk factors and psychosocial symptoms. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(1), 113–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4), 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication May/2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, KiMiss-ProjektUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations