Clinical Significance and Interpretation of Quantitative Results

Chapter 21 Clinical Significance and Interpretation of Quantitative Results

 

Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

1

 

Question #1

Tell whether the following statement is true or false:

Results of a study need to be evaluated with thought to the aims of the study.

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Answer to Question #1

True

The results need to be evaluated and interpreted, giving thought to the aims of the study, its theoretical basis, the body of related research evidence, and limitations of the adopted research methods.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Question #2

Tell whether the following statement is true or false:

Methodologic decisions affect the inferences that can be made between study results and the real clinical world.

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Answer to Question #2

True

Inference is central to interpretation. Methodologic decisions made by researchers affect the inferences that can be made about the correspondence between study results and “truth in the real world.”

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Interpretation of Quantitative Research Results #1

Issues of interpretation

Aspects of interpretation

The credibility of the results

Precision of estimates of effects

Magnitude of effects

Underlying meaning of the results

Generalizability of results

Implications for future research, theory development, and nursing practice

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

6

 

Interpretation of Quantitative Research Results #2

Credibility of quantitative results

Proxies and credibility

Credibility and validity

Credibility and bias

Credibility and corroboration

Precision and meaning of results

Magnitude of effects and importance

Interpreting hypothesized results

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

7

 

Interpretation of Quantitative Research Results #3

Interpreting nonsignificant results

Interpreting unhypothesized significant results

Interpreting mixed results

Generalizability and applicability of the results

Implications of the results

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

8

 

Question #3

Tell whether the following statement is true or false:

Credibility assessments involve a careful assessment of validity threats and biases that could undermine the accuracy of the results.

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Answer to Question #3

True

Credibility assessments can involve a careful assessment of study rigor through an analysis of validity threats and biases that could undermine the accuracy of the results.

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Credibility Assessment

Approaches include

Evaluating the degree of congruence between abstract constructs and the proxies actually

Careful assessment of study rigor

Corroboration (replication) of results

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

11

 

Clinical Significance #1

Group-level results are often inferred on the basis of such statistics as effect size indexes, confidence intervals, and number needed to treat.

Individual results are discussed in terms of effects.

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

12

 

Clinical Significance #2

Benchmark: threshold that designates a meaningful amount of change

Ask whether

A change in the attribute is real

A patient in a dysfunctional state returns to normal functioning

A patient has achieved a symptom state that is acceptable to them

The amount of change in an attribute can be considered minimally important

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

13

 

Clinical Significance #3

Minimal important change (MIC)

Value for the amount of change score points that an individual patient must achieve in order to be credited with having a clinically important change

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

14

 

Clinical Significance #4

Methods of establishing the MIC

A consensus panel

An anchor-based approach

A distribution-based method

Bases the MIC on the distributional characteristics of the sample

Triangulation of approaches is increasingly common

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

15

 

Clinical Significance #5

MICs cannot be used to interpret

Group means

Differences in means

MICs can be used to interpret

If each person in a sample has or has not achieved a change greater than the MIC

Responder analysis compares the percentage of responders in different study groups.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

16

 

Group Level

Group-level clinical significance (practical significance)

Involves using statistical information other than p values to draw conclusions about the usefulness or importance of research findings

Most widely used statistics

Effect size (ES) indexes

Confidence intervals (CIs)

Number needed to treat (NNT)

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

17

 

Individual Level

Individual-level clinical significance

Efforts to come to conclusions about clinical significance at the individual level can be directly linked to EBP goals

Benchmark

The Reliable Change Index (RCI)

Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS)

Minimal important change (MIC)

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

18

 

Critiquing Interpretations

Review discussion section of research reports for statements regarding

Limitations

Sampling deficiencies

Practical constraints

Data-quality problems

Methodology section

How limitations were considered in interpreting the results

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

19

 

Question #4

Which results are considered when interpreting the results of a quantitative research study? (Select all that apply.)

Magnitude of the effects

Underlying meaning of the results

Implication for nursing practice

Cost of the study

Credibility of the results

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Answer to Question #4

A, B, C, E

The interpretation of quantitative research results (the outcomes of the statistical analyses) typically involves consideration of (1) the credibility of the results; (2) precision of estimates of effects; (3) magnitude of effects; (4) underlying meaning of the results; (5) generalizability of results; and (6) implications for future research, theory development, and nursing practice. Cost of the study is not generally considered relevant to the quality of the results.

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Community Assessment, Analysis, Diagnosis, Plan, and Evaluation

Community Assessment, Analysis, Diagnosis, Plan, and Evaluation

Weekly Objective 4 is addressed in this assignment.

Needed Document: Final Paper Template

This activity is intended for undergraduate nursing students. In this activity, you will observe, think critically about, and report health issues in diverse community environments.

Community health nursing can improve access to care for the most vulnerable and hard-to-reach groups in any country. The community health nurse should combine knowledge of major indicators of health, social factors that contribute to declining health status, and public programs designed to address problems of health care. Efforts should encompass all levels of prevention (primary, secondary, tertiary) and should address the needs of the individual, family, aggregate, and community.

You will submit a formal APA Paper (see instructions in the template and the rubric).

Utilizing the information gathered on your selected community in from eight Sentinel City subsystems you have been working on throughout this class, write your assessmentanalysisnursing diagnosisplan, and evaluation method (per the rubric) in APA 7th edition format.

You do not need an abstract. The order of the paper is as follows: the title page, the body of the paper (5-10 pages), a reference page. See the sample template provided.

Conception, Birth, and the Newborn

Interview Questions Submission

 

By the end of Topic 6, submit a minimum of 15 interview questions for the Topic 7 assignment for preapproval to the instructor. Your questions must cover the following:

  1. Cognitive, physical, and psychosocial development during the interviewee’s adolescence
  2. How peers influenced the interviewee during adolescence
  3. What people and/or events influenced the interviewee’s development of morals
  4. How the interviewee’s experiences as an adolescent formulate who they are as an adult.

From a neurobiological perspective, what are the similarities between love and anxiety/fear, and love and obsessive-compulsive disorder?

  • Length: 2-3 pages (excluding cover page and references).
  • From a neurobiological perspective, what are the similarities between love and anxiety/fear, and love and obsessive-compulsive disorder? This means both neurochemical and functional similarities.
  • Give an example from your own life where you might have experienced emotional confusion (mistaking one emotion for another). Make sure to explain what brain areas might have been active during that time.

Reading from Eliot Aronson The Social Animal Aronson defines ​prejudice​ as a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group

Reading from Eliot Aronson The Social Animal Aronson defines ​prejudice​ as a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group

on the basis of generalizations derived from faulty or incomplete information. In this chapter, we will look at four basic causes of prejudice: (1) economic and political competition or conflict, (2) displaced aggression, (3) personality needs, and (4) conformity to existing social norms. These four causes are not mutually exclusive—indeed, they may all operate at once—but it would be helpful to determine how important each one is because any action we are apt to recommend in an attempt to reduce prejudice will depend on what we believe to be the major cause of prejudice. Thus, for example, if I believe bigotry is deeply ingrained in the human personality, I might throw my hands up in despair and conclude that, in the absence of deep psychotherapy, the majority of prejudiced people will always be prejudiced. This would lead me to scoff at attempts to reduce prejudice by reducing competitiveness or by attempting to counteract the pressures of confromity Prejudice can work against minorities but sometimes also discriminate in favor of minorities.

We Are Predisposed to Prejudice

Sterotyping is not necessarily and always an act of abuse, and it’s not always negative either.

Often it’s simply how our mind works. And it’s a system of organizing and simplifying otherwise complex information about our world.

Sometimes the information would be too complex for our brain otherwise, and even when it might be not, we still have a tendency to save as much cognitive power as possible.

However, ​the specifics of prejudice are learned.

Social Support and Relationship Satisfaction in Bipolar Disorder

BRIEF REPORT

Social Support and Relationship Satisfaction in Bipolar Disorder

Grace B. Boyers and Lorelei Simpson Rowe Southern Methodist University

Social support is positively associated with individual well-being, particularly if an intimate partner provides that support. However, despite evidence that individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) are at high risk for relationship discord and are especially vulnerable to low or inadequate social support, little research has explored the relationship between social support and relationship quality among couples in which a partner has BPD. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by examining the association between social support and relationship satisfaction in a weekly diary study. Thirty-eight opposite-sex couples who were married or living together for at least one year and in which one partner met diagnostic criteria for BPD completed up to 26 weekly diaries measuring social support and relationship satisfaction, as well as psychiatric symptoms. Results revealed that greater social support on average was associated with higher average relationship satisfaction for individuals with BPD and their partners, and that more support than usual in any given week was associated with higher relationship satisfaction that week. The converse was also true, with greater-than-average relationship satisfaction and more satisfaction than usual associated with greater social support. The results emphasize the week-to-week variability of social support and relationship satisfaction and the probable reciprocal relationship between support and satisfaction among couples in which a partner has BPD. Thus, social support may be important for maintaining relationship satisfaction and vice versa, even after controlling for concurrent mood symptoms.

Keywords: bipolar disorder, marriage, social support, longitudinal, relationship satisfaction

Bipolar disorder (BPD) is a severe and chronic illness charac- terized by extreme mood shifts (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and impairment in occupational and social functioning, even between affective episodes (Fagiolini et al., 2005; Judd & Akiskal, 2003). Individuals with BPD are less likely to marry or live with a romantic partner, and those who do are at higher risk for relationship distress and dissolution compared to individuals with other psychiatric disorders and those without mental illness (Co- ryell et al., 1993; Judd & Akiskal, 2003; Whisman, 2007). Rela- tionship dysfunction has been attributed to a number of factors, including patient mood symptoms (e.g., Lam, Donaldson, Brown, & Malliaris, 2005), caregiver burden (Reinares et al., 2006), and deficits in psychosocial functioning (Coryell et al., 1993). Partners

of individuals with BPD are also at risk for social, occupational, and financial distress, and symptoms of depression and anxiety (Lam et al., 2005). The high risk for individual and couple distress has led to calls to investigate factors that may buffer the negative effects of illness and improve functioning among individuals with BPD and their partners (Reinares et al., 2006).

One potential buffering factor is social support. Multiple studies with nonclinical samples have demonstrated a positive association between social support and individual well-being (for a review, see Cohen & Wills, 1985), particularly when an intimate partner is the support provider (e.g., Beach, Martin, Blum, & Roman, 1993). This effect has been documented with both self-report and ob- served data, concurrently and over time (e.g., Cutrona & Suhr, 1994; Sullivan, Pasch, Johnson, & Bradbury, 2010). Moreover, social support appears to buffer the effects of individual and couple-level stress on individual and relationship functioning (Bodenmann, 1995) and facilitate caring and intimacy (Cohen & Wills, 1985). This research is consistent with the intimacy process model (Reis & Patrick, 1996), which suggests that intimacy de- velops through exchanges that convey validation and understand- ing, especially in response to expressions of vulnerability. In contrast, inadequate or miscarried social support attempts are associated with declines in relationship quality over time (e.g., Brock & Lawrence, 2009).

For individuals with BPD, lack of social support (in either the quality or the number of supportive relationships) is associated with lower medication compliance and greater stress (e.g., Kul- hara, Basu, Mattoo, Sharan, & Chopra, 1999). In contrast, the

Grace B. Boyers and Lorelei Simpson Rowe, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University.

The analyses presented in this study were conducted in fulfillment of Grace B. Boyers’s master’s thesis and have not previously been published.

Previous versions of the analyses presented in this study were presented as a poster at the Annual Conference of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies in November 2015 and as a paper at the Annual Conference of the Southwestern Psychological Association in April 2016. Other analyses using this data set were presented in Rowe and Miller Morris (2012).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lo- relei Simpson Rowe, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750442, Dallas, TX 75275-0442. E-mail: lsimpson@smu.edu

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Journal of Family Psychology © 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 32, No. 4, 538 –543 0893-3200/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000400

538

 

 

presence of support predicts longer time between recurrence of affective episodes (Cohen, Hammen, Henry, & Daley, 2004; John- son, Lundström, Åberg-Wistedt, & Mathé, 2003) and quicker recovery from mood episodes (Johnson, Winett, Meyer, Green- house, & Miller, 1999). However, no known research has directly studied the association between social support and relationship satisfaction within the context of BPD. This is particularly impor- tant because, although individuals with BPD have a high need for social support, they often do not receive it (Coryell et al., 1993). Likewise, their partners receive less social support than partners of individuals without mental illness; this has been attributed to limited social activities as well as lower support from the partner with BPD (Dore & Romans, 2001). In the current study, we examine the association between social support and relationship satisfaction among individuals with BPD and their intimate part- ners using an intensive longitudinal diary method. This method permits evaluation of fluctuation of variables over time, whereas the existing, predominantly cross-sectional research does not. That is, we can assess the overall association between relationship satisfaction and social support as well as the association between fluctuations in each variable.

Second, we focus on each participant’s report of emotional support they received from their partner (e.g., expressions of care and understanding). We focus on perceived social support because associations between one partner’s report of support provision and the other’s report of support receipt are often weak (Haber, Cohen, Lucas, & Baltes, 2007), reflecting the subjective nature of social support and variability in support provision skill (Howland & Simpson, 2010). That is, one partner may engage in actions in- tended to be supportive that the other partner does not perceive as helpful, which can decrease relationship satisfaction (Bolger & Amarel, 2007). We also focus on emotional support, specifically, because it is more universally acceptable than instrumental support (i.e., active assistance; Cutrona & Suhr, 1992).

We examined weekly reports of partner provision of social support from individuals with BPD and their partners, hypothesiz- ing that (a) individuals with BPD would report receiving more support than would their partners. We also tested the hypotheses that (b) support would be positively associated with relationship satisfaction on average and (c) support in any given week would be positively associated with relationship satisfaction in that week. Finally, because there is reason to believe that social support and relationship satisfaction build upon each other in a reciprocal fashion (Dunkel-Schetter & Skokan, 1990), we tested the converse hypotheses that (d) relationship satisfaction would be associated with support on average and (e) satisfaction in any given week would be positively associated with support in that week. We controlled for patient and partner depressive symptoms and patient manic symptoms because own and partner symptoms correlate with relationship satisfaction and social support (Lam et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2011; Whisman, Uebelacker, & Weinstock, 2004).

Method

Participants

Thirty-eight individuals with a lifetime diagnosis of bipolar I (90%) or bipolar II (10%) disorder and their opposite sex partners participated in a 6-month weekly diary study. In 71% of cases, the

individual with bipolar disorder (hereafter referred to as the pa- tient) was female. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 64 years, with a mean age of 44 years (SD � 10) for patients and 46 years (SD � 11) for partners. The sample was predominantly non- Hispanic White (92% of patients, 84% of partners), with the remainder identifying as Hispanic of any race (5% of patients and 8% of partners) or other (3% of patients, 8% of partners). Partic- ipants had 15 years of education on average (SD � 3 years) and 50% of patients and 76% of partners were employed, with a median household income of $4,500 per month. All couples had been living together for at least 1 year, with an average relationship length of 12 years (SD � 10), and 84% were married. In 76% of couples, at least one partner had a biological child (children’s age ranged from 1 to 41 years), with a mean of 2.86 children (SD � 1.66) among couples who had children.

Procedure

The study was conducted in a large southwestern city in the United States. All procedures were approved by the local institu- tional review board. Couples were recruited through Internet and newspaper advertisements and presentations to local mental health consumer organizations. To participate, one partner had to meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) crite- ria for bipolar I or II disorder, and the other partner could not meet criteria for a bipolar spectrum disorder or a primary psychotic disorder. The couple had to be married and/or cohabiting for at least one year, and partners had to be between the ages of 25 and 64 years, have completed a tenth-grade education or higher, and be able to read and understand English.

After providing informed consent, participants completed a bat- tery of questionnaires and clinical interviews (including those to confirm diagnostic eligibility) at a laboratory assessment. At the end of the assessment, participants completed the first weekly diary, described below, and received instructions for completing and returning weekly diaries for the next 6 months. Participants received $125 each ($250 per couple) in compensation for com- pleting the initial laboratory session and $5 for each completed diary. They were asked to complete the weekly diaries indepen- dently from their partner and return them in self-addressed, stamped envelopes. To encourage timely completion of diaries, participants received payment only if the post date of the diary was within 3 days of the due date; only data from these diaries were included in analyses. Participants completed an average of 20 weekly diaries (range � 2–26, SD � 8), with 74% completing at least 20, 8% completing 10 –20, 9% completing 5–10, and 8% completing 4 or fewer.

Measures

Diagnosis and symptoms. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis I disorders, research version, patient edition (SCID-I/P; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 2002) was used to confirm diagnostic eligibility. The SCID was administered by clinical psychology doctoral students under the supervision of the primary investigator. Patients and their partners completed the SCID-I/P independently with different interviewers. The SCID-I/P is a reliable and well-validated diagnostic tool (e.g., First, Spitzer,

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

539RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN BPD

 

 

Gibbon, & Williams, 2002). Interrater agreement within this study was calculated by rescoring 30% of all interviews (n � 23); current mood episode (� � .89), and mood diagnosis (� � .83) had acceptable agreement.

Patient and partner weekly depressive symptoms were assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001), a nine-item measure of DSM–IV depressive symptoms experienced in the past week. Symptoms were rated on a scale ranging from 0, not at all, to 3, nearly every day, with total scores ranging from 0 to 27. The PHQ-9 is well validated and reliable, with good specificity and sensitivity to change (Kroenke et al., 2001). Coefficient alpha for the first diary was .91 for patients and .88 for partners. First-week diary scores were corre- lated with Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Hamilton, 1960) scores obtained at the laboratory assessment, r � .67 for patients, .77 for partners, ps � .001.

Patient weekly manic symptoms were measured using the Alt- man Self Rating Scale for Mania (ASRM; Altman, Hedeker, Peterson, & Davis, 1997), a five-item measure of manic symptoms in which participants rate symptoms on a scale ranging from 0 to 4; total scores can range from 0 to 20. The ASRM is correlated with clinician-rated measures of mania and has good reliability and specificity (Altman et al., 1997). Coefficient alpha for ASRM scores in the first diary was .89. First-week diary scores were correlated with the Young Mania Rating Scale (Young, Biggs, Ziegler, & Meyer, 1978) scores obtained at the laboratory assess- ment, r � .77, p � .001.

Relationship satisfaction. Weekly relationship satisfaction was measured by a single item, “All things considered, how happy have you felt in your relationship in the last week?” on a nine-point scale ranging from 0, very unhappy, to 8, perfectly happy. First- week satisfaction scores were positively correlated with self- reported relationship satisfaction at the laboratory assessment us- ing the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), r � .46 for patients and .39 for partners, ps � .05. Previous studies have documented the validity of single-item measures of constructs such as relationship closeness (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), life satisfaction (Antonucci, Lansford, & Akiyama, 2001), and well- being (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

Social support. Participants reported on weekly support using a single item, “My partner has provided emotional support for me,” on a scale ranging from 0, not at all, to 8, very much. Social support from the first diary week was correlated with reports of overall social support from the partner on the Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona & Russell, 1987), obtained at the laboratory as- sessment, r � .40 for patients and .57 for partners, ps � .05. Although social support and relationship satisfaction are correlated and some older measures of relationship satisfaction have included items about social support (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987), more recent research shows that they are related, but distinct, constructs (e.g., Funk & Rogge, 2007).

Data Analytic Plan

Multilevel models with distinguishable dyads (patient vs. part- ner) across up to 26 weeks of diaries (diary completed at the laboratory assessment plus 25 additional diaries) were used to test the hypotheses. Data that were missing at random, such as skipped individual items in multi-item scales (.01% of the PHQ-9 items

and .002% of the ASRM items), were imputed using EM imputa- tion procedures. Missing single items measuring relationship sat- isfaction and social support were not imputed (8.1% of the rela- tionship satisfaction items, 0.2% of the social support items) because it was impossible to know whether the item was missing at random or on purpose.

Models were estimated in SAS PROC MIXED (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) using restricted maximum likelihood. The intraclass correlation (as calculated for a dual-intercept empty-means model) for relationship satisfaction was .51 for patients and .39 for part- ners, indicating that 51% and 39% of the variance in relationship satisfaction was due to between-person mean differences in pa- tients and partners, respectively, with the remaining variance oc- curring at the within-person level. The intraclass correlation for social support was .56 for patients and .53 for partners, indicating that approximately half of the variance in social support was due to between-person mean differences. Thus, examination of within- person means for both relationship satisfaction and social support was justified.

We used modified Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (Kenny, 1996), including separate fixed and random intercepts for patients and partners (Atkins, 2005), as shown in the equation for relationship satisfaction below. Independent variables were disag- gregated into Level 2 person-mean (PM) and Level 1 within- person (WP) components (Singer & Willett, 2003). Person-mean variables were grand-mean centered by partner, and WP variables were centered at each individual’s mean score. We included both actor and partner effects for weekly depressive symptoms but only the actor effect of manic symptoms for patients and the partner effect for partners because partners, by definition, had very low levels of manic symptoms. The autoregressive coefficient for the dependent variable (i.e., the individual’s score from the previous week) was included in all models to control for the possibility that the association between present week satisfaction and support was due to the effect of past week values. Patient sex was not included in the analyses reported below because it did not moderate effects (analyses including sex as a moderator are available from the authors upon request).

Relationship satisfactionti � (patient)��00 � �01(PM social supporti)

� �02(PM actor PHQ-9i) � �03(PM partner PHQ-9i)

� �04(PM actor ASRMi) � �10(WP social supportti)

� �20(WP actor PHQ-9ti) � �30(WP partner PHQ-9ti)

� �40(WP actor ASRMti) � �50(previous week satisfactionti)

� ε0i� � (partner)��100 � �101(PM social supporti)

� �102(PM actor PHQ-9i) � �103(PM partner PHQ-9i)

��104(PM partner ASRMi) � �110(WP social supportti)

� �120(WP actor PHQ-9ti) � �130(WP partner PHQ-9ti)

� �140(WP partner ASRMti) � �150(previous week satisfactionti)

� ε10i�

Results

Participants reported moderate levels of relationship satisfaction (patients: M � 4.71, SD � 2.34; partners: M � 4.76, SD � 2.17) and emotional support (patients: M � 5.04, SD � 2.17; partners: M � 4.26, SD � 2.26) on average over the course of the study.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

540 BOYERS AND SIMPSON ROWE

 

 

Patients had moderate symptoms of depression (M � 7.10, SD � 6.78) and mild symptoms of mania (M � 2.23, SD � 3.55) on average, whereas partners had mild symptoms of depression (M � 1.85, SD � 3.12).

As expected, a test of the difference of the intercept coefficients using an empty-means model revealed that partners reported less emotional support than patients, t(37.7) � �2.96, p � .005 (Hy- pothesis 1). Next, we tested the hypotheses that support on average would be positively associated with relationship satisfaction on average (Hypothesis 2) and that support in any given week would be associated with concurrent relationship satisfaction in that week (Hypothesis 3). We regressed weekly satisfaction onto person- mean and within-person support, controlling for past week satis- faction and person-mean and within-person psychiatric symptoms. As hypothesized, person-mean support was positively associated with average relationship satisfaction for patients, b � .51, SE � .09, p � .001, and partners, b � .35, SE � .10, p � .002, and within-person support was positively associated with within- person relationship satisfaction for patients, b � .32, SE � .04, p � .001, and partners, b � .33, SE � .04, p � .001 (see Table 1).

Finally, we tested the converse hypotheses that satisfaction would be positively associated with support, on average (Hypoth- esis 4), and that satisfaction in any given week would be associated with concurrent support (Hypothesis 5), controlling for past week support and person-mean and within-person psychiatric symp- toms. As expected, person-mean relationship satisfaction was pos- itively associated with average support for patients, b � .58, SE � .11, p � .001, and partners, b � .34, SE � .14, p � .02, and within-person relationship satisfaction was positively associated with within-person support for patients, b � .24, SE � .04, p � .001, and partners, b � .23, SE � .03, p � .001 (see Table 2).

Discussion

As expected, partners received less social support than patients, suggesting that partners of individuals with BPD may be at risk for inadequate social support in their relationships. Also as hypothe-

sized, average social support was positively associated with aver- age relationship satisfaction, and greater-than-average support within any given week was associated with greater-than-average relationship satisfaction that week, controlling for patient and partner mood symptoms and previous week relationship satisfac- tion. The converse hypotheses, with support as the dependent variable and person-mean and within-person relationship satisfac- tion as the independent variables, were also supported. These results are consistent with the literature (e.g., Cutrona & Suhr, 1994; Sullivan et al., 2010) and expand the existing body of knowledge by demonstrating a reciprocal association between support and satisfaction. This pattern is consistent with the inti- macy process model (Reis & Patrick, 1996), in which support in times of vulnerability enhances intimacy, increasing the likelihood of future expressions of vulnerability.

Our results also highlight the important relationship between social support and relationship satisfaction among couples in which a partner has BPD, over and above the well-documented effects of patient and partner mood symptoms on relationship functioning (e.g., Lam et al., 2005). Indeed, our results emphasize the need to go beyond the focus on patient symptoms and func- tioning alone in understanding BPD and to include broader rela- tionship outcomes. Specifically, although individuals with BPD and their partners are at high risk for relationship distress and dissolution (Coryell et al., 1993; Whisman, 2007), the current study shows that at least some couples coping with BPD are able to sustain high levels of satisfaction. However, the association between social support and relationship satisfaction may also indicate that low levels of either variable may have reciprocal effects, leading to declines in the other. In addition, the lower levels of support reported by partners may reflect an imbalance in support provision that could contribute to eventual relationship distress and caregiver burden (Brock & Lawrence, 2009; Lam et al., 2005). Alternatively, it may be that individuals with BPD simply need more support than their partners and the results reflect the differential need.

Table 1 Predicting Relationship Satisfaction by Patient and Partner Social Support

Variable Patient B (SE) Partner B (SE)

Intercept 3.29��� (.21) 3.42��� (.22) Weekly emotional support,

person-mean .51��� (.09) .35�� (.10) Weekly emotional support,

within-person .32��� (.04) .33��� (.04) Control variables

Previous week satisfaction .29��� (.03) .29��� (.03) Own PHQ-9, person-mean �.09�� (.03) .04 (.06) Own PHQ-9, within-person �.07��� (.02) �.15��� (.03) Own ASRM, person-mean �.03 (.07) — Own ASRM, within-person .03 (.02) — Partner PHQ-9, person-mean �.003 (.06) �.05 (.03) Partner PHQ-9, within-person �.02 (.04) .001 (.02) Partner ASRM, person-mean — .004 (.08) Partner ASRM, within-person — .05� (.02)

Note. PHQ-9 � Patient Health Questionnaire; ASRM � Altman Self- Rating Scale for Depression. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p �.001.

Table 2 Predicting Social Support by Patient and Partner Relationship Satisfaction

Variable Patient B (SE) Partner B (SE)

Intercept 3.88��� (.25) 3.23��� (.23) Weekly relationship satisfaction,

person-mean .58��� (.11) .34� (.14) Weekly relationship satisfaction,

within-person .24��� (.04) .23��� (.03) Control variables

Social support the previous week .23��� (.04) .26��� (.04) Own PHQ-9, person-mean .03 (.04) �.01 (.07) Own PHQ-9, within-person �.002 (.02) �.12��� (.03) Own ASRM, person-mean .02 (.09) — Own ASRM, within-person .03 (.09) — Partner PHQ-9, person-mean .02 (.07) �.06 (.04) Partner PHQ-9, within-person �.07� (.03) �.04�� (.02) Partner ASRM, person-mean — .15 (.09) Partner ASRM, within-person — .03 (.02)

Note. PHQ-9 � Patient Health Questionnaire; ASRM � Altman Self- Rating Scale for Depression. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

541RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN BPD

 

 

Limitations

The primary limitation in the current study is the use of single- item measures of relationship satisfaction and social support. Single-item measures limit the information that can be obtained about multifaceted constructs; future studies of social support in couples with BPD using more comprehensive measures of both variables are important to replicate our findings. In addition, the sample was relatively small and is not likely to be representative of all couples in which a partner has BPD. Indeed, the low levels of mood symptoms, on average, suggest that this may be a relatively high-functioning sample, although many patients in the study experienced weeks in which depressive and/or manic symptoms were quite high. Finally, the majority of participants were White, so the results may not generalize to a more diverse sample.

Implications and Future Directions

Social support from an intimate partner is highly beneficial (e.g., Cutrona & Suhr, 1994) as long as support is provided with some degree of skill and balanced, with neither partner experiencing too much burden of support provision or feeling inadequate as a result of needing support (Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Brock & Lawrence, 2009). Our findings extend the literature on social support to individuals with BPD and their partners. Unfortunately, couples in this population may be less skilled in support provision and ac- ceptance than couples without severe mental illness, given the high rates of relationship dysfunction in BPD (Coryell et al., 1993; Judd & Akiskal, 2003; Whisman, 2007). Future research will need to explore the skill with which patients with BPD and their partners provide support to each other and factors that may interfere with support provision (e.g., severe mood episodes, substance abuse, and stress). Experimental manipulation of support provision through psychoeducation or instructions may also enhance our understanding of the association between support and relationship satisfaction within this population. Such research has the potential to inform relationship and family-based interventions that may benefit individuals with BPD and their loved ones.

References

Altman, E. G., Hedeker, D., Peterson, J. L., & Davis, J. M. (1997). The Altman self-rating mania scale. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 948 –955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00548-3

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man- ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Antonucci, T. C., Lansford, J. E., & Akiyama, H. (2001). Impact of positive and negative aspects of marital relationships and friendships on well-being of older adults. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 68 –75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0502_2

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596 – 612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.63.4.596

Atkins, D. C. (2005). Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family treatment data: Basic and advanced issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 98 –110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.98

Beach, S. R. H., Martin, J. K., Blum, T. C., & Roman, P. M. (1993). Effects of marital and co-worker relationships on negative affect: Testing the central role of marriage. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 313–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926189308251002

Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systematic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 34 – 49.

Grading Rubric for Biography

Grading Rubric for Biography

 

A B C D F Total Points

 

Assignment Goals and Substance

 

15

• Excels in responding to assignment. Interesting,

• Demonstrates sophistication of thought.

• Key information/data is well used and clearly communicated.

15

• A solid paper, responding appropriately to assignment.

• Uses most of the requested information/data.

• Shows good use of sources, but may not communicate them clearly.

13

• Does not respond well to assignment. Adequate but weak and not effective.

• Presents key information/data in general terms, often plagued with platitudes or clichés.

• Shows basic use of sources lapses in understanding.

11.5

• Does not respond appropriately to the assignment.

• The paper and the information used are vague

• Student may misunderstand and/or underuse sources.

10

• Does not respond to the assignment.

• Lacks basis information and may neglect to use sources or adequate ones where necessary.

0‐9

 

15

 

Organization & coherence

 

30

• Uses a logical structure appropriate to paper’s subject and purpose.

• Sophisticated transitional sentences (develops one idea from the previous one or identify their logical relations).

• Uses very well information and data and integrates it in the essay rather than lists it.

30

• Uses some logical structure appropriate to paper’s aim.

• Some logical links may be faulty, but each paragraph clearly relates to paper’s goal.

• Uses some transitional devices.

• Uses well information and data and integrates them in the essay rather than lists them.

25

• Ideas are arranged randomly rather than logically and sentence arrangement is not coherent.

• If used, transitions are not logic‐ based.

• Uses little information and data and does not integrate it well in the essay.

 

23

• Random organization, lacking paragraph/sentence coherence

• Uses few or inappropriate transitions.

• Uses almost no information and data. Whatever is used is not integrated in the essay.

 

20

• Poor organization;

• Lacks transitions and coherence.

• Lacks all necessary information and data.

• May or not be all written in own words

 

0‐17.5

 

30

 

Support and references

 

15

• Uses good information/data appropriately and effectively

• Provides sufficient evidence and explanation to convince, especially in responding to specific questions.

• Uses 5 or more refereed sources.

 

15

• Uses good information/data appropriately.

• Provides some evidence and explanation to convince, especially in responding to specific questions.

• Uses 3-4 or more refereed sources.

 

13

• Often uses generalizations to support points.

• Some information/data may not be relevant.

• Often depends on unsupported opinion or personal experience

• Lapses in logic.

• Uses less than 2 or fewer refereed sources.

 

11.5

• Heavy use of clichés or over‐ generalizations for support

• Offers little evidence/data.

• May be personal narrative rather than essay.

• May be too brief

• May not all be written in own words

• Uses one to no refereed sources.

10

• Uses irrelevant details

• Lacks supporting evidence

• May be unduly brief

• Use no appropriate sources

• May not all be written in own words

0‐9

 

15

 

Mechanics

15

• Almost free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.

• Follows assignment plan exactly, handling one section at a time, using good transitions between them.

• Excellent use of APSA Style

• Written in own words.

• Uses information/sources ethically and legally.

 

15

• Contain a few errors, which may annoy the reader but not impede understanding.

• Follows assignment plan somewhat, using some good transitions devices

• Adequate use of APSA Style

• Written in own words

• Uses information/sources ethically and legally

 

13

• Contains several mechanical errors, which may confuse the reader but not impede the overall understanding.

• May not follows assignment plan and has poor or no transitions.

• Poor or no use APSA Style

• May not be all in own words

• May not use all information and sources ethically and legally.

 

11.5

• Usually contains either many mechanical errors that block the reader’s understanding and ability to see connections between ideas.

• Does not follow assignment plan.

• Very Poor or no use of APSA

• May or not be all written in own words

• May have a problem with ethical and legal use of information.

10

• Has so many mechanical errors that it is impossible to read and follow the thinking.

• Does not follow assignment plan.

• Poor or no use of APSA

• May or not be all written in own words.

• May have a problem with ethical and legal use of information.

0‐9

 

15

75 = A 67 = B 59 = C 50 = D 0 = 50 75

Screening for Malingering in a Criminal-Forensic Sample with the Personality Assessment Inventory

To prepare:

  • Review the articles “Screening for Malingering in a Criminal-Forensic Sample with the Personality Assessment Inventory” and “An Evaluation of Malingering Screens with Competency to Stand Trial Patients: A Known-Groups Comparison.” Consider the benefits of tools forensic psychology professionals use to identify criminal defendants that are malingerers.
  • Review the article “Clinical and Conceptual Problems in the Attribution of Malingering in Forensic Evaluations.” Think about some of the limitations of tools used to assess malingering.
  • Review the article “Therapy vs. Forensics: Irreconcilable Conflict Between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles of Mental Health Professionals.” Think about the differences in therapeutic and forensic psychology roles.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post by Day 3 a brief summary of your understanding of malingering, and why you think criminal defendants might be inclined to malinger. Discuss the benefits and limitations of tools forensic psychology professionals use to determine if a criminal defendant is malingering. Finally, explain the major differences in the roles of therapeutic and forensic psychology.

Learning Resources

Readings

  • Article: Boccaccinim M. T., Murrie, D. C., & Duncan, S. A. (2006). Screening for malingering in a criminal-forensic sample with the personality assessment inventory. Psychological Assessment18(4), 415–423. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
  • Article: Greenburg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice28(1), 50–57. Retrieved from http://drbevsmallwood.com/Forensic_vs_Therapeutic.pdf
  • Article: Vitacco, M. J., Rogers, R., Gabel, J., & Munizza, J. (2007). An evaluation of malingering screens with competency to stand trial patients: A known-groups comparison. Law and Human Behavior31(3), 249–260. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 Please pick one of the following questions for your take-home writing activity. 

Please pick one of the following questions for your take-home writing activity.

1. In Whistling Vivaldi the author,Claude Steele, discusses stereotype threat. Have you ever underperformed because of stereotype threat? Please describe the stereotype threat and the circumstances. If you have not experienced it, please explain why not. In your discussion, try to be as specific as possible, using material from the book to support  your point of view.

 

2. One of the themes of Whistling Vivaldi is the idea of stereotype threat. Steele (2010, p. 5) writes: “As members of society we have a pretty good idea about a lot of things,  including the major groups and identities in society. We could all take out a piece of paper, write down the major stereotypes of those identities, and show a high degree of agreement in what we wrote.This means that whenever we’re in a situation where a  bad stereotype about one of our identities could be applied — such as being old, poor,  rich, or female — we know it…it is also a threat…And this means that it follows members  of the stereotyped group into these situations like a balloon over their heads.” Do you agree or disagree with that passage? Please usematerial from Whistling Vivaldi to support your point of view.

3. Discuss something you learned from reading Whistling Vivaldi. Be as specific as possible,using examples from the book to illustrate your points.

Dimension One: Acute intoxication and/or withdrawal potential

MP_SNHU_withQuill_Horizstack

COU 640 ASAM Form

 

ASAM DIMENSIONAL SEVERITY PROFILE

ASAM Dimension(0)

No Problem

(1)

Mild

(2)

Moderate

(3)

Substantial

(4)

Severe

Dimension One: Acute intoxication and/or withdrawal potential     
Dimension Two: Biomedical conditions and complications     
Dimension Three: Emotional, behavioral, and cognitive conditions and complications     
Dimension Four: Readiness to change     
Dimension Five: Relapse, continued use, or continued problem potential     
Dimension Six: Recovery/living environment

     

 

 

Notes/Reasons:

 

Dimension One: Acute intoxication and/or withdrawal potential

 

 

 

 

Dimension Two: Biomedical conditions and complications

 

 

 

 

Dimension Three: Emotional, behavioral, and cognitive conditions and complications

 

 

 

 

Dimension Four: Readiness to change

 

 

 

 

Dimension Five: Relapse, continued use, or continued problem potential

 

 

 

Dimension Six: Recovery/living environment

 

 

 

 

Reflection: