Family Translational Research Group, New York University.
J Fam Psychol. 2022 Jun;36(4):522. doi: 10.1037/fam0000973. Epub 2022 Mar 24.
Reports an error in "Self-report measures of coercive process in couple and parent-child dyads" by Danielle M. Mitnick, Michael F. Lorber, Amy M. Smith Slep, Richard E. Heyman, Shu Xu, Lisanne J. Bulling, Sara R. Nichols and J. Mark Eddy (, 2021[Apr], Vol 35[3], 388-398). In the original article, the full acknowledgment of funding was missing in the author note and should have read "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Science of Behavior Change Common Fund Program and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research through an award administered by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research [1UH2DE025980-01]." The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-49926-001). One of the most influential behavioral models of family conflict is G. R. Patterson's (1982) coercive family process theory. Self-reports for behaviors related to coercion (e.g., hostility toward a family member) abound; however, there are no self-report measures for coercive process itself, which is, by definition, a dyadic process. Operationalizations of coercive process are measured with behavioral observation, typically including sequential analyzed, microcoded behaviors. Despite its objectivity and rigor, coding of behavior observation is not always feasible in research and applied settings because of the high training, personnel, and time costs the observation requires. Because coercive process has been shown to predict a host of maladaptive outcomes (e.g., parent-child conflict, aggression, negative health outcomes) and given the complete absence of self-report measures of coercive process, we recently designed brief questionnaires to assess coercive process in couple (Couple Coercive Process Scale [CCPS]) and parent-child interactions (Parent-Child Coercive Process Scale [PCCPS]) and tested them via Qualtrics participant panels in samples recruited to mirror socioeconomic generalizability to U.S. Census data. The CCPS and PCCPS exhibited initial evidence of psychometric quality in measuring coercive process in couple and parent-child dyads: Both measures are unifactorial; have evidence of reliability, especially at higher levels of coercive process; and demonstrate concurrent validity with constructs in their nomological networks, with medium to large effect sizes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
报告了 Danielle M. Mitnick、Michael F. Lorber、Amy M. Smith Slep、Richard E. Heyman、Shu Xu、Lisanne J. Bulling、Sara R. Nichols 和 J. Mark Eddy 发表的“夫妻和亲子关系中的强制性过程的自我报告测量”（，2021[4 月]，第 35 卷[3]，388-398）中的一个错误。在原始文章中，作者的注释中缺少对资金的完整致谢，正确的内容应为“本工作得到美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）行为改变科学共同基金计划和国立牙科和颅面研究所的资助，由国立牙科和颅面研究所通过管理的一项拨款资助[1UH2DE025980-01]。”本文的在线版本已更正。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录 2020-49926-001 中）。家庭冲突最具影响力的行为模型之一是 G.R.帕特森（G.R. Patterson）的强制性家庭过程理论。与强制行为（例如，对家庭成员的敌意）相关的自我报告很多；然而，没有强制性过程本身的自我报告措施，因为强制性过程从定义上讲是一个二元过程。强制性过程的操作化是通过行为观察来衡量的，通常包括顺序分析、微编码行为。尽管行为观察具有客观性和严格性，但由于观察需要高度的培训、人员和时间成本，因此在研究和应用环境中并不总是可行。由于强制过程已被证明会预测许多不良后果（例如，父母与子女的冲突、攻击、负面健康后果），并且完全没有强制性过程的自我报告措施，因此我们最近设计了简短的问卷来评估夫妻之间的强制性过程（夫妻强制性过程量表[CCPS]）和亲子互动（亲子强制性过程量表[PCCPS]），并通过 Qualtrics 参与者小组在反映美国人口普查数据的社会经济普遍性的样本中进行了测试。CCPS 和 PCCPS 在测量夫妻和亲子关系中的强制性过程方面表现出初步的心理测量质量证据：两个测量都为单因素；具有可靠性的证据，尤其是在更高水平的强制性过程中；并与他们的规范网络中的结构具有同时效度，具有中等至大的效应量。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
