Literature DB >> 33180516

The lump-versus-split dilemma in couple observational coding: A multisite analysis of rapid marital interaction coding system data.

Richard E Heyman1, Amy K Otto2, Maija Reblin2, Alexandra K Wojda1, Shu Xu3.   

Abstract

Historically, observational couple communication researchers have oscillated between splitting behaviors into narrowly defined discrete codes and grouping behaviors into broader codes-sometimes within the same study. We label this the "lump-versus-split dilemma." Coding across a decade and 11 investigators were used to recommend the most meaningful number of codes to use when observing couples' conflict. We combined data from 14 studies that used the Rapid Marital Interaction Coding System (RMICS) to score communication behavior during different-sex couples' conflict interactions. In each study, couples completed at least one 10-min, video-recorded conflict discussion. Communication during these interactions was coded by trained research staff using RMICS; all codes were compiled into a single data set for descriptive analysis and exploratory factor analyses (EFAs). The final sample comprised N = 2,011 couples. Several RMICS codes were extremely infrequent-specifically, distress-maintaining attributions, psychological abuse, withdrawal, dysphoric affect, and relationship-enhancing attributions. By far, the most frequent code was constructive problem discussion. EFAs yielded two factors for both women and men. Factor 1 (Negative) contained two items: distress-maintaining attributions and hostility. Factor 2 (Nonnegative) contained constructive problem discussion and humor (and, for women only, acceptance). Results side heavily with the "lump" camp in the lump-versus-split dilemma in couple observational coding. These RMICS factor analysis results converge with those from other systems and imply that the microanalytic "splitting" era in couples coding should draw to a close, with future studies instead focused on negative, neutral, and positive codes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33180516      PMCID: PMC8113338          DOI: 10.1037/fam0000754

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Fam Psychol        ISSN: 0893-3200


  14 in total

1.  Factor analysis of the English version of the Kategoriensystem für Partnerschaftliche Interaktion [Interaction Coding System].

Authors:  A L Remen; D L Chambless; G Steketee; B Renneberg
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  2000-01

2.  How much observational data is enough? An empirical test using marital interaction coding.

Authors:  R E Heyman; B R Chaudhry; D Treboux; J Crowell; C Lord; D Vivian; E B Waters
Journal:  Behav Ther       Date:  2001

3.  Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.

Authors:  Janette L Funk; Ronald D Rogge
Journal:  J Fam Psychol       Date:  2007-12

4.  Factor analysis of the Iowa family interaction rating scales.

Authors:  Hannah C Williamson; Thomas N Bradbury; Thomas E Trail; Benjamin R Karney
Journal:  J Fam Psychol       Date:  2011-10-10

5.  Everyday couples' communication research: Overcoming methodological barriers with technology.

Authors:  Maija Reblin; Richard E Heyman; Lee Ellington; Brian R W Baucom; Panayiotis G Georgiou; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-10-26

6.  Marital interaction coding system: revision and empirical evaluation.

Authors:  R E Heyman; R L Weiss; J M Eddy
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  1995-07

7.  Generalizability theory and the coding of marital interactions.

Authors:  G B Wieder; R L Weiss
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1980-08

8.  Development of the Brief Romantic Relationship Interaction Coding Scheme (BRRICS).

Authors:  Mikhila N Humbad; M Brent Donnellan; Kelly L Klump; S Alexandra Burt
Journal:  J Fam Psychol       Date:  2011-10

9.  What Type of Communication during Conflict is Beneficial for Intimate Relationships?

Authors:  Nickola C Overall; James K McNulty
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2017-02

10.  Addressing Methodological Challenges in Large Communication Data Sets: Collecting and Coding Longitudinal Interactions in Home Hospice Cancer Care.

Authors:  Maija Reblin; Margaret F Clayton; Kevin K John; Lee Ellington
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2015-11-18
View more
  1 in total

1.  Couple Communication Behaviors During Sexual and Nonsexual Discussions and Their Association with Relationship Satisfaction.

Authors:  Rick Roels; Uzma S Rehman; Jackson A Goodnight; Erick Janssen
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2022-02-04
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.