Risk moderates the outcome of relationship education: A randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test whether the effects of relationship education programs generalize across couples regardless of their baseline levels of risk for relationship distress, or whether intervention effects vary systematically as a function of risk. The former result would support primary prevention models; the latter result would support a shift toward secondary prevention strategies. METHOD: Engaged and newlywed couples (N = 130) were randomized into 1 of 3 relationship education programs. Individual and relational risk factors assessed at baseline were tested as moderators of 3-year changes in relationship satisfaction, overall and in each of the 3 treatment conditions. RESULTS: Treatment effects varied as a function of risk, and more so with variables capturing relational risk factors than individual risk factors. High-risk couples (e.g., couples with lower levels of baseline commitment and satisfaction) tended to decline less rapidly in satisfaction than low-risk couples following treatment. Couples with acute concerns at baseline, including higher levels of physical aggression and alcohol use, benefitted less from intervention than couples without these concerns. Comparisons across treatment conditions indicate that couples with relatively high baseline satisfaction and commitment scores declined faster in satisfaction when assigned to an intensive skill-based intervention, as compared with a low-intensity intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of skill-based relationship education differ depending on premarital risk factors. Efficient identification of couples at risk for adverse relationship outcomes is needed to refine future prevention efforts, and deploying prevention resources specifically to at-risk populations may be the most effective strategy for strengthening couples and families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".