Clinical Use of <scp>McHale</scp> 's Coparenting Scale: Case Examples and Insights for Practitioners From an International Coparenting Collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT An important accomplishment in systemic consultations and interventions is helping the family's coparents—individuals mutually responsible for the child's care and upbringing—to become more mindful about ways they can ally together to support their children. One means of stimulating coparenting dialogues is to guide intentional reflection on coparenting‐related actions related to engagement, teamwork, conflict and child focus. One instrument designed to evoke such reflection, the Coparenting Scale, is effective in triggering parent insights and dialogues about coparenting behaviours and dynamics if used intentionally by therapists. The instrument is uniquely designed to provide visuals for parents (stick figure cartoons) portraying two adults and a child in everyday activities connoting signs of affection and togetherness, handling discipline in the family, differences of opinion with the coparent and actions engaged in when alone with the child which affect the solidarity of the coparenting alliance (covert coparenting). Reflection on these items builds insight into behaviour not always consciously in mind, and dynamics not typically discussed openly or effectively with their coparent. Primed to enable such conversation, while resolute about the meaning of coparenting behaviour for children's family‐level security, practitioners can help coparents strengthen determination to mindfully engage in behavioural changes to promote greater family integrity at home through teamwork and to reduce child‐related conflict. Cases from Italy, Sweden, the United States and Israel illustrate implementation variations and impact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".