Who Benefits from a Brief Online Couples Intervention? Examining Baseline Moderators of the Effectiveness of the Love Together, Parent Together Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief relationship interventions are needed to support the relationship quality of couples parenting young children who face a heightened risk of relationship deterioration. Accordingly, the Love Together, Parent Together (L2P2) program was created as a brief online writing program for parents. The present study addresses secondary objectives of a two-arm pilot randomized control trial (RCT) of the L2P2 program, examining whether multilevel risk factors across the family system moderate the program’s effectiveness. Participants included 140 couples with children (under six years), randomized to the L2P2 intervention or control condition. They completed baseline, post-intervention, and 1- and 3-month follow-up surveys. The intervention involved three writing sessions teaching couples conflict reappraisal strategies. The current study examined couples’ baseline dyadic adjustment, COVID-19 family stress, children’s effortful control, and composite risk as multilevel risk factors. Piecewise latent growth curve modelling (LGCM), using data from four timepoints, was conducted in MPlus 8.5 to examine rates of weekly change in couples’ relationship quality scores as a function of condition (L2P2 vs. control), baseline risk, and the interaction between the two. Results revealed that none of the moderators predicted weekly change in relationship quality, nor did the interaction between each respective moderator and condition. Findings do not support the differential effectiveness of L2P2 as a function of multilevel household risk. Results contribute to a growing literature that addresses for whom and/ or in what circumstances couples’ prevention programs are most effective.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".