Testing the Clinical Implications of Planned Missing Data Designs.

Assessment is a core element of evidence-based practice, but thorough formal assessment can place a significant burden on clients. We evaluated the clinical viability of using planned missing data designs to reduce client burden. Data come from an archival dataset with 1342 participants. Although significant differences were found in scores with planned missing data versus real scores, the effect sizes for the differences were generally small. Scores with missing data had sensitivity and specificity scores generally above .90 when predicting real scores over clinical cutoffs and improvement in real scores. These findings offer useful information to agencies and researchers looking for ways to collect more data without losing its immediate clinical utility.

Examining Attachment Avoidance and Attachment Anxiety Across Eight Sessions of Couple Therapy.

This study examined initial levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance, as well as their patterns of change, across eight sessions of couple therapy. Participants were 461 couples in a treatment-as-usual setting. Dyadic latent growth modeling was used to determine whether couples started therapy at similar levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance and whether attachment anxiety and avoidance changed. An actor partner interdependence model was used to see whether partner attachment anxiety was related to avoidance. Results showed relative stability of attachment anxiety and avoidance over the course of therapy, with the only change being a slight decline in attachment anxiety among women. Results showed that a person's attachment anxiety was not related to their partner's avoidance and vice versa.

The development of a reliable change index and cutoff for the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale.

The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS; Busby, Crane, Larson, & Christensen, 1995) is a measure of couple relationship adjustment that is often used to differentiate between distressed and non-distressed couples. While the measure currently allows for a determination of whether group mean scores change significantly across administrations, it lacks the ability to determine whether an individual's change in dyadic adjustment is clinically significant. This study addresses this limitation by establishing a cutoff of 47.31 and reliable change index of 11.58 for the RDAS by pooling data across multiple community and clinical samples. An individual whose score on the RDAS moves across the cutoff changes by 12 or more points can be classified as experiencing clinically significant change.