Amy G. Applegate

Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC) Reliability and Validity of a New Intimate Partner Violence Screen

We investigated reliability and validity of the Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC), a screening interview for intimate partner violence and abuse (IPV/A) in family mediation settings. Clients at three family mediation clinics in the United States and Australia (N = 391) provided reports of the other parent’s IPV/A. Internal consistency of the total screen was excellent. A confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the MASIC assesses seven types of IPV/A: psychological abuse, coercive controlling behaviors, threats of severe violence, physical violence, severe physical violence, sexual violence, and stalking. Sex differences on differing types of violence victimization were generally consistent with previous research. Higher levels of victimization predicted self-reported consequences of abuse (e.g., fear, injuries). More abusive parties, as identified by their partners on the MASIC, had more Protective Orders and No Contact Orders and criminal convictions and crimes potentially related to IPV/A. Results provide initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the MASIC but more research is needed.

Child Informed Mediation Study (CIMS): Incorporating the Children's Perspective into Divorce Mediation in an American Pilot Study

Abstract Children experiencing parental separation may benefit from forms of mediation that systematically help parents consider the needs and best interests of their children. Child Focused (CF) and Child Inclusive (CI) mediation approaches were designed to meet this need and thus may offer effective means to improve the impact of mediation on families. An initial study in Australia provided evidence of the positive effects of CF and CI and favored CI over CF (McIntosh et al., 2008). We designed the Child Informed Mediation Study (CIMS) to further test CF and CI mediation. The CIMS is being conducted in a different location (the United States), uses random assignment of cases to type of mediation, and compares both CF and CI to divorce mediation as usual (MAU). For methodological and practical reasons, CIMS differs from the McIntosh et al. study in other ways (e.g., using student mediators and child consultants; including a child consultant and mediator in both CF and CI). A pilot CIMS study is currently underway. No data are yet available, but we present some initial impressions regarding how the study is proceeding, problems encountered, and lessons learned.

Randomized Control Trial Follow-Up: Online Program and Waiting Period for Unmarried Parents in Title IV-D Court.

Despite a lack of research on parent programs for separating unmarried parents, many judicial officers mandate participation. Rudd, Holtzworth-Munroe, Reyome, Applegate, and D’Onofrio (2015) conducted the only randomized controlled trial of any online parent program for separating parents, ProudToParent.org (PTP), and related court processes (e.g., having a waiting period between the establishment of paternity and the court hearing regarding child related issues vs. having the hearing the same day). They recruited a unique sample of 182 cases in a Title IV-D Court (i.e., a court for primarily low income parents) (Authorization of Appropriations, 42 U.S.C. § 651, 2013), in which paternity was previously contested but subsequently established via court-ordered genetic testing. Unexpectedly, cases assigned to PTP and a waiting period were the least likely to reach agreement at their court hearing. In the current study, we extend these results to examine the impact of the study conditions on relitigation in the year following the court hearing; only 11.2% of cases filed a motion, and 7.8% had a hearing. The group that was least likely to reach full initial agreement (i.e., assigned to PTP and the waiting period) were the most likely to relitigate. Further, controlling for study conditions, reaching a full agreement in the Title IV-D court decreased the odds of having a court hearing in the following year. Reaching agreements on the specific issues involved in such cases (e.g., custody, child support) reduced the likelihood of both motions and hearings in the year after the Title IV-D hearings. The implications of these findings are discussed.