Strengthening Relationships/Strengthening Families (SR/SF)
Phase: NA
Conditions: Romantic Relationship Skills, Coparenting Skills
Sponsor: Texas State University

1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brief Title: An Evaluation of Relationship and Coparenting Education Curricula for 
Adolescent Parents   
Official Title: Strengthening Relationships/Strengthening Families (SR/SF)   
Unique Protocol ID: 90FM0067-01-01 
Document Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan 
Date 6/1/16 

2 
 
Local Evaluation Plan 
 
SR/SF LOCAL EVALUATION PLAN ..................................................................................................... 3 
Research Questions & Hypotheses. ...................................................................................................... 3 
Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4 
Relation to Program Logic Model ........................................................................................................ 5 
Research Design ................................................................................................................................... 6 
Methods to Develop Research Groups .................................................................................................. 8 
Lead Staff .............................................................................................................................................. 9 
Sample ................................................................................................................................................. 10 
Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 12 
Privacy ................................................................................................................................................ 19 
IRB/Protection of Human Subjects ..................................................................................................... 20 
Data .................................................................................................................................................... 22 
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 22 
Dissemination ..................................................................................................................................... 26 
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3 
 
SR/SF LOCAL EVALUATION PLAN 
 
Research Questions & Hypotheses. 
1. Do pregnant and parenting adolescents who participate in the full-treatment group (Co-
parenting AND Healthy Relationships) show larger improvements in their co-parenting 
and relationship knowledge and behaviors compared to those adolescents who participate 
in the partial-treatment group (Co-parenting OR Healthy Relationships)? 
H1: Youth participating in the full-treatment group will show larger improvements 
in their co-parenting and relationship knowledge and behaviors post treatment 
compared to youth in the partial-treatment group. 
2. Do pregnant and parenting adolescents who participate in the full-treatment group show 
sustained improvements in co-parenting and relationship behaviors six-months post-
treatment?  
H1: Youth participating in the full-treatment group will show more sustained 
improvements in co-parenting and relationship behaviors six months post-treatment 
than youth in the partial-treatment group. 
3. Do couples who participate show significantly better co-parenting and relationship 
outcomes than couples where only one adolescent participated? (cost-effectiveness 
analysis)  
H1: Couples in the program will show better co-parenting and relationship outcomes 
than couples where only one adolescent participated. 
4. Do pregnant and parenting adolescents who participate in the full-treatment group show 
immediate (post-treatment) and sustained (3- & 6-month follow-up) improvements in 

4 
 
well-being (i.e., reduced depressive symptoms, role overload, increased parental self-
efficacy)?  
H1: Youth participating in the full-treatment group will show statistically significant 
immediate and sustained improvements in well-being. 
Background 
The development of healthy romantic relationship skills and supportive co-parenting 
skills are important to family functioning and parental well-being (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2011). 
Family systems perspective (Cox & Paley, 1997) and co-parental frameworks (Feinberg, 2003) 
suggest these two relationships are related but distinct; however, curricula targeting family 
functioning do not target both relationship dynamics. A possible reason for this oversight may be 
that co-parenting curricula have been created for adult couples (e.g., Bringing Baby Home, 
Family Expectations, Family Foundations, Two Families Now; National Registry of Evidence-
Based Programs and Practices [NREPP]). Similarly, healthy relationship programs have been 
targeted towards adolescents and emerging adults, or premarital couple where co-parenting was 
not given substantial attention.  
Only two co-parenting curricula exist that target adolescent parents, the Young 
Parenthood Program (YPP; Floursheim, McArthur, Hudak, Heavin, & Burrow-Sanchez, 2011) 
and the Family Foundations program (FFP; Lewin, Hodgkinson, Waters, Prempeh, Beers, & 
Feinberg, 2015). YPP states that it targets co-parenting skills, but the material actually targets 
healthy romantic relationship skills and the prevention of intimate partner violence (IPV), 
acknowledging youth developmental need to learn healthy relationship skills, but ignoring the 
saliency of co-parenting in this unique context. FFP does target the co-parenting relationship by 

5 
 
focusing on identifying childrearing goals and duties and supporting the co-parental relationship; 
however, this program does not target healthy relationship dynamics or the prevention of IPV. 
Unfortunately, adolescent parents, who are experiencing an off-time transition into early 
parenthood, face the challenge of learning to positively engage in romantic and co-parental 
relationships at the same time. To better serve this population, the SR/SF program is targeting 
healthy relationship and supportive co-parenting skills. Because a program targeting both skills 
has not been implemented in any population, our evaluation will move the field forward by 
showcasing the efficacy of targeting two family relationship dynamics concurrently. Further, by 
comparing a full-treatment (co-parenting and healthy relationships) to partial-treatment groups 
(co-parenting only or healthy relationship only), we will be able to identify which relationship is 
more salient and impactful in increasing adolescent (e.g., depression, self-esteem, role overload) 
and parental (e.g., parental stress, parental self-efficacy) adjustment during this off-time 
transition into parenthood. Further, cost-effectiveness analysis will also provide information of 
the program impacts if services are provided to one or both members of the co-parental system. 
Taken together, the program model and supporting evaluation will help build our knowledge of 
the most salient needs of adolescent parents, and program service delivery best practices.    
 Relation to Program Logic Model 
Research questions #1 and #2 address the immediate and intermediate outcomes focused 
on changes in knowledge and behaviors. Research question #4 addresses the intermediate 
outcomes focused on adolescents’ well-being. Research questions #1 and #3 are also focused on 
identifying program implementation cost-effective practices.  

6 
 
Research Design 
Adaptation. Formative evaluation techniques will be used to adapt the co-parenting 
curriculum to a Hispanic population within the school setting. Focus groups with adolescent 
parents, their grandparents, and PEP coordinators will be used to inform and validate the 
adaptation of the Family Foundations curriculum in Fall/Spring 2015. In Spring 2016, the newly 
modified modules and evaluation tools will be piloted in the schools through a focus group 
format to ensure the lesson content is developmentally and culturally appropriate for our 
population. Students in all participating schools will be invited to join the SR/SF team at a 
convenient time for the PEP staff, to learn about the SR/SF program, provide information about 
their needs as teen parents, and to participate in focus groups to discuss SR/SF classes or 
measures. These focus groups sessions will allow SR/SF to learn about the school system, and 
finalize materials in preparation for the Fall 2016 launch of our full program (Table 1).  
Impact evaluation. An intent-to-treat randomized design coupled with a time-series 
design will be used to assess differential adjustment between the treatment and control groups, 
and to assess differential changes in adjustment between groups across four time-points. SR/SF 
participants will be recruited to participate in this evaluation (See Sample Section below). In 
addition, non-SR/SF participant adolescent fathers will be recruited to participate in the 
evaluation to serve as a non-random control group. The time-series design will be administered 
pre-treatment (early Fall semester: August), mid-treatment (end of Fall semester: December; 
participants only), post-treatment (end of Spring semester: May), and three-months post-
treatment (August). Each school year, data will be collected from a new cohort of participating 
pregnant/parenting adolescents (nparticipant/cohort = 160-200) and non-intervention fathers (nnon-
participant/cohort = 40-50) for a total of four cohorts (nparticipant = 640-800; nnon-participant = 160-200). 

7 
 
Table 1. Spring 2016 Evaluation and Training Schedule 
Note. Empty spaces indicate a week were Program Facilitators will hold free discussion sessions 
and/or support PEP in required duties for the purposes of relationship building and learning a 
new school system.  
 
Week 
Overall 
Goals 
Group 1 
Group 2 
Group 3 
Group 4 
1. 1/18-22 
Relations
hip 
Building 
Relationship Building 
Recruit for sessions 
2. 1/25-29 
Scale 
Validation 
Weeks 
Measure 
Development: 
Worry Scale 
 
Measure 
Development: 
Worry Scale 
 
3. 2/1-5 
 
Measure 
Development: 
Coparenting Scale 
 
Measure 
Development: 
Coparenting Scale 
4. 2/8-12 
Lesson Testing and Fine Tuning/ Program Facilitator Training 
(Finalize the overall pre- and post-test survey) 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
5. 2/15-19 
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation 
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
6. 2/22-26 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
7. 2/29-
3/4 
 
 
 
 
8. 3/7-11 
 
Recruitment:   A 
focus on teen 
fathers 
 
Recruitment:   A 
focus on teen 
fathers 
9. 3/14-18 
SPRING BREAK 
SPRING BREAK 
SPRING BREAK 
SPRING BREAK 
10. 3/21-25 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
11.  3/28-1  
 
 
 
 
12.  4/4-8 
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
13.  4/11-
15 
Recruitment:  A 
focus on teen 
fathers 
 
Recruitment:   A 
focus on teen 
fathers 
 
14.  4/18-
22 
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
 
Mock Session: 
Training and 
lesson validation   
15.  4/25-
5/29 
Rapid Senior Sessions (Program implementation) begins) 

8 
 
Methods to Develop Research Groups 
A block randomization design will be used to randomly assign the eight schools into one 
of four groups. All groups will receive the co-parenting (COPAR) and healthy romantic 
relationship (HRR) curricula, along with a third control (CONT) curriculum across the five 
school years; however, the order in which a school receives the curricula will vary by group 
membership and by year. Table 2 shows how every group will alternate from serving as the full- 
treatment or partial-treatment group depending on the school year. School demographic data 
(e.g., # of students enrolled, students’ ethnic breakdown, % of students receiving free and 
reduced lunch, % of students identified as English language learners) will be used to assess 
similarities between groups. Additionally, by alternating which group receives the full-treatment, 
and partial-treatment services across years, we are able to account for potential school 
demographic differences that may confound the treatment effects. 
Note.  Dark blocks indicate the full treatment group, Light grey blocks indicate the partial treatment (Healthy 
romantic relationships only) groups, and white boxes indicate the partial treatment (Coparenting only) group. Three-
month activities are for student retention purposes.  
Table 2. Block Randomization Curriculum Schedule and Data Collection Schedule per Cohort.   
 
 
Randomized Treatment Groups 
       (two schools per group)      . 
 
Research Cohort 
School Year 
&Semester 
G1 
G2 
G3 
G4 
Pilot 
1 
2 
3 
4 
  
FALL 
Planning and Measurement Validation 
15/16 
SPR 
COPAR 
CONT 
CONT 
HRR 
Pilot – Pre & Post 
 
  
SUM 
 
 
 
 
  
FALL 
COPAR 
CONT 
CONT 
HRR 
 
Pre 
 
 
 
16/17 
SPR 
HRR 
HRR 
COPAR 
COPAR 
 
Mid 
 
 
 
  
SUM 
 
 
 
 
Post 
 
 
 
  
FALL 
CONT 
COPAR 
HRR 
CONT 
3-M 
Pre 
 
 
17/18 
SPR 
COPAR 
CONT 
CONT 
HRR 
 
Mid 
 
 
  
SUM 
 
 
 
 
 
Post 
 
 
  
FALL 
HRR 
HRR 
COPAR 
COPAR 
3-M 
Pre 
 
18/19 
SPR 
CONT 
COPAR 
HRR 
CONT 
 
Mid 
 
  
SUM 
 
 
 
 
 
Post 
 
  
FALL 
COPAR 
CONT 
CONT 
HRR 
  
  
  
3-M  
Pre 
19/20 
SPR 
HRR 
HRR 
COPAR 
COPAR 
 
 
Mid 
  
SUM 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Post 
2020 
FALL 
Final Report Due 

9 
 
After a school is assigned into one of the four groups, the program facilitators will be 
assigned to work with one group (two schools) for the duration of the grant. There is minimal 
risk for treatment crossover effects within this design given that block randomization will be 
conducted at the school-level, indicating that groups will not have many opportunities to interact 
with one another. We will further minimize the opportunities for treatment cross-over effects by 
ensuring program facilitators do not transfer to other treatment groups, that is, a facilitator will 
be assigned to one treatment group and will remain in that group for the remainder of the grant 
cycle. Interns will only receive training for the appropriate curriculum for their group each 
semester, and most Interns will only serve for one semester; thus further ensuring that 
information from a curriculum does not extend beyond a groups’ treatment condition. Also, we 
will control for potential threats to our evaluation design by using an “attentional control format” 
where our program staff will host a control curriculum, focused on education, career, and 
financial literacy topics, during the semesters where a school is serving as our control group. By 
hosting an attentional control group, we are able to host sessions during our normally assigned 
time and prevent another program from using that same time to teach our adolescents about 
potentially overlapping topics. Finally, participants will be assigned a participant ID that our 
Project Coordinators will use to link participants’ data across data collection time-points. If a 
participant were to transfer from one school to another, our Project Coordinators will make a 
note in the participants’ record and special cases will be removed or statistically controlled when 
analyzing for program effects.  
Lead Staff 
The Project Directors will provide oversight of the entire intervention program, as well as 
the development and implementation of all policies, procedures, and processes. For the purposes 

10 
 
of the impact evaluation, Dr. Perez-Brena will serve as primary contact with the evaluation team 
and will have supervisory responsibilities over the local evaluation contract to ensure evaluation 
tasks and products (data collection tools, datasets, and analysis) are completed in coordination 
with all other SR/SF program activities. The local evaluation will be conducted by Agile 
Analytics, LLC. The team headed by Lead Evaluator Andrea Hutson, Ph.D., and supported by 
Senior Evaluator Allison Caplovitz, Ph.D., will oversee the data collection, data quality 
management, and data analyses for impact evaluation results. Graduate Assistants will support 
evaluation activities (e.g., participant recruitment, survey administration, data entry, 
transcription) with training and oversight by the local evaluation team and Dr. Perez-Brena. 
Sample 
 All students participating in our program beginning Fall 2016 will be invited to 
participate in this evaluation with the primary unit of analysis being the adolescent parent. We 
will recruit 160-200 students/year for a total of 640-800 participants across four years. Our 
sample demographics will be similar to the demographics of students served in previous SR/SF 
service years (Table 3), with an additional 40 adolescent fathers/year recruited (by the evaluation 
team) to serve as the non-equivalent control group for 
Research Question #3. A breakdown of the sample size by 
treatment group is described in Table 4. Regardless of 
group membership, 440-550 adolescents will receive the 
co-parenting curriculum, and 440-550 adolescents will receive the healthy romantic relationship 
curriculum. Given our previous success in sample retention, we expect less than 20% attrition. 
However, our intent-to-treat design and missing data handling techniques (see Analysis section) 
will allow us to use the full sample in our analyses. 
Table 3.  Participant Demographics
Category 
M(SD)/%
Age 
16.4(1.2) 
Female 
75% 
Pregnant 
32% 
Parenting 
78% 
Hispanic 
91% 
Annual retention 
92% 

11 
 
 
Power. Power to detect predicted effects will vary across outcomes and analytic models. 
All power analyses use α = .05 and 1-β (power) = .80.  Multiple Imputation or Full Information 
Maximum Likelihood will be applied to missing data; thus power analyses were based on the 
minimum projected complete data (640 participants + 160 non-participants = 800). Our power 
estimates are based on typical approximations from the project outcomes (using a smaller ICC 
of.10 and a larger ICC of .40 to represent possible school-clustered outcomes). For program 
effects with random effects ANCOVA or repeated measures random effects model, we used G-
Power software (Raudenbush, 1997; Spybrook, Raudenbush, Liu, & Congdon, 2006) to estimate 
power. Given students are nested within groups/schools, we estimate that we will have power to 
detect small-medium effect sizes (Cohen’s d ≥ .32 for ICC’s of .10-.40) with a sample of 627 or 
more. We should also have power to detect d ≥ .3 for group differences on rates of change over 
time (Múthen, & Curran, 1997). For mediation models, we are interested in whether we have 
power to detect a mediation effect. We referred to the works by (a) Fritz and MacKinnon (2007), 
which provides a table for sample sizes needed to detect various levels of mediation effects at 
power of .80; and (b) Krull and MacKinnon (1998; 2001), which discusses power issues of 
testing mediation effects with clustered data. We would need at least 472 cases to identify a 
mediation effect where the effect size of an analytic path between the predictor and mediator 
Table 4. Group and Sample Size Estimates if we Recruit 40 Students per Group (Minimum Goal) 
or 50 Students per Group (Maximum Goal) Across Four Cohorts 
Research Groups: 
Group N 
Sample N 
(40/group/year) 
Sample N 
(50/group/year) 
Impact Evaluation Cohorts 
 
 
 
Full Treatment  (Co-parenting & HRR) 
6 
240 
300 
Partial Treatment 
 
 
 
HRR only 
5 
200 
250 
Co-parenting Only 
5 
200 
250 
Cohort Sub Total 
 
640 
800 
Non-participating adolescent fathers 
4 
160 
200 
Total  
 
800 
1000 

12 
 
variable (path a) and the mediator variable and outcome variable (path b) were both small. These 
power estimations apply to all analytical models discussed in the Data Analysis section below.  
Methods to promote sufficient evaluation participation. Program participants will be 
informed of the program evaluation prior to enrolling in SR/SF. If students agree to participate in 
the evaluation, then pre-test data will be collected at the initial intake. Students will receive 
monetary incentives to complete the survey data at the mid-test ($25), post-test ($25), three-
month ($25) and 6-month follow-ups ($25). In addition, non-participant adolescent fathers will 
be identified through participating adolescent mothers’ intake interviews. We will ask 
adolescents mothers for permission to contact the adolescent fathers along with their contact 
information. Non-intervention fathers will receive an incentive for their participation in a pre-test 
($25) and post-test ($25), and 6-month follow-up ($25). Dr. Perez-Brena has had success 
overseeing a similar process to identify and interview adolescent/emerging adult romantic 
partners in a longitudinal study of Mexican-Origin families (R01HD39666; PI: Updegraff). 
Data Collection 
Constructs and measures. The measures used for this evaluation are categorized into ten 
larger categories. Table 5 details the data collection schedule for each category. The majority of 
measures have been used and validated with adolescent mothers in NIH (R01HD061376; PI: 
Umaña-Taylor) and ACF-HHS funded projects (90FE0128-05-00, PI: Toews; 90FM0007-01-01, 
PI: Toews; APRPA006011, PI: Umaña-Taylor). The attitudes and knowledge, family 
background, and household resources and arrangement measures have been endorsed by the 
ACF-HHS HMRE evaluation team as they will be collected using the nFORM intake, pre-test, 
and post-test assessment tools. Measures which will require validation within a Hispanic 
adolescent sample are noted in text.  All measures will be available in English and Spanish. 

13 
 
Table 5. Outcomes Categories & Measurement Schedule  
Construct 
Pre 
Mid 
Post 
Follow-up  
Attitudes & Knowledge 
A 
N 
A 
 
A 
N 
A 
N 
Romantic Relationship 
A 
N 
A 
 
A 
N 
A 
N 
Co-Parenting 
A 
N 
A 
 
A 
N 
A 
N 
Parenting 
A 
N 
A 
 
A 
N 
A 
N 
Psychosocial Functioning 
A 
N 
A 
 
A 
N 
A 
N 
Cultural Resources 
A   
N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Family Background 
A 
N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Household Resources & Arrangements 
A 
N 
A 
 
A 
 
A 
N 
Note.  A = Adolescent participant; P = Non-participating parent. Follow ups are completed at three 
and six months post-service for participating students and at six-month for non-intervention fathers.  
 
Attitudes and knowledge. The HMRE nFORM pre- and post-test surveys will be used to 
assess changes in attitudes towards marriage (Section A1), healthy relationships (Section A3), 
romantic relationship conflict resolution (Section A4), and intimate partner violence (Section 
A5). An additional measure will be used to assess youths’ expectation (3-items: co-parenting 
with [father’s name] is the right thing to do) and commitment (2-items; I plan to continue to 
share childrearing decisions with [father’s name]) to co-parent using the Expectations to Co-
parent scale (Markman, Ganong, & Coleman, 2007).   
Romantic relationships. Abusive behaviors between dating adolescents will be assessed 
using the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al., 2001). 
Physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, and threatening behaviors are assessed in this 31-item 
measure. The CADRI has demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability, good internal 
consistency, and agreement between dating partners (Wolfe, et al., 2001). The National Survey 
on Teen Relationships & Intimate Dating Violence (STRiV; NORC, 2013) is an 8-item yes/no 
inventory of the occurrence and reaction to physical abuse between dating adolescents.   
Co-parenting. Two subscales from the Co-parental Communication Scale (Ahrons, 1981) 
will be used to assess frequency of communication (7-item) and degree of conflict (7-item) that 
is present when discussing parenting issues between co-parents. This scale has been modified 

14 
 
and validated with Mexican adolescent mothers (Madden-Derdich, 2002; Herzog, Umaña-
Taylor, Madden-Derdich, & Leonard, 2007) with good reliability in both subscales (α > .78). A 
shortened version of the Co-parenting Relationship Scale (using 18 of the original 35 items) will 
be used to assess four domains of co-parenting behaviors, including childrearing agreement, 
support/undermining, satisfaction with division of labor, and family management (Feinberg, 
2003; Feinberg, Brown, & Kan, 2012). The CRS showed Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .91 to 
.94, indicating good reliability. The CRS will be validated with adolescent parents in the Spring 
2016 as part of the SR/SF program planning activities.  
Parenting. Using the Parental Involvement Scale, parents will be asked to rate how 
frequently (4-point) they, the other biological parent, and their mothers engage in three types of 
activities with their infants:  literacy (reading, telling stories, singing), caregiving (e.g., changing 
diapers, feeding, preparing meals, putting child to sleep), and warmth (e.g., tickling, soothing, 
holding; Cabrera, Shannon, & La Taillade, 2009). Having data on the target adolescent, the other 
parent, and mother, will allow us to asses parental and coparental involvement among families of 
adolescent parents. Previous work with Hispanic parents has shown good reliability (α =.87). 
Adolescents’ self-efficacy about becoming (pre-birth) or being (post-birth) parents will be 
assessed using the 25-item Prenatal Parental Expectations Survey (Reece, 1992; Reece & 
Harkless, 1998). The internal reliability of the measure was tested by the developer of the 
instrument (Reece, 1992) with Cronbach’s alphas of .91 antepartum and .86 postpartum, and for 
the revised version used in the current study, reliabilities of .92 antepartum and .97 postpartum 
were reported (Reece & Harkless, 1998).  The Parental Stress Scale (Berry & Jones, 1995) is an 
18-item scale which assesses the rewarding and demanding stressors of parenthood. The measure 
has demonstrated both reliability and validity across gender and family type.  

15 
 
Psychosocial functioning. Global self-esteem will be assessed using the 10-item 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979), which has been validated within Hispanic 
adolescent samples with good reliability (α >.71; Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007; Umaña-
Taylor et al., 2004). The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) will be 
utilized to assess depressive symptoms (cognitive, affective, and behavioral depressive features) 
in 20 items. This 20-item measure has been tested for reliability and validity and has been used 
with Mexican-American samples in nationally representative studies (Devins & Orme, 1985; 
Himmelfarb & Murrell, 1983; Moscicki, Locke, Rae, & Boyd, 1989; Roosa, Reinholtz, & 
Angelini, 1999; Roosa, Reyes, Reinholtz, & Angelini, 1999). Robert and Chen (1995) obtained a 
.93 reliability score using the CES-D among a Mexican-origin adolescent sample. The Penn 
State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) is a 7-item inventory designed to capture the generality, 
excessiveness, and uncontrollability of pathological worry. It has been shown to have good 
internal consistency with samples consisting of older adults with generalized anxiety disorder 
(Beck, Stanley, & Zebb, 1995), community subjects (Brown et al., 1992), and undergraduates 
(Meyer et al., 1990). It has also demonstrated good test–retest reliability over 8–10 weeks. The 
worry scale will be validated for adolescent parent samples in the Spring 2016. 
Cultural Resources. Brief-Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans II. Both 
Anglo and Mexican cultural orientation will be measured utilizing the brief-ARSMA II (Cuéllar, 
Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). This 12-item scale, revised from the original verison (Cuéllar, 
Harris, & Jasso, 1980), yields a high Pearson correlation coefficient (r = .89) with the original 
scale (Cuéllar et al., 1995).  Strong construct validity of ARSMA-II was demonstrated using a 
sample of 379 individuals representing five generations (Cuéllar et al., 1995). ARSMA-II is 
multifactorial and capable of generating multidimensional acculturative types (e.g., integrated, 

16 
 
separated, assimilated, and marginalized). Mexican American Cultural Values Scale – Familism. 
The familism measure is a subscale of the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale developed 
by Knight, Gonzales, Saenz, Bonds, Germán, Deardorff, Roosa, and Updegraff (2009). The 
familism scale is composed of 16-items measuring three conceptual domains: (1) support and 
emotional closeness; (2) obligations; and (3) family as referent. Five of the items were adapted 
from Sabogal et al. (1987) and the remaining items were developed through focus groups with 
Mexican American families. Alphas were above .88 for adolescents (Updegraff, McHale, 
Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005). Gender Role Attitude towards parenting roles and child 
rearing will be assessed utilizing the 9-item What is a Father scale (Palkovitz, 1984). This scale 
was validated with SR/SF adolescent parents in Spring 2016.  
Family background. This section was designed to gather demographic information about 
adolescent parents and their families. This includes information about ethnicity; generation 
status; language fluency; romantic relationship status and questions regarding pregnancy, 
delivery, and the baby’s other biological parent. nFORM will be used to collect this data. 
Household information. This section was designed to gather information about adolescent 
parents’ living arrangements and resources. This includes information about household size and 
household members (age, gender, relationship to participant), household stability, and whether 
the adolescent receives state and federal resources (e.g., TANF, WIC, subsidized child care, 
health Insurance, etc.). nFORM will be used to collect this data. 
 
Consent (and assent). Participation in this evaluation study is voluntary. During 
recruitment, and once again at the initiation of data collection, participants will be informed of 
their rights as human subjects. Parents of adolescents will be informed of the study at the 
beginning of the school year through a paper flyer sent home through the adolescent. Parents will 

17 
 
be asked to provide passive consent (except in AISD where active consent is required) and youth 
will be asked to sign an assent form indicating they were explained their rights as human 
research subjects and agree to participate prior to the beginning of the program. All forms will be 
available in English and Spanish.  
Methods of data collection. Participant intake will be collected using the nFORM data 
collection tool using the ACASI format. A tablet will be made available to the adolescent at their 
initial meeting with the Program Facilitator or Intern which will occur prior to the beginning of 
the curriculum. Pre- and post-test data collected for the federal evaluation will be collected at this 
initial meeting with the Facilitator/Intern and at a close-out session with the Facilitator/Intern 
using nFORM. The local evaluation pre-, mid-, and post-session data will be collected in class 
using an online survey tool on days #1, #14, and #28 of the curriculum schedule. The 3- and 6-
month follow-up data and the non-intervention father data will be collected using an online 
survey format. Focus groups sessions, administered by the local evaluation team, will occur on 
days #15 and #29 of the curriculum schedule. Focus groups will be audio recorded and 
transcribed by an evaluation team member and doubled checked by a second evaluation team 
member. Annual structured interviews with key project staff (e.g., Project Coordinators, 
Facilitators, and Interns) will be conducted in-person or by phone in the Spring of each program 
year beginning in Y2. 
Ensuring and monitoring high-quality data collection. A training session for the data 
collection team will be offered at the beginning of each semester. Structured interview 
techniques, survey question nuances, and data quality techniques will be covered during the 
training.  The local evaluator will work with any team member who requires additional support. 
Weekly meetings will be held between the Directors, local evaluator, and Project Coordinators 

18 
 
where they will discuss missing data issues and data discrepancies. If data can be recollected, 
Project Coordinators will provide on-site access to the evaluation team. If data are to be re-
coded, the evaluation manager will oversee the process.  
Tracking participants and reducing attrition. We will minimize attrition through 
strategies that have been successful in our prior work, including developing cordial relationships 
with families, tracking techniques, providing monetary incentives, facilitating connections with 
the project via our school liaisons (PEP Directors) and regular communication with students 
during case management sessions. To account for the fact that students are often identified as 
pregnant/parenting within the first month of each semester, directly overlapping with our 
program start date, students will be allowed to enroll as late as Week 5/14 of our regularly 
scheduled activities (i.e., Introduction/nFORM, SRSF Pre-test, Lesson 1-3) as long as students 
are able to make up the missed activities before attending Lesson 4 (Week 6). Acknowledging 
that students may not be able to attend make-up sessions, a student will still be identified as a 
completer for each curriculum if they attend at least 6/10 lessons. If a student is close to 
becoming a completer, then we will make every effort to ensure students receives additional 
class materials, including offering students a make-up session within two weeks of missing a 
class. That is, once students are enrolled, students will be allowed to miss up to 4 
lessons/curriculum without attending a make-up session. This threshold will be used for Year 2, 
however we intend to assess outcomes from Year 2 to identify core lessons or minimum 
attendance threshold for Years 3-5. Pre-, Mid-, and Post-test data collection will be administered 
by graduate research assistants in the school setting during the allotted time of the intervention. If 
students are absent during the day of data collection, Program Facilitators will contact students 
through the school, or through a phone call, to schedule and administer a make-up session prior 

19 
 
to the beginning of lesson 1, for Pre-test data, or within one month of the missed data collection 
date, for Mid-test, Post-test, and follow up data. Given the high mobility of this population, we 
believe it is important to maintain regular contact with students and to maintain multiple possible 
contacts for each student. For this reason, at onset of the program - during the intake survey 
administered through nForm - students will be asked to confirm contact information, and provide 
three-to-five additional contacts. The evaluation team will use this contact information to 
schedule three-month, and six-month follow-up activities with participating students. For non-
intervention fathers, a small questionnaire (to get contact information updates) will be sent at the 
same time as participating students are completing their mid-test (December) and 3-month 
follow up (August) in order to maintain contact with these fathers between data collection waves. 
All participant alum will be invited to attend the Teen Symposium through postcard invitation 
that will also be used to verify participants’ contact information.  
 Privacy 
Prior to service delivery, all staff will be trained on the proper use of all data collection 
tools, including intake forms, service documentation forms, adverse event documentation, 
nFORM forms, attendance sheets, post-service reactions sheets, pre- and post- test surveys. All 
data collection materials and protocols will be reviewed and approved by the Texas State 
University IRB. Further, all SR/SF staff and evaluation staff will be trained in protection of 
human subject protocols (See IRB/Protection of Human Subjects section). Training will focus on 
protecting confidential/sensitive information, participants’ rights as human subjects, and 
how to handle and document adverse events (e.g., disclosure of domestic violence, suicide, 
child abuse). As an additional safeguard to protect program participants, all information will be 
collected so that it cannot be associated with any individual. Data collection forms will have 

20 
 
numeric IDs and will not include names. These forms will be scanned to produce electronic 
datasets, which will utilize the numeric ID and not include names, addresses, or other personal 
identifiers. After data collection is completed, the list matching participants and IDs will be in 
possession of the Directors, and will be secured in a locked office on a password-protected 
computer. The data collection forms will be shredded. The electronic datasets will be maintained 
on password-protected computers, housed in locked research offices, and only project research 
staff will have access to these computers and datasets. Data specifically requested for the Federal 
evaluation will include participant ID, but no identifiable information. All reports will provide 
aggregated data to ensure the participants’ identities cannot be discerned from the information 
provided. Last, all identifiable information will be destroyed five years after the project 
completion. 
IRB/Protection of Human Subjects 
All evaluation procedures and materials will be reviewed and approved by the Texas 
State University Internal Review Board (Federal Wide Assurance: FWA00000191). Our 
process for protection of human subjects will include training, documentation, and monitoring 
for potential iatrogenic effects. Informed consent/assent is gathered from all human subjects 
(see Consent (and Assent) above) and privacy/confidentiality will be protected (see Current 
Security & Confidentiality Standards below).  
Training. All data collection and implementation staff will receive training regarding 
adverse events (primarily with regards to domestic violence) during their initial staff training for 
this project, as well as ongoing supervision around these issues.  Staff will be trained in what 
constitutes adverse events (identifying abuse, communicating with an upset student), how to 
communicate with their supervisor immediately following an adverse event, and the need to err 

21 
 
on the side of caution (i.e. over-reporting to direct supervisors and the Directors). Staff will also 
be trained in how to make a report to child protective services, in the case of potential physical or 
other harm, or to police, in the case of imminent physical harm to an adult, if for some reason 
they are unable to contact a supervisor or Director.  If staff believe imminent harm is possible, 
they will be instructed to contact authorities immediately. In addition, evaluation team members 
will be coached to respond to participant embarrassment or discomfort with data collection or 
intervention in an appropriate and compassionate manner. 
Documentation. All data collection and intervention protocols include a form on which 
research staff members (both data collection staff and implementation staff) record any 
problems with the data collection or implementation session, concerns about the child or 
family, or unusual occurrences during the collection or implementation session. All staff with 
participant contact will be trained regarding the use of this form, but will be instructed not to 
rely on the form to convey information to supervisors. 
Potential iatrogenic effects safeguards. Potential adverse events as a result of 
participation in the intervention are not expected, but, if present, they may include: (1) 
Increases in adolescents stress if they identify that they are/were in an unhealthy/abusive 
relationship; and (2) increases in relationship conflict as a result of changes in the 
communication patterns of family members as they begin to adopt curriculum suggestions for 
enhanced problem-solving. We will monitor potential iatrogenic effects at the level of 
individual participants through monthly supervisory meeting of the Program Facilitators and 
Interns with the Project Coordinators. In these meetings, staff members provide an update on 
participants and their activities with them.  Regular team meetings, in addition to these 
supervisory meetings, also provide an opportunity for the supervisors and investigators to get a 

22 
 
sense of how the intervention is affecting participants, as well as to learn about the activities of 
staff members.  
Data 
Data reporting and transfer. Data will be stored using nFORM (for federal requested 
data), Qualtrics (for online pre-, post- and follow up surveys), and SPSS (for local evaluation 
data). Qualtrics, and SPSS have capabilities to export files in comma-separated formats.  
   
Ability to link. Contact information will be stored in an electronic file in nFORM in order 
to facilitate linking data to other sources if the federal government requires it.  
Current security and confidentiality standards. All parties who have access to the data 
have completed or will complete training on current security standards for data, and will be 
required to have logins and passwords and up-to-date anti-virus software on all computers used 
to access the data. Data will be encrypted using Bit Locker, File Vault, or other software that 
uses AES encryption algorithms. Confidential data will be encrypted and password protected and 
transmitted either on a secure HTTPS connection or on an encrypted USB drive.     
Data Analysis 
Attrition/missing data. All analyses will be based on the initial treatment intent, such that 
participants who have been randomly assigned to conditions will be included in the analyses 
regardless of their level of participation in the intervention and subsequent withdrawal or 
deviation from protocol. We will apply modern methods to adjust for missing data (e.g., Multiple 
Imputation, MI, Schafer, 1997; Full Information Maximum Likelihood, FIML, Arbuckle, 1996). 
Although imputation of dependent variables is somewhat controversial, reviews of best practices 
(e.g., Schafer & Graham, 2002; Johnson & Young, 2011) suggest that it is necessary to impute 
both independent and dependent variables to avoid sample bias. Further, Young and Johnson 

23 
 
(2010) demonstrated that, as long as a relatively large number of datasets are generated 
programmatically (e.g., >20), there were no significant differences between results of a typical 
MI strategy and a MI strategy that deleted the imputed dependent variables from the final 
analyses. Attrition analyses (Jurs & Glass, 1971) and Little’s test (1998) of the assumption of 
missing completely at random will be applied to examine the nature of missingness. Attrition 
analyses also allow us to examine if main effects of attrition or program x attrition interactions 
pose threats to internal and external validity (Jurs & Glass, 1971).  
Data dependency. The multilevel structure of our data may result in data dependency 
from multiple assessments nested within adolescent parents, adolescents nested within couples 
(Research Question #3, only), and students nested within schools. All analyses will be conducted 
using a multilevel framework to adjust for such dependencies when they are present. Where the 
statistical technique has not yet been developed for higher-order multilevel data (i.e., three-level 
structural equation modeling), we will adjust standard errors of parameter estimates by the 
design effect (DEFF; an index combining the effects of ICC and cluster sample sizes).      
 
Research questions #1-3: Assessment of program effects on romantic and co-parenting 
relationships. Program effects will be examined using two analytical approaches. First, we will 
examine short-term and long-term program effects by comparing means of the variables (as 
listed in Table 4) across the full and partial-treatment conditions at post-test, 3-, and 6-month 
follow up. Random effects or mixed effects analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for 
possible baseline differences, will be used. We will include the intervention condition x baseline 
status interaction to examine the possibility of the program effect being moderated by baseline 
risk (e.g., stronger intervention effects for youth at higher risk at pre-test; Brown, Wang, et al., 
2008). Second, we will utilize measures from all assessment points together with a repeated 

24 
 
measures random effects model (i.e., time-point nested in individuals, individuals nested in 
schools; Raudenbush & Bryk 2002; Singer & Willett, 2003) or multilevel growth curve modeling 
to evaluate the intervention effects over time. Specifically, we will estimate whether individual 
changes over time (i.e., within-person estimations) vary from person to person and whether the 
inter-individual variation is systematically related to the intervention conditions (i.e., between-
person estimations). We will also examine linear and non-linear (i.e., quadratic) program effects.  
Research Question #4: Assessment of program effects, changes in romantic and co-
parenting relationships and their relation to well-being. Next, we will conduct mediation 
analyses to examine whether intervention effects on the romantic/co-parenting relationship 
dynamics further affect well-being using time specific or growth modeling approaches. First, we 
will examine the prospective mediation effect using multilevel cross-lagged structure equation 
modeling (SEM; Cole & Maxwell, 2003; Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010) as illustrated in 
Figure 1. Second, using repeated measures, we will apply multilevel parallel processing GCM 
modeling (Cheong, MacKinnon, & Khoo, 2003) to examine how the intervention affects the 
change in the mediators, which in turn, relate to the change in well-being outcomes (Figure 2). 
Figure 1: Cross-lagged Prospective Mediation Model 
 
M1 
Full vs. Partial 
Treatment 
Y1 
Y2 
Y3 
Y4 
M2 
M3 
M4 

25 
 
Adolescents’ characteristics, cultural resources, and household background will be 
explored as moderators of program and mediation effects using multi-group comparisons, or 
interaction effects, in the above analytic models. If multigroup comparisons or interactions are 
significant, we will explore mechanisms through which these correlates have their effects. Using 
multilevel SEM, we will test whether these program factors mediate the links between correlates 
and youths’ short-term and intermediate adjustment outcomes as well as outcome changes over  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
time. Given the complexity of analyses, research question #4 will only be analyzed until after 
data from all four cohorts has been collected.  
 Minimizing type-1 error. To minimize the risk of Type-1 error, we will limit the number 
of paths’ estimated in our models, whenever possible. Further Bonferonni correction techniques 
will be used to set a more stringent p-value to correct for multiple comparisons.   
Non-equivalent control groups. To address potential baseline difference between 
participating and non-intervention fathers, propensity scores will be used for more stringent 
comparison group tests. The use of non-equivalent controls is not tied to our primary program 
Figure 2: Parallel Processing Growth Curve Model 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
c
a 
b
Full VS Partial 
Treatment 
S-M
M3 
M1 
M4 
M2 
Y4 
Y3 
Y2 
Y1 
I-M
I-Y
S-M

26 
 
effectiveness test. Instead, the use of non-equivalent control groups will help address additional 
process evaluation questions.    
Dissemination 
The Directors and subcontracted collaborator plan to present findings from this program at 
professional and academic conferences and submit manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed 
journals. Analyses based on the research questions described above will be completed by the 
local evaluator to support the reporting of the overall program impacts to the federal government.   
 
REFERENCES 
 
Adler-Baeder, F., Kerpelman, J. L., Schramm, D. G., Higginbotham, B. & Paulk, A. (2007). The 
impact of relationship education on adolescents of diverse backgrounds. Family 
Relations, 56, 291-303. 
Ahrons, C. R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. 
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 415-428. 
Arbuckle, J.L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G.A. 
Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.). Advanced Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 
243-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Beck, J. G., Stanley, M. A., & Zebb, B. J. (1995). Psychometric properties of the Penn State 
Worry 
Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 1, 33–42. 
Berry, J. O., & Jones, W. H. (1995). The parental stress scale: Initial psychometric evidence. 
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(3), 463-472. 
Brown, T. A., Antony, M. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1992). Psychometric properties of the Penn 
State Worry Questionnaire in a clinical anxiety disorders sample. Behaviour Research 
and Therapy, 30, 33- 37. 
Brown, C. H., Wang, W., et al. (2008). Methods for testing theory and evaluating Impact in 
randomized field trials: Intent-to-treat analyses for integrating the perspectives of person, 
place, and time. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95 (Supplement 1), s74-s104. 
Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital prevention 
programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family Relations, 52, 105-118. 
Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., & La Taillade, J. J. (2009). Predictors of co-parenting in Mexican 
American families and direct effects on parenting and child social emotional 
development. Infant Mental Health Journal, 30(5), 523. 
Cheong, J., MacKinnon, D.P., & Khoo, S.-T. (2003). Investigation of mediational processes 
using parallel process latent growth curve modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 
238-262. 

27 
 
Contreras, J. M., Narang, D., Ikhlas, M., & Teichman, J. (2002). A conceptual model of the 
determinants of parenting among Latina adolescent mothers. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. 
Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the U.S. (pp. 155-
177). Westport, CT: Praeger. 
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: 
Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal 
Psychology, 112, 558-577. 
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual review of psychology, 48(1), 243-
267. 
Devins, G. M., & Orne, C. M. (1985). Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. In 
D.J. Keyser, R.C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Critiques, (pp. 144–159). Kansas City, MO: 
Test Corp of America.   
Dion, M. R., Devaney, B., McConnell, S., Ford, M., Hill, H., & Winston, P. (2003). Helping 
unwed parents build strong and healthy marriages: A conceptual framework for 
interventions. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. 
Fagan, J., & Lee, Y. (2011). Do coparenting and social support have a greater effect on 
adolescent fathers than adult fathers? Family Relations, 60, 247-258. 
Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2011). Coparenting and relationship quality effects on father 
engagement: Variations by residence, romance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 
637-653. 
Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A 
framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(2), 95-131. 
Feinberg, M. E., Brown, L. D., & Kan, M. L. (2012). A multi-domain self-report measure of 
coparenting. Parenting, 12(1), 1-21. 
Floursheim, P., McArthur, L., Hudak, C., Heavin, S., & Burrow-Sanchez, J. (2011). The Young 
Parenthood Program: Preventing intimate partner violence between adolescent mothers 
and young fathers. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 10(2), 117-134. 
Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the 
longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive medicine, 32(2), 128-
141. 
Fredland, N. M., Ricardo, I. B., Campbell, J. C., Sharps, P. W., Kub, J. K., & Yonas, M. (2005). 
The meaning of dating violence in the lives of middle school adolescents: A report of a 
focus group study. Journal of School Violence, 4(2), 95-114. 
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. 
Psychological Science, 18, 233-239. 
Futris, T. G., & Schoppe‐Sullivan, S. J. (2007). Mothers’ Perceptions of Barriers, Parenting 
Alliance, and Adolescent Fathers’ Engagement With their Children*. Family Relations, 
56(3), 258-269. 
Gardner, S. (2001). Evaluation of the "Connections: Relationships and Marriage" curriculum. 
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 19, 1-14.  
Gardner, S., Giese, K., & Parrot, S. (2004). Evaluation of the “Connections: Relationships and 
Marriage” curriculum. Family Relations, 53, 521-527. 
Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., Kline, G. H., & Stanley, S. M. (2003). Best practices in couple 
relationship education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 385-406. 

28 
 
Harrykissoon, S. D., Rickert, V. I., & Wiemann, C. M. (2002). Prevalence and patterns of 
intimate partner violence among adolescent mothers during the postpartum period. 
Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 156(4), 325-330. 
Hawkins, A. J., Carroll, J. S., Doherty, W. J., & Willoughby, B. (2004). A comprehensive 
framework for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 547-558. 
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and 
the Family, 93-98. 
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of 
Social and Personal Relationships, 15(1), 137-142. 
Herzog, M., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Madden-Derdich, D., & Leonard, S. (2007). Teenage fathers’ 
involvement in parenting:  The mediating role of mothers’ satisfaction with and desire for 
fathers’ involvement. Family Relations, 56, 244-257. 
Himmelfarb, S., & Murrell, S. A. (1983). Reliability and validity of five mental health scales in 
older persons. Journal of Gerontology, 38(3), 333-339. 
Hoffman, S. D., & Maynard, R. A. (2008). Kids having kids: Economic costs and social 
consequences of teen pregnancy (2nd ed). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. 
Ismail, F., Berman, H., & Ward-Griffin, C. (2007). Dating violence and the health of young 
women: A feminist narrative study. Health Care for Women International, 28(5), 453-
477. 
Johnson, D. R., & Young, R. (2011). Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing 
data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 926-
945. 
Jurs, S. G., Glass, G. V. (1971). The Effect of Experimental Mortality on the Internal and 
External Validity of the Randomized Comparative Experiment. Journal of Experimental 
Education, 40, 62-66. 
Kerpelman, J. (2010). The YouthBuild USA evaluation study of Love Notes. Retrieved from: 
http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/Documents/YBUSA-Love-Notes-Evaluation-report-
2010.pdf 
Kost K and Henshaw S, U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2010: National and 
State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2014. 
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1999). Multilevel mediation modeling in group-based 
intervention studies, Evaluation Review, 23, 418-444. 
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level 
mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249-277. 
Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and 
heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 705-722. 
Lewin, A., Hodgkinson, S., Waters, D. M., Prempeh, H. A., Beers, L. S., & Feinberg, M. E. 
(2015). Strengthening Positive Coparenting in Teen Parents: A Cultural Adaptation of an 
Evidence-Based Intervention. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 36(3), 139-154. 
Lewin, A., Mitchell, S. J., Beers, L. S., Feinberg, M. E., & Minkovitz, C. S. (2012). Coparenting 
in teen mothers and their children's fathers: Evidence from the early childhood 
longitudinal study–birth cohort. Academic pediatrics, 12(6), 539-545. 
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing 
values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202. 

29 
 
Macomber, J. E., Murray, J., Stagner, M. (2004). Service delivery and evaluation design options 
for strengthening and promoting healthy marriage. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ 
opre/strengthen/serv_delivery/reports/service_delivery/service_delivery.pdf 
Madden-Derdich, D. A. (2002). The teen-aged mothers project: An exploration of the parental 
and coparental relationships of teenaged parents. Report prepared for the City of Phoenix. 
Markman, M. S., Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M., (2007). Coparental identity and mothers’ 
cooperation in coparental relationships. Family Relations, 56(4), 369-377. 
Martin, P. D., Specter, H. G., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (2003). Expressed attitudes of 
adolescents toward marriage and family life. Adolescence, 38, 359-367. 
McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Reichman, N., Teitler, J., Carlson, M., & Audiger, C. N. (2003). 
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study: Baseline national report. Princeton, NJ: 
Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University. 
Meyer, T.J., Miller, M.L., Metzger, R.L., & Borkovec, T.D. (1990). Development and validation 
of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behavior Research Therapy (1990) 28:488. 
Moscicki, E. K., Locke, B. Z., Rae, D. S., & Boyd, J. H. (1989). Depressive symptoms among 
Mexican Americans: The Hispanic health and nutrition examination survey. American 
Journal of Epidemiology, 130(2), 348-360. 
Múthen, B. O., & Curran, P. J. (1997). General longitudinal modeling of individual differences 
in experimental designs: A latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. 
Psychological Methods, 2, 371-402. 
Newman, B. & Campbell, C.  (2011) Intimate partner violence among Latino pregnant and 
parenting adolescents.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence., 26 (1),2635-2657. 
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. (2004). Science says: The relationship between 
teenage motherhood and marriage. Retrieved from: 
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/ 
resources/pdf/SS/SS11_MotherhoodandMarriage.pdf 
National Healthy Marriage Resource Center. (2009). Healthy marriage and relationship 
programs: Promising practices in serving low-income and culturally diverse populations. 
Retrieved from: http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/PromisingPracticesGuide.pdf 
NORC at the University of Chicago (2013). National survey on teen relationships and intimate 
violence. Retrieved from http://www.norc.org/PDFs/STRIV/STRiV_Youth_Year%201.pdf 
Ooms, T., & Wilson, P. (2004). The challenges of offering relationship and marriage education 
to low-income populations. Family Relations, 53, 440-447. 
Pearson, M. (2009). Love Notes: Making Relationships Work for Young Adults and Young 
Parents. Instructor manual. Berkeley, CA: Dibble Institute.  
Pew Research Center (2010). The New Demography of American Motherhood.  Retrieved June 
15, 2015: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/05/06/the-new-demography-of-
american-motherhood/ 
Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for 
assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233. 
Reardon-Anderson, J., Stagner, M. Macomber, J. E., & Murray, J. (2004). Systematic review of 
the impact of marriage and relationship programs. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs. 
gov/programs/opre/strengthen/serv_delivery/reports/systematic_rev/systematic_rev.pdf 
Raudenbush, S. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and Optimal Design for cluster randomized trials. 
Psychological Methods, 2, 173-185. 

30 
 
Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data 
Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Reece, S. M. (1992). The Parent Expectations Survey: A measure of perceived self-efficacy. 
Clinical Nursing Research, 1, 336-346. 
Reece, S. M., & Harkless, G. (1998). Self-efficacy, stress, and parental adaptation: Applications 
to the care of childbearing families. Journal of Family Nursing, 4, 198-215. 
Reilly, M.D. (1982).  Working wives and consumption.  Journal of Consumer Reaearch, 8, 407-
418. 
Roberts, T. A., Auinger, P., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Intimate partner abuse and the reproductive 
health of sexually active female adolescents. Journal of adolescent health, 36(5), 380-
385. 
Roosa M.W., Reinholtz C., Angelini P. J. (1999). The relation of child sexual abuse and 
depression in young women: Comparisons across four ethnic groups. Journal of 
Abnormal Child Psychology. 27(1), 65–76. 
Roosa M. W., Reyes L., Reinholtz C., Angelini P. J. (1998). Measurement of women’s child 
sexual abuse experiences: An empirical demonstration of the impact of choice of measure 
on estimates of incidence rates and of relationships with pathology. Journal of Sex 
Research. 35(3), 225–233. 
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. 
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London: Chapman & Hall. 
Schafer, Joseph L, and John W. Graham. 2002. "Missing Data: Our View of the State of the Art."  
Psychological Methods 7 (2):147-177. 
 
Sears, H., Byers, S., Whelan, J., Saint-Pierre G. and The Dating Violence ResearchTeam (2006) 
“If it hurts you, then it is not a joke”: Adolescents’ ideas and experiences of abusive 
behaviour in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1191–207. 
Sedgh, G., Finer, L. B., Bankole, A., Eilers, M. A., & Singh, S. (2015). Adolescent Pregnancy, 
Birth, and Abortion Rates Across Countries: Levels and Recent Trends. Journal of 
Adolescent Health, 56(2), 223-230. 
Shapiro, A. F., Gottman, J. M., & Carerre, S. (2000). The baby and the marriage: Identifying 
factors that buffer against decline in marital satisfaction after the first baby arrives. 
Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 59-70. 
Silliman, B., & Schumm, W. R. (2004). Adolescents’ perceptions of marriage and premarital 
couples education. Family Relations, 53, 513-520. 
Simon, V. A., & Furman, W. (2010). Interparental conflict and adolescents' romantic relationship 
conflict. Journal of research on adolescence, 20(1), 188-209. 
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis. New York, NY: 
Oxford University Press. 
Spybrook, J., Raudenbush, S. W., Liue, X & Congdon, R. (2006). Optimal design for 
Longitudinal and multilevel research: Documenation for the “Optimal Design” Software. 
Survey Research Center of the Institute of Social Research at University of Michigan. 
Stanley, S. M. (2001). Making a case for premarital education. Family Relations, 50, 272-280. 
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Jenkins, N. H. (2002). Marriage educations and government 
policy: Helping couples who choose marriage achieve success. Denver, CO: PREP. 

31 
 
Toews, M. L., Yazedjian, A., & Jorgensen, D. (2011). “I haven’t done nothin’ crazy lately”: 
Reducing violence in adolescent mothers’ dating relationships. Children and Youth 
Services Review, 33, 180-186.  
Toews, M. L., & Yazedjian, A. (2010). “I learned the bad things I’m doing”: Adolescent 
mothers’ perceptions of a relationship education program. Marriage and Family Review, 
46(3), 207-223. 
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Updegraff, K. (2007). Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring the 
role of discrimination, ethnic identity, acculturation, and self-esteem. Journal of 
Adolescence, 30, 549-567. 
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. Y. (2004). Developing the Ethnic 
Identity Scale using Eriksonian and Social Identity perspectives. Identity: An 
International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 9-38. 
Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, 
healthier, and better off financially. New York, NY: Doubleday.  
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L. (2001). 
Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. 
Psychological assessment, 13(2), 277. 
Young, R. & Johnson, D. R. (2010). Imputing the Missing Y’s: Implications for survey producers 
and survey users. Unpublished paper presented at the Proceedings of the Survey 
Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved 
from http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2010/Files/400142.pdf.