Does Couple and Relationship Education Work for Individuals in Stepfamilies? A Meta-Analytic Study

Recent meta-analytic efforts have documented how couple and relationship education (CRE) programs promote healthy relationship and family functioning. The current meta-analysis contributes to this body of literature by examining stepfamily couples, an at-risk, subpopulation of participants, and assessing the effectiveness of CRE programs for individuals in these relationships. Findings are aggregated from 14 evaluation studies of CRE programs designed for stepcouples. Analyses examine effects by study design (i.e., comparison-group and one-group/pre-post) and within specific domains (i.e., family, parental, and couple functioning). The interventions have, on average, small effects overall (comparison-group: d = .20; one-group/pre-post: d = .23), and slightly larger effects in family and parental functioning when examining specific outcomes (d = .20 to .35). An examination of effectiveness over time reveals that earlier studies (i.e., 1980s and 1990s) show larger effects than more recent studies. Implications for CRE programs for stepfamilies and evaluation needs are discussed.Key Words: couple and relationship education, metaanalysis, stepfamily couples.Family life education programs date back to the 1 800s, when the U.S. government recognized the value in providing families with resources to enhance the home environment as a means to strengthen the community and well-being of society (Duncan & Goddard, 2005). Programs focused on parenting, financial management, and nutrition have developed through the Cooperative Extension System, general universitybased outreach, community movements, and grassroots organizations (Duncan & Goddard, 2005). It was not until recently, however, that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a federal agency in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responsible for programs that enhance the economic and social well-being of communities, earmarked competitive funds to specifically support communitybased couple and relationship education (CRE) programs. These funds were provided in an effort to promote healthy relationships and marriages through skills-based education (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010).Early on, researchers noted the importance of documenting the effects of family life programs in general (Lehman, 1947) and CRE programs specifically. Individual studies provide indications of how educational programs affect the well-being and functioning of participants, yet questions remain about the overall utility of programs such as CRE across studies. Meta-analytic procedures provide researchers a tool to systematically integrate the findings from individual quantitative, evaluation studies, allowing researchers to assess overall effectiveness (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). It also provides study population effect size(s) against which current and future individual evaluation studies can compare the magnitude of their results.One of the earliest meta-analytic efforts of CRE examined 85 premarital, marital, and family enrichment programs and found positive moderate effect sizes (d = .42 to .55) when assessing measures of relationship satisfaction, relational skills, and individual functioning (Giblin, Sprenkle, & Sheehan, 1 985). It was also noted that programs with longer interventions had stronger effects. Using meta-analytic strategies, Butler and Wampler (1999) found that across 16 studies of CRE, couple communication and satisfaction improved immediately after engaging in the program (d = .21 to .74), yet effects were not sustained at follow-up. Carroll and Doherty (2003) used meta-analysis to examine 23 published evaluation studies of premarital programs and concluded that premarital prevention programs are generally effective in producing gains in interpersonal skills and relationship quality with a large mean effect size (d = .8). Reardon-Anderson, Stagner, Macomber, and Murray (2004) conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of 39 diverse types of marriage programs. …