Original Research

Validation of the Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales–Self-Report in Veterans with PTSD

Fed Pract. 2019 October;36(6):S14-S21

References

1. Kilpatrick DG, Resnick HS, Milanak ME, Miller MW, Keyes KM, Friedman MJ. National estimates of exposure to traumatic events and PTSD prevalence using DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria. J Trauma Stress. 2013;26(5):537-547.

2. Lehavot K, Goldberg SB, Chen JA, et al. Do trauma type, stressful life events, and social support explain women veterans’ high prevalence of PTSD? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018;53(9):943-953.

3. Galovski T, Lyons JA. Psychological sequelae of combat violence: a review of the impact of PTSD on the veteran’s family and possible interventions. Aggress Violent Behav. 2004;9(5):477-501.

4. Ray SL, Vanstone M. The impact of PTSD on veterans’ family relationships: an interpretative phenomenological inquiry. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(6):838-847.

5. Cloitre M, Miranda R, Stovall-McClough KC, Han H. Beyond PTSD: emotion regulation and interpersonal problems as predictors of functional impairment in survivors of childhood abuse. Behav Ther. 2005;36(2):119-124.

6. McFarlane AC, Bookless C. The effect of PTSD on interpersonal relationships: issues for emergency service works. Sex Relation Ther. 2001;16(3):261-267.

7. Itzhaky L, Stein JY, Levin Y, Solomon Z. Posttraumatic stress symptoms and marital adjustment among Israeli combat veterans: the role of loneliness and attachment. Psychol Trauma. 2017;9(6):655-662.

8. Dekel R, Monson CM. Military-related post-traumatic stress disorder and family relations: current knowledge and future directions. Aggress Violent Behav. 2010;15(4):303-309.

9. Allen ES, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Hitting home: relationships between recent deployment, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and marital functioning for Army couples. J Fam Psychol. 2010;24(3):280-288.

10. Laffaye C, Cavella S, Drescher K, Rosen C. Relationships among PTSD symptoms, social support, and support source in veterans with chronic PTSD. J Trauma Stress. 2008;21(4):394-401.

11. Meis LA, Noorbaloochi S, Hagel Campbell EM, et al. Sticking it out in trauma-focused treatment for PTSD: it takes a village. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2019;87(3):246-256.

12. Lewis JM, Gossett JT, Housson MM, Owen MT. Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales. Dallas, TX: Timberlawn Psychiatric Research Foundation; 1999.

13. Fincham FD, Linfield KJ. A new look at marital quality: can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? J Fam Psychol. 1997;11(4):489-502.

14. Kaplan KJ. On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychol Bull. 1972;77(5):361-372.

15. Buhrmester D, Furman W. The Network of Relationship Inventory: Relationship Qualities Version [unpublished measure]. University of Texas at Dallas; 2008.

16. Busby DM, Christensen C, Crane DR, Larson JH. A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. J Marital Fam Ther. 1995;21(3):289-308.

17. Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog Sel Doc Psychol. 1980;10:85.

18. Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78(2):350-365.

19. Tabachnick BG, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2013.

20. Sautter FJ, Armelie AP, Glynn SM, Wielt DB. The development of a couple-based treatment for PTSD in returning veterans. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2011;42(1):63-69.

21. Jacobson NS, Christensen A, Prince SE, Cordova J, Eldridge K. Integrative behavioral couple therapy: an acceptance-based, promising new treatment of couple discord. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;9(2):351-355.

22. Makin-Byrd K, Gifford E, McCutcheon S, Glynn S. Family and couples treatment for newly returning veterans. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2011;42(1):47-55.

23. Peterson K, Anderson J, Bourne D. Evidence Brief: Use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Measurement Based Care in Mental Health Shared Decision Making. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs; 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536143. Accessed September 13, 2019.

24. Fortney JC, Unützer J, Wrenn G, et al. A tipping point for measurement-based care. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(2):179-188.

25. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1-9.

Interested veterans were invited to complete several study-related self-report measures concerning their intimate partner relationships that would take about an hour. They were informed that the surveys were voluntary and confidential, and that they would be compensated for their participation. All veterans who participated provided written consent and the study was approved by the Dallas VAMC institutional review board.

Of the 94 veterans recruited, 3 veterans’ data were removed from current analyses after informed consent but before completing the surveys when they indicated they were not currently in a relationship or were divorced. After consent, the 91 participants were administered several study-related self-report measures. The measures took between 30 and 55 minutes to complete. Participants were then compensated $25 for their participation.

Intimate Partner Relationship Functioning

The 16-item TCFES self-report version (TCFES-SR) was developed to assess multiple domains of interpersonal functioning (Appendix). The observational TCFES assesses 5 intimate partner relationship characteristic domains (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict) during a couple’s interaction by an independent trained rater.¹² Each of the 16 TCFES-SR items were modeled after original constructs measured by the TCFES, including power, closeness, clarify, other’s views, responsibility, closure, negotiation, expressiveness, responsiveness, positive regard, negative regard, mood/tone, empathy, frequency, affective quality, and generalization and escalation. To maintain consistency with the TCFES, each item of the TCFES-SR was scored from 1 (severely dysfunctional) to 5 (highly functional). Additionally, all item wording for the TCFES-SR was based on wording in the TCFES manual after consultation with an expert who facilitated the development of the TCFES.¹² On average, the TCFES-SR took 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

To measure concurrent validity of the modified TCFES-SR, several additional interpersonal measures were selected and administered based on prior research and established domains of the TCFES. The Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale (PANQIMS) was administered to assess perceived attitudes toward a relationship.^13,14 The PANQIMS generates 2 subscales: positive quality and negative quality in the relationship. Because the PANQIMS specifically assesses married relationships and our sample included married and nonmarried participants, wording was modified (eg, “spouse/partner”).

The relative power subscale of the Network Relationships Inventory–Relationship Qualities Version (NRI-RQV) measure was administered to assess the unequal/shared role romantic partners have in power equality (ie, relative power).¹⁵

The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) is a self-report measure that assesses multiple dimensions of marital adjustment and functioning.¹⁶ Six subscales of the RDAS were chosen based on items of the TCFES-SR: decision making, values, affection, conflict, activities, and discussion.

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) empathetic concern subscale was administered to assess empathy across multiple contexts and situations¹⁷ and the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R) was administered to assess relational functioning by determining attachment-related anxiety and avoidance.¹⁸

Sociodemographic Information

A sociodemographic questionnaire also was administered. The questionnaire assessed gender, age, education, service branch, length of interpersonal relationship, race, and ethnicity of the veteran as well as gender of the veteran’s partner.

Statistical Analysis

Factor structure of the TCFES-SR was determined by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. To allow for correlation between items, the Promax oblique rotation method was chosen.¹⁹ Number of factors was determined by agreement between number of eigenvalues ≥ 1, visual inspection of the scree plot, and a parallel analysis. Factor loadings of ≥ 0.3 were used to determine which items loaded on to which factors.