Table 3.
Summary of the characteristics of the identified adolescent-parent global-coding schemes.
| Author | Name of scheme | Summary of codes | Made for adolescents? | History/theoretical background | Developed for specific population? | Tasks developed for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen et al. (24) | Autonomy and relatedness coding system (ARCS) | Global codes: all rated for parent behaviour toward adolescent and adolescent behaviour toward parent: 2 promoting autonomy, 3 inhibiting autonomy, 3 promoting relatedness, 2 inhibiting relatedness. 8-point rating scale (0–4 with.5 increments) with rules based on numbers and types of statements determining rating). | Yes | Developed from Attachment theory [Bowlby (78–80)] applied to adolescents, where the attachment system is activated to provide a sense of “felt security” as opposed to safety [Allen & Land, Allen, Cummings & Davies (81–83)]. In adolescence, the exploratory attachment system is highly activated and the system whereby an individual relies and depends on their attachment figure is reduced (81). The scheme is designed to capture these processes where there is an increase in autonomous behaviour whilst still using the parent as a secure base. | No | Problem solving tasks (conflict discussion and “revealed differences” of moral dilemma task discussion) |
| Barrett et al. (84) | Macro-coding schedule for parent and child behaviour | Global codes: 7 individual codes (positive & negative, parent & child), 1 parent- only code (positive). 6-point scale. | No | Developed to characterise parent-child interaction in families with a child with obsessive compulsive disorder. Drew on literature suggesting parents may model caution, avoidance or fearfulness [Henin & Kendall (85)], or be strict and overinvolved [Merkel et al. (86)], lack warmth [Ehiobuche, Hoover & Insel (87, 88)], and have high expectations for their children [Hollingsworth et al. (89)]. | Yes—clinically referred children | Conflict discussion and discussions around hypothetical ambiguous and therefore anxiety provoking situations the child (e.g., child sees group of children playing a game but they are laughing when child walks over) |
| Dickstein et al. (90), Hayden et al. (91) | The adapted mealtime family interaction coding system (MICS) | The MICS has 6 dimensions, measuring task accomplishment, communication, affect management, interpersonal involvement, behaviour control and overall family functioning. The dimensions are presented on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unhealthy) to 7 (very healthy). | It is adapted from the McMaster Structured Interview of Family Functioning (McSIFF) and based on the McMaster Model of Family Functioning [Epstein et al. (92)]. | Children with chronic illness (but also used with general population) | Observations of family functioning in unstructured, naturalistic situations (specifically meal-time) | |
| Dishion et al. (93) | Coder impressions questionnaire (COIMP) | 79 single item description global codes: parental support (parent only, positive), behaviour management (parent only, positive and negative), conflict resolution (parent and child positive and negative) and broader interaction (parent and child, positive and negative). Some specific items assessing antisocial content. 10-point scales | Yes—adolescents and their family | Developed in the Oregan Social Learning Centre (OSLC) based on social learning theory, especially the coercion model of antisocial behaviour [Patterson, Patterson et al. (34, 94)]. Focus on assessing family management and problem solving to understand/predict antisocial behaviour in adolescence. | General population | Designed for a range of discussion tasks [described as the FAST (69)]: planning activity, encouragement of an area of growth for the child (e.g., academic growth), positive recognition of family member, conflict discussion |
| Feldman (95) | Coding interactive behaviour (CIB) | Codes not specified (manual not openly available). 5-point rating scale. | Yes—multiple versions of the coding scheme, one for adolescents | The coding system measures elements of the theoretical model proposed by Feldman (96). The theoretical model describes how the child and the mother's behaviour influence one another. For instance, how the child and mother's biology, relationships and affective cognition influence one another which then influences overall parenting behaviour | No | Used with a range structured problem solving and discussion tasks, including conflict discussion and positive valence discussions (e.g., plan the best day ever) |
| Hagstrøm et al. (97) | The tangram emotion coding manual for children (TEC-M) | Global codes: 8 parent codes (positive & negative), 8 child items (positive & negative), 1 dyadic (positive). Frequency score (0–3) and intensity score (1–3) given for each code. | No—developed for children | Designed to assess profiles of emotional regulation in children in the context of parent-child-interactions. Developed based on the theoretical framework of the process model of emotional regulation [Gross (98)] with the five regulatory processes from this model constituting the skeleton of the scoring sheet. | No | Developed for a specific puzzle task designed to evoke emotion regulation behaviours |
| Hetherington and Clingempeel (99) | Family interaction global coding system (FIGCS) | Global codes: 14 individual codes (parent & child; negative & positive), 2 parental codes (influence and monitoring), 3 child codes (positive & negative). 5-point rating scale. Intensity and frequency rated for each item. | No—families | Scales were based on Baumrind's (1967) parenting typologies (100) and Olson's (Olson et al., 1982) circumplex theory (101). | No | Problem solving tasks |
| Holmbeck et al. (102) | Family interaction macro-coding system (FIMS) | Global codes: mix of dyadic and individual codes in 3 domains: 15 interactional style, 5 conflict, 8 affect (positive & negative), 3 control (positive & negative), 5 parental behaviours and collaborative problem solving (positive & negative), summary family measures (2). 5-point scale. | No—families of children and adolescents | The scheme is an adaptation of a system developed by Holmbeck et al., Johnson & Holmbeck and Smetana et al. (103–105)). Codes are also based on systems developed by Allen et al. (24, 106), Buhrmester et al. (107)—from work on parenting styles [e.g. Baumrind (100)] Julien et al. (108)—the Interactional Dimensions Coding system, developed to assess conflict and intimacy in martial communication, Levy (109)—maternal overprotection and Paikoff (110)—child scaffolding and problem solving. | No—but first used with samples of children with physical illness | Problem solving and positive event planning tasks |
| Lindahl and Malik (111) | System for coding interactions and family functioning (SCIFF) | Global codes: 4 family (negative & positive), 1 dyadic (marital communication), 5 parent (positive & negative), 4 child (positive & negative) and 2 categorical family codes. 11 total codes. 5-point scales. | No—child then applied to adolescents | Theoretical foundations for this coding system primarily are family systems [e.g., Boscolo et al. (112)], structural family theory [e.g., Minuchin (113)], and social learning theory [e.g., Patterson (34)]. These theories were used to develop codes that would capture the nature of family interaction patterns and highlight adaptive and maladaptive aspects of family relationships. Developed with children then applied to adolescents, and to triadic as well as dyadic interactions. | General population | Problem-solving tasks |
| Lyons-Ruth et al. (114) | Goal-corrected partnership adolescent coding system (GPACS) | Global codes: 6 parent (positive & negative), 4 child (positive & negative) and 2 dyadic (positive) codes rated on 5-point scales. 12 total codes. Categorical classification of attachment status made according to rules: 1. Secure, 2. Insecure organised and 3. Disorganised. | Yes | Developed based on Attachment theory specifically applied to adolescents and using observations of parent-adolescent interaction and Adult Attachment Interviews. | No | Reunion and conflict discussion tasks |
| Melby et al. (115) | Iowa family interaction rating scales (IFIRS) | Global codes: 10 individual characteristic scales (parent & child, positive & negative), 22 dyadic interaction scales (positive & negative), 2 dyadic relational (positive), 15 parenting (positive & negative), 5 individual problem solving (parent & children, positive & negative), 5 group problem solving (positive & negative), 1 group interaction scale. 60 total codes. 9-point scale. Two composites created: collaborative parenting and over-involved parenting. | Yes—adolescents from early adolescence to late adulthood, and their families | Adapted primarily from the FIGCS (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992, see section for history) and also draws on social interactional, behavioural (including Patterson's coercive family cycles), or social contextual theories in assessing displays of behaviours and relationship processes at the individual, dyadic, and group levels [Conger, Conger, et al., Conger & Simons, Gottman, Patterson and Patterson et al. (116–119)]. | General population | Problem solving tasks and also used in positive discussion tasks |
| Owen et al. (120) | National institute of child health and human development study of children and youth development (NICHD-SECYD) coding scheme | Global codes: 5 parent (reflecting positive and negative), 4 child (positive and negative) and 1 dyadic (positive) codes.10 total codes. 7-point scale. | No | Developed and extended from the infancy NICHD coding which draws on attachment theory. Extended to include codes related to autonomy promotion [e.g., Ryan et al. (121)], stimulation of cognitive development, and hostility. | No | Problem solving tasks (including conflict discussion and in early adolescence planning/problem solving tasks) |
| Robin and Foster (70) | Interactive behavior code (IBC) | Global codes: 31 negative communication (dyadic), and 7 positive communication (dyadic). 22/31 negative and 7/7 positive codes are rated absent or present, remainder on a 5-point scale. Modified in Pelham et al. (122) so that every item is rated on a 7-point scale | No—families | Behavioural and family systems theory. | No—but mainly used in clinical populations | Problem solving tasks |
| Snyder (123) | Macro-level family interaction coding system (MFICS) | Global codes: 3 broad dyadic scales with 55 items: positive engagement (13 items, positive), withdrawal avoidance (17 items, negative), reactivity-coercion (18 items, negative). 5-point scale (1 = not true, did not occur, 5 = clearly evident, very descriptive), designed using an a priori, face-valid approach to assess the occurrence of behaviours reflecting positive engagement (20 items) and reactivity-coercion (17 items). | No—children and adolescents | Social learning theory. | No | Problem solving tasks, and a cooperative play activity (a block tower building task) |
| Vanwoerden (124) | Observational coding system for real-time parent-adolescent mentalising | Global codes: 2 parent codes (positive and negative mentalising), 2 adolescent codes (positive and negative mentalising), and one dyadic (dyadic mentalising).7-point scale. | Yes | Theory on mentalizing and hypo-mentalizing [e.g., Luyten et al., Bateman & Fonagy (125, 126)] | No | Problem-solving (conflict discussion) |
| Ziv et al. (127) | Conflict task coding system (CTCS) | 3 parent codes and 4 adolescent codes on a 7-point Likert scale, assessing conflict tactics. | Yes | The coding system drew on attachment theory, specifically on the work of Kobak et al. (128) and Crowell et al. (129) on attachment in adults and adolescence. | No | Problem-solving (conflict discussion) |