Table 2.
Rating Category | Rating Description |
---|---|
1-Very good | Close- experiences very close emotional relationships with this (these) family members, with only transient friction which is rapidly resolved. Feels only minor or occasional need to improve quality of relationship, which is usually close and satisfying. |
2-Good | Argues occasionally, but arguments are usually resolved satisfactorily within a short time. May occasionally prefer not to be with them because of dissatisfaction with them or be actively working with them to improve relationship. |
3-Fair | Often argues with this (these) family member(s) and takes a long time to resolve arguments. May withdraw from this (these) person(s) due to dissatisfaction. Often thinks that relationship needs to be either more harmonious or closer emotionally even when no conflict is present. For those relatives not living with the participant, contacts with them are less frequent by choice than feasible or rarely enjoyed very much when made. |
4-Poor | Regularly argues with this (these) family member(s) and such arguments are rarely ever resolved satisfactorily. Regularly prefers to avoid contact with them and/or feels great deficit in emotional closeness. For those family members out of the household, participant avoids seeing as much as possible and derives little pleasure from contact when made. |
5-Very poor | Either constantly argues with this (these) family member(s) or withdraws from them most of the time. |
6-Variable-good | Different levels for various members of this group, and would not warrant a rating of good or better (2, 1) with at least one member of this group. |
7-Variable-poor | Different levels for various members of this group, and would not warrant a rating of good or better (2, 1) with any member of this group. |
Note: Participants are asked about their relationships with their parents and siblings since the last interview. Specifically, participants report with respect to each relationship (a) the degree to which they feel close, (b) the frequency of their arguments and the level to which they are resolved, (c) the presence of active or passive avoidance, and (d) the level of contentment or desire to improve the relationship.
Having already discussed their mood symptoms, participants are asked to report on their relationship functioning with special focus on the week with the most impairment (i.e., from symptom presentation and/or problems within their relationships) within each month. The appropriate rating category for each “worst week” (as noted in the table above) is then determined by the interviewer and applied with respect to each month. Therefore, as opposed to averaging a weekly functioning score for each month, the relationship functioning score reflects the “worst week” (or most impaired week) for each month throughout the interval.