Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychol. 2018 Nov 8;55(1):148–156. doi: 10.1037/dev0000631

Child-Present and Child-Themed Marital Conflict in Daily Life of Parents of Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder

Lauren M Papp 1, Sigan L Hartley 1
PMCID: PMC6897364  NIHMSID: NIHMS989413  PMID: 30407023

Abstract

Parents of 5- to 12-year-old children (half had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder [ASD] and half were typically-developing) provided reports of the most significant marital conflict of the day and ratings of child behaviors problems on a daily basis for 14 days. Mothers and fathers in the ASD group reported having more conflicts in daily life with any children present and more conflicts with the target child present than their counterparts with typically-developing children did. Fathers (but not mothers) in the ASD group reported more conflicts as including child-related themes, although parents across the groups did not differ in their reporting marital conflict that specifically discussed the study’s target child. Results from multilevel modeling revealed within-person associations between child presence during marital conflict and parents’ emotions; specifically, child presence was related to lower dyadic positivity and higher dyadic anger, according to both mothers and fathers. In addition, results identified significant, positive within-person associations between child presence during marital conflict and discussing certain conflict topics (increased likelihoods of discussing any children and the study’s target children). These direct associations were found consistently across mothers’ and fathers’ reports, and did not vary across ASD and comparison families. Multilevel models focused on implications of the marital conflict for the study’s target children generally found child presence during conflict and discussion of child-themed conflict topics to predict higher levels of behavior problems in daily life. One moderating effect was identified, with child presence during conflict related to higher behavior problems according to mothers in the ASD group but not those in the comparison group.

Keywords: autism, daily life, disability, family relations, marital conflict

Among multiple influences, family systems theory posits the foundational importance of the marital relationship for children’s adaptation and development (Cox & Paley, 2003; Erel & Burman, 1995). Notably, marital conflict is uniquely predictive of children’s emotional and behavioral adjustment concurrently and over time, with the frequency, intensity, content, and resolution of conflict all connected with child functioning (Zimet & Jacob, 2002). Recent reviews of the literature on how marital relationships affect child adjustment conclude that children from families high in negatively-handled conflict are at risk for problematic development (Vaez, Indran, Abdollahi, Juhari, & Mansor, 2015) and that how children respond to marital conflict in terms of their cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and physiology shows moderate-sized linkages with their developmental outcomes, even after controlling for conflict exposure (Rhoades, 2008). The current study investigates aspects of naturally-occurring marital conflict that are likely the most salient to children, namely whether they are present for the conflict and whether they are the topic being discussed. We build on current understanding of marital conflict experienced in daily life by extending study of these questions to families with a child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and comparison families with a typically developing child.

ASD is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder marked by restricted or repetitive interests and behaviors and impairments in social communication, and often clinically significant co-occurring behavior problems such as inattention and anxiety (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The challenging profile of symptoms and behaviors exhibited by children with ASD is associated with high levels parenting stress and poor parental psychological well-being (Estes et al., 2013; McStay, Dissanayake, Scheeren, Koot, & Begeer, 2014). Moreover, an emerging line of work reveals important differences in marital functioning of couples with children with ASD compared to couples with typically-developing children. For example, using the same dataset as the current study, Author Citation examined daily experiences of couples and found that parents of children with ASD spent less time with their partner and reported lower partner closeness and fewer positive couple interactions than parents in the comparison group. Authors also found that parents of children with ASD self-reported having more intense and unresolved marital conflicts than the comparison group. These findings align with those from studies of parenting in other family contexts (e.g., having a child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, or elevated externalizing behavior problems) to show that some parents are more vulnerable to having heightened marital conflict, lower marital satisfaction, and greater incidence of divorce (Berge, Patterson, Rueter, 2006; Heckel, Clarke, Barry, McCarthy, & Selikowitz, 2009; Verlaan & Schwartzman, 2002; Wymbs et al., 2008).

There are two key ways that interparental conflict may be problematic to children with ASD, namely through 1) distress elicited due to children’s subjective evaluations of interparental conflict, such as emotional insecurity (Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2002) or negative cognitions (Fosco & Lydon-Staley, in press; Grych & Fincham, 1993), or 2) disrupted parenting practices as documented in prior work on conflict spillover (Kouros, Papp, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2014; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Cummings, 2006). Although effects of marital conflict on children in general are extensively documented, less is known about the extent to which children with ASD relative to typically-developing children are exposed to marital conflicts in daily life or the nature of these conflicts. The overall higher level of marital conflict and lower level of relationship satisfaction reported by parents of children with ASD (Author Citation; Gau et al., 2012; Saini et al., 2015) may mean that children with ASD and their siblings are exposed to more marital disagreements overall, and to more disagreements concerning them, than their typically-developing peers.

Research conducted on the general population has examined whether characteristics of marital conflicts vary across different settings or contexts. For example, lab-based studies have compared marital conflict in dyadic (i.e., couple only) and triadic (i.e., parents and child) settings (in the presence of observers) and found that parents show less intensity of positive and negative (Deal, Hagan, Bass, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1999) and less negative (Frosch, Mangelsdorf, & McHale, 1998) expressions in the triadic family condition. Papp, Cummings, and Goeke-Morey (2002) employed a parent-reported diary methodology, thereby removing the presence of outside observers, and documented that the marital conflicts to which children were exposed in daily life were particularly hostile and negatively charged (i.e., destructive). Child-present conflicts in the home also were more likely to include children as a discussion topic. Cummings and colleagues (2004) likewise found that parents reported children as responding with aggression when they were present for destructive expressions of marital conflict in the home; children’s presence during the discussion of child-themed conflict also predicted their higher aggressive responding.

The Current Study

Following calls to understand how marital interactions unfold in families’ daily life in settings with high ecological validity (Robles, Reynolds, Repetti, & Chung, 2013), the current study drew from parents’ reports of the most significant marital conflict interaction reported each day on a 14-day daily diary in a sample of parents of children with ASD relative to a comparison group of parents of typically-developing children. Our approach focused on marital conflict characteristics shown to be important for shaping child functioning in studies on the general population. Longer conflict length may reflect greater amount of child exposure interparental disputes. We also examined parents’ emotions during marital conflict, given their central role in the meaning children assign to conflict (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2003). We included topics, specifically whether children were a source of the marital disagreement, which has been linked to child behavioral disruptions (Jouriles et al., 1991; O’Leary & Vidair, 2005). Finally, we examined parents’ perceived conflict resolution, which affects how children evaluate conflict from the perspective of their emotional security (Goeke-Morey, Cummings, & Papp, 2007).

Parents also reported on the daily behavior problems of the study’s target child, facilitating tests of the implications of significant marital interactions for children’s daily functioning. Previous work on the general population has shown that children who perceived they had some responsibility for their parents’ conflict display an elevated tendency to intervene, primarily through acting in disruptive and aggressive ways (Grych, Harold, & Miles, 2003). Examination of child ASD status as a moderator of the association between marital conflict and child behaviors is well warranted on the basis that individuals with ASD react more strongly to stressors in daily life (Bishop-Fitzpatrick, Minshew, Mazefsky, & Eack, 2017; Corbett, Schup, Levine, & Mendoza, 2009; Hirvikoski & Blomquist, 2015).

The following hypotheses were based on theory and previous research on marital conflict in the general population, and marital challenges experienced by parents of children with ASD:

Hypothesis 1

We hypothesized that parents in the ASD group would report more significant marital interactions with children being present and being discussed as the topic of conflict compared to parents of typically-developing children. On the basis of limited previous work, no specific hypotheses were made distinguishing all children vs. the study’s target children.

Hypothesis 2

We hypothesized that children’s presence for marital interactions would be associated with how parents handle the disagreements, specifically in terms of being longer, marked by less positive and more negative emotions, more likely to include discussion of child-related themes (both the target child and other children in the home), and perceived as less resolved. We further expected that the negative implications of children’s presence for characteristics of marital conflict in daily life (i.e., topics discussed, emotions, resolution) would be stronger among the ASD-status relative to the comparison-status families.

Hypothesis 3

We tested the implications of child-present and child-themed marital conflict for the behavioral functioning in daily life of children with ASD relative to target children in the comparison group. In particular, we expected that children’s presence during marital conflict, and being discussed as the topic of conflict when they were present would be linked with higher parental ratings of daily behavior problems (e.g., disruptive behaviors, hyperactivity, and aggressive behaviors), and that these effects would be stronger among the ASD vs. the comparison families.

Methods

Participants

Participants completed Time 1 of a longitudinal study that included 174 families who have a child with ASD and comparison group of 179 families who had children without a neurodevelopmental disability for which detailed recruitment, inclusion criteria, and sample characteristics have been previously reported (Author Citation). The present report is based on 338 mothers (ASD: n = 170, comparison: n = 168) and 337 fathers (ASD: n = 169, comparison: n = 168) who reported on their most meaningful marital conflict of the day on a daily diary procedure (described below); the remaining parents were missing the daily diary data. These 23 parents without diary data did not significantly differ from the 675 parents with diary data along characteristics of household income, parent education, or child age (ps > .10). All target children were aged 5–12 years and couples were in a committed long-standing relationship (≥ 3 years). In 20 families (ASD: n = 12, comparison: n = 8), one parent was a stepparent. For the ASD group, child diagnosis was confirmed through educational or medical records that included the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule (Lord et al., 2000), and current autism symptom severity was verified using the Social Responsiveness Scale – Second Edition (SRS-2; Constantino & Gruber, 2012) and was required to sum to a Total t-score ≥ 60 (i.e., clinical range).

Children in the comparison group were recruited through school mailings and fliers posted in community locations (e.g., libraries, grocery stores); parents indicated that the child had never been diagnosed with (or suspected to have) a neurodevelopmental disability or received birth-to-3 early intervention or special education services. The SRS-2 was also completed by parents in the comparison group to confirm that the typically-developing children did not have autism symptoms in the clinical range. On average, parents were in their late 30s (ASD: M = 39.68, SD = 6.69; comparison: M = 39.59, SD = 6.64), and had been in the couple relationship for 11 years (ASD: M = 11.30, SD = 5.23; comparison: M = 11.91, SD = 4.64). The majority of target children in both groups were male (AUT: 87.3%; comparison: 83.4%) and White, non-Hispanic (ASD: 83.12%; comparison: 82.21%).

Procedures were identical for both parents of children with ASD and the comparison group. Parents completed informed consent and independently completed questionnaires about socio-demographics and family adjustment during a 2.5h home or lab visit. Parents in the ASD and comparison groups independently completed a 14-day daily diary via online surveys or an Ipod Touch (for details, see Author Citation). Parents were told to complete the survey at the same time each day and were emailed a reminder 30 minute before this designed time. The majority of daily diary entries (96.3%) were spaced 20–26 hours apart. Surveys asked participants to report about last 24 hours.

Applying Maas and Hox’s (2005) guidelines on sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling, the present design well exceeded the minimum required sample sizes to detect unbiased and accurate parameters. Specifically, their simulations based a sample size of 100 participants, group (i.e., diary reports) of 5, and ICC of 0.2 resulted in accurate estimation of regression coefficients, variable components, and standard errors. All procedures were conducted in compliance with the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Study: Family Outcomes (2017–1144).

Measures

Family socio-demographics.

Mothers and fathers reported on their education level (0 = less than high school degree, 1 = high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma, 2 = some college, 3 = college degree, 4 = some graduate school, 5 = graduate/professional degree), length of couple relationship (in years), child age (in years), and household income ([$0 - $9,999] to 13 [$160,000+], increasing by $10,000 to $20,000 intervals). Independent sample t-tests indicated that the comparison group had higher household income (M = 10.63, SD = 2.83) than ASD group (M = 9.00, SD = 3.19), t (349) = 5.06, p < .01. Comparison group mothers (2.9% no high school degree, 5.7% high school degree or equivalency, 10.2% some college, 46.6% college degree, 33.9% graduate degree) also had higher education than ASD mothers (3% no high school degree, 6.2% high school degree or equivalency, 17.1% some college, 53.9% college degree, 20.8% graduate degree), Χ2 (5, N = 349) = 9.70, p = .05. There were no significant group differences in the other family socio-demographics. Given that parents’ education and income levels were positively correlated, we elected to retain only household income as a covariate in all analyses.

Marital relationship satisfaction.

Mothers and fathers independently completed the Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007), which was used to assess satisfaction within the marital relationship. The CSI was developed through an item-response theory analysis of 180 items commonly used to measure relationship satisfaction. The CSI has strong psychometric properties (Funk & Rogge, 2007). We included mothers’ and fathers’ reports of relationship satisfaction as a covariate in all analyses.

Daily Marital Conflict Reporting and Conflict Characteristics.

Parents independently reported on their most meaningful or significant marital conflict interaction on each day of the 14-day daily diary. Specifically, parents were asked questions about the interaction (defined as an interaction with their partner in which something had to be worked out and/or involved give and take, difference of opinion, differing points of view, or misunderstanding that needed to be discussed) that they felt was the most important or meaningful that day. This definition was consistent with previously published diary studies (Cummings et al., 2003), and we followed Cummings’ procedures for thoroughly defining interactions, providing examples, and allowing parents ample time to discuss their questions before the reported in their daily life.

Parents indicated if the target child (0 = no, 1 = yes) and any other children (0 = no, 1 = yes) were present for the marital interaction. For our central analyses relating child presence to the conflict characteristics, we recoded these variables into a single indicator variable reflecting whether any children in the home were present or not (0 = no, 1 = yes). Parents reported the topic of the interaction, coded as related to target child (0 = no, 1 = yes) and related to other children (0 = no, 1 = yes). Parents reported on the extent to which they felt emotions of positivity, anger, sadness, and fear following the interaction using a 10-point scale (1 = none to 10 = high). Parents also reported on the length of the interaction (in minutes) and the extent to which the conflict was resolved for them at the end of the interaction on a 10-point scale, ranging from 1 = not at all to 10 = completely.

We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the conflict characteristics to determine the proportion of the outcome variation due to within- vs. between-person differences in the intercept. Continuous variables used the within-person empty model (Hoffman, 2015), whereas binary variables used the random intercept logistic model (Wu, Crespi, & Wong, 2012) to calculate the ICCs. For mothers, ICCs ranged from .21 for conflict length to .41 for positivity (M = .27), and for fathers .18 for conflict length to .44 for positivity (M = .28), indicating that the majority of variance in the conflict characteristics occurred at the within-person level.

Child Behavior Problems.

On each day of the 14-day daily diary procedure, parents independently reported on the frequency (0 = absent, 1 = present) and severity (1 = not serious to 5 = extremely serious) of eight behavior problems using a modified version of the Scales of Independent Behavior Revised (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). This measure has been used in previous daily diary studies involving children with ASD (Seltzer et al., 2010). The summed daily frequency x summed daily severity score was calculated; results from multilevel models indicated strong consistency between child behavior across daily ratings and the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) total behavior problems as reported by mothers (coefficient = .069, t = 19.59, p < .001) and fathers (coefficient = .082, t = 23.22, p < .001).

Results

Distributions of study and histograms of residuals indicted normalcy of data with the exception of parents’ daily ratings of child behavior problems, which was transformed to account for a negative skew.

Occurrence of Child-present and Child-themed Marital Conflict in the Home

Descriptive statistics of maternal and paternal conflict reports by group status (ASD vs. comparison) are shown in Table 1. Omnibus one-way MANOVA tests showed reliable group differences for mothers, F(4, 338) = 8.23, p < .001, partial η2 = .09, and fathers, F(4, 337) =6.82, p < .001, partial η2 = .08. Consistent with our hypotheses, follow-up tests showed that mothers in the ASD group reported higher average numbers of child-present marital conflicts (Cohen’s d = .39) and target-child present marital conflicts (Cohen’s d = .41) (see results in Table 1). In addition, fathers in the ASD group reported higher average numbers of child-present marital conflict (Cohen’s d = .33), target-child present marital conflicts (Cohen’s d = .40), and conflicts that discussed all children as a topic (Cohen’s d = .34). There were no reliable group differences in mothers’ reports of conflicts that discussed all children, or in either mothers’ or fathers’ reports of conflicts that discussed the study’s target child as a topic (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics: Marital Conflict Across the Diary Period Reported by Mothers and Fathers in the ASD and Comparison Groups

Mothersa
 Fathersb
ASD Comparison F-value ASD Comparison F-value
Child-present [M, (SE)] 4.42 (0.22) 3.32 (0.22) 11.95** 3.90 (0.21) 2.97 (0.21) 8.78**
  95% CI 3.99, 4.85 2.89, 3.75 3.47, 4.32 2.55, 3.39
Child-themed [M, (SE)] 3.98 (0.25) 3.33 (0.25) 3.21 3.99 (0.23) 2.99 (0.23) 8.91**
  95% CI 3.49, 4.46 2.84, 3.82 3.53, 4.45 2.53, 3.44
Target-present [M, (SE)] 3.79 (0.20) 2.72 (0.20) 13.59** 3.41 (0.19) 2.41 (0.19) 12.74**
  95% CI 3.40, 4.19 2.33, 3.11 3.03, 3.79 2.04, 2.79
Target-themed [M, (SE)] 2.66 (0.23) 2.73 (0.23) 0.05 2.81 (0.21) 2.29 (0.21) 2.82
  95% CI 2.21, 3.11 2.28, 3.17 2.39, 3.23 1.88, 2.71
Open in a new tab
a

Based on 3,866 reports provided by 338 mothers (M = 11.44, SD = 3.90).

b

Based on 3,695 reports provided by 337 fathers (M = 10.96, SD = 4.20).

Note. Child-present reflects number of conflicts with any child(ren) present; child-themed reflects number of conflicts with any child(ren) discussed as a topic; target-present reflects number of conflicts with the target child present; target-themed reflects number of conflicts with the target child discussed as a topic. CI = confidence interval. Marginal means were estimated in models that included covariates of household income, mother relationship satisfaction, and father relationship satisfaction.

**

p < .01.

Child Presence and Marital Conflict Characteristics

Multilevel modeling conducted with HLM v.7 software was used to accommodate parents’ repeated reports of daily marital conflict. We followed Hoffman’s (2015) centering recommendations to separate within- from between-person effects. Specifically, we entered the dichotomous child-presence indicator at Level 1 (child presencewp), and we included the respondent’s proportion of conflicts with children present across the diary period (child presencebp) as a predictor of the intercept at Level 2. Based on Bolger and Laurenceau’s guidelines (2013), we controlled for time in all Level 1 models; reporting day was coded such that the intercept represents day 1 ratings. It was not possible to determine whether mothers and fathers were reporting on the same significant daily marital interactions; it is likely that some were the same and some were different. Therefore, mother and father daily reports were analyzed in separate multilevel models. In order to control for global spousal effects and acknowledge the dyadic nature of the data collected, both parents’ marital satisfaction levels (i.e., CSI scores) were included as covariates in all analyses (e.g., Papp, Kouros, & Cummings, 2009). Additional Level 2 intercept covariates include household income and ASD group status (−0.5 = comparison, 0.5 = ASD), which was also included as a moderator of the within-person associations of interest.

Level 1 model:

Conflict characteristic = β0 + β1(child presencewp) + β2(day) + R

Level 2 model:

β0 = γ00 + γ01(income) + γ02(mother CSI) + γ03(father CSI) + γ04(group) + γ05(proportion of child-present conflicts across the reporting period) + U0

β1 = γ10 + γ11(group) + U1

β2 = γ20 + U2

We found several hypothesized within-person associations between child presence during marital conflict and conflict characteristics, based on mothers’ (Table 2) and fathers’ (Table 3) reports. Specifically, child presence was related to lower dyadic positivity and higher dyadic anger, according to both mothers and fathers. In addition, we found significant, positive within-person associations between child presence during marital conflict and conflict topics; specifically, child presence was related to increased likelihood of discussing the study’s target child as well as increased likelihood of discussing other children during marital conflict in the home, according to both parents (Tables 2 and 3). We did not identify within-person associations between child presence during marital conflict in daily life and length of the conflict or ratings of sadness, fear, or conflict resolution, according to either mothers’ (Table 2) or fathers’ (Table 3) reports. Furthermore, group status did not significantly moderate any of the within-person associations between child presence and marital conflict characteristics, based on mothers’ and fathers’ reports (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.

Mothers’ Reports of Child Presence and Marital Conflict Characteristics: Within-person Associations and Moderation by Group Status

Y = Marital conflict characteristics
Length Topic:
target child		 Topic:
other child(ren)		 Positivity Anger Sadness Fear Resolution
Fixed effect b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
Y intercept, β0
 Intercept, γ00 3.90** (.14) −1.13** (.12) −1.52** (.11) 5.38** (.19) 2.45** (.12) 1.99** (.09) 1.40** (.06) 6.53** (.20)
 Income, γ01 −.02 (.02) −.002 (.02)    .02(.02) −.04 (.04) −.02 (.02) −.02(.02) −.01(.01) −.06(.03)
 Mom CSI, γ02 .0004 (.002) −.003 (.002) −.01* (.002) .02** (.004) −.01* (.002) −.01** (.002) −.01** (.002) .02** (.004)
 Dad CSI, γ03 −.006 (.003) −.003 (.002) −.002 (.002) .001 (.004) .001 (.004) −.005* (.002) −.001 (.001)   .01(.004)
 Group, γ04   .44** (.15)   .37** (.13) −.14 (.13) −.48* (.22)   .32** (.12)   .29** (.11)   .14(.07) −.06(.22)
 Child presencebp, γ05 −.80** (.30) −.67* (.29) −.01(.26) −.10 (.46) −.04 (.28)   .20(.24)   .07(.16) −.53(.49)
Child presencewp, β1
 Intercept, γ10   .18 (.10)   .51** (.08)   .50** (.08) −.39** (.09)   .68** (.09)   .04(.06) −.01(.04)   .15(.12)
 Group, γ11   .33 (.19)   .10 (.15)   .10(.15) −.04 (.17)   .14 (.17) −.14(.12) −.10(.08)   .08(.23)
Day, β2
 Intercept, γ20 −.02* (.01) −.01 (.01) −.01(.01) −.06** (.01) −.01 (.01) −.02** (.01) −.01(.004) −.03* (.01)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Table 3.

Fathers’ Reports of Child Presence and Marital Conflict Characteristics: Within-person Associations and Moderation by Group Status

Y = Marital conflict characteristics
Length Topic:
target child		 Topic:
other child(ren)		 Positivity Anger Sadness Fear Resolution
Fixed effect b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
 Y intercept, β0
 Intercept, γ00 3.72** (.12) −1.13** (.10) −1.38** (.11) 5.50** (.17) 2.28** (.11) 2.09** (.11) 1.52** (.07) 6.14** (.18)
 Income, γ01 −.04(.02)   .003 (.02)   .01(.02)   .01(.04) −.02 (.02) −.04(.02) −.01 (.01) −.08* (.03)
 Mom CSI, γ02 −.003 (.003)   .001 (.002) −.004 (.002) −.003 (.004) −.005 (.003)   .002 (.002) −.0003 (.002)   .003 (.004)
 Dad CSI, γ03 −.001 (.004) −.005* (.003) −.001 (.002) .03** (.004) .02** (.003) −.01* (.002) −.004** (.001) .02** (.004)
 Group, γ04   .65** (.16)   .22 (.13) −.28* (.13)   .25(.22)   .46** (.13)   .44** (.12)   .32** (.08)   .55* (.22)
 Child presencebp, γ05 −.81** (.35) −.47* (.23) −.20(.23)   .27(.44) −.10 (.28) −.17(.25) −.09 (.16)   .72 (.45)
Child presencewp, β1
 Intercept, γ10   .13(.08)   .34** (.08)   .41** (.08) −.36** (.09)   .53** (.08)   .12(.07)   .08 (.05)   .06 (.12)
 Group, γ11 −.20(.16)   .19 (.15)   .25(.15) −.15(.18)   .18 (.15)   .20(.13) −.004 (.10) −.17 (.23)
Day, β2
 Intercept, γ20 −.02(.01)   .001 (.008) −.01(.01) −.06** (.01) −.003 (.01) −.02** (.01) −.01* (.004) −.05** (.01)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Implications of Marital Conflict for Children’s Daily Behavior Problems

The analyses to test implications of child-present and child-themed marital conflict for the target children’s daily behavior problems were conducted using HLM. Similar to the above models, these tests accounted for time and included Level 2 intercept covariates of mother and father relationship satisfaction, household income, and ASD group status. Variables reflecting the proportion of the predictor variable across the reporting period again were included as intercept covariates. The following analyses focused on the presence and discussion of the study’s target child, given that parents’ provided daily ratings of only the target child’s behavior. The following model tested the association between the study’s target children being present for marital conflict and their behavior problems and whether ASD group moderated the association:

Level 1 model:

Child behavior problems = β0 + β1(child presence) + β2(day) + R

Level 2 model:

β0 = γ00 + γ01(group) + γ02(household income) + γ03(mother CSI) + γ04(father CSI) + γ05(proportion of conflicts with target child present) + U0

β1 = γ10 + γ11(ASD group) + U1

β2 = γ20 + U2

Results for mothers showed a significant, within-person association between the target child’s presence for marital conflict and their behavior problems; this finding was moderated by ASD group status (Model 1, Table 4). We probed the significant interaction using an online utilities program (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006; http://www.quantpsy.org/interact/hlm2/). Results showed the simple slope for children from the ASD group was significant (coefficient = 0.09, t = 3.69, p = .0003), whereas the simple slope for children from the comparison group was not (coefficient = 0.02, t = 0.91, p = .37). Thus, the positive within-person link between target child’s presence during conflict and their behavior problems reported by mothers was found only in the ASD group. Results based on fathers’ reports also showed a significant, within-person link between the target child’s presence for marital conflict and their behavior problems; this association was not moderated by group status (Model 1, Table 4).

Table 4.

Implications of the Study’s Target Children Being Present for Marital Conflict (Model 1) and Being Discussed as a Topic of Marital Conflict When Present (Model 2) for Their Behavior Problems: Within-person Associations and Moderation by Group Status

Y = Behavior Problems
Model based on
mothers’ reports		 Model based on
fathers’ reports
Fixed effect b (SE) b (SE)
Model 1 (based on all marital interactions)
 Y intercept, β0
 Intercept, γ00   .60**(.04)   .45** (.04)
 Income, γ01 −.01 (.01) −.01 (.01)
 Mom CSI, γ02 −.002 (.001)   .001 (.001)
 Dad CSI, γ03   .002* (.001) −.0005 (.001)
 Group, γ04   .87**(.05)   .69** (.05)
 Child presencebp, γ05   .33**(.13) −.07 (.12)
 Child presencewp, β1
 Intercept, γ10   .05**(.02)   .07** (.02)
 Group, γ11   .07* (.03)   .04 (.03)
Day, β2
 Intercept, γ20 −.01**(.002) −.004 (.002)
Model 2 (based on the subset of interactions for which target child was present)
 Y intercept, β0
 Intercept, γ00   .70** (.05)   .55** (.04)
 Income, γ01 −.02*(.01) −.01(.01)
 Mom CSI, γ02 −.002 (.001)   .001(.001)
 Dad CSI, γ03   .003* (.001)   .001(.001)
 Group, γ04   .90** (.07)   .72** (.06)
 Child as topicbp, γ05   .18*(.09)   .08(.10)
 Child as topicwp, β1
 Intercept, γ10   .06*(.03)   .05(.04)
 Group, γ11   .10 (.06)   .01(.07)
Day, β2
 Intercept, γ20 −.01** (.003) −.002(.003)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Next we adapted the model employed above to test the within-person association between the study’s target child being discussed as a topic of marital conflict (during the subset for which they were present) and their behavior problems, again with ASD group status as a moderator of the association:

Level 1 model:

Child behavior problems = β0 + β1(child as topic) + β2(day) + R Level 2 model:

β0 = γ00 + γ01(ASD group) + γ02(household income) + γ03(mother CSI) + γ04(father CSI) + γ05(proportion of conflicts with target child discussed as topic) + U0

β1 = γ10 + γ11(ASD group) + U1

β2 = γ20 + U2

Results found a positive, within-person relation between discussing the target child as a topic of the marital conflict when present and their behavior problems for mothers’ but not fathers’ reports; ASD group status did not moderate these within-person associations (Model 2, Table 4).

Discussion

Building on evidence that children’s presence during interparental conflict holds implications for understanding parents’ use of conflict strategies and children’s behavioral adjustment, the current study considered child-present and child-themed marital conflict in daily life of couples who had a child with ASD relative to similar couples who had a child without disabilities. We descriptively examined data on the occurrence of marital conflict in children’s presence and the extent to which children were discussed during significant marital conflict interactions in the home and identified several reliable group differences. First, mothers and fathers from the ASD group had relatively higher rates of daily marital conflict with any children present (both the study’s target children and other children in the family) than their comparison-group counterparts, a finding that has implications for how parents handle the conflict (Papp et al., 2002) as well as for the emotional security of all children in families that include a child with ASD (Cummings & Davies, 2002). Second, fathers in the ASD group had higher rates of discussing children as a topic in significant marital conflict interactions relative to comparison-group fathers. The finding that all children (though not specifically the study’s target children) from ASD families are more often discussed during marital conflicts reported by fathers may translate to the children in these family contexts feeling blamed or held responsible (internally or by others in the family) for interparental disputes in daily life (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992).

This study examined within-person associations between child presence during marital conflict and characteristics of the conflict. Based on mothers’ and fathers’ reports, we documented within-person associations between child presence and positivity (inversely related) and anger (positively related) during marital conflict in daily life. These findings are consistent with Papp et al. (2002), which found more negative parental emotion in the context of children’s presence. Given that parents play a key role in emotional socialization (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007), children from the ASD and comparison families alike appear to be missing opportunities to learn effective strategies when parents engaged in handling the most significant issue of the day. Moreover, parental emotions and behaviors expressed during conflict have been shown to be linked (Papp et al., 2009), suggesting that children across both groups were exposed to more destructive and less constructive conflict resolution strategies, thereby heightening their risk for displaying emotional insecurity (Davies, Sturge-Apple, Bascoe, & Cummings, 2014). Furthermore, we identified within-person associations between children’s presence and greater likelihood that the study’s target child and other children in the home were discussed as a topic during significant marital interactions in daily life—indicating that children are disproportionately exposed to conflicts that are likely to elicit feelings of shame and self-blame, as well their involvement in the conflict (Grych & Fincham, 1993).

Contrary to our expectations, ASD family status was not identified as a moderator of these direct, within-person linkages. That is, in these established families with target children who were 8 years of age, on average, parental conflict varied systematically as a function of child presence with little fluctuations due to child diagnosis. In other words, the in-the-moment context served as a more proximal predictor of conflict characteristics than the longer-standing child diagnosis did. It is also worth reiterating that our conflict methodology was based on parents reporting the most significant marital interaction of the day; therefore, our analyses cannot determine whether ASD status moderates the child presence – marital conflict linkages when considering all instances of interparental conflict in the home. The current study stems from theory and research on the general population that has shown an effect of child-present and child-themed marital conflict on child behavior. However, future studies based on multiple waves of assessment are needed to tease apart the time-ordered associations between marital processes and family members’ behavior.

The current study also investigated whether aspects of marital interactions with direct relevance to children (i.e., whether or not they were present for the conflict and whether or not they were discussed as a conflict topic when present) mattered to parents’ evaluations of their child’s daily behavior problems. Focusing on the study’s target child, we found positive within-person associations between child presence during marital interactions and their behavior problems in daily life, for fathers overall and only for mothers in ASD families. In addition, only mothers’ results indicated a positive within-person linkage between the target child being discussed as a topic of marital conflict when present and elevated ratings of their behavior problems; ASD group did not moderate this linkage. Together, our findings show that features of marital conflict in daily life (e.g., child presence, child-related themes) potentially exacerbate parents’ evaluations of their child’s symptoms and disruptive behaviors, and it remains critical to understand the longer-term effects of these findings on child and family adaptation.

Strengths of the study include capturing both parents’ perspectives on the occurrence and implications of child presence during marital conflict in daily life and utilizing a matched sample of comparison families. Limitations should also be noted, including that the conflict procedure collected information on one conflict per day, and the findings documented herein may not apply to methods utilized to study all marital conflict expressed in naturalistic settings (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, Papp, & Dukewich, 2002). Additional work is needed to incorporate methods beyond parental reports alone and to examine how the findings hold up in families from diverse racial/ethnic groups. As well, future research is needed to extend the literature overwhelmingly based on neurotypical children to understand how children with ASD engage in the social processing of interparental conflict in terms of appraising their sense of security in their parents’ relationship (Cummings & Davies, 2010) or the extent to which they blame themselves for conflicts occurring within the family (Grych et al., 2003). Furthermore, recent compelling work on the relevance of ASD family members’ physiological linkage (Saxbe et al., 2017) encourages exploration of how and whether children’s presence during marital conflict in daily life co-varies with biobehavioral indicators and connections within the family.

Despite the limitations, this study adds to our understanding of marital and family processes in parents of school-aged children with and without ASD. Consistent with earlier work based on typically-developing children and their families, children’s presence systematically affects how parents handled significant marital interactions in daily life (i.e., less positive, more negative expressions), which in turn confers children’s risk for emotional insecurity and feeling responsible for marital disputes. Children’s presence and being discussed as a topic when present for important marital interactions generally held implications for the target children’s daily behavior problems, with some moderation of effects based on ASD group. Moreover, some differences in the occurrence of conflict based on ASD family status were identified. Specifically, parents from ASD families reported more significant marital interactions as occurring with any children and target children present; further, fathers from ASD families reported more conflicts as dealing with child-related issues (though not specifically the study’s target child). Together, these findings portray a more challenged context of marital interactions for parents and children from the ASD group. It is important to note that levels of conflicts concerning the study’s target children did not vary across group statuses, indicating that the heightened challenges are not attributable to parents having more frequent disagreements over the child with ASD, in particular. The results of the study encourage further investigation into the implications of parents’ marital conflict for the adjustment of children with ASD, with the goal of developing supports and couple-focused programs to strengthen child and family well-being (Zemp, Milek, Cummings, Cina, & Bodenmann, 2016).

Acknowledgments

The project was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01MH099190. The NIH did not play a role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data; writing the manuscript; or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

References

  1. Achenbach TM, & Rescorla LA (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berge JM, Patterson JM, & Rueter M (2006). Marital satisfaction and mental health of couples with children with chronic health conditions. Families, Systems, & Health, 24, 267–285. doi: 10.1037/1091-7527.24.3.267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bishop-Fitzpatrick L, Minshew NJ, Mazefsky CA, & Eack SM (2017). Perception of life as stressful, not biological response to stress, is associated with greater social disability in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10803-016-2910-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolger N, & Laurenceau J-P (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research New York, NY: Guildford Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruininks RK, Woodcock RW, Weatherman RF, & Hill BK (1996). Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised (SIB-R) Itasca, IL: Riverside. [Google Scholar]
  7. Constantino JN, & Gruber CP (2012). Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Education (SRS-2) Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services. [Google Scholar]
  8. Corbett BA, Schupp CW, Levine S, & Mendoza S (2009). Comparing cortisol, stress, and sensory sensitivity in children with autism. Autism Research, 2, 39–49. doi: 10.1002/aur.64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cox MJ, & Paley B (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 193–196. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01259 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cummings EM, & Davies PT (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31–63. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cummings EM, & Davies PT (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cummings EM, Goeke-Morey MC, & Papp LM (2003). Children’s responses to everyday marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development, 74, 1918–1929. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00646.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cummings EM, Goeke-Morey MC, & Papp LM (2004). Everyday marital conflict and child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 191–202. doi: 10.1023/B:JACP.0000019770.13216.be [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cummings EM, Goeke-Morey MC, Papp LM, & Dukewich TL (2002). Children’s responses to mothers’ and fathers’ emotionality and tactics in marital conflict in the home. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 478–492. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.16.4.478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Davies PT, Harold GT, Goeke-Morey MC, & Cummings EM (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, vii–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies PT, Sturge-Apple ML, Bascoe SM, & Cummings EM (2014). The legacy of early insecurity histories in shaping adolescent adaptation to interparental conflict. Child Development, 85, 338–354. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Deal JE, Hagan MS, Bass B, Hetherington EM, & Clingempeel G (1999). Marital interaction in dyadic and triadic contexts: Continuities and discontinuities. Family Process, 39, 105–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00105.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Erel O, & Burman B (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108–132. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Estes A, Olson E, Sullivan K, Greenson J, Winter J, Dawson G, & Munson J (2013). Parenting-related stress and psychological distress in mothers of toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. Brain & Development, 35, 133–138.doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2012.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fosco GM, & Lydon-Staley DM (in press). A within-family examination of interparental conflict, cognitive appraisals, and adolescent mood and well-being. Child Development doi: 10.1111/cdev.12997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Frosch CA, Mangelsdorf SC, & McHale JL (1998). Correlates of marital behavior at 6 months postpartum. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1438–1449. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Funk JL, & Rogge RD (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gau SS-F, Chou M-C, Chiang H-L, Lee J-C, Wong C-C, Chou W-J, & Wu Y-Y. (2012). Parental adjustment, marital relationship, and family function in families of children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 263–270. doi: 10.106/j.rasd.2011.05.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Goeke-Morey MC, Cummings EM, & Papp LM (2007). Children and marital conflict resolution: Implications for emotional security and adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 744–753. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Grych JH, & Fincham FD (1993). Children’s appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215–230. doi: 10.2307/1131447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Grych JH, Harold GT, & Miles CJ (2003). A prospective investigation of appraisals as mediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development, 74, 1176–1193. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grych JH, Seid M, & Fincham FD (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572. doi: 10.2307/1131346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hartley SL, Papp LM, Mihaila I, Bussanich PM, Goetz G, & Hickey EJ (2017). Couple conflict in parents of children with versus without autism: Self-reported and observed findings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2152–2165. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0737-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Heckel LD, Clarke AR, Barry RJ, McCarthy R, & Selikowitz M (2009). The relationship between divorce and children with AD/HD of different subtypes and comorbidity: Results from a clinically referred sample. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 427–443. doi: 10.1080/10502550902766324 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hirvikoski T, & Blomquist M (2015). High self-perceived stress and poor coping in intellectually able adults with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 19, 752–757. doi: 10.1177/1362361314543530 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoffman L (2015). Longitudinal analysis: Modeling within-person fluctuation and change New York, NY: Routledge Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jouriles EN, Murphy CM, Farris AM, Smith DA, Richters JE, & Waters E (1991). Marital adjustment, parental disagreements about child rearing, and behavior problems in boys: Increasing the specificity of the marital assessment. Child Development, 62, 1424–1433. doi: 10.2307/1130816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kouros CD, Papp LM, Goeke-Morey MC, & Cummings EM (2014). Spillover between marital quality and parent-child relationship quality: Parental depressive symptoms as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 315–325. doi: 10.1037/a0036804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH Jr., Leventhal BL DiLavore PC.,…Rutter M. (2000). The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205–223. doi: 10.1023/A:1005592401947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Maas CJM, & Hox JJ (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92. doi: 10.1027/1614-1881.1.3.86 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. McStay RL, Dissanayake C, Scheeren A, Koot HM, & Begeer S (2014). Parenting stress and autism: The role of age, autism severity, quality of life and problem behaviour of children and adolescents with autism. Autism, 18, 502–510. doi: 10.1177/1362361313485163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Morris AS, Silk JS, Steinberg L, Myers SS, & Robinson LR (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. O’Leary SG, & Vidair HB (2005). Marital adjustment, child-rearing disagreements, and overreactive parenting: Predicting child behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 208–216. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Papp LM, Cummings EM, & Goeke-Morey MC (2002). Marital conflicts in the home when children are present versus absent. Developmental Psychology, 38, 774–783. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Papp LM, Kouros CD, & Cummings EM (2009). Demand-withdraw patterns in marital conflict in the home. Personal Relationships, 16, 285–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01223.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, & Bauer DJ (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi: 10.3102/10769986031004437 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rhoades KA (2008). Children’s responses to interparental conflict: A meta-analysis of their associations with child adjustment. Child Development, 79, 1942–1956. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01235.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Robles TF, Reynolds BM, Repetti RL, & Chung PJ (2013). Using daily diaries to study family settings, emotions, and health in everyday life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 179–188. doi: 10.1177/0265407512457102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Saini M, Stoddart KP, Gibson M, Morris R, Barrett D, Muskat B,…Zwaigenbaum L. (2015). Couple relationships among parents of children and adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Findings from a scoping review of the literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 17, 142–157. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2015.06.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Saxbe DE, Golan O, Ostfeld-Etzion S, Hirschler-Guttenberg Y, Zagoory-Sharon O, & Feldman R (2017). HPA axis linkage in parent-child dyads: Effects on parent sex, autism spectrum diagnosis, and dyadic relationship behavior. Developmental Psychobiology, 59, 776–786. doi: 10.1002/dev.21537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Seltzer MM, Greenberg JS, Hong J, Smith LE, Almeida DM, & Coe C, & Stawski RS. (2010). Maternal cortisol levels and behavior problems in adolescents and adults with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 457–469. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0887-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sturge-Apple ML, Davies PT, & Cummings EM (2006). Impact of hostility and withdrawal in interparental conflict on parental emotional unavailability and children’s adjustment difficulties. Child Development, 77, 1623–1641. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00963.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Vaez E, Indran R, Abdollahi A, Juhari R, & Mansor M (2015). How marital relations affect child behavior: Review of recent research. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 10, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/17450128.2015.1112454 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Verlaan P, & Schwartzman AE (2002). Mother’s and father’s parental adjustment: Links to externalising behaviour problems in sons and daughters. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 214–224. doi: 10.1080/01650250042000717 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu S, Crespi CM, & Wong WK (2012). Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 33, 869–880. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.05.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wymbs BT, Pelham WE, Molina BSG, Gnagy EM, Wilson T, & Greenhouse JB (2008). Rate and predictors of divorce among parents of youth with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 735–744. doi: 10.1037/a0012719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zemp M, Milek A, Cummings EM, Cina A, & Bodenmann G (2016). How couple- and parenting-focused programs affect child behavioral problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 798–810. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0260-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zimet DM, & Jacob T (2002). Influences of marital conflict on child adjustment: Review of theory and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 319–335. doi: 10.1023/A:1013595304718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES