Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 16;48(1):251–282. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12565

Table 1.

Efficacy and effectiveness RCT studies of couple relationship education interventions (2010–2019)

Authors, year (overlapping sample studies) Study design, conditions/curricula N Sample characteristics Focal outcomes Assess‐ment points

Significant results ‐ latest assessment (effect size, if reported)

T = treatment group

C = control group
Bakhurst et al. (2017)

  1. Couple CARE in Uniform

  2. Active Control (self‐help book)

 32 couples

Age: Men: M = 34.3; Women: M = 32.8; Married: 85%

Location: Australia

 Satisfaction; Stability; Communication; Aggression Pre, Post None

Barton, Beach, Wells, et al. (2018)

(Barton, Beach, Bryant, et al., 2018; Barton et al., 2015, 2017; Beach et al., 2014; Lavner et al., 2019)

  1. Protecting Strong African American Families

  2. Active Control (book: 12 hours to a great marriage)

 346 couples

Age: Men: M = 39.9; Women: M = 36.6; Race/Ethnicity: 100% AA

Married: 63%

Location: Southeast USA

 Communication; Satisfaction; Confidence; Coparenting; Parental Monitoring; Youth Exposure to Interparental Conflict Pre, 9, 17, 25 months

T > C: satisfaction, communication, confidence, co‐parenting, parental monitoring, youth exposure to interparental conflict (Post‐intervention change in couple functioning predicted coparenting at 25 months)
Bodenmann et al. (2014)

  1. Couple Coping Enhancement Training‐DVD (+phone monitoring)

  2. CCET‐DVD (no phone monitoring)

  3. Wait‐list Control

 330 couples

Age: Men = M = 41.4; Women M = 40.0

Race: 100% White

Married: 71%

Location: Switzerland

 Dyadic Coping; Positive Communication; Negative Comm.; Conflict Resolution; Satisfaction Pre, Post, 3, 6 months

T1&T2 > C: dyadic coping (women), positive comm., conflict resolution (women), satisfaction (women, men T1 only)

T1&T2 < C: negative comm. (women)
Bradley et al. (2014)

  1. Creating Healthy Relationships Program (Sound Relationship House)

  2. No‐treatment Control

 115 couples

No demographic information provided

Location: not given

 Self‐reported IPV; Observed Propensity toward Violence (Contempt, Belligerence, Domineering, Anger, Defensiveness) Pre, Post, 9, 15 months T < C: observed propensity toward violence outcomes (men only)
Braithwaite & Fincham (2011)

  1. ePREP

  2. No‐treatment Control (given inert information)

 77 couples Age: M = 19.92; Race/Ethnicity: 3% AA/10% L‐H Cohabiting: 20% Location: Florida Satisfaction; Commitment; Communication; Psychological Aggression; Physical Assault; Depression; Anxiety Pre, 1.5‐ months Post

T > C: commitment (men), communication

T < C: psych. aggression, phys. assault, depression
Braithwaite & Fincham (2014)

  1. ePREP

  2. Information‐only Control

 52 couples Age: M = 32.36; Race/Ethnicity: 21% AA/7% L‐H Married: 100% Location: Florida Self‐ and Partner‐reported (SR, PR) Psychological Aggression, Physical Aggression Pre, Post, 12 months T < C: PR physical aggression (females), SR physical aggression; PR psych. aggression (female), SR psych. aggression (male)

Buzzella et al. (2012)

  1. Strengthening Same‐sex Relationships

  2. Wait‐list Control

 12 same‐sex male couples

Age: M = 44

Race/Ethnicity: Caucasian 90%, Hispanic 5%, Asian 5%.

Married: 75%

Engaged: 25%

Location: Boston area

 Satisfaction; Confidence; Communication; Problem solving; Stress Pre, Post, 3 months Significance tests not reported.
Carlson et al. (2014)

  1. PREP

  2. Wait‐list Control

 54 couples

Age: Men: M = 34.24; Women: M = 33.17

Race/Ethnicity: 14% AA/55% L‐H/7% Asian‐American

Married: 100%

Location: USA

 Satisfaction Pre, Post T > C: satisfaction
Cordova et al. (2014)

  1. Marriage Checkup

  2. Wait‐list control

 215 couples

Age: Women = 45, Men = 47

Race/Ethnicity: 93% W/3% AA/3% Asian American

Married: 100%

Location: Boston area

 Satisfaction, Emotional Intimacy, Felt Acceptance Pre, Post, 2, weeks, 6, 12, 12.5, 18, 24 months T > C: intimacy (d = .36); acceptance (women: d = .23)
Cowan et al. (2011)

  1. Becoming a Family (couple focus)

  2. Becoming a Family (parenting focus)

  3. Low‐dose Active Control (consulting)

 113 couples

Age: 37.5

Race/Ethnicity: 84% W/7% AA/7% Asian/2% L‐H/

Married: 100% Location: California Bay Area

 Satisfaction; Communication; Parenting Style; Child Behavior Problems Pre, Post, 5, 6, 10 years

T1 > C: satisfaction, communication, behavior problems

T2 > C: satisfaction (mothers), communication (mothers)
Doss et al. (2016)

  1. OurRelationship

  2. Wait‐list Control

 300 couples

Age: M = 36.11 Race/Ethnicity: 17% AA/10% L‐H

Married: 80% Location: USA

 Satisfaction; Confidence; Positive/Negative Relationship Quality; Depression; Anxiety; Health; Quality of Life Pre, Mid‐treatment, Post T > C: satisfaction (d = .69); confidence (d = .47); neg. rel. quality (d = .57); depression (d = .71); anxiety (d = .94); health (d = .51); life quality (d = .44).
Fallahchai et al. (2017)

  1. PREP

  2. Wait‐list Control

 76 couples

Age: M = 32.34; Married: 100%

Location: Bandar Abbas, Iran

 Satisfaction; Couple Conflict Pre, Post, 12 months

T > C: satisfaction

T < C: conflict
Feinberg et al. (2010) (Feinberg et al., 2014, 2015; Solomeyer et al., 2014)

  1. Family Foundations

  2. No‐treatment Control

 169 couples Age: Men: M = 29.8; Women: M = 28.3; Married: 82% Location: Pennsylvania Couple Relationship; Parenting Stress, Self‐efficacy, Depression; Coparenting; Harsh Parenting; Child Emotional Adjustment; Child Behavior Problems Pre, 3, 6, 12 months

T < C: parental stress (d = .16); harsh parenting (d's = .30–.36); child behavioral problems (for families with boys; d's = .62–.81); satisfaction (for families with boys; d = .71)

T > C: self‐efficacy (d = .18); coparenting (d = .18)
Halford et al. (2010)

  1. Couple CARE for Parents

  2. Alternative‐treatment Control (maternal parenting program)

 71 couples

Age: Men: M = 31; Women: M = 29

Race/Ethnicity: 90%+ W

Married: 70%

Location: Brisbane, Australia

Satisfaction, Self‐regulation;

(observed) Negative Communication; Parenting Stress

 Pre, Post, 5, 12 months

T < C: negative communication

T > C: satisfaction, self‐regulation (women), parenting stress (women)
Halford et al. (2017)

  1. RELATE

  2. RELATE + Couple Care

  3. Alternative‐treatment Control (marriage book)

 182 couples

Age: Men: M = 45, Women = 43

Married: 69%

Location: Unspecified

 Satisfaction; Mental Health Pre, Post, 6, 12, 18, 30, 48 months None
Jones et al. (2018) (Feinberg & Jones, 2018; Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler, et al., 2016; Feinberg, Jones, Roettger, et al., 2016)

  1. Family Foundations

  2. No‐treatment Control

 399 couples

Age: Men: M = 31; Women: M = 29

Race/Ethnicity: 85%W

Location: Pennsylvania

 Positive/Negative Coparenting; Positive/Negative Parenting; Coparenting Positivity/Negativity; Depression, Anxiety; Child Behavior Problems Pre, 10, 24 months

T > C: pos. parenting (d = .18)

T < C: neg. coparenting (d = .38), neg. parenting (d = .41), child behavior problems (internalizing; d = .19)

Kalinka et al. (2012)

  1. Power of Two (online)

  2. Placebo Control

 79 couples

Age: M = 28

Race/Ethnicity: 84% W/7% L‐H/6% Bi‐racial/3% AA

Married: 73%;

Location: USA

 Conflict Resolution; Satisfaction Pre, 1, 2 months T > C: satisfaction (g = .24), conflict resolution (g = .42)
Kröger et al. (2018)

  1. PREP‐EPL

  2. Wait‐list Control

 32 militarycouples

Age: Mid‐ Thirties

Race/Ethnicity: 100% W

Married: 50%

Location: Germany

 Satisfaction; Conflict; Psychological Distress

Pre, Post,

2 months

(no follow‐up for controls)

 T > C: satisfaction, conflict (men)
Loew et al. (2012)

  1. PREP (online)

  2. Alternative‐treatment Control (online birth parent visitation course)

 32 couples

Age: M = 44.82; Race/Ethnicity: 89% W; 3% L‐H

Married: 100%

Location: USA

 Positive Communication/Conflict Management; Negative Communication Pre, Post T > C: positive communication/conflict management
Lowenstein et al. (2014) (Rhoades, 2015; Williamson et al., 2016)

  1. Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM)

  2. No‐treatment Control (8 independent samples)

Curricula: Within Our Reach; For Our Families, For Our Children; Loving Couples, Loving Children; PREP‐Becoming Parents

6,298 couples

Age: M = 31; Race/Ethnicity: 43% L‐H/11% AA/25% W/25% Mixed‐Other;

Married: 82%;

Location: USA

(8 independent sites)

 Relationship Quality, Stability; Positive/Negative Communication; Psychological Abuse; Psychological Distress; Cooperative Co‐parenting

Pre, 12‐months, 30 months

T > C: (combined sies) quality (d = .13), coparenting (men; d = .05)

T < C: neg. comm (women d = −.12; men d = −.09); abuse (women d = −.07; men d = −.10); distress (women; d = −.09)

(Communication gains did not mediate outcome change; WOR program sites ‐ pattern of small treatment effects [Md = .14])
McCormick et al. (2017)

  1. Supporting Healthy Marriage

  2. No‐treatment Control

Curricula: Loving Couples, Loving Children; PREP‐Becoming Parents; PREP‐Within Our Reach; For Our Family, For Our Children

 97 couples Age: Men: M = 39; Women: M = 38; Race/Ethnicity: 27% AA/26% L‐H Married: 100% Location: USA Relationship Quality, Conflict; Daily Mood, Stress (diary reports) Pre, 30 months T < C: association between negative moods and conflict (for women), association between stress and conflict (for husbands).
Markman et al. (2013)

  1. PREP (combined university‐based & religious‐organization‐based)

  2. Alternative‐treatment Control (naturally occurring premarital services)

 193 couples

Age: Men: M = 27; Women: M = 25; Race/Ethnicity: Women 84% C/12% L‐H, 2%

Men: 87% C/10% L‐H/%

Engaged couples

Location: USA

 Divorce; Aggression; Negative Communication (observed) Pre, Post, 8 years (average)

T > C: divorce among higher initial neg. comm. couples

T < C: divorce among lower initial neg. comm. couples

(general divorce non‐significant)
Moore et al. (2012) (Amato, 2014; Wood et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2014)

  1. Building Strong Families (BSF)

  2. No‐treatment Control (8 independent samples)

Loving Couples, Loving Children; Love's Cradle; PREP‐Becoming Parents

 5,102 couples

Age: M = 24; Race/Ethnicity: 52% AA/20% L‐H/12% W/16% Mixed‐Other

Married: 7%

Cohabiting: 55% Location: USA (8 separate sites)

 Relationship Happiness, Support, Stability; Conflict, Fidelity, Positive Attitudes toward Marriage; Communication; IPV; Coparenting; Parenting Behavior; Child Behavior Problems Pre, 12, 36 months

(combined sites)

None

T > C: stability (OKC site; 49% vs. 41%)

(T > C: relationship quality outcomes at 12 months for most disadvantaged couples)
Moore et al. (2018)

  1. Parents and Children Together (PACT)

  2. No‐treatment Control (2 independent samples)

Curricula: Within Our Reach; Loving Couples, Loving Children

1,595 couples

Age: M = 35; Race/Ethnicity: 78% L‐H/10% AA/12% Other

Married: 59%

Location: NYC, El Paso

 Relationship Quality, Stability, Commitment; Positive/Negative Communication; IPV; Coparenting; Depression

Pre, 12 months

(combined sites)

T > C: Stability (d = .11), commitment (d = .12), coparenting (d = .10)

T < C: neg. comm. (d = −.07), IPV (d = −.30), depression (women; d = −.14).
Petch et al. (2012)

  1. Couple CARE for Parents

  2. Alternative‐treatment Control (maternal parenting program)

 250 couples

Age: Men: M = 31; Women: M = 29

Married: 65%

Location: Australia

 Satisfaction; Negative Communication; Parenting Stress; Intrusive Parenting; IPV Pre, 4, 16, 28 months

T < C: neg. comm. (women)

T > C: satisfaction (high‐risk women)
Pruett et al. (2019)

  1. Supporting Father Involvement

  2. Wait‐list Control

 239 couples

Age: Fathers M = 32; Mothers M = 29

Race/Ethnicity: 52% L‐H/34% W/8% AA

Married: 49%;

Romantically Involved 43%

Location: California

 Couple Conflict; Parenting Conflict; Parenting Quality; Parenting Stress; Harsh Parenting; Risk for Child Abuse; Child Behavior Problems Pre, 2, 18 months

T < C: couple conflict (d = .42)

(Decline in couple conflict associated with decreases in harsh parenting, which was associated with fewer child behavior problems)

Rienks et al. (2011)

(only coded: FRAME – Couples, not men only, women only)

  1. Fatherhood Relationship and Marriage Education – Couples (adaptation: PREP‐Within Our Reach)

  2. No‐treatment Control

 103 couples Age: Men: M = 36; Women: M = 31.3; Race/Ethnicity: 34% AA/22% L‐H Married: 70% Cohabiting: 30% Location: Denver, CO area Adjustment, Satisfaction; Negative Communication.; Coping Efficacy; Anxiety, Depression; Father Involvement; Parenting Alliance Pre, Post T > C: father involvement (Greater parental alliance predicted greater father involvement among treatment couples)
Roddy et al. (2018)

  1. OurRelationship (online)

  2. Wait‐list Control

 300 couples

Age: M = 37.4; Race/Ethnicity: 15% AA/10% L‐H

Married: 80%

Cohabiting: 14%

Location: USA

 Relationship Satisfaction Pre, Post T > C: satisfaction (Treatment effect not moderated by pre‐IPV)
Rogge et al. (2013)

  1. PREP

  2. Compassionate & Accepting Relation‐ships through Empathy (CARE)

  3. Brief relationship awareness session

  4. No‐treatment Control

 174 engaged/newly wed couples

Age: Men: M = 29.3; Women: M = 27.9

Race/Ethnicity: 55% W/21% L‐H/11% AS/5% AA/8% Other

Cohabitating: 72%

Location: Unspecified

 Relationship Dissolution, Satisfaction Pre, 2, 6, 12, 24, 36 months All Ts > C: dissolution (11% vs. 24%)

Stanley et al. (2014)

(Allen, Rhoades et al., 2011; Allen, Stanley et al., 2011; Allen et al., 2012; Rhoades et al., 2015)

  1. PREP ‐ Strong Bonds

  2. No‐treatment control

 662 couples

Age: Men: M = 28.5; Women: M = 27.7

Race/Ethnicity: 70% W/12% L‐H/11% AA/2% NA‐AN/7% Mixed/Other

Married: 100%

Location: USA

 Divorce; Relationship Quality, Satisfaction; Communication; Confidence; Dedication Pre, Post, 6, 12, 18, 24 months T < C: divorce (8% vs. 15%) (effect stronger for minority couples)
Trillingsgaard et al. (2016)

  1. Marriage Checkup

  2. Wait‐list Control

 233 couples

Age: Men: M = 39, Women: M = 37

Married: 80%

Location: Denmark

 Relationship Satisfaction; Treatment: Pre, 10, 21, 34, 47, 54 weeks; Control: Pre, 10, 54 weeks T > C: Satisfaction (d = .48); Responsiveness/Attention (d = .43); Emotional Safety (d = .21)
Wadsworth et al. (2011)

  1. Fatherhood, Relationship, and Marriage Education (adapted: PREP Within Our Reach)

  2. No‐treatment Control

 173 couples

Age: Men: M = 34; Women: M = 31

Race/Ethnicity: 33% W/28% AA/24% L‐H/6% AI/10% Mixed/Other

Married: 67%

Location: Denver, CO

 Financial Worries; Problem Solving; Coping Efficacy Avoidance, Emotional Numbing, Emotional Regulation; Depression Pre, Post

T < C: financial worries, avoidance, numbing

T > C: regulation, problem solving (women)
Whitton et al. (2016)

  1. Strengthening Same‐Sex Relationships

  2. Wait‐list Control

 20 same‐sex male couples

Age: Men: M = 40; Race/Ethnicity: 83% W/10% AA/3% L‐H

Married: 20% Location: Midwest USA

 Satisfaction; Instability; (observed) Positive/Negative Communication; Stress; Social Support Pre, Post, 3 months

T > C: satisfaction (d = .18), stability (d = .31), pos. comm. (d = .38), social support (d = .30)

T < C: neg. comm. (d = .37), stress (d = .45)
Zemp et al. (2016)

  1. Couples Coping Enhancement Training

  2. Triple‐P

  3. No‐treatment control

 150 couples

Age: Men: M = 39.7; Women: M = 37.4

Location: Switzerland

 Relationship Quality; Parenting; Child Behavior Problems Pre, Post, 6, 12 months (analyses did not include 6, 12 months follow‐ups) T1 > C: relationship quality (mothers) (enhanced quality associated with reduced child behavioral problems [mothers])