Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 351

The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales

Janet Melby, Rand Conger, Ruth Book, Martha Rueter, Laura Lucy, Daniel Repinski, Shauna Rogers, Barbara Rogers, & Laura Scaramella

Copyright 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1998 Institute for Social and Behavioral Research Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50010-8296 515-294-4518

1998 Fifth Edition

CONTENTS Acknowledgments .........................................................................................v The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales at a Glance ........................... vii Terms Frequently used in the Coding Manual ........................................... ix Abbreviated Scale Definitions ..................................................................... xi I. Introduction A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Overview.........................................................................................3 Explanation of Rating Scale Descriptions...........................................3 Mechanics of Coding ..........................................................................4 Strategies for Viewing Tasks ............................................................13 Coding Parenting Scales Using Observation & Report ....................14 Adaptation to Coding Behaviors of Young Children .........................15 General Guidelines for Observing Affect ..........................................15

II. General Interaction Rating Scales A. Individual Characteristic Scales........................................................19 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. B. Physically Attractive (PA) .........................................................21 Humor/Laugh (HU) ...................................................................23 Sadness (SD) ...........................................................................27 Anxiety (AX) .............................................................................31 Whine/Complain (WC)..............................................................35 Externalized Negative (EX) ......................................................39 Positive Mood (PM) ..................................................................43 Defiance (DF) ...........................................................................47 Compliance (CP) ......................................................................49 Rater Response (RR) ...............................................................51

Dyadic Interaction Scales .................................................................53 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Hostility (HS) ............................................................................55 Verbal Attack (VA)....................................................................61 Physical Attack (AT) .................................................................65 Contempt (CT)..........................................................................69 Angry Coercion (AC) ................................................................73 Escalate Hostile (EH) ...............................................................77 Reciprocate Hostile (RH)..........................................................81 Dominance (DO) ......................................................................85 Lecture/Moralize (LM)...............................................................89 Interrogation (IT).......................................................................93 Denial (DE)...............................................................................97 Warmth/Support (WM)............................................................101 Endearment (ED) ...................................................................107 Physical Affection (AF) ...........................................................111
Rating Scales 1 1998

ii

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. C.

Escalate Warmth/Support (EW) .............................................113 Reciprocate Warmth/Support (RW)........................................117 Assertiveness (AR).................................................................121 Listener Responsiveness (LR) ...............................................125 Communication (CO)..............................................................129 Prosocial (PR) ........................................................................133 Antisocial (AN)........................................................................137 Avoidant (AV) .........................................................................141

Dyadic Relationship Scales ............................................................145 1. 2. Silence/Pause (SP) ................................................................147 Relationship Quality (RQ).......................................................151

D.

Group Interaction Scales ................................................................155 1. Group Enjoyment (GE) ...........................................................157

III.

Parenting Scales A. B. Introduction to Parenting Scales.....................................................163 Parenting Scales 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Neglecting/Distancing (ND) ....................................................165 Indulgent/Permissive (IP) .......................................................169 Quality Time (QT)...................................................................173 Parental Influence (PI)............................................................177 Child Monitoring (CM).............................................................181 Consistent Discipline (CD)......................................................185 Inconsistent Discipline (ID) .....................................................189 Harsh Discipline (HD) .............................................................193 Positive Reinforcement (PO) ..................................................197 Encourages Independence (EI)..............................................201 Inductive Reasoning (IR) ........................................................203 Easily Coerced (EC) ...............................................................207 Intrusive (NT)..........................................................................209 Stimulates Cognitive Development (SC) ................................213 Sensitive/Child-Centered (CC) ...............................................217

IV.

Problem-Solving Scales A. B. Introduction to Problem-Solving Scales..........................................223 Individual Problem-Solving Scales .................................................225 1. 2. 3. 4. Solution Quantity (SN)............................................................227 Solution Quality (SQ)..............................................................235 Effective Process (EF)............................................................239 Disruptive Process (DS) .........................................................243

Rating Scales 1 1998

iii

5. C.

Negotiation/Compromise (NC) ...............................................247

Group Problem-Solving Scales ......................................................251 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Family Enjoyment (FE) ...........................................................253 Agreement on Problem Description (AP)................................257 Agreement on Solution (AS)...................................................259 Implementation Commitment (IC)...........................................261 Problem Difficulty (PD) ...........................................................265

References ............................................................................................269 Appendix A. Mechanics of Coding Summary.......................................271 Appendix B. Summary of Scale Revisions...........................................275 Appendix C. Scales Formerly Used .....................................................281 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Introduction to Appendix C .....................................................283 Physical Movement (PM)........................................................285 Facial Movement (FM) ...........................................................287 Internalized Negative (IN).......................................................289 Escalate Negative (EN) ......................................................... 293 Escalate Positive (EP) ............................................................295 Intellectual Skills (IS) ..............................................................297 Guilty Coercion (GC) ..............................................................299 Verbally Involved (VI) .............................................................303 Body Toward (BT) ..................................................................305 Body Away (BA) .....................................................................307 Transactional Conflict (TC).....................................................309 Transactional Positive (TP) ....................................................313 Group Disorganization (GD) ...................................................315 Environmental Organization (EO)...........................................317 Environmental Attractiveness (EA).........................................319 Picture Quality (PQ) ...............................................................321 Seating Order (SO) ................................................................323

Appendix D. Circle Diagram .................................................................325

Rating Scales 1 1998

iv

Rating Scales 1 1998

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This edition is the fifth revision of The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1993). The initial coding manual borrowed heavily from the work of many investigators. It was adapted primarily from the Global Coding Scale developed by Hetherington and Clingempeel with significant modifications and revisions based upon experience coding families living in Iowa, as well as a review of the content of other coding systems. The other coding systems that most strongly influenced the first three editions were: the Social Interaction Scoring System by Conger (1971); Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System (Gottman, 1987); Family Process Code (FPC) developed at the Oregon Social Learning Center (Dishion et. al., 1987); Interactional Dimensions Coding System prepared at the University of Denver by Julien, Markman, Lindahl, Johnson, and Van Widenfelt (1987); Living in Family Environments (LIFE) Coding System from the Oregon Research Institute (Hops et. al., 1987); and the Parent Adolescent Negotiation Interaction Code (PANIC) by Forgatch and Wieder (1981). Complete citations for these systems are included in the reference list at the end of this manual. For the immediately proceeding and significantly revised fourth edition of The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (1993), we drew from our own experiences using past revisions of the coding manual and from Observing Emotional Communication, a revision of the SPAFF Manual (Gottman, 1989) prepared at the Oregon Social Learning Center by Forgatch, Ryan, Friediman, and Luks (1992). We also switched from a 5-point to a 9-point scale. In this fifth edition we draw primarily on our own experiences during the most recent five years in training observers to apply these scales to numerous interactions among various combinations of family members and friendship pairs. Although labeled as family rating scales, these scales have been used effectively at our research site and at other sites to code behaviors of non-family groups (e.g., friend pairs, patients and caregivers). Most recently, these scales have been adapted for use in coding behaviors of young children by including descriptions of particularly characteristic behaviors identified by Laura Scaramella, Jan Melby, Shauna Rogers and Barbi Greenlaw. We added three new parenting scales, adapted from Qualitiative Ratings: Parent/Child Interaction at 24-36 Months of Age (Cox, 1997). The information especially relevant to coding behaviors of parents and young children in activity-based tasks is presented in italicized type. Included in an appendix are definitions for behavioral scales contained in previous editions but not currently in use. Some of these scales could be of use in future observational research endeavors. Information on past use of this instrument is summarized in Melby and Conger (in press) and Lorenz and Melby (1996). Particularly significant contributions for the first edition were made by Dan Repinski in development of the Parenting Scales and by Martha Rueter and Laura Lucy in revisions of the Problem-Solving Scales. Appreciation is expressed to Shauna Rogers and Barbara Rogers for contributions to the revision of this fifth edition, to the current and past cadre of over 90 observers for their helpful insights, and to Sylvia Summers, Arlis Penner, and Pita Petrus for typing revisions for this latest edition.

Rating Scales 1 1998

vi

Rating Scales 1 1998

vii

IOWA FAMILY INTERACTION RATING SCALES AT A GLANCE * Individual Characteristic Scales PA HU SD AX WC EX PM DF CP RR Physically Attractive Humor/Laugh Sadness Anxiety Whine/Complain Externalized Negative Positive Mood Defiance Compliance Rater Response Group Interaction Scales GE Group Enjoyment

Parenting Scales ND IP QT PI CM CD ID HD PO EI IR EC NT SC CC Neglecting/Distancing Indulgent/Permissive Quality Time Parental Influence Child Monitoring Consistent Discipline Inconsistent Discipline Harsh Discipline Positive Reinforcement Encourages Independence Inductive Reasoning Easily Coerced Intrusive Stimulates Cognitive Development Sensitive/Child-Centered

Dyadic Interaction Scales HS VA AT CT AC EH RH DO LM IT DE WM ED AF EW RW AR LR CO PR AN AV Hostility Verbal Attack Physical Attack Contempt Angry Coercion Escalate Hostile Reciprocate Hostile Dominance Lecture/Moralize Interrogation Denial Warmth/Support Endearment Physical Affection Escalate Warmth/Support Reciprocate Warmth/Support Assertiveness Listener Responsiveness Communication Prosocial Antisocial Avoidant

Individual Problem-Solving Scales SN SQ EF DS NC Solution Quantity Solution Quality Effective Process Disruptive Process Negotiation/Compromise

Group Problem-Solving Scales FE AP AS IC PD Family Enjoyment Agreement on Problem Description Agreement on Solution Implementation Commitment Problem Difficulty

Dyadic Relationship Scales SP Silence/Pause RQ Relationship Quality * Note: scales and information especially relevant to coding behaviors of parents and young children in activity-based tasks are presented in italicized type.
Rating Scales 1 1998

viii

Rating Scales 1 1998

ix

TERMS FREQUENTLY USED IN THE CODING MANUAL 1. Affect: the vocal tone and emotional expression (facial and body) that accompany verbal behavior and convey the focals feelings and emotional state; considered to be part of the focals nonverbal behavior. Coding: the act of measuring or quantifying individual, dyadic, or group behavior into discrete symbols or a series of digits (synonymous with the term rating). Focal: the person whose behavior is being observed and coded (rated) by the observer. The focal will vary depending upon the phase in observing the interaction task. General Scales: scales used to assess the behaviors of group members in all task settings. Scales are of four levels: Individual Characteristic Scales, Dyadic Interaction Scales, Dyadic Relationship Scales, and Group Interaction Scales. a. Individual Characteristic Scales: behavior scales that describe the general mood or state of being of a person regardless of with whom that person is interacting. Dyadic Interaction Scales: behavior scales designed to assess the behavior directed by one person toward another person in an interaction context. Dyadic Relationship Scales: behavior scales designed to assess the relationship between two interactors. Both persons receive the same score. These scales assess characteristics of a dyads relationship rather than behaviors of individuals. Group Interaction Scales: behavior scales designed to assess the nature of the interaction of the group being observed as a whole.

2.

3.

4.

b.

c.

d.

5. 6.

Interactor(s): the person(s) with whom the focal talks or interacts during the task. Interaction Task: the type of semi-structured situation in which study participants are asked to discuss various topics. Tasks vary in length (15, 20, 25, or 30 minutes), number of people present (2, 3, or 4 people), nature of the discussion (general topics, problem-solving topics, parenting topics), and relationship of participants (friend pairs, married couples, or parent(s) and child(ren)). Nonverbal Behavior: behaviors associated with how something is said as well as to all physical movements, including movements that accompany verbal messages. Examples are voice tone, body posture, gestures, facial expressions, etc. Operational Definition: the specific meaning assigned to each behavioral category (scale) in this manual for purposes of this coding system. Parenting Scales: a series of behavioral scales used specifically to assess the nature of the adults interaction, as a parent, with his/her child. Inference may be made about parental behavior outside the task situation from comments made during
Rating Scales 1 1998

7.

8.

9.

the structured interaction task. For example, the rating for Child Monitoring is based both on observed task interactions and on family discussions about what normally happens at home. Consideration is given to information about parental behavior provided by adults and children. 10. Primary Coder: the observer who independently scores group interactions and individual behaviors and whose scores become part of the final data set to be used for statistical analyses. 11. Problem-Solving Scales: scales designed to assess the effectiveness of the individual/group in resolving areas of conflict or disagreement among the interactors present in the task. Scales are of two types: Individual Problem-Solving Scales and Group Problem-Solving Scales. a. Individual Problem-Solving Scales: scales that describe the effectiveness of the specific individual in resolving areas of conflict or disagreement. Group Problem-Solving Scales: scales that describe the nature of problemsolving interactions in the group as a whole rather than a specific individual or dyad.

b.

12. Reliability Coder: the second observer who independently scores group interactions and individual behaviors, in addition to the primary coder, and whose scores are used to determine the degree of interobserver agreement by comparing them with the primary coders scores. 13. Scale: the name or label given to a particular set of behaviors or characteristics that vary along a continuum (e.g., from 1 to 9) (synonymous with category or behavioral code). 14. Verbal Behavior: the content of what a person says.

Rating Scales 1 1998

xi

IOWA FAMILY INTERACTION RATING SCALES Abbreviated Operational Scale Definitions I. General Interaction Rating Scales A. Individual Characteristic Scales 1. Physically Attractive (PA): the observers subjective assessment of the focals physical appearance (excluding personality). Humor/Laugh (HU): display of good-natured, non-sarcastic, lighthearted behaviors (e.g., laughter, joking, etc.) that help lighten the interaction. Sadness (SD): emotional distress expressed as despondence, unhappiness, sadness, depression and regret. Anxiety (AX): emotional distress expressed as nervousness, fear, tension, stress, worry, and concern. Whine/Complain (WC): dissatisfaction expressed through whining and complaining that conveys the sense of innocent victim and poor me. Externalized Negative (EX): negativity expressed in the form of anger, hostility, or criticisms regarding people, events, or things outside the immediate setting. Positive Mood (PM): expressions of contentment, happiness, and optimism toward self, others, or things in general. Defiance (DF): actively resisting, ignoring, and/or disobeying parental requests and directives. Compliance (CP): extent to which child obeys and cooperates with parents requests and directives.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Rater Response (RR): the coders (raters) subjective reaction to or emotional feelings (from negative to positive) regarding the focal. B. Dyadic Interaction Scales 1. Hostility (HS): the extent to which hostile, angry, critical, disapproving rejecting or contemptuous behavior is directed toward another interactors behavior (actions), appearance, or personal characteristics. Also includes behaviors coded #2 through #7 below. Verbal Attack (VA): personalized and unqualified disapproval of another interactors personal characteristics; criticism of a global and enduring nature.
Rating Scales 1 1998

2.

xii

3.

Physical Attack (AT): aversive physical contact, including hitting, pinching, grabbing, etc. Contempt (CT): a specific form of hostility characterized by disgust, disdain, or scorn of another interactor. Angry Coercion (AC): control attempts that include hostile, contemptuous, threatening, or blaming behavior. Escalate Hostile (EH): building onto ones own hostile behaviors toward another interactor. Reciprocate Hostile (RH): extent to which the focal reciprocates in like manner the hostility of another interactor. Dominance (DO): attempts and successful demonstrations of control or influence (either positive or negative) of another interactor and/or the situation. Lecture/Moralize (LM): telling another interactor how to think, feel, etc., in a way that assumes the focal is the expert and/or has superior wisdom; at high levels may provide little opportunity for the other interactor to respond, initiate, or think independently.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Interrogation (IT): using questions designed to elicit specific information or to make a point, rather than to invite comment. 11. Denial (DE): active rejection of the existence of or personal responsibility for a past or present situation for which one actually is responsible or shares responsibility. 12. Warmth/Support (WM): expressions of care, concern, support, or encouragement toward another interactor. Also includes behaviors coded #13 through #16 below. 13. Endearment (ED): personalized and unqualified approval of another interactors personal characteristics; approval of a global and enduring nature. 14. Physical Affection caresses, and pats. (AF): affectionate physical contact such as hugs,

15. Escalate Warmth/Support (EW): building onto ones own warm/supportive behaviors toward another interactor. 16. Reciprocate Warmth/Support (RW): extent to which the focal reciprocates in like manner the warmth/support of another interactor. 17. Assertiveness (AR): the focals ability, when speaking, to express self through clear, appropriate, neutral and/or positive avenues using an open, straightforward, self-confident, non-threatening and non-defensive style.
Rating Scales 1 1998

xiii

18. Listener Responsiveness (LR): the focals nonverbal and verbal responsiveness as a listener to the verbalizations of the other interactor through behaviors that validate and indicate attentiveness to the speaker. 19. Communication (CO): the speakers ability to neutrally or positively express his/her own point of view, needs, wants, etc., in a clear, appropriate, and reasonable manner, and to demonstrate consideration of the other interactors point of view. The good communicator promotes rather than inhibits exchange of information. 20. Prosocial (PR): demonstrations of helpfulness, sensitivity toward others, cooperation, sympathy, and respectfulness toward others in an ageappropriate manner. Reflects a level of maturity appropriate to ones age. 21. Antisocial (AN): demonstrations of self-centered, egocentric, acting out, and out-of-control behavior that show defiance, active resistance, insensitivity toward others, or lack of constraint. Reflects immaturity and ageinappropriate behaviors. 22. Avoidant (AV): the extent to which the focal physically orients self away from another interactor in such a manner as to avoid interaction. C. Dyadic Relationship Scales 1. Silence/Pause (SP): the presence in the dyad of tense or uncomfortable gaps in the flow of conversation. Relationship Quality (RQ): the observers evaluation of the quality of the dyads relationship from poor (1) to good (9).

2.

D.

Group Interaction Scales 1. Group Enjoyment (GE): extent of enjoyment, pleasure, fun, and/or satisfaction evident in the groups interaction.

II. SPECIALITY SCALES A. Parenting Scales* 1. Neglecting/Distancing (ND): the degree to which the parent minimizes the amount of time, contact, or effort he/she expends on the child; ignoring or psychological/physical distancing in the interaction situation.
*Note: The Parenting Scales are the only scales that include both reported and observed behaviors. For example, type of discipline is coded from parental behavior during the task as well as from statements by family members about what kind of discipline normally occurs in the home.

Rating Scales 1 1998

xiv

2.

Indulgent/Permissive (IP): the degree to which the parent is excessively lenient and tolerant of the childs misbehavior or has given up attempts to control the child; a laissez faire or a defeated attitude by the parent regarding the childs behavior. Quality Time (QT): the extent of the parents regular involvement with the child in settings that promote opportunities for conversation, companionship, and mutual enjoyment. Parental Influence (PI): the parents direct and indirect attempts to influence, regulate or control the childs life according to commonly-accepted, ageappropriate standards. Child Monitoring (CM): the extent of the parents specific knowledge and information concerning the childs life and daily activities. Indicates the extent to which the parent accurately tracks the behaviors, activities, and social involvements of the child. Consistent Discipline (CD): the degree of consistency and persistence with which the parent maintains and adheres to rules and standards of conduct for the childs behavior. Inconsistent Discipline (ID): the degree of parental inconsistency and lack of follow-through in maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct for the childs behavior. Harsh Discipline (HD): the extent to which the parent responds to the childs misbehavior or violation of specific parental standards through the use of punitive or severe disciplinary techniques, either verbal, e.g., yelling and screaming, or physical, e.g., hitting or punching. Positive Reinforcement (PO): the extent to which the parent responds positively to the childs appropriate behavior or behavior that meets specific parental standards.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Encourages Independence (EI): parental demonstrations of trust in and encouragement of the childs independence in thought and actions. 11. Inductive Reasoning (IR): the extent to which the parent encourages the child, in a neutral or positive manner, to understand possible consequences of the childs behavior, seeks voluntary compliance, avoids the use of power assertion, and uses reasoning to encourage the child to consider the feelings of others. 12. Easily Coerced (EC): the extent to which the parent is overwhelmed or intimidated by the child; the childs demonstrated ability to manipulate or control the parent through angry or guilty coercion.

Rating Scales 1 1998

xv

13. Intrusive (NT): the extent to which the parent is domineering and overcontrolling during interactions with their child; parents behavior is adultcentered rather than child-centered. 14. Stimulates Cognitive Development (SC): parents use of activities to foster and enhance childs thinking, achievement, and learning in areas of perceptual, cognitive, and linguistic development. 15. Sensitive/Child-Centered (CC): parents responses to child are appropriate and based on childs behavior and speech; they offer the right mix of support and independence so child can experience mastery, success, pride, and develop effective self-regulatory skills. B. Individual Problem-Solving Scales 1. Solution Quantity (SN): the number of specific proposals/ideas suggested that present an action or change in behavior as a means for reaching a goal or solving a problem. Solution Quality (SQ): the degree to which proposed solutions are reasonable, realistic, potentially beneficial, specific, feasible, contingent, nonexploitive, seriously offered, or achievable. Effective Process (EF): behavior that actively assists the general problemsolving process. Disruptive Process (DS): behavior that actively hinders or obstructs the problem-solving process. Negotiation/Compromise (NC): willingness to settle differences, or to help others settle differences, by arbitration or consent reached by mutual concessions.

2.

3. 4. 5.

C.

Group Problem-Solving Scales 1. 2. Family Enjoyment (FE): the degree of pleasure, fun, and/or satisfaction the whole family or group displays during the problem-solving process. Agreement on Problem Description (AP): the extent to which the interactors reached mutual agreement/consensus on the description of the problem to be scored during the problem-solving interaction task. Agreement on Solution (AS): the extent to which the interactors resolved and/or reached agreement on a solution to a problem. Implementation Commitment (IC): the extent of the interactors commitment to a plan to accomplish or carry out an agreed-upon solution. Problem Difficulty (PD): the difficulty (magnitude, persistence and/or intensity) of the problem the interactors attempted to solve during the problem-solving task in light of situational factors identified during the course of the discussion.
Rating Scales 1 1998

3. 4. 5.

xvi

Rating Scales 1 1998

17

Rating Scales 1 1998

OVERVIEW IOWA BEHAVIORAL INTERACTION RATING SCALES 5th Edition General Coding Scheme Level 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= 8= 9= Description Not at all characteristic Minimally characteristic Somewhat characteristic Moderately characteristic Mainly characteristic Frequency Never; no firm evidence Rarely; infrequently Sometimes; occasionally Fairly often; moderately Freq.; consistently; considerable Subjective Scales PA RR Intensity None Low Low or moderate Low, moderate or fairly high Low, mod., fairly high or high Consider Behavior of Other to Focal HU RH DO RW

Exceptions to General Scheme PA RR LR CO RQ SN SQ AP AS IC PD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Scheme for CO and LR = Rarely or never = = Occasionally or seldom = = Intermittently (midpoint) = = Fairly often = = Frequently

Related Scales RH EH CT EW RW AT VA AC ED AF 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= 8= 9=

Scheme for RR & RQ Poor/Low Somewhat low Av. (neutral/mixed) Somewhat high Good/High Involve Counts SN FE AP PD AS GE IC Frequency of Primary Importance

----> HS ----> AN

----> WM ----> PR

Restricted Scales (7,8 or 9 7,8 or 9) AC AR PR AN CD ID LR AV WC AC DF CP NT CC HS AT VA AC CT

Sequential Behaviors HS CT AT VA AC WM ED AF Relevance of Intensity Moderate

> EH

WM ED AF

> EW

Reciprocated Behaviors HS CT > RH following AT VA AC WM ED AF

following

> RW

Low HU EH RH EW RW LR SN AP AS IC DF CP EX LM IT

High VA AT CT AC WM ED AF SP ND IP HD EC NT SC CC SQ DS PD

DE AR CO PR AN

AV RQ GE QT PI

CM ID PO EI IR

EF FE NC

SD AX WC PM HS

IT LR EH AV

RH SN RW EW 273

274

INTRODUCTION TO THE IOWA FAMILY INTERACTION RATING SCALES

Rating Scales 1 1998

Rating Scales 1 1998

OVERVIEW When people interact with each other they communicate through what they say, as well as through their tone of voice, facial expression, eye contact, and body position. All of these aspects combine to influence the messages relayed. The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales are designed to measure behavioral characteristics of individuals and the quality of behavioral exchanges between group members occurring in interaction settings of two, three, or four people. The scales are intended to tap both verbal and nonverbal behaviors, as well as affective and contextual dimensions of interaction. This macrocoding system includes a total of 60 scales: 30 scales are general scales used to describe behaviors or characteristics of adults and children, plus 2 scales used only for scoring behaviors of young children; 2 scales measure characteristics of dyads; 1 scale assesses group interaction; 15 scales rate parenting behavior and are used specifically for scoring behavior of adults in tasks that involve adults and children (3 of these are used only for scoring parents of young children); 10 scales describe problem-solving behaviors and are used for scoring behaviors of adults and children that occur during a problemsolving task. Four general types or levels of behavior are rated: (1) Individual Characteristic Scales (such as Humor/Laugh and Sadness) assess the general characteristics or traits of the individual being observed (the focal) and do not include the designation of a recipient; (2) Dyadic Interaction Scales (such as Hostility and Warmth/Support, as well as the Parenting Scales such as Consistent Discipline and Quality Time), assess the behavior of the focal toward a specific interactor; (3) Dyadic Relationship Scales (such as Relationship Quality) measure some characteristic of the relationship between two interactors and each dyad receives a single score; (4) Group Scales (such as Group Enjoyment and Agreement on Solution) assess characteristics of the group as a whole, and regardless of the number of interactors present, the group receives a single score.

EXPLANATION OF RATING SCALE DESCRIPTIONS In the descriptions of the rating scales that are presented in this manual, the following format will be used for defining each scale: A. Name and abbreviation of scale: The scale name indicates the word or combination of words by which a scale is regularly known. The abbreviation is a two-letter referent that stands for the scale and is used on coding forms. Rate: This indicates who is to be rated for a particular scale. Not all scales are rated for all participants. The term All indicates that all participants are coded while Parent indicates that only parents or caregivers are coded. The terms Group, Dyadic Interaction, Dyadic Relationship, and Individual Characteristic refer to the level(s) of interaction to be coded. Individual Characteristic scales involve a score for each person to be coded but the behavior does not include the designation of a recipient. Dyadic Interaction scales are those which involve both a sender and recipient, Dyadic
Rating Scales 1 1998

B.

Relationship scales are scores for the dyad as a unit, and Group scales are scored for the interaction unit as a whole (i.e., all participants as a group). C. Definition of scales: This section includes the scale definition and descriptions of code or score levels 1 through 9. Clarifications: This section provides further definition of the scale and information concerning differentiation between the scale levels and among related scales. It provides instructions for coding specific rating scales and lists descriptors to help identify (1) the low and high extremes of the scales being rated, and (2) the different ways that adults and children may display the same behavior. The descriptors are not intended to be exhaustive representations of the behavior being expressed. They are merely GUIDELINES to help in identifying the different levels of a particular behavior and should always be interpreted in light of the definition of the scale. Examples: Some scales include examples to illustrate the use of the code. In addition, many scales indicate nonexamples of the behavior.

D.

E.

MECHANICS OF CODING* A. Code observed behaviors: Unless otherwise indicated (the only exceptions are the Parenting Scales), code only the behaviors you see. Do not try to read in reasons or motivation for what is happening or how the individual is behaving. Do not code based upon what people say occurs outside the task situation. Code only the behaviors actually displayed during the task. Scoring considerations: Determine the rating for each scale by considering five pieces of information: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. frequency of the behavior intensity of the behavior affective (emotional) tone of the behavior context in which the behavior occurs proportion of interaction during which the behavior is displayed

B.

Also consider frequency, intensity, affect, and proportion and context when determining distinctions between the different levels of a given rating scale. C. Frequency: In this coding system, frequency refers to the quantitative dimension of the behaviors. The number of times a behavior occurs is of key importance in determining frequency. If frequency is considered of key importance, the scale could not be scored at a 7, 8 or 9 level based on only one occurrence of the behavior. Although frequency is important for most scales, it is of primary importance for the following scales: 1. Escalate Hostile (EH)

*Information in the Mechanics of Coding section is summarized in Appendix A

Rating Scales 1 1998

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. D.

Escalate Warmth/Support (EW) Listener Responsiveness (LR) Reciprocate Hostile (RH) Reciprocate Warmth/Support (RW) Interrogation (IT) Solution Quantity (SN) Avoidant (AV)

Intensity: In this coding system, intensity refers to the qualitative dimension of the behaviors. Affect is a very important component of intensity (see E below), but intensity can also be thought of as the strength or forcefulness of a behavior. For some scales, even one very intense occurrence of the behavior can be coded at a 7, 8 or 9 level. The following list indicates the relative importance of intensity in determining the appropriate rating for each scale: 1. Intensity Low in Relevance a. General Scales (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) b. Humor/Laugh (HU) Escalate Hostile (EH)* Escalate Warmth/Support (EW)* Dominance (DO) Listener Responsiveness (LR) Reciprocate Hostile (RH)* Reciprocate Warmth/Support (RW)*

Problem-Solving Scales (1) (2) (3) (4) Solution Quantity (SN) Agreement on Problem Description (AP) Agreement on Solution (AS) Implementation Commitment (IC)

2.

Intensity Moderately Relevant a. General Scales (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Externalized Negative (EX) Lecture/Moralize (LM) Interrogation (IT) Denial (DE) Defiance (DF) Compliance (CP) Assertiveness (AR) Communication (CO) Prosocial (PR) Antisocial (AN) Relationship Quality (RQ) Avoidant (AV)

*Intensity is important for determining the individual behaviors that are a part of these scales, but these scales rely more on frequency to move to high levels.
Rating Scales 1 1998

b. Group Scales (1) c. Group Enjoyment (GE)

Parenting Scales (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Quality Time (QT) Parental Influence (PI) Consistent Discipline (CD) Inconsistent Discipline (ID) Positive Reinforcement (PO) Encourages Independence (EI) Child Monitoring (CM) Inductive Reasoning (IR)

d.

Problem-Solving Scales (1) (2) (3) Effective Process (EF) Negotiation/Compromise (NC) Family Enjoyment (FE)

3.

Intensity Highly Relevant a. General Scales (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) b. Sadness (SD) Anxiety (AX) Whine/Complain (WC) Positive Mood (PM) Defiance (DF) Hostility (HS) Verbal Attack (VA) Physical Attack (AT) Contempt (CT) Angry Coercion (AC) Warmth/Support (WM) Endearment (ED) Physical Affection (AF) Silence/Pause (SP)

Parenting Scales (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Neglecting/Distancing (ND) Indulgent Permissive (IP) Harsh Discipline (HD) Easily Coerced (EC) Intrusive (NT)

Rating Scales 1 1998

c.

Problem-Solving Scales (1) (2) (3) Solution Quality (SQ) Disruptive Process (DS) Problem Difficulty (PD)

E.

Affect: This behavioral rating scheme places strong emphasis on the role of emotional affect in determining scales and scale levels. Affect refers to the way a message is conveyed rather than the verbal content of the message. See pp. 15-17 for a more extensive discussion of the role of affect in this rating scheme. Context: In this coding system, context refers to the circumstances, events, and situations surrounding the behaviors that help to explain and give meaning to the behaviors. Context includes such things as the timing of behaviors and the behaviors immediately preceding or following a specific act. For example, questions asked as part of an exchange of information will increase the score for Communication while questions that appear to be asked simply to make a point or to belittle the opinions of another will increase the score for Interrogation. Proportion: The proportion of total interaction represented by a particular behavior is an important consideration, but should be weighed slightly less than affect, frequency, intensity, and context. For example, if a person speaks infrequently but almost all of his or her verbalizations are hostile, rate higher on Hostility because of the high proportion of hostile comments even in the face of their fairly low frequency. Ask whether or not the occurrence of a behavior is high, compared to the total frequency of other behaviors. Think about how a particular behavior characterizes the interaction. General coding scheme: The general scheme to use in determining the appropriate code level for most behavioral scales is based on a 1 to 9 scale. In this scheme, if the behavior does not occur, score 1; if the behavior does occur, select the appropriate level (from 2 to 9) to indicate how characteristic the behavior is of the individual, dyad, or group being observed: Code 1 = Not at all characteristic: Score 1 if the behavior does not occur or if you have a general feeling that the behavior occurred but cannot describe a specific instance or example of the behavior. No concrete or discernible evidence of the behavior exists. Code 2 = More than a 1, but not quite a 3. Slight evidence, extremely brief or fleeting. Score is grudgingly given. (Note: do not give a 2 if you are unsure whether or not to count a particular behavior). Code 3 = Minimally characteristic: Score 3 if the behavior almost never (rarely or infrequently) occurs or occurs just once and is of low intensity (minimal evidence, rarely, some evidence). You must be able to describe a specific example of the behavior. If you are not certain that a behavior qualifies for inclusion in the scale, score 1. For a score of 3 there must be definite evidence of the behavior.
Rating Scales 1 1998

F.

G.

H.

Code 4 = More than a 3, but not quite a 5. Code 5 = Somewhat characteristic: Score 5 if the behavior sometimes (occasionally) occurs and is at a low or moderate level of intensity. At this level the behavior occurs more frequently for low-intensity behaviors, but may occur less frequently for behaviors of moderate intensity. There is occasional evidence of the behavior. Code 6 = More than a 5, but not quite a 7. Code 7 = Moderately characteristic: Score a 7 if the behavior occurs fairly consistently or is of elevated intensity. Intensity may be at a low or moderate level for behaviors occurring fairly often or at a fairly high level for behaviors occurring less frequently. There is fairly high or more extreme evidence of the behavior. Code 8 = More than a 7, but not quite a 9. Code 9 = Mainly characteristic: Score a 9 if the behavior occurs frequently or with significant intensity (considerable evidence, consistently). Use this level for behaviors of low or moderate intensity that occur frequently or for rare behaviors of high intensity. There is considerable or high evidence of the behavior. Note: You will rarely see all the descriptors for a scale; all of them dont have to be present to score a 9. I. Score distribution: The general coding scheme, in terms of distributions on a bell curve, should be thought of as shown below:

midpoint

1 2 unchar rather than:

3 4 5 6 min some char char midpoint

7 8 9 9+ mod main char char

Rating Scales 1 1998

Think of the 1 and the 9 as the two anchors for the scoring system. At a 1 level there is no concrete evidence of the behavior; at a 9 level such evidence is considerable. For varying degrees of behaviors, select the appropriate level from 2 to 9. Notice that the midpoint of the distribution is between a 5 and a 6 rather than at 5. In addition, the 9 category can be thought of as ranging from low to high. For example, a 9 on Sadness does not include only clinically depressed people; such a case would be an example of an extreme 9 (i.e., a 9+) on Sadness. Caution: Remember to start at a 1 until you see examples of a behavior even though the midpoint on this general scheme (the first bell curve shown) is between a 5 and a 6. Do not start off with the assumption that the focal is at the midpoint. J.
Equal interval scale: In coding, consider each of the categories above 1 (2 through 9) to be intervals of approximately equal size. One category does not necessarily capture a broader range of behavior than another, except in the case of a score of 9 which captures frequent and very frequent. Do not use categories 5 or 6 as default categories when you are unsure about what to code. Relationship to previous scheme: The first three editions (1989, 1990, 1991) used a 1 to 5 coding scheme. The 9-point scheme was introduced in the fourth edition (1993). The relationship between the former five-point system and the current ninepoint system should be thought of in the following manner:

K.

1.

The definitions for each of the major levels remain exactly the same, except the numbering system has changed (1 = 1, 2 = 3, 3 = 5, 4 = 7, and 5 = 9). The between levels at this time will be undefined (i.e., 2, 4, 6, and 8), but should be thought of as falling between the five defined levels. If the behavior previously was thought of as a solid 2, now assign a score of 3. Follow this procedure for each of the scale relationships identified above. As before, concrete evidence is needed to move from a 1 to a 2. However, with the new system an old solid 2 is scored as a 3 and an old grudging 2 is now scored as a 2. If the score previously fell between a 2 and a 3, it would now be between a 3 and a 5. This means that a score of 4 is appropriate and should be used. Follow this procedure for each of the scale relationships from 2 through 9 identified above. The between levels may be used in an over-lapping manner. For example, a 6 represents the score between the former 3 and 4 levels (now 5 and 7). The 6 level could be identified as capturing both a high 3 or a low 4 in the former system. A 5 will capture an old solid 3 and a 7 will capture an old solid 4.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Rating Scales 1 1998

10

7.

The relationship between the old and the new numbering system can be thought of as: old: new: 1
11 2 2

2
3 3 4

3 4 5 5 6

4 67 78

5
9 8 9+ 9

9+

midpoint
frequency: intensity:
no no low low low/mod mod/low low/mod/fairly-high fairly-high/mod/low low/mod/high high/fairly-high/low,mod

8.

A summary of scale revisions, including the addition and deletion of rating scales, is presented in Appendix B; definitions for formerly used scales appear in Appendix C.

L.

Code actual behavior: Remember to code only what you observe. Do not make assumptions like, Oh, theyre just acting like that or saying that because of the camera. Code what you see and hear, not the possible causes of what you see and hear. When in doubt rule: As a general rule, if debating between assigning a score of 1 or 2, code down. On the other hand, if debating between assigning a score between scores of 2 or higher, (i.e., 2 or 3, between 3 or 4, etc.) code up. In other words, if you are unsure whether the score is a 1 or a 2, code a 1. However, if you are unsure whether a behavior is a 2 or a 3, score a 3; if you are unclear whether a behavior is a 6 or a 7, score a 7, etc. (See O below for an exception to this rule). Exceptions: Listed below are scales that are coded using levels that are exceptions to the code level definitions (1 - 9) described in the general scheme in Section H on pages 6 and 7. In the section of this manual containing descriptions of scales, any such exceptions are indicated with a double asterisk (**) beside the scale name. These scales include:

M.

N.

1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Physically Attractive Rater Response Seating Order Relationship Quality Listener Responsiveness Communication Solution Quantity Solution Quality Agreement on Problem Description Agreement on Solution Implementation Commitment Problem Difficulty

Rating Scales 1 1998

11

O.

Scores with 5 as neutral or mixed: There are some scales for which 1 = negative, 5 = neutral or mixed, and 9 = positive (e.g., Relationship Quality; Rater Response). For these scales, if in doubt between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, or 4 and 5, code down; conversely, if in doubt between 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, or 8 and 9, code up. In other words, score toward the ends of the scale. Plus scales: Two scales are exceptions to the general scheme because they allow a 1 level to be used to indicate rarely or never. These scales are Communication and Listener Responsiveness. They are frequently referred to as plus scales and 5 is considered the midpoint. Subjective scales: Observers should objectively assess behaviors using the definitions and clarifications specified for each scale. The only scales that explicitly allow for the observers subjective judgments are Physically Attractive and Rater Response. Groups larger than two: Strategies to use when assessing a dyad in a group larger than two:

P.

Q.

R.

1.

Rate only the behaviors observed, not the abilities you think the individuals possess. When there is little conversation between members of a dyad, note the physical orientation and nonverbal behaviors of the relevant members, (i.e., head nods, nonverbal assents, looks at the other, etc.). a. b. c. When these behaviors are absent, rate a 1. When these nonverbal behaviors are present without any verbal interchange, rate a 2 or higher. When there is some verbal interchange, rate the behavior on quality and frequency as in interactions with only two participants.

2.

3.

Comments directed to the group as a whole should be considered in arriving at final scores for dyads in which there is little or no specific conversation between the two dyad members.

S.

Relevance of age: Take the age of the focal into consideration only when scoring for Prosocial and Antisocial. Importance of nonverbal cues: Consider both verbal and nonverbal cues when coding behaviors. In determining the score for a particular behavior when the verbal content appears to conflict with the nonverbal contents, give more weight to the nonverbal cues (i.e., tone of voice, gestures, facial expression, etc.). Nonverbal behavior (including affect) carries more weight than verbal content. Unclear or ambiguous behaviors: When it is impossible to determine whether a particular behavior (such as a physical contact) is positive or negative, or when unclear messages are delivered (such as a possible compliment delivered in what could be a negative manner, but you are unsure), do not code as either positive or negative. Do not code unclear or ambiguous behaviors.
Rating Scales 1 1998

T.

U.

12

V.

Not mutually exclusive: The scales that comprise the coding system are not mutually exclusive. Cues used to rate one dimension (e.g., Hostility), may also be used to code other dimensions (e.g., Lecture/Moralize). (See Appendix D). Related and restricted scales: In general, each scale is rated independently from all other scales. However, please note the following exceptions:

W.

1.

Required relationships: a. Scores of 2 or higher on Verbal Attack, Physical Attack, Contempt, Angry Coercion, Reciprocate Hostile, or Escalate Hostile necessitate assigning a score of at least a 2 on Hostility. Scores of 2 or higher on Hostility necessitate a score of at least a 2 on Antisocial. Scores of 2 or higher on Endearment, Physical Affection, Reciprocate Warmth/Support, or Escalate Warmth/Support necessitate assigning a score of at least a 2 on Warmth/Support. Scores of 2 or higher on Warmth/Support necessitate a score of at least a 2 on Prosocial.

b.

c.

d.

2.

Restricted relationships: a. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both Assertiveness and Angry Coercion. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both Prosocial and Antisocial. If one scale is scored a 7 8, 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both Consistent Discipline and Inconsistent Discipline. If one scale is scored a 7, 8 or a 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both Listener Responsiveness and Avoidant. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6.
It is not possible to rate a parent high on both Intrusive and Sensitive/Child-Centered. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. It is not possible to rate a young child high on both Compliance and Defiance. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Rating Scales 1 1998

13

3.

Sequential relationships for behavior of one person toward another interactor: a. Score a 2 or higher on Escalate Hostile for chains of any forms of Hostility from the focal to another interactor. Score a 2 or higher on Escalate Warmth/Support for chains of any form of Warmth/Support behavior from the focal to another interactor.

b.

4.

Reciprocal relationships for behavior between two interactors: a. Score a 2 or higher on Reciprocate Hostile when a focal responds in like manner to any form of Hostility (i.e., including Contempt, Angry Coercion, Verbal Attack, and Physical Attack), from another interactor. Score a 2 or higher on Reciprocate Warmth when a focal responds in like manner to any form of Warmth/Support (i.e., including Endearment, Physical Affection) from another interactor.

b.

STRATEGIES FOR VIEWING TASKS

A. B.

The tape identification number will be randomly selected for each coder. A task begins when the video interviewer finishes instructions and leaves the table and a participant starts dealing with (reading, looking at, fighting over) the first card that is not a practice card for the task. In activity-based tasks, the task begins once the interviewer finishes the instructions and participants start dealing with task materials. A discussion based task ends when you or a participant hears the timer go off, or when the interviewer returns, whichever occurs first. An activity-based task ends when parent indicates task completion or the interviewer returns, whichever occurs last. If either type of task continues longer than usual, stop coding one minute past the end of the allotted task time. First, watch the assigned task for a selected family one time through without stopping the tape for a general overview of relationships and behaviors. Next, the coder should randomly select the person (focal) to be observed. Use the Flip-a-Coin technique to determine which focal you will observe first, for example: 1. Parents = Heads Mom = Heads Dad = Tails Target = Heads Sibling = Tails

C. D.

2. E.

Children = Tails

Observe each focal twice. The first time rate as many scales as possible; the second time rate the remaining scales and check for accuracy on the first scales rated. Record scores for behaviors for one focal before viewing and scoring the next focal. Record on note sheets the cues (statements or actions) which indicate the presence of a behavior. Supply enough evidence (e.g., transcribed comments, behaviors,
Rating Scales 1 1998

F.

14

times, etc.) to justify your score. These written cues will help you make decisions based on observed behavioral cues, as well as help facilitate group training sessions. G. When taking notes, use abbreviations or simply a one- or two-word descriptor to indicate the presence of a behavior. Try to avoid extensive transcribing; the abbreviations should eliminate the need to write out full comments. Since your first scores will be the most ambiguous, you may find that you will want to go back and modify scores for the first focal (or others) after you have observed the task several times. This is acceptable, but be sure changes are based on concrete evidence. Make final score decisions based on overall evidence regarding each scale. Interruptions in a task: Code interaction occurring between participants even if one is absent for a time because of an interruption such as a phone call. Code verbal and nonverbal behaviors between persons participating in the task, even if persons or events outside the task have influenced the comments. For Problem-Solving Scales, code prior to viewing the entire task. Code ProblemSolving Scales for the first problem. When the coding of Problem-Solving Scales is complete, go back to the beginning of the task and then code General Scales as outlined above. It is usually best to code Parenting Scales after coding General Scales. For the Problem-Solving Scales, code only the first problem discussed by the participants, even if only one person thinks this is a problem. If no person thinks the first problem is a problem, code the next problem discussed. If no one in the group thinks any of the selected problems are problems, do not code Problem-Solving Scales for that particular group. For activity-based tasks, code the Problem Solving Scales until the puzzle has been solved the first time or the task ends. Score Parenting Scales in a separate viewing from the viewings allowed for scoring each focal. The primary and reliability observers should not discuss a tape until the coding on that tape or task is complete. When questions about coding arise, please follow procedures for discussing these with a person designated to answer questions. It is important that questions be discussed, but we also need to be able to indicate that the data have been independently coded. When a tape is unusual for reasons such as length, quality, questions, etc., call it to the attention of a supervisor.

H.

I.

J.

K.

L. M.

N.

CODING PARENTING SCALES USING OBSERVATION AND REPORT

A.

In rating Parenting Scales, and only for Parenting Scales, you may use reports of events outside the interaction. Take into account statements made during the interaction which describe behavior by parents toward child that you did not actually observe during the interaction task. For example, family discussions about rules, behavioral expectations for the child at home and at school, and parental disciplinary practices may allow you to infer the level of scoring for some parental behavior in

Rating Scales 1 1998

15

general. Be sure to score based on actual evidence (observed or reported) and not on assumptions about behavior. When coding activity-based tasks, score primarily on behavior observed during task rather than on reports of parental behavior. B. C. When scoring based on inference from reports of behavior, score lower if in doubt. Scores for Parenting Scales must be based on observed and/or reported behaviors (i.e., from reports by adults and/or children). Do not score parenting behaviors based upon what you think probably occurs if you have no observed or reported evidence to support your score. When a parents behaviors are difficult to determine in a task involving both parents, you may have to infer from what the other parent says or from the parents response to what the other parent says or does. For example, if mother indicates certain expectations of child, the fathers response may provide information about his score on a dimension of parenting. Agreement may occur verbally or nonverbally, e.g., with a nod of the head. If it seems the parents are in agreement or disagreement, score accordingly.
Base scores for parents of young children in activity-based tasks primarily on behavior observed during the interaction task. Also consider the proportion of time spent engaging in various tasks. The length of activity-based tasks is very short compared to discussion-based tasks.

D.

E.

ADAPTATION TO CODING BEHAVIORS OF YOUNG CHILDREN A. Young children should be scored using the same basic guidelines and definitions as for other-age focals. The behavioral indicators displayed by young children may appear in more rudimentary forms, but still fall within the overall definition for specific scale categories. Information particularly relevant for scoring young childrens behaviors appears in italicized type. In activity-based tasks (e.g., puzzle completion, clean-up, etc.), pay particular attention to nonverbal cues from both parents and children.

B.

C.

D.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR OBSERVING AFFECT *

This behavioral rating scheme places strong emphasis on the role of emotional affect in determining scales and scale levels. Affect refers to the way a message is conveyed (e.g., vocal tone and emotional expression) vs. the verbal content of the message. When rating
*Excerpted and adapted from Hops, Biglan, Arthur, Warner, Holcomb, Sherman, Oostenick, Osteen, & Tolman (1988). Living in Family Environments (LIFE) Coding System. Oregon Research Institute (pp. 13, 14, 21). Our thanks to Hy Hops for sharing the LIFE with us. This statement on observing affect plus the individual LIFE codes have played a major role in shaping our measurement approach.
Rating Scales 1 1998

16

the focals display of emotional affect, pay particular attention to three channels of communication: facial expression, voice, and body posture (e.g., position of head, arms and legs). 1.
Facial Expression: The facial channel of affect includes several areas of special importance: brow, eyebrows, eyes, cheeks, and mouth. In observing the persons brow, check to see if the brow is furrowed. A furrowed or lined brow may be indicative of such emotions as puzzlement, fear, anger, or pain. Deciding which scale or scale level to use in such cases depends upon other nonverbal information. The eyebrows are especially informative. A major feature of dysphoric affect is raising the inner part of the eyebrows while the rest of the eyebrow is neutral. If the inner part of the eyebrows are drawn tightly together, you should consider coding aversive affect or pain affect. If the eyebrows are raised, the emotion communicated is often surprise, either positive or negative, or perhaps fear and anxiety. When looking at the eyes of the focal, take care to note if the person is paying attention to others with whom he/she is interacting, e.g., the focal maintains eye contact with his mother, the focal looks away from her husband, the target closes his/her eyes when speaking or listening (could mean that the person is tired or could mean that he/she is avoiding interacting, avoiding eye-contact with the other person). Make sure that you pay attention to a persons cheeks for signs of tension, fatigue, and especially for dimples caused by smiling or frowning. In choosing between different affect codes, it may be useful to examine the subjects mouth. Are the corners of the mouth turned up? Are they turned down? Are the lips visible? Sometimes when the person is very angry, the upper lip may disappear or become very thin, especially when coupled with intensity of gaze and punctuated verbal statements. Are the lips tense or relaxed? Be aware that a smile does not always involve upturned corners.

2. Voice: The second major indicator of affect is the voice. Particularly important in evaluating voice is voice tone and word emphasis. It makes a large difference where the emphasis or stress is on certain words. For example, a wife might say to her husband, I would appreciate it if you would pick up around the house more. The same words stressed differently would have a different meaning, e.g., I would appreciate it if you would pick up around the house more. The first phrasing indicates that the wife is negotiating with her husband and wants to stress that one of the things she would like her husband to do is pick up more around the house. The second sentence stresses the wifes anger that her husband does not pick up around the house like he should; even though the phrase is outwardly polite, the stress on appreciate indicates that the wife is not negotiating, but is angry. Also pay close attention to the tone of voice -- is it hostile? Sarcastic? Bitter? Pleased? Angry? Is the voice volume high or low? Please be aware that voice tone or volume may not mean the same thing from person to person or from family to family. For example, low voice volume usually indicates shame, sadness, or withdrawal, but in some persons, it may be a way of suppressing or even expressing anger or hostility. Other people may simply be soft-spoken. Also, consider the pacing of the speech. When the person speaks, does he/she speak fluidly, smoothly, or are there gaps of time between the words? Does the person sound hesitant, reluctant to speak? Does he/she sound animated? Just as with voice volume, pace of speech will vary by individual. Depressed persons may have
Rating Scales 1 1998

17

especially low voice volume and slow pace of speech, but low volume and slow pace could also be indicative of thoughtfulness, or even a signal of respect to the recipient. 3.
Body Posture: The last major indicator of affect is body posture. Does the positioning of the body indicate interest? Boredom? Are the persons movements animated or lethargic? Pay particular attention to gestures, mouth movements (like smiling or frowning), and body positioning. Scan the hands and shoulders for indications of tension, anger, etc. Often the focal may be speaking in a calm, reasoning way, but the tension in his/her fists or shoulders reveals that there is more emotion being communicated than just through content. It may be particularly helpful to pay attention to the mouth. Are the persons movements intimidating? Threatening? Does the subject cower and hang his/her head? Does the subject make small repetitive, rapid movements of foot or eyes? All of these behaviors are indicators of various affective states. Paying close attention to them may increase your ability to make a decision regarding affect. Some of the specific affect cues may be found in several of the affect code definitions. It is important to look at the combined impact of all cues to determine the appropriate affect code (e.g., a loud and rapid voice may indicate either happiness or aversiveness; a soft voice may be caring or dysphoric).

4. In ALL judgments of affect: Do not rely upon only one cue such as raised eyebrows; rather, rely upon the combination of all affect cues to determine what the persons displayed emotion is. For example, in the case where one person is closing his/her eyes while communicating, it is important to note other elements of that persons nonverbal and para-verbal behavior. If the focal also rubs his/her eyes, sounds weary with a low voice tone, and has a body posture indicative of fatigue, then make the judgment that he/she is tired rather than he/she is fearful, irritated or avoiding interaction.

Rating Scales 1 1998

18

Rating Scales 1 1998

19

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTIC SCALES

Individual Characteristic Scales describe the general mood or state of being of a person regardless of with whom that person is interacting in the task.

Rating Scales 1 1998

20

Rating Scales 1 1998

21

PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE (PA)**

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale assesses the observers subjective rating of the focals physical appearance. It measures the degree to which the focal may be considered physically appealing or goodlooking. The scale assesses the extent to which particular physical traits or qualities of the focal elicit the observers subjective admiration or approval. Only scores of 1, 3, 5, or 7 are assigned.
1 = Unattractive 3 = Somewhat unattractive 5 = Somewhat attractive 7 = Attractive

Clarifications: Physically Attractive 1. 2. Code physical attractiveness based on the first minute of viewing. When coding physical attractiveness, think of the focals general physical appearance and rate overall attractiveness. Code only physical appearance, excluding personality. Physical attractiveness should be coded based on general cultural norms for physical appeal, e.g., pleasing face, weight, etc. This scale is an exception to the general coding scheme because it uses a 1-7 scale rather than the usual 1 - 9 scale and because only levels 1, 3, 5, and 7 may be used to rate attractiveness.

3. 4.

5.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because only 4 levels are possible.

Rating Scales 1 1998

22

Rating Scales 1 1998

23

HUMOR/LAUGH (HU)

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale is designed to assess the degree to which the focal displays a sense of humor and makes statements primarily lighthearted in tone. Take the following behaviors into account: laughing or smiling frequently in an amused, pleasant, relaxed, noncynical, nonsarcastic manner (although some low-level humor could include good natured, mild sarcasm); the focal sees the light side of even serious issues and is able to get others to laugh or smile. Look for humor that decreases tension.
1 = Not at all characteristic: During the interaction, the focal displays no sense of humor or his/her attempts at humor are biting, hostile, or sarcastic and add to, rather than reduce, tension or interpersonal conflict. Young children who use laughter inappropriately, e.g., to avoid parental directives, would not be scored as displaying evidence for humor. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: There is some evidence of low-intensity displays of humor (e.g., smiling/laughing) in a pleasant manner. The focal may display a sense of humor in response to others comments, but is not the initiator of the laughter. Mild sarcasm or cynical humor presented in a lighthearted manner (clearly not intended to be insulting or discourteous to the other interactor or to other people) could score no higher than a 3. When trying to decide if something is insulting or discourteous, consider whether or not the comment has a hostile edge. Nervous laughter could score no higher than a 3. Young children must display at least one instance of appropriate spontaneous laughter or appropriate laughter in response to the behaviors or comments of others. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: There are several times during the interaction when the focal is able to lighten up the conversation, laughs good naturedly, or the focal is able to get others to laugh or smile with him/her at least once. In general, score a 5 only if there is at least one instance when another interactor smiles or laughs as a result of the focals humor. For young children, this may include cute or silly behaviors that appear aimed at entertaining the parent. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates humor of longer duration that often lightens the conversation. The focal must be able to elicit laughter from others through humor that is not sarcastic or demeaning of others.

Rating Scales 1 1998

24

8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal demonstrates a highly developed and active sense of humor. He or she actively elicits laughter from other interactors in a positive, nonsarcastic manner and laughs or smiles frequently throughout most of the interaction. To score a 9 no sarcastic comments can be present and the focal must elicit laughter from others at several points during the interaction. The overall effect of these humorous behaviors must be to reduce tension and make interactions more pleasant for the participants. For young children, there should be no evidence of using humor and laughter inappropriately to distract parents from the task at hand.

Clarifications: Humor/Laugh 1.
Humor/Laugh includes lighthearted comments that appear intended to be funny or that bring out the more comical side of a conversation or situation. These remarks often tend to lighten or sidetrack a potentially heavy subject. They may provide perspective or reduce tension when difficult issues are being discussed or when the conversation bogs down.

2.

Joking and humorous comments delivered in a lighthearted manner, but made with some sarcasm, would be scored as low-level Humor/Laugh - 2 or 3. Consider whether the comments lighten the atmosphere; do the others think it is funny? Especially when lighthearted sarcasm is used, responses can be a key in deciding if the comment is humor or should only be scored Angry Coercion, Whine/Complain, Hostility, Contempt, Externalized Negative, and/or Antisocial. Humor or joking at another interactors expense (i.e., ridiculing or making fun of someone) and mean-spirited (not light-hearted) humor would not be scored here, but rather under Angry Coercion, Whine/Complain, Hostility, Contempt, and/or Antisocial. Sarcasm and humor that appear to be insulting or discourteous, even if delivered with a laugh, should not be coded under Humor/Laugh. Dark humor and antisocial humor are not counted as Humor/Laugh in this coding system. There may be instances of just laughing, for no apparent reason, or the reason is not apparent to the observer (i.e., inside jokes, burps, etc.). Code a 2 if no one joins in the laughter. Other family members may or may not join in the laughter; if they join in, code the focal at the appropriate level. Observe whether someone is laughing or giggling in an embarrassed, nervous, uneasy manner vs. the easy, relaxed laughter of good-natured joking. Nervous laughter indicative of tension, embarrassment, or anxiety should be scored 2 or 3 if lighthearted in nature. Poking fun at self, if lighthearted, could be scored a 2 or 3; score higher if self-deprecating humor helps lighten the situation.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Rating Scales 1 1998

25

7.

Chuckling, giggling, chortling, tittering, snickering, or laughing responses are scored under Humor/Laugh. These may be short bursts or prolonged. If the focal laughs frequently and spontaneously throughout the task or frequently attempts to lighten the task, but no one laughs in response, a score of 5 is appropriate. If a focal engages in antisocial behavior that gets self and the other interactor(s) to laugh (e.g., running around the room and playing with the camera, or joking about something antisocial in a light-hearted manner), code a 2 or 3 for the laughter, but no higher, if this is the only evidence.

8.

9.

10. In order to count smiling as evidence of Humor/Laugh it must be clear that such smiles demonstrate merriment or amusement. In general, look for amused smiling that accompanies laughter and/or light-hearted humorous statements. By itself, amused smiling would score no higher than a 2 or 3. 11. Pay particular attention to physical affect (smiling) and tone of voice, as well as timing of behavior, when determining whether or not a behavior should be scored as Humor/Laugh. 12. Words that describe Humor/Laugh include: blissful blithe buoyant cheerful fun gaiety geniality gleeful jocularity jolly joviality merry mirth vivacity

13. Humor/Laugh is scored based on the presence of humor that decreases tension whereas Positive Mood scores the extent of positiveness about self and life in general.
14. Young children sometimes display behaviors or use laughter inappropriately in what appears to be an attempt to distract or manipulate the behavior of others. This behavior would not be coded as Humor if this were the only evidence. 15. Prosocial attempts by young children to entertain parents or other family members should be coded as 4, 5, or 6.

Examples: Humor/Laugh 1. 2. 3. Outright jokes of the one-liner variety. Statements which propose a clearly facetious solution to a problem. Statements which emphasize the humorous aspects of a situation or problem.

Rating Scales 1 1998

26

4. Statements which present lighthearted criticism of the other in such a manner that it is lightly received, e.g., Oh, you silly duck! or Youre as goofy as the folks at work. 5. Laughter or smile at ones own or anothers statement or joke. 6. Statements made in a humorous tone whose function is to temper the conflict, e.g., Im going to trade you in. 7. Silly or cute behavior that is presented in a good-natured manner.

Nonexamples: Humor/Laugh 1. 2. Did you hear the joke about how youll never amount to anything in life? (Antisocial) Maybe if you keep working at it, in another hundred years youll find someone who agrees to marry you. (Antisocial)

Rating Scales 1 1998

27

SADNESS (SD)

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) The extent to which the focals verbal and nonverbal behavior communicates emotional distress that is conveyed as sadness, unhappiness, despondency, depression and regret. Persons may simply appear detached from the familys ongoing activity (e.g., they seem apathetic or withdrawn) or they may show more overt signs of sadness or dysphoria such as speaking in a low, slow tone, becoming tearful, or verbally expressing their sadness. Attend carefully to nonverbal behaviors in scoring Sadness.
1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of sadness, unhappiness, despondency, depression, and/or regret. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely shows evidence of sadness, unhappiness, despondency, depression, and/or regret. Such behavior is of low frequency and intensity. With young children, one instance of sadness may be evident, but the child recovers quickly and the episode is brief. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes exhibits sadness, unhappiness, despondency, depression, and/or regret. Such behavior is of low to moderate intensity. With young children, two or three brief episodes may occur or there may be one instance that is more intense or of longer duration. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often shows evidence of sadness, unhappiness, despondency, depression, and/or regret at a low to moderate level of intensity or there are one or more episodes of behavior that are fairly intense, e.g., crying or statements of pessimism or unhappiness. With young children, sadness (e.g., crying, distress) is evident fairly consistently throughout the episode. Although soothing is difficult, the child is able to recover. 8=

Rating Scales 1 1998

28

9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays sadness, unhappiness, despondency, depression, and/or regret at a low to moderate level of intensity or such behavior occurs less frequently but at a high level of intensity. The young child displays clear signs of sadness and distress throughout the majority of the interaction task. The child has at least one episode of distress from which the child never fully recovers.

Clarifications: Sadness 1.
Sadness conveys unhappiness, regret, depression, etc., through, self-criticism, statements of dissatisfaction with self, or unhappiness/dissatisfaction about ones situation, as opposed to blaming other interactors (Hostility) or irritation, criticism, anger about things (e.g., people, places, events, etc.) outside the task (Externalized Negative).

2.

Words that describe Sadness include: crying defeated dejected depressed despondent discouraged dissatisfied with self downcast downhearted downtrodden fatalistic fatigued glum helpless hopelessness hurt inability to control situation melancholy morose overwhelmed pessimistic poignant painful regretful resigned sad sulky sullen tearful tired troubled unhappy whiny sadness unhappy weighed-down wincing wistful withdrawn

3.

Listen for the following possible indicators of Sadness: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. negative self statements (e.g., cant do it) slow, dull speech slow pace of speech, slowness to respond bemoaning the extent of ones suffering (may also be Whine/Complain or Externalized Negative) self-denigration feeling wronged, bitter (may also be Whine/Complain or Externalized Negative) low, monotone voice flat affect (not just neutral tone) pauses within ones speech where normally there would not be pauses dropping vocal amplitude at end of a statement

Rating Scales 1 1998

29

4. Watch for the following possible indicators of Sadness:


a. b. c. d. e. pouting frowning (but not disapproval of anothers actions) heavy sighing or sighing in an overwhelmed manner social withdrawal (not joining in or even attending to group activities) low activity rate (e.g., sitting and staring, responding slowly) note: If the persons movements are stiff or restricted vs. extremely slow but fluid, do not code as Sadness. appears to be extremely tired or listless vegetative motion (e.g., lethargic, repetitive movements such as rubbing hands or arm, crossing and uncrossing arms, picking at nonexistent lint, scratching or rubbing table, rocking back and forth). playing inattentively with toy while showing no interest in activity crying head in hands or on table not tracking conversation statements of regret yawn lack of participation in activity; cannot be persuaded to join in activity

f. g.

h. i. j. k. l. m. n.

5.

Do not count as Sadness reports of what happened in the past if it is over and done with. If the person is still affected by the event (e.g., still mournful over past event or if his/her voice cracks while discussing the event), count as Sadness. Sorrow/grief (crying, wiping tears, cracking voice, etc.) should be scored as Sadness. Determine the appropriate level based on intensity and duration. If a person quickly regains composure and continues with the task, score low; if not, score higher. Some statements may be scored as both Externalized Negative and Sadness. If the content fits the definition of Externalized Negative, but is conveyed in a sad or dysphoric manner (vs. an angry or hostile manner), code as Externalized Negative for content and as Sadness for affect (e.g., School is so awful or I cant do this dumb puzzle said with a cracking voice and downcast gaze). Also, We cant get ahead with these unfair government programs conveys both pessimism and unhappiness (Sadness) as well as blame or anger (Externalized Negative).
Whine/Complain has a poor me component which may count as evidence for Sadness if accompanied by depressed affect.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Some statements and behaviors may convey a mixture of Sadness and Anxiety. Please be sure to reflect this in scores for both scales.

10. Do not confuse someone who is soft-spoken or who has a low tone of voice with someone who has flat affect or displays dysphoric vocal tone.

Rating Scales 1 1998

30

Examples: Sadness 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. I wish I wasnt so miserable. I feel stuck here forever. I cant handle all this responsibility. (sigh) Every day is boring. Well, if I dont do it, it wont get done. (resigned tone) I have no control over it. I really made a mess of things. I think we should have tried harder to keep the business. I wish we had spent more time with the kids when they were younger. We should have bought that farm when we had the chance. I cant do it. Refusal to participate accompanied by withdrawal, downcast gaze and/or pouty behavior.

Nonexamples: Sadness 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I wish youd stop coming home so late. (said in a whiny voice) (Whine/Complain) Shes always spending too much money on foolish things. (said in a whiny voice) (Whine/Complain) Youd better start helping more, or else. (Hostility and Angry Coercion) I never get to go anywhere. (said in a whiny voice) (Whine/Complain) Some days Im so stressed. (Anxiety) No! (refusal to participate presented in a hostile manner). (Hostility)

Rating Scales 1 1998

31

ANXIETY (AX)

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) The extent to which the focals verbal and nonverbal behavior communicate emotional distress that is conveyed as anxiety, nervousness, fear, tension, stress, worry, concern, and embarrassment. Persons may appear tense, fearful, uncomfortable, and/or selfconscious. Attend carefully to nonverbal behaviors in scoring Anxiety. Young children may display fidgeting and increased activity level accompanied by lack of focus on task at hand. Children may appear wary, fearful and/or cling to the parent.
1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of anxious behaviors. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely shows evidence of anxious behaviors. frequency and intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes exhibits anxious behaviors. Such behavior is of low to moderate intensity. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often shows evidence of anxious behaviors at a low to moderate level of intensity or there are one or more episodes of behavior that are fairly intense. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays anxious behaviors at a low to moderate level of intensity or such behavior occurs less frequently but at a high level of intensity.

Such behavior is of low

Clarifications: Anxiety 1.
Anxiety conveys nervousness, worry, or distress about self, others, or ones situation, as opposed to self pity (Whine/Complain) or angrily blaming or expressing hostility to other interactors (Hostility) or to situations or people in general (Externalized Negative).

Rating Scales 1 1998

32

2.

Words that describe Anxiety: afraid alarmed anxious concerned distressed embarrassed fearful fidgeting frustrated hesitant hysterical nervous nervous cough on-edge shocked startled tense troubled uncomfortable uneasy upset wary watchful worried

3.

Listen for the following possible indicators of Anxiety: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. elevated voice volume, especially accompanied by rapid speech tight/tense vocal quality stuttering or difficulty in speaking a voice tone that quavers or fluctuates rapidly screaming, low moaning, or whimpering lack of response to demands or questions by another complaints that express fear of future sentence change (I have a book which...the book I need for finals...) repetition (I often...often work at night...) omissions sentence incompletion (He said the reason was...anyway, he couldnt go.) tongue slips (I havent much term (i.e., time) these days.) incoherent intruding sounds (I dont really know why...dh..I went.) nervous laughter statements of fear regarding the future statements of worry

4.

Watch for the following possible indicators of Anxiety: a. b. c. cowering or flight behaviors (e.g., running and hiding) tense, rigid body postures or jerky movements rapid, repetitive body movements (e.g., wringing the hands, jiggling the foot) -be careful to separate these from the more lethargic, repetitive movements that may characterize boredom or dysphoric mood. raised eyebrows, especially with the inside corners turned up trembling or raised hands as in self-protection trembling lips or mouth rapid, repetitive picking behaviors (e.g., picking at hair, arm, shoe laces) biting lip trying to maintain control or to keep things from going wrong nervous movements hyperventilating eyes darting covering face in embarrassment nervous playing with hair or picking at face reluctant to join in, watchfulness, intense wariness saying no to encouragement to join and fleeing after repeated attempts self-soothing behavior (e.g. sucking thumb, getting favorite toy)

d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q.

Rating Scales 1 1998

33

5. One can score high on Anxiety based on anxious physical behaviors (e.g., constant fidgeting, wringing hands, tapping table, playing with a glass, etc.). 6. Although assertively delivered, a statement such as I am very worried about you coming home so late, should be coded as Anxiety because it describes an ongoing state of mind or a disposition toward anxiety. 7. Some statements may be scored as both Externalized Negative and Anxiety. If the content fits the definition of Externalized Negative, but is conveyed in an anxious manner (vs. an angry or hostile manner) code as Externalized Negative for content and as Anxiety for affect, e.g., It really worries me when these kids are so stupid about using drugs. 8. Statements and behaviors may convey a mixture of Anxiety and Sadness. For example, Im worried I messed up on that project would be scored as Anxiety for Im worried and as Sadness for I messed up on that project. Sometimes the affect may be anxious and the content sad as in, Ill never get this said in a jerky manner; score Anxiety for affect and Sadness for content. 9. Not all physical movement indicates anxiety. Some focals have an elevated level of physical activity or movements. To count as Anxiety, look for jerky, tense, or rigid physical movements that arise in the presence of other cues that are anxious, seem driven by nervous energy, or occur in the context of a discussion that contains anxious content. Look for patterns or context that indicate these behaviors as evidence of Anxiety. 10. Some anxious behaviors such as head ducking or turning may be coded as Anxiety and as Avoidant.

Examples: Anxiety 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Im really concerned about this. (said with tense voice) I just dont know when well be able to do that. If that happens, well really have problems. Im really worried. I dont know how Ill handle that. Well never get ahead financially at the rate were going. Fidgeting nervously. Patterns of mindless movements such as frequent shifting or brushing hair from face (especially in context of other cues). 9. Theres so much to do, Im totally stressed.

Rating Scales 1 1998

34

Nonexamples: Anxiety 1. 2. 3. 4. Stop that, you jerk! (Hostility) People are so stupid! (Externalized Negative) I wish I wasnt so miserable. (Sadness) Isolated mindless movements such as shifting position, brushing hair from face, etc. (especially in absence of other contextual cues). 5. Slow rubbing. (Sadness)

Rating Scales 1 1998

35

WHINE/COMPLAIN (WC)

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale assesses the degree to which the focal demonstrates dissatisfaction by means of whining and whiny complaining. These expressions convey the sense that the focal is an innocent victim that things are not fair, that he/she has been mistreated or misunderstood. The focal uses a plaintive, poor me tone of voice that often is highpitched with an irritating sing-song, nasal quality and one syllable stressed toward the end of the sentence. Such behaviors demonstrate an attempt to elicit sympathy or attention in a whining or whiny complaining manner. Young children also may whimper pitifully when unsuccessful or when requested to do something.
1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no evidence of whining and/or whiny-complaining behavior. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely demonstrates whining and/or whiny-complaining behaviors. Such behaviors are of low intensity or frequency and are quickly abated; they are the exception rather than the rule. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays whining and/or whiny-complaining behaviors of low or moderate intensity. More extreme behaviors rarely, if ever, occur. One moderately intense instance of Whine/Complain may be scored 5. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal displays more extreme evidence of frequent or intense whining and/or whiny-complaining behaviors. Whine/Complain occurs fairly often. One quite intense occurrence of such may be scored 7. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays evidence of whining and/or whiny-complaining behaviors. Such behaviors are of high intensity or frequency. Whine/Complain is the typical mode of influence for the focal.

Rating Scales 1 1998

36

Clarifications: Whine/Complain 1. The behaviors listed below are examples of Whine/Complain: beg being a martyr bellyache gripe grumble guilt induction guilty coercion innocent victim mutter nasal tone plead poor me protesting pule self-pity snivel sounding hurt sounding injured whimper whining whiny blaming whiny carping whiny griping whiny railing

2. Listen for a high-pitched (nasal) sing-song voice tone. When the focal speaks in a whiny or poor me tone of voice in order to communicate ideas and/or to achieve a particular end, code this behavior as Whine/Complain. The vocal quality is immature, childish. Affect is very important for coding this scale. 3. Watch for the use of whining when someone: a. does not get his/her way b. is worried c. does not understand something d. is being criticized or punished e. is describing something he/she doesnt like or doesnt want f. is complaining g. tries to get another interactor to do something h. does not like something 4. It would be unusual (but not impossible) to rate a focal high on both this Individual Characteristic scale and the Dyadic Interaction Assertiveness scale. If one scale is scored at a 7, 8 or 9, the other scale likely would not be scored above a 6. 5. Tone of voice and facial expression are very important in differentiating between Whine/Complain, and Externalized Negative or Hostility. Tone in Whine/Complain is whiny, self-pitying, sorrowful, depressed. Tone in Externalized Negative and Hostility is blaming, hostile, agitated, caustic, cutting, sarcastic. 6. Code the delivery and content of the focals whining/complaining statements, NOT the response of the other interactor. For example, the statement, I need new glasses, too. We need more money. Youll have to start doing something to earn money, delivered in an angry, blaming tone would be coded as Hostility and Angry Coercion whereas if delivered in a whiny manner would be coded as Whine/Complain.

Rating Scales 1 1998

37

7.

A statement can be Whine/Complain for affect and Hostility for content. It is not possible to score Whine/Complain and Angry Coercion simultaneously based on affect alone. Although the same behavioral evidence cannot be coded as both Angry Coercion and Whine/Complain, these scales may occur close together or simultaneously. For example (simultaneous): hitting other person while at the same time saying in a whiny tone, Thats my book would be scored as Angry Coercion based on physical behavior and as Whine/Complain based on vocal affect. For example (close together): You really hurt me when you do that (whiny tone), so youd better stop (angry tone); the first part is Whine/Complain and the last part is Angry Coercion. In activity-based tasks, saying No to parent in a whiny voice and then grabbing toy from parent would be coded as Whine/Complain and Angry Coercion. Mock, facetious, or pretend whininess is coded Whine/Complain. Reenactments or demonstrations of whininess are not coded as such.

8.

9.

10. Whine/Complain has a poor me component which also may count as evidence of Sadness. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. Sadness conveys dissatisfaction with ones situation in life whereas Whine/Complain blames others for creating or contributing to this situation. 11. Although crying is evidence of Sadness, it also may be evidence of Whine/Complain. Look for presence of verbalizations that ask for pity or sympathy for the focal to count as Whine/Complain. 12. Pay particular attention to in-task whiny comments, as well as reports of persecution, when scoring Whine/Complain. 13. Statements presented in the form of You should... may be coded as either Whine/Complain or Angry Coercion, and as Lecture/Moralize. Affect, as well as apparent motivation of the statement, is important in determining how to code the statement. Whine/Complain conveys a whiny, poor me viewpoint. Angry Coercion is meant to change behavior in a hostile, sarcastic, or threatening manner. Lecture/Moralize is more of a monologue about the way things should or shouldnt be and may or may not include elements of guilt induction (Whine/Complain) or threat (Angry Coercion). 14. Whine/Complain statements presented in the form of You should... (e.g., You should pick up more and You should be home more to help out) may include the following criteria: a. b. c. use a whiny, poor me tone of voice try to make the other interactor feel sorry for the focal (e.g., I cant.) try to make the other interactor feel guilty about not complying with the focals needs

Rating Scales 1 1998

38

15. Complaints and expressions of dissatisfaction must be delivered with whiny affect (vs. hostile or neutral affect) to be scored Whine/Complain. Hostile complaints are scored as Hostility and, if demanding change, as Angry Coercion. Statements of dissatisfaction presented with neutral affect are scored as Communication, etc. 16. If content is defensive and tone is whiny, score as both Denial and Whine/Complain. If both content and tone are defensive, score only as Denial.

Examples: Whine/Complain* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Its not fair. Why are you picking on me? I didnt do anything wrong. Im good. No one ever listens to anything I say. You always give him more privileges than you give me. How come I had to wait until I was older to see PG13 movies and she gets to see them already? I suppose Ill have to pick up after everyone again like I always have to do. Youre ruining my life. I never thought theyd do that. How could you embarrass me like that? You cause me such trouble. You disappoint me sooo when you dont do that right away. I shouldnt have to keep reminding you. Look at all Ive done for you and you dont even appreciate it. Everything went wrong at work. No one appreciates me. Everyone takes me for granted. I never get to go anywhere. The poor dog has no food. Wont go or cant said in plaintive tone. Help me clean up. (in a whiny voice)

*Note: For all these examples, there must be a whiny, poor-me (sing-song, nasal) vocal tone. Such a tone may be slight or more intense. The underlined words toward the end of the sentence may be stressed.

Nonexamples: Whine/Complain 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. You stupid idiot. (Hostility) Stop it or youll be sorry. (Hostility and Angry Coercion) Im so stupid. (Sadness) Im really worried Ill fail. (Anxiety) These shoes do not fit me. (dissatisfaction expressed in neutral tone) You have to help me! (Hostility/Angry Coercion)

Rating Scales 1 1998

39

EXTERNALIZED NEGATIVE (EX)

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) The extent to which the focal displays negativity in the form of anger, hostility, complaints, or critical comments regarding people, things, or events outside the immediate setting vs. expressed toward self or other interactors in the task. This includes sadness or unhappiness that is expressed in a hostile or angry fashion. In general, Externalized Negative involves behaviors that would be coded under Hostility except that they are directed toward people, things, or events outside the interaction task. For young children, this scale includes negative behaviors that are not directed to self or another person, such as anger, general irritability, and fussy behaviors that appear to be in response to or directed toward task activities or materials.
1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of externalized negative behavior. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal shows some evidence of externalized negative behavior. However, such behavior rarely occurs and is of low intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes exhibits externalized negative behavior. Such behavior is of low to moderate intensity. A young child may frown, yell, or make negative statements about the task materials or about someone outside the task. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often shows evidence of externalized negative behavior at a low or moderate level, or occasionally at a high level of intensity. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays externalized negative behavior at a low to moderate level of intensity or fairly frequently at a high level of intensity. One extremely intense burst of externalized negative behavior may be coded 9.

Rating Scales 1 1998

40

Clarifications: Externalized Negative 1. Code as Externalized Negative any negative or blaming comments made by a focal about someone else or something else that is not present in the interaction task. Critical remarks made to or about another interactor would be scored under Hostility toward the recipient of the animosity. Negative statements about self are scored under Sadness. If someone says something about people, things, or events outside the task that would be coded as Hostile if said to or about someone in the task, code as Externalized Negative. Include all behaviors that convey taking it out on something or someone other than self (which would be scored as Sadness) or another interactor (which would be Hostility). Negative statements about the world in general are coded under Externalized Negative. Words that describe Externalized Negative: accuse anger blame complain 5. critical cranky contempt denigrate derogate disgust fault find grumpy impatience irritable negative ridicule scorn suspicious threaten tattle

2.

3.

4.

Agreement with another interactors Externalized Negative can be coded as Externalized Negative, particularly if this agreement is more than mere acknowledgment of what the other has said (e.g., a neutral yes or mm-hmm). Pay attention to affect in these instances. If someone leaves the task and another interactor makes a hostile comment about him/her, code the behavior as Externalized Negative because that person is no longer in the task. However, if the person is still within hearing distance, code as Hostility toward the recipient of the negative comments, not Externalized Negative. Do not code as Externalized Negative comments that are directed to a family member who should not be present, but is, during an interaction task. Code these comments as Antisocial if the comments detract from interaction with persons assigned to participate in that task. If the comments do not detract from the immediate interaction, simply do not code these behaviors. If the negative comments about this other family member are made to another interactor (i.e., are brought into the task), code as Externalized Negative. Some statements may be scored as both Externalized Negative and Anxiety or Sadness. A statement that fit the definition of Externalized Negative, but is conveyed in an anxious or dysphoric manner (vs. an angry or hostile manner) is coded as Exernalized Negative for content and as Anxiety or Sadness for affect (e.g., school is so dumb said with a cracking voice and downcast gaze).

6.

7.

8.

Rating Scales 1 1998

41

9.

Include as Externalized Negative any complaints or negative comments about the interaction task itself.

10. Remember that a focal is allowed to express a dislike or preference, (e.g., I like corn, but I dont like beans.) in a neutral manner without being coded as Externalized Negative. 11. Watch for Externalized Negative occurring at the same time as Hostility (e.g., You and your brother are so lazy!)
12. For young children, also include negative behaviors not directed toward another person (e.g., throwing or kicking puzzle pieces or toys). If objects are thrown at someone, code as Hostility rather than Externalized Negative.

Examples: Externalized Negative 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. If they do that again, Ill throw a brick through their window. The woman at the store is a real jerk. Your friends are really troublemakers. That Billy looks like a real slob. Sue says the dumbest things. Sam is lying about things again. I really hate school. When is this stupid task going to be over? You just dont know who to trust these days. Most people will try to take advantage of you if they can. The government isnt for us little folks anymore. All breaks go to the big operators. Those people are just a bunch of fanatics. Hes a holy terror. This is a dumb puzzle. Throwing toy across room (but not at another person).

Nonexamples: Externalized Negative 1. 2. 3.


4.

If you werent so stupid you wouldnt have to ask such silly questions. (Hostility) Ill never be able to finish that job. (Sadness) You should know better than to hang out with troublemakers. (Hostility, Lecture/Moralize) Throwing toy at parent. (Hostility)

Rating Scales 1 1998

42

Rating Scales 1 1998

43

POSITIVE MOOD (PM)

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale measures the degree to which the focal appears content, happy, and optimistic and/or demonstrates positive behavior toward self, others or things in general. Take into account: nonverbal communication, such as facial expression and body posture; emotional expression, such as smiling, laughing, and being involved positively in the interaction; and the content of statements themselves. Overall, rate the extent to which the focal conveys a positive attitude and how positive the focal seems to feel about self and life in general. Pay particular attention to nonverbal behaviors when scoring this scale for young children.
1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no examples or no firm evidence of Positive Mood. The focal does not express feelings, either verbally or nonverbally, of optimism, contentment, or happiness. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely demonstrates signs of Positive Mood, such as a smile, a laugh or a low-intensity comment, e.g., I like ice cream. Such expressions, verbally or nonverbally, are infrequent and of low intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes behaves, verbally or nonverbally, in a manner reflecting Positive Mood. He/she may smile, laugh and make positive statements about others, outside situations, or self. Note the frequency and intensity of positive mood behaviors to determine the score. Infrequent indications of Positive Mood that are moderately intense, e.g., I feel really good these days, would be rated 5. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often expresses positive feelings of contentment and happiness. Behaviors such as laughing, smiling, making positive statements about self and others occur fairly frequently or occur with greater intensity. Infrequent, but quite intense statements (e.g., I feel just wonderful these days) or behaviors (e.g., gleeful exuberance, jumping up and down, clapping hands) would be scored 7. 8=

Rating Scales 1 1998

44

9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently demonstrates Positive Mood. He/She is happy, optimistic, content, positive about self and life in general. In atypical situations, the focal may not be positive throughout the interaction but may make one or two very intense positive statements that could be scored a 9. For example, a statement such as My life is just wonderful, it couldnt be better, said with sincerity and enthusiasm would be scored 9.

Clarifications: Positive Mood 1. This scale assesses the focals Positive Mood regarding him/herself, the situation, or life in general. Look for an overall general positive or upbeat mood even if it relates only to the situation and the people in the task, but not to anything outside the immediate setting. This is especially important in activity-based tasks with young children. Code on the presence of something you observe: facial expressions, body posture, content of statements. Pay particular attention to these behaviors in young children.
Warmth/Support is part of Positive Mood, but Positive Mood includes other things such as statements about life and self in general. If the general sense is that the Warmth/Support, Humor/Laugh, etc., directed toward someone else also reflect the focals generally positive mood, code also under Positive Mood (e.g., Youre beautiful is coded as Warmth/Support and Positive Mood. You are a fun person to be with; I enjoy being with you is coded as Warmth/Support and Positive Mood. However, I understand that you are going through a difficult time is Warmth/Support but not Positive Mood). In general, it is the supportive statements that are a part of Warmth/Support that may not also be Positive Mood.

2.

3.

4.

5.

If there is no evidence or very low-level indicators of Positive Mood, the focal would score a 1 or 2; however, this would not necessarily indicate elevated Sadness, Anxiety, or Externalized Negative -- just the absence of expressions of Positive Mood. A focal may display Positive Mood through his/her facial expression (e.g., smiling), tone of voice (e.g., high pitch, fast pace), or body language (e.g., clapping hands in excitement). On rare occasion, sarcasm that is light-hearted in nature (i.e., is not aversive) may be an indicator of Positive Mood if it reflects contentment and satisfaction with self, others, or life in general.

6.

7.

Rating Scales 1 1998

45

8.

Words that describe Positive Mood include: amused animated buoyant content with life content with self delighted elevated energetic enthusiastic excited exuberant funny glad gleeful happy joyous light-hearted playful pleased optimistic satisfied thrilled up

9.

Listen for the following possible indicators of Positive Mood (these must be combined with other Positive Mood indicators): a. b. c. high pitched, excited, or up-beat voice talking that is faster or louder than usual laughter or giggling

10. Watch for the following possible nonverbal indicators of Positive Mood: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. smiling laughing/squealing positively involved with interaction exaggerated, expansive, or animated expressions and/or gestures relaxed body posture jumping up and down high activity level hugging

11. In general, score Positive Mood based on a combination of nonverbal and verbal behaviors that occur simultaneously or in close proximity. Thus, it is unlikely that a single smile or laugh would warrant scoring above a 1 on this scale. 12. Do not code antisocial horsing around, enjoyment of obnoxious behavior or bragging at someone elses expense as Positive Mood.

Examples: Positive Mood 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Im content with my life. I did a good job at school. The teachers like me. The members of my track team are great. John is a good friend. I can handle that situation. Things couldnt be better. We have wonderful children. Youre beautiful. (Warmth/Support and Positive Mood)

Rating Scales 1 1998

46

10. You are a fun person to be with; I enjoy being with you. (Warmth/Support and Positive Mood) 11. I love you, Mommy. (Warmth/Support and Positive Mood) 12. This is fun! 13. Im good at puzzles. 14. I want to do it again. 15. We can do this!

Nonexamples: Positive Mood 1. 2. 3. I understand that you are going through a difficult time. (Warmth/Support only) It is too bad that you broke your arm. How can I help? (Warmth/Support only) He thought he was the best but I really showed him up last time.

Rating Scales 1 1998

47

DEFIANCE (DF) Rate: Child (Individual Charcteristic) This scale measures the extent to which the child actively disobeys or ignores the parent. Children scoring high on Defiance avoid directives from parents and actively engage in activities contrary to the requests of parents. It is important to consider: nonverbal communication, such as facial expression and body posture; emotional expression, such as inappropriate laughter, yelling, angry or irritable responses; and the content of statements themselves (e.g., No! No!). Overall, rate the extent to which the child actively disobeys, ignores, and resists parents requests, particularly when reminded. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The child displays no examples of Defiance. The child does not express any feelings, either verbally or nonverbally, of unwillingness to cooperate with parents requests. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The child rarely demonstrates signs of Defiance or signs of Defiance are infrequent and of low intensity. For instance, child may be initially resistant to parents requests, but this period of resistance is brief. Examples of low-intensity behaviors include: reluctance to comply with parents requests, ignoring parents first requests (e.g., parent says, come here and child does not acknowledge hearing parents request). 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The child sometimes avoids parents requests, either verbally or nonverbally, in a way that reflects Defiance. He/she may run away from parent, ignore parents requests several times, make negative statements, either generally or directed toward the parent or the task. The frequency and intensity of defiance determine the score. Infrequent indicators of Defiance that are moderately intense include: one active avoidance of parents requests (e.g., running away from parent, prolonged resistance to interact with parent) or several defiant behaviors which are of low intensity. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The child fairly often demonstrates Defiance. The child actively resists parental requests and directives (e.g., running away from parent, doing the opposite of what parent requests, etc.). Such behaviors are more present than absent. 8=
Rating Scales 1 1998

48

9 = Mainly characteristic: The child frequently demonstrates Defiance. The child does not cooperate with parents and any cooperative efforts are met with much resistance and/or anger or hostility. Instances of on task behavior are rare and the child spends most of his/her time actively avoiding parents directives and disrupting parents attempts to encourage cooperation.

Clarifications: Defiance 1. Behavior scored as Defiance may also be scored as Angry Coercion if it contains Hostility directed toward the parent. Synonyms for Defiance: contrariness ignoring (active) obstinance positioning back to parent 3. resistance refusals stubbornness turning away from parent

2.

It is not possible to rate a focal high on both this scale and the Compliance scale. If one scale is scored a 7, 8,9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6.

Examples: Defiance 1. 2. 3. Parent: Put that block here. Child says, No play blocks. Parent: You need to put the toys away now. Child grabs toy and turns away from parent. Parent: Stop throwing blocks. Child throws another block.

Nonexamples: Defiance 1. 2. 3. 4. Seemingly not having heard the parent. Slight delay in following parental direction. Child who doesnt follow unclear string of parent direction. Selectively attending to one direction of parent.

Rating Scales 1 1998

49

COMPLIANCE (CP) Rate: Child (Individual Characteristic) This scale measures the extent to which the child cooperates with parental requests and directives. Children scoring low on Compliance either do not comply, seem to ignore parents requests, or have their own agenda which does not match the parents agenda. Children scoring high on Compliance respond favorably to and follow parents directives willingly and eagerly. These children match their behavior to parental directions in a detailed fashion, e.g., parent asks child to put certain block away, child puts away that block. Rate the extent to which the child obeys and responds to parents requests. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The child displays no examples of Compliance. The child does not express any indications, either verbally or nonverbally, of willingness to cooperate with parents requests. These children may either actively (e.g., physically avoids parent) or passively (e.g., ignores parents requests) demonstrate an unwillingness to cooperate with parents directives. These children often do not even attend to or listen to parental requests. In contrast to active avoidance (which is Defiance), at this level children show no indication of listening to parental requests in the first place. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The child rarely demonstrates signs of Compliance or signs of Compliance are infrequent and of low intensity. For instance, child may initially follow parents directives but quickly loses interest and parent is unable to re-engage child in the task. Alternatively, the child may occasionally obey parents requests, e.g., puts puzzle piece on the puzzle board or puts a block away, but these instances of compliance are few. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The child sometimes responds to parents requests, either verbally or nonverbally, in a way that reflects Compliance. The child may obey parents directives but loses interest after a period of time. Or, the parent may have a difficult time engaging child, but the child remains on task once engaged. The frequency and intensity of compliance determine the score. Infrequent indicators of Compliance that are moderately intense include at least a one-minute episode or segment where the child is clearly responsive to parents requests (e.g., puts away all the blocks). 6=

Rating Scales 1 1998

50

7 = Moderately characteristic: The child fairly often expresses Compliance. The child usually follows parental requests and, in most instances, seems eager to please parent. At this level, the child is compliant for the majority of the episode, however, the parent must work to keep the child engaged and on task. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The child frequently demonstrates Compliance. The child eagerly and willingly cooperates with parents requests. Instances of off task behavior are infrequent and the child is easily re-directed to the task at hand. Parent may allow breaks where the child attends to something else, but parental attempts to redirect childs behavior are not met with resistance.

Clarification: Compliance 1. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both this scale and the Defiance scale. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, 9. The other scale cannot be scored above a 6.

Examples: Compliance 1. 2. 3. 4. Parent: Put that block here. Child puts block where parent directs. Parent: You need to put the toys away now. Child puts several pieces in toy box. Parent: Stop throwing blocks. Child stops. (Non verbal) Parent hands child pieces and child t+akes them from parent.

Nonexamples: Compliance 1. Interviewer to parent: This is a puzzle for Ann to do. You may help her in whatever way you think necessary. Child starts to manipulate a puzzle piece. Parent: I wonder where this block goes. Child takes piece and puts it in the box. Child: Where does this go? Parent: It goes here. Child puts toy where parent indicates.

2. 3.

Rating Scales 1 1998

51

RATER RESPONSE (RR)**

Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale assesses the observers subjective reaction to the person being coded. It measures the overall reaction to or impression of the focal; the observers emotional feeling of liking or disliking regarding the focal.
1 = Unfavorable reaction: Strongly dislike 2= 3 = Somewhat unfavorable reaction: Dislike somewhat 4= 5 = Uncertain or neutral response 6= 7 = Somewhat favorable: Like somewhat 8= 9 = Favorable reaction: Strongly like

Clarifications: Rater Response 1. There are no objective criteria for coding Rater Response. This scale represents the coders entirely subjective feelings of liking or disliking for the focal. This scale is an exception to the general coding scheme because the midpoint is a 5 rather than between 5 and 6 and also because the levels range from negative to positive with the neutral point in the middle of the scale.

2.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because 5 is the neutral point, with 1 and 9 at the two extremes.

Rating Scales 1 1998

52

Rating Scales 1 1998

53

DYADIC INTERACTION SCALES

Dyadic Interaction Scales are scales designed to assess the behavior directed by one person toward another person in an interaction context.

Rating Scales 2 1998

54

Rating Scales 2 1998

55

HOSTILITY (HS) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the focal displays hostile, angry, critical, disapproving and/or rejecting behavior toward another interactors behavior (actions), appearance, or state. Take the following behaviors into account: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION, such as angry or contemptuous facial expressions and menacing/threatening body posture; EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION, such as irritable, sarcastic, or curt tones of voice or shouting; rejection such as actively ignoring the other, showing contempt or disgust for the other or the others behavior, denying the others needs; and the CONTENT of the statements themselves, such as complaints about the other or denigrating or critical remarks, e.g., You dont know anything or You could never manage that. Bear in mind that two people can disagree without being hostile. To be hostile, disagreements must include some element of negative affect such as derogation, disapproval, blame, ridicule, etc. Young children may express hostility through negative or physically aggressive behaviors directed toward the other person (e.g., yelling, kicking, hitting, or throwing objects). 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no examples of hostile, angry, critical, disapproving, sarcastic or rejecting behavior, or hostile actions. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal infrequently displays evidence of low-intensity hostility, but it is quickly abated. Examples of low-intensity hostility are mild criticism with minimal negative affect, an occasional abrupt remark, a scowl or frown, a cynical smile, and in children particularly, a taunt or tease. Physical behaviors include an occasional light push or shove. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays examples of low-level or moderately intense hostility, such as curt or irritable responses, mild rejection, or some moderately intense criticism or anger. The intensity of the negative affect helps to distinguish the appropriate score; includes infrequent but moderately intense hostility. Young children who respond to parental behaviors with moderately irritable or angry behaviors would also be scored at this level. 6=

Rating Scales 2 1998

56

7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often shows hostility or demonstrates more intense and/or prolonged critical comments, such as some shouting, and several curt or sarcastic remarks. The focal may also show more intense rejection or rebuffing of the other persons requests for assistance or affection. The focal may also show more denigration or mocking. Even a single instance of hostility may be scored 7 if it is of relatively high intensity. Evidence of hostility includes yelling and/or physically aggressive behaviors toward the other person. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays behaviors that are angry, critical, disapproving, and/or rejecting. There may be a relatively high degree of shouting, angry tones of voice, heavy use of sarcasm to denigrate the other, sharp or frequent criticism or mocking. The focal may be highly rejecting and rebuff parental attempts at contact (i.e., young children). The focal can be enraged and inflamed, but does not need to be this extreme in order to be coded a 9. One extremely intense instance of hostility, e.g., a burst of inflamed name calling, or a burst of physically aggressive behaviors toward the other person, may be scored 9.

Clarifications: Hostility 1. This scale is NOT an assessment of the general amount of hostility generated BETWEEN two people. The Reciprocate Hostile score given for each person in the dyad assesses such behavior. This scale IS an assessment of the degree of hostility directed BY one person TOWARD the actions, behavior, appearance, or state of another. Include as Hostility direct statements of a specific or nonspecific nature that convey a negative evaluation of another interactor; also include unqualified personalized attacks, criticisms, name calling and specific humiliation of the recipient. Hits and pokes are forms of Hostility. Include low-grade aversive physical contact that is not delivered with disruptive force as well as more extreme behaviors. The intensity, as well as the frequency, of aversive contact behaviors should be considered in deciding how to score Hostility based on these contacts. Grooming another interactor is not Hostility unless the grooming is harsh or irritating. Verbal Attack, Physical Attack, Contempt, and Angry Coercion are specific form of Hostility. Evidence of these behaviors also should be scored as Hostility and Antisocial.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Rating Scales 2 1998

57

7.

Hostile comments may be related to the past, present or future and need NOT be delivered in an irritated or angry tone of voice. Hostility may be displayed through some combination of the following behaviors. In the absence of any one of these categories, LOOK TO THE ONES THAT ARE PRESENT: a. Nonverbal Communication: (1) (2) facial gestures (e.g., scowling, frowning, disgust, disdain) body posture (e.g., hands on hips, grabbing something from the other in a rough manner, shaking a finger at the other, turning away from the other in anger, rejecting physical advances of the other) actions directed toward the other person (e.g., hitting, kicking, throwing objects).

8.

(3)

b.

Emotional Expression: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) enraged irritable negative sarcasm tense curt, sharp, sneering tone of voice scorn/contempt disgust actively ignores the other exasperation

c.

Content of Statement: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) denies the others needs and concerns mocks the other critical statements accusations regarding actions or behavior of another agreeing with another interactors hostility put-down character assassination, insult complaints carping pokes fun at anothers expense demeaning statements about the other

9.

When coding teasing, determine the score based on affect. It may be Hostility or Humor/Laugh or a combination of both Hostility and Humor/Laugh.

Rating Scales 2 1998

58

10. Hostility may take the form of anger/irritation (engaged and hot), as well as the form of disgust/scorn/contempt (distant, icy, cold). This scale includes all behaviors coded as Contempt. 11. Do not count reports of negative behavior unless there is criticism conveyed by words or affect. Interactors may simply report answers to questions without these being hostile. Count as Hostility if the words themselves are hostile, if the focal goes on and on, or if the affect is hostile.

Examples: Hostility 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Shut up, Mom. Shes asking me. (Hostility and Angry Coercion) You never go to bed when Dad asks you to. You dont do all that; you spend money on stupid stuff. You yell too much. You always come on like a raging bull! (Hostility, Verbal Attack, and Escalate Hostile) Thats all I do, is listen! I catch all the problems youve had all day. You didnt do as you were told, did you? (Hostility and Interrogation) Youre just plain wrong about that! This place is a mess. You flunked your math test, didnt you? (Hostility and Interrogation) Youre being a pest. Hes such a big pest followed by rolling eyes and a short, exasperated sigh (said about the son to the mother in the sons presence). (Hostility, Verbal Attack and Contempt) I hate it when you take the last one and dont replace it. Im sick of the way she treats the dog. (said about the daughter to the father in the daughters presence). You really are a drip. (Hostility and Verbal Attack) I hate you. I dont like you. You sure are ugly. (Hostility and Verbal Attack) You really are a jerk. (Hostility and Verbal Attack) Youll never amount to anything. You always do it wrong. Slob! (Hostility and Verbal Attack) Krista, youre a dummy. (Hostility and Verbal Attack) Youre so mean, I hate you. (Hostility, Verbal Attack, and Escalate Hostile) You yell all the time. (Hostility and Verbal Attack) Hitting, kicking, or throwing objects at the other person. Making faces at someone. Rebuffing parental teaching attempts.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Rating Scales 2 1998

59

Nonexamples: Hostility 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. That friend of yours looks like a slob. (Externalized Negative) I feel awful. (Sadness) He never lets me go anywhere. (Sad, Whine/Complain) He got a low grade this semester. (said without critical affect) Sometimes you dont get it right the first time. (reported without negative tone) You and your brother fight quite often. (said in descriptive manner) Throwing object, but not at other person. (Antisocial, possibly Externalized Negative)

Rating Scales 2 1998

60

Rating Scales 2 1998

61

VERBAL ATTACK (VA) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale is a specific form of Hostility that assesses personalized and unqualified disapproval of another interactor. Look for the presence of unkind statements that appear intended to demean, hurt, or embarrass the other person. Such statements include put-downs, personally derogatory adjectives, criticisms of the other person, comments that are overwhelming and demeaning of anothers personal characteristics, and sarcasm directed toward the other person as a person. The negative evaluation must attribute ongoing and global aversive or negative characteristics to the recipient of the behavior. For example, You were acting stupid when you flunked that test would be Hostility but would not be Verbal Attack, because it is not an ongoing or global characteristic of the recipient; You always act stupid would be Verbal Attack and Hostility. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of personalized and unqualified attack of the other interactor. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal infrequently shows evidence of personalized and unqualified attack toward the other interactor. However, such behavior is of low frequency and intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes expresses personalized and unqualified attack toward the other interactor. Such behavior is of low to moderate frequency or intensity. Even one instance of Verbal Attack may be scored 5 if it is of moderate intensity. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often expresses personalized and unqualified attack toward the other interactor that is of low to moderate intensity. Even one instance of Verbal Attack may be scored 7 if it is of relatively high intensity. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently expresses personalized and unqualified attack toward the other interactor. Such behavior is of quite high intensity. However, even one instance of extremely intense Verbal Attack may be scored 9.

Rating Scales 2 1998

62

Clarifications: Verbal Attack 1. To count as evidence of Verbal Attack, a statement must refer to a global characteristic of the other person that is applicable across people, situations, and time. Such a statement must not be specific only to the focal (e.g., I hate you or You never help me) but must suggest that a characteristic is pervasive (e.g., You are stupid, or I think you are stupid). A Verbal Attack is a specific form of insult. An observer should use him/herself as a Personal Insult Detector; as he/she listens to statements, ask: If that statement were directed toward me, would I personally feel insulted, embarrassed, or put down? If so, and the statement implies ongoing and global characteristic(s), code as Verbal Attack. A Verbal Attack assigns a negative ongoing characteristic or negative label to another interactor. The negativeness may be due to the term itself or the affect expressed when assigning a characteristic or label to another interactor. Direct statements of a specific or nonspecific nature that convey a negative evaluation of someone present are coded as Verbal Attack. Include unqualified personalized attacks, criticisms, name-calling and specific humiliation of the recipient as Verbal Attack. Verbal Attacks convey personalized disapproval, disagreement, or disinterest directed toward the recipient in a provoking, aggressive manner. Verbal Attack is a specific type or form of Hostility. If someone scores a 2 on Verbal Attack, they would also score at least a 2 on Hostility. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. In general, a high rating (7, 8, or 9) on Verbal Attack will be associated with a high rating on Hostility, but because Hostility also includes other behaviors not involved in Verbal Attack, there is not an exactly synonymous relationship between the two. Comments must relate to characteristics that exist at the present time to score under Verbal Attack. If they relate to characteristics that existed only in the past, score under Hostility, Angry Coercion, etc. As an aid in determining whether a behavior is personally demeaning, you may consider the reaction of the recipient of the behavior. The presence of a reaction may indicate the recipient finds the behavior personally demeaning. However, the absence of an observable reaction of the recipient of this behavior (since the recipient may be accustomed to such attack) would not reduce the score.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 2 1998

63

10. Synonyms for Verbal Attack include personalized forms of: accusation character assassination contempt criticism disapproval disgust indictment insult mocking name-calling negative attribution scorn

11. Statements made in the form of we (e.g., we are boring) may or may not count as Verbal Attack. Count such comments only if they are specifically referring to or including the other interactor. Otherwise score this under Sadness. 12. Verbal Attack refers to what you are, not what you do unless what you do is characteristic of your personality, e.g., you never listen. 13. Some statements that appear to contain qualifiers (e.g., sort of, kind of, and pretty) do not necessarily make less global negative characterizations. Such phrases may still be coded as Verbal Attack if they ascribe ongoing, global negative attributions or labels to the recipient.

Examples: Verbal Attack 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. You sure are ugly. You really are a drip. Youll never amount to anything. You always do it wrong. Slob! Krista, youre a dummy. Youre so mean, I hate you. You yell all the time. You come on like a raging bull. You act like youre 2 years old. Youre a jerk. You always look out for yourself first! Youre an embarrassment. Youre weird. Youre just a big pest. You never listen. You never help with anything. You never help with chores. I think youre a slob. I think youre the meanest person in the world. You really are sort of stupid. I think youre kind of an idiot. Youd understand me better if you werent so old.

Rating Scales 2 1998

64

24. 25. 26. 27.

Youre lousy with handling money. Hes just like you; he never listens. Dummy! Naughty.

Nonexamples: Verbal Attack 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. You didnt do it right. (Hostility) That jerk in the grocery store gave me the wrong change. (Externalized Negative) Drop dead. (Hostility) Youre gonna get it. (Angry Coercion) Go soak your head. (Hostility) Im gonna knock your block off. (Angry Coercion) Nothing. (In response to the question, What do we admire about each other?) (Hostility) I hate you. (Hostility) You never listen to me. (Hostility) You never help me with dishes. (Hostility) You look pretty stupid when you do that. (Hostility) When you say that you sound kind of like an idiot. (Hostility) Books are stupid. (Externalized Negative)

Rating Scales 2 1998

65

PHYSICAL ATTACK (AT) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale is a specific form of Hostility incorporating any hostile, bothersome, irritating or aversive physical contact, including hitting, pinching, slapping, shaking, shoving, restraining, poking, punching, ear flicking, or grabbing another person on the hand, arm, etc. This scale is scored based on the inherent aversiveness of the physical behavior, although the recipients response to the physical contact may be used to indicate intensity. Include low-grade as well as more pronounced and extreme physical contact. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no evidence of aversive physical behaviors. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely shows evidence of aversive physical behaviors. Such behaviors are of low frequency and intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal shows some evidence of aversive physical behaviors of low to moderate intensity or frequency. Even one instance of Physical Attack of moderate intensity may be scored 5. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often displays aversive physical behaviors of low to moderate intensity. Even one Physical Attack of relatively high intensity may be scored 7. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays considerable evidence of aversive physical behaviors. Such behavior is of quite high frequency and/or intensity. One instance of extremely intense Physical Attack may be scored 9.

Rating Scales 2 1998

66

Clarifications: Physical Attack 1. Include low-grade aversive physical contact that is not delivered with disruptive force, as well as more extreme behaviors. The intensity, as well as the frequency, of physical attack behaviors should be considered. One harsh blow, delivered with extreme intensity, is a 9. To judge harshness, look for the following cues: blow can be heard signs of wincing 4. Clarification for scoring based on number of hits:* 1 = no hits 3 = 1 hit 5 = 2 hits 7 = 3 hits 9 = 4 hits or more, or 1 harsh blow delivered with extreme intensity
(See descriptions of higher-

2.

3.

*Note: Hit means higher-intensity aversive physical behavior. intensity in example #2, above)

5.

Consider the context in which physical contact occurs, particularly when the contact is supportive (e.g., father says to son good job with a light hit). Generally, a significant physical attack will occur within the context of Hostility or disagreement between the interactors. To count as Physical Attack, behaviors must actually be observed or, in the case of suspected behaviors that cannot be seen due to their occurring under the table or behind someones back, the observer needs to hear a noise, see the recipient wince, or hear him/her say ouch, etc. If in doubt, do not count. Aversive physical contact would be scored under both Hostility and Antisocial, as well as under Physical Attack. On parenting scales, it may also be coded as Harsh Discipline. Physical Attack is a specific form of Hostility. If someone scores above a 1 on Physical Attack, they would also score at least a 2 on Hostility; however, the reverse is not true. In general, a high rating (7, 8, or 9) on Physical Attack will be associated with a high rating on Hostility, but because Hostility also contains behaviors other than those included in Physical Attack, it is not an exactly synonymous relationship. The intent of the Physical Attack code is to get at physical contact which is hostile and/or invasive. Grooming another interactor is not Physical Attack unless the grooming is harsh or irritating.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 2 1998

67

10. If it is unclear that a touch is aversive, do not score as Physical Attack. Some touches may begin as Physical Affection and turn into Physical Attack (or vice versa) and should be scored as such. However, not all touches will be either one or the other; some are merely Dominance or are uncodeable. 11. Neutral touches such as touches that are not clearly hostile/invasive/irritating or warm should not be coded Physical Attack. Neutral touches may be coded as Dominance or they may be uncodeable. 12. Hitting the other person using an object (e.g., toy, book, puzzle piece) or pulling on his/her clothing is coded as Physical Attack. Incidental, brief touches (e.g., touching other person with card while picking it up to read or brushing anothers clothing) are not coded as Physical Attack. 13. Hitting an object out of other persons possession in such a manner that the other person appears to feel the force of the action (e.g., mom is holding puzzle piece and child slaps it out of her hand) is coded as Physical Attack. 14. With young children, physical contact may be used to gently guide children. This would be scored as Dominance not Physical Attack (e.g., redirecting the childs attention to the task). To determine how to score the behavior, ask whether the behavior guides versus restrains or forces the child.

Examples: Physical Attack 1. Lower-intensity aversive or invasive physical behaviors: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 2. light hitting pinching shoving light kicking light spanking light punching light hitting with an object restraining light tickling that continues despite request to stop light poking pulling on anothers clothing

Higher-intensity aversive physical behaviors: a. b. c. d. e. f. hard spanking hard hitting hitting with an object hard kicking grabbing hard poking
Rating Scales 2 1998

68

g. h. i. 3.

hard pushing, shoving, or socking biting yanking another interactors clothing

Demonstration of Physical Attack that makes contact with the other interactor.

Nonexamples: Physical Attack 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Throwing an object that hits another person after object is released by the focal. (Hostility) A brief congratulatory pat on the back delivered with light intensity. (Warmth/Support) A light, noninvasive touch on the arm that seems intended to gain the other persons attention or to serve as a reminder. (Dominance) Grooming another interactor without force. (Dominance) Kicking forcefully at the other person without making contact. (Hostility) Throwing toy across the room in apparent frustration. (Externalized Negative, Antisocial) Exploratory physical play such as holding onto and waving the other persons hand in a playful, nonaversive manner. (Dominance)

Rating Scales 2 1998

69

CONTEMPT (CT) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale is a specific form of Hostility that assesses the amount of disgust, disdain, derision, and scorn shown toward another interactor. The content includes personally derogatory adjectives, mocking statements, criticisms of the other person, comments that put down and demean anothers personal characteristics, and sarcasm directed toward the other person as a person. The emotional tone is superior, condescending, distant, cool, cold, or icy versus hot and engaged. At higher levels, the voice reflects being fed-up, sickened, or repulsed. At lower levels the affective tone may be neutral but the voice reflects patronization and superiority. The feeling conveyed is that the other person is not valued or is incompetent. Nonverbal behaviors may include rolling the eyes, short exasperated sighs, or other indications of disgust. Look for the presence of unkind statements presented in a disdainful manner that demean and put down the other person. Such statements must include an element of disgust, not merely make fun of the other person. Since children generally lack the cognitive sophistication to use sarcasm until early adolescence, evidence for contempt may be rare among young children. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of contempt toward the other interactor. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal infrequently shows evidence of contempt toward the other interactor. However, such behavior is of low frequency and intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes expresses contempt toward the other interactor. Such behavior is of low to moderate frequency or intensity. Even one instance of contempt may be scored 5 if it is of moderate intensity. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often expresses contempt toward the other interactor that is of low to moderate intensity. Even one instance of contempt may be scored 7 if it is of relatively high intensity. 8=

Rating Scales 2 1998

70

9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently expresses contempt toward the other interactor. Such behavior is of quite high intensity. However, even one instance of extremely intense contempt may be scored 9.

Clarifications: Contempt 1. As an aid in determining whether a behavior is contemptuous and demeaning, consider the reaction of the recipient of the behavior. The presence of a reaction may indicate the recipient finds the behavior personally demeaning. However, the absence of an observable reaction by the recipient of this behavior (since the recipient may be accustomed to such behavior) would not reduce the score. Behaviors coded as Contempt conveys Youre such a piece of dirt, why should we listen to you anyway? Anything coded as Contempt is also coded as Hostility (i.e., a score above a 1 on Contempt necessitates a score of at least a 2 on Hostility), however, the reverse is not true. Contempt can take the form of nonverbal behaviors that may also be coded as Avoidant, such as rolling eyes or turning away in disgust. Synonyms for Contempt include:* arrogance criticism of competence detest disdain disgust dismissive haughty insult mock patronize repulsed ridicule sarcasm scorn sneer

2.

3.

4.

5.

*Note: These must be presented in a cool, detached manner versus a hot, engaged manner to be coded Contempt. If not, code only as Hostility.

6.

If the contemptuous statement requests a change in the other interactors behavior or opinion, score also as Angry Coercion. In some instances, nonverbal contempt (e.g., an eyeroll) may accompany hostile content that demands the other to change; the eyeroll would be scored Contempt, the hostile content scored Hostility, and both scored Angry Coercion. A mock ridicules another person. A mimic re-enacts behavior of the other. In general, mocks presented in a disdainful manner are coded as Contempt. Whether or not a mimic is scored as Contempt depends on the context and the affective tone of the delivery.

7.

Rating Scales 2 1998

71

Examples: Contempt* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. You make me sick. You dont know anything. Youre an embarrassment, followed by shaking head and looking away with eyes closed. Youre weird. You never listen to anything. I think youre a slob. I think no one in the whole world is as stupid as you. Hes such a pest, followed by rolling eyes and a short, exasperated sigh (said about son to mother in the sons presence). What could you possibly know? Whatever said with a shrug and turn away. Duh. Nonverbal sneer. Showing disgust at another interactor, for their choice of food, clothing, etc.

*Note: To score as Contempt, the tone for the above statements should be cold, disdainful.

Nonexamples: Contempt 1. 2. 3. 4. Short laughs of a light-hearted teasing nature. Imitation or role play of another interactors behavior delivered without the focals own added mocking or disdainful affect. Eyeroll regarding the task or someone outside the task, but not directed to the other interactor. A frustrated sigh.

Rating Scales 2 1998

72

Rating Scales 2 1998

73

ANGRY COERCION (AC) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale is a specific form of Hostility that assesses the degree to which the focal achieves goals, attempts to control or change the behavior or opinions of another interactor, or attempts in a hostile manner to get another interactor to do what the focal wants (i.e., power plays, demands, hostile commands, stubbornness, resistance, obstinence, contingent physical or verbal threats, refusals, prohibitions, forcing own opinions on the other, angry whining, angry blaming, contemptuous mocking, derogatory insistence, etc.) To score on Angry Coercion, the focals change attempts must demonstrate hostile, contemptuous, or sarcastic affect, as opposed to depressed affect. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal demonstrates no signs of angry-coercive or manipulative behavior. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely demonstrates angry-coercive behaviors. Such behaviors are mild and quickly abated; they are the exception rather than the rule. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays angry-coercive behaviors. He/she sometimes behaves in a way that is manipulative in order to get what he/she wants. Angrycoercive behaviors may occur intermittently but tend to be of only low or moderate duration. More extreme behaviors rarely, if ever, occur. If of moderate intensity, one angry-coercive behavior could be scored 5. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often displays angry-coercive characteristics. Angry-coercive behaviors may be commonplace. The focal may infrequently include verbal and physical threats, refusals, or prohibitions to influence the other. If quite intense, even a single occurrence of Angry Coercion may be scored 7. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays angry-coercive behaviors. Most, if not all of the previously mentioned behaviors, including physical or verbal threats, may be characteristic of the focals interactive style. An individual may be scored a 9 because of the intensity of the behavior, such as physical or verbal threats, OR
Rating Scales 2 1998

74

because he/she frequently attempts to change the behavior of the other in a hostile or contemptuous fashion during part of the interaction.

Clarifications: Angry Coercion 1. Angry Coercion may be considered ONE METHOD of CONTROL that is possible within an interaction. To score as Angry Coercion it must be fairly clear that the focal is attempting to change or manipulate the other interactors behavior or opinions using behaviors described below. The following behaviors are Angry Coercion if it is clear that they are used in an attempt to change another interactors behavior or opinion. agitation angry blaming angry whining contemptuous mocking disgusted sarcasm grabbing impatience hitting 3. obnoxiousness physical attack to control behavior stubbornness threatening gesture verbal threat teasing yelling

2.

Code the delivery and content of the focals coercive statement, NOT the response of the other interactor. For example, the statement, I need new glasses, too. We need more money. Youll have to start doing something to earn money, delivered in an angry, blaming tone would be coded Angry Coercion, whereas if delivered in a whiny manner, it would be coded as Whine/Complain. Although the same behavioral evidence cannot be coded as both Angry Coercion and Whine/Complain, these behaviors may occur close together or simultaneously. For example, (a) simultaneously: Angry Coercion based on physical behavior and Whine/Complain based on Vocal Affect, (b) close together: You really hurt me when you do that (whiny tone), so youd better stop (angry tone); the first part is Whine/Complain and the last part is Angry Coercion. Angry Coercion is a specific form of Hostility. Evidence of Angry Coercion should also be scored as Hostility and Antisocial. It is possible to code Hostility without coding Angry Coercion. Any Angry Coercion is automatically Hostility, but the opposite is not true. If in doubt, do not code as Angry Coercion. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both this scale and the Assertiveness scale. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or a 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Rating Scales 2 1998

75

8.

Angry Coercion regarding a desire for a change in behavior does not have to include specific words for change, but may include hostile attempts to prompt, initiate, or alter behavior in a specific way with clues from the context. Context tells us a lot. Angry Coercion regarding a desire for change in opinion includes hostile or contemptuous disagreements (i.e., Youre wrong!, That is not true!, No I dont! all said with hostile affect), as well as specific statements for a change in opinion (i.e., You need to change your attitude/way of thinking! said with hostile affect). To score as Angry Coercion the focal must also appear to have in mind a fairly clear objective for a change in opinion and/or behavior.

9.

10. If a focal initiates (rather than responds to) a disagreement, it must be very clear that his/her angry manner reflects a desire for change in the other interactors behavior or opinion. 11. Gestures and physical contact (such as grabs, blocks, hits, etc.) done in a hostile manner count as Angry Coercion as long as it is clear the focal is trying to change an interactors behavior. 12. Not all disagreements are Angry Coercion. Some disagreements are stated in an assertive manner or are an exchange of opinions for the sake of honest discussion, purposes of brainstorming, etc. 13. Not all disagreements = Hostility. Not all Hostility = disagreement. But disagreement + Hostility can = Angry Coercion (if there is an element of trying to change the others attitude or behavior). 14. As a general guideline, first decide if a behavior is hostile, then determine if coercion is present. Loud comments may merely be Dominance; loud or contemptuous commands that demand a change in behavior or opinion would be both Dominance and Angry Coercion. 15. Interrogation that demands a response may be Angry Coercion if also scored as Hostility (e.g., the smell?!!!). 16. Angry Coercion can be coded for affect alone (e.g., Come here! said with hostile affect), content alone (e.g., Dont be so grouchy all the time, said with neutral affect), or a combination of both affect and content. 17. Synonyms for Angry Coercion: boss bully cause under duress compel demand force insist menace order pressure threaten

Rating Scales 2 1998

76

18. Temper tantrums that include hostile behaviors directed toward the other interactor would be coded Angry Coercion if the hostile behaviors include attempts to change the behavior or opinion of the other. Do not score as Angry Coercion if the tantrum appears directed toward objects or self. Tantrums are coded Antisocial.

Examples: Angry Coercion* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. You start emptying the trash or Ill spank your butt. Stop hitting your sister or youll be sorry. You better stop hitting your sister. Shape up or Ill shape you up. Shut your mouth or Ill shut it for you. Hey, you better shut up, (with gesture of hand in fist). You better stop crying or Ill really give you something to cry about. Quit that! No I dont! If you knew how ridiculous you look in that outfit youd go change right now, (said in a mocking tone). If you had any brain at all you would agree with me on this (said with a sneer). When you finally come to your senses, youll see how thats ridiculous. (said with sarcastic affect). Couldnt you just realize that doing dishes is womens work? (said with arrogant tone). No, you cant have it! said as child runs away with toy. You better clean this up or Im going to get really angry (parent to child in an activity-based task). Behaviors coded as defiant when they are aimed at ending or changing the focus of the task. Child rebuffs parents suggestions (e.g., instead of cleaning up, throws toys around the room).

*Note: Code examples 1-9 and 14-15 as Angry Coercion and Hostility. Code examples 10-13 as Angry Coercion, Hostility, and Contempt.

Nonexamples: Angry Coercion 1. 2. 3. 4. Im really mad at you. (Hostility) How come I always have to take out the garbage? (Whine/Complain) Im so disappointed that your team lost. (Sadness) Loud dominating statements presented without hostile affect or content. (Dominance)

Rating Scales 2 1998

77

ESCALATE HOSTILE (EH) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the focals tendency to escalate his/her own hostile behaviors directed toward another interactor, using Hostility, Verbal Attack, Physical Attack, Contempt, and/or Angry Coercion. Escalate Hostile is coded if the focal follows one hostile behaviors with another hostile behavior or if the original behavior has intensified. Include escalation of all behaviors coded as Hostility (e.g., criticizing, hitting, mocking, yelling, ridiculing, blaming, contempt, kicking, throwing objects, pushing, grabbing, etc.). 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of escalating his/her hostile behaviors toward another interactor. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal infrequently (one or two times) definitely escalates hostile behaviors. Hostile behaviors are generated and the focal infrequently follows an initial hostile behavior with another hostile behavior. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally escalates hostile behaviors. Hostile behaviors are generated and the focal sometimes follows an initial hostile behavior with other such behaviors. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often escalates hostile behaviors. Hostile behaviors are generated and the focal fairly often follows an initial hostile behavior with other such behaviors. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently escalates hostile behaviors. Hostile behaviors are generated and the focal frequently follows an initial hostile behavior with other such behaviors.

Rating Scales 2 1998

78

Clarifications: Escalate Hostile 1. For Escalate Hostile, intensity is defined as the number of escalations occurring together, for example multiple hostile behaviors in a string or a long burst of repetitive hostile behaviors. Intensity for Escalate Hostile is not defined based on increases in affect as it is for the general case (p. 5); this is captured in Hostility. For example, a focal with one string of seven hostile escalations in a row would be coded the same as a focal with two strings, one with three hostile escalations and the other with four escalations. Thus, increases in affect are of lower relevance than frequency in determining the final score for Escalate Hostile. Escalate Hostile is the individuals escalation of his/her own angry, coercive, and/or hostile behaviors, whereas Reciprocate Hostile assesses the extent to which hostile behaviors are reciprocated in the relationship. Someone who scores high on Escalate Hostile may be thought of as being on a negative roll. Assess Escalate Hostile within speaker or behavior turns. If the focal makes one hostile action or comment, followed or overlapping within that turn by a second hostile action or comment, or the latter part of a negative action or comment becomes even more negative, score on Escalate Hostile. Think of this as being on a hostile roll, with one hostile chunk of behavior followed by another such behavior. In some cases, a brief intervening behavior may occur, but if the hostility continues, score as Escalate Hostile. To count as Escalate Hostile, the interaction must deal with behavior directed toward a specific other interactor in the setting (i.e., dyadic interaction scales) such as Hostility, Verbal Attack, Physical Attack, Angry Coercion, or Contempt rather than behaviors scored under individual characteristic scales such as Sadness, Anxiety, or Externalized Negative. If the focal first briefly indicates disapproval or hostility and then goes on to elaborate on his/her immediately preceding comment, count as evidence of Escalate Hostile. Code as Escalate Hostile behavior directed to a specific other interactor in the form of a string of negative behaviors. Do not count as escalation hostility that moves from one interactor to another interactor, unless there are escalations within the comments made specifically to each individual. Count as Escalate Hostile sequential or overlapping statements about the relationship or behaviors toward the other that are hostile in content or affect, whether the statements or behaviors refer to the past, present, or future. Concurrent or simultaneous hostile statements and/or negative behaviors do not count as Escalate Hostile, for example, a frown with a hit. However, if the second negative behavior starts during the first negative behavior, count as Escalate Hostile.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Rating Scales 2 1998

79

9.

To score as Escalate Hostile, two adjectives that refer to the same trait or characteristic must add a different dimension or show a marked increase in intensity with the addition of the second adjective. a. Youre ugly and youre stupid, too. (Hostility and Escalate Hostile) b. Youre really an extremely homely person. (Hostility and Verbal Attack) c. Youre doing a lot, lot worse. (Hostility) d. Youre doing a lot worse. A lot worse. (Hostility and Escalate Hostile)

10. Escalate Hostile may involve two or more different dimensions of negativity, for example, a transition from Hostility to Angry Coercion such as: You never get home on time (Hostility), and if it happens again, youll be grounded for a week (Angry Coercion). 11. It is possible to escalate using vocal affect. 12. A focal may escalate during Silence/Pause; for example, a glare (Hostility) followed by an eyeroll (Contempt). 13. Keep in mind the proportion of time the focal builds onto his/her hostility when scoring Escalate Hostile. 14. Score a 2 for minimal escalation with slight intensity of affect (i.e., a hostile comment followed by a brief glare or a slight grunt). These are examples you would count, but rather grudgingly. In some instances, statements like Youre an ugly, homely person could count as a 2, especially if there is a slight increase in intensity of affect.

Examples: Escalate Hostile 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. You are so dumb. It is really boring being around you. There is not a thing I like about you. You just cannot be trusted to do what you say youll do. Youre ugly and youre dumb, too. Youre doing a lot worse. A lot worse. I dont care about you. You could drop off the face of the earth, and I wouldnt care. Grabbing object away from parent and then pushing away parents hand.

Possible examples at a 2 level: * 1. 2. Youre an ugly, homely person. Youre ugly and homely.

*Note: If intensity of affect increases considerably from the first to the second negative label, these 2 level examples could be scored as 3.

Rating Scales 2 1998

80

Nonexamples: Escalate Hostile 1. 2. Youre a dumb, dumb person. (Hostility) John, you are dumb! Sally, you are a slob! (Hostility to each specific interactor)

Rating Scales 2 1998

81

RECIPROCATE HOSTILE (RH) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the focal responds to another interactors hostile, conflictual, angry-coercive and disapproving behavior in like manner. Look at the extent to which the focal reciprocates such behavior (adds to the heat) through the use of hostility, contempt, and/or angry coercion (either verbal or nonverbal). The reciprocated behaviors must occur in response to behavior occurring within the dyad. 1 = Not at all characteristic: No reciprocation of hostility is present or the other interactor displays no hostility. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The other interactor initiates hostility but the focal rarely reciprocates. The focal generally attempts to de-escalate the conflict by using humor or ignoring the others comments. When the other interactor behaves hostilely toward the focal, the focal may respond in kind, either immediately or after a slight delay. However, the presence of such reciprocations is rare and the intensity is at a low level. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays hostile, contemptuous, or angry-coercive behaviors in response to such behavior from another interactor. The focal usually does not contribute to making the disagreement heated and may engage in diffusing the conflict. The hostile or angry-coercive behavior by the focal must closely follow hostile behaviors of the other, i.e., must be reciprocated immediately or within a short period of time. A nonverbal action or gesture may take the place of a reciprocating verbal comment. For example, a facial expression of disgust in response to anothers hostile remarks may reciprocate conflict. The hostile response could involve a different topic of discussion or type of action, but appears to be triggered by the others hostility. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often reciprocates with hostile, contemptuous, or angry-coercive comments or behaviors. Such reciprocations may be fairly hostile on more than one occasion. The focal usually does not attempt to diffuse the conflict. There may be instances, however, when hostility is not reciprocated. Especially in activity-based tasks with young children these interactions may depend on conflictual nonverbal responses as well as verbal exchanges with the other person. 8=
Rating Scales 2 1998

82

9 = Mainly characteristic: On many occasions, the focal reciprocates hostile, contemptuous, or angrycoercive comments or behaviors. There may be periods in the interaction in which focals responses are very hostile, as an attack-counterattack interaction. There are few, if any, instances in which the focal makes an attempt to diffuse conflict. Reciprocation of hostility and/or coercion is evident on numerous occasions throughout the task.

Clarifications: Reciprocate Hostile 1. This scale assesses the focals reciprocation of hostile behavior in an interaction, NOT the focals initiation of hostility. If disagreement or difference of opinion is mild or neutral and not disparaging of the other, do NOT code as Reciprocate Hostile. There must be some hostility to code disagreement as Reciprocate Hostile. Attend to the amount of reciprocated conflict for each individual focal to a specific other person. DO NOT be concerned with whose judgment or point of view appears to be correct, score only the reciprocation of hostile behaviors within a particular dyad by the focal. Reciprocated behaviors include elements of Hostility, Contempt, Verbal Attack, Physical Attack and Angry Coercion. Consider both verbal content and nonverbal behaviors such as actions, gestures, or nonverbal affect. It is sometimes more difficult to determine the affect of laughter, smiles, etc., which may appear positive but involve sarcasm or cynicism. Look to both the content of comments and nonverbal affect to determine the negativity of behavioral interactions. Young children may use laughter inappropriately in response to parents. If behavior is hostile and in response to hostile parental behavior, code as Reciprocate Hostile. The score on Reciprocate Hostile is not a relationship score. Both interactors in a dyad do not receive the same score. Consider who appeared to initiate the conflict and score this as Hostility for that focal. Then, look at the response of the recipient. If the recipient responds with hostility, give the recipient a score above 1 on Reciprocate Hostile. A high score, 7, 8 or 9, may be warranted on Reciprocate Hostile either because there are several instances in which the focal reciprocates the others negative behavior (i.e., several instances of just one reciprocation) or because of one instance when there is a long chain of hostile behaviors involving the two interactors (e.g., bickering back and forth).

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Rating Scales 2 1998

83

7.

To score as Reciprocate Hostile, the focal must respond immediately or within a short period of time. He/she cannot engage in any other substantially different intervening behaviors after the others hostile acts, although the focal may briefly interact with a different interactor. Make sure that scores of 2 and higher reflect behaviors which are reciprocated. You can have many hostile behaviors and the score on Reciprocate Hostile will not move up to a 2 or higher unless some of these behaviors reciprocate the Hostility of the other interactor. Several reciprocations will raise the score. Coders should distinguish between a 2 and a 3 based on intensity of affect and definiteness of the example.

8.

9.

10. If a focals hostile nonverbal behaviors are present prior to and continue to be present after the other person demonstrates Hostility, count the behavior following the other persons Hostility as Reciprocate Hostile. The other person also would receive a score on Reciprocate Hostile. 11. When scoring Reciprocate Hostile keep in mind the proportion of time the focal responds in a hostile manner to the other interactors hostility. 12. With young children the reciprocation may shift from verbal conflict to physically hostile behavior (e.g., child throws a block, parent responds with reprimand, child kicks several blocks at parent).

Examples: Reciprocate Hostile 1. Examples of hostile behaviors: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 2. name calling swearing mocking non-constructive criticisms physical threats yelling facial gestures: scowling, frowning, disgust throwing, kicking, hitting directed toward another interactor

Examples of mediational or conflict-diffusing strategies: a. b. c. d. e. f. offering a compromise making a statement that allows both people to be right humor ignoring the others comments apologizing compliance

Rating Scales 2 1998

84

3.

Examples of Reciprocate Hostile: a. b. Mom: You dont study enough. (Hostility) Son: You dont know what I do. (Reciprocate Hostile) Husband: You spend too much money. (Hostility) Wife: You dont make enough money for anyone to spend. (Reciprocate Hostile) Sib: Hit me and Ill get you. (Hostility) Target hits sib. (Reciprocate Hostile) Mom: Youre not doing it right! (Hostility) Child: Throws blocks/toys toward mom. (Reciprocate Hostile)

c. d.

Nonexamples: Reciprocate Hostile 1. 2. 3. Ill never get this. Its all your fault. (Sadness and/or Whine/Complain followed by Hostility) Your friend Tom is a real loud mouth. Youre a loud mouth just like him. (Externalized Negative followed by Hostility) Throwing block/toy across room. (Antisocial, possibly Externalized Negative)

Rating Scales 2 1998

85

DOMINANCE (DO) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the degree to which the focal attempts to dominate, influence, or control other people and/or the situation and is successful in these attempts. High dominance is indicated when the focal attempts to and is successful in influencing others to conform to the behaviors, opinions, or points of view desired by the focal, especially when differences in these areas are initially present. Ignore the quality (positive or negative) of the focals behavior. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal exhibits no attempts to dominate or control the behaviors or opinions of others in the interaction. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: There are a few instances when the focal attempts to dominate or control individual and/or group actions and opinions. For the most part, however, the focal does not attempt to dominate or control other persons, the interaction, or group opinions, and the focal rarely or never achieves control. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes attempts to dominate or control individual and/or group actions or opinions; or the focal may sometimes exert control. The focal sometimes achieves control in the situation, however, only at a low to moderate level. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often attempts to dominate or control individual and/or group actions or opinions. For example, the focal will fairly often initiate a change in discussion topic or convince others to share his/her opinion. The focal fairly often succeeds in gaining control. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently attempts to dominate and control the interaction. He/she frequently succeeds in controlling individual and/or group actions or opinions, especially when there is initial disagreement.

Rating Scales 2 1998

86

Clarifications: Dominance 1. Dominance can be thought of as the amount of power/influence a person has. This includes being in control as well as taking control and may be thought of as positive, negative, or neutral. In scoring Dominance, look at who guides the interaction, influences opinions, and/or is the person to whom other interactors are physically oriented. A highly dominant person may appear to be the person to whom everyone else is oriented, psychologically and/or physically. However, in activity-based tasks the child is the focus of the activity. In order for the child to be scored for Dominance, the child must control the flow of the interaction. Dominating statements/actions may be directed to a specific person or to the group. Code higher on Dominance if the focal issues numerous commands to other(s). Code higher still if other(s) comply with the focals commands or indicate they will comply. Dominance may also be thought of in terms of floor control (content and time). Words that describe Dominance: bossy charismatic demanding directive domineering dynamic eliciting exerting influence facilitating facilitator 7. commanding controlling forceful gatekeeper guiding influencing influential insisting leadership mastery modeling persuasive power assertions powerful predominant preeminence prevailing over others soliciting superordinant

2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

Behavior cues that indicate Dominance: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. controls the conversation or activity (does not give the floor to the other interactor(s), takes it, or asks for it successfully) directs the flow of conversation and the activity completely changes the other interactors opinion or actions his/her opinions or decisions are accepted by the other interactor(s) without accompanying reasons or supporting opinions successfully interrupts another interactor commands other interactor and he/she complies resists interruptions by another interactor resists changing his/her opinion or adapting to others suggestions person through whom conversations go

Rating Scales 2 1998

87

j. k. 8.

grooms another interactor guides the task; controls the cards/puzzle pieces/toys

To rate a 7, 8, or a 9 on Dominance the focal must actively display the behaviors characteristic of this scale. When a focal is dominant by default (e.g., other interactors are very passive), look for success in controlling the direction of interaction and success in influencing the opinions of other interactors. The length of time and the forcefulness with which a focal places a hand on another interactors arm to stop him/her from tapping the table should be considered when determining whether the behavior is only Dominance (a directive to stop) or also a Physical Attack (an actual restraint).

9.

10. Actively resisting or refusing participation in the task may be scored as Dominance, particularly if behavior of other participant(s) is influenced; score based on attempts and successes. Do not score mere reluctance to participate or actual nonparticipation as Dominance. 11. Parents who attempt to teach children how to do something, try to complete the task for the child or do not allow the child to do it on his/her own would be coded for Dominance and Intrusiveness. Additionally, children involved in completing an activity-based task exhibit Dominance when they suggest an action, turn down parents attempts to help, take pieces away from parents, ignore parents directions, or force parents to change the rules of the game/task. If child merely does task independently without other demonstrations of Dominance, a score of 3 or 4 may be appropriate. Examples: Dominance 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Lets do it this way. Quit that! I want you to do that now! Answer that question first, please. being the main person to solicit and pace the conversation statements such as, You should..., Heres what you should do..., etc., that attempt to influence the behaviors, opinions, and/or actions of other interactors Put that there. Thats not where it goes. My turn.

Nonexamples: Dominance 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I dont know. I cant decide. Whatever you think we should do is fine. Shaking head no when asked, Whats your idea? Mommy, where does this go? Can we stop now?

Rating Scales 2 1998

88

Rating Scales 2 1998

89

LECTURE/MORALIZE (LM) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the focal presents information in a didactic, superior-wisdom manner that may be lectury, preachy, intrusive, pushy, and/or moralizing. Rather than discuss issues, the focal may simply lecture other participants and/or tell them how things really are or should be. The focal may interrupt others or may not give them a chance to respond, initiate, or think independently. At lower levels, a focal may provide short discourses on topics, present maxims, and/or state truisms. A high score indicates that the focal engages in extended monologues concerning the way things should or shouldnt be, how people should or shouldnt act, morality lessons from his/her own experiences, and/or advice based on his/her superior insight. A focal may also receive a high score by exhibiting frequent brief examples of these behaviors. At any scale level, the affective quality may be positive, negative, or neutral. 1 = Not at all characteristic: None of these behaviors is demonstrated by the focal. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely shows evidence of lecturing or moralizing behaviors. behaviors are brief, infrequent, and of low intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays lecturing behavior at a low to moderate level. The difference between this category and a 3 is that the lecturing behaviors are of somewhat longer duration, more frequent, and/or more intense. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often displays lecturing behaviors. Such behaviors may be more intense and prolonged. The focal may be more intrusive and may lecture or moralize to the point of making it difficult for others to express their views. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays lecturing behaviors, or such behaviors become more extended and unrelenting. He/she may seldom give the other interactor a chance to respond and tends to monopolize the discussion. Two-way communication may be actively inhibited.

These

Rating Scales 2 1998

90

Clarifications: Lecture/Moralize 1. Lecture/Moralize may be indicated by the presence of interrupting, particularly by interruptions that are overwhelming, are complaining in nature, or do not allow the other person to think for him/her self. Interruptions are particularly likely to indicate Lecture/Moralize if they reduce, rather than increase, discussion in the family. Interrupting followed by should or ought statements, even though not negative in emotional affect, may indicate Lecture/Moralize. If there is some sense of denigrating the other, score also as Hostility. Lecture/Moralize often conveys beliefs and opinions in a lecturing, annoying manner, but also can be delivered more neutrally or even positvely. Assertiveness conveys beliefs and opinions in a nonjudgmental, straightforward way without becoming a soap-box oration. In rare cases a Lecture/Moralize statement may be delivered with neutral or positive affect and an open body stance, and thus would also be coded as Assertiveness. If this is the only evidence for Assertiveness, keep the score at a low level (i.e., no higher than a 3). To differentiate between Lecture/Moralize and Communication, consider the manner in which information, opinions, etc., are shared. If the focal is engaged in an extended monologue rather than in discussing issues in the form of open exchange, score under Lecture/Moralize. Lecture/Moralize is characterized as a monologue, whereas Communication involves a dialogue between two people. In general, a statement cannot be coded as both Lecture/Moralize (closes dialogue) and Communication (invites dialogue). In rare cases, if presented with positive affect, Lecture/Moralize sometimes may count as Communication, but only at a low level (i.e., no higher than 3). It is more usual that these behaviors may occur in close proximity, but not simultaneously. Low scores on Lecture/Moralize may be associated with the presence of higher scores on Communication and Assertiveness. High levels of Disruptive Process, Hostility, Angry Coercion, Contempt, and/or Whine/Complain may accompany high scores on Lecture/Moralize. Because Lecture/Moralize involves stating laws, rules, or moral beliefs, this behavior may contain an element of guilt induction. Statements that appear to be designed to make the other interactor feel guilty or feel pity for the focal (i.e., You should feel ashamed of yourself for always forgetting to come and see me) also may be coded as Whine/Complain if clearly presented as a complaint or gripe. Parents can turn an interaction into a soap-box lecture by telling the child all he/she does wrong or should be doing or by extolling the virtues of getting good grades or how life for the parent was as a child.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Rating Scales 2 1998

91

9.

One spouse may lecture the other on how he/she never listens, spends too much money, cant control the kids, etc.

10. Lecturing to the camera is Lecture/Moralize to each of the other interactors. 11. Score Lecture/Moralize if the focal uses preachy should, ought statements, even if short. Such statements convey the sense that Im the expert, let me tell you how things really work, and/or Im telling you this for your own good. They close off rather than invite dialogue. 12. Take care not to score Lecture/Moralize in adult-adult interactions when a focal shares opinions and thoughts in a conversational manner. Although conversations may be more prolonged, if content and delivery are not presented in a lectury manner, they would not be scored Lecture/Moralize (either in tone or content). 13. Synonyms for Lecture/Moralize adage admonish* advise caution chide* counsel didactic instruct maxim moralize oration pearl of wisdom platitude preach rebuke* sermonize soap-box truism

*Note: These are synonyms for lectures presented with negative affect.

14. Young children may present brief lectures that take the form of instructing or commanding the parent to do or not do something. If delivered with hostile affect, this would also be coded as Angry Coercion.

Examples: Lecture/Moralize 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. You should know better... Dont you think its about time you start doing... You should be ashamed of yourself for breaking your promise. Shame on you - you should know better. Id expect more of you. When I was a kid... Drugs are really bad. They are ruining our country. I hope you never use drugs. It is important that kids get their homework done as soon as they come home from school. Kids need to be more responsible for getting homework done on their own. They shouldnt have to wait for their parents to remind them. 9. People need to be more caring. There are too many self-centered people in this world. 10. She said to do it together. 11. You have to help me. 12. You do it - youre the mom.
Rating Scales 2 1998

92

13. We have to put those away now. Its time to clean up.

Nonexamples: Lecture/Moralize 1. 2. 3. No one ever listens to me. (Whine/Complain) Stop that right now! (Angry Coercion) Im pleased with the way you assume (Warmth/Support)

responsibility

for

yourself.

Rating Scales 2 1998

93

INTERROGATION (IT) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the extent to which the focal asks pointed questions that solicit specific information or make a point, rather than raises questions that communicate interest in learning about the others thoughts, feelings, or activities. At higher levels the focal may display a systematic, persistent, insistent questioning style. At lower levels, such inquiries may occur less frequently but still convey a questioning style. At all levels, affective quality can be positive, negative, or neutral but is pointed or insistent rather than inviting. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal exhibits no signs of interrogation. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal exhibits a few instances of interrogation. These episodes are of short duration and low intensity and are the exception rather than the rule. Short insistent questions may be raised. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes exhibits interrogating behaviors. These behaviors tend to be of only low to moderate duration and intensity. More extreme evidence of interrogation rarely, if ever, occurs. Instances of brief, pointed questions are increasing. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often displays evidence of interrogation. These behaviors are of an elevated frequency, duration, and/or intensity, although not at the highest level. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently exhibits interrogating behaviors. These behaviors may be of an intense quality and/or these episodes may be more extended. Frequent episodes of short duration may also be scored a 9.

Rating Scales 2 1998

94

Clarifications: Interrogation 1. To differentiate between Interrogation and Communication when the focal is asking questions, consider the kinds of questions being asked and how they are being asked. An interrogator will be asking lots of leading questions for which answers are already known or asking questions mainly to make a point, to fish for an answer, or lay a trap, rather than asking questions to encourage or invite the other interactor to voluntarily share information and/or opinions. Do not confuse solicitous questions (i.e., questions to which the focal may know the answer but are intended to bring another interactor into the conversation) or encouraging questions directed at completing the task at hand (e.g., Where would that piece go?) with Interrogation. These types of questions would more appropriately be coded under Communication. While a single question may be coded Interrogation, it needs to be stated in such a manner as to drive home a point (e.g., You came home late again last night, didnt you? said in a critical, hostile, or angry manner). When coding Interrogation, consider both frequency and intensity. A focal may display short episodes of questioning frequently during the task and/or more intense episodes of longer duration. Do not interpret Inductive Reasoning as indicating the presence of Interrogation. Inductive Reasoning is encouraging the childs thought and reasoning processes in a teaching manner, whereas Interrogation asks questions in a pointed, systematic, or insistent manner. A focal can score a 9 on Interrogation if there are one or more clusters of intense or severe questioning. Look for multiple questioning or badgering questioning over a short period of time. Frequent display of speech habits such as, you know?, okay?, right?, wouldnt we?, may warrant at least a low-level score on Interrogation, especially if the questions appear to make a point rather than invite comment from the other interactor.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Examples: Interrogation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. You think you should have a clean room, dont you? Dont you think you should help your mother? You want to play ball? Fine! You want to take tennis lessons? Fine, Fine! You can do all these things, but... You stole the tape recorder thats in your room, didnt you?! Did you break the window?! Wasnt that two hours later than you were supposed to be home? You went to Sallys house even though I told you not to, didnt you?

Rating Scales 2 1998

95

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

And what were you supposed to do when you finished your homework? Were you out until 11:00 p.m. last night? Do you think you should study hard or just be a bum? Didnt we think that was fun? Didnt we? You think you can do this yourself, dont you? Why?! Arent you going to help me?

Nonexamples: Interrogation 1. 2. 3. 4. Self-directed questions such as, What was I thinking? Solicitous questions such as, What do you think about that? (Communication) Would you like me to help you? (Communication) O.K. - Lets think about this. Where would that piece go? (Inductive Reasoning)

Rating Scales 2 1998

96

Rating Scales 2 1998

97

DENIAL (DE) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the focals active rejection of the existence of a given situation or of personal responsibility for a situation being discussed. Code the presence of statements that excuse ones behavior, deny responsibility for blame or cast blame onto someone or something else with the apparent intent of making the other realize its not my fault, or Ive no control over it. The focal may explicitly or implicitly deny that he/she is responsible for a past or present situation or may blame others for the existence of a problem. Often such denial will be done in a defensive manner. In the extreme case, the focal may deny the existence of a problem that clearly seems to exist based on other contextual cues. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no evidence of denial of responsibility. At no time does the focal actively reject the existence of a given situation or personal responsibility for a situation being discussed. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal infrequently denies responsibility for a situation being discussed. He/she rarely demonstrates evidence of casting blame onto someone or something else. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes denies personal responsibility for or the existence of a given situation and/or casts blame onto someone or something else. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often denies personal responsibility for or the existence of a situation. The focal tends to cast blame onto someone or something else for a given situation. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently denies responsibility. He/she casts blame onto others and denies personal responsibility for a given situation. The focal may adamantly refuse to agree that a problem of some type exists.

Rating Scales 2 1998

98

Clarifications: Denial 1. Statements of denial may often be preceded by a question of responsibility raised by another person. For example, You never pick up my clothes at the cleaners may be followed by Well, you only reminded me once, or Well, you dont give me money on time (Denial). Unless presented in a defensive manner, any statement in which one person suggests that neither partner is responsible for a particular problem should not be coded as Denial (i.e., the partners agree that the problem is caused by some external source). Code as Denial any statement in which a focal denies a connection between his/her behavior and a situation which has been defined as a problem by the other person, or if the focal attempts to skirt an issue. Statements coded as Denial appear to be defensive and for the purpose of protecting ones self or shifting responsibility/blame away from ones self, possibly onto another. Behaviors that indicate the presence of Denial include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. 6. 7. denies that the situation raised by the partner exists denies having any personal responsibility for or contributing in any way to the problem/situation claims everything is OK changes the subject of discussion suddenly diverts the problem discussion blames another person for creating the problem/situation blames the other interactor for blowing the problem/situation out of proportion skirts the issue disassociates him/herself from fault provides a rationale or excuse for his/her problematic behavior places responsibility for correcting the problem on other interactors rationalizes in a defensive manner projects fault onto someone or something else avoids blame by not recognizing the problem

2.

3.

4.

5.

Denial may be nonverbal, for example, turning away, shaking head, etc. In the definition for Denial, the phrase active rejection of the existence of a given situation refers to avoiding blame by not recognizing or not acknowledging a problem for which one actually is responsible or shares responsibility based on contextual cues. Do not code differences of opinion or explanations as Denial unless accompanied by an attempt to excuse ones own behavior.

8.

Rating Scales 2 1998

99

9.

When it is not possible to determine who or what is right or wrong, score Denial based on manner of presentation.

10. Denial can be scored based on either content or affective tone. 11. If content is defensive and tone is whiny, score as both Denial and Whine/Complain. If both content and tone are defensive, score only as Denial. 12. Score as Denial statements that excuse ones behavior (e.g., just kidding, or I didnt really mean that) if the focals proceeding comments were discourteous and/or insulting.

Examples: Denial 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Its too difficult for me. That was a joke. No, I dont know anything about it. I cant help it. I forgot. I cant make it after school because I have to clean the kitchen. I got mad because I didnt feel good. Its not my fault. Well, I didnt do it. I wasnt even there. I cant help with dishes, I have to go to work. Its all your fault. Yeah, but... So what! Turning away from other interactor. Shaking head to show disagreement. Just kidding. Uh, Uh.

Nonexamples: Denial 1. 2. Rejection of a compliment. Disagreement between two interactors about how each feels he/she is treated by someone outside the task (e.g., Mom treats you better, first interactor. She does not, second interactor). A neutrally stated explanation (both tone and content) for ones behavior.

3.

Rating Scales 2 1998

100

Rating Scales 2 1998

101

WARMTH/SUPPORT (WM) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the focal expresses liking, appreciation, praise, care, concern, or support for the other person. Take into account three types of behavior: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION, such as affectionate touching, kissing, and loving smiles; SUPPORTIVENESS, such as showing concern for the others welfare, offering encouragement, and praise; and CONTENT, such as statements of affirmation, empathy, liking, appreciation, care, and concern. In general, rate how much the focal demonstrates care and support for the other. In scoring Warmth/Support, look for combinations of behaviors and weigh affect and nonverbal behaviors more heavily than content of statements. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no discernible examples of warmth or support toward the other. The focal does not go out of his/her way to be warm/supportive (interested in and affirming) of the other at any time. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal exhibits some evidence of low-intensity behaviors that demonstrate warm/supportive caring, concern, and encouragement toward the other, but these behaviors quickly disappear. Examples of low-intensity Warmth/Support are: encouraging comment or interested question, or an understanding look with a smile, etc., that are genuinely warm/supportive. Simply attending does not warrant a 2 or 3 unless accompanied by warmth such as an affectionate smile or empathic expression, or some other indication of Warmth/Support. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: There are several times when the focal expresses a moderate degree of concern, warmth, support, encouragement, praise, or affection or attempts to draw out the other person in a warm/supportive manner. There is some clear evidence that the focal occasionally is trying, for example, to praise, affirm, empathize with, or in some other manner demonstrate Warmth/Support to the other. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often shows warmth and support or demonstrates more intense warmth and support. The focal may express interest in and attend to the others comments in a warm/supportive manner. The focal shows positive nonverbal gestures, such as warm smiles, and/or occasional affectionate touching. The focal fairly often attempts, for example, to praise, affirm, empathize with, or in some other manner demonstrate Warmth/Support to the other.

Rating Scales 2 1998

102

8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal is characterized as being highly warm and/or supportive. The focal frequently may show high warmth and support by offering a high degree of encouragement and praise, and/or the focal may display a high degree of affectionate touching, warm smiling, and/or positive comments about the other. He/she may actively elicit information about the others concerns in a warm/supportive, interested manner. The focal displays genuine interest in and affirmation of the other.

Clarifications: Warmth/Support 1. Warmth/Support may be displayed through some combination of the following behaviors in such a manner that conveys genuine interest in and affirmation of the other person: a. Nonverbal communication: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) physical affection - caresses, hugs, kisses, gentle touches, light tickling physical gestures - warm smiles, winks, thumbs up sign, O.K. sign, body posture - tilting head toward other, leaning closer toward other eye contact - gazing affectionately into the others eyes, eye contact that connects and lingers with the other facial expressions - displays of sympathy, understanding, encouragement, approval, etc.

b.

Supportiveness: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) shows interest in the others welfare shows interest in the others concerns willingly changes own behavior for the other offers encouraging comments and praise empathetic expresses warmth, concern, sympathy toward the other person encourages other person flatters, compliments other person minimizes other persons self-deprecatory statements reassures the other

c.

Content: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) affirmation praise encouragement approval validation

Rating Scales 2 1998

103

(6) (7) (8) (9) 2.

empathy support gratitude appreciation

The focal who scores high in Warmth/Support is generally positive and affirming and indicates a high level of support and/or understanding of another persons feelings or emotions. Young children who score high on Warmth/Support are generally affectionate and warm toward parent. It is important to note that Warmth/Support can be expressed by a variety of behaviors, some of which are assessed by other scales, i.e., Communication and Positive Mood. Consider the general nature of the Warmth/Support scale when rating, and REMEMBER THAT IT IS OKAY THAT THERE IS SOME OVERLAP. Include verbal expressions of approval of the other interactors appearance, behavior, or state, as well as verbal expressions of support, empathy, apology, and thanks that convey warmth to the other person versus merely Prosocial comments. Code Warmth/Support when the focal is conveying warmth, affection, supportiveness, and liking for the other person. It may be coded when the focal is talking or acting in a soothing or empathetic manner as well as when the subject is showing that he/she cares about or feels close to the other person. Teasing that is of an affectionate nature would be coded as Warmth/Support. Words that describe Warmth/Support include: admiring adoring affectionate affirmation appreciative approving caring comforting concerned empathetic endearing endorsing helpful loving supportive tender understanding validation

3.

4.

5.

6.

Note: These behaviors must be displayed in a warm manner (i.e., affective tone and nonverbal cues are warm).

7.

Expressions of interest, support and encouragement presented in a soft, warm, and/or soothing voice would be coded Warmth/Support. Agreement in and of itself does not necessarily indicate warmth or support. Likewise, coalitions or shared opinions are not automatically Warmth/Support. The manner in which agreement is expressed must be warm and supportive of the other interactor in order to count as evidence of Warmth/Support. We statements can be counted as Warmth/Support as long as there is evidence of Warmth/Support and positive affect. For example, We enjoy going on picnics together, Were best friends, or We did it!
Rating Scales 2 1998

8.

9.

104

10. Comments about the past can be counted as Warmth/Support if stated in a warm manner. For example, You were fun to be with when we went out to eat. 11. Global statements of affirmation would count as Warmth/Support as well as Endearment. 12. Affectionate touches are a specific form of Warmth/Support. Any such behavior should also be scored as Physical Affection. 13. Neutral touches such as touches that are not clearly either warm/supportive or hostile/invasive/irritating, may be uncodeable. 14. If two people laugh at the same time, Warmth/Support should be coded only if it is clear that the laughter conveys a sense of caring, interest, and support for the other person. 15. Warmth/Support may include positive name calling which is complimentary in context or pet names signifying affection. In determining whether or not positive name calling or pet names should be coded as Warmth/Support, pay attention to context and manner (i.e., mindless versus more deliberate). 16. Warmth/Support can be coded for comments made in the third person about someone who is present. For example, a parent says to the other parent or to the camera, He is a good student. However, the rating would not be as high as when made directly to the person (You are a good student). 17. If people sit with arms or shoulders touching, code as Warmth/Support and Physical Affection only if contextual cues indicate this touching appears intentional or it is accompanied by other cues, for example a warm comment or smile. Score based on instances of observable Warmth/Support, not on length of physical contact. 18. Gestures such as high-fives and gimme-fives must be looked at contextually. If offered in a supportive good job, sort of manner and the other interactor returns the high-five, code as Warmth/Support for both participants and Physical Affection and Reciprocate Warmth/Support for the initial recipient of the highfive. However, if the high-five is more of a boasting or bragging type of behavior, do not code as Warmth/Support. Pay specific attention to the context. 19. Only score Warmth/Support for behaviors of the focal that convey or give warmth and/or supportiveness, not for behaviors that seek warmth and/or supportiveness.

Examples: Warmth/Support 1. 2. Were really pleased with your grades. Youve done a good job with all your chores.

Rating Scales 2 1998

105

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

I know its difficult; you have to work really long hours. I know youll do better next time. Why do you feel that way? What could I do to help you? I could come home earlier and start supper. Yes, it was a tough situation; you handled it really well. I like your drawing. Thanks for your help. Sorry about that. That must have hurt. (the recipient had been hurt) Youre really smart. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) I love you. I really care about you. You have too much to do. Let me do the dishes. Youre wonderful. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) Youre terrific. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) You are really smart. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) Gee, youre beautiful. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) Youre so handsome. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) Youre one of the most thoughtful people I know. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) You were very brave. Hello, beautiful. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) Im proud of how well you two do in school. Were proud of how well you handle things when were gone. Youre easy to raise. (Warmth/Support and Endearment) Dads really funny. (said if Dad is in the interaction) That was a nice job. You look great in that shirt. That was a smart move on your part. You did that well. Im really proud of you. Hugs. (Warmth/Support and Physical Affection) Holding hands. Stroking head, arm, back, etc. Touching arm in a tender manner. Touching shoulders with other interactor. Thanks! (with warm affect and gaze). Youre really good at this ! Youre doing such a good job. Good! I like doing this puzzle with you.

Nonexamples: Warmth/Support 1. 2. Yes, your uncle is the best carpenter I know. (Communication and Positive Mood) Isnt this great weather were having! (Positive Mood)
Rating Scales 2 1998

106

3. 4. 5. 6.

Thanks. (acknowledging the others warmth/support or prosocial behaviors) (Prosocial) Seeking reassurance from the other interactor (verbally or nonverbally). I like doing this puzzle. (Positive Mood) This is fun. (Positive Mood)

Rating Scales 2 1998

107

ENDEARMENT (ED) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures expressions of personalized and unqualified approval of another interactor that convey extreme commitment, intimacy, caring, and global compliments regarding anothers personal characteristics and statements that attribute ongoing/global favorable or positive characteristics to another interactor. Endearments must be global in character, i.e., they must pertain to attributes that are not limited to just one setting or situation. They also must be ongoing rather than referring to qualities at only one point in time. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of personalized and unqualified approval of the other interactor. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal shows some evidence of personalized and unqualified approval of the other interactor. However, such behavior is of low frequency and/or intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally expresses personalized and unqualified approval of the other interactor. Such behavior is of low to moderate frequency and/or intensity. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal shows elevated evidence of frequent or intense expressions of personalized and unqualified approval of the other. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently expresses personalized and unqualified approval of the other interactor. Such behavior is of high intensity and/or frequency.

Clarifications: Endearment 1. Endearment is a specific form of Warmth/Support. If someone scores a 2 on Endearment, they would also score at least a 2 on Warmth/Support, however, the reverse is not true. In general, a high rating (7, 8, 9) on Endearment will be associated with a high rating on Warmth/Support, but, because Warmth/Support
Rating Scales 2 1998

108

also contains other behaviors, it is not an automatic or perfect relationship. For example, one could score a 9 on Warmth/Support and a 1 on Endearment. 2. To count as evidence of Endearment, a statement must refer to a global characteristic of the other person that is applicable across people, situations, or time. For example, You did well in math last term is specific to a particular course and time period and is not coded as Endearment. You are a good student is coded as Endearment because it suggests that the target is generally capable across time and situations. The behavior being applauded cannot only be directed toward one person. For example, You always help me is not an Endearment because it involves helpfulness to only one person, although it would be scored as Warmth/Support. In contrast, you are always so helpful would be coded as Endearment because it implies that the recipient of the behavior is helpful in many different settings, contexts, and with many different people. Endearment may include positive name calling which is complimentary in context or pet names signifying affection. Pay attention to context in determining whether or not positive name calling or pet names (e.g., sweetie, honey) should be coded as Endearment; if this is the only evidence, score no higher than a 3. Do not count if used merely as a name substitution. Comments must relate to the present time. If they relate only to the past, they would be scored under Warmth/Support. Endearment can be coded for comments made in the third person about someone who is present, (e.g., He is a good student). However, the rating would not be as high as when made directly to the person (e.g., You are a good student). In general, do not count as Endearment comments which are qualified (e.g., sometimes, pretty ____); however, when coding statements such as Youre a pretty good student, use judgment as to whether or not pretty is a qualifier. Statements of Endearment must affirm the other person all the time (e.g., You are a good helper). A statement such as, Im real proud of you is not Endearment because it does not refer to a specific trait or characteristic of the other person that is enduring. Count as Endearment any expression that indicates the focal is proud of something that is an ongoing personal characteristic of another interactor.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Examples: Endearment 1. 2. 3. 4. Youre wonderful. Youre terrific. You are really smart. Gee, youre beautiful.

Rating Scales 2 1998

109

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Youre so handsome. Youre one of the most thoughtful people I know. You are very brave. Hello, beautiful. Im proud of how well you two do in school. Were proud of how well you handle things when were gone. Youre easy to raise. Dads really fun. (said in Dads presence to another person) Youre really a pretty sweet kid. I think youre kind of cute. You are really good at puzzles. Youre such a good helper. Youre a big boy!

Nonexamples: Endearment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. That was a nice job. (Warmth/Support) You look great in that shirt. (Warmth/Support) That was a smart move on your part. (Warmth/Support) You did that well. (Warmth/Support) Im really proud of you. (Warmth/Support) I love you. (Warmth/Support) You looked pretty yesterday. (Warmth/Support) You did that just right. (Warmth/Support) Oh youre so silly Youre such a goof!

Rating Scales 2 1998

110

Rating Scales 2 1998

111

PHYSICAL AFFECTION (AF) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) Any positive, affectionate physical contact, including hugs, caresses, touches, kisses, tickles, or patting or stroking anothers arm, back, etc. are scored as Physical Affection. This scale is scored based on the inherent warmth and affection expressed by the physical behavior. Pay particular attention to contextual cues when coding this scale. 1 = Not at all characteristic: There is no evidence of affectionate physical behaviors. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely shows evidence of affectionate physical behavior. Such behaviors are of low intensity and/or frequency. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal shows some evidence of affectionate physical behaviors of low to moderate intensity and/or frequency. Even one instance of Physical Affection of moderate intensity may be scored a 5. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates evidence of affectionate physical behaviors of low to moderate intensity. Even one affectionate physical contact of relatively high intensity may be scored a 7. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays considerable evidence of affectionate physical behaviors. Such behavior is of quite high intensity and/or frequency. One instance of extremely intense Physical Affection may be scored a 9.

Rating Scales 2 1998

112

Clarifications: Physical Affection 1. Physical Affection is a specific form of Warmth/Support. If someone scores a 2 on Physical Affection, they would also score at least a 2 on Warmth/Support; however, the reverse is not necessarily true. In general, a high rating (7, 8, 9) on Physical Affection will be associated with a high rating on Warmth/Support, but because Warmth/Support also contains behaviors other than those included in Physical Affection, it is not a perfect relationship. Include positive physical contacts such as pats, hugs, mussing hair, or kisses as indicators of Physical Affection. Include low-level positive physical contact, as well as more extreme behavior. Both the intensity and frequency of Physical Affection should be considered in determining the appropriate score. Positive physical contact would be scored under Warmth/Support and Prosocial, as well as under Physical Affection. Neutral touches such as touches that are not clearly Warmth/Support or hostile, invasive, or irritating may be coded as Dominance or they may be uncodeable. Do not code as Physical Affection behavior in which a focal seeks affection or physical comfort from another interactor, for example burying head on others shoulder, rubbing others arm, etc.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

Examples: Physical Affection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. hugs holding stroking head, arm, back, etc. touching arm touching shoulders with other interactor rubbing knees

Nonexamples: Physical Affection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. jabs pokes hard tickling affection seeking a touch to call attention to something gently guiding child back to task

Rating Scales 2 1998

113

ESCALATE WARMTH/SUPPORT (EW) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the focals tendency to escalate his/her own warm and/or supportive behaviors directed toward another interactor. Escalate Warmth/Support is coded if the focal follows one warm/supportive behavior with another such behavior or if the original behavior has intensified. Include all behaviors coded as Warmth/Support (e.g., praise, caress, affirm, approve, empathize, admire, etc.), including Endearment and Physical Affection. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of escalating his/her Warmth/Support behaviors toward another interactor. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal infrequently (one or two times) escalates Warmth/Support behaviors. Warmth/Support behaviors are generated and the focal infrequently follows an initial behavior with other such behavior(s). 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally escalates Warmth/Support behaviors. Warmth/Support behaviors are generated and the focal sometimes follows an initial behavior with other such behaviors. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often escalates Warmth/Support behaviors. Warmth/Support behaviors are generated and the focal fairly often follows an initial behavior with other such behaviors. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently escalates Warmth/Support behaviors. Warmth/Support behaviors are generated and the focal frequently follows an initial behavior with other such behaviors.

Rating Scales 2 1998

114

Clarifications: Escalate Warmth/Support 1. For Escalate Warmth/Support, intensity is defined as the number of escalations occurring together, for example multiple warm/supportive behaviors in a string or a long burst of repetitive positive behaviors. Intensity for Escalate Warmth/Support is not defined based on increases in affect as it is for the general case (p. 5). For example, a focal with one string of seven warm/supportive escalations in a row would be coded the same as a focal with two strings, one with three positive escalations and the other with four escalations. Thus, increases in affect are of lower relevance than frequency in determining the final score for Escalate Warmth/Support. Escalate Warmth/Support is the individuals escalation of his/her own warm/supportive behaviors, whereas Reciprocate Warmth/Support assesses the extent to which warm/supportive behaviors are reciprocated in the relationship. Someone who is high on Escalate Warmth/Support may be thought of as being on a positive roll. Assess Escalate Warmth/Support within speaker turns. If the focal makes one warm/supportive comment followed by a second such comment, or if the latter part of a warm/supportive comment becomes even more warm/supportive, score as Escalate Warmth/Support, even if the other interactor speaks concurrently. Do not code Escalate Warmth/Support for Positive Mood statements that would not also be coded as Warmth/Support. If a focal first briefly indicates approval or warmth and then goes on to elaborate on his/her immediately preceding comment, count as evidence of Escalate Warmth/Support. Code as Escalate Warmth/Support behavior directed to a specific other interactor in the form of a string of positive behaviors. Do not count as an escalation warmth that moves from one interactor to another interactor, unless there are escalations within the comments made specifically to each individual. Count as Escalate Warmth/Support sequential statements about the relationship that are warm and/or supportive in content or affect, whether regarding the past, present or future. Simultaneous positive behaviors do not count as Escalate Warmth/Support, for example, a smile with a pat. Do not score as Escalate Warmth/Support two adjectives that refer to the same trait or characteristic unless the second adjective adds a different dimension, or unless there is a marked increase in intensity with the addition of the second adjective. Two adjectives in a row must add a different dimension or increased intensity to be considered an escalation. For example:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 2 1998

115

a. b. c. d.

Youre beautiful and youre smart, too. (Warmth/Support and Escalate Warmth/Support) Youre really a very gorgeous person. (Warmth/Support) Youre doing a lot, lot better. (Warmth/Support) Youre doing a lot better. A lot better. (Warmth/Support and Escalate Warmth/Support)

10. Score a 2 for minimal escalation with slight intensity of affect (i.e., a supportive comment followed by a warm smile). These are examples you would count, but rather grudgingly. In some instances, statements like, Youre a pretty, beautiful person, could count as a 2, especially if there is a slight increase in intensity of affect.

Examples: Escalate Warmth/Support 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. We enjoy being together. Its fun to be with you. Whats positive about our marriage is that we trust each other; we have a history we can fall back on when times are bad. Youre beautiful, and youre smart, too. Youre doing a lot better. A lot better. I really care about you. You are wonderful. You did a good job on your math test, but you always do well because you are such a good student. I love you followed by a kiss. You did a great job youre so smart.

Possible examples at a 2 level:* 1. 2. Youre a pretty, beautiful person. You are pretty and beautiful.

*Note: If intensity of affect increases considerably, these 2 level examples could be a 3.

Nonexamples: Escalate Warmth/Support 1. 2. 3. 4. Youre a beautiful, beautiful person. (Warmth/Support) Youre doing a lot, lot better. (Warmth/Support) Im happy with life. I like what I do. (Positive Mood) Youre great. Im pretty good, too. (Warmth/Support followed by Positive Mood)

Rating Scales 2 1998

116

Rating Scales 2 1998

117

RECIPROCATE WARMTH/SUPPORT (RW) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the focal responds in like manner to another interactors warm and supportive behaviors (i.e., endearments, affection, approval, etc.). The focal reciprocates Warmth/Support from the other person. Look at the extent to which the focal adds to the Warmth/Support through verbal and/or nonverbal behaviors. The reciprocated behavior must occur in response to behavior occurring within the dyad. 1 = Not at all characteristic: No reciprocation of Warmth/Support is present or the other interactor displays no warmth. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The other interactor initiates Warmth/Support, but the focal rarely reciprocates in like manner. For example, the other person may rarely or frequently show Warmth/Support to the other, yet the focal usually deals with the Warmth/Support by ignoring the others comments and only rarely reciprocates by responding in a warm/supportive manner. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays warm/supporting behaviors in response to another interactors Warmth/Support. The focal does not contribute to making the exchange very warm. However, sometimes a warm/supportive behavior by the focal closely follows that of the other, i.e., is reciprocated. A nonverbal action or gesture may take the place of a verbal comment. For example, a facial expression of warmth in response to anothers remark may initiate or reciprocate approval/support (e.g., warm smiling). The reciprocation of warm/supportive acts should take place immediately or within a short period of time. The warm/supportive response could involve a different topic of discussion, but appears to be triggered by the other interactors Warmth/Support. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often reciprocates endearing, warm, approving or supporting comments or behaviors. Such behaviors may result in a fairly warm interaction on more than one occasion. There may be instances, however, when Warmth/Support is not reciprocated. 8=
Rating Scales 2 1998

118

9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently reciprocates endearing, warm, approving, or supporting comments or behaviors. There may be periods of interaction that are very warm and/or supportive, as in a mutually affirming interaction. There are frequent instances during the interaction when warm/supportive behaviors are reciprocated.

Clarifications: Reciprocate Warmth/Support 1. This scale assesses the focals reciprocation of warm/supportive behaviors in an interaction, not the focals initiation of positive behavior. Attend only to the amount of warmth for each individual focal to a specific other person. DO NOT be concerned with who first initiated the warm/supportive interaction, score only the reciprocation of warm/supportive behaviors within a particular dyad by the focal. Do not automatically code agreement with the other interactor as Reciprocate Warmth/Support. To count as evidence of Reciprocate Warmth/Support, the statements or actions must be Warmth/Support and be in response to like behavior from the other interactor. Reciprocate Warmth/Support includes behaviors that would be coded as Warmth/Support. Consider both verbal content and nonverbal behaviors such as actions, gestures, or nonverbal affect to determine the warmth of behavioral interactions. Words that describe Warmth/Support and should be considered when scoring Reciprocate Warmth/Support include: admiring adoring affectionate appreciative approving 6. caring comforting concerned empathetic encouraging endearing loving supportive tender

2.

3.

4.

5.

To be counted as reciprocation, the focal must respond immediately or within a short period of time. He/she cannot engage in any other substantially different intervening behaviors after the others warm/supportive behaviors, although the focal may briefly interact with a different interactor. Simultaneous shared laughter can be scored at a 2 or 3 level on Reciprocate Warmth/Support, but only if there is genuine Warmth/Support between the two interactors. To move to a higher level, there must be more evidence of reciprocation. Do not code Reciprocate Warmth/Support just because two interactors laugh simultaneously or sequentially.

7.

Rating Scales 2 1998

119

8.

Make sure that scores of 2 or higher reflect behaviors which are reciprocated. You can have many 2 level warm/supportive behaviors and the score on Reciprocate Warmth/Support will not move up unless there is at least one reciprocation of the others behavior. Several reciprocations may raise the score further. There is no need to score a 2 or 3 on Group Enjoyment if you scored a 2 or 3 on Reciprocate Warmth/Support. These two codes are not dependent on each other so there are no score limitations binding them together.

9.

10. Coders should distinguish between a 2 and a 3 based on intensity of affect and definiteness of the example. 11. If a focals warm/supportive nonverbal behaviors are present prior to and continue to be present after the other person demonstrates Warmth/Support, count the behavior following the other persons Warmth/Support as Reciprocate Warmth/Support. The other person also would receive a score on Reciprocate Warmth/Support.

Examples: Reciprocate Warmth/Support 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Son: Thanks for helping me with that. (Warmth/Support) Mother: I enjoy helping you. (Reciprocate Warmth/Support) Father: You did a great job on that test. (Warmth/Support) Daughter: I just have smart parents. (Reciprocate Warmth/Support) Sib: You look really good in that shirt. (Warmth/Support) Target: You look great yourself. (Reciprocate Warmth/Support) Husband: You are a wonderful spouse. (Warmth/Support) Wife responds with a warm smile. (Reciprocate Warmth/Support) Mom: Youre doing so well! (Warmth/Support) Child responds with a warm smile and/or hug. (Reciprocate Warmth/Support)

Nonexamples: Reciprocate Warmth/Support 1. Mother: It was fun to go out to eat with you the other night. (Warmth/Support and Positive Mood) Son: Yes the food was great. (Positive Mood) Daughter: You look nice in that shirt. (Warmth/Support) Mother: Thanks. (Prosocial)

2. 3.

Rating Scales 2 1998

120

Rating Scales 2 1998

121

ASSERTIVENESS (AR) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the focals manner or style of presentation. It assesses the degree to which the focal displays confidence and forthrightness while expressing self through clear, appropriate and neutral or positive avenues and exhibits self-confidence, persistence, and patience with the responses of the other. Take into account the manner in which one presents his/her viewpoint; how the focal responds when the other opposes his/her assertions; and nonverbal communication such as not averting gaze, eye contact, body oriented toward the other. In general, the highly assertive person will express views in an open, straightforward, nonthreatening, and nondefensive style, rather than in either a passive or a hostile manner. For young children, take into consideration the manner in which the child takes initiative and interacts with the parent while trying to complete the task. The more assertive child may complete or attempt to complete the task independent of parent, but in order to count as assertive behavior the child must communicate this independence neutrally or positively to the parent. This scale measures behavior directed toward another person rather than independence per se. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal never demonstrates signs of assertiveness. At no time may he/she take the initiative in expressing his/her needs, wants, or opinions even when asked. The focal may be unsure of self, shy, cautious, and may wait for directions. There is an absence of confidence, persistence, and/or patience OR the focal may be coercive/hostile. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal infrequently demonstrates signs of assertiveness. The focal may also avert gaze when making a statement or may give up easily when his/her opinions or efforts are opposed by the other. There is low evidence of confidence, persistence, and/or patience or focal may display negative affect. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally demonstrates signs of assertiveness. While he/she occasionally expresses self in a positive, nonthreatening fashion, he/she may not elaborate on or support his/her viewpoints or requests for assistance. There is still an element of a lack of self-confidence in the way the focal asserts self or he/she may display negative affect. The young child occasionally takes the initiative in completing a task, but does not always persist when he/she encounters difficulty. The child occasionally seeks assistance from parent in a neutral or positive manner.

Rating Scales 3 1998

122

6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates signs of assertiveness. He/she expresses self in a clear, appropriate, positive, and self-confident manner; generally conveys patience with respect to the others responses; persists positively in the face of opposition by elaborating on or supporting his/her viewpoints; looks directly at the other when making a statement; but may vacillate on a few positions. The young child usually persists when attempting to complete a task, but may need some encouragement to continue. The young child interacts with parent in a direct and confident manner using neutral or positive affect. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently is open and straightforward in expressing him/herself. Under appropriate circumstances, he/she characteristically conveys his/her needs, wants, or opinions in a legitimate, positive, self-confident, and patient fashion; elaborates on or supports his/her viewpoints; and persists positively in the face of opposition; does not avert gaze when making statements. Note: The focal must display both assertive content and positive body orientation to be scored a 9. Young children persist when working on a task and continue in a positive or neutral manner when difficulties are encountered. When help is solicited it is done in a confident and straightforward manner.

Clarifications: Assertiveness 1. The assertive person is REASONABLE, not pig-headed, nor overly complaining or demanding. Those behaviors are assessed in Whine/Complain and/or Angry Coercion. a. It is not possible to have a focal score high on Assertiveness and Angry Coercion. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. Assertive statements must not only be reasonable, but they must also be stated in a NONTHREATENING and NONCONFRONTATIONAL manner. However, a contrary or disagreeing opinion is not necessarily a lack of assertion. The manner used to express opinions is straightforward and matter-of-fact. The person can be assertive while presenting a contrary opinion as long as he/she isnt accusing, derogatory, threatening, or coercive. The use of qualifiers need not be an indication that the focal is backing off. The focal may use qualifiers like, it seems to me or but dont you think to mediate tension and to keep the conversation going.

b.

c.

Rating Scales 3 1998

123

2. 3.

A person who scores low on Assertiveness may be passive and lacking in selfconfidence or may simply not display assertive behaviors. This scale measures the technique or METHOD of getting what is desired, NOT THE SUCCESS of that method. For example, it is possible to have an adolescent be highly assertive, yet not diminish the parents control, or to have a child who is assertive but who does not complete the task. Assertive behavior is indicated by: a. b. c. statements describing a given situation in a neutral or positive manner without blame or accusation straightforward presentation of issue-oriented factual statements concerning the past, present, or future behavior which is goal directed and shows patience with the other interactor

4.

5.

If the focal merely uses nonverbal assents or dissents to convey information, with no accompanying verbalizations, consider this as evidence of low scores on Communication and Assertiveness. Assertive responses reflect patience with others. Patience with others means patiently explaining ones point of view rather than belittling the other persons ideas or viewpoints. It does not mean simply listening patiently while the other person speaks. This behavior would be evidence of Prosocial. To receive a score above a 1 on Assertiveness, the focal must display the entire package of Assertiveness at least once. This means that in addition to positive or neutral content and affect, the focal must at the same time have positive, open body orientation, i.e., looking at or toward the other interactor, not fidgeting, etc. Random, inadvertent, brief glances while speaking do not constitute the full package. However, do count brief glances or looks that are integrated with an over-all assertive demeanor or manner of presentation. Assertiveness is a dyadic interaction scale. If the focal talks primarily to the camera, but the content and presentation otherwise are assertive, and there is at least some evidence of the full package, score slightly lower than if these comments had been directed toward the other interactor. However, even if otherwise delivered fairly assertively, do not count camera-directed talk accompanied by gaze avoidance (e.g., more intentional-appearing averting or evasion of eye contact with the other interactor accompanied by behaviors that show anxiety, self-consciousness, lack of confidence, etc.). Synonyms for Assertiveness: competent confident direct empathetic non-threatening positive or neutral self-assured straight-forward

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 3 1998

124

10. Indicators of low assertiveness: accusing babyish coercive confrontational cutesy frustration giving up hostile melodramatic passive pig-headed quitting sarcastic shy stubborn threatening timid whiny

11. In activity-based tasks, score Assertiveness if the parent is oriented toward the child during the interaction, has open-neutral content, and appears to be looking at the child or the childs actions while speaking. Making eye contact is not essential. 12. A child who presents self in an open, self-confident manner but never looks directly at the parent could score no higher than a 7; generally the score would be lower.. Examples: Assertiveness 1. 2. Direct gaze when making a positive or neutral point. Content of verbalization: a. b. c. d. 3. One way you could deal with the problem you are having with your teacher is to... (statement) I dont think I have enough allowance. (statement) This situation with your teacher is bad. What do you think you are going to do about it? (question) I can do it Mommy.

Behavior: childs persistence in trying to complete a task accompanied by neutral or positive requests for assistance from parent when difficulties are encountered. Parent example: Youre close. Try turning the piece so that the round edge fits in the round corner. Child assertively says Ill put this here and confidently puts puzzle together. Child is focused on the puzzle and assertively says to parent, Put that here.

4. 5.

Nonexamples: Assertiveness 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Persisting up to a point but then crying. Saying, I give up. Saying, I dont know or I dont care. Downcast eyes, gaze aversion. But Mommy, I dont wanna clean up. (said in a (Whine/Complain) Child is only talking to self and appears unaware of the parent.

whiny

manner)

Rating Scales 3 1998

125

LISTENER RESPONSIVENESS (LR)** Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the behavior of the focal as a listener. It assesses the degree to which the focal attends to, shows interest in, acknowledges, and validates the verbalizations of the other person (the speaker) through the use of nonverbal backchannels and verbal assents. A responsive listener is oriented to the speaker and makes the speaker feel that he/she is being listened to rather than feeling like he/she is talking to a blank wall. The listener conveys to the speaker that he/she is interested in what the speaker has to say. In activity-based tasks with young children pay particular attention to where the action is taking place (talking or doing) and how attentive the focal is to this. Look for behaviors that validate, reinforce, etc., the speaker (actor). Just tracking is not sufficient; the behavior must be validating. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal never or rarely is oriented to the speaker; looking down or away (e.g., looking around the room, looking at ones lap, staring at the wall, wandering around the room). Alternatively, any looks that are present do not validate the speaker. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal sometimes is responsive, attentive, and oriented to the speaker. These behaviors are more absent than present. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal intermittently is responsive, attentive, and oriented to the speaker (e.g., about half the time). 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often is responsive, attentive, and oriented to the speaker. However, some evidence of lack of responsiveness exists. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently is responsive, attentive, and oriented to the speaker. A high level of backchannels and assent are used.
** Note: Exception to general coding scheme described in section H on pages 7-8 because 1 is never or rarely and 5 is the midpoint.

Rating Scales 3 1998

126

Clarifications: Listener Responsiveness 1. In coding Listener Responsiveness, note the gaze pattern of the focal. When the focal is actively watching (attending to or looking with interest at) the speaker most of the time, versus looking around the room or in his/her lap or running around the room score higher on Listener Responsiveness. However, to score at the highest levels (7, 8, or 9), additional behaviors (e.g., backchannels, assents, echoes, laughter) must also be present. The presence of nonverbal backchannels indicates Listener Responsiveness. Backchannels nonverbally communicate an interest in what the speaker is saying or doing, such as a head nod that indicates I hear you, please continue. They are like a mirror to the speaker, and their absence is like talking to a blank wall. They include: nod or tilt of head, leaning toward the speaker, smile or frown, gestures of the arms or hands, and other forms of behavior that validate the speaker. (See clarification 14). Often a listener will emit an assent (a brief verbal response, such as Yeah, Uhhuh, Mm-hmm) while the other person is speaking. The function of these responses is to acknowledge that the speakers comments are being listened to rather than to indicate explicit agreement with the content of the speakers comments. Code acknowledgment under Listener Responsiveness; code statements of agreement under Communication. A score of up to a 5 may be given if someone is attentive, but not particularly active with nonverbal backchannels and verbals assents. Only attending with interest or only giving verbal assents could score no higher than a 5. Attending with interest involves more than merely tracking the other comments and actions. Partial interest without full commitment as a listener is low-level Listener Responsiveness. Appropriate responses (e.g., brief assents, slight nod, etc.) without other behaviors (e.g., more definite assent, sure nod delivered in conjunction with sustained looking, etc.) can only reach a 2 or 3 level. If the focal merely uses nonverbal assents or dissents to convey information, with no accompanying verbalizations, consider this as evidence of low scores on Communication and Assertiveness. Consider this only secondarily as evidence of Listener Responsiveness. Code as Listener Responsiveness instances when a listener echoes or repeats short portions of the other persons statements in a neutral tone of voice. Some echoes may be Interrogation more than inviting the speaker to continue talking, in which case do not code as Listener Responsiveness. As well as scoring Humor/Laugh for laughter that is in response to something the other person is saying or doing, also score this behavior under Listener Responsiveness if the laughter validates the speaker.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Rating Scales 3 1998

127

9.

Behavioral cues that indicate the presence of Listener Responsiveness include: a. b. c. d. e. f. is attentive to partner while partner is speaking (high level of eye contact) face is responsive to what partner is saying (e.g., head-nod, smile, eyebrow movements) assents while partner is speaking body relaxed, open (without arms akimbo or fidgeting) body (head, shoulders, and trunk) oriented toward partner torso leaning toward partner

10. Listener Responsiveness primarily assesses what the focal does while the other person is speaking, whereas Communication assesses what the focal does while the focal is speaking. 11. If the focal interrupts the other interactor, this may indicate a lack of Listener Responsiveness. 12. Listener Responsiveness involves behaviors that say to the speaker, Im paying attention; I hear what youre saying or I see what youre doing. It is not behavior that conveys specific information or particular dimensions of negative/positive emotional affect. 13. A frown may count as Listener Responsiveness if it indicates puzzlement or confusion (as in, I dont understand - tell me more), but not if it indicates disagreement. 14. Code Listener Responsiveness even if the other person does not see the listeners nonverbal responses but, in general, do not score as high. 15. Critical disagreement with what a person is saying (e.g., shaking head no or rolling eyes) is not Listener Responsiveness because it does not encourage the speaker to continue. 16. When the focal is fully responsive to another interactor who talks very little, determine the score based partially on proportion. The score may be moderately high, but would generally not go to the highest levels. Strongest weight needs to be given to frequency and intensity in determining the final score. 17. Base the score on the focals responsiveness when the other interactor is sharing his/her views, opinions, etc. Do not base the score on responsiveness when the other interactor is merely reading the task cards, or when thinking of something to say. 18. A focal cannot be scored high on both this scale and the Avoidant scale. If one scale is scored a 7, 8 or 9, the other cannot be scored above a 6. If both appear high, consider context, proportion, frequency, intensity, etc., to determine which should be scored higher. In some instances where Avoidant appears related to a focals general Anxiety rather than to the other interactor, score Avoidant slightly lower.

Rating Scales 3 1998

128

19. Closely watching the other interactor so as to find an opportune time to interject a critical comment would not be scored as Listener Responsiveness because such looking does not validate the speaker. However, affirming and validating responses to the other interactors critical statements are coded here (e.g., a father who looks at the mother and nods as she makes critical comments about the child in the childs presence). 20. Do not score a childs compliance or cooperation with parental requests as Listener Responsiveness, even though the childs behaviors show he/she has heard what the parent said. This behavior is best coded under Compliance.

21. This scale is an exception to the general coding scheme because 1 is never or rarely and because 5 is the midpoint.

Examples: Listener Responsiveness 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A smile that says, I like your idea. A perplexed look that says, I dont understand what you mean, tell me more. Raised eyebrows that say, Wow! or Youre kidding. Laughter in response to the other persons statements or actions. A brief verbal response such as, Yeah, or Mm-hmm while the other person is speaking. Looking at parent while parent makes a request. Nodding after parent makes a request.

Nonexamples: Listener Responsiveness 1. 2. 3. 4. A contemptuous eyeroll that says, Youre stupid. A shake of the head that says, I have my doubts about you. A brief verbal response such as, huh or tsk while the other person is speaking. Doing what parent has requested. (Compliance)

Rating Scales 3 1998

129

COMMUNICATION (CO)** Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the behavior of the focal as a communicator (verbal expressive skills and content of statements). It assesses the extent to which the focal conveys in a neutral or positive manner his/her needs and wants, rules and regulations, as well as clearly express information and ideas that may be useful to others. Communication entails the use of EXPLANATIONS and clarifications; the use of REASON; SOLICITING the others views or in some way demonstrating consideration of the others point of view; encouraging the other to explain and clarify his/her point of view; and responding reasonably and appropriately to the ongoing conversation. If all statements are hostile or coercive, code 1, even if the focal uses explanations and reasoning. Because young children are unlikely to use explanations, high scores indicate statements that are clear, direct, and reflect awareness of the content of the other persons statements. 1 = Not at all characteristic: Communication skills are almost entirely absent. The focal rarely or never uses reasoning, explanations, and clarifications to make himself/herself understood; the focal does not solicit the others view, does not give the other appropriate feedback, and does not respond appropriately to the ongoing conversation. If all statements are hostile or coercive, code 1 (even if the focal uses explanations and reasoning). 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: Poor communication predominates, but not exclusively. The focal occasionally uses appropriate reasoning, explanations, clarifications, and/or solicitations, but verbalization may be infrequent or ineffective. Some solicitation or consideration of the others views may be evident. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal intermittently uses appropriate reasoning, explanations, and clarifications and may solicit the others views or demonstrate in some fashion that he/she is taking the other persons views into consideration. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: Good communication predominates but not exclusively. The focal fairly often uses appropriate reasoning, explanations, and clarifications, as well as solicits or demonstrates consideration of the others views, yet there may be a few instances of poor communication displayed.
** Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because 1 is never or rarely and 5 is the midpoint.

Rating Scales 3 1998

130

8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: Good communication predominates. The focal frequently uses appropriate reasoning, explanations, and clarifications to make him/herself understood; the focal solicits or demonstrates consideration of the others views and gives the other appropriate feedback.

Clarifications: Communication 1. Explanation means the focal: a. b. c. d. 2. seeks to tailor comments to cognitive level of the other expands upon own statements identifies own position clearly asks open-ended versus closed questions

Reason means the focal has logical comments and/or arguments that follow the others comments. Solicitation means the focal expresses interest in the others views, asks the other person to explain or clarify his/her point of view, and/or asks follow-up questions. Directing a question from the task card to another interactor should not be counted as solicitation. Appropriate means the focals comments are related to the topic and are positive or neutral (versus hostile, defensive, blaming) in content and emotional affect. When direct communication between a dyad in a task with 3-4 people is LOW, consider the skills displayed. Does the focal respond appropriately to the ongoing conversation, even if most communication is directed to another person(s)? Score the focals communication with each interactor based on the skills you observe, regardless of the amount of interaction. If the focal merely uses nonverbal assents or dissents to convey information, with no accompanying verbalizations, consider this as evidence of low scores on Communication and Assertiveness. Do not confuse the presence of a high amount of talking or evidence of a high score on Lecture/Moralize with a high score on Communication. Communication is the speakers expressive skill in conversation with others. Someone may talk a lot and/or score high on Lecture/Moralize and be a poor communicator.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Rating Scales 3 1998

131

8.

The following content may indicate the presence of Communication if presented in a neutral or positive manner. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. expresses feelings about the other interactor expresses feelings about relatives, friends expresses opinions in a clear and direct manner makes positive or neutral responses to other persons negative statements or negative affect summarizes mutual opinion or decision comments about the communication process, i.e., makes statements about the ways both partners are interacting asks other person for information is assertive displays appropriate humor, laughs

9.

The focal may have an idiosyncratic manner of communication that appears unclear to the coder, yet is understandable to the listener in the interaction. The focal should still display reasoning, clarifications, solicitations, and respond appropriately to ongoing conversation in order to be rated high on Communication.

10. Interruptions do not necessarily indicate poor communication. Consider the outcome of the interruption and code down only for bad outcomes. For example: a. for good outcomes the focal may: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b. expand on his/her own views clarify others position clarify his/her own position agree with the other disagree with the other

for bad outcomes the focal may: (1) (2) disrupt the conversation prevent the resolution of a problem

11. Score no higher than a 5 if the focal talks only to the camera (not to the other interactors). 12. Pay particular attention to quality when scoring Communication. At lower levels, the focal may merely engage in parallel commentary whereas at higher levels cooperative dialogue and discussion occur. 13. This scale is an exception to the general coding scheme because 1 means rarely or never and the midpoint is a 5 rather than between 5 and 6.

Rating Scales 3 1998

132

Examples: Communication 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That is an interesting idea. This is really important to me because... What makes you say that? Im interested in why you think that is true. I enjoy spending time camping with the family. It is a time we can get away from other activities and just be together. I realize that you think we should save more money before we buy another car, but I think we really need to get another car now.

Nonexamples: Communication 1. 2. 3. What is your answer to that question? (referring to a question on the task card) That is a stupid idea. (Hostility) You shouldnt spend your money on such foolish things. If you dont start watching where your money goes, youll never have enough saved to buy something really important. (Lecture/Moralize)

Rating Scales 3 1998

133

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR (PR) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the extent to which the focal relates competently and effectively with others. It includes demonstrations of cooperation, sensitivity, helpfulness, willingness to change own behavior for the other, and willingness to comply with needs and wishes of others. When the child interacts with adults, pay special attention to respect and cooperation. In interactions between children, attend in particular to friendship and cooperation. When coding adults, consider interpersonal skills and sensitivity to the feelings of others. Prosocial individuals behave at a level of maturity that is age-appropriate. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of helpful, cooperative, compliant, friendly, sympathetic, encouraging, or respectful behavior toward others; OR the focal may be extremely reserved throughout the interaction. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely displays prosocial behavior. Although he/she may behave in a helpful, cooperative, compliant, or respectful way, these behaviors are of short duration, are generally of low intensity, and disappear quickly. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays prosocial behavior. He/she sometimes behaves in a way that is mature, helpful, cooperative, compliant, responsible, or respectful, but these behaviors are more absent than present. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates prosocial behavior. Prosocial behaviors are present to a slightly higher degree. In addition, the focal may display higher levels of independence, goal orientation and encouragement or helpfulness toward others. The focal is still not at the highest level. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently is helpful, cooperative, sympathetic, encouraging, friendly, or respectful to others. The focal is independent and self-reliant, but in a fashion that is sensitive and understanding of others needs and feelings. He/she is not easily ruffled by frustration and any upsets which do occur tend to be rather mild and of

Rating Scales 3 1998

134

short duration. The focal takes responsibility for, and considers the consequences of, his/her actions.

Clarifications: Prosocial 1. A focal need not be antisocial to be scored low on the Prosocial scale. He/she may instead display shy, withdrawn, uncommunicative behavior OR may interact minimally with others. It is NOT POSSIBLE to rate focal high on both this scale and the Antisocial scale. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or a 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. A low score on Antisocial does not automatically indicate a high score on Prosocial (or vice versa). It is possible to score low on both scales. There must be evidence of active Prosocial behavior to score 5 or higher. For the presence of only a cooperative attitude within the task, score 2 or 3. Characteristics of the Prosocial person include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. 6. takes responsibility for his/her actions is independent accepts age-appropriate tasks without complaints not easily flustered or frustrated upsets tend to be of short duration and mild can delay gratification respond flexibly and adapt to the task goal-directed persistent in attaining goals self-controlled cooperative empathetic, sensitive to others needs and feelings, polite sharing with sibling complies with reasonable requests intervenes to help the other displays good listener responsiveness

2.

3.

4.

5.

Discussions by family members of the childs or adults cooperation with routine events at home (i.e., discussion of behaviors such as preparation of meals, bedmaking, or other chores) should not be used to infer prosocial behavior in the task. Do not confuse the parents treatment of the child with the way the child may behave. It is possible to have a very prosocial child whose parents treat him/her in an inappropriate manner.

7.

Rating Scales 3 1998

135

8.

A highly prosocial child will be particularly socially sensitive and capable, even above expectations for his or her age. That is, a highly prosocial child approaches the maturity of a child who is older in terms of expected standards of behavior. A highly prosocial adult demonstrates courteousness in interactions with others. cooperativeness, sensitivity, and

9.

10. A score of 2 or higher on Warmth/Support necessitates a score of at least a 2 on Prosocial.

Examples: Prosocial 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Im sorry, I didnt know that bothered you. Mary, what do you think about our vacation plans? You may use my sweater tomorrow, but I need it today. I guess I should be doing more to help around the house. It must have really hurt when that softball hit you on your leg. I liked your idea about how to get the yard cleaned up. Mom, when I finish my math, could you please check it with me? Thanks for putting away the toys.

Nonexamples: Prosocial 1. 2. 3. 4. Looking around the room and not participating in the task. Whining and complaining about doing the task. Criticizing and mocking the other interactor. Not giving the other interactor an opportunity to talk or answer questions.

Rating Scales 3 1998

136

Rating Scales 3 1998

137

ANTISOCIAL (AN) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the focal demonstrates socially irresponsible or age inappropriate behaviors. It includes when a focal resists, defies, or is inconsiderate of others by being noncompliant, insensitive, or obnoxious, as well as when the focal is uncooperative and unsociable. The antisocial person is characteristically self-centered, egocentric, tends to behave in inappropriate ways, or in some other way demonstrates lack of age-appropriate behaviors. This scale includes both immaturity conveyed as acting out behavior and as withdrawn behavior. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of antisocial behavior. He/she is not in any way unpleasant, antagonistic, immature or disrespectful toward authority figures, peers, or other interactors. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely displays antisocial behavior. He/she may react or interact in a mildly unpleasant, noncompliant, or uncooperative manner, but the behaviors are of short duration and for the most part the focal does not interact in this way. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally displays antisocial behavior. He/she sometimes behaves in a way that is irritating, noncompliant, uncooperative, and/or disrupts the interaction. The focal may be quarrelsome, irritable, or uncooperative; teasing or whining may occur from time to time. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates antisocial behavior. In addition to slightly higher levels of immaturity, noncompliance, irritability, or whining, the focal may talk back to or threaten the other or actively refuse to participate in the task. The duration of the antisocial behaviors is also on the rise. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently exhibits antisocial behavior and is characterized as highly antisocial. In addition to those characteristics noted in 7, the focal may exhibit signs of physical aggression, out-of-control behavior, lack of any constraint in his/her behavior, OR pleasure in actively resisting others. The focal may go out of

Rating Scales 3 1998

138

his/her way to instigate conflict. He/she may be actively rebellious, cruel, or try to cause distress for the other. Alternatively, the focal may withdraw from or refuse participation in the task.

Clarifications: Antisocial 1. This scale assesses social and interpersonal behaviors that are disruptive, irresponsible, and immature in the interaction. It does not assess cognitive immaturity except to the degree cognitive immaturity impacts social and interpersonal behaviors. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both this scale and the Prosocial scale. If one scale is scored a 7, 8, or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. A low score on Antisocial does not automatically indicate a high score on Prosocial (or vice versa). It is possible to score low on both scales. The highly antisocial child may be thought of as acting much younger than expected, i.e., being less mature than would normally be the case. For example, when compared with older children, very young children tend to be less compliant, may have more temper tantrums, and are less responsive to the needs and feelings of others. An extremely antisocial young child, school-age child, or adolescent reflects a similar social orientation of self-centeredness and coerciveness as the very young child. A child may be quite precocious in verbal and/or intellectual skills and still rate high on Antisocial. The highly antisocial adult may be thought of as being self-absorbed and demonstrating immature, self-centered behavior. Such an adult may call undue attention to him/herself and/or appear concerned only with his/her own needs. Characteristics of the Antisocial person include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. being overly dependent on others asking for help on tasks that could be accomplished alone complaining not accepting responsibility for participating in the task being extremely sensitive to minor frustrations demonstrates a lack of self-control noncompliance to a command unwillingness to engage in further conversation or problem solving refusing to respond to a question denying permission being uncooperative bragging in a self-centered or hostile manner displaying random, vindictive hostility being insensitive to the feelings and needs of others straying off the topic of conversation, being disruptive

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Rating Scales 3 1998

139

p. q. r. s. t. u. v. w. 7.

crude insensitive self-centered immature dismissive engages in one-up-manship flippant condescending

Discussions by family members of routine events at home should not be used to infer antisocial behavior. The code is based on the presence of behaviors observed during the interaction task. Code Antisocial to other interactors when the focal interacts with someone outside the task if such comments and/or behaviors detract from interaction with persons present in the task. (See Section I under Strategies for Viewing Tasks on page 14 for additional information on dealing with interruptions.) Children scoring high on Defiance and/or low on Compliance are likely to score high on Antisocial.

8.

9.

10. Code Antisocial when there are scores above 1 on Hostility, Angry Coercion, Verbal Attack, Physical Attack, Contempt, or Defiance. However, while all Hostility is Antisocial, not all Antisocial is Hostility. For example, one can be thoughtless, insensitive, and nonresponsive, and yet not necessarily be hostile.

Examples: Antisocial 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. You cant answer again. Its my turn! Its not my fault. He made me spill my milk. Im better than you are at just about everything. I dont have to go if I dont want to. You cant make me. Why do I always have to do all the work around here? Im not going to talk about that anymore. Mom, you have to help me with my homework. You know I cant do it by myself. Im not cleaning up. You do it.

Nonexamples: Antisocial 1. 2. 3. Presenting a difference of opinion in an assertive manner. Reminding someone in a neutral tone that it is his/her turn to comment. Continuing to finish ones sentence even when interrupted by the other interactor.

Rating Scales 3 1998

140

Rating Scales 3 1998

141

AVOIDANT (AV) Rate: All (Dyadic) This scale measures the extent to which the focal averts gaze and/or orients his/her body (head, arms, shoulder, or torso) away from the other person in such a manner as to avoid physical interaction with the other person. For young children, this behavior also includes running and pulling away from others and/or resisting contact attempts. This avoidant manner conveys rejection, withdrawal, evasion, etc., from the other person. Consider the length of time during which the focal is avoidant of the other person, as well as the amount of movement involved in turning and/or looking away. Include only movement from a neutral position to a position more fully avoidant of the other interactor. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal never orients body and/or gaze away from the other interactor in an avoidant manner. He/she remains in a neutral position or may actually turn toward or look at the other interactor. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely orients body and/or gaze away from the other interactor in an avoidant manner. These behaviors are brief, infrequent, and of low intensity, however, some evidence of avoidant behavior exists. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally orients body and/or gaze away from the other interactor in an avoidant manner. Such avoidant behaviors are of somewhat longer duration, more frequent, and/or more intense. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often orients body and/or gaze away from the other interactor in an avoidant manner. At this point the focal is avoidant of and oriented away from the other interactor, but not at the highest level. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently orients body and gaze away from the other interactor in an avoidant manner. A considerable amount or degree of moving, turning and/or looking away accompanies such avoidance.

Rating Scales 3 1998

142

Clarifications: Avoidant 1. For this scale, consider frequency as the amount or proportion of time the focal is turned away from and/or averts his/her gaze from the other interactor; consider intensity as the amount of movement or degree of rotation involved in turning/looking away from the other interactor. Score the scale based primarily on gaze and the turning of the head and torso, not leaning backward or forward unless such movement is clearly avoidant in nature. With young children, this may also involve physically running away from parent. Include only movement from a position of neutral involvement regardless of whether the focals position was selected by the focal or arranged by an interviewer. Some focals may begin the task already avoidant from the other interactor. However, do not count as Avoidant focals who are restricted due to seating arrangements. The movement or positioning away from the other interactor must be related to some aspect of the interaction (e.g., tension between the two people, embarrassment of one focal, etc.), not due to seating restrictions. Exclude movements unrelated to the interaction itself such as getting up to get a drink, picking up a card from the floor, glancing away at a distraction, or a head toss related to laughter. A focal cannot be scored high on both this scale and the Listener Responsiveness scale. If one scale is scored a 7, 8 or 9, the other cannot be scored above a 6. If both appear high, consider context, proportion, frequency, intensity, etc., to determine which should be scored higher. In some instances where Avoidant appears related to a focals general Anxiety rather than a response to the other interactor, score Avoidant slightly lower. It is possible to score low on both Listener Responsiveness and Avoidant. If the focal is merely uninvolved in the task rather than actually avoiding the other interactor, do not count as Avoidant. Look for more active turning away or evasion of eye contact in order to count as Avoidant. For the young child, also includes moving or repositioning self away from parent. Synonyms for Avoidant: detached disengaged escape evasion 9. recoil rejection self-protective withdrawal

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

As a cue to scoring Avoidant, pay particular attention to both the preceding and concurrent behaviors. Often, Avoidant follows or accompanies a critical or selfconscious comment by the self or other.

Rating Scales 3 1998

143

10.

Some physical behaviors that accompany expressions of Contempt (e.g., tilting head away, eyeroll, etc.) should also be scored as Avoidant.

Examples: Avoidant 1. 2. 3. 4. Daughter looks down abruptly after mother says, You had better start getting those grades up or youll be in real trouble. Father looks down and says in an embarrassed tone, Im really sorry you feel that way about how much money I can give you for an allowance. Wife says to husband, Oh, you think you know everything, then rolls her eyes and turns away. Child takes toy and positions self so back is toward parent after parent says, Let me show you.

Nonexamples: Avoidant 1. 2. 3. Son turns away from father and reaches for a Kleenex (with no prior evidence of conflict or embarrassment in the dyad). Mother shifts to look out the window in apparent response to something happening outside the task. Spouse remains in a head-down position throughout much of the task and shows no change in response to interaction with other person.

Rating Scales 3 1998

144

Rating Scales 3 1998

145

DYADIC RELATIONSHIP SCALES

Dyadic Relationship Scales are scales designed to assess the relationship between two interactors. Both persons receive the same score. These scales assess characteristics of a dyads relationship rather than behaviors of individuals.

Rating Scales 3 1998

146

Rating Scales 3 1998

147

SILENCE/PAUSE (SP) Rate: All (Dyadic Relationship) This scale measures the presence of tense or uncomfortable gaps and pauses in the ongoing conversation between two interactors. Do not code the absence of verbal interaction between members of a dyad or between interactors in groups larger than two members as evidence of Silence/Pause. To code Silence/Pause, one or both interactors must display evidence of tension or discomfort must be present. Duration of silence, as well as the context of the interaction, are indicators of intensity. 1 = Not at all characteristic: There is no evidence of tense gaps and pauses in the ongoing conversation between two interactors. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: Tense gaps and pauses occur rarely and/or are of low intensity. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: Tense gaps and pauses occur occasionally and are of low to moderate intensity. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: Tense gaps and pauses occur fairly often or are of fairly high intensity. Even one instance of relatively high intensity may be scored a 7. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: Tense gaps and pauses occur frequently and/or are of high intensity. instance of extreme intensity may be scored a 9.

One

Rating Scales 3 1998

148

Clarifications: Silence/Pause 1. Consider tense or uncomfortable gaps of 3 seconds or longer in an ongoing conversation as evidence of Silence/Pause. Either or both members of the dyad may be uncomfortable. Remember that the context must be tense and/or uncomfortable in order for the gaps to be coded under Silence/Pause. Consider other types of gaps when scoring Communication. The source of tense gaps may be caused by or reflect Sadness, Anxiety, or Whine/Complain, as well as Hostility, Angry Coercion, Contempt, Verbal Attack, or Physical Attack. However, any behavior may precede Silence Pause. In groups larger than two, code the presence of Silence/Pause only in the dyadic relationships. There must be the presence of uncomfortable or tense gaps in the conversation between two dyad members. If the gap occurs after a focal has made a statement to the group as a whole, code Silence/Pause between the focal and each other interactor. Do not code Silence/Pause between the other interactors themselves. Intensity may be indicated by duration or uncomfortableness of the silence. One very long and uncomfortable gap in the conversation could rate very high. However, pay more attention to the amount of individual discomfort or negative affect than to the duration of the gap in rating Silence/Pause. Intensity has more to do with emotional distress than length of silence. However, when emotional upset is high, the duration of silences often increases. Look for evidence of Hostility or unhappiness in the relationship that might contribute to the withdrawal of one interactor from another. For frequent gaps and pauses related to the task, code some Silence/Pause. If group members stop talking for one fourth of the time or longer because they are finished with the cards, a score up to 5 on Silence/Pause may be appropriate depending on evidence of discomfort and negative affect demonstrated by individual dyads. Nervous laughter during a period of uncomfortable silence reinforces rather than breaks the Silence/Pause. In activity-based tasks, do not code as Silence/Pause gaps in conversations where at least one person in the dyad is attending to the task at hand.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Examples: Silence/Pause 1. Wife: We never have fun anymore. Husband glares at wife and says, You just get those crazy ideas from your sister. The couple then stops talking to one another for several seconds, and the atmosphere is very tense.

Rating Scales 3 1998

149

2.

Sibling: You always take my clothes! Target: I do not! Siblings then cross arms, remain silent, and avoid each other for several seconds. Mother: You are such a super, wonderful person; I know the teachers will like you. Target looks down, fidgets with the cards, and squirms in his seat. A period of silence after a card has been read during which at least one interactor shows signs of uncomfortableness, anxiety, tension, or embarrassment.

3.

3.

Nonexamples: Silence/Pause 1. 2. 3. 4. Sitting in silence while Target looks through the cards to find a topic to discuss. No conversation while Father goes to answer the telephone. Gaps less than 3 seconds. A period of silence after a card has been read during which the interactors appear to be thinking about how to respond to the questions.

Rating Scales 3 1998

150

Rating Scales 3 1998

151

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY (RQ)** Rate: All (Dyadic Relationship) This scale assesses the observers evaluation of the quality of the dyads relationship. Code 5 if there is no evidence concerning the quality of the relationship or if evidence is mixed. A low score indicates an unhappy, emotionally unsatisfying, or brittle relationship. A high score indicates the observers impression that the relationship is warm, open, happy, and emotionally satisfying. In activity-based tasks with young children, look at the ease of interaction, camaraderie, and comfortableness in being together. 1 = Negative: The dyads relationship is characterized as unhappy, conflicted, and brittle, OR the dyad is uninvolved (emotionally divorced). In a sibling dyad, this type of relationship may be characterized by high conflict, lack of interest in the other, or few indications of warmth along with a high level of antisocial behavior. There is lack of synchrony in the interaction. Dyad members are unresponsive to the needs of each other. 2= 3 = Somewhat negative: The dyads relationship is characterized as somewhat unhappy and conflicted. The relationship is more negative than neutral or positive. In activity-based tasks, there is some evidence for a lack of synchronicity between parent and child. 4= 5 = Between the two extremes: The dyad members are involved with each other, but the relationship is neither excessively negative nor excessively positive. They may avoid some issues important to the dyad/relationship. There also may be some areas in the relationship in which they avoid unhappiness or conflict. This relationship would be described as an okay relationship, but the relationship could use improvement in some areas to increase its quality. Code as 5 if there is no evidence concerning the quality of the relationship or if the amounts of positive and negative evidence are fairly equal. Include here neutral parallel task involvement. Additionally, the levels of synchronicity versus asynchronicity are fairly equal. 6=

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in section H on pages 7-8 because 5 is the neutral point, with 1 and 9 at the two extremes.

Rating Scales 3 1998

152

7=

Somewhat positive: The dyads relationship is characterized as generally positive and warm. The quality of the relationship is more positive than neutral or negative, although there may be some indications of low level negative behavior. In activity-based tasks, there is more evidence of synchronicity than asynchronicity between parent and child.

8= 9 = Positive: The dyads relationship is characterized as open, satisfying, pleasing, communicative, and/or warm. The individuals have a positive outlook on their relationship. There are few, if any, incidents of negative behaviors. Dyad members appear to be in sync with each other and respond appropriately to each others needs.

Clarifications: Relationship Quality 1. The following combinations of scales could indicate a high level of Relationship Quality: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. Warmth/Support Communication Positive Mood Escalate Warmth/Support Listener Responsiveness Reciprocate Warmth/Support Hostility Angry Coercion Contempt Escalate Hostile Reciprocate Hostile Prosocial Antisocial Silence/Pause Compliance Defiance Intrusive Stimulates Cognitive Development Sensitive/Child-Centered high end high end high end high end high end high end low end low end low end low end low end high end low end low end high end low end low end high end high end

Rating Scales 3 1998

153

2.

Look for incidents in which good communication prevails and there is a willingness to discuss important issues. The dyad that appears to avoid talking about important issues would be rated lower on Relationship Quality. An unwillingness to discuss important issues could be indicated by changing the subject, going on to next card prematurely, denying the issue is important to the other interactor, or hostile behavior exhibited by the focal when a subject is discussed. Relationship Quality is an exception to the general coding scheme because the midpoint is a 5 rather than between a 5 and 6 and also because the levels range from negative to positive with the neutral point in the middle of the scale. If evidence exists for both positive and negative behaviors, weigh the relative amounts of each. If the evidence is relatively equal, code a 5; if more positive than negative, score a 6 or higher; if more negative than positive score a 4 or lower. In judging Relationship Quality look at the ease with which interactors discuss situations, show supportiveness towards each other, and know about each others lives. If in doubt for scores below 5, code down. If in doubt for scores above 5, code up.

3.

4.

5.

4.

Rating Scales 3 1998

154

Rating Scales 3 1998

155

GROUP INTERACTION SCALES

Group Interaction Scales are scales designed to assess the nature of the interaction of the group being observed as a whole.

Rating Scales 3 1998

156

Rating Scales 3 1998

157

GROUP ENJOYMENT (GE) Rate: Group This scale assesses the degree of enjoyment present in the interaction. It measures the extent to which the interactors show pleasure, fun, and satisfaction regarding their interaction during the task. In activity-based tasks with young children, look for in-task use of time for enjoyable interaction. 1 = Not at all characteristic: Most interactors demonstrate no signs of enjoyment, fun, or pleasure during the task. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: Most interactors rarely demonstrate signs of enjoyment during the task. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: Most interactors occasionally display a low to moderate level of enjoyment during the task. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: Most interactors fairly often display signs of enjoyment during the task. There is an elevated level of enjoyment. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: Most interactors frequently show high or moderate levels of enjoyment with the task. Enjoyment is quite apparent and occurs frequently.

Clarifications: Group Enjoyment 1. As an aid in scoring Group Enjoyment, consider how non-threatened the interactors are by the task. Do this by observing the extent of humor, laughter, warmth, etc. However, if the interactors do not appear threatened, but there is no evidence of behaviors such as Humor/Laugh, Warmth/Support, Positive Mood, etc., keep the score at a 1 level.

Rating Scales 3 1998

158

2.

Indicators of enjoyment may include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. shared laughter nonsarcastic, nonvindictive humor smiling head-nods animated conversation open body stance lilting, cheerful vocal quality buoyant feeling conveyed positive affect indications that interactors are having a good time with the discussion easy flow of conversation

3.

Group Enjoyment may be demonstrated as a result of the topics discussed or the interaction itself. It is not automatically related to Positive Mood per se; however, if the Positive Mood conveys satisfaction with the interaction and/or laughter and smiling in the task, count as Group Enjoyment. Consider the entire task and the over-all sense of enjoyment conveyed by the family as a whole. In the two-person tasks, if one person is obviously enjoying the interaction and the other person is obviously not enjoying the interaction, code 1; if the other person is neutral, a score of 2 or 3 may be appropriate. In groups of three or more, judge based on the majority of interactors. If there is little overt happiness or enjoyment demonstrated, but the interactors appear comfortable with one another (e.g., they have an ease in discussing card topics with each other), you can give above a 1, but do not code at the highest level. There is no need to score a 2 or 3 on Group Enjoyment if you scored a 2 or 3 on Reciprocate Warmth/Support. These two codes are not dependent on each other so there are no score limitations binding them together. If the interactors spend a significant amount of time enjoying being antisocial together, code some Group Enjoyment, but not as high as if they were engaged in prosocial behavior. Laughing at something outside the task (e.g., a cat, another child, etc.) is not Group Enjoyment, even if the interactors laugh together.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 3 1998

159

Examples: Group Enjoyment 1. 2. 3. 4. Interactors show mutual pleasure (smile, laugh, warmth) in discussing topics or doing task activities with each other. Shared laughter of a nonsarcastic nature. Obvious pleasure and satisfaction evident in interactors being with each other (i.e., sit close, smile, shared confidences, self-disclosure, etc.). Interactors show ease in discussing the card topics or doing task activities with each other.

Nonexamples: Group Enjoyment 1. 2. 3. Parent: This is fun! Child: Throws toy across room and kicks at parent. Parent: I like doing this with you. Child: Shows no response. Child: Mommy, look what I did! Parent: But youve got it upside down.

Rating Scales 3 1998

160

Rating Scales 3 1998

161

PARENTING SCALES

Rating Scales 4 1998

162

Rating Scales 4 1998

163

INTRODUCTION TO THE PARENTING SCALES 1. The Parenting Scales differ from the other scales in that they permit the observer to base scores on information reported during the family discussion about the parents behavior toward the child (report), as well as on behavior actually observed during the interaction task (observation). Whether based on observation or report, the evidence must be actual behavior vs. assumptions about behaviors or causes of behaviors. It does not matter who reports the rules, expectations, and discipline/punishments, etc. (parent and/or child). The report as well as the observed behavior are used to determine the appropriate score level. If there is conflicting information in the reports from various interactors, the general rule is to score at the highest level possible based on the evidence reported by any interactor. Reports of past behaviors should not be weighed as heavily as reports of current behaviors or observations of actual behaviors. It is important to code the parents behaviors (observed or reported), not the childs behaviors, when scoring the Parenting Scales. A child may behave in a particular manner due to reasons other than the parents behavior. There is no reason to assume a perfect relationship between what parents and kids do; in addition, we cant assume that our pet theories about parenting are necessarily correct! For example, if the parent seems to be very skilled in his/her child rearing strategies (good monitoring, consistent discipline, etc.) but the child seems to be out of control, score according to the parents behavior, not the childs. We do not code effectiveness of parental behaviors. When coding the Parenting Scales for tasks with two parents present in the task, assume that all information about parental rules, expectations, and discipline for the child(ren) apply to both parents, unless a parent or child indicates otherwise (either verbally or nonverbally). Do not modify ratings based on the age of the child. However, do be alert to different forms of parental behaviors toward children at different ages (e.g., one parent may expect a younger child to be home at 9:30 p.m. while another parent may set the time at 11:30 p.m. for an older child; both parents would receive a score above a 1 on Parental Influence). When scoring Parenting Scales for interactions involving parents and young children in activity-based tasks, reports may be limited. Score primarily on behavior observed during the task rather than on reports of parental behaviors.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

Rating Scales 4 1998

164

Rating Scales 4 1998

165

NEGLECTING/DISTANCING (ND) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the parent is uncaring, apathetic, uninvolved, ignoring, aloof, unresponsive, self-focused, and/or adult-oriented. The scale assesses the degree to which the parent displays behavior that minimizes the amount of time, contact, or effort he/she has to expend on the child. The parent seems focused on his/her own needs to the exclusion of the legitimate needs of the child. Although involved in the task, parent may be dismissive of childs feelings and/or concerns. The parent seems to promote psychological or physical distance between self and child by making it difficult for the child to feel validated. The parent is disengaged and/or withdrawn from the child. Alternatively, the parent may behave in a hostile manner toward the child in order to minimize the parents involvement with the child. Parents of young children in activity-based tasks may be disengaged from the child or respond to the child in a listless or perfunctory manner. 1 = Not at all characteristic: This parent demonstrates no sign of being a neglecting/distancing parent. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: This parent rarely demonstrates distancing or a lack of involvement with the child. Most, but not all, of the characteristic behaviors are absent. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: This parent occasionally demonstrates distancing or a lack of involvement with the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: This parent fairly often demonstrates distancing or a lack of involvement with the child. Most, but not all, of the characteristic behaviors are displayed some of the time. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: This parent is characteristically neglecting or distancing. He/she frequently displays ignoring, uninvolved, unresponsive or uncaring behavior. The parent may actively avoid the child.

Rating Scales 4 1998

166

Clarifications: Neglecting/Distancing 1. The Neglecting/Distancing parent is primarily identified by an orientation that is minimally child-centered. This parent may focus on discussions of his or her own needs and problems, involvements with the spouse or others, or activities primarily unrelated to child rearing. Alternatively, this parent may largely ignore child-related discussion and simply withdraw from interaction with the child. During the task, the parent may indicate that his or her primary concerns in life are not related to raising children. LOW scores for the following Neglecting/Distancing behavior: a. b. c. d. e. f. 3. Positive Mood Child Monitoring Warmth/Support Communication Parental Influence Listener Responsiveness scales may suggest the PRESENCE of

2.

HIGH scores for the following scales may indicate the PRESENCE of Neglecting/Distancing, although only to the extent that the behaviors minimize the parents involvement with the child. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. Hostility Angry Coercion Whine/Complain Sadness Anxiety Reciprocate Hostile Escalate Hostile Contempt Avoidant Antisocial

4.

Parents who appear highly emotionally distressed, (e.g., because of high scores on Sadness, Anxiety, and or Whine/Complain) may be so distracted by this distress that they show low involvement with, or disengagement from, their children. If this results in Neglecting/Distancing behavior toward the child, score accordingly. Do not automatically assume that a parent who is uninvolved in a discussion-based task is Neglecting/Distancing him/herself from the child. To help determine when lack of involvement may be coded Neglecting/Distancing see clarifications 6, 7, and 8. In an activity-based task, a parent who is involved in the activity may still be Neglecting/Distancing if focused on the activity to the exclusion of the child and his/her needs. Parents who are passively involved (i.e., respond briefly to the task questions or activities but show little interest or elaboration in response to issues regarding the children) but who do not actively display the Neglecting/Distancing parenting

5.

6.

Rating Scales 4 1998

167

behaviors (aloof, ignoring, etc.) would score a 2 or 3. For higher scores, code on the presence vs. the absence of behaviors. 7. Consider the extent to which the parent promotes psychological distance between self and child in coding Neglecting/Distancing. The scale may be characterized more as a sin of omission vs. a sin of commission if the parent fails to join in discussion of child-oriented issues when it would seem appropriate to do so. The Neglecting/Distancing parent may be characterized as uncaring, uninvolved, and/or psychologically absent. To score at the highest level, there must be evidence that the parent actively displays these behaviors vs. is merely uninvolved in the task. Score low Neglecting/Distancing if the parent fails to respond to the child in a supportive manner when the opportunity exists. Consider missed opportunities as evidence of psychological distancing. If a parent is unable to meet the childs wishes, desires, and/or needs (e.g., time, attention, financial, emotional, etc.), score Neglecting/Distancing based on how this information is communicated to the child. Code the parents behavior, not the fact that circumstances inhibit the parent from meeting the childs stated needs.

8.

9.

10. When parents appear distracted and unresponsive due to their own self-focused needs, score as Neglecting/Distancing. Do not excuse behaviors even though an apparently legitimate reason (e.g., high sadness, etc.) may be the cause of the selffocused behavior. However, do not include instances in which the distraction or unresponsiveness seems to be caused by something happening in the immediate setting (e.g., telephone call, younger child, etc.) unless other Neglecting/Distancing cues are present. 11. If a parent pushes away an annoying, clinging child in an effort to elicit more appropriate behavior, do not score Neglecting/Distancing. If a parent pushes away a child showing affection, do score Neglecting/Distancing. 12. To help determine when Hostility also is scored as Neglecting/Distancing consider whether the parents hostile behavior minimizes contact with and/or is dismissive of the child or is merely hostile. 13. Neglecting/Distancing conveys a feeling of parental withdrawal from the child (i.e., Youre an inconvenience or Youre a problem in my life) or the parent doesnt care about the child (Youre inconsequential or Your desires are inconsequential). 14. Both Neglecting/Distancing and Indulgent/Permissive parents may fail to set standards for the child. For the Neglecting/Distancing parent this failure appears to be due to not wanting to be bothered by the child (the parent is focused on own vs. the childs needs); whereas, for the Indulgent/Permissive parent this failure is due to either philosophical reasons or giving up on controlling the child. There may be overlap between the two scales, e.g., the parent who gives up and decides to focus energies on something unrelated to child rearing.

Rating Scales 4 1998

168

15. A parent who allows a child to function independently may display evidence of Encourages Independence and not Neglecting/Distancing when it is evident that the parent recognizes that the child does not need help. Parents who repeatedly fail to assist a child when the child requests help, is stuck or is distressed, would receive a score for Neglecting/Distancing.

Examples: Neglecting/Distancing 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Cant you see Im busy? I wish you would just stop bugging me. I have too many things to do to be concerned about your problems. Take care of it yourself. I dont really care what you do. Just dont bother me with your silly ideas. It irks me when you.... (stated in a manner that focuses on the parents needs rather than as an opportunity to teach the children appropriate behaviors). I wish you would pick up your mess! When you leave things lying around it is such a bother for me. I always have to do your stuff. If you werent here the house would stay clean. Child: Look Daddy, I did it! Father does not respond to comment and continues to gaze out the window. Mother sits passively while child leaves the task.

6. 7.

Nonexamples: Neglecting/Distancing 1. 2. 3. Son, youll need to wait just a minute while I get a Kleenex. Jenny, I wish we could buy you a class ring, but we just dont have enough money right now. I think you can do the puzzle. Youve done ones like this before. Ill watch while you try.

Rating Scales 4 1998

169

INDULGENT/PERMISSIVE (IP) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale describes a parent who gives the child considerable and often times an inappropriate degree of freedom to regulate or control his/her own behavior. The parent is characterized by a laissez faire, anything goes attitude and is excessively lenient and tolerant of misbehavior. Alternatively, the parent displays a defeatist attitude and appears to have given up on appropriate efforts to control the child. Little attempt is made to control or restrict the childs behavior. The parent sets few, if any, standards for the childs behavior. The highly Indulgent/Permissive parent does not regulate the childs activities in a manner that is generally considered an appropriate part of the parental role. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent demonstrates no signs of being an indulgent/permissive parent. The parent does not give the child excessive freedom to control his/her own behavior. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent rarely demonstrates indulgent behavior or fails to make appropriate attempts at controlling, guiding, or setting standards for the childs conduct. Most, but not all, of the indulgent/permissive behaviors are absent. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent sometimes demonstrates indulgent behavior and sometimes gives the child freedom to control his/her own behavior. The parent sometimes may be lax in setting standards for the childs conduct or in guiding the childs behavior. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often demonstrates indulgent behavior and more often fails to make attempts to control the childs activities. The parent fairly often may be lax in setting standards for the childs conduct. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent frequently is indulgent/permissive. He/she frequently fails to make attempts to control the childs behavior and/or almost never provides regulations or sets standards for the child to follow.

Rating Scales 4 1998

170

Clarifications: Indulgent/Permissive 1. A high level of indulgent parenting may take either of the following forms: a. It is undesirable to control the child, even in ways that are generally considered socially appropriate. This parent actively espouses a libertarian philosophy and conveys it is important for children to do their own thing. He/she may make statements indicating the belief that restriction of the childs natural impulses will lead to neuroses. Because of these beliefs, he/she will not really require selfcontrolled behavior from the child, nor will he/she impose any external standards for behavior on the child. It is impossible to control the child: This parent reflects a defeated attitude (e.g., I cant control this child and there is no use trying,) and actively withdraws from any attempt to influence the child. The parents behavior conveys the message that what he/she does/says makes no difference, and thus has given up trying.

b.

2.

Failure to set appropriate standards for the childs behavior within the interaction task (when such standards appear to be warranted) is evidence of a parent who is Indulgent/Permissive. For example, when children are nasty to each other (or a child hits a parent) during the task, if the parent does not intervene, code as Indulgent/Permissive. Alternatively, when the child is instructed by the interviewer to clean up, score Indulgent/Permissive if the parent makes little or no effort to enforce compliance to the task. Rules, if produced, are likely to be in the form of tentative suggestions or questions that are moderated by the wishes of the child. For example, Do you think it would help if I spent more time with you on your homework? These parents may communicate reasonably well and may even solicit feelings and information from the child. These parents, in general, are indulgent of the child and may display varying degrees of warmth and involvement. They tend to be low on Child Monitoring, Parental Influence, and Assertiveness. The Easily Coerced parent differs from the Indulgent/Permissive parent in that the former parent backs down or fails to follow through on standards, whereas the latter parent fails to set standards due to either a philosophy of child rearing or a defeated attitude. Both Indulgent/Permissive and Neglecting/Distancing parents fail to set standards for the child. For the Indulgent/Permissive parent, this failure is due to either philosophical reasons or giving up on controlling the child, whereas the Neglecting/Distancing parent does not want to be bothered by the child (the parent is focused on own vs. the childs needs). In some cases there may be overlap between the two scales, especially for defeated parents. Consider that parents may display Encourages Independence, rather than Indulgent/Permissive behaviors, if they do not interrupt an argument or disagreement between the children.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Rating Scales 4 1998

171

9.

Some Indulgent/Permissive parents act more like a peer than a parent.

10. The parent who displays a pattern of encouraging and/or joining in the childs Antisocial behavior would be scored as Indulgent/Permissive (e.g., laughing at childs rudeness, subverting the task, etc.). 11. Score as Indulgent/Permissive a parent who excuses a childs inappropriate behavior rather than correcting the behavior or setting appropriate standards (e.g., Lots of kids drink and drive, said in response to learning the child has done so).

Examples: Indulgent/Permissive Do what you want to do. You dont listen to me anyway. Ive given up on trying to get you two to stop fighting. Anything I tried never worked anyway. 3. I think Jennifer has to decide for herself whether or not shes going to do her homework. 4. I think children should be free to make their own choices about friends, clothes, driving, etc., without adults always telling them what to do. 5. If he wants to wreck his car, thats his choice. Since he paid for it with his own money he should be able to do what he wants with it. 6. Oh, I wish you kids would stop fighting (Parental Influence), but I guess its only natural at your age. (Indulgent/Permissive) 7. Parent ignores the sibling when she pinches the target, even though the behavior is obvious to the parent. 8. Youre just a kid; kids do that. 9. Parent makes few, if any, attempts to get child to comply with expectations for the task. 10. Child slaps mother. Mother ignores the slap. Child repeats the behavior. Mother does nothing. 1. 2.

Nonexamples: Indulgent/Permissive 1. 2. 3. O.K. O.K. stop your yelling! Ill buy you that toy. (Easily Coerced) You are being very stupid today. (Hostility) You are old enough now to start buying some of your own clothes (Parental Influence). Youve shown me you make good choices. (Warmth/Support, Encourages Independence)

Rating Scales 4 1998

172

Rating Scales 4 1998

173

QUALITY TIME (QT) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the extent or quality of the parents involvement in the childs life outside of the immediate setting. Of particular interest is a sense of time well-spent vs. merely superficial involvement. Please note that this scale differs from Child Monitoring (knowledge and information) in that it measures the quality of the time parent and child spend together. Quality of time relates to opportunities for conversation, involvement, and companionship, the ways opportunities are used, and evidence of mutual enjoyment in these activities. The rating is based on both parent and child reports of the degree to which they are involved in meaningful or mutually enjoyable activities. In activity-based tasks, look for references to shared experiences. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent spends no quality time with the child. It appears that none of the time spent with the child is of significant quality. No evidence is observed or reported. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: It appears that the parent rarely spends time of significant quality with the child. Minimal evidence is observed or reported. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: It appears that the parent occasionally spends time of significant quality with the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: It appears that the parent fairly often spends time of significant quality with the child. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: It appears that the parent frequently and routinely spends time of significant quality with the child. The parent is regularly involved with the child in a high-quality manner.

Rating Scales 4 1998

174

Clarifications: Quality Time 1. To evaluate the quality of time parent and child spend together, take note of the opportunities for conversation, companionship, involvement, and mutual enjoyment, as well as the extent to which these opportunities are used to enhance the parent-child relationship. For example, merely watching TV together is not an indicator of Quality Time. However, discussing TV programs that have been viewed would indicate Quality Time. Other examples of Quality Time include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 3. shared participation in community activities family trips planned and taken together after dinner game playing participation in shared hobbies mutual involvement in meal preparation reading and discussing books together regular meal times with opportunities for conversation any occasion that is regularly used for fun or conversation

2.

When scoring Quality Time, look for evidence that a conscientious or deliberate effort is made for parent and child to spend time together and that time together is not just left to chance. To score above a 5 on Quality Time, there must be evidence that the parent and child regularly (generally biweekly for a 6 or 7; generally weekly for an 8 or 9) set aside or spend time together in a meaningful way. Although it is not necessary for this time to be spent in the same activity each week, it is important that both parent and child view the time together as important, place special significance on the time, and look forward to this time. Such activities are planned for and regularly participated in by parent and child. When regularity/frequency of such activities is not stated, use contextual cues and general knowledge about such activities to make an informed decision about the final score. Code lower on Quality Time if the parents reports of Quality Time dont seem to be similarly viewed by the child (or vice versa). Merely expressing a desire to do more with each other is not evidence of Quality Time. Code as high as the evidence allows, but dont assume or read in behavior that is not actually observed or reported. Consider reports of past shared activities in conjunction with information on current shared activities when determining the appropriate score. If there is no evidence of current activities, score lower. Particularly in activity-based task, look for evidence of meaningful routines or patterns of interaction that generalize beyond the immediate task (e.g., clean-up song).

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 4 1998

175

Examples: Quality Time 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I really enjoy spending time with you. Its just fun to talk with you. I like talking with you about your day at school. Its fun for us to spend time together playing softball. We really enjoy our trips to town together. I always look forward to our Saturday evenings together playing games and eating popcorn. Parent says, We never have the chance to do things like this. (evidence of lower Quality Time). Parent says, Look - these are like the toys we have fun with. (evidence of higher Quality Time). Parent says, Remember this is like the puzzle we do at the library. Evidence of meaningful and mutually enjoyed routines (e.g., clean-up song, learning games, etc.).

Nonexamples: Quality Time 1. 2. 3. 4. We like to watch TV. I wish we could go shopping together more often. Parent: I always liked doing puzzles when I was your age. Child to father, Mommy does this with me.

Rating Scales 4 1998

176

Rating Scales 4 1998

177

PARENTAL INFLUENCE (PI) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the parents direct and indirect ATTEMPTS TO SOCIALIZE the child, NOT his/her success. The scale reflects parental expectations for age-appropriate behavior. Take into account the degree to which the parent sets standards and attempts to regulate or control the childs life according to commonly accepted expectations. Consider the extent to which the parent specifies guidelines or rules for conduct at home (e.g., behavior, manners, chores, homework, TV), develops and oversees daily routines (e.g., brushing teeth, eating regular meals), sets rules for behavior away from home (e.g., with friends, at social events, at school), and directs the childs behavior in the task in terms of guidelines for behaviors that generalize beyond the current task interaction. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent never attempts to regulate, control or influence the childs behavior. The parent does not set standards or provide expectations for age-appropriate behaviors that generalize beyond the immediate setting. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent rarely attempts to regulate, control, or influence the childs behavior. The parent infrequently sets standards or provides expectations for age-appropriate behaviors that generalize beyond the immediate setting. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent occasionally attempts to regulate, control, or influence the childs behavior. The parent sometimes sets standards or provides expectations for age-appropriate behaviors that generalize beyond the immediate setting. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often attempts to regulate, control or influence the childs behavior, sets standards, or provides expectations for age-appropriate behaviors that generalize beyond the immediate setting. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent consistently attempts to control and regulate the childs behavior. The parent frequently sets standards or provides expectations for age-appropriate behaviors that generalize beyond the immediate setting.

Rating Scales 4 1998

178

Clarifications: Parental Influence 1. Parental Influence assesses the parents actual behavior, and what the parent is ATTEMPTING to accomplish, not his/her success at influencing the child. Even if the child appears out of control, the parent can score high on Parental Influence if control attempts are made or reported. Assess the variety of aspects of the childs life that the parent is attempting to influence. Then, assess the degree of the influence attempted. If only one aspect of the childs life is discussed, it must be clear that the parent is attempting to exert considerable influence in this one area in order to score high. Examples of areas of the childs life that the parent may attempt to influence or control: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. 4. homework strategies health habits (bedtime, eating manners) TV shows watched or amount of time spent watching TV style of dress hair style or length choice of friends relationship with sibling(s) how time is spent between arrival home from school and the time the parent arrives home from work whereabouts and activities when away from home participation in particular school, athletic, or social activities tobacco, alcohol, or drug use dating play activities with toys, clean up

2.

3.

Examples of ways a parent may attempt to influence the child: a. b. c. d. e. f. acknowledges responsibility for setting guidelines for child initiates discussion or efforts to complete task even if the topic or activity is likely to cause the child to become upset or angry requires the child to pay attention to him/her indicates that he/she expects to be obeyed deals straightforwardly with childs attempts to manipulate him/her confronts the child when the child misbehaves

5.

Examples of task-related influence attempts that generalize beyond the immediate activity: a. b. c. d. e. You need to listen to what I tell you to do. No throwing blocks. We need to be neat. Finish one, then start the next. Let me finish talking before you say something.

Rating Scales 4 1998

179

6.

A parent who changes his/her mind in response to a coercive, angry, badgering child cannot be scored higher than a 7 on Parental Influence. A parent scored an 8 or 9 may change his/her mind in response to a reasonable child, but never changes his/her mind in response to a demanding child. Compliments and criticisms of a child by a parent do not constitute Parental Influence, unless accompanied by a stated or implied suggestion as to how the child should or shouldnt behave. Not everything that a parent says that may influence the child is Parental Influence. For example, Youre dumb, Youll never amount to anything are Hostility, Contempt, and Escalate Hostile, but not Parental Influence. To count as Parental Influence, it has to be clear that the in-task influence attempt generalizes to other situations, not just to the current task; some in-task influence attempts are merely Dominance (e.g., You read the next card.)

7.

8.

9.

Examples: Parental Influence 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. I wish you would learn to pick up after yourself. Youll need to do your chores before you go to the game tonight. Sit up straight and stop slouching in your chair. You should make a stronger effort to bring your math grade up. I like the way the two of you helped each other out. I hope you can do that again. First pick up all the blocks, then put Mr. Potato Head away.(Dominance) The pieces always go back to where they come from. (Parental Influence) We always clean up after we play.

Nonexamples: Parental Influence

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

It is my turn to read a card. You had the last turn. (Dominance) Talk louder so they can hear you better on the tape. (Dominance) Youre dumb. (Hostility, Verbal Attack) Do that block next. (Dominance) You do it. (Dominance)

Rating Scales 4 1998

180

Rating Scales 4 1998

181

CHILD MONITORING (CM) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the parents knowledge and information, as well as the extent to which the parent pursues information, concerning the childs life and daily activities. It measures the degree to which a parent knows what the child is doing, where the child is, and with whom. It assesses the parents awareness of the childs daily life and routines, who the childs friends are, and what his/her interests and activities might be. For parents with young children, this scale also includes an awareness of childrens abilities and skill levels. That is, parents scoring high not only track childrens whereabouts during the task, they also demonstrate an awareness of their childrens preferences, skills, and knowledge. This intimate awareness of their children facilitates their ability to structure activity-based tasks to maximize childrens success. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent displays no knowledge about the childs whereabouts, daily routines, friends, or schoolwork. The parent may not elicit any information from the child and may have few or no follow-up questions to gather more information. The parent demonstrates no awareness of the childs likes or dislikes and expects the child to behave in developmentally inappropriate ways (e.g., expects greater proficiency than child is capable of doing), and may not track the childs in-task behaviors. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent displays a vague awareness of the childs behavior and some desire to gain more information from the child, but there is an absence of any real discussion or in-depth questioning about activities, relationships, feelings, or events of the day; the parent displays a superficial attempt at obtaining information from the child. The parent displays a general awareness of the childs preferences, but is not in tune with the child (e.g., awareness that the child does not like to clean up) or displays a limited knowledge regarding the childs development. The parent minimally tracks the childs in-task behavior. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent displays a general knowledge of the childs behavior at home, knows that the child is in school and in a specific grade, etc., and may know the names of teachers or friends. There may be some attempts to obtain further information from the child. However, the parent does not seem to actively display or pursue knowledge about the childs life. The parent is likely to be familiar with only those events that he/she has come in contact with directly. The parent seems to be learning about the child during the task and displays a general sense as to what the child might be capable of doing (e.g., asks the child to name color with uncertainty) and by attending to the child during task can make somewhat appropriate adjustments. 6=

Rating Scales 4 1998

182

7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often displays a broad range of knowledge and more specific information regarding the childs behavior and activities and/or actively pursues with interest information concerning the child. This parent asks specific questions of the child and can knowingly follow up on comments made by the child. The parent is fairly knowledgeable of childs abilities and structures activity-based tasks in ways which are fairly manageable for the child. The parent still displays some uncertainty as to the childs response. Although the parent fairly often tracks the childs in-task behaviors, at times the parent may not do so. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: This parent frequently displays an intimate knowledge of the childs behavior, may ask very specific questions of the child, and/or pursues detailed information concerning the childs life. The parent clearly displays awareness of the childs abilities and may even refer to the childs past successes or failures regarding specific tasks. This parent frequently tracks childs activities and keeps a close watch over the child during activity-based tasks. In addition, the parent maximizes the childs success because of his/her intimate awareness of the childs skills and abilities.

Clarifications: Child Monitoring 1. Be careful not to confuse a parent who already knows about the childs life and is using this knowledge as the basis for asking specific questions with the parent who has limited knowledge about the childs life and abilities and is using the interaction to obtain information about the child -- information that a high child monitor would already have. Look at the kinds of questions being asked. Assess the variety of topics with which the parent is familiar. Then, assess the depth with which those topics are discussed. If only one topic is discussed, it must be clear that the parent already possesses a great deal of knowledge concerning the topic in order to score high. Consider a parents knowledge and awareness about the childs feelings, names of important people, and details of events in the childs life. Questions asked by the parent can reveal much about his/her depth of knowledge. a. Rate 1: Was there school today? Were you off for Lincolns Birthday? Rate 3: Who were you with, a friend? Did you get homework? Rate 5: Are you fighting with your sister again? Where did you go to play?

2.

3.

b.

c.

Rating Scales 4 1998

183

d.

Rate 7: Did you finish your Math homework? How was your test today? Where did you and Susie go to play? Rate 9: Did you and your friend Susie like the new slide at the playground? Did you get the division problems on your test correct?

e.

4.

Do not base Child Monitoring merely on how much time parent and child spend together. For example, a parent who is frequently absent from the home may still monitor the childs life and activities through reports from others, by talking with the child, etc. For young children, aspects of Child Monitoring include proximity of parent to child, the parents tracking of the child, and awareness of the childs internal state. The parent knows what the child can do and cannot do, how the child handles problems and feelings, and is able to ask appropriate questions or to structure the task appropriately. Being high on Child Monitoring does not mean the parent is high on Sensitive/Child-Centered but being high on Sensitive/Child-Centered means parents are high on Child Monitoring. Parent can be scored a 3 for low-level visually tracking (watching) the childs in-task behavior. Displaying only high-level tracking would score a 5 but no higher unless there is evidence of higher quality monitoring. If the interaction reflects awareness of childs behavior, feelings, and actions, in addition to high-level visual tracking, score at a higher level. It is possible for a parent to display low visual tracking and high monitoring.

5.

6.

7.

Examples: Child Monitoring I like the way you brought your science grade up from a C to a B this past semester. You two did a good job of cleaning up the living room last night. You came home an hour after you were supposed to. How come? You havent spent much time with your friend Beth lately. Are you getting along all right or are you just too busy with your school activities? 5. When I asked your coach how you were doing in track, he said youve really improved. I can see that, too. 6. Youre really good at puzzles. 7. Show me the yellow piece. (demonstrates awareness of childs color labeling knowledge) 8. This is like the game you played at Suzies house. 9. Bill told me you can count to 10. 10. As soon as you finish putting the toys away, well get you some of your favorite juice. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Rating Scales 4 1998

184

Nonexamples: Child Monitoring

1. 2. 3. 4.
5.

I dont know the names of your teachers. I have no idea what you do after school. Oh, you mean you didnt have classes today. No one told me. I never have time to attend parent-teacher conferences. I leave that up to your mother. Have you done a puzzle like this before?

Rating Scales 4 1998

185

CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE (CD) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the consistency and the persistence with which the parent maintains and adheres to rules and standards of conduct for the childs behavior (whether or not there is evidence of violation of standards by the child) and disciplines the child when the child violates rules and standards of conduct. This scale applies to both implicit and explicit rules and standards of conduct. Indicators of consistent discipline are the extent to which children appear to have clear expectations about what will happen if they violate the rules and evidence that the parent follows through with an expected consequence or punishment when misbehavior occurs. The parent may try various strategies, but consistently persists in encouraging the childs efforts to achieve goals during activity-based tasks. 1 = Not at all characteristic: There are no signs of consistency on the part of the parent. If a parent has no rules, or if there is no evidence of disciplinary behavior, also score 1. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent is rarely consistent in maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct set for the child. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent is occasionally consistent with regard to rules and standards of conduct set for the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent is fairly often consistent in maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct for the child, but there is some lack of consistency. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent is frequently consistent in maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct set for the child.

Rating Scales 4 1998

186

Clarifications: Consistent Discipline 1. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both Consistent Discipline and Inconsistent Discipline. If one scale is scored a 7, 8 or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6. When the presence of rules and standards of conduct are difficult to determine in tasks with two parents present, you may have to infer from what each parent says. One parents behavior can influence how we rate the other; take the others response into account. For example, if a mother indicates certain expectations of the children, the fathers response may provide information about his score on that dimension of parenting. Agreement may occur verbally or nonverbally, e.g., with a nod of the head. If it seems the parents are in agreement or disagreement, score accordingly. Well-defined rules: Rules may not always be clear, (e.g., The rule is...). Attempt to determine whether it is clear that everyone in the family understands the implicit rules (I expect you to...; Youre supposed to...). If the parent makes threats and does not follow through on them, consider this an indication that Consistent Discipline is low. However, if a parent follows through on threats, score at the appropriate level. Report of failure to maintain standards is evidence of a lack of parental consistency and warrants a low score. This may also apply for failure to follow through on standards during the interaction task. If it is clear that a child is misbehaving, but the parent does not intercede to remedy the situation, score low on Consistent Discipline. If a parent or child does talk about disciplinary situations, it must be clear that the parent follows through on an expected punishment when misbehavior occurs in order to score high on Consistent Discipline. If the child cant predict when he/she will or will not get punished, score low on Consistent Discipline. Parental Influence assesses whether a parent sets standards for the child. Consistent Discipline assesses whether the parent takes notice and responds to correct the situation when the standards are violated. The manner of discipline (e.g., grounding, physical punishment) is not assessed by this scale; consistently applying any type of discipline would lead to a rating of high consistency. Neither is effectiveness of influence attempts assessed by this scale. Consistent Discipline and Inconsistent Discipline are not dichotomous scales; there is an area of overlap for many parents. For example, a parent may be consistently assertive in dealing with the child. However, please note that in real life harsh discipline is often handed out in an inconsistent, explosive manner. An authoritative parent would be consistent in using reasoning, assertion, etc., whereas the authoritarian parent would be consistently harsh in response to violation of standards.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 4 1998

187

10. If a parent is consistent in giving positive rewards, score this under Positive Reinforcement, not under Consistent Discipline. 11. It is important to recognize the consistency with which the parent follows through on discipline as well as consistency in initial delivery of discipline. If a parent responds to misbehavior but does not actually follow through on an expected consequence score lower on Consistent Discipline. 12. If it is clear that the child does what the parents expect him/her to do, even though there is no evidence regarding the imposition of discipline, score high on Consistent Discipline. There must be some evidence, however, that the child is responding to parental expectations and possible consequences even though there is no verbal report of imposition of discipline. 13. If it is evident that the children know and follow parental expectations, assume a 9 on Consistent Discipline unless there also is evidence that the parents are not usually consistent in following through on these expectations, then a score of 5 may be appropriate. 14. For activity based tasks, if the child does the task on his/her own, and the parent has no parental influence, or disciplinary reprimands, but the child follows the parents suggestions, score high on Consistent Discipline. The parent who tries various strategies, but consistently persists in encouraging the childs efforts directed toward achieving goals during activity-based tasks also would score high on this scale.

Examples: Consistent Discipline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Youre grounded from going to basketball games until you bring your grades up, just like I warned you. If you dont obey the rules, youll lose your privileges. Darin, you know it was your turn to vacuum the living room yesterday. I expect you to do it before you go to bed tonight. Im not going to change my mind, so please stop complaining. You know you have to pick up your toys when playtime is over. We dont throw your toys, and we dont throw these toys, either. Put the cars away in the basket; we cant go until the toys are put away. Sit here and do the puzzle. Mother encircles child with her legs to keep child in place. Get back on your spot.

Nonexamples: Consistent Discipline 1. 2. 3. You usually follow the rules. I like the way you keep your room clean. (Positive Reinforcement) Your bedtime is 9:30 p.m. on school nights. (Parental Influence)

Rating Scales 4 1998

188

Rating Scales 4 1998

189

INCONSISTENT DISCIPLINE (ID) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses evidence of parental inconsistency and failure to follow through on an expected consequence or punishment, as well as failure to maintain and adhere to rules and standards of conduct set for the childs behavior. This scale applies to both implicit and explicit rules and standards of conduct. An indicator of inconsistent discipline is the extent to which, despite some evidence of parental rules and standards, there is evidence that these rules are inconsistently maintained and there is evidence that the parent is inconsistent in following through with an expected consequence or punishment when misbehavior occurs. An additional indicator of Inconsistent Discipline in activity-based tasks would be a parent who inconsistently enforces the expectations and goals for the task. 1 = Not at all characteristic: There are no signs of inconsistency on the part of the parent. If a parent has no rules, or if there is no evidence of disciplinary behavior, also score a 1. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent is rarely inconsistent in maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct set for the child. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent is occasionally inconsistent with regard to maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct set for the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent is fairly often inconsistent in maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct set for the child, but there is some consistency. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent is frequently inconsistent in maintaining and adhering to rules and standards of conduct set for the child.

Clarifications: Inconsistent Discipline 1. It is not possible to rate focal high on both Inconsistent Discipline and Consistent Discipline. If one scale is scored a 7, 8 or 9, the other scale cannot be scored above a 6.

Rating Scales 4 1998

190

2.

When the presence of rules and standards of conduct are difficult to determine in tasks with two parents present, you may have to infer from what each parent says. One parents behavior may influence how we rate the other; take the others response into account. For example, if a mother indicates certain expectations of the children, the fathers response may provide information about his score on that dimension of parenting. Agreement may occur verbally or nonverbally, e.g., with a nod of the head. If it seems the parents are in agreement or disagreement, score accordingly. Well-defined rules: Rules may not always be clear, (e.g., The rule is...). Attempt to determine whether it is clear that everyone in the family understands the implicit rules (I expect you to...; Youre supposed to...). An absence of rules and expectations may indicate Indulgent/Permissive rather than Inconsistent Discipline. If the parent makes threats and does not follow through, consider this an indication of Inconsistent Discipline. If the parent is inconsistent due to coerciveness on the part of the child, score for Inconsistent Discipline and for Easily Coerced. Failure to maintain standards is evidence of parental inconsistency. This may also apply during the interaction task. If it is clear that children are misbehaving, but the parent does not intercede to remedy the situation, score on Inconsistent Discipline. If a parent or child does talk about disciplinary situations, it must be clear that the parent fails to follow through on an expected consequence when misbehavior occurs in order to score high on Inconsistent Discipline. If the child cant predict whether or not there will be consequences, the parent is inconsistently disciplining the child.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Parental Influence assesses whether a parent sets standards for the child. Inconsistent Discipline assesses whether the parent fails to notice or to respond to correct situations when parental standards are violated. The manner of discipline (e.g., grounding, physical punishment) is not assessed by this scale; inconsistently applying any type of discipline would lead to a rating of inconsistency. 11. A parents failure to set appropriate standards for the childs behavior is scored with the Indulgent/Permissive scale. A parents failure to uphold appropriate standards or to follow through with expected consequences is scored with the Inconsistent Discipline scale. Some overlap may occur in the use of evidence to arrive at final scores for these two scales. For example, lack of follow through (Inconsistent Discipline) may be associated with either having given up on trying to uphold standards or the belief that it is undesirable to control the child (Indulgent/Permissive). 12. Do not score lack of effectiveness of parental behavior in upholding rules and standards as evidence of Inconsistent Discipline. Rather, base the score on what

Rating Scales 4 1998

191

the parent does or does not do vs. on the childs failure to comply with parental expectations. 13. Consistent Discipline and Inconsistent Discipline are not dichotomous scales; there is an area of overlap for many parents. For example, a parent may be consistently assertive in dealing with the child. However, please note that in real life harsh discipline is often handed out in an inconsistent, explosive manner. An authoritative parent would show consistency by using reasoning, assertion, etc., whereas the authoritarian parent may show consistency by responding harshly to the childs violation of standards. 14. Idle threats, (e.g., Stop that or Ill knock your block off or Youll get sent back two grades unless you improve), should be coded as Inconsistent Discipline (for parents inability to follow through on the threat), as well as Harsh Discipline (for the content of the threat) if the idle threat is harsh or punitive. 15. If a parent threatens hitting or some other punitive discipline technique but then immediately recants, count as Harsh Discipline and as Inconsistent Discipline.

Examples: Inconsistent Discipline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Ill let you get out of it this time, but you might not be so lucky next time. I just couldnt see grounding you for the whole month, so I let you out of your punishment. Sometimes I forget to tell you to do your chores and then I just go ahead and do them. Even though youre supposed to put your bike away, sometimes its just easier for me to put it away than to yell at you to do it. Ill clean up this time. Parent gives up trying to get child to clean up and does so him/herself. Parent says, Put the legos in the bag. Child pulls bag from parent and says, No! Parent laughs and allows Mr. Potato Head pieces to go in the bag. Parent says, No, dont open the puzzle box. You have to put the shapes in the holes. Child goes ahead and puts the rest of the pieces in the large opening. Parent says nothing.

Nonexamples: Inconsistent Discipline 1. 2. 3. We really dont have many rules at our house. Jill can stay out as long as she wants, but you have to be home by midnight. Oh, now I understand why you didnt pick up your clothes. Sorry I yelled at you.

Rating Scales 4 1998

192

Rating Scales 4 1998

193

HARSH DISCIPLINE (HD) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the parents use of punishment in response to the childs misbehavior or violation of specific parental standards (stated or implied rules, regulations, and expectations). Punishment includes the use of punitive or severe disciplinary techniques (i.e., belittling, shaming, yelling, threatening, hitting, or other cruel and unusually excessive or extreme parental behavior). 1 = Not at all characteristic: Parental discipline is never harsh or excessively punitive. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: Parental discipline is rarely harsh or excessively punitive. The parents responses to the child may be mildly punitive, e.g., infrequently yelling. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: Parental discipline is occasionally harsh and punitive. Evidence suggests a moderate level of harshness, e.g., frequently yelling at the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: Parental discipline is fairly often, but not always, harsh and punitive. More intense harshness is evident and displayed to a fairly high degree, (e.g., always yelling). There may be evidence that physical discipline, shaming, belittling, etc., occur fairly often or with more intensity. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: Parental discipline is frequently extremely harsh and punitive. Nearly all disciplinary attempts are punitive and harsh, or some discipline is extremely severe, e.g., physically abusive. To score a 9 there must be some evidence of physical discipline such as slapping, hitting, punching or evidence that the parent frequently belittles, shames or embarrasses the child when disciplining him/her.

Clarifications: Harsh Discipline 1. Misbehavior is defined as behavior that violates rules and regulations or expectations (either stated or implied) the parent holds for the childs conduct.

Rating Scales 4 1998

194

2.

To rate Harsh Discipline based on behavior observed in the task, the parent must respond to the childs violation of a stated or implied standard: a. Example when parental standard is stated: Child behavior: Parent rule: Child violation of rule: Parent discipline: Child plays with microphone. Parent says, Dont play with microphone. Child continues to play with microphone. Parent says, I said, dont play with microphone; dont do that! (angry, coercive tone)

b.

Example when parental standard is implied: Child behavior: Parental behavior: Child plays with microphone. Parent says, Stop that! Youll mess up the video recording. (angry, coercive tone)

3.

To differentiate between Harsh Discipline and Hostility, there must be some indication that a parental standard has been violated for the behavior to be rated as Harsh Discipline. Harsh Discipline may also be rated as Hostility (i.e., if harsh behavior is observed in the task), whereas the opposite is not necessarily true. If the only evidence of physical punishment is from reports of behaviors in the past, e.g., when the child was much younger, score at a 2 or 3 level. If there is evidence that physical punishment is currently being used at home, score higher. If there is any evidence that at the present time the parent hits the child as a means of disciplining, score an 8 or 9 and then lower the score for evidence of other means of discipline. Code evidence of yelling as Harsh Discipline, even if there is disagreement between interactors about whether or not yelling occurs. Determine the score level based on frequency of yelling and whether or not other disciplinary methods are used. Belittling or ridiculing children in response to violation of a parental standard may occur at any level from 2 to 9; code according to frequency and intensity. Idle threats, (i.e., warnings or intimidations the parent likely cant actually uphold) particularly if harsh or punitive, should be coded as Harsh Discipline (for the threat itself), as well as Inconsistent Discipline (for failure to follow through). Logical or contrived consequences are Harsh Discipline only if excessive or unreasonable. For example, Do that again and Ill knock you down to size (Harsh Discipline), Do that again and youll be grounded from being with friends on Saturday (probably not Harsh Discipline). Code threats presented in the future tense (e.g., If you ever go out with Tom again, I will hit you.) as Harsh Discipline if the threats are made in response to disapproved child behavior occurring or anticipated to occur at the present time. If a parent is merely influencing the childs future behavior and not reacting to present childs behavior, code only as Parental Influence (i.e., If you ever did what Melinda did youd find yourself locked out of the house).

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Rating Scales 4 1998

195

10. If parent threatens hitting or some other punitive discipline technique, but then immediately recants, count as Harsh Discipline and as Inconsistent Discipline. 11. If child reports Harsh Discipline but later takes back the statement, pay attention to context, reaction of parent, affect cues, etc. when making a score decision. 12. Words that describe Harsh Discipline: Synonyms scold hollar ridicule demean Examples: Harsh Discipline Cut that out, now! (followed by a hit) If you dont start picking up your stuff, Im going to make you so sorry youll never forget again. 3. Child reports, She spanks me. 4. You should be so ashamed of the way you acted. If you keep that up, everyone will think you are the silliest and stupidest kid in the world. 5. Parent reports he makes the child eat soap. 6. Get over here! (followed by a grab) 7. Parent pulls child by leg, dragging body across room, to clean up area. 8. Mother restrains child by holding childs arms as child tries to run from task. 9. Father slaps childs hand and says, Not that piece! 10. Johnny, now stop that! 11. If you dont pick them up, Im gonna give your prize back to the interviewer. 1. 2. Antonyms reasoned response explain

Nonexamples: Harsh Discipline 1. 2. 3. I hate you. (Hostility) I dont like that. Youre a lousy soccer player. (Hostility)

Rating Scales 4 1998

196

Rating Scales 4 1998

197

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT (PO) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the extent to which the parents contingent responses to the child include the use of praise, approval, rewards, special privileges, or smiles. The parents positive responses are contingent upon appropriate child behavior or upon child behavior that meets specific parental standards (stated or implied rules, regulations, and expectations). For positive responses by the parent to a childs behavior during the video task, also code as Warmth/Support. 1 = Not at all characteristic: Contingent parental responses to desired child behavior are never affirming or positively reinforcing. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: Contingent parental responses to desired child behavior are rarely affirming and positively reinforcing. The parents responses to the childs behavior may be mildly positive, e.g., infrequently offering praise and positive reinforcement. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: Contingent parental responses to desired child behavior are occasionally affirming and positive. Some evidence of positive reinforcement, e.g., praising and positively reinforcing comments. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: Contingent parental responses to desired child behavior are fairly often affirming and positive. More intensive affirmation is evident and displayed to a fairly high degree. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: Contingent parental responses to desired child behavior are frequently affirming and positive. Such responses are very affirming and positive.

Rating Scales 4 1998

198

Clarifications: Positive Reinforcement 1. Evidence of Positive Reinforcement may involve any of the following used in response to child behavior that the parent approves of or desires: a. b. c. d. e. 2. praise approval rewards special privileges smile

Appropriate behavior refers to behaviors that comply with specific parental standards (stated or implied rules, regulations, and expectations). These are usually behaviors that are generally thought to be desirable, e.g., doing well in school, doing a good job on chores, getting along with others, etc. To count as Positive Reinforcement, the behavior by the parent must be contingent on the childs behavior(s). As an aid in determining this, note whether or not the parent is responding positively to specific behaviors of the child. With young children this will include direct responses and encouragement of childs behavior, e.g., childs compliance with task at hand. If a behavior observed during the interaction task is coded as Positive Reinforcement, it will also be coded as evidence of Warmth/Support, however, the reverse is not necessarily true. Pay particular attention to the context in determining whether or not the behavior is merely Warmth/Support (praise for being) or is both Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support (praise for doing). If a parent is consistent in giving positive rewards, score this under Positive Reinforcement, not under Consistent Discipline. Frequency of Positive Reinforcement is more important than consistency in determining the score level. For example, if the parent consistently follows through on promised rewards, but only rarely makes such promises, keep the score lower than if they always say good job, thank you, etc., for doing chores. Promised rewards or bribes with evidence of no follow through on the part of the parent do not count as Positive Reinforcement; consider coding these under Parental Influence, Consistent Discipline, Inconsistent Discipline, etc.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Examples: Positive Reinforcement 1. 2. 3. 4. Thanks for doing your chores. (Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support) I like the way you share the bike with your brother. (Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support) You said you would work hard to get your math grade up and you did it! Good job! (Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support) Every time you get a good grade I praise you. (Positive Reinforcement)

Rating Scales 4 1998

199

5. 6. 7. 8.

Praising a child for doing something that meets parental standards previously stated or implied. (Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support) You are so good at this! (Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support) Youre doing such a good job. (Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support) You are really good at picking up your toys. (Positive Reinforcement and Warmth/Support)

Nonexamples: Positive Reinforcement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I love you. (Warmth/Support) I like your drawing. (Warmth/Support) Youre a good soccer player. (Warmth/Support) Praising a child for being versus for doing. (Warmth/Support) Youre a big boy/girl. If you pick up the toys you can have your ice cream

Rating Scales 4 1998

200

Rating Scales 4 1998

201

ENCOURAGES INDEPENDENCE (EI) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the extent to which the parent promotes the childs autonomy and independence in thought and actions. The parent reinforces the childs initiative, demonstrations of competence, and capabilities by supporting the child in making decisions or doing things on his/her own. The parent demonstrates confidence in the childs ability to solve problems, accomplish goals, and make decisions that are appropriate to the childs age. The parent provides information and guidance, but also demonstrates trust in the childs capabilities. In activity-based tasks with a young child, look for the parent who goes beyond allowing the child to do a task without help, but actually encourages the childs success by giving the message, I know you can do it. The parent supports the childs efforts and involvement in ways that show on-going confidence in the childs abilities. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent shows no evidence of encouraging the childs independence. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent infrequently encourages the childs independence. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent occasionally encourages the childs independence. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often encourages the childs independence, but not at the highest level. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent frequently (characteristically) encourages the childs independence.

Clarifications: Encourages Independence 1. The parent demonstrates trust in the capability of the child and promotes the childs involvement in decisions regarding the childs behavior. Included here are verbal statements expressing confidence in the childs abilities and competencies, for example, the childs physical skill or ability to perform an activity.

2.

Rating Scales 4 1998

202

3.

The parent is sensitive to age-appropriate expectations for the childs behavior and encourages independence for the childs well-being, NOT to relieve the parent of responsibility for the child. A childs independent behavior does not necessarily mean that a parent is encouraging the childs independence. You cannot infer from a childs behavior that a parent is encouraging independence. A parent may be high on Parental Influence, Child Monitoring, and Consistent Discipline and also Encourage Independence appropriate to the childs level of development. Encourages Independence normally should involve enhancement of the childs self-confidence and self-esteem. Positive Reinforcement of the childs abilities and traits would also be evidence for Encourages Independence. Complimenting the child on a past accomplishment (e.g., You were great in soccer this year) does not count as Encourages Independence unless accompanied by statements expressing confidence in the childs ongoing abilities and competencies (e.g., If you keep working on your soccer skills next year the way you did this past year, Im sure youll have another great year.) To differentiate between the two: Encourages Independence reinforces a childs ongoing trait or ability (e.g. showing confidence in the childs ability to make choices.) Positive Reinforcement reinforces a childs specific behavior that meets a parental expectation (e.g., rewarding a child for doing what the parent wants).

4.

5.

6.

7.

Examples: Encourages Independence I know youll be able to make the right choice. What do you think we should set as your bedtime? Well, you buy some of your own clothes now. Perhaps next year youll be able to buy more of them. 4. Splitting up the chores so you do the cooking once a week seems to work out well. 5. Parent allows the child to learn from experience without interference. 6. Mother tells a child to research all the costs involved in buying a pet that she wants. 7. Father explains to a child that his allowance will be discontinued at a certain age in order to prepare him for the responsibility of earning his own money. 8. Parent tells a child she is trusted by the parent to do well in her endeavors. 9. I know you can do it - just give it another try. 10. Thats it - youll get it done soon. 11. Youve shown me before that youre good at putting toys away. I think you can do it now. 1. 2. 3.

Nonexamples: Encourages Independence 1. 2. 3. Youve usually done that by yourself. (Child Monitoring) I want you to start picking up after yourself. (Parental Influence) If you eat an ice cream cone before dinner, what could happen? Reasoning)

(Inductive

Rating Scales 4 1998

203

INDUCTIVE REASONING (IR) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the extent to which the parent tries to guide the behavior of the child through an exchange of information with the child. The parent encourages the child to understand the possible consequences of the childs behavior or to understand another point of view. The parent seeks voluntary compliance, avoids a direct conflict of wills (power assertion), and uses reasoning to encourage the child to consider the feelings of others. Explanations and discussions are presented in a neutral or positive manner. There is evidence of good communication skills and an allowance for verbal give and take. The parent encourages the childs thought and consideration regarding the reason for rules, etc., and promotes the childs thought regarding the childs behavior. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent never uses reasoning or displays induction in dealing with the child. Power assertion is used to control the child or else the parent is neglecting/distancing. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent rarely uses induction. His/her interaction is primarily lacking in induction. The parent tends to ignore the childs behavior or to use other means (i.e., coercion, power assertion) to control the childs behavior rather than using induction. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent occasionally uses induction when interacting with the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often uses induction. However, there is some evidence of lack of induction to influence or control the childs behavior. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent frequently (characteristically) uses inductive reasoning with the child.

Rating Scales 4 1998

204

Clarifications: Inductive Reasoning 1. The parent who scores high on Inductive Reasoning effectively uses teachable moments in interacting with the child. He/she explains why things are the way they are and encourages the childs perspective-taking ability. The parent asks questions not just for information but to encourage the childs thinking and reasoning about the possible consequences of his/her own behavior. Do not interpret Interrogation as indicating the presence of Inductive Reasoning. Interrogation is asking questions to which the focal already knows the answer in order to exert influence on the other person or to make a point. Do not confuse the parents skill at logically explaining his/her point of view (giving reasons) with the parents encouragement of the childs thinking and reasoning about the possible consequences of his/her own behavior (inducing reasons). Merely giving reason would score a lower level, no higher than a 5. To score 6, 7, or above, there must be definite evidence of the parent actively encouraging the childs involvement in thinking and reasoning about the possible consequences of his/her own behavior. To score an 8 or 9, the parent must encourage the child to think through the reasons for particular rules or parental decisions. Code low-level Inductive Reasoning if the family reports We sit down and discuss in the context of their talking about what happens when the child gets into trouble. There must be evidence that consequences of the childs behavior are discussed to score higher. Do not score Inductive Reasoning on the basis of inductive reasoning by child. The score must be based on the parents behavior. Look at the extent to which the parent actively attempts to pull the child into the discussion, not the childs behavior, when scoring Inductive Reasoning. In general, Inductive Reasoning is presented in a neutral or positive manner, not in a hostile tone.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Lecture/Moralize statements presented with neutral affect may also count as Inductive Reasoning if such statements either provide a reason behind parental expectations (see #4 above) or if the child is encouraged to think about consequences of own behavior (see #5 above). Frequently, the Inductive Reasoning comments occur in close proximity to the Lecture/Moralize comments, but exactly the same evidence typically is not used for both scales. 11. Evidence that parents use Inductive Reasoning consistently as a disciplinary technique would also provide evidence for Consistent Discipline.

Rating Scales 4 1998

205

Examples: Inductive Reasoning 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Why do you suppose your teacher asked you to do your assignment over? Youll need to put your things away so Mindy can use that space to do her project. When you do that, how do you think Sonja feels? If you saved half of your allowance and used the money youve already saved, youd probably have enough money to buy that bike in a couple of months. We need to put the legos away so Charlies dog wont chew on them. (lower level) When you hit me it hurts. When you hit me, how do you think that makes me feel? Come back now, were not done yet. The interviewer is leaving, we need to clean up.

Nonexamples: Inductive Reasoning 1. 2. 3. If your teacher ask you to re-do an assignment, just do it! (Parental Influence) You should never say things that hurt someone elses feelings. (Lecture/Moralize) I like it when you do what Ive asked. Thanks for putting away the toys. (Positive Reinforcement)

Rating Scales 4 1998

206

Rating Scales 4 1998

207

EASILY COERCED (EC) Rate: Parents (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the degree to which the parent is controlled by coercive (angry or whiny) or unreasonable behavior by the child. An Easily Coerced parent backs down from parental standards set for the childs behavior or readily concedes to the childs demands/wishes. The parent appears intimidated by the child or by the childs possible negative response to parental rules, regulations, or control attempts. Consequently, the parent ends up giving in to the child or allowing the child to get his/her own way even in the face of appropriate parental standards for child behavior. There must be evidence of coercive or unreasonable behavior on the part of the child and evidence of the parent being coerced. 1 = Not at all characteristic: There is no evidence the parent is coerced by the child. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent rarely is coerced by the child. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent occasionally is coerced by the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often is coerced by the child. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent frequently is coerced by the child.

Clarifications: Easily Coerced 1. The Easily Coerced parent differs from the Indulgent/Permissive parent in that the former parent backs down from or fails to follow through on standards because of coercive behavior on the part of the child, whereas the latter parent fails to set standards due to either a philosophy or a defeated attitude. Look for the following indicators of an Easily Coerced parent: a. giving in to the childs demands b. changing ones mind in response to a whiny, and/or angry coercive child

2.

Rating Scales 4 1998

208

3.

Failure to enforce or follow through on parental standards set for the childs behavior during the interaction task, in response to coercive behavior on the part of the child, is evidence of a parent who is Easily Coerced. The child who scores high on Angry Coercion and/or Whine/Complain for behaviors directed toward the parent may have a parent who is Easily Coerced. However, base the score for the parent on whether or not the parent backs down from standards or concedes to the childs demands/wishes. If it can be inferred from the parents report that the child sometimes gets angry with the parent and the parent changes his/her behavior because of this anger, Easily Coerced can be scored.

4.

5.

Examples: Easily Coerced 1. The parent gives in to the childs angry-coercive or whiny demands for candy at the grocery store, requests to quit the task, or for angry or whiny noncompliance with parental requests. After the child complains that the parent is unfair, the parent says, Oh, all right, go ahead and stay out till midnight. In response to the parents attempt to have him come straight home, the child says (in a whiny tone), All the other kids get to hang out after school. The parent responds, O.K., do whatever you want. The child who plays off one parent against the other has to do so in a coercive manner, and the parent has to be coerced, in order to score Easily Coerced. The parent reports coercive child behavior and there is evidence the parent backs down from standards and/or changes his/her behavior because the parent is afraid of triggering a negative response by the child, as has happened in the past. The child displays behavior coded Whine/Complain or refuses to comply with parents requests and the parent gives up trying. Child yells, No and grabs the toy from dads hand. Dad allows it. Child whines, I dont want to Dad picks up toys himself.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

Nonexamples: Easily Coerced 1. Because you did such a good job cleaning up the yard you can have a friend stay overnight, even though I told you before that it wouldnt work out. (Positive Reinforcement) Youve shown me youre old enough and mature enough to choose when to get your ears pierced. (Encourages Independence)

2.

Rating Scales 4 1998

209

INTRUSIVENESS (NT) * Rate: Parent (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses intrusive and overcontrolling behaviors that are parent-centered rather than child-centered. In structured tasks, this behavior may be manifested by extreme concern about completing the task. Task completion appears more important than promoting the childs autonomy and allowing the child to explore and set the pace for the task. Regardless of affect or tone, the parent is over-involved in fulfilling task activities. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent displays no evidence of intrusive behaviors. There are no instances of parent-centered, overcontrolling behavior. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent displays minimal intrusiveness. There are a few instances in which the parent is overcontrolling and unnecessarily imposes parents own agenda on the child, interrupts to redirect activity, or insists on particular use of toys or props. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: There is some evidence of intrusive behaviors of low to moderate intensity or frequency. At this level, intrusive behaviors occur, but still are not typical. The parent initiates some activities that are not welcome or that are ill-timed. The parent may terminate some activities in which the child is still engaged without adequate warning or transition time. Although the child is allowed some autonomy of intentions, the parent does not actively support or reinforce this perspective in the child. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often is intrusive and overcontrolling of the child. This behavior is evident during a substantial portion of the interaction and may be more intense and/or prolonged. The task activities are performed in a manner more parentcentered than child-centered. 8=
*Note: This scale is adapted from the 24-Month Whole Family Interaction Coding, a system developed by Martha Cox (1997)

Rating Scales 4 1998

210

9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent is consistently and typically intrusive. During the task, the parent controls the interaction, allowing the child little self-direction in activities. Parent may forcefully and physically control the child.

Clarifications: Intrusiveness 1. Intrusiveness may take the form of harsh, neutral, or affectionate behaviors. In any case, the parents actions do not acknowledge or support the childs intentions as real or valid. The actions communicate to the child that it is better to depend on the parent for direction rather than to attempt individuality. Parents can be involved in play and interaction with the child without being highly intrusive if the parent follows the childs interest, pace, and signals. Indicators of Intrusiveness may include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. 4. over-structuring the childs play insisting on the parents own agenda interrupting the child to redirect activity offering a continuous barrage of talk constantly giving direction and/or telling child what to do not allowing the child to select puzzle pieces changing activities while the child still appears interested without preparing child for a transition insisting that the child do something in which he/she is not interested not allowing the child to make choices excessively or abruptly disciplining the child

2.

3.

Punishments imposed by highly controlling and intrusive parents are likely to not vary as a function of the severity of the misdemeanor and may reflect inappropriate expectations of what the child is able to do. Alternatively, the parent may be intrusive and overcontrolling in disciplinary situations by overdoing what would otherwise be appropriate caregiver behavior, for example, by going on endlessly explaining to a child why he/she should not do something or excessively drawing the childs attention to the consequences of his/her actions. Synonyms for Intrusiveness: force upon hamper impede impose inhibit interfere interrupt intrude meddle obstruct over-involved take over

5.

6.

It is not possible to score a parent high (7 or higher) on both Intrusiveness and either Easily Coerced or Sensitive/Child-Centered. Intrusive behaviors are adult-centered, show a lack of sensitivity to the childs interests, needs, and abilities, and inhibit development of the childs autonomy.

Rating Scales 4 1998

211

Examples: Intrusiveness 1. 2. 3. 4. Child holds a block and attempts to place it into a slot. Parent says: Here, try this block instead and use this other slot. Parent: I think you should put away all the legos first and then all the puzzle pieces. Parent: She said you had to pick up the toys, so I dont care if you dont feel like doing it right now. You have to get it done. Now do it! Parent gives a continual barrage of directions without giving child a chance to initiate any activities on his/her own. Parent: OK - now the feet go on the bottom. [pause] The shirt comes next. [pause] The hand pieces fit over there. [pause] Now, do the head. [pause] The hat goes on top of the head . . . . .

Nonexamples: Intrusiveness 1. Child holds a block and attempts to place it into a slot. Parent says: That block you are holding has rounded edges. Look for the slot with rounded edges. Parent: Which toys do you want to put away first? Parent: She said you had to pick up the toys. I know youd rather play with them, but it is time to put them away now. Parent: OK - now where should we try the feet?

2. 3. 4.

Rating Scales 4 1998

212

Rating Scales 4 1998

213

STIMULATES COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT (SC) * Rate: Parent (Dyadic Interaction) This scale measures the degree to which the parent fosters the childs cognitive development by taking advantage of task activities and engaging in a variety of explicit interactions to facilitate the childs development, achievement, and learning. Look for specific attempts to enhance the childs perceptual, cognitive, and linguistic development. This can be thought of as instructional guidance during which the parent provides information and encourages the child to figure out ways to complete the activity. Score higher for behaviors that teach strategies that generalize beyond the immediate situation. Move to higher levels based on quality rather than quantity of stimulation. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent makes no attempt to teach the child or provide cognitive stimulation. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent rarely attempts to teach the child. The parents overt attempts to purposefully engage in development-fostering experiences are limited or low-level (e.g., labeling or providing information). 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent sometimes provides cognitive stimulation. The parent may try the same action over and over or miss opportunities for further enhancement. Stimulation occurs at this level, but is not a primary focus of the interaction. The parent may find new ways to engage the child with toys, for example, but these ways are limited in number and/or quality (e.g., labeling or providing information occurs frequently). 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often provides cognitive stimulation, sets up situations for learning, and expands on concepts and vocabulary. The parent often takes advantage of teachable moments as they arise, but could reasonably provide or create more and higher-quality opportunities for stimulation. 8=

*Note: This scale is adapted from the 24-Month Whole Family Interaction Coding, a system developed by Martha Cox (1977)
Rating Scales 4 1998

214

9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent consistently stimulates the childs cognitive development and takes advantage of activities as opportunities for stimulation. Interactions are of high quality and teaching or fostering development characterizes the parents interaction with the child. The parent provides rich stimulation in terms of language, reasoning, and problem solving.
Clarifications: Stimulates Cognitive Development

1.

Indicators of Stimulates Cognitive Development include: a. b. c. d. e. talking about and demonstrating aspects of the physical world focusing the childs attention on the unique attributes and perceptual qualities of objects (i.e., their colors, how they move, how they can be used) suggesting more sophisticated play activities (e.g., why dont you try...) verbally responding to and expanding on the childs verbalizations or vocalizations encouraging the child to actively participate in activities

2.

With young children, look at the extent to which parent encourages the child to figure out how to solve the puzzle/task on his/her own. Parent may give child descriptions as to what to look for or how to solve the problem. For example, the parent may say, Lets do the edges first. Which pieces would go on the ends? Look for the straight edges. These types of statements are useful for teaching the child how to reason or break down a problem. This scale does not assess the extent to which the parent merely provides learning materials. The parent must be actively engaged in efforts to stimulate development. High scores on this scale are given to parents who engage in the following types of activities: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. describe, label, or ask questions about toys or objects, or demonstrate how toys work stimulate the childs language development and expand on childs verbalizations encourage and reinforce the childs attempts at mastery challenge the child to try something new present activities in an organized sequence of steps gives child an opportunity to experiment with materials that illustrate or teach concepts ask questions that require problem solving label and interpret the childs experiences (e.g., You think thats funny) categorize play materials introduce a new word

3.

4.

Rating Scales 4 1998

215

5.

Do not score above a 5 if the only behaviors observed are low-level examples, even if they occur frequently. Examples of low-level behaviors scored as Stimulates Cognitive Development include: labeling or naming objects, answering childrens questions without elaboration, and/or providing basic information. Score higher for combinations of strategies that improve quality of stimulation, such as defining or describing combined with questions that promote reasoning. Physical activities such as rough and tumble play, swinging, and climbing are not considered as stimulating development in terms of this rating scale, unless the parent uses language (or other devices) to emphasize cognitive aspects of the experiences. Activities that are only social (e.g., hugging or smiling) or caretaking do not qualify as stimulation of development in terms of this rating scale.

6.

7.

Examples: Stimulates Cognitive Development


1. 2. See the rounded corners? Where is there a spot for that? Where is there some grass where this puzzle piece could go?

Nonexamples: Stimulates Cognitive Development 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. baby talk physical activities unless accompanied by verbalization and interpretation social caretaking hugging smiling

Rating Scales 4 1998

216

Rating Scales 4 1998

217

SENSITIVE/CHILD-CENTERED (CC) * Rate: Parent (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the extent to which the parents interactions toward the child are child-centered. The parent displays an awareness of the childs needs, moods, interests, and capabilities. He/she anticipates rather then merely complies with the childs request and needs. Interactions with the child are well timed and paced to the childs behavior and mood. The parents interactions appear to be in sync with those of the child and promote the childs autonomy. If the child initiates interaction, the parent responds appropriately based on the childs behavior and speech. The parent paces activity to keep the child engaged and interested but allows the child to disengage if interest is lost. Attempts to engage and/or redirect the child permit the child as much choice, control, and autonomy as possible while enforcing necessary rules, regulations, and constraints. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The parent never displays sensitivity to the child. Parent does not respond to the child or responses are ill -timed or inappropriate. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The parent rarely displays sensitivity to the child. Although some responses show a vague awareness of the childs needs, most responses are characteristically weak and/or inappropriate. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The parent occasionally displays awareness of the childs needs and capabilities. The parent only sometimes responds sensitively to the childs needs. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The parent fairly often displays behaviors that are sensitive and responsive to the child. The parent is involved, responds appropriately to the childs cues, and demonstrates awareness of the childs needs. The parent may have a few instances of insensitive behaviors, but is predominantly sensitive. 8=

*Note: This scale is adapted from the 24-Month Whole Family Interaction Coding, a system developed by Martha Cox (1997)

Rating Scales 4 1998

218

9 = Mainly characteristic: The parent is frequently and consistently sensitive and responsive to the child. Interactions are characteristically well timed and appropriate and show a good mix of support and fostering independence.

Clarifications: Sensitive/Child-Centered 1. A Sensitive/Child-Centered parent is not only aware of the childs emotional state, mental capabilities, and needs, but also uses this awareness to guide interaction with the child. Sensitive/Child-Centered parents manage discipline in appropriate ways: neither overcontrolling nor detached, neither harsh nor indulgent. A sensitive parent displays awareness of reasons for the childs behavior and fits an appropriate response to misbehavior. Sensitive discipline involves indications that the parent is aware of what motivates the child and offers an explanation or rationale to the child about why discipline is taking place. Note, however, that excessive explanations and rationales can reflect insensitive parenting rather than sensitive parenting (e.g., Intrusiveness, Lecture/Moralize). Especially for young children, long-winded speeches and lectures often reflect the parents lack of awareness of the childs developmental level. Indicators of Sensitive/Child-Centered behaviors include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. acknowledging the childs affect comments that are responsive to the content of the childs talk and/or activity facilitating, but not overcontrolling, the childs play with objects appropriately timing activities to reflect the childs interests changing pace when the child appears understimulated, overexcited, or tired picking up on the childs interest in toys or play materials sharing positive affect providing an appropriate level of stimulation and appropriate range and variety of activities timely discipline that matches the nature of the violation under consideration to the childs ability to understand and benefit from the reprimand general flexibility in handling compliance and autonomy issues, including not over-reacting to noncompliance and supporting autonomy while permitting dependence anticipating childs response

2.

3.

4.

k. 5.

Ratings on this scale should be based on both quality and quantity of the parents behavior.

Rating Scales 4 1998

219

6.

Sensitivity can be manifested through th4 parents response to the childs distress, anger, or frustration. It may involve speaking sympathetically to the child, approaching the child, redirecting the childs activities, hugging, patting, or holding in lap and comforting when the child appears distressed.

7. It is not possible to score a parent high (7 or higher) on both Intrusiveness and Sensitive/Child-Centered. Intrusive behaviors are adult-centered, show a lack of sensitivity to the childs interests, needs and abilities, and inhibit development of the childs autonomy.

Examples: Sensitive/Child-Centered 1. 2. 3. 4. Child cannot find correct puzzle piece and appears frustrated. Parent notices and gives child cues. Child leaves task and parent begins to do puzzle saying, Hey, this has Grover in it! Child returns to do puzzle with parent. Child attempts to put the nose on Mr. Potato Head. Parent says, Youve almost got it! Parent says, Do you need a drink? when child seems thirsty.

Nonexamples: Sensitive/Child-Centered 1. 2. 3. Child cannot find correct puzzle piece and appears frustrated. Parent says, We have to hurry and get this done. Child attempts to put the nose on Mr. Potato Head, but has the piece upside down. Parent says, Thats wrong. Try something else. Insisting the child do the activity instead of getting a drink when the child seems thirsty.

Rating Scales 4 1998

220

Rating Scales 4 1998

221

PROBLEM-SOLVING SCALES

Rating Scales 5 1998

222

Rating Scales 5 1998

223

INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM-SOLVING SCALES 1. Problem-Solving Scales only are used in tasks designed to elicit problem-focused interactions. The individual-level Problem-Solving Scales are used for scoring both discussionbased and activity-based task. The scales include Solution Quantity, Solution Quality, Effective Process, Disruptive Process, and Negotiation/Compromise. The group-level Problem-Solving Scales are used only for scoring discussionbased tasks, not activity-based tasks involving young children. The scales include Family Enjoyment, Agreement on Problem Description, Agreement on Solution, Implementation Commitment, and Problem Difficulty. The group-level Problem-Solving Scales are designed for use with interactions involving two or more people. Do not modify coding based on group size, except the '4', '5' and '6' levels should be eliminated for Agreement on Problem, Agreement on Solution, and Implementation Commitment for two-person tasks. In discussion-based tasks, score the Problem-Solving Scales for the portion of interaction that is related to initial discussion of the first problem topic even if only one person thinks this is a problem. Score other scales for the entire interaction. For discussion-based tasks, if no one thinks the first topic is a problem, code the next topic discussed as a problem. If no one in the group thinks any of the selected topics are problems do not code Problem-Solving Scales for that interaction. In activity-based interactions involving parents and young children, score the individual Problem-Solving Scales from the beginning of the task until the problem (e.g., puzzle, block sorter, etc.) is solved the first time or the task ends.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Rating Scales 5 1998

224

Rating Scales 5 1998

225

INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM-SOLVING SCALES

Rating Scales 5 1998

226

Rating Scales 5 1998

227

SOLUTION QUANTITY (SN)** Rate: All (Individual) This scale assesses the number of solutions the focal offers in the attempt to solve the problem being discussed. A solution is defined as a proposed means for reaching a goal that involves an action or change in behavior. There are several types of solutions, including tried, novel, helpful, exploitive, building, incomplete, contingent, and brainstorming. Do not include variations on a previous solution as a new solution. In activity-based tasks with young children, solutions are in the 'here and now' and include behaviors focused toward solving the problem solving activity (e.g., puzzle, etc.). These solutions may be expressed as directives, questions, ambiguous or passive demonstrations, specific or active demonstrations, and combinations of these types. They include manipulating a piece into place, suggesting placement of a piece, and specific directions for actions related to activity completion. 1 = No solutions proposed. 2 = 1 solution proposed. 3 = 2 solutions proposed. 4 = 3 solutions proposed. 5 = 4 solutions proposed. 6 = 5 solutions proposed. 7 = 6 solutions proposed. 8 = 7 solutions proposed. 9 = 8 or more solutions proposed.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because score is based on counts.

Rating Scales 5 1998

228

Clarifications: Solution Quantity 1. A solution must be something that is an action or change in behavior (or is presented as something to be acted upon) rather than merely a description of what may occur whether or not a conscious action or change in behavior is involved. (Consider this when scoring Solution Quantity, Solution Quality, Agreement on Solution, and Implementation Commitment). For example, They'll grow out of it is not a solution because it is a description of what will occur without a conscious action or behavioral change. Let them grow up is a solution because it involves an action. A suggestion does not need to be realistic or possible in order to be counted as a solution. For example, We could walk to the moon is not realistically possible, but such a suggestion may encourage brainstorming of other suggestions and should be counted as a solution. In identifying a stated solution, look for KEY WORDS such as: should, could, need to, ought to, I think, what if, will, etc., that present an action or change in behavior. Comments regarding the past, such as, You should have made her walk are not considered solutions. Such a comment is a statement of evaluation, criticism, belief, or value. A solution offered to a secondary, related problem can be counted as a solution. Look for an indication such as, To solve our main problem, we need to solve this related problem. When there is such branching from the initial problem, count all solutions offered whether logical extensions of the original problem or not. Solutions generally are presented in statement form. Some solutions, however, may be presented in the form of a question. If the question presents an action plan using a statement vocal tone (e.g., How about asking grandpa to help?) rather than merely seeking information (e.g., What could grandpa do to help?), count as a solution. In some instances, the credit for a solution is given to the person who agrees with something another person has raised as a question (e.g., the person who says Good idea, lets do it) after another family member asks with a questioning tone, Couldnt grandpa help? If a focal is asking questions as to what someone else thinks should be done, and is not clearly inferring or saying This is my solution, do not code as a solution. There may be some gray areas where a judgment will have to be made. Consider whether a solution is actually being proposed or whether the focal is just encouraging others, seeking clarification, etc. These behaviors would be coded under Effective Process.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Rating Scales 5 1998

229

7.

When a person presents a stream of slight variations on the same theme/solution, count this as one solution. Variations on a solution are comments that do not make the solution more focused (as do building solutions); they merely describe different aspects of the same solution. A solution may be proposed at any point in the problem-solving process. Pay particular attention to context, timing, and tone of voice. To count as a solution, the statement or question must clearly present an action or change in behavior that has not been proposed previously, rather than merely describe the problem, state a preference, or argue with anothers solution. Some statements may count as Solution Quantity in one context and Effective Process in another. Count as Solution Quantity if it provides an answer or proposes an action directed toward solving the problem. Score as Effective Process if it provides clues, information, motivation, or sets up the situation to help others develop a solution.

8.

9.

10. Various types of solutions may fall within the definition of a solution for discussionbased tasks. Therefore, suggestions with any of the following characteristics may count toward an individual's total number of solutions. a. Tried: A solution that has already been tried or is being tried and is proposed as something that should be continued (e.g., propose to keep doing what have been doing, Lets do that chore chart again). Novel: A solution that has not yet been tried. Lets start setting aside money each month. Helpful: A solution expressed with a sincere attempt to resolve the problem. Ill start washing the dishes every night. Exploitive: A solution that exploits one or more family members. We should put them up for adoption. You should do all the chores. Building: A solution that modifies or adds to a previously suggested solution. A building solution provides greater clarity and makes the proposed solution more specific and focused. You said youd clean your room every weekend. I think you should finish by 3:00 p.m on Saturday. Incomplete: A partial statement of a solution. The solution may require clarification, the addition of building solutions, etc., to make it complete, however sufficient detail is present to clearly present part of an action plan. Contingent: A solution expressed in the form of a contingency such as: what if, would you, could you, or if. It must include an action or change in behavior, not just hypothetical wishes or musings (e.g., If you do the dishes now Ill let you play afterwards).

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

Rating Scales 5 1998

230

h.

Facetious: A nonrealistic or far-fetched action proposal. Hire a maid. Win the lottery. Brainstorming: A solution that may not be possible or feasible but is offered as a means to solve a problem and assists the process of generating solutions.

i.

Note: A variation is a different description of a previously proposed solution (i.e., it says the same thing in a different way). A variation does not modify, change or elaborate the previous description. A variation does not count as an additional solution.

Examples: Solution Quantity in Discussion-Based Tasks We could call my mother for help. We could cut up the credit cards. I really should clean out the closets. Maybe we'd feel better if we got away for a weekend. Maybe we should both pay more attention to Timmy. Dad: Why don't we buy an electric blanket? Mom: A quilt would be better. (new solution) 7. Mom: We need to get away, so how about going to the lake next weekend? Dad: No, let's do it the weekend after that. (new solution) 8. Mom: I think we should start using Mom's chore chart again. (new solution) Child: (later in conversation) Let's do that sheet on the refrigerator. (variation, not a new solution) 9. If you want people to treat you with respect, then you will have to treat people with respect. (contingent solution) 10. Dishes (solution) said in response to Do you want to do dishes or take out the trash? (nonsolution) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Nonexamples: Solution Quantity in Discussion-Based Tasks 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I wish you kids would stop fighting. Well, pretty soon they'll grow up and move out. We used to use that chart. You should know better than to hit your sister. (Lecture/Moralize) If you dont lose weight, well have to buy you a new wardrobe. I hope youll get a job. If you have ten children, youll need a chore chart for them. If you treat people with respect, they will treat you with respect. What do you think we should do? Would you rather do the dishes or take out the trash?

Rating Scales 5 1998

231

Clarifications: Solution Quantity in Activity-Based Tasks 1. Parents and children in activity-based tasks may express solutions somewhat differently, depending on form and manner. a. Solutions can take in the form of directives, questions, demonstrations, or combinations of these. (Same form categories for parents and children). (1) Directives verbally suggest an action for solving the problem (e.g., puzzle) in the form of a declarative statement (e.g., Put that piece there). Questions verbally suggest an action in interrogative form (e.g., How about we try that piece there?). Demonstrations physical suggest an action through the use of a gesture (e.g., parent points to a specific place on the puzzle board). Combinations combine verbal directives and physical demonstration or combine verbal questions and physical demonstrations in a simultaneous suggestion for an action to solve the problem (e.g., Turn the piece this way, accompanied by a hand rotation demonstration).

(2)

(3)

(4)

b.

The manner in which these solutions are expressed for parents and children are clarified below. (Different manner categories for parents and children). (1) For parents, solutions can be expressed in either an ambiguous or specific manner. Ambiguous solutions are vague and unclear. In other words, the parents suggestion to the child is not obvious and can be interpreted in more than one way. In contrast, specific solutions are clear, precise, and well-suited to the childs level of understanding and ability. (2) For children, solutions can be expressed in either passive or active attempts by the child to solve the problem. In either case, the child must initiate the solution. Passive solutions are those where the child merely makes meager attempts to solve the problem. Active solutions are those where the child is primarily involved in the action or activity and seeks to independently solve the problem (3) When judging whether a solution is ambiguous or specific, passive or active, be careful to pay attention to the contextual information that precedes that solution. What might be considered ambiguous in one situation could be considered specific given a different context. Ask, If I were the other person in the interaction task, would I know what the speaker was suggesting as a solution?

Rating Scales 5 1998

232

c.

For scoring Solution Quantity, manner yields unique solutions only for Demonstrations and Combinations. However, manner also should be considered for Directives and Questions when scoring Solution Quality.

2. Count each new/unique problem-solving attempt as a solution. Multiple examples of the same type do not count as new solutions. Focals using one type of solution, but using it more than once, receive a score of 2. A variety of solution types and/or combinations is needed to score higher. 3. The eight possible solution categories for parents are: Directives, Questions, Ambiguous Demonstrations, Specific Demonstrations, Directive/Ambiguous Demonstration Combinations, Directive/Specific Demonstration Combinations, Question/Ambiguous Demonstration Combinations, and Question/Specific Demonstration Combinations. The eight categories for children parallel those for parents, except for the use of passive or active rather than ambiguous or specific. 4. For parents, a Demonstration (or Directive/Demonstration combination) is specific only when the proposed action is obvious to the observer, given the present context. If a Demonstration can be interpreted in multiple ways, then it is ambiguous. For instance, if a parent motions to the child to turn it or turn the piece, the child may not know which direction to turn the piece or, in many instances, what the gesture means. However, if it is clear from the context and from the childs actions that the child understands, score the solution as specific. 5. Look to the context when deciding if a solution is specific or ambiguous. If you are not sure, the solution is ambiguous. 6. For children, active solutions are solutions where the child initiates the activity. That is, the child is proposing a solution where the child maintains or regains control of the action or activity. In contrast, a passive solution is one where the child makes half-hearted efforts or solicits help or involvement from the parent so that the parent acts on behalf of the child. 7. Do not differentiate successful and unsuccessful attempts when deciding if something is a proposed solution. 8. Compliance with parents request is not a child solution. For example, if parent tells child what to do, e.g., Put it there, and child asks for validation (e.g., Here?), childs behavior is not coded as a solution. Rather, childs behavior reflects compliance to parents requests and parents statement is coded as a solution. 9. Solutions must present an action or change in behavior offered in the context of solving the problem activity. For example, descriptions of the puzzle that provide information or define the task to be accomplished count as Effective Process rather than Solution Quantity.

Rating Scales 5 1998

233

10. Some statements or behaviors may count as Solution Quantity in one context and Effective Process in another. For example, the statement, Try the red pieces is Effective Process if offered as a cue, a motivator, but could be Solution Quantity if offered as a clear directive in a different context. Similarly, the behavior of pointing may count as either Solution Quantity or Effective Process depending on context. Examples: Solution Quantity in Activity-Based tasks* 1. Parents: a. Directive: Put one in. (ambiguous) b. Directive: "Take this red car and put it in this basket." Lets try the green piece in that spot. (specific) c. Questions: "Why don't you put that one there?" How about you try another corner? (ambiguous) d. Questions: "Can you put Mr. Potato Head in the basket?" (specific) e. Ambiguous Demonstration: Hand motion, twirling hand in the air. f. Specific Demonstration: Place the hand on the child's and guide the puzzle piece into the correct spot; pointing to a specific spot; placing piece on own. g. Combinations: Each unique combination counts as a new solution. These include: Directive/Ambiguous Demonstration, Directive/Specific Demonstration, Question/Ambiguous Demonstration, and Question/Specific Demonstration. For example, a Directive/Specific Demonstration Combination might be, Let's put the legos in the bag like this (hand gesture)" or, If you turn the block here - it'll go this way (hand gesture). The Demonstration must be specific to count as a Directive/Specific Demonstration Combination. 2. Children: a. Directive: Tells parent to do it for them, "You do it, Mommy, said tentatively or in a whiny voice. (passive) b. Directive: Tells parent what to do to help, e.g., "Put it there, You do the red one, This one goes here. (active) c. Question: Solicits active involvement or help from parent, e.g., "Mommy do this one?", "Go there?" (passive) d. Question: Asks parent for help or for affirmation so that the child can solve the problem on his or her own (child does the action), e.g., "Red one in the hole?" (active) e. Passive Demonstration: No directed effort or attempt to manipulate the piece into a specific place. Child may pound, push, or rub the piece into place or use vague or half-hearted hand motions in an unfocused or random manner. f. Active Demonstration: Involves some manipulation of the pieces used to complete the task by child, e.g., flip the puzzle piece over, rotate the piece to make it fit, turn the puzzle box over, rotate the puzzle box or board, or point to a specific spot.

*For both Directives and Questions, manner is taken into consideration when determining Solution Quality, but not for Solution Quantity.

Rating Scales 5 1998

234

g.

Combinations: Each unique combination counts as a new solution. These include: Directive/Passive Demonstrations, Directive/Active Demonstrations, Question/Passive Demonstrations, and Question/Active Demonstrations. For example, a Question/Passive Demonstration might be, "Go there? while the child vaguely points in the direction that the piece might fit. The Demonstration must be active to count as a Question/Specific Demonstration Combination.

Nonexamples: Solution Quantity in Activity-Based Tasks 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The hair goes on her head. (Effective Process) Wheres his head? There are her legs. Feet go down there. Compliance with directives of other interactor. (Compliance) That goes there.

Rating Scales 5 1998

235

SOLUTION QUALITY (SQ)** Rate: All (Individual) This scale assesses the degree to which the focal's highest quality proposed solution or solution series is reasonable, realistic, beneficial, specific, feasible, possible, and achievable. A high quality solution is not exploitive, is fleshed-out (elaborated/specific) in detail, and content is more planful. For activity-based tasks, consider especially the manner of presentation (ambiguous or passive versus specific or active). 1 = No solution proposed. 2 = Solution proposed is not possible (feasible or realistic). 3 = Solution proposed is possible, but is exploitive, is offered in a flippant or sarcastic manner, or is not intended to be a serious solution. 4 = Solution proposed is possible but is not beneficial, realistic, or specific or may simply be a problem restatement. 5 = Solution is possible (feasible, beneficial, specific, realistic, etc.), but at a low level. Low level of development. Such a solution might lead to a plan, but is still far from a statement that would lead to specific activities that might solve a problem. Plan is minimally developed. 6= 7 = Solution shows a moderate level of high quality characteristics. There is a moderate level of development, however, the solution still needs some elaboration to be a blueprint for action. Plan is good/reasonable. 8= 9 = Solution shows a high level of all characteristics and a high level of development. The solution involves a plan of action that can be implemented if agreed upon. Plan is complete in terms of detail.

Clarifications: Solution Quality 1. At a '4' level, the focal may simply redefine the problem. For example, if the problem is fighting, a solution to stop fighting would be a '4' level. If a focal builds onto or expands his/her own solution, give the focal credit for the whole series of solutions when scoring Solution Quality.

2.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because score is based on quality rather than characteristicness.

Rating Scales 5 1998

236

3.

If separate people build onto a solution, each individual gets credit for just his/her part of the solution when scoring Solution Quality. Judge Solution Quality on the quality of what each person contributes. In discussion-based tasks, score higher quality for solutions that contain details such as who, what, when, where, how and/or why. In activity-based tasks, higher quality solutions will be more active, specific, detailed, and may include combinations of solution types. The general rule is that given the broader context of the interaction to this point, if you were the other interactor, could you carry out these directives. In general, score higher if verbal vs. nonverbal and higher still if verbal and nonverbal combined. For parent to score at highest levels the solution must generalize beyond a suggestion for solving the immediate task. Descriptions of the problem or puzzle that provide information or define the task to be accomplished should be coded as Effective Process. However, when these occur immediately prior to an action statement, they can count toward the quality of the solution. For example, The outside pieces all have straight edges (Effective Process); find all the pieces with straight edges and put them in (Solution Quantity) would be scored at a higher quality than if not preceded by the information about the puzzle.

4.

5.

6.

Examples: Solution Quality in Discussion-Based tasks Rate '2': a. Let's go to the moon. b. Well plan to win a million dollars in the lottery. Rate '3': a. Jill can do all the housework. b. "The three other kids can share one bedroom and then Ill get the other one." Rate '4': a. Let's work on it. b. "The kids should stop fighting (problem topic is kids fighting together). Rate '5': a. We could make a list. (Offered in the context of discussing who should do what chores) b. I could try working fewer hours. Rate '6': a. Let's take a vacation to Colorado this winter. b. We should make every minute count when we have time together.

Rating Scales 5 1998

237

Rate '7': a. Turn the TV off and do your homework before supper. b. I would like to see us save, set aside some money each month. Rate '8': a. Let's take a vacation to Colorado this winter and go skiing for a week so we can all spend time together. b. Let's take five percent of my check each month and put it in savings before using it for anything else. Rate '9': a. Let's take a vacation to Colorado in January. We could go skiing for a week. It would be fun to take the children along and make it a real family vacation. If I can arrange time off, let's plan to go. b. Tony will do the dishes during the week and Mike will do them on the weekend right after dinner and before starting any other activities.

Examples: Solution Quality in Activity-Based tasks* Rate '2': a. Parent: Just throw them up and see where they land. (Directive) b. Child: Elmo do it! (Directive) c. Child: Put in my mouth? (Question) Rate '3': a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Rate '4': a. b. c. d. e. f.

Parent: Parent: Parent: Child: Child: Child: Child:

Since you know everything, you just do it yourself. (Directive) Im tired, why dont you do it yourself? (Question) Flippantly points in an ambiguous manner (Demonstration) Mommy you do! (child has given up). (Directive) Ask if someone outside the task can help. (Question) Picks up piece, holds it above board and drops it. (Demonstration) Cheats to solve puzzle.

Parent: Parent: Parent: Child: Child: Child:

Do it (Directive) Can you put the pieces in? (Question) Put it in. (Directive) Me do puzzle. (Directive) Me put piece in? (Question) Put the piece in.

Rate '5': a. Parent: Turn it. (Directive) b. Parent: Can you put that one in there? (child is holding a piece). (Question)
*These should be specific to the task; see also examples for Solution Quantity, p. 233 for aid in determining manner of presentation.

Rating Scales 5 1998

238

c. d. e. f. g.

Parent: Points to general spot for piece or personally puts piece in. (Demonstration) Child: You try that one, Mommy. (Directive) Child: Can you put piece in, Mommy? (Question) Child: Child slides pieces around on puzzle board or tries to force a piece in. (Demonstration) Child: Child puts piece in where parent suggests or indicates (unless coded as Compliance with parents solution). (Demonstration)

Rate '6': a. b. c. d. e. f. Rate '7': a. b. c. d.

Parent: Parent: Parent: Child: Child: Child:

Put the legs on Elmo. (Directive) Can you put the head on the body? (Question) Puts in a piece with prior or post explanation. (Demonstration) You do the foot, Mommy. (Directive) Can you put the blue piece in, Mommy? (Question) Aims for specific spot to place piece. (Demonstration)

Parent: Parent: Child: Child:

Heres Grovers head, put his head on his body. (Directive) Put the ball in the middle, said while pointing. (Combination) Aims for specific spot and maneuvers piece to fit. (Demonstration) Here? said while putting piece in specific spot. (Combination)

Rate '8': a. Parent: b. Child:

The sky is at the top of the puzzle (points to spot). Can you find the sky pieces and put them there at the top? (Combination) Puts piece in specific spot (may be in a hit-or-miss manner) and says, Grover here! (Combination)

Rate '9': a. Parent:

b.

Child:

See the rounded corners on the pieces (while pointing), they go in the corners of the puzzle (while pointing). Can you put them in? (Combination) Flips puzzle piece over, studies it, and specifically maneuvers it (in a planful manner) until the piece fits into place. (Demonstration)

Rating Scales 5 1998

239

EFFECTIVE PROCESS (EF) Rate: All (Individual) This scale assesses the degree to which the focal demonstrates behavior that actively assists and/or promotes movement through the problem-solving steps. It includes the extent to which the focal facilitates the process by describing and clarifying the problem, encouraging others to remain on task, soliciting input from other interactors, providing summaries of progress toward solving the problem, and moving the task along in a timely and appropriate manner. Consider the focal's overall cooperative attitude and the extent to which he/she accepts responsibility for clarifying and/or finding a solution to the problem. For parents in activity-based tasks this includes facilitating the childs involvement in the activity, providing information or descriptions about the puzzle or elements of the puzzle, and attempts to engage or re-engage the child in the activity. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal demonstrates no sign of effective process behavior. He/she does not assist in general problem-solving effort. Note: If the focal is simply disengaged (uninterested or uninvolved) from the problem-solving process, he/she would score '1' on both Effective Process and Disruptive Process. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely or briefly demonstrates effective process behavior. However, overall, the focal accepts little responsibility for finding an achievable solution. Most, but not all, of the effective process behaviors are absent, or are present at only a low level. Score a 3 if the focal merely cooperates but demonstrates no further responsibility. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally demonstrates effective process behaviors. Some of the behaviors are present at a low to moderate level. 6=

7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates a variety of effective process behaviors. Most, but not all, of the effective process behaviors are present, but not at the highest level. 8=

Rating Scales 5 1998

240

9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently or characteristically demonstrates effective process behaviors. All effective process behaviors are present, and most, if not all, are present at a high level. Clarifications: Effective Process 1. The Effective Process scale assesses behaviors of the focal that facilitate movement through the problem-solving process. For our purposes, the steps in the problem-solving process include: a. b. c. d. 2. identifying the problem gathering possible solutions (from other family members) selecting a solution developing a plan for implementation

Include in Effective Process any statements describing the nature of a problem. However, if these are the only Effective Process behaviors that are evident, score no higher than a 3 level. Such statements may take any of the following forms: a. b. c. d. e. A statement recognizing the existence of a problem, e.g., I think we have a problem with the kids, or "This is a puzzle for us to work on." A statement describing the nature of a problem, e.g., The kids have no discipline; they run wildly around the house doing whatever they want, or "She wants us to put all the pieces in their right places." A statement speculating about the causes of the problem, e.g., Maybe it's because I tell them to do one thing and you tell them to do the exact opposite, or "When you tried that piece, it wouldn't fit because it is too big. A statement discussing the effects of the problem on the relationship, e.g., They're so noisy that we can't even have a decent conversation, or "When you sit on the pieces, I can't see them." A statement concerning the implications of the problem for the future, e.g., If things go on like this we'll both end up in the madhouse, or "If we work on this together, we'll finish sooner."

3.

If all description is blaming and denying, do not count as Effective Process. If all description is critical in content and tone, score no higher than a 2. Mild criticism presented in a neutral manner could score a 3. Score according to frequency and quality of Effective Process behaviors. Ways a focal may demonstrate Effective Process include: a. b. Describe the problem: We used to have a chore chart. I think were all involved. This is a puzzle for us to do. (Focus on what &/or why). Clarifying the problem: So what youre saying is that were on your back too much about cleaning your room. Well then, do you think we punish you too much? What he is saying is that he wants more freedom to set his curfew. They want us to do this puzzle before we take a break. It is okay if we dont finish; lets see how many pieces we can get. (Focus on strategies &/or how).

4.

Rating Scales 5 1998

241

c.

d.

e.

f.

Encouraging others to remain on task (and keeping people on task): This is not what were supposed to be talking about, lets go back to why do you and your brother fight. Dont move on yet, were not finished. Youve almost got it--keep trying. Soliciting input from other interactors: What do you think the problem is? What do you think will solve the problem? Do you agree with that solution? So, whats your solution to this? Where do you think this piece goes? Providing summaries of the progress toward solving the problem: O.K. so far Nancy thinks its Georges fault and he thinks it is hers. Weve agreed that Thursday is our busy day but we havent agreed on how to get the chores done then. Tony and I agree to this, but you havent agreed to go along with it yet. You got all the edge pieces; now well look for the rest of the pieces. Moving the task along in a timely and appropriate manner: When the process gets bogged down, interjecting a comment or reading part of the card to facilitate discussion. Good pacing. Now we know what the problem is, so lets see what we can do to solve it. Lets try another spot if that one wont work. Could I have some help now.

5.

This code does not measure the Warmth/Support, Assertiveness, Hostility, Angry Coercion, or Whine/Complain with which the focal expresses him/her self. Rather, consider the extent to which the behaviors displayed enhance movement through the problem-solving process. For example, in an attempt to reach agreement on implementation of a solution, a parent may say, Junior, do you agree to start doing this tonight? The parent who says this in a warm manner receives credit for Effective Process and credit for Warmth/Support. The parent who says this in a coercive manner receives credit for Effective Process and credit for Angry Coercion and/or Whine/Complain. In coding Effective Process, do not be influenced by the scores on Solution Quantity, Solution Quality and Negotiation/Compromise. Look at the degree to which Effective Process behaviors are present. The central characteristic of Effective Process is the focal's contribution to keeping everyone on track and moving toward the solution of the problem. For example, calling for Implementation Commitment or Negotiation/Compromise from other interactors is Effective Process, but displaying such behaviors ones self is not scored here. In activity-based tasks, statements that describe the task at hand (e.g., solving a puzzle), provide information, or define the task to be accomplished are scored as low-level Effective Process (e.g., no higher than a 3). If the child is mainly cooperative and focused throughout an activity-based task, but shows no other Effective Process behaviors, score no higher than a 3. Score higher if the child uses prosocial or neutral attempts to involve the parent, actively accepts responsibility for solving the puzzle, or summarizes progress toward puzzle completion.

6.

7.

8.

Rating Scales 5 1998

242

9.

To differentiate between Effective Process, Sadness, Anxiety, Whine/Complain, Hostility, etc., when a problem is being described, consider whether the statement is delivered in a descriptive vs. a complaining manner and whether the statement involves the focal or another interactor. For example, I botched the job at work today, is self-critical; You blew that one, criticizes another interactor; We've got to start saving more money, is Effective Process.

Examples: Effective Process 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. I have a problem with this. My problem is that I feel like I'm the only one who cleans the house. Does anyone have a problem in this area? Dick, do you have an idea for solving this problem? It sounds like you are willing to take turns doing the cooking. John thinks he should be allowed to stay out until midnight on school nights, but Mom and I think that is too late. When should we start our new chores list? Junior, do you agree to start doing this tonight? Child is cooperative. Parent attempts to get the child to tune in and work on the task, summarizes progress, and uses teachable moments. Parent straightens puzzle pieces for child. Parent: Where are the pieces with straight edges? Its time for us to work on the puzzle. We need more pieces like this. What piece is this? Do this one next.

Nonexamples: Effective Process 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. It's not my problem. Stop asking me. Your ideas won't work. Let's just forget trying to solve this. You do it. Put that piece there (points). Lets try the red piece in that spot? How about you try this spot?

Rating Scales 5 1998

243

DISRUPTIVE PROCESS (DS) Rate: All (Individual) This scale assesses the degree to which the focal discourages, actively hinders, or obstructs the problem-solving process. It includes the degree to which the focal discourages the progress toward solving the problem by being inattentive, drawing the group members off task, belittling or discouraging the comments of others, offering destructive comments (flippant, sarcastic, critical), denying responsibility or blaming others for the problem, rehashing issues already covered, and/or engaging in sidetracking behavior. Consider the extent to which the focal actively displays an overall uncooperative attitude and the degree to which his/her behavior makes it more difficult to clarify and/or find a solution to the problem. Whether successful or not, if a focal attempts to close discussion on a problem before it is solved, or before other interactors are ready to move on, score a minimum of '5' on Disruptive Process. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal demonstrates no disruptive process behaviors. He/she does not hinder or obstruct the problem-solving effort. Note: If the focal is simply disengaged (uninterested or uninvolved) from the problem-solving process, he/she would score '1' on Effective Process and Disruptive Process. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely or briefly demonstrates disruptive behavior. Most, but not all, of the disruptive process behaviors are absent or are present at only a low level. The behavior minimally affects/influences the problem-solving process. Overall, the focal is not disruptive to the problem-solving process. However, certain disruptive process behaviors are present at a low level. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally demonstrates disruptive process behaviors. These behaviors are present to the point of sometimes slowing the problem-solving process. Or, focal attempts to close discussion on or to stop activity related to resolving a problem before it is solved. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates disruptive process behaviors to the point of occasionally slowing the problem-solving process. 8=

Rating Scales 5 1998

244

9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently or characteristically demonstrates moderate or high-intensity disruptive process behaviors to the point of at least temporarily halting the problem-solving process.

Clarifications: Disruptive Process 1. The presence of Hostility, Angry Coercion and Whine/Complain in themselves do not indicate Disruptive Process. Rather, consider to what extent the behaviors displayed disrupt movement through the problem-solving process (identifying the problem, generating solutions, selecting a solution, developing a plan for implementation). The Disruptive Process scale assesses behaviors of the focal that interfere with, sidetrack, or slow down movement through the problem-solving process. The steps in the problem-solving process include: a. b. c. d. 3. identifying the problem gathering possible solutions (from other group members) selecting a solution developing a plan for implementation

2.

To determine whether a behavior is disruptive to the problem-solving process: a. Consider whether complaints, criticisms, disagreements, and questioning simply disrupt the problem-solving process (Disruptive Process) or whether they are a serious effort to work through the problem. For example, a complaint or differing opinion may help to clarify the nature of the problem. Consider whether the statements sidetrack (Disruptive Process) or aid problem solving by identifying and/or clarifying the problem (Effective Process). Consider whether lack of involvement hinders the problem-solving process. Active resistance and refusals to participate typically hinder the problemsolving process. A score from 3 to 9 may be appropriate depending on how frequent and intense the behavior is and the effect on the process.

b.

c.

4.

Disruptive Process involves behavior that results in getting away from solving the problem. Such behaviors may be quite subtle and don't always involve negative affect. For example, the focal may agree with other's statements or solutions about the problem, but then offer several reasons why others are actually in error, the yes-but response. In activity-based tasks, such behavior may take the form of the child continuing an inappropriate action the parent has requested or suggested be stopped.

Rating Scales 5 1998

245

5.

Take into consideration the behavior and its consequences. To code '3', sidetracking, being drawn into disruptive behaviors, or other Disruptive Process behaviors must occur. To code a '5' or above, Disruptive Process behaviors must occur and have some disruptive impact on the problem-solving process. At a '5' level, the focal is able, at least for a short period of time, to keep other interactors from progressing through the problem-solving process. Disruptive Process measures how much the focal tries to be disruptive and succeeds. Score according to frequency and intensity of Disruptive Process behaviors.

6.

Examples: Disruptive Process 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Let's get this over with. (active disinterest) There's just no solution to this. (destructive) That's never going to work, we've been through this before. You just don't care. (uncooperative) If you were home more and would help me, we wouldn't have this problem. (critical, accusing) I work and work and get so dog tired and all you do is spend my hard-earned money. You tell me why we don't have money! (rationalizing, critical, blaming, hostile) There's no point in talking about this anymore. Child leaves the task. Child throws pieces. Child plays with toys instead of using them in intended manner or instead of putting them away as requested. Child refuses to cooperate. Parent laughs at child when child shows frustration. Parent is distracted by something about the child that is unrelated to the activity (e.g., grooming hair, tucking in shirt, tying shoes, etc.). Parent criticizes childs puzzle-related efforts.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Rating Scales 5 1998

246

Rating Scales 5 1998

247

NEGOTIATION/COMPROMISE* (NC) Rate: All (Individual) This scale assesses the extent to which the focal's interactions are characterized by a willingness to achieve a resolution of differences or discrepancies in knowledge or understanding about the topic at hand (involving self or others) or about how to resolve a problem or complete an activity by means of consensus and arbitration. The focal displays an openness to bi-directional communication, flexible involvement, willingness to diffuse extremes in points of view or resolve discrepancies in knowledge through learning, and give and take in order to arrive at shared meanings, mutual agreements, or satisfactory solutions. Acceptance of the other's position or reaching mutual agreement is not essential. In order to engage in Negotiation/Compromise, the focal must respond to the stated or implied position, viewpoint, or opinion of another interactor. The response can be characterized by openness to hearing and considering the others viewpoint. Affect is usually positive or neutral. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal shows/expresses no openness to hearing or considering the others points of view. The focal maintains his/her own opinion, position, or viewpoint and there is no expressed willingness to change. Or the focal offers no opinion or position (nothing is expressed) with which to engage in negotiation. No willingness to negotiate and compromise with other group members. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: The focal rarely displays willingness to negotiate and compromise with other group members. Although the focal may rigidly maintain his/her opinion when differences arise, there is slight evidence the focal may consider the others viewpoint. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally displays willingness to negotiate and compromise with other group members. However, these behaviors are absent more than present. 6=

*Note: Definition incorporates wording suggested by Karen Pridham, University of Wisconsin-Madison (personal communication.)

Rating Scales 5 1998

248

7 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly consistently displays a willingness to negotiate and compromise with other group members. He/she tends to find aspects of the other persons viewpoints with which to agree, whether or not initial differences existed. Some hesitancy or reluctance may be present. The focal encourages and invites others to express their viewpoints. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: The focal consistently shows a willingness to negotiate and compromise with other family members. The focal displays enthusiasm for trying out the others ideas or solutions.

Clarifications: Negotiation/Compromise 1. Do not confuse Negotiation/Compromise with someone who is Easily Coerced. Acknowledging that someone may have a valid point (the former), is different from giving in to another persons whining (the latter). Someone may disagree with the other person, but still score at a high level on Negotiation/Compromise. Include situations in which the focal negotiates and/or compromises, as well as situations in which the focal assists other group members in mediating differences and/or in seeing each others side of the situation. Opposition or disagreement does not have to occur for Negotiation/Compromise to be coded. Count as evidence of Negotiation/Compromise any behaviors that indicate an openness to hear and consider another person's point of view or a willingness to change, whether or not there has been a disagreement. Generally, Negotiation/Compromise involves positive or neutral affect. Negotiation/Compromise can occur at any stage in the problem-solving process, for example in discussions of the definition of the problem, the solution, or implementing the solution. Count as Negotiation/Compromise instances in which the focal serves as a mediator by clarifying one interactor's position so that this interactor and another interactor can better understand each other (e.g., after a string of criticisms to child by father, mother says, But he has done better recently or child says I guess youre right. I didnt do it last week like I said I had). Someone who merely shows support for one interactor is not acting as a mediator.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

Rating Scales 5 1998

249

8.

Bargaining or bartering (e.g., If you do it my way this time Ill do it your way next time,) is not evidence of Negotiation/Compromise. Likewise, bribery (e.g., If you do that, Ill take you out for lunch) does not count. If the only evidence of Negotiation/Compromise also could count as Compliance with parental directives score no higher than a 3. Not all Compliance is Negotiation/Compromise.

9.

Examples: Negotiation/Compromise 1. 2. I can see your point. Mary thinks we should rotate chores every day, but John thinks that wouldn't work. Since we haven't tried rotating chores before, we could give it a try for a few weeks to test it out. What do you think? John, your idea is ... and Mary, your idea is ... Can the two of you talk more and come up with an idea you both agree on? I know you said you dont want to see the teacher. I can see how that might be scary. You do need to see her, though. Do you want to go alone or shall I go with you? I know youd like to get a car, but the reality is we just dont have the money right now. Id like to hear your ideas about what we can do, though. The child responds positively to a new suggestion by the parent after initially refusing. Parent says, "Try the circle piece in that place." Child says, "I want this one." Parent responds, "That one would work, too."

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

Rating Scales 5 1998

250

Rating Scales 5 1998

251

GROUP PROBLEM-SOLVING SCALES

Rating Scales 5 1998

252

Rating Scales 5 1998

253

FAMILY ENJOYMENT (FE) Rate: Group The degree of enjoyment (pleasure, fun, satisfaction) the group seems to have during the problem-solving process. 1 = Not at all characteristic: Most group members demonstrate no signs of enjoyment, fun, pleasure, or satisfaction during the problem-solving process. 2= 3 = Minimally characteristic: Most group members rarely demonstrate signs of enjoyment during the problemsolving process. 4= 5 = Somewhat characteristic: Most group members occasionally display a low to moderate level of enjoyment during the problem-solving process. 6= 7 = Moderately characteristic: Most group members fairly often display signs of enjoyment during the problemsolving process. Elevated level of enjoyment. 8= 9 = Mainly characteristic: Most group members frequently show high or moderate levels of enjoyment with the problem-solving process. Enjoyment is quite apparent and occurs frequently.

Clarifications: Family Enjoyment 1. As an aid in scoring Family Enjoyment, consider how non-threatened the family is by the problem-solving process. Do this by observing the extent of humor, laughter, warmth, satisfaction, ease of interaction, etc. However, if the family does not appear threatened, but there is no evidence of behaviors such as Humor, Warmth/Support, Positive Mood, etc., keep the score at a '1' level.

Rating Scales 5 1998

254

2.

Indicators of enjoyment may include: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. shared laughter nonsarcastic, nonvindictive humor smiling head-nods animated conversation open body stance lilting, cheerful vocal quality buoyant feeling conveyed positive affect indications that family members are having a good time with the discussion satisfaction with attempts to resolve the problem

3.

Family Enjoyment may be demonstrated as a result of the topics discussed or the interaction itself. It is not automatically related to Positive Mood per se; however, if the Positive Mood conveys satisfaction with the interaction and/or laughter and smiling in the task, count as Family Enjoyment. Consider the over-all sense of enjoyment conveyed by the group as a whole during discussion of the problem topic. In two-person tasks, if one person is obviously enjoying the interaction and the other person is obviously not enjoying the interaction, code '1'; if the other person is neutral, a score of '2' or '3' may be appropriate. In groups of three or more, judge based on the majority of interactors. If there is little overt happiness or enjoyment demonstrated, but the interactors appear comfortable with one another (e.g., may have an ease in discussing card topics with each other) you can give a score above a '1', but do not code at the highest level. There is no need to score a '2' or '3' on Family Enjoyment if you scored a '2' or '3' on Reciprocate Warmth/Support. These two codes are not dependent on each other so there are no score limitations binding them together. If a score of 2 or higher is given on Family Enjoyment, a score of 2 or higher must be given on Group Enjoyment, but the reverse is not true.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Examples: Family Enjoyment 1. 2. 3. The interactors show mutual pleasure (smile, laugh, warmth) in discussing topics with each other. There is shared laughter of a nonsarcastic nature. Group members show obvious pleasure and satisfaction in being with each other (i.e., sit close, smile, shared confidences, self-disclosure, etc.).

Rating Scales 5 1998

255

4.

Brief amusing digressions triggered by discussion of the problem topic.

Nonexamples: Family Enjoyment 1. 2. 3. 4. Interrupting the problem-solving process by off-topic comments (e.g., jokes, stories). Laughter at another interactors expense. Laughter triggered by something off-camera. Mutual laughter at the expense of someone or something outside the interaction.

Rating Scales 5 1998

256

Rating Scales 5 1998

257

AGREEMENT ON PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (AP)** Rate: Group This scale measures the extent to which group members reached mutual agreement/consensus on the description of the problem or an aspect of the problem. Description of the problem must include some elaboration beyond the problem topic on the card, such as information about the problem's context, causes, extent, frequency, or time of occurrence. 1= No one in the group made a statement that described the problem.

2 = One group member made statement(s) describing the problem, but no combination of group members agreed on any description. 3 = Two or more group members made statement(s) describing the problem, but no combination of group members agreed on any description. 4 = One combination of group members agreed on one description of the problem, but not all members fully agreed on one description. (Eliminate this level in two-person tasks.) 5 = Two or more combinations of group members agreed on different descriptions of the problem, but not all members fully agreed on one description (Eliminate this level in a 2-person task). 6 = All group members agreed on one description of the problem, but two or more seemed to be coerced into agreement or were merely going along with the rest. (Eliminate this level in a 2-person task). 7 = All group members agreed on one description of the problem, but one seemed to be coerced into agreement, reluctantly agreed, or was merely going along with the rest. 8 = All group members agreed on one description of the problem without reservation. 9 = All group members seemed pleased or satisfied, or readily agreed, with one description of the problem.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because this scale involves counts.

Rating Scales 5 1998

258

Clarifications: Agreement on Problem Description 1. Consider the following when determining the appropriate scale level: a. In order to score a 6, 7, '8,' or '9' on Agreement on Problem Description, all group members must agree on some aspect of the problem beyond the problem topic specified. Keep in mind that all group members may discuss the problematic situation without agreeing on a description of the problem. For example, a group would score a '4' if, throughout a discussion of the target's poor school performance, the parents say the problem lies in the target's poor study habits while the target maintains that the teachers demand too much.

b.

2.

If a group member disagrees that an issue is a problem, consider this to indicate a lack of agreement on problem description (i.e., the group could score no higher than a '5'). Code the highest score reached for agreement on the description of the initial problem or a branching problem. Partially overlapping descriptions do not count as Agreement on Problem Description. For example Son says, the problem involves Dad, and the mother says the problem involves you and Dad. It must be clear as to what is being agreed upon and who is agreeing. In order to count, agreement must be with a specific aspect of what has been stated and not merely assumed because the focal builds on another focals description.

3.

4.

5. 6.

Examples: Agreement on Problem Description 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It does seem like we always have trouble paying those bills. Yeah, you're right about that. I guess I do have a problem getting my chores done on time. I agree. This usually comes up whenever we have to go somewhere. A definite nod of agreement beyond mere acknowledgment.

Nonexamples: Agreement on Problem Description 1. 2. 3. The father acknowledges that the other interactor sees a problem in a particular manner, but does not state how he sees it himself. Wife says, The teacher always yells at Travis, and the husband responds with, Travis and the teacher dont seem to get along. A brief nod or verbal acknowledgment. (Listener Responsiveness)

Rating Scales 5 1998

259

AGREEMENT ON SOLUTION (AS)** Rate: Group This scale assesses the extent to which the group resolved and/or reached agreement on the solution to the problem. 1 = No one in the group proposed a solution to the problem. 2 = One member of the group made a statement in favor of at least one solution, but no combination of group members agreed on the same solution. 3 = Two or more group members made statement(s) in favor of a solution, but no combination of group members agreed on the same solution. 4 = One combination of group members made statements in favor of aspects of the solution or on one solution but not all group members fully agreed on any one solution. (Eliminate this level in two-person tasks.) 5 = Two or more combinations of group members agreed on different solutions, but not all members fully agreed on one solution. (Eliminate this level in 2-person tasks.) 6 = All group members agreed on one solution (or one combination of solutions) but two or more did not seem satisfied or pleased with the solution. They went along with the solution or appeared to have been coerced into going along. (Eliminate this level in 2-person tasks.) 7 = All group members agreed on one solution, but one seemed to be coerced into agreement, reluctantly agreed, or was merely going along with the rest. 8 = All group members agreed on one solution (or one combination of solutions). 9 = All group members agreed and seemed pleased or satisfied, or readily agreed with one solution (or one combination of solutions).

*Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because this scale involves counts.

Rating Scales 5 1998

260

Clarifications: Agreement on Solution 1. Include agreement on any solutions, not only on the one solution generated at the end of the discussion. Partially overlapping solutions do not count as Agreement on Solution. For example, wife says, Lets clean house on Mondays and Thursdays, and husband says, I think we should do it on Mondays and Fridays. It must be clear as to what is being agreed upon and who is agreeing. In order to count, agreement must be with a specific aspect of what has been stated and not merely assumed because the focal builds on another focals solution. A focal can implement a solution or solutions he/she has not agreed to (e.g., He said this, you said that, lets do it!).

2.

3. 4.

5.

Examples: Agreement on Solution 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I think that's a great idea. Let's do it that way. That plan ought to work out well for us. One group member clearly nods, Yes after another interactor states a solution. A definite nod of agreement beyond mere acknowledgment.

Nonexamples: Agreement on Solution 1. 2. 3. A child nods yes, followed closely with a clear statement of disagreement. I like part of that idea, but I think we should do it this way instead. A brief nod or verbal acknowledgment. (Listener Responsiveness)

Rating Scales 5 1998

261

IMPLEMENTATION COMMITMENT (IC)** Rate: Group This scale assesses the extent to which the group commits to a plan for implementing the selected solution. Look for evidence of group members specifying and agreeing upon when, where, or how to accomplish or carry out the agreed-upon solution or some aspect of the solution. 1= No one in the group committed to a plan for implementing a solution, or no solution was proposed by any group members, or the members elect to handle the problem as they always have. One group member made statement(s) expressing his/her commitment to a plan for implementing a solution, but no group members committed to the same plan for implementing the solution. Two or more group members make statement(s) expressing commitment to a plan for implementing a solution, but no group members committed to the same plan. One combination of group members made statements of commitment about part, or all, of the plan for implementing a solution, but not all group members fully agreed to commit to any one plan for implementing the solution. (Eliminate this level in two-person tasks.) Two or more combinations of group members made statements of commitment about part or all of a plan for implementing a solution, but not all group members fully agreed to commit to any one plan for implementing the solution. (Eliminate this level in 2-person tasks.) All group members made statements expressing their commitment to the plan for implementation, but two or more did not seem satisfied or pleased with the plan for implementation. Some went along with the plan or appeared to have been coerced into going along. (Eliminate this level in 2-person tasks.) All group members agreed on one plan for implementation, but one seemed to be coerced into going along with, or reluctantly agreed to, the plan for implementation. All group members made statements expressing their commitment to one plan for implementing the solution. All agreed and seemed pleased or satisfied or readily agreed with the plan for implementing the solution.

2=

3=

4=

5=

6=

7=

8= 9=

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because this scale involves counts.

Rating Scales 5 1998

262

Clarifications: Implementation Commitment 1. Code the highest score reached on commitment to implement a solution to an initial problem or a branching problem. Consider Implementation to be the action plan (when, where, how) of the solution (the what). A clear start-time (when) must either be stated or implied. A group member should not be able to easily weasel out of a solution if Implementation Commitment has been coded. Key phrases that indicate Implementation Commitment: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. From now on ... When this happens ... The next time this occurs ... If this happens again ... We'll start this tonight ... Beginning next week ... The new rule is ... (if you have a clear impression that the new rule starts now).

2.

3.

4.

5.

Group members can agree to a plan for implementation even if they have not explicitly agreed to a single solution. For example, some group members may agree to go along with a plan for implementation even if they did not openly agree to the solution that they are now committing to implement. Asking a group member to make a commitment to a plan, but not making a commitment ones self is evidence of Effective Process but not Implementation Commitment. The person who responds with an affirmation to anothers inquiry could be scored on Implementation Commitment if the affirmation is weaselproof. Implementation Commitment can be scored only for solutions which seem to convey a serious commitment to carry out a plan. Facetious plans (e.g., after the interviewer leaves, let's go to the moon) are not counted because they are not weasel-proof.

6.

7.

Examples: Implementation Commitment 1. 2. 3. Let's start our new schedule tomorrow. I'll really try to pay more attention in class from now on. So, the next time she asks you to do something you don't want to do, youll tell her you're not interested.

Rating Scales 5 1998

263

Nonexamples: Implementation Commitment 1. 2. 3. 4. Justin, will you promise to put away your toys every evening? The next time that happens Ill really be upset. What a great idea! That idea could/would work.

Rating Scales 5 1998

264

Rating Scales 5 1998

265

PROBLEM DIFFICULTY (PD)** Rate: Group The difficulty (magnitude, persistence and/or intensity) of this problem for reasonable people, not the likelihood of this particular group solving the problem. Score based on ease of resolution, considering both the number of situational factors and their degree of influence. (Note: the observer's frame of reference is the world in general). 1 = No situational factors influence the resolution of this problem. The problem is very easy to resolve for reasonable people. 2 = Minimal situational factors (1-2) are present, but they appear unlikely to interfere with resolution of the problem. The problem is easy to resolve for reasonable people. 3 = Minimal situational factors are present and they appear to minimally influence resolution of the problem. The problem is fairly easy to resolve for reasonable people. 4 = Some situational factors are present, but they create minimal difficulty in resolution of the problem. The problem is fairly easy to resolve for reasonable people. 5 = Some situational factors are present, and they appear likely to create some difficulty with its resolution. The problem is moderately difficult to solve for reasonable people. 6 = Several situational factors are present that exert some difficulty. The problem is moderately difficult to resolve for reasonable people. 7 = Several situational factors influence this problem and due to them, the problem appears moderately difficult. The problem is fairly hard to resolve for reasonable people. 8 = Many situational factors are present that exert moderate difficulty or those present exert moderate influence. The problem is hard to resolve for reasonable people. 9 = Many situational factors are present and they have considerable influence on this problem or the factors present (even if few) exert strong influence. Due to these factors, the problem appears very hard to resolve for reasonable people.

*Note: Exception to the general coding scheme described in Section H on pages 7-8 because one score is assigned to the entire group.

Rating Scales 5 1998

266

Clarifications: Problem Difficulty 1. Situational factors may influence the difficulty of a problem. Generally speaking, one can rate a problem on a continuum for each of these factors. For example, a problem may require little effort (not very difficult) or a great deal of effort (more difficult). Also, many different solutions may successfully solve a problem (not very difficult) or only one solution can work (more difficult). Code the highest level of difficulty for the initial problem or a branching problem. Code Problem Difficulty in light of the ability of reasonable people in this situation to solve the problem, rather than this particular group's or familys likelihood of solving the problem. Regardless of whether or not reasonable people would be in this situation, ask: Could reasonable people successfully deal with this problem given these situational factors? Think of reasonable people as being people in general who share similar situational aspects (i.e., economics, number in group, disabilities, outside barriers, etc.) For example, chores are a more difficult problem if the group raises livestock. It is even more difficult if there are other demands (such as outside jobs) on the group. The situational factors referred to in clarification 4 influence the ability to solve the problem. Situational factors include such things as living conditions, available jobs and human resources, how easily the present conditions could be changed, etc. The following list gives examples of situational factors that may influence the difficulty of a problem. Use the list for guidance in evaluating the extent to which situational factors influence the difficulty of a problem. Within each category, some factors may make it easier to resolve the problem whereas other factors may make it more difficult.* a. Effort or complexity: The amount of effort required to solve the problem; the number of operations, skills or types of knowledge required to solve a problem (e.g., mechanical, technical, homemaking, child rearing, medical, accounting, etc.). Solution multiplicity: The number of possible solutions to a problem; the number of means for attaining solutions to a problem; the difficulty of predicting the success of a solution. Conjunctivity: The degree of coordination, cooperation, or integrated action group members must engage in to solve the problem. Includes the number and roles of others (within and outside the group) that need to be involved in solving the

2. 3.

4.

b.

c.

*Note: Adapted from Klein, D.M., & Hill, R. (1979). Determinants of family problem-solving effectiveness. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, I. L Nye, and I. L Reiss, (Eds.). Contemporary Theories about the Family. New York: The Free Press.

Rating Scales 5 1998

267

problem (e.g., coordinating treatment of childs medical problems with physician, teachers, & family members; scheduling family time together in light of job and school demands; planning use of one bathroom in a fivemember family). d. Pervasiveness: The number of families affected by a problem. Does everyone experience this same problem? For example, every family has to do chores but if you also care for livestock, and especially if you are one of few families in the community whose chores include caring for livestock, chores may be a bigger issue; many families need to deal with adolescent use of alcohol, but this may be more difficult if alcohol is readily available at home, from peers, or in the community. Cognitive requirements: Involves the type of thinking skills required for solving the problem; the ratio of concrete to abstract reasoning skills required for solving the problem (e.g., a family with a special needs or emotional handicapped child would need to deal with this factor in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution to a problem). External-internal source: A problem imposed by an outside force (e.g., plant foreclosure, flood) versus one which is self-imposed by the group or one of its members (e.g., decision to home-school children, excessive use of alcohol by a group member, loss of job due to poor work habits). Requisite time: The amount of time required to solve a problem, ranging from an acute problem requiring an immediate response (e.g., installing a lock on the medicine cabinet) to a chronic problem requiring a series of responses over an extended period of time (e.g., amount of time and effort to change a habit like smoking). Object barrier: The presence of a material object (e.g., busy highway or unchained dog on childs route home from school) or its symbolic representation (e.g., chained dog on route home for child fearful due to previous dog bite) which thwarts problem-solving success. Interpersonal barrier outside the task: The presence of an interpersonal relationship (e.g., with a boss, an in-law, spouses former partner, etc.) which thwarts problem-solving success. Do not include Hostility, motivation, or uncooperativeness observed during the task between interactors or characteristics of interactors.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

Rating Scales 5 1998

268

j.

Rule-boundedness: The degree to which explicit and available procedures help or hinder problemsolving success (e.g., community expectations, family traditions, gender role assumptions). Control: The degree to which the interactors can influence the course of events leading to the outcome of the problem ranging from more control (e.g., spending more time on homework) to less control (e.g., a teacher with unrealistic expectations). The variability or unpredictability of the situation (e.g., weather, teacher mood swings, etc.). The variability or unpredictability of the situation.

k.

5.

Do not code Problem Difficulty higher merely because of the presence of Hostility, Angry Coercion, etc., in the interaction. Think of the problem as distinct from the manner in which group members in this situation respond to each other when faced with this particular problem. Think of the analogy of Problem Difficulty being the car and not the group in the car. The following chart may be helpful in selecting an appropriate score level. Please select the highest level possible, with particular attention to ease of resolution. For example, even minimal situational factors could exert high influence and create a situation that is hard to resolve. The appropriate score in this instance would be a '9'.
Score level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of negative situational factors None Minimal (1-2) Minimal (1-2) Some Some Moderate (several) Moderate (several) Many Many Amount of influence/difficulty None None Minimal Minimal Some Some Moderate Moderate High Ease of resolution* Very easy Easy Fairly easy Fairly easy Moderate Moderate Fairly hard Hard Very hard

6.

*Primary determinant of score level

Rating Scales 5 1998

269

REFERENCES Conger, R. D. (1971). Social Interaction Scoring System Coder Manual. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames. Cox, M. (1997). Qualitative Ratings: Parent/Child Interaction at 24-36 Months of Age. Unpublished manuscript, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dishion, T., Gardner, K., Patterson, G., Reid, J., Spyron, S., & Thibodeaux, S. (1987). The Family Process Code: A Multidimensional System for Observing Family Interaction. Unpublished manuscript, Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene. Forgatch, M. S., & Wieder, G. B. (1981). Parent Adolescent Negotiation Interaction Code (PANIC). Unpublished manuscript, Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene. Forgatch, M. S., Ryan, B., Friedeman, K., & Luks, K. (1992) Observing Emotional Communication in Marital Interaction: Revision of J. Gottmans SPAFF Manual. Unpublished manuscript, Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene. Gottman, J. M. (1987). Rapid Couple Interaction Scoring System. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Gottman, J. M. (1989). SPAFF Manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1986). Behavior Rating Scales for Family Interaction. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia. Hops, H., Biglan, A., Arthur, J., Warner, P., Holcomb, C., Sherman, L., Oostenick, N., Osteen, V., & Tolman, A. (1988). Living in Family Environments (LIFE) Coding System. Unpublished Manuscript, Oregon Research Institute. Julien, D., Markman, H., Lindahl, K., Johnson, H., & Van Widenfelt, B. (1987). Interactional Dimensions Coding System. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Denver. Klein, D. M. & Hill, R. (1979). Determinants of family problem-solving effectiveness. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, I.L. Nye, and I.L. Reiss, (Eds.). Contemporary Theories about the Family. New York: The Free Press. Lorenz, F. O., & Melby, J. N. (1994). Analyzing family stress and adaptation. Methods of study. In R. Conger and G. H. Elder (Eds.), Families in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change in Rural America (pp. 21-54). Hawthorne, New York: Aldine.

Rating Scales 5 1998

270

Melby, J. N., Conger, R. D., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L., Repinski, D., Ahrens, K., Black, D., Brown, D., Huck, S., Mutchler, L., Rogers, S., Ross, J., & Stavros, T. (1989). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (first edition). Unpublished manuscript. Iowa State University, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, Ames. Melby, J. N., Conger, R. D. (in press). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary. Forthcoming in Patraicia Kerig and Krisitin Lindahl (Eds.), Family Observational Coding Systems: Resources for systematic research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rating Scales 5 1998

271

Rating Scales 5 1998

285 PHYSICAL MOVEMENT (PH) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale assesses the amount of motion or physical activity displayed by the focal during the interaction. Examples of physical movement are: tapping fingers, wringing hands, shaking leg or foot, hand gestures, moving in and out of chair, fidgeting and playing with microphones, pencils, cups, etc. The scale also takes into consideration how distracting the focals behavior is to the observer and/or other interactors. (Ignore the quality of interaction, positive or negative). 1 = Not at all characteristic: During the interaction, the focal displays virtually no examples of physical movement. He/she is fairly still except for occasional shifts in body position. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: There is some evidence of low level physical movement. Examples include occasional finger tapping or some fidgeting from time to time. Shifting around or activity that is slightly above what is considered occasional shifts in body movement. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: There are several examples of low levels of physical movement or a few examples of more moderate movements. At this level, the focals behavior is more noticeable. Examples of moderate physical movement may include more animated hand gestures, intermittent periods of tapping fingers, shaking leg or foot, fidgeting or rubbing face, arms, legs, etc. If the focal is relatively still for most of the interaction but engages in one or two major body shifts, score as a 3. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal shows more frequent or intense levels of physical movement. At this point the focals behavior is somewhat distracting. For example, in addition to fairly frequent fidgeting, tapping fingers or shaking foot or leg, the focal at times may move in and out of the chair. However, the focal does not have to be continually fidgeting. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal can be characterized as highly physically active. The focal is nearly in constant motion that may be irritating to the observer and/or to other interactors. For example, there is a high degree of fidgeting, very animated gestures, and there may be several times when the focal moves in and out of the chair.

Clarifications: Physical Movement 1. Physical Movement is a scale that measures nonverbal body movement. Do not confuse Verbally Involved with Physical Movement. 2. The behavior of a person who scores high on Physical Movement may be distracting. Distracting is defined in terms of whether the observer would find the behavior distracting if he/she were interacting with the focal. 3. Hitting or poking someone else would be scored as evidence of Hostility, Physical Attack, and Transactional Conflict instead of Physical Movement. This also applies to behaviors such as kisses, pats, hugs, etc. However, body shifts associated with these behaviors are coded as Physical Movement. 4. Nervous motions such as playing with the cards, tapping fingers, etc. are included in Physical Movement.

Rating Scales 6 1998

286 5. Constancy (frequency) of motion is a more important dimension than intensity in determining the rating for Physical Movement. Constancy is of primary importance; intensity is of moderate importance. 6. Physical Movement occurring in the task may be for purposes that are functional, random, and/or expressive. Count any and all such movements. 7. Leaving the table when necessary (e.g., to answer the phone or the door) should not be coded as Physical Movement. Self-initiated unnecessary leaving (e.g., to get pop, cigarette, pillow, toy) is Physical Movement. 8. Synonyms for Physical Movement: physical activity body movement physical gestures motion versus motionless animated versus stationary active versus inactive antsy versus sedentary calm versus jittery dissonance versus consonance frenetic versus static spontaneous versus rigid electric versus still

Examples: Physical Movement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. tapping fingers wringing hands shaking leg or foot hand gestures moving in and out of chair or continually shifting position fidgeting playing with some object petting an animal (2) smoking (2)

Rating Scales 6 1998

287 FACIAL MOVEMENT (FM) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale measures the presence of or changes in facial movement, facial animation or facial expression (positive, neutral, or negative) displayed by the focal. The facial movement must result from movements in facial muscles rather than manipulations involving the hands or other objects. Consider both changes in and variety of facial expressions. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays a wooden facial expression with almost no change in facial features. There is almost a total absence of facial movement (e.g., nonexpressive, glazed). 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal rarely demonstrates changes in facial expression. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal is sometimes stoic in facial expression and at other times more animated. A low to moderate amount of facial movement occurs. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often demonstrates changes in facial expression, as well as a moderate variety of expressions. 5 = Mainly characteristic: Expressive facial features are characteristic of the focal. The focal displays frequent, rapid changes in facial expressions, whether directed toward the other person or in general. To score a 5, the focal must display a variety of expressions, as well as quite frequent changes in facial expressions.

Clarifications: Facial Movement 1. Almost no changes means relative emotionlessness in the face. Flat facial emotional affect. 2. Facial Movement includes smiles, frowns, and other responsive types of movements as well as nervous types of movements such as biting lips, whether or not directed toward another person. 3. In coding Facial Movement, pay particular attention to changes in the different regions of the face such as the forehead, the eyebrows and the eyes, the cheeks and the cheekbones, and the lower face and mouth. Note the manner in which these regions combine to produce different facial expressions. 4. This scale assesses genuine changes, not contrived movements, in facial expression. Head movements (e.g., nod yes or shake no), yawns, movement of the eyes (e.g., rolling and/or blinking), or sticking out tongue are not coded under Facial Movement. 5. Do not count movement related to or due to talking, gum chewing, or cigarette smoking. Count voluntary movements rising out of nervousness, but not involuntary movements (such as personal tics). 6. The presence of Facial Movement may also indicate Listener Responsiveness if movements are directed toward the speaker (see examples #1 - #3 below). However, to qualify as an indicator of high Facial Movement, features must change frequently.

Rating Scales 6 1998

288

7. Synonyms for Facial Movement: facial expression facial animation expressive versus blank spontaneous versus controlled elastic versus rigid lively versus brittle responsive versus stoic active versus flat alive versus wooden fluid versus glazed expressive versus dull involved versus bored 8. Frequency (constancy of motion) is of primary importance. Intensity (i.e., broadness of smile) is of low importance.

Examples: Facial Movement


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. a smile that says, I like your ideas. a perplexed look that says, I dont understand what you mean. raised eyebrows that say, Wow! or Youre kidding. a frown as the focal explains his/her dislike for something a grin as the focal relays his/her pleasure in accomplishing something deemed important

Nonexamples: Facial Movement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. rolling eyes moving cheeks with hands or tongue yawn blinking gum chewing

Rating Scales 6 1998

289 INTERNALIZED NEGATIVE (IN) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) The extent to which the focals verbal and nonverbal behavior communicates emotional distress that is conveyed as dysphoria (sadness, unhappiness, despondency, depression) and/or anxiety (nervousness, fear, worry, concern). Persons may simply appear detached from the familys ongoing activity (e.g., they seem apathetic or withdrawn); they may show more overt signs of sadness or distress such as speaking in a low, slow tone, becoming tearful, or verbally expressing their sadness; or they may appear tense and fearful. Attend carefully to nonverbal behaviors in scoring Internalized Negative. (Note: see clarifications for dysphoria and anxiety). 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of internalized negative behavior. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal rarely shows evidence of internalized negative behavior. frequency and intensity.

Such behavior is of low

3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes exhibits internalized negative behavior. Such behavior is of low to moderate intensity. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often shows evidence of internalized negative behavior at a low to moderate level of intensity or there are one or more episodes of behavior that are fairly intense, e.g., crying or statements of extreme pessimism or unhappiness. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays internalized negative behavior at a low to moderate level of intensity or such behavior occurs less frequently but at a high level of intensity.

Clarifications: Internalized Negative as Dysphoria 1. Internalized Negative expressed as Dysphoria conveys self-blame, dissatisfaction with self, or extreme sadness about ones situation, as opposed to blaming other interactors (Hostility) or the world in general (Externalized Negative). 2. Words that describe Internalized Negative expressed as Dysphoria include: downtrodden discouraged blue sad depressed morose sulky resigned defeated despondent dejected sullen tearful downhearted melancholy withdrawn pessimistic tired, fatigued inability to control situation fatalistic downcast overwhelmed unhappy troubled hopelessness whiny sadness

3. Listen for the following indicators of Internalized Negative expressed as Dysphoria: a. b. c. d. negative self statements slow, dull speech slow pace of speech, slowness to respond bemoaning the extent of ones suffering (may also be Externalized Negative)

Rating Scales 6 1998

290 e. f. g. h. self-denigration feeling wronged, bitter (may also be Externalized Negative) low, monotone voice flat affect

4. Watch for the following indicators of Internalized Negative expressed as Dysphoria: pouting frowning (but not disapproval of anothers actions) heavy sighing social withdrawal (not joining in or even attending to group activities) low activity rate (e.g., sitting and staring, slowness to respond) Note: If the persons movements are stiff or restricted versus extremely slow but fluid, do not code as Dysphoria. f. appears to be extremely tired or listless g. vegetative motion (e.g., lethargic, repetitive movements such as rubbing hands or arm, crossing and uncrossing arms, picking at nonexistent lint, scratching table, rocking back and forth) h. crying i. head in hands or on table j. not tracking conversation 5. Do not count as Internalized Negative reports of what happened in the past if it is over and done with. If the people are still affected by the event (e.g., if people still mourn over past event or if their voice cracks while discussing the event), count as Internalized Negative. 6. Sorrow/grief (crying, wiping tears, cracking voice, etc.) should be scored as Internalized Negative. Determine the appropriate level based on intensity and duration. If a person quickly regains composure and continues with the task, score low; if not, score higher. 7. Some statements may be scored as both Externalized Negative and Internalized Negative. If the content fits the definition of Externalized Negative, but is conveyed in an anxious or dysphoric manner (versus an angry or hostile manner) code as Externalized Negative for content and as Internalized Negative for affect (e.g., school is so dumb said with a cracking voice and downcast gaze). Also, we cant get ahead with these unfair government programs conveys both pessimism and unhappiness (Internalized Negative) as well as blame or anger (Externalized Negative). 8. Guilty Coercion has a poor me component which also is indicative of and should count as evidence for Internalized Negative. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. a. b. c. d. e.

Examples: Internalized Negative as Dysphoria 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. I wish I wasnt so miserable. I never get to go anywhere. (whiny voice) I cant handle all this responsibility. (sigh) Every day is boring. Well, if I dont do it, it wont get done. (resigned tone) I have no control over it. Some days Im so stressed I feel like Im going to explode.

Rating Scales 6 1998

291 Clarifications: Internalized Negative as Anxiety 1. Internalized Negative expressed as Anxiety conveys nervousness worry, or distress about self, others, or ones situation, as opposed to blaming other interactors (Hostility) or anger at the world in general (Externalized Negative). 2. Words that describe Internalized Negative expressed as Anxiety: shocked anxious worried tense afraid on-edge startled concerned fearful nervous hysterical alarmed distressed troubled frustrated upset uneasy

3. Listen for the following indicators of Internalized Negative expressed as Anxiety: a. b. c. d. e. f. elevated voice volume, especially accompanied by rapid speech stuttering or difficulty in speaking a voice tone that quavers or fluctuates rapidly screaming, low moaning, or whimpering lack of response to demands or questions by another complaints that express fear of future

4. Watch for the following indicators of Internalized Negative expressed as Anxiety: a. cowering or flight behaviors (e.g., running and hiding) b. tense or rigid body postures c. rapid, repetitive body movements (e.g., wringing the hands, jiggling the foot) -- be careful to separate these from the more lethargic, repetitive movements that may characterize boredom or dysphoric mood. d. raised eyebrows, especially with the inside corners turned up e. trembling or raised hands as in self-protection f. trembling lips or mouth g. biting lip h. trying to maintain control or to keep things from going wrong i. nervous movements 5. One can score high on Internalized Negative based on anxious physical behaviors (e.g., constant fidgeting, wringing hands, tapping table, playing with a glass, etc.). 6. Some statements may be scored as both Externalized Negative and Internalized Negative. If the content fits the definition of Externalized Negative, but is conveyed in an anxious or dysphoric manner (versus an angry or hostile manner) code as Externalized Negative for content and as Internalized Negative for affect, e.g., It really worries me when these kids are so stupid about using drugs.

Examples: Internalized Negative as Anxiety 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Im really concerned about this. I just dont know when well be able to do that. If that happens, well really have problems. Im really worried. I dont know how Ill handle that. Well never get ahead financially at the rate were going.

Rating Scales 6 1998

292

Rating Scales 6 1998

293 ESCALATE NEGATIVE (Hostility) (EN) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale assesses the focals tendency to escalate his/her own negative (hostile) behaviors directed toward another interactor or other interactors, using Hostility, Verbal Attack, Physical Attack, and/or Angry Coercion. Escalate Negative is coded if the focal follows one of these negative behaviors with another negative behavior or if the original negative behavior has intensified. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of escalating his/her negative behaviors toward other interactors. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal infrequently (one or two times) escalates negatively. Negative behaviors are generated and the focal infrequently follows an initial negative behavior with another negative behavior. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally escalates negatively. Negative behaviors are generated and the focal sometimes follows an initial negative behavior with other negative behaviors. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often escalates negatively. Negative behaviors are generated and the focal follows an initial negative behavior with other negative behaviors. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently escalates negatively. Negative behaviors are generated and the focal frequently follows an initial behavior with negative behaviors.

Clarifications: Escalate Negative 1. For Escalate Negative, intensity is defined as multiple negative behaviors in a string or a long burst of repetitive negative behaviors. Intensity for Escalate Negative is not defined as it is for the general case (p. 5). For example, a focal with one string of seven negative escalations in a row would be coded the same as a focal with two strings, one with three negative escalations and the other with four escalations. 2. Escalate Negative is the individuals escalation of his/her own negative behaviors, whereas Transactional Conflict assesses the extent to which negative behaviors are reciprocated in the relationship. Someone who scores high on Escalate Negative may be thought of as being on a negative roll. 3. Assess Escalate Negative in terms of speaker turns. If the focal makes one negative comment, followed by a second negative comment, or the latter part of a negative comment becomes even more negative, score on Escalate Negative. 4. To count as Escalate Negative, the interaction must deal with behavior directed toward other interactors in the setting (e.g., Hostility, Physical Attack, Verbal Attack, Angry Coercion rather than Internalized Negative or Externalized Negative). 5. If the focal first briefly indicates disapproval or hostility but then goes on to elaborate on his/her immediately preceding comment, count as evidence of Escalate Negative. 6. Code as Escalate Negative behavior directed first to one and then to another interactor in the form of a string of negative behaviors.

Rating Scales 6 1998

294 7. Count as Escalate Negative statements about the relationship that are hostile in content or affect, whether the statements refer to the past, present, or future. 8. Simultaneous negative behaviors do not count as Escalate Negative, for example, a frown with a hit. 9. Do not score as Escalate Negative two adjectives that refer to the same trait or characteristic unless the second adjective adds a different dimension, or unless there is a marked increase in intensity with the addition of the second adjective. Two adjectives in a row must add a different dimension: a. b. c. d. Youre ugly and youre stupid too. (Hostility and Escalate Negative) Youre an ugly, homely person. (Hostility) Youre doing a lot, lot worse. (Hostility) Youre doing a lot worse. A lot worse. (Hostility and Escalate Negative)

10. Escalate Negative may involve two or more different dimensions of negativity, for example, a transition from Hostility to Angry Coercion such as: You never get home on time, (Hostility) and if it happens again, youll be grounded for a week (Angry Coercion).

Examples: Escalate Negative 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. You are so dumb. It is really boring being around you. There is not a thing I like about you. You just cannot be trusted to do what you say youll do. Youre ugly and youre dumb, too. Youre doing a lot worse. A lot worse. I dont care about you. You could drop off the face of the earth, and I wouldnt care.

Nonexamples: Escalate Negative 1. You are ugly and homely. (Hostility) 2. Youre a dumb, stupid person. (Hostility)

Rating Scales 6 1998

295

ESCALATE POSITIVE (Warmth/Support) (EP) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale assesses the focals tendency to escalate his/her own positive (warmth/support) behaviors directed toward another interactor or other interactors, using Warmth/Support, Endearment, and/or Physical Affection. Escalate Positive is coded if the focal follows one positive behavior with another positive behavior or if the original positive behavior has intensified. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no signs of escalating his/her positive behaviors toward other interactors. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal infrequently (one or two times) escalates positively. Positive behaviors are generated and the focal infrequently follows an initial positive behavior with other positive behaviors. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal occasionally escalates positively. Positive behaviors are generated and the focal sometimes follows an initial positive behavior with other positive behaviors. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often escalates positively. Positive behaviors are generated and the focal follows an initial positive behavior with other positive behaviors. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently escalates positively. Positive behaviors are generated and the focal frequently follows an initial behavior with positive behaviors.

Clarifications: Escalate Positive 1. For Escalate Positive, intensity is defined as multiple positive behaviors in a string or a long burst of repetitive positive behaviors. Intensity for Escalate Positive is not defined as it is for the general case (p. 5). For example, a focal with one string of seven positive escalations in a row would be coded the same as a focal with two strings, one with three positive escalations and the other with four escalations. 2. Escalate Positive is the individuals escalation of his/her own positive behaviors, whereas Transactional Positive assesses the extent to which positive behaviors are reciprocated in the relationship. Someone who is high on Escalate Positive may be thought of as being on a positive roll. 3. Assess Escalate Positive in terms of speaker turns. If the focal makes one positive comment followed by a second positive comment, or if the latter part of a positive comment becomes even more positive, score as Escalate Positive. 4. To count as Escalate Positive, the interaction must deal with behaviors directed toward the other interactors in the setting (e.g., Warmth/Support, Endearment, and Physical Affection). Do not code Escalate Positive for Positive Mood statements that would not also be coded as Warmth/Support, Endearment, and/or Physical Affection. 5. If a focal first briefly indicates approval or warmth but then goes on to elaborate on his/her immediately preceding comment, count as evidence of Escalate Positive.

Rating Scales 6 1998

296 6. Code as Escalate Positive behavior directed first to one and then to another interactor in the form of a string of positive behaviors. 7. Count as Escalate Positive statements about the relationship that are warm in content or affect, whether regarding the past, present or future. 8. Simultaneous positive behaviors do not count as Escalate Positive, for example, a smile with a pat. 9. Do not score as Escalate Positive two adjectives that refer to the same trait or characteristic unless the second adjective adds a different dimension, or unless there is a marked increase in intensity with the addition of the second adjective. Two adjectives in a row must add a different dimension. a. b. c. d. Youre beautiful and youre smart too. (Warmth/Support and Escalate Positive) Youre a beautiful, gorgeous person. (Warmth/Support) Youre doing a lot, lot better. (Warmth/Support) Youre doing a lot better. A lot better. (Warmth/Support and Escalate Positive)

10. Escalate Positive may involve two or more different dimensions of positive behaviors, for example, a transition from Warmth/Support to Endearment such as: You did a good job on your math test, (Warmth/Support) but you always do well because you are such a good student (Endearment).

Examples: Escalate Positive 1. We enjoy being together. Its fun to be with you. 2. Whats positive about our marriage is that we trust each other, because we have a history we can fall back on when times are bad. 3. Youre beautiful, and youre smart too. 4. Youre doing a lot better. A lot better. 5. I really care about you. You are wonderful. 6. I love you followed by a kiss.

Nonexamples: Escalate Positive 1. 2. 3. 4. You are pretty and beautiful. (Warmth/Support) Youre a beautiful, gorgeous person. (Warmth/Support) Youre doing a lot, lot better. (Warmth/Support) Im happy with life. I like what I do. (Positive Mood)

Rating Scales 6 1998

297 INTELLECTUAL SKILL (IS)** Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) The observers evaluation of the focals intellectual ability. Intellectual Skill is thought of as the extent or amount of mental brightness, smartness, flexibility in thought, abstractness in thought, etc., displayed by the focal. Please consider Intellectual Skill in terms of the verbal as well as the quantitative (reasoning) abilities displayed by the focal during the interaction task. 1 = Low 2 = Below average 3 = Average 4 = Above average 5 = High Clarifications: Intellectual Skill 1. Base the scoring for Intellectual Skill on the observed characteristics and abilities displayed by the focal during the interaction. Do not score based on the reported school performance or on reported intellectual ability, special classes, etc. 2. Terms that may be associated with the two ends of the scale are: 1 slow dense illogical poor vocabulary literal simple inarticulate retarded dull deficient obtuse moronic deficient poor knowledge reticent 5 smart good vocabulary able to reason creative quick abstract sees big picture insightful articulate discriminating knowledgeable clever discerning witty perceptive alert logical rational

3. Intellectual Skill includes knowledge, reasoning, and creativity. Not all behaviors must be present to score a 1 or a 5. For example, someone may score a 5 for demonstrating high creativity while another person may score a 5 on the basis of his/her ability to reason. 4. If in doubt between a 1 and a 2 or a 2 and a 3, score down. If in doubt between a 3 and a 4 or a 4 and a 5, score up. 5. Age may be taken into consideration when scoring Intellectual Skill. **Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

298

Rating Scales 6 1998

299

GUILTY COERCION (GC) Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the degree to which the focal achieves goals or attempts to control or change the behavior or opinions of the other by means of contingent complaints, crying, whining, manipulation, or revealing needs or wants in a whiny or whiny-blaming manner. These expressions convey the sense that the focals life is made worse by something the other interactor does. Whininess that is part of Guilty Coercion involves depressed, worried affect or self-pity. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal displays no evidence of guilty-coercive or manipulative behavior. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal rarely demonstrates guilty-coercive behaviors. Such behaviors are of low intensity or frequency and are quickly abated; they are the exception rather than the rule. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes displays guilty coercive behaviors of low or moderate intensity. More extreme behaviors rarely, if ever, occur. One moderately intense instance of Guilty Coercion may be scored 3. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal displays more extreme evidence of frequent or intense guilty-coercive behaviors. Guilty Coercion occurs fairly often. One quite intense occurrence of Guilty Coercion may be scored 4. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently displays evidence of guilty-coercive behaviors. Such behaviors are of high intensity or frequency. Guilty Coercion is the typical mode of influence for the focal.

Clarifications: Guilty Coercion 1. Guilty Coercion may be considered ONE METHOD of CONTROL that is possible within an interaction. To score as Guilty Coercion it must be fairly clear (implicitly or explicitly) that the focal is attempting to change or manipulate the other interactors behavior or opinions using the behaviors described below. The central feature of Guilty Coercion is the attempt to change anothers behavior or opinions through guilt induction; i.e., the message is given that if the recipient doesnt behave as requested, he or she will be harming or mistreating the focal. 2. Although all of the behaviors listed below are examples of Guilty Coercion, the starred behaviors are more typically displayed by children. *a. *b. *c. d. e. f. whining crying inappropriately lying, primarily as manipulation nagging frustrated being a martyr g. h. i. j. k. scheming sighing whiny blaming nasal tone poor me

3. Listen for a high-pitched (nasal) sing-song voice tone. When the focal speaks in a whiny or poor-me tone of voice in order to achieve a particular end, code this behavior as Guilty Coercion.

Rating Scales 6 1998

300

4. Watch for the use of whining when someone: a. b. c. d. e. does not get his/her way is worried does not understand something is being criticized or punished is describing something he/she doesnt like or doesnt want

5. It is not possible to rate a focal high on both this scale and the Assertiveness scale. If one scale is scored at a 4 or a 5, the other scale cannot be scored above a 3. 6. Tone of voice and facial expression are very important in differentiating between Guilty Coercion and Angry Coercion. Tone in Guilty Coercion is whiny, self-pitying, sorrowful, depressed. Tone in Angry Coercion is blaming, hostile, agitated, caustic, cutting, sarcastic. 7. Code the delivery and content of the focals coercive statement, NOT the response of the other interactor. For example, the statement, I need new glasses, too. We need more money. Youll have to start doing something to earn money, delivered in an angry, blaming tone would be coded Angry Coercion whereas if delivered in a whiny manner would be coded as Guilty Coercion. 8. Statements presented in the form of You should... may be coded as either Guilty Coercion or Angry Coercion, and/or Lecture/Moralize. Affect, as well as motivation of the statement, is important in determining how to code the statement. Guilty Coercion is meant to change behavior in a whiny, poor me manner. Angry Coercion is meant to change behavior in a hostile, sarcastic, or threatening manner. Lecture/Moralize is more of a monologue about the way things should or shouldnt be and may or may not include elements of guilt induction (Guilty Coercion) or threat (Angry Coercion). 9. Guilty Coercion has a poor me component which also is indicative and should count as evidence of Internalized Negative. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. 10. To be coded as Guilty Coercion, statements presented in the form of You should... must meet all three of the following criteria. The focal must: a. attempt to manipulate or change the other interactors behavior b. use a whiny, poor me tone of voice c. try to make the other interactor feel sorry for the focal or feel guilty about not complying with the focals needs

Examples: Guilty Coercion 1. I suppose Ill have to pick up after everyone. (Implies the other family members should pick up after themselves.) 2. You make me unhappy when you do that. 3. Youre ruining my life. 4. You make me so sad. 5. I never thought youd do that. 6. You cause me such trouble. 7. You disappoint me when you do that. 8. You embarrass me. 9, It makes me upset when you... (Implies the speaker would like the other person to stop doing something.)

Rating Scales 6 1998

301

10. Look at all Ive done for you and you dont even appreciate it. 11. If you just stopped doing that I wouldnt be so stressed. Note: For all these examples (1-11), there must be the suggestion of a desired change in behavior. For example, the statement You make me so sad must include the indication that if the recipient changed his/her activities, he/she would no longer make the focal sad. Possible examples: Guilty Coercion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. You should know better... (also Lecture/Moralize) Dont you think its about time you start doing... (also Lecture/Moralize) You should be ashamed of yourself for breaking your promise. (also Lecture/Moralize) Shame on you - you should know better. (also Lecture/Moralize) Id expect more of you. (also Lecture/Moralize) Your poor mother worries so when you...

Note: Count only if all criteria for Guilty Coercion mentioned in clarification 10 are met.

Nonexamples: Guilty Coercion 1. You stupid idiot. (Hostility and Verbal Attack) 2. Stop it or youll be sorry. (Hostility and Angry Coercion)

Rating Scales 6 1998

302

Rating Scales 6 1998

303 VERBALLY INVOLVED (VI)** Rate: All (Dyadic Interaction) This scale assesses the rate or amount of verbal behavior. It is concerned with how much the focal is talking--how active, verbally engaged, the focal is during the task. Look at the amount of verbal interaction with the other person. Ignore the quality, positive or negative. Note: one person in the dyad may be highly involved verbally and would rate high on the scale while the other is totally unresponsive. Your frame of reference should be the world at large. Consider how much people usually talk in an interaction situation. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal rarely or never is involved verbally with the other person(s). He/she seldom (once or twice) or never verbalizes. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal exhibits a low level of verbalization. A few specific instances (occasional evidence) of verbal interaction can be identified. There is some evidence of verbalization, but at a low degree. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal intermittently verbalizes to the other person. Verbal involvement is present and absent to an approximately equal extent (an average level). 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often verbalizes to the other person. Verbalization is more present than absent, but not at the highest rate possible. The focal is more verbally involved than verbally non-involved (above average level). 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal demonstrates a high rate of verbal behavior. He/she frequently speaks to the other person and displays a high rate of verbalizing, almost to the point of monopolizing the conversation.

Clarifications: Verbally Involved 1. This scale is the verbal counterpart to Physical Movement. 2. To rate a 5 on the scale, a person must come close to almost monopolizing the conversation; He/she must be extremely talkative and can be thought of in terms of the amount of time spent talking to others: a. A person rated a 1 rarely or never interacts verbally with others. b. A person rated a 5 is frequently involved in verbal interaction. Note: In the marital or sibling interaction, it is possible to rate both interactors 5 if each one is verbally involved to a high degree (talking over each other), although generally both would score no higher than 4. 3. Your frame of reference is the world at large; consider the amount of talking. This is NOT a shared behavior. That is, the score of one person does not automatically determine the score of the other interactor(s). 4. In assessing verbal involvement include all comments that apply to the other interactor, whether these comments are said specifically to him/her, to the group as a whole, to another interactor, or to the camera. Code comments not made specifically to the other interactor at a slightly lower level. **Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

304

Rating Scales 6 1998

305 BODY TOWARD (BT) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale measures the extent to which the focal orients the front of his/her body (arms, shoulders, and torso) toward the other interactor. Consider the length of time during which the focal orients his/her body toward the other person, as well as the amount of movement involved in the turn. Include only movement from a position of neutral involvement (e.g., squarely facing the table) to a position more fully oriented toward the other interactor. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal virtually never moves his/her body from the neutral position to be more oriented toward the other interactor. The focal never orients his/her body toward the other interactor, or the focal may actually turn away from the other interactor. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal rarely orients his/her body toward the other interactor. infrequent, and of low intensity, however, some evidence exists.

These behaviors are brief,

3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes orients his/her body toward the other interactor. somewhat longer duration, more frequent, and/or more intense.

Such behaviors are of

4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often orients his/her body toward the other interactor. At this point the focal is more often than not oriented toward the other interactor, but not at the highest level. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently orients his/her body toward the other interactor. accompanied by a considerable amount or degree of turn.

Such an orientation is

Clarifications: Body Toward 1. For this scale, consider frequency as the amount or proportion of time the focal is turned toward the other interactor and intensity as the amount of movement or degree of rotation involved in turning toward the other interactor. 2. Do not code this scale based on the position of the focals head or the focals gaze pattern. Score these behaviors under Listener Responsiveness and/or Assertiveness. 3. Include only movement from a position of neutral involvement (i.e., body squarely facing the table) regardless of whether the focals position was selected by the focal or arranged by an inter-viewer. Some focals may begin the task already oriented toward the other interactor. 4. Score this scale based on the turning of the torso, not leaning forward or backward or from side to side. 5. Exclude movements unrelated to the interaction itself (i.e., getting up to get a drink, pick up a card, etc.).

Rating Scales 6 1998

306

Rating Scales 6 1998

307 BODY AWAY (BA) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) This scale measures the extent to which the focal orients the front of his/her body (arms, shoulder, torso) away from the other interactor. Consider the length of time during which the focal orients his/her body away from the other person, as well as the amount of movement involved in the turn. Include only movement from a position of neutral involvement to a position more fully oriented away from the other interactor. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The focal virtually never moves his/her body from an original neutral position to be more oriented away from the other interactor. The focal never orients his/her body away from the other interactor, or the focal may actually turn toward the other interactor. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The focal rarely orients his/her body away from the other interactor. These behaviors are brief, infrequent, and of low intensity, however, some evidence exists. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: The focal sometimes orients his/her body away from the other interactor. Such behaviors are of somewhat longer duration, more frequent, and/or more intense. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The focal fairly often orients his/her body away from the other interactor. At this point the focal is more often than not oriented away from the other interactor, but not at the highest level. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The focal frequently orients his/her body away from the other interactor. Such an orientation is accompanied by a considerable amount or degree of turn.

Clarifications: Body Away 1. For this scale, consider frequency as the amount or proportion of time the focal is turned away from the other interactor and intensity as the amount of movement or degree of rotation involved in turning away from the other interactor. 2. Do not code this scale based on the position of the focals head or the focals gaze pattern. Score these behaviors under Listener Responsiveness and/or Assertiveness. 3. Include only movement from an original position of neutral involvement (i.e., body squarely facing the table) regardless of whether the focals original position was selected by the focal or arranged by an interviewer. Some focals may begin the task already oriented away from the other interactor. 4. Score the scales based on the turning of the torso, not leaning backward or forward. 5. Exclude movements unrelated to the interaction itself (i.e., getting up to get a drink, picking up a card from the floor, etc.).

Rating Scales 6 1998

308

Rating Scales 6 1998

309 TRANSACTIONAL CONFLICT (TC)** Rate: All (Dyadic Relationship) This scale measures the degree to which members of the dyad demonstrate hostile, conflictual, angrycoercive and disapproving behavior and whether the interaction becomes progressively more negative. Conflict behaviors include elements of hostility and/or angry coercion, verbal and nonverbal. Look at the extent to which the members of the dyad initiate and/or reciprocate conflict (add to the heat). 1 = Not at all characteristic: No conflict is present in the dyad. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: One person in the dyad being rated must initiate conflict and the other person must ignore or immediately attempt to de-escalate the conflict. For example, one person may always put the other down, yet the other deals with the criticism by using humor or ignoring the others comments. At a 2 level, instances of negative behaviors are not reciprocated within the immediate interaction context. Either person may behave negatively toward the other, but the other does not respond in kind at this time. The negativity is diffused or mediated in some way. Any Hostility or Angry Coercion by either member of the dyad would be coded at least a 2 for Transactional Conflict. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: BOTH participants engage in negative, hostile or angry-coercive comments or other behaviors toward the other, although their comments do NOT lead to a heated disagreement; both parties may engage in diffusing conflict. On at least one occasion, a negative (hostile or angry-coercive) behavior by one party must closely follow those of the other, i.e., they must be reciprocated. A nonverbal action or gesture may take the place of a reciprocating verbal comment. For example, a facial expression of disgust in response to anothers remarks may initiate or reciprocate conflict. The reciprocation of negative acts should take place immediately or within a short period of time. The negative response could involve a different topic of discussion. The negative response appears to be triggered by the other interactors negativity. 4 = Moderately characteristic: BOTH participants engage in negative, hostile, or angry-coercive comments or other behaviors that are reciprocated and that may result in fairly heated disagreement on more than one occasion. The participants either do not attempt to diffuse the conflict or make unsuccessful attempts to diffuse the conflict. There may be instances, however, when the conflict is diffused. 5 = Mainly characteristic: On several occasions, BOTH participants engage in negative, hostile, or coercive comments or other behaviors to each other that result in a reciprocal response. There are periods in the interaction that are almost entirely negative, as an attack-counterattack interaction. There are few, if any, instances in which either participant makes an attempt to diffuse conflict. Hostility and/or coercion are evident throughout the task.

Clarifications: Transactional Conflict 1. This scale primarily assesses the NEGATIVE PROGRESS of the interaction, NOT INDIVIDUAL DISPLAYS of hostility. 2. If disagreement is mild or neutral and not disparaging of the other, do NOT code as Transactional Conflict. There must be some NEGATIVISM to code disagreement as Transactional Conflict.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

310 3. Attend only to the degree of conflict achieved by the members of the dyad TOGETHER. DO NOT be concerned with who started the argument, or with whose judgment appears to be correct. 4. Conflictual interactions include elements of Hostility, Physical Attack, Verbal Attack and Angry Coercion. Consider both verbal content and nonverbal behaviors such as actions, gestures, or nonverbal affect. It is sometimes more difficult to determine the affect of laughter, smiles, etc., which may appear positive but involve sarcasm or cynicism. Look to both the content of comments and nonverbal affect to determine the negativity of behavioral interactions. 5. The score on Transactional Conflict is a relationship score. Both interactors in a dyad receive the same score, regardless of who appeared to initiate or mediate the conflict. 6. Think of Transactional Conflict as a sequential pattern in which a negative behavior of one partner is followed by a negative behavior of the other person and so forth, creating a snowball effect. Consecutive negative chains of behavior are the essential ingredient that must be observed. To be rated high on Transactional Conflict, both partners would not only display a high frequency of negative verbal and nonverbal behaviors, but also give the impression of frequently triggering each others negative behavior. 7. A high score, 4 or 5, may be warranted on Transactional Conflict either because there are several instances in which one interactor reciprocates the others negative behavior (i.e., several instances of just one reciprocation) or because of one instance when there is a long chain of negative behaviors involving two interactors (e.g., bickering back and forth). 8. If one member of the dyad always uses mediational strategies in response to initiation of conflictual behavior by the other dyad member, score a 2. However, if negative behavior by one interactor follows negative behavior by the other interactor, even with some mediation occurring in the interaction, a minimum of 3 must be scored. 9. To score as Transactional Conflict, the two interactors cannot engage in any other intervening behaviors between their negative acts toward each other (although they may interact with a different interactor). 10. Make sure that a score of 3 reflects behaviors that are reciprocated. You can have many 2 level behaviors and the score will not move up to a 3. However, several reciprocations at a 3 level may raise the score to a 4 or 5.

Examples: Transactional Conflict 1. Examples of negative behaviors: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. name calling swearing mocking non-constructive criticisms physical threats yelling facial gestures: scowling, frowning, disgust

2. Examples of mediational or conflict diffusing strategies: a. b. c. d. e. offering a compromise making a statement that allows both people to be right humor ignoring the others comments apologizing

Rating Scales 6 1998

311

3. Examples of Transactional Conflict: a. You dont study enough (mom). You dont know what I do (son). b. You spend too much money (husband). You dont make enough money for anyone to spend (wife). c. Hit me and Ill get you (sib). Target hits sib.

Rating Scales 6 1998

312

Rating Scales 6 1998

313 TRANSACTIONAL POSITIVE (TP)** Rate: All (Dyadic Relationship) This scale measures the degree to which members of the dyad reciprocate, reinforce, support, or facilitate mutual approval and whether the interaction becomes progressively more positive and enjoyable. Supportive behaviors include elements of Endearment, Warmth/Support, and Physical Affection. Look at the extent to which the members of the dyad initiate and/or reciprocate approval/support for each other. 1 = Not at all characteristic: No approval/support is present in the dyad. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: One person in the dyad being rated must initiate approval/support, but the other person does not immediately respond in like manner. For example, one person may show approval/support to the other, yet the other deals with the approval/support by ignoring the others comments or responding in a neutral or negative manner. The result must be the absence of reciprocated positive behaviors. Either person may behave positively toward the other, but the other does not respond in kind. Any approval/support by either member of the dyad would be coded at least a 2 for Transactional Positive. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: BOTH participants engage in approving/supporting comments or other such behaviors toward the other on at least one occasion, although their comments do NOT lead to a very warm exchange. A positive behavior by one party must closely follow that of the other, i.e., they must be reciprocal. A nonverbal action or gesture may take the place of a reciprocating verbal comment. For example, a facial expression of warmth in response to anothers remark may initiate or reciprocate approval/support. The reciprocation of positive acts should take place immediately or within a short period of time. The positive response could involve a different topic of discussion. 4 = Moderately characteristic: BOTH participants engage in endearing, warm, approving or supporting comments or behaviors that may result in a fairly positive interaction on more than one occasion. These positive exchanges may continue for a period of time. There must be some instances of reciprocated positive behaviors to score a 4. There may be instances, however, when approval/support is not reciprocated. 5 = Mainly characteristic: On several occasions BOTH participants engage in endearing, warm, approving, or supporting comments or other behaviors to each other that result in periods of interaction that are almost entirely positive, as in a positive-reciprocated positive interaction. There are several instances during the interaction when positive behaviors are reciprocated. There are few, if any, instances in which either participant makes an attempt to diffuse the warmth. Warmth, approval and/or support are evident throughout the task.

Clarifications: Transactional Positive 1. This scale assesses the POSITIVE PROCESS of the interaction, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL displays of positive behavior. 2. Attend only to the degree of warmth or positive behaviors achieved by the members of the dyad TOGETHER. DO NOT be concerned with who initiated the positive interaction.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

314 3. Do not code agreement about something or someone outside the immediate interaction as Transactional Positive. To count as evidence of Transactional Positive, the positive statement or action must be directed toward the characteristics or actions of the other interactor. 4. Positive interactions include behaviors that would be coded as Warmth/Support, Endearment, and/or Physical Affection. Consider both verbal content and nonverbal behaviors such as actions, gestures, or nonverbal affect to determine the positiveness of behavioral interactions. 5. The score on Transactional Positive is a relationship score. Both interactors in a dyad receive the same score, regardless of who appeared to initiate the positive interaction. 6. Transactional Positive is defined as a sequential pattern in which a positive behavior of one partner is followed by a positive behavior of the other person and so forth, creating a snowball effect. Consecutive positive chains of behavior are the essential ingredient that must be observed. To be rated very high on Transactional Positive, both partners would not only display frequent positive verbal and nonverbal behaviors but also give the impression of triggering each others positive behavior. The key to a high score on Transactional Positive is the occurrence of several reciprocations of positive behaviors. 7. Words that describe Warmth/Support and should be considered when scoring Transactional Positive include: caring endearing tender admiring adoring appreciative approving supportive concerned empathetic comforting affectionate loving agreeing

8. To be counted as reciprocation, one positive behavior must follow the other. The two interactors cannot engage in any other intervening behaviors with each other (although they may interact with a different interactor before reciprocation occurs). 9. Simultaneous shared laughter can be scored as a 2 level on Transactional Positive, but only if there is Warmth/Support between the two interactors. To move to a higher level, there must be evidence of reciprocation. Do not code Transactional Positive just because two interactors laugh simultaneously or sequentially. 10. Make sure that a score of 3 reflects behaviors that are reciprocated. You can have many 2 level behaviors and the score will not move up to a 3 unless at least one reciprocation occurs. However, several reciprocations at a 3 level may raise the score to 4 or 5. 11. There is no need to score a 2 on Group Enjoyment if you scored a 2 or 3 on Transactional Positive. These two codes are not dependent on each other so there are no score limitations binding them together.

Examples: Transactional Positive 1. 2. 3. 4. Thanks for helping me with that. (son) I enjoy helping you. (mother) You did a great job on that test. (father) I just have smart parents. (daughter) I really like that shirt youre wearing. (sib) Its almost as nice as yours. (target) You are a wonderful spouse. (husband) Wife responds with a warm smile.

Rating Scales 6 1998

315 GROUP DISORGANIZATION (GD)** Rate: Group (Group) Group Disorganization is the amount of confusion, disorder, and chaos present in the interaction and the extent to which the interaction may be characterized as unorganized, chaotic, jumbled, muddled, or fragmented. The discussion lacks direction. Individuals may discuss seemingly unrelated matters. Although various individuals may display dominating behaviors, there appears to be a lack of unity and cohesiveness in the interaction. The discussion does not proceed or move forward in a uniform manner. 1 = Not at all characteristic: The interaction is never chaotic and disorganized. 2 = Mainly uncharacteristic: The interaction is rarely chaotic and disorganized. There is evidence of chaos, but only to a slight degree. 3 = Somewhat characteristic: The interaction is sometimes chaotic and disorganized. Confusion occasionally seems to be present at a low or moderate level of intensity. 4 = Moderately characteristic: The interaction is fairly often chaotic and disorganized. Such chaos and disorganization may occur fairly often at a low or moderate level of intensity or less frequently for a high level of intensity. 5 = Mainly characteristic: The interaction is frequently chaotic and disorganized. Such behavior occurs frequently for behaviors of low or moderate intensity, or somewhat less frequently for behaviors of higher intensity.

Clarifications: Group Disorganization 1. Group Disorganization is not simply an off-task code. The interaction can be off-task, but still organized. Not moving forward in a uniform manner reflects Group Disorganization. 2. Group Disorganization can take place in an interaction that is primarily positive, negative, or neutral. 3. Score Group Disorganization early in the coding process so that the full impact of the disorganization is captured and to avoid the family making more sense as it is viewed more times. A good clue to this scale is how hard one must work to figure out what is going on in the task.

Examples: Group Disorganization 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. talking over each other talking about different topics simultaneously often responding with unrelated comments struggling to find a topic to discuss long pauses where no one is talking due to difficulty finding a topic to discuss one person engages in an extended monologue while other person(s) appear not to be listening

**Note: Exception to general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

316

Rating Scales 6 1998

317

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION (EO)** Rate: Group (Group) The coders subjective assessment of the orderliness of the interaction setting, from unorganized to organized. 1 = Unorganized 2 = Somewhat unorganized 3 = Between the two extremes 4 = Somewhat organized 5 = Organized

Clarifications: Environmental Organization 1. Include whether or not the furnishings, pictures, etc., are arranged in a functional and orderly manner. 2. Terms associated with the two ends of the scale are: 1 messy sloppy disheveled in disarray uncoordinated disorganized unplanned 5 neat tidy systematic well-organized coordinated intentional planned

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

318

Rating Scales 6 1998

319 ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRACTIVENESS (EA)** Rate: Group (Group) The coders subjective assessment of the aesthetic quality of the interaction setting, from unattractive to attractive. 1 = Unattractive 2 = Somewhat unattractive 3 = Between the two extremes 4 = Somewhat attractive 5 = Attractive

Clarifications: Environmental Attractiveness 1. Include whether or not the environment is one that the observer finds attractive. The observers own personal judgment of what is or is not attractive legitimately may influence the score. 2. Terms associated with the two ends of the scale are: 1 unpleasing ugly distasteful unsatisfying 5 pleasing pretty tasteful satisfying

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

320

Rating Scales 6 1998

321 PICTURE OUALITY (PQ)** Rate: Group (Group) The coders subjective assessment of the clarity, color, focus, etc., of the recorded video images, from poor to good. 1 = Poor 2 = Somewhat poor 3 = Between the two extremes 4 = Somewhat good 5 = Good

Clarifications: Picture Quality 1. Include whether or not it is easy to determine and make judgments about the interaction based on the recorded visual images. 2. Terms associated with the two ends of the scale are: 1 fuzzy unfocused blurry askew slanted poor lighting poor color 5 sharp focused clear centered straight good lighting good color

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

322

Rating Scales 6 1998

323 SEATING ORDER (SO) Rate: All (Individual Characteristic) The position of the focal, relative to other interactors, during the interaction task. Record seating from left to right as observer views the screen. 1 = First position 2 = Second position 3 = Third position 4 = Fourth position

Clarifications: Seating Order 1. In a two-person task, only the first and second positions will be used. 2. Score the position occupied by the focal at the beginning of the task. 3. This scale is an exception to the general coding scheme because it assigns a score based only on seating position.

**Note: Exception to the general coding scheme.

Rating Scales 6 1998

324

Rating Scales 6 1998

271

Appendix A

Mechanics of Coding Summary

Rating Scales 6 1998

272

Rating Scales 6 1998

273 IOWA BEHAVIORAL INTERACTION RATING SCALES 5th Edition General Coding Scheme Level 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= 8= 9= Description Not at all characteristic Minimally characteristic Somewhat characteristic Moderately characteristic Mainly characteristic Frequency Never; no firm evidence Rarely; infrequently Sometimes; occasionally Fairly often; moderately Freq.; consistently; considerable Subjective Scales PA RR Intensity None Low Low or moderate Low, moderate or fairly high Low, mod., fairly high or high Consider Behavior of Other to Focal HU RH DO RW

oVERVIEW

Exceptions to General Scheme PA RR LR CO RQ GE SN SQ FE AP AS IC PD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Scheme for CO and LR = Rarely or never = = Occasionally or seldom = = Intermittently (midpoint) = = Fairly often = = Frequently

Related Scales RH EH CT EW RW AT VA AC ED AF 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= 8= 9=

Scheme for RR & RQ Poor/Low Somewhat low Av. (neutral/mixed) Somewhat high Good/High Involve Counts SN FE AP PD AS GE IC Frequency of Primary Importance

----> HS ----> AN

----> WM ----> PR

Restricted Scales (7,8 or 9 7,8 or 9) AC AR PR AN LR AV CD ID DF CP NT CC HS AT VA AC CT

Sequential Behaviors HS CT AT VA AC WM ED AF Relevance of Intensity High AV RQ GE QT PI CM ID PO EI IR EF FE NC SD AX WC PM HS VA AT CT AC WM

> EH

WM ED AF

> EW

Reciprocated Behaviors HS CT > RH following AT VA AC WM ED AF

following

> RW

Low HU EH RH EW RW LR SN AP AS IC DF CP EX LM IT

Moderate DE AR CO PR AN

ED AF SP ND IP

HD SQ EC DS NT PD SC CC

IT LR EH AV

RH SN RW EW

Rating Scales 6 1998

274

Rating Scales 6 1998

275

Appendix B

Summary of Scale Changes The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Editions 1-5)

Rating Scales 6 1998

276

Rating Scales 6 1998

277

The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales Summary of Changes in Editions 1 - 5 * Scale Abbreviation & Name PH - Physical Movement FM - Facial Movement IN - Internalized Negative SD - Sadness AX - Anxiety EN - Escalate Negative EH - Escalate Hostile EP - Escalate Positive EW - Escalate Warmth/Support IS - Intellectual Skills DF - Defiance CP - Compliance SO - Seating Order CT - Contempt GC - Guilty Coercion WC - Whine/Complain Added Added as a special form of HS (Hostility) Eliminated; transformed from dyadic to individual scale; incorporated in WC (Whine/Complain) Added Added Edition 2 (1990) Edition 3 (1991) Edition 4 (1993) Eliminated; nervous movements in AX (Anxiety) Eliminated; nervous movements in AX (Anxiety) Eliminated; split from one into two scales: SD (Sadness), AX (Anxiety) Added Added Eliminated; transformed from individual to dyadic scale; renamed EH (Escalate Hostile) Added Eliminated; transformed from individual to dyadic scale; renamed EW (Escalate Warmth/Support) Added Eliminated Added Added Eliminated as behavioral scale Edition 5 (1998)

Rating Scales 6 1998

278

ED - Endearment AF - Physical Affection VI - Verbally Involved BT - Body Toward BA - Body Away AV - Avoidant TC - Transactional Conflict RH - Reciprocate Hostile TP - Transactional Positive RW - Reciprocate Warmth/Support GE - Group Enjoyment GD - Group Disorganization EO - Environmental Organization EA - Environmental Attractiveness PQ - Picture Quality ID - Inconsistent Discipline NT - Intrusive SC - Stimulates Cognitive Development CC Sensitive / Child Centered Added Added Added Added Added Added Added Added

Eliminated as separate scale; content already part of WM (Warmth/Support) Eliminated as separate scale; content already part of WM (Warmth/Support) Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated; expanded into AV (Avoidant) Added Eliminated; transformed into RH (Reciprocate Hostile) Added Eliminated; transformed into RW (Reciprocate Warmth/Support) Added

Re-introduced Re-introduced

Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated

Added Added Added

* This list documents changes since the first edition (1989). A five-point rating system was used in editions 1 - 3, whereas editions 4 and 5 use a nine-point rating scheme. Italicized scales are used only for rating behaviors of parents and young children in activity-based tasks. Please see the rating scales manual for details related to scoring and for a complete list of all scales.

Rating Scales 6 1998

279

Rating Scales 6 1998

281

Appendix C

SCALES FORMERLY USED The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Editions 1-4)

Rating Scales 6 1998

282

Rating Scales 6 1998

283

INTRODUCTION TO SCALES FORMERLY USED This appendix contains scale definitions included in one or more of the first four editions of The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (1989, 1990, 1991, and 1993). Please note that most of these definitions are on a 5-point scale, from 1 = not at all characteristic to 5 = mainly characteristic. The conversion from a 5-point to a 9-point rating scale occurred in the fourth edition (1993). Please see K-7 on page 9 for a discussion of the relationship between these two scoring systems. These definitions are presented here to provide a record of scales and definitions included in this observational coding system throughout the history of its development.

Rating Scales 6 1998

284

Rating Scales 6 1998

325

Appendix D

Circle Diagram

Rating Scales 6 1998

326

Rating Scales 6 1998

327

INTRODUCTION TO CIRCLE DIAGRAM The behavioral categories within The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (IFIRS) are not mutually exclusive; behaviors may count as evidence for more than one scale. The Circle Diagram shows a conceptualization of the relationships among the General Scales contained in the IFIRS. For example, in this system, behaviors scored as Hostility (HS) always are also scored as evidence of Antisocial (AN). However, the AN scale includes additional behaviors such as general immaturity and acting-out behaviors that may not be hostile toward the other interactor but nevertheless are considered AN. Thus, the HS circle is located within the circle for AN. In the IFIRS system, Verbal Attack (VA) and Contempt (CT) are specific forms of HS. Sometimes a behavior scored as VA also may be evidence of CT, depending on affect and nonverbal cues. Behavior scored as CT sometimes also may be scored as Angry Coercion (AC) if the behavior also attempts to change the behavior or opinion of the other interactor. Interrogation (IT) may be conveyed in a manner that is hostile and/or antisocial, but this is not always the case. Thus, part of IT is located outside the AN circle. Although the Circle Diagram is useful as a conceptual tool, observers should base score decisions on the complete definitions presented in the manual. It is difficult to show all details of scale relationships on this diagram. Furthermore, the diagram does not include the Parenting Scales, Problem-Solving Scales, or scales used only for scoring behaviors of young children in activity-based tasks.

Rating Scales 6 1998

328

Rating Scales 6 1998

329

Rating Scales 6 1998

330

Rating Scales 6 1998

AN

RR RQ PM

PR

HS/RH/EH
LR

CT
AC

AT

AR LM

VA
EX

AX