Intrafamily agreement: Association with clinical status, social desirability, and observational ratings

JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 8, 97-111 (1987)

Intrafamily Agreement: Association with Clinical Status, Social Desirability, and Observational Ratings SCOTT W.

HENC~ELER

Memphis State University CHARLES M. BOROUIN AND BARTON J. MANN University of Missouri-Columbia

This study assessed introfamily agreement and family member-observer agreement concerning three dimensions of family relations. Subjects included 130 normal families and 135 families of delinquents. Analyses revealed that the members' reports showed low-moderate agreement about the quality of family relations and that family disturbance was not generally related to introfamily agreement. Although individual member's ratings of family relations showed some association with social desirability, especially for members of disturbed families, there was little change in the magnitudes of in;fJumily correlations when social desirability was portialedout. In addition, there was very low agreement between the reporls of individual family members and observers who rated family interaction. It is suggested that investigators and clinicians should be cautious about generalizing from the perceptions of one family member to the rest of the family and that multimethod evaluations may provide more useful data than those derived from either self-report or observational methods alone.

Studies of the association between family relations and the psychosocial functioning of family members provide the data base for key conceptualizations in the fields of child psychopathology and family psychology. The most common method of measuring family relations has been to obtain self-reports from family members. Unfortunately, investigators have often relied on the report of only one member, typically the mother or child, to assess family relations and have not questioned other family members for confirmation (see Englander, 1984; Slater & Haber, 1984). Although most recent investigators have not explicitly stated that the perceptions of one member reflect those of all family members, this has often been the implicit conclusion. Sincere appreciation is extended to the staff at the Memphis-Metro Youth Diversion Project for their cooperation and assistance and to the many research assistants and community professionals who have worked on this project. We also thank Irving E. Slgel and two anonymous revmwers for their helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. Correspondence and requests for repnnts should be sent to Charles M. Bordum, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211.

97

98

HENGGELER, BORDUIN,AND MANN

During the past 15 years, the issue of intermember agreement about family relations has received increased attention from researchers of healthy (i.e., nonclinic) families. Most of these researchers have examined husband and wife perceptions of marital dominance and have generally found that correlations between spousal perceptions are low to moderate in size, namely, from -.25 to .43 (Booth & Welch, 1978; Granbois & WilieR, 1970; Olson, 1969; Quarm, 1981). Recently, investigators have also evaluated the agreement between parents and adolescents regarding family dominance and cohesion (Jessop, 1981), family adaptability and cohesion (Barnes & Olson, 1985), and parental childrearing behaviors (Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). Across these studies, correlations between perceptions of parents and adolescents have ranged from .20 to .46. Taken together, these studies show the importance of obtaining more than one perspective when assessing the relations of healthy families. It should be noted, however, that these studies focused on white, middle-class, two-parent families from nonclinic populations. To our knowledge, Alexander, Johnson, and Carter (1984) have provided the only attempt to evaluate agreement in disturbed families. They administered a revised version of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson, Portuer, & Bell, 1982) to families of adolescents from a heterogeneous clinic sample and from a nonclinic sample. Correlations between pairs of family members ranged from .07 to .38 for family cohesion and from -.08 to .24 for family adaptability. Unfortunately, the researchers did not report separate correlations for the clinic and nonclinic samples, nor did they examine possible between-group differences in levels of agreement. Thus, the results did not indicate whether the disturbed families were more or less likely to agree about intrafamily behaviors than were the nonclinic families. The determination of intermember agreement about family relations in dysfunctional families and in families that have different demographic characteristics is important for both methodological and theoretical reasons. For example, if intermember agreement in disturbed families is even lower than that in healthy families, such findings would have serious implications for the validity of conclusions drawn by clinical researchers who have evaluated the perceptions of only one family member. On the other hand, if intermember agreement is significantly higher in dysfunctional families than in healthy families, such findings would suggest that clinical researchers who have assessed only one perspective have been on safer ground in their conclusions. Furthermore, the level of intermember agreement in dysfunctional families also has implications for family systems theories. For example, farmly systems theorists (e.g., Ferreira, 1963b; Minuchin, 1974) have proposed that dysfunctional families are more rigid than are healthy families in their tolerance of differences of opinion and, therefore, may collectively cortceal and distort any information that contradicts the family "world view." If this proposal is accurate, dysfunctional families may show inflated levels of intermember agreement. One of the main purposes of this study

INTRAFAMILY AGREEMENT

99

is to determine whether dysfunctional families and families with different demographic characteristics have levels of intermember agreement that are similar to those that have been observed for healthy, white, middie-class families. There are two other goals of the present study, each of which attempts to broaden our knowledge regarding the parameters of intrafamily agreement. First, there has been some evidence that when social desirability is controlled, significant correlations between family variables decrease in size and are no longer significant (Robinson & Anderson, 1983). In light of the fact that previous investigators of intrafamily agreement did not control for social desirability, it seems possible that a portion of the common variance between family members was due to socially desirable response sets and, therefore, that intermember agreement may be even lower than previously thought. Hence, we also evaluate how family members' ratings and intermember agreement are associated with social desirability. Finally, although family interaction researchers have long debated the relative merits of self-report and observational methods (see Yarrow, 1963), surprisingly little is known about the congruence between these two ways of measuring family relations. For the present purposes, we are interested in examining whether the ratings of an outside observer are positively associated with those of family members and whether the family members agree more among themselves or with the observer. This issue is of methodological importance, since family interaction researchers have tended to rely on either self-report or observational methods in their studies. It is also of theoretical importance, because systems therapists (e.g., Minuchin, 1974; Olson, 1977) have suggested that family members share an insider's perspective that may differ substantially from an outsider's view of family transactions. METHOD Subjects Subjects were 265 families with a 12- to 17-year-old adolescent and included 151 family triads (mother, father, and adolescent) from intact families and 114 mother-adolescent dyads from father-absent families. Of these families, 135 (63 intact, 72 father-absent) included a delinquent adolescent, and 130 (88 intact, 42 father-absent) included a normal adolescent. Approximately 33% of the families with a delinquent were paid $15 for their participation; the remainder were informed that their voluntary participation was a component of their contact with the treatment agency to which they had been referred. Because the families with well-adjusted adolescents had little incentive to participate, each was paid $15. All of the families had participated in existing studies of family relations (Borduin, Henggeler, Hanson, & Pruitt, 1985; Henggeler et al., 1986; Henggeler & Tavormina, 1980). The delinquent adolescents and their families had been referred for social

100

HENGGELER, BORDUIN, AND MANN

services by Juvenile Court through the Memphis Metro Youth Diversion Project (Severy & Morton, 1982). These adolescents had an average of 3.64 arrests. The well-adjusted adolescents and their families were recommended by a local high school principal, teacher, or social service professional as well-adjusted. These subjects had no history of arrest or inpatient psychiatric experience. The mean scores of the delinquent and well-adjusted adolescents on the conduct problem scale of the Behavior Problem Checklist (BPC; Quay & Peterson, 1975) were 9.88 and 2.76, respectively. For the entire sample, the mean age of the adolescents was 14.94 years (SD = 1.21). The families had a mean size of 6.10 members, 62% were black (the remainder were white), 61% were lower class (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958), and 77% of the adolescents were male. The families of delinquent and well-adjusted adolescents showed no significant differences on these demographic variables based on univariate analyses of variance and nonparametric analyses. Procedure Interviewers included eight graduate and advanced undergraduate students, age 20 to 28 years. Each interviewer received several hours of training prior to the initial family contact in order to standardize testing and interview techniques. All of the referred families were initially contacted by phone or a home visit and were asked to participate in a study of how different families interact. If the family consented, the experimental session was scheduled for either the family's home or the university psychology clinic. The vast majority (94%) of families completed the experimental session in their homes. At the outset of the session, the interviewer obtained written consent and reviewed the experimental procedure. Next, the parents completed a demographic questionnaire and the BPC. Each family member then completed the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968), the Family Relationship Questionnaire (FRQ; Henggeler & Tavormina, 1980), and the Unrevealed Differences Questionnaire (URD; Henggeler & Tavormina, 1980), which were filled out privately and without discussion. After collecting the completed forms, the interviewer instructed the family members to discuss and jointly complete the URD. The interviewer explained that although each family member had individuaUy completed this measure, the family's opinion or viewpoint was also needed. The families were encouraged not to omit any of the questionnaire items. A pencil and a blank questionnaire were placed on the table in front of the family, and an audiorecorder was started. Each family member was asked to announce his or her name before beginning the discussion. The interviewer then left the room until the task was completed.

MeA[isu~ Both self-report and observational measures of affect, conflict, ~ad dominance were determined for the mother-adolescent, father-adolescent, and mother-

INTRAFAMILY AGREEMENT

101

father dyads. In addition, a social desirability score was determined for each family member.

Self-ReportMeasures. The FRQ (Henggeler & Tavormina, 1980) contains 5point scales that assess each member's perception of affect, conflict, and dominance within each of the three family dyads. These qualitative bipolar scales are based on those developed by Hetherington and Frankie (1965). In the fatherabsent families, only scales that pertained to the mother-adolescent dyad were used. The test-retest reliabilities of the FRQ scales (mean r = .70 at a 2-week interval) are comparable to those reported for other family inventories (see Olson et al., 1982). The scales have good face validity and were developed for use with families of varying socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds (Henggeler & Tavormina, 1980). These scales also predict serious and repeated crime among adolescents and their siblings (Hanson, Henggeler, Haefele, & Rodick, 1984), and they differentiate the quality of mother-adolescent relations in divorced and intact families, regardless of adolescent delinquency status (Borduin & Henggeler, in press). The EPI (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968) is a well-validated, self-report personality test that includes three scales: extraversion, neuroticism, and social desirability. In the present study, the 9-item social desirability scale was used to provide indexes of parental and adolescent social desirability. Observational Measures. The URD (Henggeler & Tavormina, 1980), which is modeled after the technique developed by Ferreira (1963a), provided the stimulus for the observed family interactions. The URD consists of eight items, each with three to five alternative choices. The respondent is asked to rank order his or her personal choices on these-items. Observational measures were based on the members' discussion during the joint rank ordering. A modification of the bipolar scales developed by Hetherington and Frankie (1965) provided qualitative, 5-point ratings of affect, conflict, and dominance for each family dyad. These three dimensions have been assessed frequently in previous studies of family interaction. The affect scale measured acceptance, affection, and supportiveness in family interaction. The conflict scale assessed interaction along a cooperative/accommodative versus hostile/argumentative continuum. The dominance scale assessed the relative power and influence exhibited by each family member during the discussion. Reliability. Raters received approximately 10 hours of training prior to the actual scoring of the audiotaped family interactions and were blind to the adolescent's delinquency status. Interrater reliability among eight raters was determined by calculating Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between two separate ratings for each measure of the URD task on 10% of the families. Reliability coefficients ranged from .71 to .93 (M = .81) for the measures of

102

HENGGELER, BORDUlN,AND MANN

affect, from .66 to .99 (M = .82) for the measures of conflict, and from .65 to .93 (M = .78) for the measures of dominance. RESULTS

Agreement Between Family Members Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between the ratings of (a) mothers and adolescents, (b) fathers and adolescents, and (c) mothers and fathers regarding the dimensions of affect, conflict, and dominance for each dyad (i.e., mother-adolescent, father-adolescent, mother-father). Because the correlations between maternal and adolescent ratings of mother-adolescent relations were not significantly different in father-absent and intact families, the ratings of motheradolescent relations from these two groups were combined. As shown in Table 1, 77% of the correlations between members' ratings were significant. Nevertheless, these correlations are generally low to moderate, with only two correlations exceeding .50. Intraclass correlation coefficients (Robinson's r') were also computed between the ratings of mothers, fathers, and adolescents in intact families. To test whether each correlation was significantly different from zero, we followed the guidelines of Shrout and Fleiss (1979) by calculating F o = BMS/WMS and testing it on n - 1 and n (K - 1) degrees of freedom. As shown in Table 1, all but one coefficient was significant at p ~ .05.

Agreement in Disturbed Families Versus Healthy Families To determine whether intrafamily agreement in disturbed families differed from that in healthy families, the correlation coefficients were converted to standard scores (Fisher's Z). Only two significant differences were found out of 27 comparisons. Mothers and fathers of well-adjusted adolescents evidenced more agreement regarding mother-adolescent affect and father-adolescent affect than did mothers and fathers of delinquent adolescents, r (88) = .55 vs. r (63) = .03, p < .001; and r (88) = .56 vs. r (63) = .27, p < .05, respectively.

Relation of Social Desirability to Family M e m b e r s ' Ratings and Intrafamily Agreement To examine the association between social desirability and ratings of family interaction, Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between each member's social desirability score and his or her reports of family interaction. The results presented in Table 2 show that in the families of well-adjusted adolescents, social desirability was not associated with the fathers' or the adolescents' ratings. For the mothers in these families, however, social desirability was positively associated with their ratings of parent-adolescent affect and negatively associated with their ratings of mother-adolescent conflict. In the families of delinquents, social desirability was negatively associated with each member's ratings of parent-adolescent conflict. In addition, social desirability was associ-

~

i ~ e ~

ee

~ e e

!

e~

~ ~-. ~-~.~

~ ~

~

~ 1 ~

~ 1 ~

~

~

~

...

*

-e .'~.

E

i I

..~

~

.~.~

J

i

-! ~'~.~ V V V

~ .~:~:~

•~ {

•

103

I

I

I

I

r

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~ o

!

I

r~

I

-

. I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

. I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.'g I

Ig

II

I

I

0

I

I

I

I

I ~0

i

i e~

104

~

vvv

~

. .~. ~ . ~

Lb~

•

.~

*

*

.

.

~

.

w. o

o

f

t

Z,..~

J

i

~.o

"~

~

~.~

°l! vv ~

~

.~.:~:~ .

105

II

V ~

I,1 .J ,"~C~

~ 1 ~

~

.

=, 1I 0

ii

I

I

I

8

,,II

I

I

I

I

| 0

! i i° 106

VVV

INTRAFAMILY AGREEMENT

107

ated with the mothers' ratings of mother-adolescent affect and with the fathers' ratings of father-adolescent affect and mother-adolescent dominance. In general, the results show that the mothers in the healthy families and that both parents in the delinquent families may tend to overestimate the quality of their interactions with the adolescent. Moreover, each member in the delinquent families seems to have minimized extant parent-adolescent conflict. In order to assess the effects of social desirability on intrafamily agreement, partial correlations were calculated between family members' ratings, controlling for each member's social desirability score. As can be seen in Table 3, when social desirability was partialed out there was little change in the magnitudes of the correlation coefficients. Moreover, comparisons between zero-order and partial correlations using r to Z transformations revealed that not 1 of the 81 correlations was changed significantly when social desirability was controlled. Hence, the ratings of family members were associated with social desirability, especially in families with delinquents, but social desirability did not significantly alter the agreement among members.

Family Member-Observer Agreement Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between the ratings of an observer and each family member on the various dyadic relationship measures (see Table 4). These correlations were generally quite low, although 8 of 27 correlations reached statistical significance. Because the correlations were not significantly different in delinquent and healthy families, only correlations for the combined sample of families are reported in Table 4. To determine whether the reports of an observer were more consistent with those of one family member than with those of another family member, r to Z transformations were performed. This procedure revealed that there was significantly more agreement between the adolescent and observer than between the mother and observer on measures of father-adolescent affect and mother-father affect, while the opposite pattern emerged on the measure of mother-father dominance, all ps < .05. To test the hypothesis that family members are more likely to agree with each other than with an observer about various aspects of family relations, we compared correlation coefficients in Table 1 (all families) and Table 4 using r to Z transformations. As shown in Table 4, family members agreed significantly more with at least one other family member than with an observer on 13 of 27 comparisons, all ps < .05. In no instance did an observer and family member agree significantly more than did two family members about a dimension of dyadic family relations. DISCUSSION One purpose of this study was to determine the extent of intermember agreement about family relations in disturbed and healthy families. The results show that

108

HENGGELER,BORDUIN,AND MANN

within families of delinquent adolescents, levels of intrafamily agreement regarding family relations were essentially the same as those within families of well-adjusted adolescents. Moreover, the magnitudes of the intrafamily correlations observed in this study were in the same low-moderate range as those observed by previous investigators. In contrast to the views of some family systems theorists, these findings could suggest that disturbed families do not collectively conceal and distort information that contradicts the family "world view." As discussed shortly, however, the members of the disturbed families did have a tendency to rate the quality of some family relations in a socially desirable manner. Although mitigated by the high number of nonsignificant comparisons, it is interesting that parents of well-adjusted adolescents showed more agreement about mother-adolescent affect and father-adolescent affect than did parents of delinquents. An inspection of the mean ratings in intact families with delinquents indicated that mothers rated father-adolescent relations as less warm than did fathers, while fathers rated mother-adolescent relations as less warm than did mothers. This suggests that mothers and fathers were unwilling to credit each other for affectionate relations with the delinquent and/or that the parents overestimated the warmth in their own relationship with the delinquent. These interpretations are supported by the findings that in families with delinquents, social desirability was positively associated with the mothers' report of motheradolescent affect and the fathers' report of father-adolescent affect, but not with the mothers' report of father-adolescent affect and the fathers' report of motheradolescent affect. It appears that the parents of delinquents have less consensual validation regarding parent-adolescent affective relations than do the parents of well-adjusted adolescents. This difference may reflect underlying communication difficulties and marital conflicts. Such a conclusion is consistent with the developmental literature that implicates parental disharmony in child and adolescent behavior problems (see Emery, 1982). A second purpose of the study was to evaluate whether social desirability was associated with the ratings of family members and with intrafamily agreement. Results showed that the mothers in healthy families tended to overestimate parent-adolescent affect and to underestimate mother-adolescent conflict and that the responses of fathers and adolescents were not related to social desirability. It seems possible that mothers in healthy families, due perhaps to greater commitment to home and family, are more invested in presenting a positive view to researchers than are fathers and adolescents. Conversely, in the families of delinquents, all members tended to underestimate parent-adolescent conflict, mothers overestimated mother-adolescent affect, and fathers overestimated father-adolescent affect. It seems most probable that these families, who had been referred for counseling by the court, were attempting to minimize their problems to the researchers. Nevertheless, when social desirability scores were partialed out of the intrafamily correlations, there were no significant changes in the

INTRAFAMILY AGREEMENT

109

magnitudes of the correlations for either the delinquent or healthy families. Therefore, social desirability did not contribute sufficient variance to alter the low-moderate agreement among family members. The third purpose of the study was to examine the correspondence between the ratings of an observer and those of family members. In almost all cases, the correlations were extremely low, though several were statistically significant. Inasmuch as the observer ratings were quite reliable, it seems that observers and family members provide different vantage points for viewing family relations. This conclusion is further supported by the finding that agreement between pairs of family members was generally higher than between an observer and a given member. It should be noted, however, that the observers were witness to a relatively small sample of family behavior that might not have reflected overall patterns of affect, conflict, and dominance. Although the problem-Solving and conflict resolution behaviors elicited by the URD might occur infrequently in a family's normal activities, such behaviors have been shown to distinguish disturbed from normal families. Thus, in agreement with Yarrow's (1963) suggestion more than two decades ago, this finding supports a multimethod approach to the study of family relations. In conclusion, the results do not demonstrate substantial agreement between the ratings of different family members in disturbed and healthy families or between the ratings of an observer and those of family members. These results suggest that inconsistent findings among extant studies in the fields of family psychology and child psychopathology might be attributed, in part, to the frequent use of only one family respondent or one method of measurement to assess family relations. These results are also consistent with those of previous researchers who have focused on white, middle-class, healthy families. As these researchers have concluded, it seems essential that family relations be assessed from several perspectives simultaneously. One of the challenges in this area of research is the reconciliation of diverse perspectives of different family members regarding their relations. Schwarz et al. (1985) have recently suggested that aggregate scores based on the ratings of multiple family members provide the most valid description of family relations. However, as Barnes and Olson (1985) have noted, it may also be fruitful to examine intrafamily differences on variables of interest. To the extent that raters differ in their views of family relations, description of these differences may advance our understanding about the nature of family functioning. REFERENCES Alexander, B B., Johnson, S B., & Carter, R.L (1984). A psychometric study of the Famdy Adaptability and Cohesion EvaluaUon Scales Journal of Abnormal ChiM Psychology, 12, 199-208. Barnes, H L., & Olson, D.H. (1985) Parent-adolescent commumcatlon and the clrcumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438-447

110

HENGGELER,BORDUlN,AND MANN

Booth, A , & Welch, S. (1978). Spousal consensus and its correlates: A reassessment Jo,,,,,,, ,,j Marriage and the Family, 40, 23-32. Borduin, C.M., & Henggclcr, S W. (m press). Post-divorce family relaUons of delinquent and welladjusted adolescent boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Bordmn, C.M., Henggler, S W., Hanson, C.L, & Prmtt, J.A. (1985). Verbal problem solving in families of father-absent and father-present dehnquent boys. Chdd and Family Behavior Therapy, 7, 51-63 Emery, R.L (1982) Interparental conflict and the chddren of discord and divorce. Psychologwal Bulletin, 92, 310-330 Englander, S.W. (1984). Some self-reported correlates of runaway behavior in adolescent females. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 484-485 Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B. (1968). Manual: Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Ferreira, A.J. (1963a) Decision-making m normal and pathologic families Archives of General Psychiatry, 8, 68-73 Fen'viva, A J . (1963b) Family myth and homeostasis. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9, 457-463. Granbols, D.H., & Willett, R.P. (1970). Eqmvalence of family role measures based on husband and wife data. Journal of Marriage and the Famdy, 32, 68-72 Hanson, C.L, Henggeler, S.W., Haefele, W.F., & Rodlck, J D (1984). Demographic, individual, and family relationship correlates of serious and repeated cnme among adolescents and thetr sthlings Journal of Consulting and Climcal Psychology, 52, 528-538 Henggeler, S . W , Rodick, I . D , Bordum, C.M., Hanson, C.L., Watson, S.M, & Urey, J.R. (1986) MulUsystenuc treatment of juvende offenders: Effects on adolescent behavior and farmly interaction. Developmental Psychology, 22, 132-141. Henggeler, S W., & Tavonmna, J B (1980) Social class differences in family interaction: Pathological, normative, or confounding methodological factors? Journal of Genetic Psychology, 137, 211-222 Hethenngton, E.M , & Frankle, G. (1965). Effects of parental dominance, warmth, and conflict on mutation m children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 188-194 Hollingshead, A B., & Redlich, F.C. (1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley Jessop, D J. (1981). Family relationships as viewed by parents and adolescents: A specification Journal of Marriage and the Famdy, 43, 95-107. Mmuchin, S (1974). Famihes and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Un|verslty Press Olson, D.H. (1969) The measurement of farmly power by self-report and behaworal methods. Journal of Marriage and the Famdy, 31, 545-550 Olson, D.H (1977) Insiders' and outsiders' views of relationships Research strategies. In A. Levanger & H. Raush (Eds.), Close relationships (pp 115-135) Amherst, MA: Umversity of Massachusetts Press Olson, D.H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982) Family adaptabdity and cohesion evaluation scales. In D.H. Olson, H I. McCubbin, H Barnes, A Larsen, M Muxen, & M Wilson (Eds.), Fanaly inventories (pp 5-24) St Paul, MN: Family Social Science, Umverslty of Minnesota Quarto, D. (1981) Random measurement error as a source of discrepancies between the reports of wives and husbands concerning mantal power and task allocation Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 521-535 Quay, H.C., & Peterson, D.R. (1975). Manual for the Behawor Problem Checkhst Unpubhshed Manuscript, Univers|ty of M~anu, Coral Gables, FL. Robinson, E.A., & Anderson, L.L (1983). Family adjustment, parental attitudes, and social desirabdlty. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11,247-256. Schwarz, J.C, Barton-Henry, M.L., & Pmzinsky, T. (1985) Assessing chfid-reanng behawors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sthlmg on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462-479.

INTRAFAMILY AGREEMENT

111

Severy, L J., ,~" Morton, D S. (1982). Memphis-Metro Youth Diversion ProJect: Local evaluation final report. Memphis, TN: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Shrout, P.E., & Flelss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater rehabdity Psychological BuUetm, 86, 420-428 Slater, E.J., & Haber, J.D. (1984). Adolescent adjustment following divorce as a function of familial conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholog~y, 52, 920-921. Yarrow, M R. (1963). Problems of methods in parent-child research. Child Development, 34, 215226.