Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Knowledge of marriage and family concepts and perceived competence of marriage educators conducting marriage.. Farnden, Rosan 1990

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1990_A8 F37.pdf [ 4.86MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0098425.json
JSON-LD: 1.0098425+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0098425.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0098425+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0098425+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0098425+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0098425 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0098425.txt
Citation
1.0098425.ris

Full Text

KNOWLEDGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONCEPTS AND PERCEIVED COMPETENCE OF MARRIAGE EDUCATORS CONDUCTING MARRIAGE PREPARATION IN TWO PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by ROSANNE FARNDEN B.H.E., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY STUDIES We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1990 (c) Rosanne Farnden, 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Department of C DE-6 (2788) Abstract Marriage i s perhaps the most popular v o l u n t a r y i n s t i t u t i o n i n Canadian s o c i e t y . F i f t y - s i x percent of B r i t i s h Columbians choose to be married i n a C h r i s t i a n church. Most of these couples w i l l f i n d that they are required to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a marriage p r e p a r a t i o n program. L i t t l e i s known about these marriage p r e p a r a t i o n opportunites, or about the i n d i v i d u a l s who provide these o p p o r t u n i t e s . Recent stu d i e s (Bader, Riddle & S i n c l a i r , 1981; R i d l e y , Avery, H a r r e l l , L e s l i e & Dent, 1982) have begun to demonstrate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f i e l d of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , but no s t u d i e s examine the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of educators. This study had two o b j e c t i v e s : 1) to measure the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts of marriage educators p r o v i d i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n and 2) to r e - t e s t Wright's (1976) f i n d i n g that c l e r g y do not perceive themselves to be competent p r o v i d e r s of marriage preparation. A random sample of 25% of A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada and United Church of Canada congregations i n B r i t i s h Columbia (n=117) r e s u l t e d i n 62 marriage educators responding to t h i s study. This represents a response ra t e of 57.7%. The respondents were asked to complete a s e l f - administered q u e s t i o n n a i r e which allowed for the c o l l e c t i o n of demographic information about the congregations and respondents as w e l l as the measurement of the dependent v a r i a b l e perceived competence, s i x independent v a r i a b l e s and four c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . As no instruments to measure knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts were a v a i l a b l e , a measure was developed for t h i s study and i s known as the Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts Instrument (KMFC). Respondents were found to have moderate i i s c o r e s on KMFC and p e r c e i v e d themselves to be reasonably competent p r o v i d e r s of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . No s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were found fo r the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between e i t h e r of the dependent v a r i a b l e s and the independent v a r i a b l e s . Post hoc a n a l y s i s determined s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and gender, and between p e r c e i v e d competence and t o t a l number of hours spent i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . T h i s study i m p l i e s that c l e r g y need i n c r e a s e d t r a i n i n g i n content areas r e l e v a n t to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s are suggested. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v LIST OF TABLES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose 4 D e f i n i t i o n s 5 L i m i t a t i o n s 5 B a s i c Assumptions 6 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study 6 O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Remainder of the Thesis.....7 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 8 I n t r o d u c t i o n 8 R a t i o n a l e f o r Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n 9 H i s t o r y of Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n 13 Approaches to Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n 17 Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n P r o v i d e r s 20 Independent V a r i a b l e s 24 C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s . . . 26 Research Hypotheses: Knowledge of Marriage And Family Concepts 2 8 Research Hypotheses: Pe r c e i v e d Competence 29 iv CHAPTER THREE METHODS 30 I n t r o d u c t i o n 30 Subjects 30 Procedure 32 Development of Demographic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 33 Development of Knowledge of Marriage and Fami l y Concepts Instrument 34 R e l i a b i l i t y 39 V a l i d i t y 40 A n a l y s i s of the Data 42 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND RESULTS 43 Response Rate .43 D e s c r i p t i o n of Sample Congregations 43 D e s c r i p t i o n of Marriage Educators 45 Dependent V a r i a b l e s 48 Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts Instrument 48 R e s u l t s : Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts 50 R e s u l t s : P e r c e i v e d Competence 52 Research Hypotheses: Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts 54 Research Hypotheses: Perceived Competence 60 Post Hoc A n a l y s i s 64 v CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 72 Summary 72 Discussion: Knowledge of Marriage .and Family Concepts 73 Discussion: Perceived Competence 77 Conclusions and Implications 80 Recommendations for Further Research 81 REFERENCES 84 APPENDIX A 92 APPENDIX B 103 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n Program Content Areas 36 2 Alpha C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r KMFC Subscales 40 3 Group Means and Tests of S i g n i f i c a n c e f o r KMFC Subscales 41 4 Demographic D e s c r i p t i o n of Sample Congregation Demographics 44 5 Frequencies and Percentages of Sample Congregation Demographics 44 6 Demographic D e s c r i p t i o n of Respondents 46 7 Frequencies and Percentages of Respondent Demographics.... 47 8 R e l i a b i l i t y of KMFC Subscales 49 9 F a c t o r A n a l y s i s of KMFC Items: Eigenvalue Greater Than 1.0 50 10 D i s t r i b u t i o n of KMFC Subscales and I n d i v i d u a l Items ..51 11 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P e r c e i v e d Competence Subscales 53 12 Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts by Denominat ion 55 13 Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts by L e v e l of Educat i o n 57 14 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and Ranges of Independent V a r i a b l e s : T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n , Number of Weddings and Number of Years i n M i n i s t r y 59 15 P e r c e i v e d Competence by Denomination 62 16 P e r c e i v e d Competence by Le v e l of Education 63 17 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x : Dependent, Independent, C o n t r o l and S e l e c t D e s c r i p t i v e V a r i a b l e C o r r e l a t i o n Under P r o b a b i l i t y .2000 66 v i i TABLES PAGE 18 M u l t i p l e Regression of M a r i t a l S t a t u s , T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n , Gender, Number of Weddings per Year, Age, # of Years i n M i n i s t r y and It of Years Married on Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts 68 19 M u l t i p l e Regression of L e v e l of Education, Gender, Age and Number of Years Married on P e r c e i v e d Competence 69 20 A n a l y s i s of Va r i a n c e : # of Years i n M i n i s t r y by Gender 71 v i i i Acknowledgements I am indebted to Dr. Margaret Arcus f o r her guidance and support throughout the development and completion of t h i s t h e s i s . A t r u e mentor, she has taught me much about being a p r o f e s s i o a n a l and a s c h o l a r . My s i n c e r e thanks to Dr. P h y l l i s Johnson, Dr. Jim White and Dr. R i c h a r d Young who served on my t h e s i s committee, f o r t h e i r c r i t i q u e of my work. To my parents and f a m i l y who always b e l i e v e d i n me, my thanks and love f o r seeing me through. My thanks to Dick C h r i s t i a a n s e whose generous loan of a computer enabled me to make i t through the f i n a l months. To my f r i e n d s , and c o l l e a g u e s go many thanks f o r t h e i r s u pport, encouragement and prayers d u r i n g my years i n graduate s c h o o l . And now, l e t the weak say I am s t r o n g , Let the poor say I am r i c h , Because of what the Lord has done, Give thanks. ix CHAPTER ONE I n t r o d u c t i o n I t i s estimated t h a t 86% of Canadian women and 83% of Canadian men w i l l marry sometime d u r i n g t h e i r l i f e t i m e . Each year i n Canada, t h i s r e p r e s e n t s some 176,00 couples (Adams & Nagnur, 1989). These f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e t hat d e s p i t e S t a t i s t i c s Canada's c u r r e n t p r e d i c t i o n t h a t 28% of Canadian marriages w i l l end i n d i v o r c e , marriage as an i n s t i t u t i o n i s a p p a r e n t l y s t i l l v e r y popular. Indeed, of those who d i v o r c e , 76% of the men and 64% of the women w i l l marry aga i n (Adams & Nagnur, 1989). In B r i t i s h Columbia, 21,094 couples were married i n 1987 ( V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s , 1988). Of these couples, 11,750 (56%) were married i n a church ceremony. Most of the couples who chose a church ceremony found t h a t they were e i t h e r r e q u i r e d or s t r o n g l y a d v i s e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n some form of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . In f a c t , some churches, such as the A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada and the Roman C a t h o l i c Church, have formal p o l i c i e s which r e q u i r e t h a t a l l couples married i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n s p a r t i c i p a t e i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . In 1989, a survey of approximately 1,550 B r i t i s h Columbia churches was r e c e n t l y conducted by the B r i t i s h Columbia C o u n c i l f o r the Family i n order to i d e n t i f y the amount of a c t i v i t y i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n the p r o v i n c e . N i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of those who responded i n d i c a t e d t h a t they r e q u i r e d c o u p l e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n formal marriage p r e p a r a t i o n ( i . e . , s t r u c t u r e d group i n t e r v i e w s or group e d u c a t i o n a l s e s s i o n s ) , while the remaining 5% s t r o n g l y recommended that couples take advantage of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t e s o f f e r e d (B.C. C o u n c i l f o r the Family, 1990). 1 There may be a number of reasons why churches support marriage preparation. Such preparation may be seen as one way to demonstrate the high regard that C h r i s t i a n churches have for marriage. By requiring marriage preparation, churches indicate to engaged couples and to their congregations that they see the marital commitment to be a serious one, not to be entered into l i g h t l y . This preparation may be increasingly important with the growing s e c u l a r i z a t i o n of society (Bibby, 1987), as many clergy f i n d they are asked to conduct marriage ceremonies for couples they do not know. Marriage preparation may provide an opportunity to establish a relationship with these couples and to communicate to them some of the church's b e l i e f s and values about marriage. C h r i s t i a n churches do not only value marriage, however; they value l a s t i n g marriages. Churches may perceive that requiring marriage preparation may be seen as one way to lower the divorce rate and to reduce marital d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Larson (1988) has noted that, at least in part, marital d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n can be linked to u n r e a l i s t i c expectations about marriage. Through marriage preparation, churches may believe that they can a s s i s t couples to examine such expectations and to assess their readiness for marriage. There i s growing evidence that marriage preparation can be e f f e c t i v e . Bader, Riddle and S i n c l a i r (1981) report that in a f i v e year follow-up study of couples who had taken a marriage preparation program, couples in the experimental group had less c o n f l i c t , used more constructive c o n f l i c t resolution patterns, 2 made fewer h o s t i l e comments to one another and were more l i k e l y to e x h i b i t help seeking behaviours than d i d couples i n the c o n t r o l group. In a s i x month follow-up of an e i g h t week s k i l l s development program, R i d l e y , Avery, H a r r e l l , L e s l i e and Dent (1982) determined t h a t couples were s t i l l u s i n g e f f e c t i v e l y the problem s o l v i n g , c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n and communication s k i l l s l e a r n e d i n the course. In other s t u d i e s , Larsen and Olson (1989) and Druckman, Waxman and Olson (1981) found that PREPARE, a 125- item i n v e n t o r y used to assess p r e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , was e f f e c t i v e i n working with p r e m a r i t a l couples, while Wolfe and Kokes (1988) r e p o r t e d t h a t a weekend Engaged Encounter event had a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on the m a r i t a l adjustment of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Despite the growing number of s t u d i e s which i n d i c a t e the s u c c e s s of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , s e v e r a l issues and concerns remain. F i r s t , the f i e l d l a c k s a t h e o r e t i c a l framework (Schumm and Denton, 1979). The l a c k of a t h e o r e t i c a l base means that few programs i n the l i t e r a t u r e demonstrate "convergence r e g a r d i n g what should be taught or how i t could be done e f f e c t i v e l y " ( M i l l e r , Nunnally and Wackman, 1976, p.22). Second, although some e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s have been completed, there i s s t i l l a lack of comprehensive, l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s . Such s t u d i e s are needed to demonstrate and support the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f i e l d (Schumm and Denton, 1979). F i n a l l y , q u e s t i o n s have been r a i s e d about the p r e p a r a t i o n and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage educators (Leger, 1988). Schumm and Denton (1979) s t a t e t h a t " the t r a i n i n g of p r e m a r i t a l educators c o n t i n u e s to be n e g l e c t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e " (p. 26). R o l f e 3 (1985) b e l i e v e s t h a t c l e r g y must work to e s t a b l i s h c r e d i b i l i t y i n the area of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n and i n d i c a t e s t h a t p a r t i c u l a r p a s t o r a l s k i l l s are necessary. I t i s these concerns r e g a r d i n g the t r a i n i n g of marriage educators which giv e s r i s e to t h i s study. In a n a t i o n a l study, Wright (1976) found t h a t m i n i s t e r s i n v o l v e d i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n the United S t a t e s d i d not p e r c e i v e themselves to be adequately prepared or competent to p r o v i d e marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . R o l f e (1985) b e l i e v e s that a p e r c e i v e d l a c k of competence on the p a r t of the marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r leads to a lack of consumer confidence i n t h e i r marriage p r e p a r a t i o n s k i l l s . L i t t l e i s known as to whether or not these p e r c e p t i o n s are a c c u r a t e . To date, no s t u d i e s have been found which have examined the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of those who p r o v i d e marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Purpose The purpose of t h i s study was to examine s e l e c t e d aspects of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage educators i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Since i t i s estimated t h a t Q0% of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i s conducted i n the church ( F o u r n i e r , 1980), t h i s study focused on marriage educators i n s e l e c t e d C h r i s t i a n churches i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The study has two o b j e c t i v e s : 1) to assess the l e v e l of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts h e l d by marriage educators, and 2) to re-examine Wright's (1976) f i n d i n g t h a t m i n i s t e r s i n v o l v e d i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n do not perceive themselves to be adequately prepared or competent to provide such e d u c a t i o n . 4 D e f i n i t i o n s The f o l l o w i n g are d e f i n i t i o n s of terms t h a t are used i n t h i s study: 1. Congregation. While the o f f i c i a l term f o r United Church of Canada cong r e g a t i o n s i s ' p a s t o r a l c h a r g e 1 , which may or may not i n c l u d e more than one worshipping body under one c l e r g y , and the o f f i c a l term f o r A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada u n i t s i s ' p a r i s h ' , the more g e n e r i c term congregation w i l l be used i n t h i s study to r e f e r to the worshipping bodies sampled i n t h i s study. 2 . Marriage E d u c a t i o n . A l l formal e d u c a t i o n a l experiences i n c l u d i n g f a m i l y s t u d i e s courses, marriage p r e p a r a t i o n and marriage enrichment, which help i n d i v i d u a l s understand marriage. 3. Marriage Educator. One who conducts formal e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s i n marriage education. 4. Marr iage P r e p a r a t i o n . One form of marriage e d u c a t i o n intended t o a s s i s t engaged couples to prepare f o r t h e i r own marr i a g e . 5. P r e m a r i t a l C o u n s e l l i n g . T h e r a p e u t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n intended to r e s o l v e s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s u e s before a wedding o c c u r s . 6 . Marriage Enrichment. One form of marriage e d u c a t i o n intended to a s s i s t married couples to enhance t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study T h i s study has the f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s : 1). T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was l i m i t e d to those I n d i v i d u a l s who p r o v i d e marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n the B.C. Conference of the U n i t e d 5 Church of Canada and four B r i t i s h Columbia Dioceses of the Anglican Church in Canada (Westminster, B r i t i s h Columbia, Caledonia and Cariboo). Permission was not obtained to contact marriage educators in the Kootenay Diocese of the Anglican Church in Canada. 2 ) . Only two aspects of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage educators are examined: perceived competence and knowledge of marriage and family concepts. This study does not examine other aspects of competence such as attitudes, b e l i e f s or t r a i n i n g . Basic Assumptions This investigation was based on the following assumptions: 1) . The instruments used were appropriate research tools and provided adequate data for the purposes of this investigation. 2) . A l l respondents in the investigation participated w i l l i n g l y and honestly. Significance of the Study This study i s perceived to be of importance to the f i e l d of family science and in p a r t i c u l a r to the f i e l d of marriage preparation in that i t attempts to explore questions which have had l i t t l e or no attention in the study of marriage educators. This knowledge is important to the development of the f i e l d of marriage preparation in that i t w i l l provide information of use to those providing i n i t i a l t r a i n i n g and continuing education opportunities for providers of marriage preparation. 6 O r g a n l z a t i o n of the Remainder of the T h e s i s A review of l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t to t h i s study i s presented i n Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, the methods of the study and data a n a l y s i s are d e s c r i b e d . The f i n d i n g s of the study are o u t l i n e d i n Chapter 4 and the summary, c o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s are presented i n Chapter 5. 7 CHAPTER TWO Review of L i t e r a t u r e I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s review begins with an examination of formal and i n f o r m a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n f o r marriage, and t r a c e s the h i s t o r i c a l development of the f i e l d of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Issues i n the f i e l d a r i s i n g out of t h i s review are presented. One of these i s s u e s , the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s i s the focus of t h i s t h e s i s . The hypotheses to be t e s t e d w i t h i n t h i s study are a l s o presented. R a t i o n a l e f o r Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n H i s t o r i c a l l y , s o c i a l i z a t i o n f o r marriage has been an i n f o r m a l p r o c e s s , t h a t i s , i t has occurred p r i m a r i l y through i n f o r m a l l e a r n i n g experiences i n one's f a m i l y of o r i g i n and i n one's i n t e r a c t i o n s i n peer groups. H i l l and Aldous (1969) noted t h a t s o c i a l i z a t i o n f o r marriage begins i n the f a m i l y of o r i g i n and i s the primary means by which i n d i v i d u a l s l e a r n about the v a l u e s , r o l e s and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s important i n marriage. Through f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n s , c h i l d r e n l e a r n about the value of marriage i t s e l f and about the importance of c h i l d r e n and of f a m i l y t i e s . As w e l l , through o b s e r v a t i o n , c h i l d r e n may l e a r n about s p e c i f i c processes which are a p a r t of marriage such as m a r i t a l r o l e s or forms of a f f e c t i o n . For example, c h i l d r e n may witness t h e i r parents as they handle c o n f l i c t i n the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . While the spouses may not have intended to teach the c h i l d about c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n i n such s i t u a t i o n s , the c h i l d n e v e r t h e l e s s l e a r n s some of the norms, values and/or s k i l l s of c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n through t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n . As w e l l , through 8 o b s e r v a t i o n , c h i l d r e n l e a r n such t h i n g s as when and how to express a f f e c t i o n . Although H i l l and Aldous (1969) acknowledged t h a t h i s t o r i c a l l y the f a m i l y of o r i g i n had been s u c c e s s f u l as the primary s o c i a l i z i n g agent f o r marriage, they d i d not b e l i e v e t h a t contemporary f a m i l i e s were adequately equipped f o r t h i s task. They suggested t h a t the d i f f i c u l t y a r i s e s because the f a m i l y of o r i g i n " i s not a r e p o s i t o r y of such knowledge about marriage, nor i s i t a b l e to provide p r a c t i c a l on-the-job t r a i n i n g i n the s k i l l s of marriage" ( H i l l and Aldous, 1969, p.89). Contemporary f a m i l i e s may be l e s s e f f e c t i v e i n s o c i a l i z i n g t h e i r members f o r marriage because of s e v e r a l changes that have oc c u r r e d and are o c c u r r i n g i n western s o c i e t y and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n western f a m i l i e s . These i n c l u d e : the t r a n s i t i o n from an a g r a r i a n s o c i e t y to an i n d u s t r i a l one, the t r a n s i t i o n from a home pr o d u c t i o n economy to an e x t e r n a l monetary system, the t r a n s i t i o n from i n s t i t u t i o n a l to companionate marriages,and changes i n f a m i l y p a t t e r n s and s t r u c t u r e . The most obvious change i n Western s o c i e t y d u r i n g the l a s t c e n t u r y has been the t r a n s i t i o n from an a g r a r i a n s o c i e t y to an i n d u s t r i a l one. In the a g r a r i a n s o c i e t y , the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of a l l f a m i l y members were e s s e n t i a l for the s u r v i v a l of the f a m i l y u n i t , and the r o l e s and d i v i s i o n of labour were r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r (Ahrons and Rodgers, 1987). The r o l e s of the m a r i t a l couple tended to c e n t r e around the p r o d u c t i o n of goods and s e r v i c e s n e c e s s a r y f o r d a i l y l i f e . As c h i l d r e n grew, they became i n v o l v e d i n the tasxs of the f a m i l y , l e a r n i n g the r o l e s necessary f o r 9 f a m i l y maintenance as they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n and observed the enactment of most f a m i l y r o l e s . In such f a m i l i e s , Informal s o c i a l i z a t i o n f o r marriage appeared to be s u f f i c i e n t . Because th e r e was l i t t l e change i n f a m i l i e s from one g e n e r a t i o n to the next and l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between f a m i l i e s w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r community, r o l e s learned i n the f a m i l y of o r i g i n could be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a new f a m i l y at marriage. The r i s e of an i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y brought about a t r a n s i t i o n from a resource or home p r o d u c t i o n economy to an e x t e r n a l monetary system. Many husbands began to work o u t s i d e the home to earn money, a f f e c t i n g not o n l y the husband/father r o l e s , but a l s o those of wives and c h i l d r e n as w e l l . These f a m i l y members were no longer c o - l a b o u r e r s i n the p r o d u c t i o n of e s s e n t i a l goods, but became more or l e s s dependent on the wage e a r n i n g a b i l i t y of the husband/father. "Along with t h i s change came an i d e a l i z a t i o n of the home as an e x p r e s s i v e l o c a t i o n , i n c o n t r a s t to i t s former i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as an i n s t r u m e n t a l place - a c e n t r e of p r o d u c t i o n " (Ahrons and Rodgers, 1987, p.6). These i d e a l i z e d e x p r e s s i v e r o l e s became pa r t of the set of wife and mother r o l e s , f u r t h e r i n g changes i n the r o l e s of both wife and mother. The r o l e s and experiences of c h i l d r e n a l s o changed as formal s c h o o l i n g became the norm. As a r e s u l t , c h i l d r e n had l e s s d i r e c t i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e i r parents as they c a r r i e d out t h e i r m a r i t a l r o l e s ; and c h i l d r e n were thus l e s s able to l e a r n about these r o l e s through i n f o r m a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n processes. As i n d i c a t e d above, the t r a n s i t i o n from an a g r a r i a n to an i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y has had an important impact on m a r i t a l r o l e s . Burgess and Locke note that there has a l s o been a change i n the 10 nature of m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : ...the f a m i l y i n h i s t o r i c a l times has been, and a t present i s , i n t r a n s i t i o n from an i n s t i t u t i o n to a companionship. In the pa s t , the important f a c t o r s u n i f y i n g the f a m i l y have been e x t e r n a l , formal and a u t h o r i t a r i a n such as the law, the mores, p u b l i c o p i n i o n , t r a d i t i o n , the a u t h o r i t y of the f a m i l y head, r i g i d d i s c i p l i n e and e l a b o r a t e r i t u a l . In the new emerging form of the companionship f a m i l y , i t s u n i t y inheres l e s s and l e s s i n community pres s u r e s and more and more i n such i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s as the mutual a f f e c t i o n , the sympathetic understandings, and the comradeship of i t s members. (1960, p . v i i ) . As marriages i n each succeeding g e n e r a t i o n have become l e s s i n s t i t u t i o n a l and more companionate, there has been g r e a t e r v a r i a t i o n i n m a r i t a l p a t t e r n s . Eshleman (1974) d e s c r i b e s the nature of the companionate (or companionship) marriage. He b e l i e v e s t h a t such a marriage "would focus on the u n i t y that develops out of mutual a f f e c t i o n and i n t i m a t e a s s o c i a t i o n of husband and wi f e , parents and c h i l d r e n " (p.125). A marriage based on the companionate model may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by: 1) a f f e c t i o n as the b a s i s for i t s e x i s t e n c e ; 2) husband and wife with equal s t a t u s and a u t h o r i t y ; 3) major d e c i s i o n s made by consensus; and 4) common i n t e r e s t s and a c t i v i t i e s c o e x i s t i n g with d i v i s i o n of labour and i n d i v i d u a l i t y of i n t e r e s t s (Eshleman, 1974). In c o n t r a s t t o the i n s t i t u t i o n a l marriage where the r e l a t i o n s h i p between spouses depends on the enactment of s p e c i f i c and d e f i n e d r o l e s , the companionate marriage i s based more on the " s k i l l e d management of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s " (Mace, 1975, p.10) Mace (1975) suggests t h a t while the i n s t i t u t i o n a l marriage of the past r e q u i r e d no s p e c i a l p r e p a r a t i o n because of i t s e s t a b l i s h e d r o l e s and because c h i l d r e n could d i r e c t l y observe the 11 enactment of most of these r o l e s , the companionate marriaqe emphasizing i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s does r e q u i r e such p r e p a r a t i o n . He b e l i e v e s t h a t i t i s t h i s t r a i n i n g ( i . e . , the s k i l l e d management of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) t h a t the f a m i l y of o r i g i n i s unable to provide f o r i t s members. Thus, Mace's views support the argument of H i l l and Aldous (1969) t h a t the f a m i l y of o r i g i n i s not w e l l equipped to t r a i n members f o r the s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y i n contemporary companionate marriages. The a b i l i t y of the f a m i l y of o r i g i n to s o c i a l i z e i t s members for marriage i s f u r t h e r l i m i t e d i n t h a t i t can r e f l e c t o n l y one *model' or approach to m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n s such as d e c i s i o n making, problem s o l v i n g , the d i v i s i o n of tasks and the balance of power ( H i l l and Aldous, 1969). When couples grew up i n the same community, had s i m i l a r f a m i l y backgrounds, and r o l e s were more r i g i d than at present, the l i m i t a t i o n s of the one %model' of marriage were not of concern. Today, however, " i n t e r e t h n i c , i n t e r c l a s s , and i n t e r - r e l i g i o u s unions are much more numerous" ( B a r d i s , 1964, p.456), with the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t the models of marriage t h a t each spouse b r i n g s from the f a m i l y of o r i g i n w i l l be d i f f e r e n t . S e v e r a l other changes i n western f a m i l i e s t h a t l i m i t the a b i l i t y of the f a m i l y of o r i g i n to s o c i a l i z e i t s members f o r marriage should a l s o be noted. These i n c l u d e the l e n g t h e n i n g of the m a r i t a l c a r e e r and the s h o r t e n i n g of the p a r e n t a l c a r e e r , ( H i l l & Aldous, 1969; Rodgers & Witney, 1981); the growing number of two c a r e e r or two worker marriages (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987); the h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of d i v o r c e (Huff,1983); and the g r e a t e r number of s i n g l e parent, b i n u c l e a r , and s t e p f a m i l i e s 12 (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987). These changes i n f a m i l i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t the r e a l i t i e s of contemporary marriage may not correspond to the 'model' of marriage observed i n the f a m i l y of o r i g i n . H i l l and Aldous (1969) concluded t h a t because the f a m i l y of o r i g i n was "weak i n p r o v i d i n g knowledge about marriage and parenthood and inadequate i n p r o v i d i n g s y s t e m a t i c s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of the degree of competence developed i n the s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s n ecessary f o r marriage" (p.928), there was a need f o r formal s o c i a l i z a t i o n programs to provide a p e r s p e c t i v e of and s y s t e m a t i c knowledge about marriage i n our s o c i e t y . One response to t h i s need has been the emergence of a v a r i e t y of formal e d u c a t i o n a l programs i n marriage e d u c a t i o n . These programs i n c l u d e : 1) g e n e r a l Family L i f e E d u c a t i o n courses o f f e r e d i n high s c h o o l which may examine b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n on d a t i n g , mate s e l e c t i o n , m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and, i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication; 2) Marriage Enrichment programs designed to a s s i s t married couples to s t r e n g t h e n t h e i r m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s through g a i n i n g new understandings and s k i l l s ; and 3) Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n courses which help engaged couples to prepare f o r t h e i r own forthcoming marriages. I t i s o n l y the l a t t e r form of marriage e d u c a t i o n which i s r e l e v a n t t o t h i s study. H i s t o r y of Marr iage P r e p a r a t i o n An examination of the h i s t o r i c a l development of the f i e l d of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n helps to provide a s e t t i n g f o r t h i s study. Through t h i s examination, one i s able to i d e n t i f y those who have c o n t r i b u t e d to t h i s development and to i n d i c a t e the major changes which have occurred s i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n . 13 S o c i o l o g i s t E r n e s t Groves o f f e r e d the f i r s t u n i v e r s i t y courses i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , i n i t i a l l y at Boston U n i v e r s i t y i n the e a r l y 1920's and l a t e r at the U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a ( K e r k h o f f , 1964 ). The f i r s t community-bas.ed p r e m a r i t a l e d u c a t i o n program was developed at the M e r r i l l - P a l m e r I n s t i t u t e i n 1932 (Huff, 1983). In both of these e a r l y programs, an e d u c a t i o n a l approach was used to address the goals of preventing and a l l e v i a t i n g m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s and i n c r e a s i n g f a m i l y s t a b i l i t y , m a r i t a l happiness, and the q u a l i t y of f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s (Huff, 1983). A l e c t u r e - s t y l e approach was used to educate groups of s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l s who may or may not have been t a k i n g the course as p a r t of an engaged couple. While r e f e r r e d to as, and intended to be marriage p r e p a r a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t e s , they were e s s e n t i a l l y what has been d e f i n e d i n t h i s t h e s i s as general marriage e d u c a t i o n . Another e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n which was c a l l e d marriage p r e p a r a t i o n was the p r e m a r i t a l examination by the f a m i l y p h y s i c i a n (Matheson, 1957 c i t e d i n Stahman and H e i b e r t , 1987). These v i s i t s t r a d i t i o n a l l y concerned i s s u e s regarding s e x u a l i t y and b i r t h c o n t r o l , but may a l s o have included d i s c u s s i o n s of other areas r e l a t e d to p r e p a r i n g f o r marriage. Through the 1930's and the 1940's, the t y p i c a l marriage p r e p a r a t i o n program continued to use an e d u c a t i o n a l approach and focused on the concepts of m a r i t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , goals and r e l i g i o u s l i f e s t y l e s (Huff, 1983; Levine & Brodsky, 1949). As with the earl ier programs, these courses tended to be conducted i n a group l e c t u r e approach. The f i r s t documented example of s m a l l group marriage preparation did not appear unt i l 1949 (Levine & Brodsky, 1949). Small group approaches allowed 14 o p p o r t u n i t e s f o r couple i n t e r a c t i o n to occur as p a r t of the intended process of the course. A f t e r World War I I , changes i n the f i e l d of psychology and p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l l i n g i n f l u e n c e d programs i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n (Summers & Cunningham, 1989). In psychology, a t t e n t i o n s h i f t e d from a focus on i n t r a p e r s o n a l i s s u e s to i n c l u d e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s as w e l l , r e s u l t i n g In the development of the f i e l d of m a r i t a l and f a m i l y therapy. Through the study of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and of couples e x p e r i e n c i n g c o n f l i c t and d y s f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , new i n s i g h t s were gained which could be a p p l i e d to t e a c h i n g couples approaching marriage. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n had a profound e f f e c t on the development of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . In p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l l i n g , i n t e r e s t i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l adjustments to marriage were a l s o emerging, and c l e r g y added t h i s focus to t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h i n g r e g a r d i n g the r e l i g i o u s components of marriage (Stahman & H e i b e r t , 1987). The development of t e s t s and i n v e n t o r i e s intended to help couples examine t h e i r own r e l a t i o n s h i p s during the marriage p r e p a r a t i o n experience emerged d u r i n g the l a t e 1950*s (Huff, 1983). With t h i s development, programs i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n moved from a focus on p a s s i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods to an e x p e r i e n t i a l approach concerned with the i n d i v i d u a l couple's a c t u a l r o l e s , e x p e c t a t i o n s and sexual and emotional adjustment (Oates, 1958; Tigue, 1958). I t was a l s o d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d that the f i r s t s t u d i e s e v a l u a t i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n courses began to appear i n the l i t e r a t u r e ( F a i r c h i l d , 1959; Mace, 1952; Wiser, 1959). 15 Leadership in marriage preparation changed during the 1960's as increasing numbers of therapists and other mental health professionals became involved in the area (Summers & Cunningham, 1989). Physicians no longer provided d i r e c t marriage preparation but became consultants to other professionals (Schumm & Denton, 1979). Problem-oriented approaches focusing on problem solving and c o n f l i c t resolution s k i l l s were developed to augment the previous i n s t r u c t i o n a l and experiential methods ( E l l i s , 1961; M i t c h e l l , 1967; Rutledge, 1966; Whitlock, 1961). Developments during the 1970's included the establishment of programs for s p e c i f i c populations such as the handicapped and the disabled (Walker, 1977); the divorced or widowed (Huff, 1983); and couples wherein at least one individual was a minor (Shonick, 1975). More specialized methods of presentation and content were also developed, as r e f l e c t e d by the Minnesota Couples Communication Program ( M i l l e r , Nunally & Wackman, 1976); The Conjugal Relationship Enhancement Program (Rappaport, 1976); and Ridley's program in c o n f l i c t management (Ridley, Avery, Harrel, L e s l i e & Dent, 1981). As well, evaluation of the e f f e c t s of marriage preparation on l a t e r relationship s a t i s f a c t i o n and on couple s t a b i l i t y increased in both the secular and r e l i g i o u s programs (Microys & Bader, 1977; M i l l e r , Nunally & Wackman, 1976; VanZoost, 1973; Walker, 1977). As t h i s b r i e f review indicates, the major changes in marriage preparation since the inception of the f i e l d include changes in educational programs and approaches, changes in the f i e l d s which provided leadership in program delivery, and increasing attention to studies of the impact of marriage 16 p r e p a r a t i o n programs. There i s some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the development of new programs has peaked and t h a t c u r r e n t program development focuses on the m o d i f i c a t i o n of previous programs (Stahman & Hie b e r t 1987; Huff, 1983). At the present time, major l e a d e r s h i p i n the d e l i v e r y of these programs i s pro v i d e d by the c l e r g y , by f a m i l y c o u n s e l l o r s , and other f a m i l y p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Approaches to Marr iage Preparat ion Although many kinds of programs are c a l l e d marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , a b r i e f review of d i f f e r e n t types of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs w i l l h e lp to c l a r i f y the p e r s p e c t i v e r e l e v a n t to t h i s study. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e (Beeson, 1978; Buckner & S a l t s , 1985; Guldner, 1970; Mace, 1975; Schumm & Denton, 1979) i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t the present time there are s i x major i n t e r v e n t i o n approaches t h a t are l a b e l e d as marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . These i n c l u d e : 1. General Marr iage E d u c a t i o n . T h i s i s the type of p r e p a r a t i o n which one would r e c e i v e through a high school f a m i l y l i f e e d u c a t i o n u n i t , a home economics course or a u n i v e r s i t y f a m i l y s t u d i e s course. These u n i t s and courses i n c l u d e t o p i c s such as mate s e l e c t i o n , d a t i n g , m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and f a m i l y l i f e c a r e e r s . The goals of such courses are to present marriage as an area of study and to help i n d i v i d u a l s explore t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n terms of t h e i r own p o t e n t i a l marriages. General marriage e d u c a t i o n i s u s u a l l y not intended t o a s s i s t s p e c i f i c p r e m a r i t a l c o u p l e s i n p r e p a r i n g f o r t h e i r own marriages. As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , such an approach i s too gen e r a l to be c l a s s i f i e d as marriage 17 p r e p a r a t i o n and i s i n c l u d e d here o n l y because i t has been r e f e r r e d to i n some l i t e r a t u r e as marriage p r e p a r a t i o n (Schumm & Denton, 1979). 2. T h e r a p e u t i c C o u n s e l l i n g . T h e r a p e u t i c c o u n s e l l i n g i s based on a treatment r a t h e r than an e d u c a t i o n a l model and i s designed to "meet the needs of couples p r e s e n t i n g s p e c i f i c and o f t e n d i s t r e s s i n g problems" (Schumm & Denton, 1979, p.24). T y p i c a l l y , t h e r a p e u t i c c o u n s e l l i n g i s l i m i t e d to d y s f u n c t i o n a l couples who are c o n s i d e r e d to be i n need of c r i s i s i n t e r v e n t i o n (Wright & L'Abate, 1977). Because t h i s method i s t h e r a p e u t i c r a t h e r than e d u c a t i o n a l i n focus, i t i s the domain of the p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t or c o u n s e l l i n g p s y c h o l o g i s t r a t h e r than the marriage educator. 3. Group L e c t u r e . In the group l e c t u r e approach, l a r g e groups of p r e m a r i t a l couples are t y p i c a l l y brought together f o r a s e r i e s of l e c t u r e s on t o p i c s r e l e v a n t to marriage and weddings. These s e s s i o n s are designed to convey i n f o r m a t i o n and u s u a l l y do not prov i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r couples to d i s c u s s the i n f o r m a t i o n or to a pply the i n f o r m a t i o n provided. The l e c t u r e s may be presented by one i n s t r u c t o r , or each i n d i v i d u a l s e s s i o n may be presented by a s p e c i a l i s t i n that t o p i c a rea. Examples of t o p i c s t h a t might be covered i n t h i s approach include p l a n n i n g f o r the wedding, b u i l d i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s budgeting, i n v e s t i n g and insurance, meal plan n i n g and food s t o r a g e , i n t e r i o r d e s i g n , and sexual concerns i n marriage (Hoopes & F i s h e r , 1984 ) . 4. I n s t r u c t i o n a l C o u n s e l l i n g . A t y p i c a l goal of i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g i s "p r e p a r i n g couples to a d j u s t r e a l i s t i c a l l y t h e i r 18 e x p e c t a t i o n s of marriage by p r o v i d i n g them with i n f o r m a t i o n and exposure to a v a r i e t y of f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r i n g m a r i t a l problems" (Schumm & Denton, 1979, p.24). These programs are o f f e r e d by the c l e r g y and by c o u n s e l l o r s and are t y p i c a l l y c a r r i e d out with i n d i v i d u a l c o u p l e s . When o f f e r e d to groups of couples, these programs tend to be of an e d u c a t i o n a l and s k i l l o r i e n t e d nature. Instruments such as PREPARE (Olson, F o u r n i e r & Druckman, 1986a) and R o l f e ' s Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n Assessment Forms ( R o l f e , 1983) are o f t e n used to provide i n i t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the couple and to p r o v i d e s t r u c t u r e f o r t h i s approach. 5. Enrichment. The enrichment approach to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i s "based on the premise t h a t equipping couples to d e a l with t h e i r own concerns i s more u s e f u l than merely conveying I n f o r m a t i o n and a d v i c e " (Schumm & Denton, 1979, p.24). The e m p i r i c a l underpinnings of enrichment "can be found i n the f i e l d of programmed i n s t r u c t i o n and i t s t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s i n general systems, communication, i n f o r m a t i o n and a t r a n s a c t i o n a l background" (Wright & L'Abate, 1977, p.178). Enrichment approaches to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n may a l s o be l a b e l e d as p r e v e n t a t i v e e d u c a t i o n and are g e n e r a l l y s t r u c t u r e d and conducted i n a group s e t t i n g . Couples are given i n f o r m a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n and provided with the o p p o r t u n i t y to p r a c t i c e s k i l l s such as communication, c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n and d e c i s i o n making. Although there are many s i m i l a r i t i e s , the enrichment approach to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n should not be confused with marriage enrichment programs designed f o r those who are a l r e a d y married. 6. Post-Wedding I n t e r v e n t i o n . Post-wedding i n t e r v e n t i o n i s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g format. I t i s 19 unique i n t h a t i t u t i l i z e s only one pre-weddlng meeting. At t h a t meeting, a c o n t r a c t i s made with the couple o u t l i n i n g a s e t of post-wedding s e s s i o n s (Beeson, 1978; B u l l o c k , 1970; Guldner, 1971; Schumm & Denton, 1979). T h i s format i s based on the b e l i e f t h a t p r e m a r i t a l couples are u s u a l l y not i n a p o s i t i o n to examine r e a l i s t i c a l l y the s t a t e of t h e i r own r e l a t i o n s h i p . Guldner (1971) suggests t h a t p r e m a r i t a l couples are u s u a l l y "too s t a r r y eyed" (p.115) to be o b j e c t i v e about t h e i r own f e e l i n g s and the dynamics of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , e i t h e r as i t e x i s t s at the present or as i t might be i n the f u t u r e . He suggests t h a t couples need time to a d j u s t to the r e a l i t i e s of marriage before they are ready f o r any e x t e r n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n . Approximately s i x months a f t e r the wedding ( B u l l o c k , 1970), d i f f i c u l t i e s and c o n f l i c t s i n a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p are no longer a b s t r a c t , and couples may be more w i l l i n g to recognize that the p o t e n t i a l f o r problems e x i s t s . Marriage edu c a t i o n o f f e r e d at t h i s time a l s o can use a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s from the couple's e a r l y months of marriage as examples f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p enhancement e x e r c i s e s . Although a l l of these approaches may be c a l l e d marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , o n l y the f i n a l three approaches ( i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g , enrichment and post-wedding i n t e r v e n t i o n ) are r e l e v a n t to t h i s study. Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Marr iage Preparat ion P r o v i d e r s Regardless of the approach to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of those p r o v i d i n g the education i s of major concern. A review of the Family L i f e Education l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s 'that there are two major issues i n a l l areas of Family 20 L i f e E d u c a t i o n - the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the v a r i o u s approaches and the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the educators (e.g., Arcus, 1987; N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s , 1984). The marriage education l i t e r a t u r e suggests that these are a l s o major i s s u e s i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g to Bagarozzi and Rauen (1981), contemporary l e a d e r s i n marriage education appear more and more concerned w i t h the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f i e l d and s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have been undertaken to examine t h i s concern (Eggeman, Smith- Eggeman, Moxley & Schumm, 1986; F o u r n i e r , 1980; Huff, 1983; Sabey, 1981; Stuckey, Eggemann, Smith-Eggeman, Moxley, & Schumm, 1986). The i s s u e t h a t has not been adequately addressed i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s the t r a i n i n g and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the marriage e d u c a t o r s . However, one of the outcomes of the e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s i s the need to focus on the t r a i n i n g of the leaders and f a c i l i t a t o r s of the programs (Most & Guerney, 1983). As noted by the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on Family R e l a t i o n s (1984), " q u a l i f i e d f a m i l y l i f e educators are c r i t i c a l to the success of programs i n f a m i l y l i f e e d ucation because they are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the development and/or implementation of programs as w e l l as i n t e r a c t i n g d i r e c t l y with those who p a r t i c i p a t e i n them" ( p . l ) . With regards to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , t h i s concern i s r e f l e c t e d by Stahman and Heibert (1987), who b e l i e v e t h a t marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s need s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g , p r e f e r a b l y a t a graduate l e v e l , i n the areas of r e l a t i o n s h i p c o u n s e l l i n g , m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n , f a m i l y s t u d i e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p assessment. A February, 1988 c o n s u l t a t i o n with marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia sponsored by the B r i t i s h Columbia C o u n c i l f o r the Family and the B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of 21 H e a l t h echoed these concerns. At t h a t c o n s u l t a t i o n , p r o f e s s i o n a l s In the f i e l d r e p o r t e d that they were concerned about the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of those i n v o l v e d i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and requested f u r t h e r t r a i n i n g programs and an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of f a c i l i t a t o r s and programs (Leger, 1988). The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage educators become i n c r e a s i n g l y important as more and more churches r e q u i r e couples to p a r t i c i p a t e i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r i o r to t h e i r wedding. E n s u r i n g t h a t those who o f f e r marriage education are q u a l i f i e d to do so p r o v i d e s important p r o t e c t i o n f o r the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n such programs. In s p i t e of these concerns, however, very few i n s t i t u t i o n s o f f e r t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the area of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . A review of i n s t i t u t i o n a l c a l e n d a r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t Purdue U n i v e r s i t y and the U n i v e r s i t y of Northern I l l i n o i s are among the few s e c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s which o f f e r s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g i n the f i e l d while F u l l e r T h e o l o g i c a l I n s t i t u t e , B i o l a U n i v e r s i t y and the E a s t e r n B a p t i s t T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary are among the few t h e o l o g i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s which o f f e r courses f o c u s i n g e x c l u s i v e l y on t r a i n i n g f o r marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . At the present time, the two major t h e o l o g i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia o f f e r v e r y l i t t l e i n t h i s a r e a . Both the Vancouver School of Theology and Regent C o l l e g e o f f e r a ge n e r a l course i n p a s t o r a l care or c o u n s e l l i n g . While Regent C o l l e g e introduced a course i n Marriage and F a m i l y M i n i s t r y i n the s p r i n g of 1987, o n l y 1 1/2 hours i n t h i s semester course d e a l d i r e c t l y with marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . There have been a number of recent attempts to develop 22 t r a i n i n g programs for marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s ( C u r t i s & M i l l e r , 1976; Mace, 1975; Most & Guerney, 1983; S a l t s & Buckner, 1983). However, there are no s t u d i e s which have examined the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage educators. As p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , approximately 80% of a l l marriage p r e p a r a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s are provided by members of the c l e r g y ( F o u r n i e r , 1980). Wright (1976) found t h a t while many c l e r g y r e p o r t t h a t they are b e t t e r t r a i n e d f o r doing marriage p r e p a r a t i o n than they were i n the past, they s t i l l f e e l i n a d e q u a t e l y prepared. According to Orthner (1986), only 42% of the c l e r g y he s t u d i e d p e r c e i v e d t h a t they had 'high competence' i n the p r o v i s i o n of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Because there i s l i t t l e t r a i n i n g a v a i l a b l e f o r marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s and because of the c l e r g y ' s s t a t e d concerns about inadequate p r e p a r a t i o n , i t i s important t h a t an examination of the knowledge and p e r c e i v e d competence of those who provide the bulk of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , i . e . , the c l e r g y , be conducted. As noted i n Chapter 1, o n l y two aspects of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s w i l l be s t u d i e d : 1) knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and 2) p e r c e i v e d competence. These two aspects become the dependent v a r i a b l e s f o r t h i s study. Independent V a r i a b l e s A review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s have a p o t e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e on the dependent v a r i a b l e s knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and p e r c e i v e d competence. T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l d e s c r i b e these v a r i a b l e s . 23 P o s i t i o n on S t a f f I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n a church who a c t as marriage educators do so from p o t e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s . In many churches i n B r i t i s h Columbia, congregations are able to employ more than one c l e r g y person (United Church P u b l i s h i n g House, 1988). In such s i t u a t i o n s , a person i s h i r e d based on h i s or her p a r t i c u l a r g i f t s or t r a i n i n g i n a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a. For example, a church might employ one m i n i s t e r who s p e c i a l i z e s i n preaching and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and another who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a s t o r a l care and c h r i s t i a n e d u c a t i o n . As w e l l , many churches i n B r i t i s h Columbia employ i n d i v i d u a l s other than ordained c l e r g y to conduct some a s p e c t s of m i n i s t r y (United Church P u b l i s h i n g House, 1988). T y p i c a l l y , these i n d i v i d u a l s are p r o f e s s i o n a l s or p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s who have some s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r area of m i n i s t r y such as p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l l i n g or c h r i s t i a n e d u c a t i o n . Some churches a l s o enable l a y people to m i n i s t e r and t h e r e f o r e t r a i n v o l u n t e e r s from t h e i r congregations to conduct s p e c i f i c programs or s e r v i c e s such as marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Other churches make use of para-church o r g a n i z a t i o n s , that i s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s which o f f e r s p e c i a l i z e d programs such as p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l l i n g or marriage education which are f a i t h - c e n t r e d but not d i r e c t l y a l i g n e d with any one p a r t i c u l a r denomination. One example of such an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the Interchurch Marriage P r o j e c t i n Burnaby, B.C., a j o i n t e f f o r t of s e v e r a l m a i n l i n e denominations to provide resources to strengthen the marriages of those i n t h e i r churches. T h i s centre o f f e r s marriage p r e p a r a t i o n courses as w e l l as marriage and f a m i l y c o u n s e l l i n g . 24 Denomination Denominalationism i s d e f i n e d as d e v o t i o n to a s p e c i f i c s e t of p r i n c i p l e s or i n t e r e s t s . Given that denominations v a r y i n the p r i n c i p l e s or i n t e r e s t s which make up t h e i r theology, i t may be assumed that these p r i n c i p l e s and i n t e r e s t s might a f f e c t b e l i e f s about marriage, and t h e r e f o r e , a f f e c t b e l i e f s about marriage e d u c a t i o n . However, c l e r g y i n the A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada and the U n i t e d Church of Canada t r a i n a t the same t h e o l o g i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and have s i m i l a r statements of f a i t h . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t they w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the dependent v a r i a b l e s of t h i s study. T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n In a study of Methodist p a s t o r s i n the United S t a t e s , Orthner (1986) found that those who c o n s i d e r e d themselves to be t h e o l o g i c a l l y c o n s e r v a t i v e had l e s s t r a i n i n g i n p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l l i n g ( i n c l u d i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n ) and were more concerned about i t s place i n the church than those who c o n s i d e r e d themselves to be t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l . Orthner's f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t one might expect to f i n d that those who are more t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l would be more q u a l i f i e d as marriage educators. In c o n t r a s t , Wright (1984) found t h a t the t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of Canadian c l e r g y was not a s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t o r of c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e . Given these d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s , i t i s important t h a t f u r t h e r study be conducted i n order to c l a r i f y the impact of t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . L e v e l of Education The N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on Family R e l a t i o n s (1984) has e s t a b l i s h e d a s e t of c r i t e r i a f o r the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of Family 25 L i f e E ducators. One of these c r i t e r i a i s the completion of an academic degree i n an a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c i p l i n e . Stahman and H e i b e r t (1987) b e l i e v e t h a t t r a i n i n g at a master's degree l e v e l i s n e cessary f o r marriage educators, with at l e a s t some s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g i n c o u n s e l l i n g , m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n , f a m i l y s t u d i e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p asessment. C u r t i s and M i l l e r (1976) argue t h a t p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s c o n ducting marriage p r e p a r a t i o n need a core of s p e c i f i c academic c o u r s e s . T h i s suggests that l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n may be r e l a t e d to one's a b i l i t y to conduct marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Years i n M i n i s t r y As i n d i c a t e d i n the review of l i t e r a t u r e , marriage p r e p a r a t i o n as a p r o f e s s i o n has evolved over the past 60 years. I t has made gains i n a c c e p t a b i l t y and i t s format has changed g r e a t l y . Thus i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t those c l e r g y who t r a i n e d more r e c e n t l y may have had more exposure to marriage and f a m i l y c ontent d u r i n g t h e i r t r a i n i n g and may have had s p e c i f i c seminars on marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Number of Weddings per Year Schumm and Denton (1979) suggest that one of the reasons t h a t many m i n i s t e r s do not seek f u r t h e r t r a i n i n g i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i s that they do not conduct a s u f f i c i e n t volume of weddings to warrant f u r t h e r t r a i n i n g i n the area. I t i s reasonable to suggest that those c l e r g y who conduct very few weddings i n any given year would not perceive the need to become w e l l q u a l i f i e d as marriage educators. C o n t r o l V a r i a b l e s The four c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s proposed f o r t h i s study 2 6 i n c l u d e d : Age Age was used i n order to c o n t r o l f o r p o s s i b l e cohort e f f e c t s i n the v a r i a n c e of the dependent v a r i a b l e s . Gender Some i n the f i e l d b e l i e v e t h a t marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs should be o f f e r e d by male/female teams ( A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Couples i n Marriage Enricment, 1984). Aside from the modelling that c o u l d be p r o v i d e d by such teams, there appears to be an u n d e r l y i n g assumption that males and females d i f f e r i n how they conduct marriage p r e p a r a t i o n and that p r e m a r i t a l couples would b e n e f i t from both approaches. Because of these assumptions, gender was s e l e c t e d as a c o n t r o l . Mar i t a l S tatus ' There are s e v e r a l reasons to i n c l u d e m a r i t a l s t a t u s as a c o n t r o l . Some i n the f i e l d b e l i e v e t h a t marriage education should o n l y be conducted by those who have pe r s o n a l m a r i t a l experience ( A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Couples i n Marriage Enrichment, 1984). Others go as f a r as to say t h a t only ' s u c c e s s f u l l y ' married couples should conduct marriage e d u c a t i o n . I t i s p o s s i b l e then that those who are married may know more about marriage. Thus, i t i s important to c o n t r o l f o r m a r i t a l s t a t u s . Length of Marriage I f being married does have an e f f e c t on one's knowledge about marriage, then length of marriage might have an added e f f e c t . T h e r e f o r e , the t o t a l l e n g t h of a l l marriages was a l s o used as a c o n t r o l . 27 Hypotheses: Knowledge of Marrlage and Famlly Concepts The following hypotheses related to knowledge of marriage and family concepts w i l l be tested in th i s study: Hypothesis 1. Those employed as s t a f f associates or in positions other than general clergy w i l l have a higher l e v e l of knowledge of marriage and family concepts than general clergy. Hypothesis 2. Volunteers trained as marriage educators w i l l have a greater knowledge of marriage and family concepts than either general clergy or other church s t a f f . Hypothesis 3. Knowledge of marriage and family concepts held by marriage educators w i l l not vary by denomination. Hypothesis 4. The more th e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l the individual marriage educator, the higher the knowledge of marriage and family concepts. Hypothesis 5. The higher the educational level of the marriage educator, the greater the knowledge of marriage and family concepts. Hypothesis 6. The greater the number of years in the ministry, the lower the knowledge of marriage and family concepts. Hypothesis 7. The greater the number of weddings performed annually, the higher the knowledge of marriage and family concepts. 28 Hypotheses: P e r c e i v e d Competence The f o l l o w i n g hypotheses r e l a t e d to perc e i v e d competence w i l l be t e s t e d i n t h i s study. Hypothesis 8. Those employed as s t a f f a s s o c i a t e s or i n p o s i t i o n s other than g e n e r a l c l e r g y w i l l have a higher l e v e l of p e r c e i v e d competence than general c l e r g y . Hypothesis 9. Vo l u n t e e r s t r a i n e d as marriage educators w i l l have a g r e a t e r l e v e l of pe r c e i v e d competence than e i t h e r general c l e r g y or other church s t a f f . Hypothesis 10. P e r c e i v e d competence r e p o r t e d by marriage educators w i l l not va r y by denomination. Hypothesis 11. The more t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l the i n d i v i d u a l marriage educator, the higher the pe r c e i v e d competence i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Hypothesis 12. The higher the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l of the marriage educator, the g r e a t e r the perc e i v e d competence i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Hypothes i s 13. The g r e a t e r the number of years i n the m i n i s t r y , the lower the pe r c e i v e d competence i n marriage p r e p a r a t i on. Hypothesis 14. The g r e a t e r the number of weddings performed a n n u a l l y , the higher the perceived competence i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . 29 CHAPTER THREE Methods I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s study has two o b j e c t i v e s , 1) to assess the l e v e l of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts held by marriage educators, and 2) to re-examine Wright's (1976) f i n d i n g t h a t m i n i s t e r s i n v o l v e d i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n do not p e r c e i v e themselves to be competent i n the p r o v i s i o n of such e d u c a t i o n . T h i s chapter d e s c r i b e s the methodology of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The s p e c i f i c procedures used i n conducting t h i s study w i l l a l s o be p r e s e n t e d . Subjects The p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h i s study i n c l u d e d a l l marriage e d u c a t o r s , both l a y and ordained, from the p a s t o r a l charges of the B r i t i s h Columbia ( h e r e a f t e r B.C.) Conference of the United Church of Canada, and four of the f i v e B.C. d i o c e s e s of the A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada (New Westminster, Cariboo, B r i t i s h Columbia and C a l e d o n i a ) . These two denominations were chosen f o r study because they were known to be a c t i v e i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n B.C. They a l s o r e p r e s e n t the l a r g e s t p r o t e s t a n t p o p u l a t i o n s i n Canada. According to Bibby (1987), 10% of Canadians c l a i m a f f i l i a t i o n s with the A n g l i c a n Church and 16% with the United Church. This r e p r e s e n t s c l o s e to 60% of a l l Canadians who de s i g n a t e a p r o t e s t a n t a f f i l i a t i o n . These two denominations conduct 30% of the weddings i n the province each year, (B.C. V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s , 1986) thereby having p o t e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e " o n a l a r g e number of B.C. couples p r e p a r i n g f o r 30 marr iage. Although other denominations are a l s o i n v o l v e d i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , they were not i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study. L i 3 t s of s m a l l e r p r o t e s t a n t denominations such as .Mennonite Brethren, Nazarine and Four Square Gospel were not a v a i l a b l e to the r e s e a r c h e r . As w e l l , these p r o t e s t a n t denominations appear to have s m a l l e r numbers of congregations and would thus r e q u i r e t h a t the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n be s t u d i e d i n order that the sample s i z e be comparable i n each denomination. The Roman C a t h o l i c Church was not included i n t h i s study because of p e r c e i v e d t h e o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s which might confound the v a r i a b l e s i n the study. D i f f e r e n c e s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l e v a n t to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n c l u d e teachings about the purpose of s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e and i d e o l o g i e s r e g a r d i n g b i r t h c o n t r o l . I t was a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t I n c l u d i n g C a t h o l i c educators i n the sample might confound c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s such as length of marriage and m a r i t a l s t a t u s , s i n c e i t i s l i k e l y t h a t a m a j o r i t y of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s i n the C a t h o l i c church are p r i e s t s or other members of r e l i g i o u s orders who are r e q u i r e d to remain both s i n g l e and c e l i b a t e . P e r m i s s i o n to c o n t a c t i n d i v i d u a l congregations was obtained i n w r i t i n g from the E x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada and from the Bishop of each i n d i v i d u a l A n g l i c a n d i o c e s e . L i s t s of i n d i v i d u a l congregations were obtained from the Yearbooks of each denomination ( A n g l i c a n Book Centre, 1987; U n i t e d Church P u b l i s h i n g House, 1987). Each c o n g r e g a t i o n was a s s i g n e d a number. Then using a t a b l e of random numbers, a sample of 25% of each denomination was s e l e c t e d . 31 The number of congregations i n t h i s study i n c l u d e d 57 United Church p a s t o r a l charges and 60 A n g l i c a n p a r i s h e s . Procedure A f t e r p e r m i s s i o n to conduct the r e s e a r c h study was r e c e i v e d from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia E t h i c s Review Committee, data were c o l l e c t e d by means of a s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Each cong r e g a t i o n i n the sample was sent a package c o n t a i n i n g a l e t t e r of i n t r o d u c t i o n , q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u c t i o n s and c o p i e s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix A). The number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s sent to each l o c a t i o n was determined by r e f e r e n c e to denominational l i s t s which i n d i c a t e d the number of s t a f f i n each c o n g r e g a t i o n . Of the 117 congregations i n the sample, 109 were sent one q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Only e i g h t were sent more than one copy. A t o t a l of 127 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed out to 117 c o n g r e g a t i o n s . The l e t t e r of i n t r o d u c t i o n asked that each i n d i v i d u a l i n the c o n g r e g a t i o n who p r o v i d e s marriage p r e p a r a t i o n complete a copy of the e n t i r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f a d d i t i o n a l c o p i e s were needed f o r the number of p r o v i d e r s , the r e c i p i e n t was asked to e i t h e r d u p l i c a t e the number of c o p i e s necessary or c o n t a c t the r e s e a r c h e r who would provide a d d i t i o n a l c o p i e s . A f t e r one month, reminder l e t t e r s were sent to a l l congregations who had not responded. Research V a r i a b l e s Two dependent v a r i a b l e s were i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study. The f i r s t of these i s knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts, or the l e v e l of knowledge held by i n d i v i d u a l marriage educators on s e l e c t e d content a r e a s . The second dependent v a r i a b l e i s 3 2 p e r c e i v e d competence, or the extent to which the marriage educator p e r c e i v e s h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f to be competent i n the p r o v i s i o n of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n to p r e m a r i t a l couples. Six independent v a r i a b l e s were used i n t h i s study. These i n c l u d e p o s i t i o n on s t a f f , denomination, t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , years i n m i n i s t r y and number of weddings per year. In a d d i t i o n , four c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s were measured, age, gender, m a r i t a l s t a t u s and number of years married. Development of Demographic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The r e s e a r c h instrument c o n s i s t s of two s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n requested demographic i n f o r m a t i o n about the c o n g r e g a t i o n , the marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs o f f e r e d by that c o n g r e g a t i o n , and i t s p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l marriage educators were asked to provide p e r s o n a l demographic i n f o r m a t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r t r a i n i n g i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n requested on the demographic s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e provided f o r the measurement of the independent and c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and one of the dependent v a r i a b l e s ( p e r c e i v e d competence). The dependent v a r i a b l e p e r c e i v e d competence was measured by a s e r i e s of n i n e - p o i n t L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e s . One s c a l e asked the respondents to i n d i c a t e how competent they f e l t about p r o v i d i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , respondents were asked to i n d i c a t e how competent they f e l t about working with p r e m a r i t a l couples i n each of e i g h t major content areas i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n : communication, c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n , m a r i t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , f i n a n c e , s e x u a l i t y , l e i s u r e / l i f e s t y l e , f a m i l y of o r i g i n and g e n e r a l marriage. (These content areas emerged d u r i n g 33 the development of the knowledge instrument d e s c r i b e d below). Independent v a r i a b l e s were measured as f o l l o w s . To determine p o s i t i o n on s t a f f , i n d i v i d u a l s were asked to i n d i c a t e i n what c a p a c i t y ( i . e . s o l e c l e r g y , s t a f f a s s o c i a t e , l a y v o l u n t e e r ) they provided marriage education. A d d i t i o n a l l y , they were asked i f they were employed by the church or were v o l u n t e e r s . P a r t i c i p a n t s were a l s o asked to note t h e i r denominational a f f i l i a t i o n . To measure t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , respondents were asked to r a t e on a seven-point L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e the extent to which they considered themselves to be t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l or t h e o l o g i c a l l y c o n s e r v a t i v e . L e v e l of e d u c a t i o n was measured by the number of years of formal e d u c a t i o n beyond high s c h o o l , and m i n i s t r y experience by the number of years i n the m i n i s t r y . Development of the Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts Instrument The second part of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was the Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts Instrument (KMFC), an instrument designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the purpose of t h i s study to measure the dependent v a r i a b l e Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d t hat while there are a number of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n instruments a v a i l a b l e , none of these were a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the purpose of t h i s study. The PREPARE and ENRICH instruments (Olson, F o u r n i e r & Druckman, 1976, 1986a, 1986b.) are designed to help p r e m a r i t a l couples explore m a r i t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and use a t t i t u d i n a l r a t h e r than knowledge statements. The Marriage Quiz (Larsen, 1988) focuses on myths r a t h e r than knowledge about marriage. The Survey of C l e r g y 34 as P r e m a r i t a l C o u n s e l l o r s Instrument (Cunningham, 1986) does measure knowledge about marriage and f a m i l y concepts, but i t emphasizes p a r e n t i n g s k i l l s r a t h e r than the more comprehensive content t y p i c a l l y found i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs (e.g. communication s k i l l s , s e x u a l i t y , and problem s o l v i n g ) . Because an a p p r o p r i a t e instrument was not a v a i l a b l e , i t was necessary to develop one s p e c i f i c a l l y for t h i s study. The f i r s t s t e p i n the development of t h i s Instrument was a review of ten marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs (Bader, Microys, S i n c l a i r , W i l l e t t , & Conway 1980; Barnes, 1985; B r i t i s h Columbia C o u n c i l f o r the Family, 1980, 1988; Buckner & S a l t s , 1985; Hoopes & F i s h e r , 1984; Lees & Simonsen, 1983; R o l f e , 1983; Shonick, 1975; United Church of Canada, 1986). These programs were s e l e c t e d e i t h e r because they are commonly used i n B r i t i s h Columbia or because a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of the program i s a v a i l a b l e i n the l i t e r a t u r e . In each of these programs, the chapter headings and subheadings were i d e n t i f i e d and recorded i n order to determine the content covered i n these courses. T h i s process i d e n t i f i e d s i x t e e n key content areas which were i n c l u d e d i n these marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs. The content areas f o r each program are l i s t e d i n Table 1. As noted i n t h i s t a b l e , some content areas ( s e x u a l i t y and communication s k i l l s ) were present i n a l l ten of the programs while others ( i n t e r i o r design and n u t r i t i o n ) were present i n only one or two. I t was b e l i e v e d t h a t i n order f o r the r e s e a r c h instrument to be r e l e v a n t to the m a j o r i t y of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs, o n l y those content 35 te ii No. of programs United Church of Canada 1985 Shonick 1975 Rolfe 1983 Lees & Slmonsen 1983 Hoopes & Fischer 1984 Buckner & Salts 1985 British Columbia Council on the Family 1988 British Columbia Council on the Family 1980 Barnes 1985 Bader et al 1980 iage Preparation Programs ~j X X X X X X X Budgeting & Finances i — • o X X X X X X X X X X Communication ««J X X X X X X X Family of Origin u> X X X Future Work & Education 1—' X Interior Design N 3 X X Intimacy >—' X Legal Concerns ~J X X X X X X X Lifestyle/ Leisure VO X X X X X X X X X Marital Roles & Expectations tNJ X X Nutrition & Meal Planning X X X Parenting U) X X X Planning the Wedd ing VO X X X X X X X X X Problem Solving Conflict Res. o X X X X X X X X X X Sexuality N J X • X S p i r i t u a l i t y X X X X Values 36 areas present i n at l e a s t two t h i r d s of the programs reviewed should be i n c l u d e d i n the f i n a l Instrument. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the a n a l y s i s of program content i n d i c a t e d a n a t u r a l break between 40% and 70%. Thus presence i n 70% of the programs was s e l e c t e d as the c r i t e r i o n f o r the i n c l u s i o n of a content area. Seven major content areas emerged from t h i s a n a l y s i s : S e x u a l i t y (100%), Communication (100%), Roles and E x p e c t a t i o n s (90%), C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n (90%), Finances (70%), Family of O r i g i n (70%), and L e i s u r e / L i f e s t y l e s (70%). One a d d i t i o n a l content area ( M a r i t a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s ) was im p l i e d i n these marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs but d i d not appear as a separate t o p i c . This area i n c l u d e d g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n about marriage, m a r i t a l adjustment, m a r i t a l stages and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Since i t was p e r c e i v e d to be an Important area of knowledge, i t was a l s o i n c l u d e d i n the instrument. The next step was to generate a pool of knowledge statements f o r each of the s e l e c t e d content areas. T h i s pool of statements was developed from a f u r t h e r review of the marriage p r e p a r a t i o n manuals and from a review of s e l e c t e d i n t r o d u c t o r y marriage and f a m i l y t e x t s ( C l a y t o n , 1979; Cox, 1987; G a r r e t t , 1982; Green, 1986; G u l l o t t a , Adams & Alexander, 1986; K i r k e n d a l l & Adams, 1974; Klemer, 1980; Mastin & Chandler, 1987; Smith, 1970; and Strong & Devault, 1986). These t e x t s were s e l e c t e d because they p r o v i d e b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n about marriage and f a m i l y concepts. The key c r i t e r i a f o r the i n c l u s i o n of a statement i n t h i s pool were that the ques t i o n s r e f l e c t e d the content of the marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs reviewed and that there was g e n e r a l agreement i n the l i t e r a t u r e concerning "the answer". These 37 "answers" or a p p r o p r i a t e responses (Mostly True or Mostly F a l s e ) were i d e n t i f i e d from these manuals and t e x t s and were recorded. There was a t o t a l of 128 statements i n t h i s i n i t i a l p o o l . Examples of q u e s t i o n s i n c l u d e "To achieve sexual adjustment i n marriage, each partner must understand why the other behaves the way he/she does" and "Holding d i f f e r e n t value systems i s a d e s t r u c t i v e f o r c e i n marriage". In order to a v o i d q u e s t i o n s e t response, some q u e s t i o n s were worded i n the p o s i t i v e form and some i n the n e g a t i v e form. To reduce the number of statements and to c o n s t r u c t a v a l i d f i n a l instrument, the e n t i r e set of questions was administered to two groups. The f i r s t group was drawn from f o u r t h year Family L i f e E d u c a t i o n and Family Science majors i n the School of F a m i l y and N u t r i t i o n a l Sciences and graduate students i n the M.A. program in Family S t u d i e s , School of Family and N u t r i t i o n a l S c i e n c e s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and i n the M. Ed. program i n Marriage and Family C o u n s e l l i n g , Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i s group i n c l u d e d twenty i n d i v i d u a l s and was l a b e l l e d 'Student E x p e r t s ' . The 'non-expert' group used to develop the KMFC in c l u d e d f o u r t h year D i e t e t i c s students and graduate students i n the M.Sc. N u t r i t i o n program, School of Family and N u t r i t i o n a l S c i e n c e s , U.B.C. T h i s group a l s o i ncluded twenty i n d i v i d u a l s and was l a b e l l e d 'Student Non-experts'. The 'Student Non-expert' group d i d not v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the 'Student Expert' group i n age, gender or m a r i t a l s t a t u s . 38 I n d i v i d u a l s i n these groups were asked to respond to each statement i n the pool by i n d i c a t i n g whether the statement was 'Mostly True' or 'Mostly F a l s e * or whether they were unsure ('Don't Know'). If g r e a t e r than 25% of the student expert group responded with "Don't Know" that item was d i s c a r d e d . In a d d i t i o n , i f the number of Student Non-Experts who d e s i g n a t e d the c o r r e c t answer were g r e a t e r than the number of Student Experts who d e s i g n a t e d the c o r r e c t answer, then t h i s statement was a l s o d i s c a r d e d . A c c o r d i n g to Nunnally (1978), cases where the number of i n c o r r e c t answers were g r e a t e r than the number of c o r r e c t ones suggest e i t h e r poor wording, a m i s l e a d i n g statement, or a statement t h a t c o u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d as f a c t . These two steps r e s u l t e d i n the d e l e t i o n of twenty-eight statements. R e l i a b i l i t y The t h i r d step i n the a n a l y s i s was to determine i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l t y , or the extent to which the measurement r e f l e c t s true d i f f e r e n c e s among the respondents (Sax, 1979). In the case of the Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts Inventory, i t i s necessary to e s t a b l i s h as high a l e v e l of r e l i a b i l i t y as p o s s i b l e as i t i s l i k e l y t h a t o n l y s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n scores may be found and one needs to be a b l e to c l a i m with confidence t h a t a d i f f e r e n c e i n scores measures a d i f f e r e n c e i n knowledge and cannot simply be e x p l a i n e d as measurement e r r o r . The 103 remaining items were then grouped i n t o e i g h t s u b s c a l e s , one f o r each of the major content areas. In order that s u b s c a l e s have strong and s i g n i f i c a n t alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s (a method of determining r a t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n c e ) , the l e a s t r e l i a b l e items were s y s t e m a t i c a l y d e l e t e d u n t i l an alpha c o e f f i c i e n t of 39 O . 3 0 ) was obtained. While a c o e f f i c i e n t of .30 i s considered low, for the purpose of the development of a new instrument, e s p e c i a l l y where the concept has not been measured before, lower alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s are acceptable (Nunnally, 1978) . A l l 15 items from the subscale FINANCE were deleted before t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t was obtained. The alpha scores for the remaining seven subscales are reported i n Table 2. The item numbers l i s t e d i n Table 2 i d e n t i f y the statement number on the f i n a l research instrument. Table 2 Alpha C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r KMFC Subscales SUBSCALE AND ITEM # ALPHA . 5598 .5194 . 3857 .3620 . 5564 . 5444 . 8732 V a l i d i t y A f t e r the r e l i a b i l i t y of the instrument had been determined, i t was necessary to e s t a b l i s h i t s v a l i d i t y or the degree to which the instrument measures what i t purports to measure (Borg and G a l l , 1983) . To establishment v a l i d i t y , a t h i r d group was used. This panel of nine experts c o n s i s t e d of f a c u l t y from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia School of Family and N u t r i t i o n a l Sciences, s t a f f of The B r i t i s h Columbia Council for Communication (6, 11, 24) C o n f l i c t (5, 10, 18) L e i s u r e / L i f e s t y l e (9, 15, 26) S e x u a l i t y (2, 12) Expectations (14, 19, 21) Family of O r i g i n (7 , 25) General Marr . (4, 20, 27) 40 the Family, marriage p r e p a r a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s i n the province and one f a c u l t y member from the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a ' s Department of F a m i l y S t u d i e s . A l l experts had a d o c t o r a l degree i n f a m i l y s t u d i e s , marriage and f a m i l y c o u n s e l l i n g or an area r e l a t e d to marriage e d u c a t i o n . T h i s group, l a b e l e d ' F a c u l t y E x p e r t s ' completed the same q u e s t i o n n a i r e as the two student groups. These responses were used to c r e a t e a second expert category. Table 3 Group Means and Tests of S i g n i f i c a n c e f o r KMFC Subscales SUBSCALE FACULTY STUDENT NON SIGNIFICANCE AND ITEM ft EXPERT EXPERT EXPERT OF EXPERT VS. NON-EXPERT MEANS MEANS MEANS MEANS Communication 0.89 0.77 0. 53 0.008 (6, 11, 24) C o n f l i c t 0.78 0.68 0.50 0.035 (5, 10, 18) L e i s u r e / L i f e s t y l e 0.81 0.77 0.55 0.015 (9, 15, 26) S e x u a l i t y 0.83 0.65 0.42 0.020 (2, 12) E x p e c t a t i o n s 1.00 0.85 0.73 0.350 (14, 9, 21) Fam i l y O r i g i n 0.92 0.82 0.17 0.000 (7, 25) General Marr. 0.96 1.00 0.80 0.016 (4, 20, 27) 41 The seven remaining s u b s c a l e s were analyzed u s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . A subscale i s considered to have content v a l i d i t y when the d i f f e r e n c e between expert and non-expert means i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 0.050 l e v e l , i n d i c a t i n g that the instrument d i s c r i m i n a t e s between those who know and those who don't know the content being measured. Table 3 presents these r e s u l t s . Analys i s of the Data The data r e l a t e d to hypotheses 3, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were t e s t e d by means of a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , while hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14 were t e s t e d through the c a l c u l a t i o n of Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . Post hoc analyses c o n s i s t i n g of Anova and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n were a l s o c a r r i e d out. A s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of 0.05 was used i n a l l a n a l y s e s . 42 CHAPTER 4 F i n d i n g s and R e s u l t s In t h i s chapter, the r e s u l t s of the study are presented. A d e s c r i p t i o n of the respondents i s p r o v i d e d , and f i n d i n g s are r e p o r t e d i n r e l a t i o n to each of the f o u r t e e n hypotheses. The r e s u l t s of post hoc analyses of the data are a l s o presented. Response Rate Packages c o n t a i n i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and i n s t r u c t i o n s were mailed to the 117 United Church of Canada and A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada congregations i n the sample. Since some of the packages co n t a i n e d more than one q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a t o t a l of 127 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed. However, none of the congregations r e t u r n e d more than one q u e s t i o n n a i r e . S i x packages were re t u r n e d by Canada Post as u n d e l i v e r a b l e . Of those remaining, 64 (57.7%) congregations responded. Two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not useable as not a l l s e c t i o n s had been completed, l e a v i n g 62 as the f i n a l number of congregations i n the study. D e s c r i p t i o n of Sample Congregations Tables 4 and 5 present a demographic d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample c o n g r e g a t i o n s . Responses were r e c e i v e d from a l l regions of the p r o v i n c e as designated by the M i n i s t r y of Regional Development, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia (1988). The Greater Vancouver Area was represented by the l a r g e s t number of c o n g r e g a t i o n s (n=22), followed by the South Vancouver I s l a n d Region (n=10). T h i r t y s i x of the congregations were i n urban l o c a t i o n s , with 15 i n semi-urban and 11 i n r u r a l l o c a t i o n s . 43 Table 4 Demographic D e s c r i p t i o n of Sample Congregations V a r i a b l e Mean S.D. Range S i z e of Congregations T o t a l Number of Weddings per Year 434.407 24.050 296.900 59-1,050 40.836 0-101 Table 5 F r e q u e n c i e s and Percentages of Sample Congregation Demographics V a r i a b l e N Denomination Region i n the P r o v i n c e United 27 A n g l i c a n 28 Other 4 Greater Vancouver 20 Fra s e r V a l l e y 6 South Van. I s l a n d 9 C e n t r a l / N o r t h Van. I s l a n d 6 Kootenays 5 Okanagan 4 Cariboo 4 Northern B.C. 5 45.8 47.5 6.8 33.9 10.2 15.3 10.2 8.5 6.8 6.8 8.5 44 Of the 62 useable responses, an equal number (n=29) were r e c e i v e d from each of the two denominations s t u d i e d . The remaining four q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were ret u r n e d from congregations where I n d i v i d u a l s from more than one denomination meet together as a worshipping community, f o r example, a congregation c o n s i s t i n g of members and adherents of the United Church of Canada, A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada and the E v a n g e l i c a l Lutheran Church meeting under the l e a d e r s h i p of a United Church c l e r g y . There was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n the s i z e of the congregations w i t h i n the sample. The number of members and adherents ( i n c l u d i n g c h i l d r e n ) i n these congregations ranged from a low of 59 to over 1000. Most of the congregations, (69.4%) employed o n l y one s t a f f person. The number of weddings per congregation i n 1988 ranged from 0 t o 101, with an average of 25 weddings per c o n g r e g a t i o n . The m a j o r i t y of the marriage educators (58.1%) r e p o r t t h a t they p l a n s i x or more hours of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n with each couple. F o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t held i n t e r v i e w s or p r i v a t e c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s with p r e m a r i t a l c ouples. Of these, 11% c o u l d be considered as i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o u n s e l l i n g as they use an assessment instrument d u r i n g t h e i r c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s . F i f t y - t w o percent request t h a t couples p a r t i c i p a t e i n group enrichment programs, while o n l y one respondent i n d i c a t e d t h a t they conducted post-wedding i n t e r v e n t i o n . D e s c r i p t i o n of Marr iage Educators The m a j o r i t y of the marriage educators who responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were male. They ranged i n age from 33 to 67, with a mean age* of 50.8 y e a r s . Seventy nine percent (n=49) were 45 married t o t h e i r f i r s t spouse, and of those remaining, 2 had never been married, 3 were separated or d i v o r c e d and 8 had r e m a r r i e d . The mean t o t a l number of years married ( a l l marriages) was 23.69. A l l of the respondents were employed by the church and the m a j o r i t y (91.9%) were employed f u l l time. Nearly t h r e e - f o u r t h s (72.3%) r e p o r t e d being the s o l e c l e r g y i n t h e i r c o n g r e g a t i o n . Only one respondent r e p o r t e d being employed as a Marriage and Fam i l y m i n i s t e r . These respondents had been ordained an average of 20 years and 54% (n=31) had obtained a master's degree. Four were i n t h e i r f i r s t p a s t o r a t e , 20 i n t h e i r second or t h i r d , while 21 had he l d four or more p a s t o r a t e s . Table 6 Demographic D e s c r i p t i o n of Respondents V a r i a b l e Mean S.D. Range Age of Respondents 50.759 8.529 33-67 T o t a l Number of Years M a r r i e d 23.431 9.919 0-42 T o t a l Number of Years Ordained 20.328 9.729 2-37 Hours of Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n O f f e r e d 5.917 2.132 1-8+ 46 Table 7 Frequ e n c i e s and Percentages of Respondent Demographics V a r i a b l e N % Gender M a r i t a l Status Employment Status Male Female 50 9 P o s i t i o n on S t a f f L e v e l of E d u c a t i o n Never Married 2 F i r s t Spouse 46 Separated/Divorced 3 F u l l Time S t a f f 3/4 Time S t a f f 1/2 Time S t a f f Less than 1/2 Time S t a f f Volunteer General C l e r g y S p e c i a l i z e d M i n i s t r y C o l l e g e Bachelor 1 s Master ' s Doctorate 54 1 2 2 0 55 8 16 31 5 84.7 15.3 3.4 81.4 5.1 91.5 1.7 3.4 3.4 0.0 93.2 6.8 14.0 28.1 54.4 8.7 Type of Marriage P r e p a r a t i o n O f f e r e d Informal Interview 21 35.0 I n s t r u c t i o n a l C o u n s e l l i n 7 11.7 Interview and Enrichment 25 41.6 I n s t r u c . Coun. and Enrichment 3 5.0 Enrichment with Post-Wedding I n t e r v e n t i o n 1 1.6 47 Dependent V a r i a b l e s Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts Instrument The development of the instrument to measure the l e v e l of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts was d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter Three. During that development, an alpha of .6278 was e s t a b l i s h e d i n order to determine i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y , and the instrument was shown to d i s c r i m i n a t e between those with and without knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. The data from the respondents i n t h i s study were a l s o used to determine whether the Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts (KMFC) Instrument was a r e l i a b l e measure of knowledge f o r t h i s sample. The alpha score f o r the respondents i n t h i s s tudy was .2187, sugge s t i n g t h a t f o r these respondents, the 19- item KMFC Instrument was not a r e l i a b l e measure. In order to determine which of the items were d e t r a c t i n g from a s i g n i f i c a n t a l p h a s c o r e , a l l items were analyzed f o r t h e i r I n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s s c a l e . By removing two items (#10 from the su b s c a l e s e x u a l i t y and #12 from the subscale c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n ) , an alpha score of .6890 co u l d be obtained, thus i n c r e a s i n g the r e l i a b i l t y of the s c a l e . The r e v i s e d 17-item s c a l e was thus determined to be a r e l i a b l e measure of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts f o r t h i s study. In a d d i t i o n , a l p h a scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each of the su b s c a l e s i n the KMFC Instrument. These s c o r e s are presented i n Table 8. I t should be noted t h a t i n the o r i g i n a l instrument development, s i x su b s c a l e s (communication, c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n , l i f e s t y l e , " m a r i t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , general marriage and f a m i l y of 48 o r i g i n ) were found to be r e l i a b l e and v a l i d measures. For t h i s study, o n l y the s u b - s c a l e s communication, m a r i t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , l e i s u r e / l i f e s t y l e , f a m i l y of o r i g i n , and general marriage are co n s i d e r e d r e l i a b l e . The su b s c a l e s e x u a l i t y does not appear i n Table 8 because i n the r e v i s e d KMFC instrument, o n l y one Item remains i n t h i s s u b s c a l e . Table 8 R e l i a b i l i t y of KMFC Subcales Subscale/Item Numbers Alpha Communication (6, 11, 22) .4652 C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n (5, 17) .1567 M a r i t a l E x p e c t a t i o n s (13, 18) .3575 L e i s u r e / L i f e s t y l e (9, 14, 25) -.6925 Family of O r i g i n (7, 24) . 4111 General Marriage (4, 19, 23, 26) .6798 A f a c t o r a n a y s i s was then c a r r i e d out on the r e v i s e d Knowledge of Marriage and Fam i l y Concepts Instrument. The purpose of t h i s a n a l y s i s was to c o n f i r m t h a t the KMFC i n v e n t o r y i s a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l e (Nie, H u l l , J e n k i n s , Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975). A P r i n c i p a l - Components A n a l y s i s f o r the Revised Knowledge of Marriage Concepts Instrument i s found i n Appendix B. T h i s Table r e v e a l s t h a t s i x f a c t o r s are present i n the Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts Inventory,' i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t i s indeed a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l e . 49 Table 9 pr e s e n t s the Eigenvalue c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the r e v i s e d KMFC. These s t a t i s t i c s i n d i c a t e t h a t the s i x f a c t o r s combined e x p l a i n only 67% of the v a r i a n c e , or that 33% of the v a r i a n c e would be l o s t i f a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s approach were used to r e v i s e the KMFC Instrument. In c o n t r a s t , through the establishment of a s t r o n g Cronbach Alpha, only two v a r i a b l e s were l o s t . Thus the 17-item i n v e n t o r y developed through the l a t t e r approach was adopted and used as a m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l measure of knowledge (KMFC). Table 9 Fa c t o r A n a l y s i s of KMFC Items: Eigenvalue Greater then 1.0Q00Q Item F a c t o r Eigenvalue Percent of Variance Cumulative Var iance 6 1 3.12093 18. 4 18.4 11 2 2.07366 12.2 30.6 22 3 2.00692 11.8 42.4 5 4 1.65144 9.7 52.1 17 5 1.46386 8.6 60.7 13 6 1.06662 6.3 67.0 R e s u l t s j_ Knowledge of Marr iage and Family Concepts Scores f o r the dependent v a r i a b l e Knowledge of Marriage and Fa m i l y Concepts ranged from 7 to 16, with a t o t a l p o s s i b l e score of 17. The higher the sc o r e , the g r e a t e r the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. T h i s v a r i a b l e had a mean of 12.6, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the average respondent scored 74% on the KMFC Instrument. The mode and the median were both 13.00. The skewness was -.698. As 69% of the sco r e s l i e w i t h i n one sta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n (1.994) of the mean and 95% of the scores l i e 50 Table 10 D i s t r i b u t i o n of KMFC Subscales and I n d i v i d u a l Items Subscale/Item# N I n c o r r e c t C o r r e c t Mean Communication 1 11 22 C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n 5 17 62 62 62 62 61 62 61 19 25 16 22 1 43 37 46 40 61 .677 .694 . 597 .742 .815 .645 .984 Mar i t a l E x p e c t a t i o n s 13 18 62 62 62 Le i s u r e / L i f e s t y l e 61 9 62 14 62 25 61 Family of O r i g i n 61 7 62 24 61 General Marriage 62 4 62 19 62 23 62 26 62 11 6 Sex NA 62 11 44 27 36 15 7 16 16 6 11 41 56 51 18 34 26 46 55 46 46 56 51 .863 .823 .903 .557 .823 .290 .557 .590 .419 .754 .844 .887 .742 .742 .903 .823 51 within 2 standard deviations of the mean, t h i s variable can be considered to f i t a normal curve which allows one to c l e a r l y interpret the s t a t i s t i c s calculated (Kerlinger, 1973). An examination of responses to the KMFC Instrument as presented in Table 10 reveals that respondents scored highest on subscales Marital Expectations (x=.863) and General Marriage (x=.844) and lowest on subscales Leisure (x=.555) and Family of Origin (x=.590). The item with the greatest number of correct responses was item #17 "A married couple who are experiencing c o n f l i c t are probably experiencing a marriage that is f a l l i n g apart" (n=61). Item #14 "Holding d i f f e r e n t value systems i s a destructive force in marriages" had the most incorrect responses (n=44). Results: Perceived competence The dependent variable Perceived Competence had an alpha score of .888 for t h i s sample. The range of possible scores for t h i s variable Is from 1 to 72. For t h i s variable, the higher the score, the lower the l e v e l of perceived competence in marriage preparation. For these respondents, the Perceived Competence scores ranged from 9 to 54 with a mean of 25.8, a standard deviation of 9.893 and a median of 13. On the nine- point scale used to measure overall Perceived Competence, the average respondent rated himself/herself at 3.7, with 1 = very competent and 9 = not very competent. Table 11 presents respondents' perceived competence in working with premarital couples on individual content areas. These marriage educators report that they f e e l the most competent 52 Table 11 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P e r c e i v e d Competence Subscales V a r i a b l e Mean S.D. Median Communicat ion 2. 871 1. 385 3 .000 C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n 3. 328 1. 535 3 .000 S e x u a l i t y 3. 590 1. 883 3 .000 M a r i t a l E x p e c t a t i o n s 2. 855 1. 389 3 .000 Leisure/ L i f e s t y l e 3. 557 1. 747 3 .000 F a m i l y of O r i g i n 3. 210 1. 549 3 .000 General Marriage 3. 150 1. 482 3 .000 Finance 3. 918 1. 696 4 .000 53 about working with couples i n the areas of Communication (x= 2.871) and M a r i t a l E x p e c t a t i o n s (x= 2.855). They f e e l l e a s t competent i n the area of Finances (x= 3.918). Research Hypotheses: Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study was to measure the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts held by marriage educators p r o v i d i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . The f i r s t seven hypotheses of the study r e f e r t o the dependent v a r i a b l e knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. Hypotheses 1 and 2 r e l a t e to p o s i t i o n on s t a f f , t h a t i s , whether the marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r i s employed by the church In a p o s i t i o n of g e n e r a l c l e r g y or i n a s p e c i a l i z e d m i n i s t r y such as marriage and f a m i l y or serves i n a l a y v o l u n t e e r c a p a c i t y . Hypothesis 1 Those employed as s t a f f a s s o c i a t e s or i n p o s i t i o n s other than g e n e r a l c l e r g y w i l l have a higher l e v e l of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts than g e n e r a l c l e r g y . Hypothesis 2_ V o l u n t e e r s t r a i n e d as marriage educators w i l l have a g r e a t e r knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts than e i t h e r g e n e r a l c l e r g y or other church s t a f f . R e s u l t s . As r e p o r t e d In Table 5, only four respondents were employed i n p o s i t i o n s other than g e n e r a l c l e r g y and none were v o l u n t e e r s . Thus n e i t h e r hypothesis c o u l d be t e s t e d , and the n u l l hypotheses cannot be r e j e c t e d . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note however, t h a t the one i n d i v i d u a l In the sample who was employed In a s p e c i a l i z e d 54 ministry in marriage and the family scored the highest on the Knowledge o£ Marriage and Family Concepts instrument. Hypothesis 3_ Knowledge of marriage and family concepts held by marriage educators w i l l not vary by denomination. Results. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for the purpose of tes t i n g t h i s hypothesis. ANOVA is a means for measuring the difference in v a r i a b l i t y about the mean. A t o t a l of 57 cases were analyzed to test the eff e c t of the independent variable denomination on knowledge of marriage and family concepts. Five cases were not useable due to missing data or because th e i r denomination was not cle a r . The results of this analysis are presented in Table 12. Table 12 Knowledge of Marriage and Family Concepts by Denomination Category Mean N Total Population 12.47 57 Anglican Church 12.75 29 United Church 12.21 29 Variable SS dF F P Denomination 4.2021 1 1.005 .321 55 While the c e l l means i n d i c a t e that a d i f f e r e n c e occurs between the two denominations with regards to knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s supported. Hypothesis 4_ The more l i b e r a l the t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l , the higher the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. R e s u l t s . T h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s an o r d i n a l s c a l e v a r i a b l e . A c c o r d i n g to L a b o v i t z (1972), Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s and other s t a t i s t i c s o r i g i n a l l y Intended f o r use with i n t e r v a l s c a l e data may be used on data which s a t i s f y the assumptions of o r d i n a l - l e v e l measurement. For t h i s v a r i a b l e , a Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was c a l c u l a t e d , but t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n -.1581 (p=.120) was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Since Long, Convey and Chwalek (1985) i n d i c a t e t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n s with a p r o b a b i l i t y of l e s s than .20 may suggest a t r e n d , t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n suggests then t h a t the d i r e c t i o n proposed i n the hypothesis may be c o r r e c t , t h a t i s , the more l i b e r a l the i n d i v i d u a l , the higher the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. Hypothes i s 5_ The higher the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , the gr e a t e r the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. R e s u l t s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the independent v a r i a b l e , l e v e l of 56 e d u c a t i o n , i s r e p o r t e d i n Table 7. An a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was computed to determine i f i n d i v i d u a l s who have higher e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s score higher on the Knowledge of Marriage and F a m i l y Concepts Inventory. (See Table 13). As no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between educators with v a r i o u s e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s f a i l s to be r e j e c t e d . Table 13 Knowledge of Marriage and F a m i l y Concepts by_ L e v e l of E d u c a t i o n Category Mean N T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n 12.50 60 C o l l e g e C e r t i f i c a t e 12.60 10 Bac h e l o r ' s Degree 12.13 16 Master's Degree 12.69 29 Doctorate Degree 12.40 5 Var i a b l e SS df F P L e v e l of Education 3.443 3 .268 .848 57 Table 14 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and Ranges of Independent V a r i a b l e s ; T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n , Number of Weddings and Number of Years of Experience i n the M i n i s t r y . V a r i a b l e s Mean SD Range T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n Number of Weddings Number of Years In the M i n i s t r y 4.167 1.638 1 - 7 14.500 16.789 0 - 5 7 20.328 9.729 2 - 3 7 58 Hypothesis 6 The g r e a t e r the number of years of experience i n the m i n i s t r y , the lower the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y c o n c e p t s . R e s u l t s . In Table 14, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the Independent v a r i a b l e number of years experience i n the m i n i s t r y i s presented. As t h i s h y p o t h e s i s c o n s i s t s of two i n t e r v a l s c a l e v a r i a b l e s , a Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n i s the a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c to be c a l c u l a t e d f o r the purpose of t e s t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s . While a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of -.1130 i n d i c a t e s that the proposed d i r e c t i o n of the h y p o t h e s i s was c o r r e c t , the p r o b a b i l i t y of the c o r r e l a t i o n b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t i s low (p=.199). Thus no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts can be p r e d i c t e d by knowing the number of years of experience an i n d i v i d u a l has i n the m i n i s t r y . Thus the n u l l hypothesis f a i l s t o be r e j e c t e d . Table 14 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s , and Ranges of Independent V a r i a b l e s : T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n , Number of Weddings and Number of Years of E x p erience i n the M i n i s t r y V a r i a b l e s Mean SD Range T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n 4.167 1.638 1-7 Number of Weddings 14.500 16.789 0-57 Number of Years In The M i n i s t r y 20.328 9.729 2-37 59 Hypothes Is 1_ The greater the number of weddings performed annually, the higher the knowledge of marriage and family concepts. Results. Again, the c a l c u l a t i o n of a Pearson Correlation c o e f f i c i e n t i s the appropriate test for t h i s hypothesis. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .1391 (p=.151) indicates that while no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n in the dependent variable knowledge of marriage and family concepts can be explained by knowing the number of weddings performed in a year, the d i r e c t i o n of the hypothesis is correct. The n u l l hypothesis, however, f a i l s to be rejected. Research Hypotheses; Perceived Competence The second objective of t h i s study was to examine how competent these marriage educators perceived themselves to be in the provision of marriage preparation. The f i n a l seven hypotheses examine the interactions of the independent variables with the dependent variable perceived competence. Hypotheses 8 and 9 relate to the s t a f f position of the individual marriage preparation providers. Hypothesis 8 Those employed as s t a f f associates or in positions other than general clergy w i l l have a higher perceived competence than general clergy. Hypothesis 9_ Volunteers trained as marriage educators w i l l have a greater pe.rceived competence than either general clergy or other church s t a f f . 60 R e s u l t s . As o n l y four of the respondents were employed i n p o s i t i o n s other than what c o u l d be c l a s s i f e d as g e n e r a l c l e r g y and none of the respondents conducted marriage p r e p a r a t i o n as l a y v o l u n t e e r s (Table 7), these hypotheses c o u l d not be t e s t e d . Because the hypotheses c o u l d not be t e s t e d , the n u l l hypothesis cannot be r e j e c t e d . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note, however, t h a t the four i n d i v i d u a l s employed i n s p e c i a l i z e d m i n i s t r i e s p e r c e i v e d themselves as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more competent than d i d general c l e r g y . Hypothesis 10 P e r c e i v e d competence i n the p r o v i s i o n of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n w i l l not vary by denomination. R e s u l t s An a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) was conducted to t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . Table 15 presents a summary of t h i s a n a l y s i s . As shown i n t h i s t a b l e , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n p e r c e i v e d competence can be p r e d i c t e d by knowing the denomination of the marriage educator. Thus, the n u l l hypothesis as p r e d i c t e d i s not r e j e c t e d . 61 Table 15 P e r c e i v e d Competence by Denomination Category Mean N T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n 23.63 58 A n g l i c a n Church 23.38 29 U n i t e d Church 23.89 29 V a r i a b l e SS df F P Denomination 3.751 1 .046 .831 Hypothesis 11 The more t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l the i n d i v i d u a l , the h i g h e r the p e r c e i v e d competence i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . R e s u l t s . The independent v a r i a b l e t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s an o r d i n a l s c a l e v a r i a b l e . In order t o t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , a Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c e n t was c a l c u l a t e d . T h i s c o e f f i c i e n t , -.1003 (p=.227) i n d i c a t e s that knowing an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n of t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l not help to p r e d i c t p e r c e i v e d competence i n p r o v i d i n g marriage education o p p o r t u n i t e s to p r e m a r i t a l c o u p l e s . Thus the n u l l hypothesis f a i l s t o be r e j e c t e d . 62 Hypothesis 12 The higher the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , the g r e a t e r the p e r c e i v e d competence i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . R e s u l t s . As i n d i c a t e d by the a n a l y s i s i n Table 16, knowing an i n d i v i d u a l marriage educator's l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n w i l l not enable one to determine t h a t marriage educator's p e r c e i v e d competence i n p r o v i d i n g marriage e d u c a t i o n . Table 16 P e r c e i v e d Competence by L e v e l of E d u c a t i o n Category Mean N T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n 23.63 61 C o l l e g e C e r t i f i c a t e 20.23 10 Bachelor's Degree 25.00 15 Master's Degree 23.83 31 Doctorate Degree 25.13 5 V a r i a b l e ss df F P L e v e l of E d u c a t i o n 156. 041 3 .661 .579 63 Hypothesis 13 The g r e a t e r the number of years of experience i n the m i n i s t r y , the lower the pe r c e i v e d competence i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . R e s u l t s . As the t e s t i n g of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i n v o l v e s two i n t e r v a l s c a l e v a r i a b l e s , the c a l c u l a t i o n of a Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was a p p r o p r i a t e . The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of -.0175 (p=.448) i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus the n u l l h y p o thesis cannot be r e j e c t e d . Hypothesis 14 The g r e a t e r the number of weddings performed a n n u a l l y , the higher the p e r c e i v e d competence In marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . R e s u l t s . The Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two v a r i a b l e s i s -.1063 (p=.211). Ne i t h e r the hy p o t h e s i s nor the d i r e c t i o n of the hypothesis are supported. Thus the n u l l h y p o thesis i s not r e j e c t e d . Post-Hoc Analyses A c c o r d i n g to the preceding a n a l y s i s , the t h e o r e t i c a l views t h a t guided the development of the hypotheses In t h i s t h e s i s have f a i l e d to e x p l a i n e i t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s i n scores on the KMFC Instrument or d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s of competence of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s . T h i s suggests t h a t there may be other f a c t o r s which e x p l a i n the v a r i a n c e i n the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and the pe r c e i v e d competence of these e d u c a t o r s . To determine whether other f a c t o r s d i d e x i s t , a f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of the data was c a r r i e d out. For t h i s purpose, a Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n matrix was computed. T h i s matrix i n c l u d e d the dependent v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s u b s c a l e s , the independent v a r i a b l e s and the four c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s . As w e l l , data which had been c o l l e c t e d f o r d e s c r i p t i v e purposes r e g a r d i n g number of hours per couple spent i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n (an o r d i n a l s c a l e v a r i a b l e ) and type of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n o f f e r e d (an o r d i n a l s c a l e v a r i a b l e ) were i n c l u d e d i n the m a t r i x . R e s u l t s The i n i t i a l s t a t i s t i c examined i n the post-hoc a n a l y s i s was the c o r r e l a t i o n between the two dependent v a r i a b l e s , knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and p e r c e i v e d competence. This c o r r e l a t i o n (-.0477, p=.390) was not a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . A s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (.2135, p= .05) was found between the dependent v a r i a b l e knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e gender. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s s t a t i s t i c must be c a r r i e d out with c a u t i o n due to the low number of female respondents (n=9). A f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (-.3343, p=.005) was found between perc e i v e d competence and t o t a l number of hours per couple spent i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Those who r e p o r t e d a higher p e r c e i v e d competence r e q u i r e d p r e m a r i t a l c o u p les to spend a g r e a t e r number of hours i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . From the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t matrix, any independent or c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e which had a c o r r e l a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.2000 or lower (Table 17) with one of the dependent v a r i a b l e s was p l a c e d i n t o a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e q uation. " M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i s a method of s t u d y i n g the e f f e c t s and the magnitude of 65 T a b l e 17 P e a r s o n C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x : D e p e n d e n t , I n d e p e n d e n t , C o n t r o l a n d S e l e c t D e s c r i p t i v e V a r i a b l e C o r r e l a t i o n U n d e r P r o b a b i l i t y . 2 0 0 0 . K n o w , o f M a r r . a n d F a m . C o n c e p t s P e r c e i v e d C o m p e t e n c e L e v e l o f E d u c a t i o n T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n # o f W e d d i n g s p e r Y e a r # o f Y e a r s i n M i n i s t r y M a r i t a l S t a t u s & o f Y e a r s M a r r i e d A g e G e n d e r # o f H o u r s i n M a r r i a g e P r e p a r a t i o n - . 0 3 7 7 ( 5 7 ) p = . 3 9 0 P= 1581 ( 5 8 ) 120 . 1 3 9 1 (57 ) p = . 1 5 1 P = 1130 ( 5 8 ) 199 P= 1382 ( 5 9 ) 148 1693 (58 ) 102 P= - . 1 1 4 4 (58 ) p = . 1 9 6 . 2 1 3 5 (59 ) p = . 0 5 2 . 0041 (57 ) p = . 4 8 8 . 1 3 0 5 ( 5 8 ) p = . 1 6 4 . 1 0 0 3 ( 5 8 ) p = . 2 2 7 - . 1 0 6 3 ( 5 9 ) p = . 2 1 1 - . 2 2 9 8 ( 5 9 ) p = . 4 4 8 - . 1 0 8 9 ( 6 0 ) p = . 2 0 4 - . 1 6 0 6 ( 5 9 ) p = . 1 1 2 - . 1 3 5 1 ( 5 9 ) p = . 1 5 4 - . 1 7 1 3 ( 6 0 ) p = . 0 9 5 - . 3 3 4 3 ( 5 9 ) p = . 0 0 5 * 66 the e f f e c t s of more than one independent v a r i a b l e on the dependent v a r i a b l e u s i n g p r i n c i p l e s of c o r r e l a t i o n and r e g r e s s i o n " ( K e r l i n g e r , 1973, p.603). T h i s means t h a t i t pr o v i d e s e s t i m a t e s of the values of the dependent v a r i a b l e from the independent v a r i a b l e and i t p r o v i d e s measures of e r r o r i n v o l v e d i n u s i n g the r e g r e s s i o n l i n e as a b a s i s of e s t i m a t i o n and g i v e s c o r r e l a t i o n s to determine the a s s o c i a t i o n of v a r i a b l e s . I t should be noted t h a t while m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n i s best c a r r i e d out on i n t e r v a l s c a l e data, o r d i n a l and b i n a r y s c a l e data can be assumed to be i n t e r v a l s c a l e f o r the purposes of m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n without a f f e c t i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l outcomes too g r e a t l y ( L a b o v i t z , 1972). Two r e g r e s s i o n equations were conducted. The f i r s t e q u a t i o n i n c l u d e d the dependent v a r i a b l e knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts as w e l l as t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , number of weddings conducted per year, number of years i n the m i n i s t r y , number of years m a r r i e d , age and gender. The second equation c o n s i s t e d of p e r c e i v e d competence with l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , number of years married, age, and gender. Tables 18 and 19 r e s p e c t i v e l y o u t l i n e the u n s t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s (B), the s t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s (Beta), p r o b a b i l i t e s ( p), R, and R squared f o r these equ a t i o n s . The a d j u s t e d R square i s a l s o p r e s e n t e d , as R-Squared can only be r e p o r t e d as a p o s i t i v e value and thus may not a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y the d i r e c t i o n of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between v a r i a b l e s (Borg & McGall, 1983). The r e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s i n Table 18 i n d i c a t e that the seven v a r i a b l e s combined e x p l a i n o n l y 4% of the v a r i a n c e i n knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to 67 Table 18 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n of M a r i t a l S t a t u s , T h e o l o g i c a l O r i e n t a t i o n , Gender, # of. Weddings per Year, Age, # of Years i n the M i n i s t r y and £ °JL Years M a r r i e d on Knowledge of Marriage and Fa m i l y Concepts. Var i a b l e s B Beta M a r i t a l S tatus T h e o l o g i c a l Or i e n t a t i o n Gender # of Weddings per Year Age # of Years In the M i n i s t r y # of Years Married 417186 .158846 -.262865 2.079331 .019994 .002690 .027565 .005286 .231495 .331741 .144441 .012357 .131999 .026704 1.096 -1.522 2.054 .971 .038 .605 .095 .2793 .1354 .0461* .3370 .9698 .5481 .9249 R Square .17442 Adjusted R Square .04002 F= 1.29777 P= .2745 68 Table 19 Multiple Regression of Level of Education, Gender, Age and #_ of Years Married on Perceived Competence Variables B Beta t P Level of Education .344187 .028432 .186 .8535 Gender -4.030940 -.120994 -.764 .4489 Age .050545 .043680 .161 .8726 # of years Married -.290046 -.275682 -.967 .3384 R Square .05691 F=.69392 Adjusted R Square -.02519 P=.6000 69 note that even when marital status, theological orientation, t o t a l number of weddings, t o t a l number of years of experience in the ministry and t o t a l number of years married are controlled, gender is s t i l l a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of variance in t h i s dependent variable (.0461). Again caution must be exerted In the interpretation of t h i s s t a t i s t i c due to the low number of female respondents (n=9). The regression equation in Table 19 indicates that the independent variable l e v e l of education and the control variables gender, age and t o t a l number of years married combined explain only 2.5% of the variance in the dependent variable perceived competence. None of the correlations calculated are s i g n i f i c a n t . A t h i r d post hoc analysis was conducted to determine i f there were relationships between the subscales of the two dependent variables, knowledge of marriage and family concepts and perceived competence. The only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n found was between the subscales of perceived competence in working with premarital couples in the area of communication and knowledge of communication (-.2034, p=.05). Other s t a t i s t i c a l analyses were conducted to examine rel a t i o n s h i p s among independent and control variables. Table 20 reports that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between t o t a l number of years ordained and gender, indicating that female respondents have been ordained a s i g n i f i c a n t l y shorter period of time than male respondents. S i g n i f i c a n t correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s were also found between theological orientation and t o t a l number of years ordained (.3126, p=.008) and between le v e l of education and t o t a l number of years ordained (-.2298, p=.04). 70 Table 20 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : # of Years Ordained by Gender Category Mean N T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n 20.43 61 Male 21.89 53 Female 10.75 8 V a r i a b l e SS df F P Gender 8.62097 1 10.756 .002* * i n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n c e a t .005 71 CHAPTER 5 D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n s T h i s chapter w i l l present a summary of the study, a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s , and c o n c l u s i o n s that can be drawn from these r e s u l t s . In a d d i t i o n , the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study w i l l be noted. The chapter w i l l conclude with recommendations fo r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Summary The purpose of t h i s study was to examine s e l e c t e d a s p e c t s of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of marriage educators i n B r i t i s h Columbia congregations of the United Church of Canada and of the A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada. The s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s of the study were: 1) to assess the l e v e l of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts held by marriage educators and 2) to re-examine Wright's (1976) f i n d i n g t h at m i n i s t e r s i n v o l v e d i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n do not p e r c e i v e themselves to be competent p r o v i d e r s of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were sent to a random sample of t w e n t y - f i v e percent of the United Church and the A n g l i c a n Church congregations i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia (n=117). S i x t y four (57.7%) of these congregations responded. Since two of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were incomplete, the f i n a l number of congregations i n the study was 62. An equal number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was r e c e i v e d from the two denominations. The g r e a t e s t number of these were ret u r n e d from the Greater Vancouver Area followed by the South Vancouver I s l a n d Region of the p r o v i n c e . The s i z e of the congregations v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y , with a mean of 434 members or adherents. 72 The majority of the respondents were male (84.7%) with a mean age of 50.8 years. Three-fourths reported that they were the sole clergy in their congregation. Only one respondent reported being employed as a Marriage and Family Minister and none of the respondents were lay volunteer providers of marriage preparation. The average marriage educator in thi s study o f f i c i a t e d at 14 weddings in 1988. Forty-five percent held interviews or private counselling sessions with couples approaching marriage and 11% could be c l a s s i f i e d as in s t r u c t i o n a l counselling as an assessment instrument was used to guide their work. Fifty-two percent requested couples to attend a group enrichment program. Only one respondent conducted a post-wedding intervention with the couples. The mean number of hours of marriage preparation these marriage educators offered to premarital couples was 5.9. Two dependent variables were investigated in this study: knowledge of marriage and family concepts and perceived competence (the extent to which one perceives oneself to be competent in providing marriage preparation to premarital couples). The six independent variables used in this study included position on s t a f f , denomination, theological o r i e n t a t i o n , level of education, number of years in ministry and number of weddings performed per year. In addition, four control variables were proposed. These included age, gender, marital status and number of years married. Discuss ion: Knowledge of Marr iage and Family Concepts Since no appropriate instruments were available, i t was 73 necessary to develop an instrument to measure the dependent v a r i a b l e knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. A nineteen-item s c a l e was found to be a r e l i a b l e measure d u r i n g the i n i t i a l development of the instrument. However, f o r the respondents i n t h i s sample, a r e v i s e d 17-item i n v e n t o r y was found to be a r e l i a b l e measure of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. The mean score on the KMFC Instrument i n d i c a t e d t h a t the marriage educators i n t h i s sample had a reasonable l e v e l of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. I t i s of concern, however, that the average respondent answered 26% of the items on the KMFC i n c o r r e c t l y and th a t as many as 15% answered l e s s than 60% of the items c o r r e c t l y . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t hat many cou p l e s may be r e c e i v i n g i n c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g t h e i r marriage p r e p a r a t i o n experience. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h at the respondents appeared to be the most knowledgeable i n the areas of M a r i t a l E x p e c t a t i o n s and General Marriage, as these are e s t a b l i s h e d areas w i t h i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , and not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t they were the l e a s t knowledgeable i n the areas of L e i s u r e / L i f e s t y l e and Family of O r i g i n , content areas which are r e l a t i v e l y new i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . I t had been hypothesized i n t h i s study t h a t those marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s who h e l d s p e c i a l i z e d s t a f f p o s i t i o n s or who were l a y v o l u n t e e r s would have a g r e a t e r knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. Since only 4 of the respondents were employed i n p o s i t i o n s other than general c l e r g y , i t was not p o s s i b l e to t e s t these hypotheses. I t was somewhat s u r p r i s i n g t h a t most responses came from g e n e r a l 74 c l e r g y , s i n c e i t i s known th a t there are many l a y v o l u n t e e r s and s t a f f a s s o c i a t e s i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s unclear whether these i n d i v i d u a l s simply d i d not appear i n the random sample or whether for some reason the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not d i r e c t e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y to s t a f f a s s o c i a t e s or l a y v o l u n t e e r s . The h y p othesis that knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts would not vary by denomination was supported. As noted e a r l i e r , c l e r g y i n the United Church of Canada and the A n g l i c a n Church i n Canada t r a i n at the same t h e o l o g i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and have s i m i l a r statements of f a i t h . T herefore i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that they do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. I t was a l s o hypothesized that marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s would have a g r e a t e r knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts i f they were more t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l , had a higher l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , had fewer years of experience i n the m i n i s t r y , and performed a g r e a t e r number of weddings per year. None of these hypotheses were supported. Although the f i r s t of these ( t h a t those who were more t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l would have a g r e a t e r l e v e l of knowledge) was not s i g n i f i c a n t (p=.120), the d i r e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n was as p r e d i c t e d . T h i s t r e n d i s i n agreement with the f i n d i n g s of Orthner (1986). The lack of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n and knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts was d i s a p p o i n t i n g , as i t might be presumed that a d d i t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n "would be r e f l e c t e d i n greater knowledge. I t i s 75 p o s s i b l e , however, that s p e c i f i c a t t e n t i o n to marriage and f a m i l y concepts may not have been d i f f e r e n t i n the v a r i o u s l e v e l s of education a t t a i n e d by t h i s sample. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important s i n c e the respondents were a l l c l e r g y , and i t was noted e a r l i e r t h a t l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i s given to marriage p r e p a r a t i o n i n t r a i n i n g programs f o r the c l e r g y . A s i m i l a r e x p l a n a t i o n may be giv e n f o r the lack of c o r r e l a t i o n between years of experience i n the m i n i s t r y and l e v e l of knowledge. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t those who were t r a i n e d more r e c e n t l y have had no g r e a t e r t r a i n i n g i n marriage and the f a m i l y than d i d those who t r a i n e d at an e a r l i e r time. I t i s unclear as to why there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between number of weddings per year and knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. I t was expected t h a t those c l e r g y who perform a g r e a t e r number of weddings would r e c o g n i z e a need f o r f u r t h e r knowledge based on the demands f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s as marriage educators. However, perhaps these same c l e r g y a l s o have high demands on them i n other areas of t h e i r m i n i s t r y , and do not have the time to pursue s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g . The d i r e c t i o n s of the c o r r e l a t i o n s between knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and the two independent v a r i a b l e s number of years of experience i n the m i n i s t r y and number of weddings performed a n n u a l l y are as p r e d i c t e d , that i s , those with a g r e a t e r number of years i n the m i n i s t r y would have lower KMCF s c o r e s and those with a g r e a t e r number of weddings per year w i l l have higher KMFC s c o r e s . I t i s p o s s i b l e that with a l a r g e r sample s i z e , these f i n d i n g s would be s i g n i f i c a n t . 76 I t i s p o s s i b l e that the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between the dependent and the independent v a r i a b l e s may be a f u n c t i o n of the s i m i l a r i t y of the sample, given that n e a r l y a l l of the respondents were c l e r g y from two s i m i l a r denominations. The s m a l l sample s i z e may a l s o have been a l i m i t a t i o n on the outcomes of the study. The post hoc f i n d i n g t h a t females scored higher on the KMFC instrument than males must be I n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n because of the s m a l l number of female respondents i n the study. T h i s f i n d i n g , however, i s strengthened by s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s i n the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s which i n d i c a t e d t h a t gender was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r of knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts. A d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s are needed, however, to f u r t h e r examine t h i s f i n d i n g . D i s c u s s i o n : P e r c e i v e d Competence The f i n d i n g t h a t the marriage educators i n t h i s sample g e n e r a l l y p e r c e i v e d themselves to be competent p r o v i d e r s of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n does not support the f i n d i n g of Wright (1976) t h a t American c l e r g y d i d not perceive themselves to be competent i n t h i s r o l e . I t i s unclear whether t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n measurement, d i f f e r e n c e s i n content or type of program or to some other v a r i a b l e . ( I t should be noted t h a t d e t a i l s of Wright's methodology were not a v a i l a b l e to the r e s e a r c h e r , but i t appears t h a t Wright used a one item s c a l e ) . These marriage educators p e r c e i v e d themselves to be most competent 'in the areas of Communication and M a r i t a l 77 E x p e c t a t i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s not s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e these are e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s i n the m i n i s t r y , and ones i n which they would l i k e l y have r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e t r a i n i n g . The s p e c i f i c s c a l e on which they r e f l e c t e d the l e a s t competence i s Finances. T h i s might have been a n t i c i p a t e d s i n c e i n many marriage p r e p a r a t i o n courses a bank manager or accountant i s i n v i t e d to address t h i s s u b j e c t a r e a . T h i s lack of p e r c e i v e d competence i n Finances, however, does r a i s e concerns i n s i t u a t i o n s where c l e r g y conduct i n d i v i d u a l marriage p r e p a r a t i o n s e s s i o n s . Marriage p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s i n p o s i t i o n s of s p e c i a l i z e d m i n i s t r y and l a y v o l u n t e e r s were hypothesized to p e r c e i v e themselves to be more competent p r o v i d e r s than g e n e r a l c l e r g y . These hypotheses were not t e s t a b l e as only four respondents were employed i n p o s i t i o n s other than general c l e r g y and none of the respondents were v o l u n t e e r s . As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s chapter, i t i s s u r p r i s i n g that the sample group of respondents d i d not include more s t a f f a s s o c i a t e s and/or v o l u n t e e r s . The p r e d i c t e d hypothesis t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p would e x i s t between denomination and p e r c e i v e d competence was confirmed. The reasons fo r t h i s f i n d i n g are s i m i l a r to those d i s c u s s e d r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and denomination, that i s , c l e r g y i n both denominations are t r a i n e d at the same t h e o l o g i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and have s i m i l a r statements of f a i t h . The h ypothesis t h a t those who were more l i b e r a l t h e o l o g i c a l l y would p e r c e i v e themselves to be more competent as p r o v i d e r s of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n was not supported. The 78 proposed d i r e c t i o n f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s was based on the f i n d i n g s of Orthner (1986) who found t h a t t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n was a s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r m i n a n t of p e r c e i v e d competence i n p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l l i n g i n a s t u d y of American c l e r g y i n a d e n o m i n a t i o n s i m i l a r t o the U n i t e d Church. However, Wright (1984) i n a s t u d y of the p a s t o r a l m i n i s t r y of Canadian c l e r g y had found t h a t t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n had no e f f e c t on p a s t o r a l c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s t h e s i s s u p p o r t the work of Wright i n t h i s r e g a r d . The hypotheses t h a t those who have a h i g h e r l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , had fewer y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e i n the m i n i s t r y , and performed a g r e a t e r number of weddings per year would r e p o r t a g r e a t e r p e r c e i v e d competence were a l s o not s u p p o r t e d . The proposed r e a s o n s why these were not s u p p o r t e d are s i m i l a r t o t h o s e d i s c u s s e d f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of these v a r i a b l e s t o knowledge of m a r r i a g e and f a m i l y c o n c e p t s , t h a t i s , a t t e n t i o n t o m a r r i a g e p r e p a r a t i o n may not have been i n c l u d e d i n the t r a i n i n g of t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s , r e g a r d l e s s of the time the t r a i n i n g was o b t a i n e d . In p o s t hoc a n a l y s i s , a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between p e r c e i v e d competence and the t o t a l number of hours per c o u p l e spent on m a r r i a g e p r e p a r a t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g r e f e r r a l s t o e x t e r n a l s o u r c e s ) . T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n (-.3343, p=.008) was i n the e x p e c t e d d i r e c t i o n and i n d i c a t e s t h a t those respondents w i t h h i g h e r p e r c e i v e d competence r e q u i r e c o u p l e s t o spend more time p r e p a r i n g f o r t h e i r m a r r i a g e than those w i t h lower l e v e l s of p e r c e i v e d competence. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t those w i t h a 79 greater l e v e l of perceived competence may place a higher value on marriage p r e p a r a t i o n , thus encouraging couples to spend more time preparing for t h e i r married l i v e s . Conversely, i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e that those who require couples ,to spend more time i n marriage prep a r a t i o n may f e e l the need to report f e e l i n g s of perceived competence i n order to j u s t i f y t h e i r requirements. In the post hoc a n a l y s i s , there was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the two dependent v a r i a b l e s , knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts and perceived competence. The c o r r e l a t i o n was i n f a c t so weak that one cannot comment on the d i r e c t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t was a n t i c i p a t e d that a c o r r e l a t i o n would e x i s t between these two v a r i a b l e s such that the higher the knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts, the greater the perceived competence. One p o s s i b l e explanation for t h i s lack of a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p may be that those with a greater knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts are more cognizant of the complexity of the f i e l d and therefore have a more moderate perception of t h e i r competence. To f u r t h e r examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two measures, the subscales r e l a t i n g to knowledge of marriage and f a m i l y concepts were c o r r e l a t e d with t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e perceived competence subscales. The only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was between the sc a l e perceived competence i n working with p r e m a r i t a l couples i n the area of communication and the subscale knowledge of communication, th a t i s the higher the knowledge of communication, the higher the perceived competence i n preparing couples i n the area of communication. This s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the two communication 80 s u b s c a l e s may r e f l e c t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f m i n i s t r y . C l e r g y a r e t r a i n e d t o be good c o m m u n i c a t o r s and s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e have an a c c u r a t e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i r c o m p e t e n c e i n t h i s s u b j e c t a r e a . I n t h e p o s t hoc a n a l y s i s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s among i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e number o f y e a r s o r d a i n e d and g e n d e r , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t f e m a l e r e s p o n d e n t s have been o r d a i n e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a n male r e s p o n d e n t s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g g i v e n t h a t t h e e n t r y o f women i n t o t h e m i n i s t r y i s a somewhat r e c e n t t r e n d . I t w i l l be i n t e r e s t i n g t o m o n i t o r t h e e f f e c t o f g e n d e r on v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f m i n i s t r y a s women c o n t i n u e t o e n t e r t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l m i n i s t r y . C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s The m a j o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y a r e t h a t most m a r r i a g e p r e p a r a t i o n p r o v i d e r s i n t h e s a m p l e have a r e a s o n a b l e k n o w l e d g e o f m a r r i a g e and f a m i l y c o n c e p t s and t h a t t h e y p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s t o be c o m p e t e n t i n p r o v i d i n g m a r r i a g e e d u c a t i o n . The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y do n o t s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f W r i g h t (1976) c o n c e r n i n g p e r c e i v e d c o m p e t e n c e . N e i t h e r k n o w l e d g e o f m a r r i a g e and f a m i l y c o n c e p t s n o r p e r c e i v e d c o m p e t e n c e were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y . T h i s s t u d y d o e s r a i s e c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e t r a i n i n g o f m a r r i a g e e d u c a t o r s . F o r t h e most p a r t , t h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s o b t a i n e d m o d e r a t e s c o r e s on t h e KMFC I n s t u m e n t . A t f i r s t g l a n c e t h e s e s c o r e s may a p p e a r t o be a d e q u a t e . However, when 81 one c o n s i d e r s the amount of f a l s e i n f o r m a t i o n that c o u l d be provided to p r e m a r i t a l couples when approximately one-quarter of t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was i n c o r r e c t , the g r a v i t y of the s i t u a t i o n becomes more obvious. T h e o l o g i c a l schools need to i n c l u d e more i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to marriage and f a m i l y concepts i n t h e i r c u r r i c u l a . In p a r t i c u l a r , these c l e r g y need more i n f o r m a t i o n i n the area of L e i s u r e , Family of O r i g i n and F i n a n c e s . C o n t i n u i n g education agencies should a l s o c o n s i d e r i n c l u d i n g content i n f o r m a t i o n i n conferences and workshops. Recommendations for F u r t h e r Research T h i s study p r o v i d e s important b a s e l i n e data and suggests the need fo r f u t u r e s t u d i e s . There i s a need f o r continued development of the Knowledge of Marriage and F a m i l y Concepts Instrument. A r e v i s i o n of t e s t items may r e s u l t i n a more r e l i a b l e measure. I t would a l s o be h e l p f u l i f s t a n d a r d i z e d s c o r e s were developed such t h a t one c o u l d evaluate s c o r e s on the measure. Secondly, i t would be important to r e - t e s t the p e r c e i v e d competence of marriage educators, given that the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study c o n t r a d i c t those of Wright (1976). A study of t h i s nature might include a measure of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i n order to more a c c u r a t e l y assess p e r c e i v e d competence. A r e p l i c a t i o n of t h i s study with a l a r g e r sample s i z e would be v a l u a b l e g i v e n t h a t the d i r e c t i o n s of a number of the hypotheses were supported although the f i n d i n g s themselves are not s i g n i f i c a n t . A s t r a t i f i e d sample which sought out v o l u n t e e r s and s p e c i a l i s t s and female marriage educators would a l s o be b e n e f i c i a l . I t would be u s e f u l to study marriage 82 educators from d i f f e r e n t denominations and r e l i g i o n s as w e l l as s e c u l a r marriage educators. Given the d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n between Canadian and American s t u d i e s , i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to i n c l u d e respondents from both c o u n t r i e s i n the same study. Future s t u d i e s w i l l need to give a t t e n t i o n to c o v a r i a n c e among independent v a r i a b l e s such as r e l a t i o n s h i p s found here between number of years ordained and t h e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n as w e l l as e d u c a t i o n . F i n a l l y , t here i s a need fo r f u r t h e r study i n t o v a r i o u s a s p e c t s r e g a r d i n g the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and competence of marriage educators p r o v i d i n g marriage p r e p a r a t i o n such as s k i l l s , a t t i t u d e s and t r a i n i n g . Further s t u d i e s should be conducted measuring the v a r i a b l e s of knowledge and p e r c e i v e d competence, i n a d d i t i o n to s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g t r a i n i n g , couple p e r c e p t i o n s and s a t i s f a c t i o n as w e l l as ethnographic s t u d i e s examining p r a c t i c e . Although t h i s study used a s e l e c t sample and although there were few s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s on the hypotheses proposed, t h i s study does provide important b a s e l i n e data for the f i e l d of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n and suggests d i r e c t i o n s for f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Such s t u d i e s are needed before adequate theory i n the f i e l d can emerge. 83 REFERENCES Adams, O. and Nagnur, D. (1989). Marrying and d i v o r c i n g : A s t a t u s r e p o r t f o r Canada. Canadian S o c i a l Trends, 13, 24-27. Ahrons, C. R., & Rodgers, R. H. (1987). D i v o r c e d fami 1 i e s : A mult i d i s c l p l i n a r y view. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. A n g l i c a n Book Centre. (1987). A n g l i c a n yearbook. Toronto: Author. Arcus, M. E. (1987). A framework f o r l i f e s p a n f a m i l y l i f e e d u c a t i o n . Family R e l a t i o n s , 32, 5-10. A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Couples i n Marriage Enrichment. (1982). Standards f o r the t r a i n i n g and c e r t i f i c a t i o n of leader couples f o r r e t r e a t s and growth groups. Unpublished manuscript. A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Couples i n Marriage Enrichment. (1986). Standards f o r the t r a i n i n g and c e r t i f i c a t i o n of leader c o u ples f o r marr iage enr ichment events. Winston-Salem: Author. Bader, E., Microys, G., S i n c l a i r , C , W i l l e t t , E., & Conway, B. (1980). Do marriage p r e p a r a t i o n programs r e a l l y work?: A Canadian experiment. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy, 6, 171-179. Bader, E., R i d d l e , R., & S i n c l a i r , C. (1981). Do_ marr iage p r e p a r a t i o n programs r e a l l y help? Unpublished manuscript. B a g a r o z z i , D.A., & Rauen, P. (1981). P r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g : A p p r a i s a l and s t a t u s . The Amer ican J o u r n a l o_f Fami l y Therapy, 9, 13-30. B a r d i s , P. (1964). Family forms and v a r i a t i o n s h i s t o r i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d . In H. T. C h r i s t e n s e n (Ed.), Handbook of marr iage and the f a m i l y (pp. 403-461). Chicago: Rand McNally. Barnes, R.L. (1985). Marriage p r e p a r a t i o n : A p r a c t i c a l c h r i s t i a n program. Unpublished manuscript. Beeson, G. W. J r . (1978). Counseling the newly married. C u r r e n t s i n Theology and Miss i o n s, 5, 105-109. Bibby, R.W. (1987). Fragmented Gods: The poverty and p o t e n t i a l of r e l i g i o n i n Canada. Toronto: Irwin P u b l i s h i n g . Borg, W. R. and G a l l , M.D. (1983). E d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h : An i n t r o d u c t i o n . New York: Longman P u b l i s h i n g . B r i t i s h Columbia C o u n c i l f o r the Family. (1980). Marr iage p r e p a r a t i o n course : I n s t r u c t o r ' s resource k i t . V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r . 84 B r i t i s h Columbia C o u n c i l f o r the Family. (1988). A resource f o r use i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Vancouver: Author. B r i t i s h Columbia C o u n c i l f o r the Family. (1990). [Survey of marriage p r e p a r a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia c h u r c h e s ) . Unpublished raw d a t a . B r i t i s h Columbia V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s . (1986). [Marriage and d i v o r c e s t a t i s t i c s f o r B r i t i s h Columbia). Unpublished data. B r i t i s h Columbia V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s . (1988). [Marriage and d i v o r c e s t a t i s t i c s f o r B r i t i s h Columbia). Unpublished data. Buckner, L. P., & S a l t s , C. J . (1985). A p r e m a r i t a l assessment program. Family R e l a t i o n s , 34, 513-520. Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. J . (1960). The f a m i l y : From i n s t i t u t i o n to companionship. New York: American Books. C h r i s t e n s e n , H. T. ( E d . ) . ( 1964 ). Handbook of marr iage and the f a m i l y . Chicago: Rand McNally. C l a y t o n , R.R. (1979). The f a m i l y , marriage and s o c i a l change. Le x i n g t o n : D.C. Heath. Cox, F.P. (1987). Human intimacy: Marriage, the f a m i l y and i t s meaning. New York: Haworth P r e s s . Cunningham, J . & Weddle, K.G. (1987, Nov.). P r e d i c t o r s of c l e r g y per formance r e l a t e d to premar i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . Paper presented at the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on Family R e l a t i o n s Conference, A t l a n t a , Georgia. C u r t i s , J . , & M i l l e r , M. (1976). An argument f o r the use of p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l c o u n s e l o r s i n p r e m a r i t a l and m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . The F a m i l y C o o r d i n a t o r , 25, 47-50. D u v a l l , E.M. (1971). F a m i l y development. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J.B. L i p p i n c o t t . Eggeman, K.W., Smith-Eggeman, B., Moxley, V., & Schumm, W.R. (1986). A marriage enrichment program f o r newlywed c o u p l e s . Wellness P e r s p e c t i v e s , 3, 3 3-36. E l l i s , A. (1961). A r a t i o n a l approach to p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 8, 333-338. Eshleman, J . R. (1974). The f a m i l y : An i n t r o d u c t i o n . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon. F a i r c h i l d , R. W. (1959). V a r i e t y i n p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . P a s t o r a l Psychology, 10, 9-13. 85 Fowers, B. J . , & Olson, D.H. (1986). P r e d i c t i n g m a r i t a l success with PREPARE: A p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y study. J o u r n a l of M a r l t a l and Family Therapy, 12, 403-413. F o u r n i e r , D. (1980, May). Strengthening the p r e m a r i t a l dyad: S t r a t e g i e s i n marr iage p r e p a r a t i o n . Paper presented at the B u i l d i n g Family Strengths Conference, L i n c o l n , Nebraska. Furgeson, E. H. (1952). The aims of p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . J o u r n a l of P a s t o r a l Care, 6, 30-38. G a r r e t t , W.R. (1982 ). Seasons of marr iage and f a m i l y l i f e . New York: Holt R i n e h a r t and Winston. Green, L. (1986) . Study guide to accompany the marr iage and f a m i l y exper ience. S t . P a u l : West. Goode, W. J . (1964). The f a m i l y . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . G o s l i n , D. A. (1969). I n t r o d u c t i o n . In D.A. G o s l i n (Ed.) Handbook of s o c i a l i z a t i o n theory and r e s e a r c h (pp. 1-24). Chicago: Rand-McNally. Guldner, C. A. (1970). The p o s t - m a r i t a l : An a l t e r n a t e to p r e - m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . The Family C o - o r d i n a t o r , 20, 115-119. G u l l o t t a , T. P., Adams, G.R., & Alexander, S.J. (1986). Today's marr iages and f a m i l i e s . Monterey: Brooks/Cole. H i l l , G. K. (1968). Some thoughts on group education f o r engaged c o u p l e s . P a s t o r a l Psychology, 9, 15. H i l l , R. & Aldous, J . (1969). S o c i a l i z a t i o n f o r marriage and parenthood. In D. A. G o s l i n (Ed.), Handbook of s o c i a l i z a t i o n t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h (pp. 885-950). Chicago: Rand McNally. Hoopes, M.H., & F i s h e r , B.L. (1984). A p r e m a r i t a l education program. In M.H. Hoopes, B.L. F i s h e r & S.H. Barlow (Eds.), S t r u c t u r e d f a m i l y f a c i l i t a t i o n programs (pp. 192-204). R o c k v i l l e : Aspen. Horton, F.M. (1982). The e f f e c t s of a p r e m a r i t a l enrichment program on other p e r c e p t i o n i n engaged couples. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Texas T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1982). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 43 (7), 1848-A. Huff, S.E. (1983). A comparison of s e l e c t e d f a c t o r s w i t h i n p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g programs as p e r c e i v e d by s e l e c t e d d i v o r c e d persons, c l e r g y , marriage and f a m i l y t h e r a p i s t s , and marriage and f a m i l y t h e r a p i s t t r a i n e r s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas State U n i v e r s i t y , 1983 ). D i s s e r t a t ion A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 44 (6), 1693-A. 86 Jaco, R. (1989, J u l y ) . Marr iage preparat i on: Strengthen ing the f a m i l y at the p o i n t of o r i g i n . Workshop presented at the Western F a m i l y P r a c t i c e Conference, Banff, A l b e r t a . Jaco, R. & Farnden, R. (1989, October). Marriage preparat ion: Strenghthening the f a m i l y at the p o i n t of o r i g i n . Workshop presented at the Family S e r v i c e s Canada Conference, Moncton, New Brunswick. K e r c k h o f f , R. K. (1964). Family l i f e e d u c a t i o n i n America. In H. T. C h r i s t e n s e n (Ed.), Handbook of marrIage and the f a m i l y (pp. 881-911). Chicago: Rand McNally. K e r l i n g e r , F.N. (1973). Foundations of b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, Inc. K i r k e n d a l l , L.A. & Adams, W.S. (1974). The student's guide to marr iage and f a m i l y l i f e 1 i t e r a t u r e : An i n d i v i d u a l i z e d a i d to study. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown. Klemer, R.H. (1970).Marriage and f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . New York: Harper & Row. L a b o v i t z , S. (1972) The assignment of numbers to rank order c a t e g o r i e s . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 35, 515-524. Larsen, A.S., & Olson, D. H. (1989). P r e d i c t i n g m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n u s ing PREPARE: A r e p l i c a t i o n study. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy, 15, 311-322. Larson, J.H. (1988). The marriage q u i z : C o l l e g e students' myths about marriage. Family R e l a t i o n s , 37, 3-12. Lees, R.F., & Simonsen, S. (1983). The couple's workshop: Leader's p r o t o c o l . Unpublished manuscript. Leger, L. (Ed.). (1988, S p r i n g ) . Marriage p r e p a r a t i o n s p e c i a l e d i t i o n [ S p e c i a l i s s u e ) . B r i t i s h Columbia Counci1 for the F a m i l y Newsletter. A v a i l a b l e from #204-2590 G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t , Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V5Z 1L9. L e v i n e , L., & Brodsky J . (1949). Group p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . Mental Hygeine, 33, 577-587. Long, T.J., Convey, J . J . & Chwalek, A.R. (1985). Completing D i s s e r t a t i o n s i n the B e h a v i o r a l Sc iences and Educat i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. Lukens, H.C. (1987). Lay counselor t r a i n i n g r e v i s i t e d : R e f l e c t i o n s of a t r a i n e r . J o u r n a l of Psychology and Chr i s t i a n i t y , 6, 10-13. Mace, D.R. (1952) The m i n i s t e r ' s r o l e i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n . Pastora1 Psychology, 3, 4 5-48. 87 Mace, D. R. (1975). P r e p a r a t i o n f o r marriage: New approaches. P a s t o r a l Psychology, 2 4, 9-16. Mace, D. R., & Mace, V. (1976). The s e l e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g and c e r t i f i c a t i o n of f a c i l i t a t o r s f o r marriage enrichment programs. The Family C o o r d i n a t o r , 29, 117-125. Mastin, B., & Chandler, A. (1987). I n s t r u c t o r ' s manual to accompany: Human intimacy ^ Marr iage, the fa m i l y and i t s mean i n g . S t. P a u l : West. Microys, G. & Bader, E., (1977 ). Do premar i t a l programs r e a l l y help? Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, Department of Family and Community Medicine. M i l l e r , S., Nunnally, E.W., & Wackman, D.B. (1976). A communication t r a i n i n g program f o r couples. S o c i a l Casework, 57, 9-18. M i n i s t r y of Regional Development, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. (1988). T r a v e l Agent Manual. Author: V i c t o r i a , B.C. M i t c h e l l , K. R. (1967). R e i n t e r p r e t i n g the purpose of p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . P a s t o r a l Psychology, 18, 18-24. Most, R. & Guerney, B., J r . (1983). An e m p i r i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of the t r a i n i n g of l a y vo l u n t e e r l e a d e r s f o r p r e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p enhancement. Family R e l a t i o n s , 32, 239-251. N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on Family R e l a t i o n s . (1968). Family l i f e e d u c a t i o n programs: P r i n c i p l e s , p l a n s , procedures. Family Coord i n a t o r , 17, 211-213. N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on Family R e l a t i o n s . (1984). Standards and cr i t e r i a f o r the c e r t i f i c a t ion of f a m i l y l i f e educators, c o l l e g e / u n i v e r s i t y curr iculum guide 1ines, and content g u i d e 1 i n e s f o r f a m i l y l i f e e d u c a t i o n : A framework f o r p l a n n i n g programs over the l i f e span. S t . P a u l : Author. N i c k o l s , S. A., F o u r n i e r , D. A., & N i c k o l s , S. Y. (1986). E v a l u a t i o n of a p r e p a r a t i o n f o r marriage workshop. Family R e l a t i o n s , 35, 563-571. Nie, N. H., Hadlai H u l l , C , Jenk i n s , J . , Steinbrenner, K. & Bent, D. (1975) . S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . New York: McGraw-Hill. N o r r i s , D. (1986). Program pla n n i n g i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n : How home economists can become i n v o l v e d . Canadian Home Economics J o u r n a l , 36, 162-163. N o r u s i s , M.J. (1983). SPSSX: I n t r o d u c t o r y S t a t i s t i c s Guide. Chicago:' McGraw-Hill. Nunnaly, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. 88 Oates, W. E. (1958). Premar i t a l p a s t o r a l care and c o u n s e l I n g . N a s h v i l l e , Tenn.: Broadman P r e s s . Olson, D.H., F o u r n i e r , D.G., & Druckman, J.M. (1986 a . ) . PREPARE. Mi n n e a p o l i s : PREPARE-ENRICH Inc. Olson, D.H., F o u r n i e r , D.G., & Druckman, .J.M. ( 1986 b . ) . ENRICH. Mi n n e a p o l i s : PREPARE-ENRICH Inc. Orthner, D.K. ( 1986 ). P a s t o r a l c o u n s e l i n g : Car ing & c a r e g i v e r s i n the United Methodist Church. N a s h v i l l e : D i v i s i o n of Chaplains and Related M i n i s t r i e s . P r a t e r , J.S. (1987). T r a i n i n g c h r i s t i a n l a y counselors i n techniques of p r e v e n t i o n and outreach. J o u r n a l of Psychology and Chr i s t i a n l t y , 6, 30-3 3. Rappaport, A.E. (1976). The c o n j u g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p enhancement program. In D.H. Olson (Ed.), Treat ing R e l a t ionships (pp. 41-46). Lake M i l l s , Iowa: Graphic. R i d l e y , C.A., Avery, A.W., H a r r e l l , J.E., L e s l i e , L.A., & Dent, J . (1981). C o n f l i c t management: A p r e m a r i t a l t r a i n i n g program i n mutual problem s o l v i n g . The American J o u r n a l of Family Therapy, 9, 23-33. Rodgers, R.H., & Witney, G. (1981). The f a m i l y c y c l e i n t w e n t i e t h century Canada. J o u r n a l of MarrIage and the Family, 43, 277-290. R o l f e , D.J. (1983). Premarriage survey. Unpublished manuscr i p t . R o l f e , D.J. ( 1983). Prepar ing couples f o r marr iage: P a r t 1: Leader's guide; Part 2: Money management and the s p i r i t u a l a s p ects of r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; P a r t 3: Communication s k i l l s and s e x u a l i t y ; Part 4: Abuse i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s and parent i n g . Unpublished manuscript. R o l f e , D.J. (1986). Developing s k i l l s and c r e d i b i l i t y i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n m i n i s t r y . P a s t o r a l Psychology, 33, 161-172. Rutledge, A.L. ( 1966 ). Premar i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . Cambridge Mass.: Schenkman. Sabey, F.P. (1981). P r e m a r i t a l and couple c o u n s e l i n g with CO-SEE: Couple's s e l f - a w a r e n e s s . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusettes, 1981). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 41 (3), 5020-A. S a l t s , C.J., & Buckner, L.P. (1983, June). P r e m a r i t a l Counselor T r a i n i n g . Paper presented at the I l l i n o i s D i v i s i o n of AAMFT Conference, Oakbrook, 111. 89 Schumm, W. R., & Denton, W. (1979). Trends i n p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . J o u r n a l of Mar i t a l and Family Therapy, 5, 23-32. Shonick, H. (1975). P r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g : Three years experience of a unique s e r v i c e . The Family C o o r d i n a t o r , 22, 187-191. Smith, R. M. (1970). I n s t r u c t o r ' s manual to accompany marriage and f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . New York: Harper & Row. Stahman, R. F., & H e i b e r t , W. (1987). P r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g : A P r o f e s s i o n a l 1 s Guidebook,(2nd ed . ) . Toronto: Lexington. Strong, B., & Devault, C. ( 1986 ). The marr iage exper ience. S t . P a u l : West. Stucky, F., Ebbeman, K., Smith-Eggeman, B., Moxley, V., & Schumm, W.R. (1986). P r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g as p e r c e i v e d by newlywed c o u p l e s : An e x p l o r a t o r y study. J o u r n a l of Sex and M a r i t a l Therapy, 12, 221-228. Summers, R.J., & Cunningham, J.L. (1989). P r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g by c l e r g y : A key l i n k between church and f a m i l y . Family Science Review, 2, 327-336. Tigue, A.M. (1958). The m i n i s t e r ' s r o l e i n marriage p r e p a r a t i o n and p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . Marr iage and Family L i v i n g , 5, 61-78. Uni t e d Church of Canada. (1985). L i v i n g together i n marr iage ^ a manual f o r marriage education l e a d e r s . Toronto: Author. U n i t e d Church P u b l i s h i n g House. (1986). United Church Yearbook. Toronto: Author. U n i t e d Church P u b l i s h i n g House. (1987). United Church Yearbook . Toronto: Author. Van Zoost, B. (1973). P r e m a r i t a l communication s k i l l s e d u c a t i o n with u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . The Family Co-ordinator, 22, 187-191. Walker, P. (1977). P r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g f o r the developmentaly d i s a b l e d . S o c i a l Casework, 58, 475-479. Wampler, K. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1980). The Minnesota couple communication program: A follow-up study. J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 42, 577-584. Whitlock, G. E. (1961). Use of dreams i n p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . Marr iage and Family L i v i n g , 23, 258-260. Wiser, W. 'B. (1959). Launching a program of p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g . P a s t o r a l Psychology, 10, 14-17. 90 Winger, D., & Hunsberger, B. (1988). C l e r g y c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e s , c h r i s t i a n orthodoxy and problem s o l v i n g s t y l e s . J o u r n a l o£ Psychology and Theology, 16, 41-48. Wolfe, S. & Kokes, R. (1988, Nov.). A L o n g i t u d i n a l study of p r e m a r i t a l enrichment programs on subsequent adjustment. Paper presented at the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on Family R e l a t i o n s Conference, P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA. Wright, L., & L'Abate, L. (1977). Four approaches to f a m i l y f a c i l i t a t i o n : Some issu e s and i m p l i c a t i o n s . The Family C o o r d i n a t o r , 26, 176-182. Wright, N. (1976). The church and p r e m a r i t a l c o u n s e l i n g : A r e s e a r c h study and an o p i n i o n . Marr iage and Family Resource Newsletter, 2, 1-13. Wright, P.G. (1984). The c o u n s e l i n g a c t i v i t e s and r e f e r r a l p r a c t i c e s of Canadian c l e r g y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. J o u r n a l of Psychology and Theology, 12, 294-304. Wright, P. G., Haley, G., & Moreau, M. (1979). Community mental h e a l t h and the c l e r g y . Unpublished manuscript. 91 -Appendix A _ THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA S C H O O L OF F A M I L Y A N D N U T R I T I O N A L SCIENCES 2205 EAST M A L L VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 D I V I S I O N O F F A M I L Y S C I E N C E S April 3, 1989 Dear S i r or Madam, I am a graduate student in Family Studies at the University of Br i t i s h Columbia studying in the f i e l d of marriage preparation. I am particularly interested in marriage preparation as i t i s conducted within religious communities in British Columbia. My purpose in writing i s to seek the participation of your pastoral charge in a study for my master's thesis. Permission to s o l i c i t participation has been obtained from Gordon How at the B.C. Conference Office of The United Church of Canada. Your pastoral charge has been selected as part of a random sample. Because the sample i s random, i t is very important that you choose to participate. I would ask that each person in your pastoral chargewho i s actively involved in the provision of marriage preparation (i.e., o f f i c i a t i n g clergy, volunteer couples, staff social worker or family minister) complete one copy of the entire questionnaire. If any additional copies of the questionnaire are required, please duplicate a sufficient number or contact me at the address above, and I w i l l provide them to you. I expect the questionnaire to take less than one hour to complete. When each individual involved in marriage preparation has completed the questionnaire, please seal i t in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided, and return them to me. Any individual may, of course, choose not to participate in this study, and may withdraw at any time. It i s important to note, however, that only f u l l y completed questionnaires are useful for analysis. Confidentiality i s assured. Individual pastoral charges w i l l not be identifiable in the reporting of data. I wish to thank you for your time. If you would like to receive a summary of the results, please indicate such at the end of the questionnaire. Sincerely, Rosanne Farnden 92 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA S C H O O L OF F A M I L Y A N D N U T R I T I O N A L SCIENCES 2205 EAST M A L L VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 D I V I S I O N O F F A M I L Y S C I E N C E S A p r i l 3, 1989 Dear S i r or Madam, I am a graduate student i n Family Studies at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia studying i n the f i e l d of marriage preparation. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y interested i n marriage preparation as i t i s conducted within r e l i g i o u s communities i n B r i t i s h Columbia. My purpose i n w r i t i n g i s to seek the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of your parish i n a study for my master's thesis. Permission to s o l i c i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n has been obtained from the appropriate l o c a l Diocese o f f i c e of the Anglican Church i n Canada. Your parish has been selected as part of a random sample. Because the sample i s random, i t i s very important that you choose to p a r t i c i p a t e . I would ask that each person i n your parish who i s a c t i v e l y involved i n the provision of marriage preparation ( i . e . , parish p r i e s t , lay volunteer couples, s t a f f s o c i a l worker or family minister) complete one copy of the entire questionnaire. I f any additional copies of the questionnaire are required, please duplicate a s u f f i c i e n t number or contact me at the address above, and I w i l l provide them to you. I expect the questionnaire to take less than one hour to complete. When each indi v i d u a l involved i n marriage preparation has completed the questionnaire, please seal i t i n the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided, and return them to me. Any i n d i v i d u a l may, of course, choose not to participate i n t h i s study, and may withdraw at any time. I t i s important to note, however, that only f u l l y completed questionnaires are useful f o r analysis. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s assured. Individual parishes w i l l not be i d e n t i f i a b l e i n the reporting of data. I wish to thank you for your time. I f you would l i k e to receive a summary of the r e s u l t s , please indicate such at the end of the questionnaire. Sincerely, Rosanne Farnden 93 MARRIAGE EDUCATORS IN THE CHURCH QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION ONE: PASTORAL CHARGE DEMOGRAPHICS 1. Denomination of your pastoral charge or parish. 1. Anglican Church in Canada 2. United Church of Canada 3. Other (please specify) 2. Number of individuals in your pastoral charge. 1. Number of members 2. Number of adherents 3. Number of children (if not included above) 3. Number of paid ministry and/or program staff in your congregation. 1. One 4. Four 1. Two 5. Five or more 3. Three 4. Number of staff mentioned above who are full time. 1. One 4. Four 2. Two 5. Five or more 3. Three 5. Number of weddings celebrated in your parish in 1988. 1. Jan - March 3. July - Sept. 2. April - June 4. Oct. - Dec. The number of weddings in 1988 was: 1. typical of other years 2. more than other years 3. less than other years SECTION TWO PERSONAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 6. Date of Birth day month year 96 7. Gender. 1. Male 2. Female 8. Present marital status. 1. never married 2. married to first spouse » 3. separated or divorced 4. remarried 5. widowed 6. other (please specify) ) 9. Total number of years married (all marriages). years. 10. Your title or position in your pastoral charge (eg.Senior Clergy, Pastoral Care Worker etc.) 11. If you are ordained or commissioned, please indicate the year in which this occurred. The age you were at that time 12. Number of pastorates you have held. 1. one 3. four to seven 2. two to three 4. eight or more 13. If employed by the church, are you considered 1. full time 3. 1/2 to 3/4 time 2.3/4 to full time 4. less than 1/2 time 14. Number of weddings you personally performed in 1988. Jan. - March July - Sept April - June Oct - Dec. Not applicable The number of weddings I performed in 1988 was: 1. typical of other years 2. less than other years 3. more than other years 15. Number of years you have been conducting marriage preparation . 16. The capacity in which you conduct marriage preparation is: 1. Ordained Clergy 3. Lay Staff Associate 2. Commisioned Clergy 4. Lay Volunteer 5. Other (please specify) 97 0 17. How many other individuals conduct marriage preparation in your pastoral charge ? 18. The number of premarital couples / personally offered marriage preparation to in 1988 was: l.None 4. 10 to 14 2.1 to 4 5. 15 to 19 3. 5 to 9 6.20 or more 19. On a scale of 1 (theologically very liberal),to 9 (theologically very conservative), please place yourself by circling the appropriate number. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Very Liberal Conservative SECTION THREE: TRAINING AND EDUCATION 20. The highest degree you have obtained: 1. High School Diploma 2. College Certificate Major 3. Bachelors Degree Major 4. Masters Degree Major 5. Doctorate Major 21. From what institution did you obtain your highest degree?. 22. Please indicate the training in the field of marriage preparation you have obtained in the last five years from the following sources: 1. Number of Marriage Preparation texts read 2. Hours in Marriage Preparation Training workshops or courses 3. Hours in lectures on Marriage Preparation 4. Other (please specify Please list the three which have been the most beneficial, in the space below. 23. What other educational experiences have you had in thepast three years that would enhance the marriage preparation you offer? 98 P A R T F O U R M A R R I A G E P R E P A R A T I O N OPPORTUNITES IN Y O U R P A S T O R A L C H A R G E 24. Are you required by your denomination to provide marriage preparation to all engaged couples? 1. Yes 2. No If no, what is the policy of your pastoral charge? 25. Please indicate the number of hours a typical couple in your pastoral charge or parish will spend on marriage preparation. 1. hours as an individal couple 2. hours as part of a group of couples 3. hours as an individual couple referred to an external source 4. hours as part of a group of couples referred to an external source 5. other (please specify Of the above hours, how many are spent on wedding ceremony preparation ? 26. Please outline the typical program of marriage preparation for couples wedded in your charge. If you are not satisifed with this program of preparation, how would you like to change it ? 27. For each of the following topic areas that might be you feel about working with premarital couples by applicable to you. a part of marriage preparation, please indicate how competent circling the number on the scale at the right that seems most Very Not Very Competent Competent Communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Conflict resolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sexuality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Marital Expectation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Use of Leisure Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Finances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The influence of 1 family they grew up in 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 General Marriage Issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Using the same scale, how competent do you feel about providing Marriage Preparation to couples ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For questions 28 and 29, please use the following scale: 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important 28. Rate the priority of yourself as provider of marriage preparation in relation to your other professional roles ( eg. teacher, adminstrator) 1 2 3 4 29. In marriage preparation, how important is your attention to each of the following: Not Very important important a. Education (ie giving information) 1 2 3 4 b. Enrichment (ie relationship enhancement) 1 2 3 4 c. Evangelism (ie enricment or personal faith) 1 2 3 4 d. Moral Teaching (ie the sacred nature of marriage) 1 2 3 4 e. Rehersal (ie preparation for the ceremony) 1 2 3 4 f. Resource Identification (ie to identify clergy 1 2 3 4 others as sources of potential support) g. Screening (ie assessment of preparedness for marriage) 1 2 3 4 h. Facilitator (ie to encourage couple disclosure) 1 2 3 4 100 The following are statements about marriage and family life which might be included as part of the content in a course on marriage preparation. For each of thestatements, please indicate which of the following you understand to be the best response, based on current knowledge: Circle T (Mostly True) if the statement is true or is true in most situations. Circle F (Mostly False) if the statement is false or is false in most situations. T F Happiness has replaced stability as a goal in marriage. T F To achieve sexual adjustment in marriage, each partner must understand why the other behaves the way he/ she does. T F The key to understanding family financial conflict lies more in the concepts of what is valued than in the amount of income. T F A wedding is the same thing as a marriage. T F The solution to marital conflict lies more in learning to live with a problem than in eliminating it. T F The desire to communicate means having the desire to talk. T F In-law relationships appear to cause more difficulty in early marital adjustment than do adjustments to sex. T F The tendency to select a person who fulfills an idealized parental image as a mate is the most influential factor in mate selection. T F Social class does not appear to be a significant factor in instances of family violence. T F The elimination of marital conflict is a matter of will and desire; conflict can be avoided if partners are willing to give and take in marriage. T F Frank "confessions" tend to strengthen engagements and help establish a sound basis for marriage. T F The link between sex and affection is more frequendy a problem for men than for women. T F Role expectations in marriages are deteimined more by personal preference than by cultural influences such as socioeconomic status or ethnic background. T F Holding different value systems is a destructive force in marriage. T F There is about a 50% chance that a sexually active, fertile woman will become pregnant within one year if she does not use contraceptives. T F A potential spouse who is a child of an alcoholic parent has at least a 25% greater chance of becoming an alcoholic than if they did not have a parent who was an alcoholic. T F A married couple who are angry with one another are probably experiencing a marriage that is falling apart. T F Over time, the societal views of appropriate masculine and feminine roles are becoming more and more firmly fixed. T F If a couple is really in love, their marriage relationship will have a few problems. T F In the majority of marriages where the wife works outside the home, the husband shares equally in the household chores. T F Most couples know why they manage their resources in the way they do. T F Spouses who love each other develop a "sixth sense" that allows them to know each other's needs and feelings without specific feedback. 101 T F Spouses who love one another know instinctively what makes the other happy. T F Ritualistic patterns formed in childhood (ie our family always spends Christmas together) often devlop into inlaw conflcit, T F Marriages between partners from the same cultural group tend to be more stable because the couple has the same values. T F Childless couples are frustrated and unhappy. If you refer couples to another individual or agency for some aspect of their marriage preparation, please supply me with a contact address below . THANK YOU 102 Appendix B P r i n c i p l e Components Anaysis Factor Matrix for Individual of the KMFC Instrument y - H f L L Items Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 6 11 22 5 17 13 18 20 14 9 5 2 7 24 4 19 26 .45651 .34625 . 45221 .52757 .66599 .35654 . 49997 .62668 .18316 .14262 .52757 .09888 .12480 .58200 .60758 .17382 .02775 36447 49350 32749 65077 05715 15192 25196 17123 52978 19671 65077 24415 12295 28136 08509 22702 30305 ,03106 16822 37673 27376 24033 26618 05676 04426 33385 44810 27376 49140 34749 30601 15742 652476 57745 ,39766 00064 05393 41417 22811 17216 35572 06299 16704 01419 41417 43414 12024 13460 33925 47922 58416 .17542 ,20765 09712 ,10643 ,18829 31761 ,18583 01472 ,21133 71594 ,10643 ,33707 ,61227 34912 10976 03709 07598 .37677 .11068 ,18436 ,16222 ,15253 35196 40521 30711 ,50932 07500 16222 03252 03471 28801 ,15443 20094 07528 103

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 8 0
Iraq 6 4
Japan 2 0
China 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 6 5
Washington 4 0
Tokyo 2 0
Redmond 2 0
Ashburn 2 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098425/manifest

Comment

Related Items

Admin Tools

To re-ingest this item use button below, on average re-ingesting will take 5 minutes per item.

Reingest

To clear this item from the cache, please use the button below;

Clear Item cache