The authors describe an approach to analyzing dyadic data that can be utilized with the smaller samples often available to researcher–practitioners working with couples in counseling. Specifically, the authors describe how to use the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM), a common dyadic data analysis tool, using a pooled regression approach that is appropriate for smaller sample sizes. An example is provided using data collected from a study of the role of expectancies in couple counseling outcomes. Additional data from the example study are provided in Appendix A for interested readers who want to practice the techniques they describe.
BusbyD. M.CraneD. R.LarsonJ. H.ChristensenC. (1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 21, 289–308.
2.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
CookW. L. (1998). Integrating models of interdependence with treatment evaluations in marital therapy research. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 529–542.
4.
CookW. L.KennyD. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.
5.
CraneD. R.MiddletonK. C.BeanR. A. (2000). Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas marital satisfaction scale and the revised dyadic adjustment scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 53–60.
6.
HaysD. G. (2010). Introduction to counseling outcome research and evaluation. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 1, 1–7.
7.
KashyD. A.KennyD. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451–477). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
KashyD. A.SnyderD. K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 338–348.
9.
KennyD. A. (1995). The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Personal Relationships, 2, 67–75.
10.
KennyD. A.JuddC. M. (1996). A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 138–148.
11.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
12.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford.
13.
LambertM. J.HansenN. B.UmpressV.LunnenK.OkiishiJ.BurlingameG. M.ReisingerC. W. (1996). Administration and scoring manual for the OQ-45.2 (outcome questionnaire). Stevenson, MD: American Professional Credentialing Services LLC.
14.
LambertM. J.HansenN. B.UmpressV.LunnenK.OkiishiJ.BurlingameG. M. (1996). StevensonMD (Ed.), Administration and scoring manual for the OQ-45.2 (outcome questionnaire).
15.
McConnaughyE. A.ProchaskaJ. O.VelicerW. F. (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy: Measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 20, 368–375.
16.
MuellerR. M.LambertM. J.BurlingameG. M. (1998). Construct validity of the outcome questionnaire: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 248–262.
17.
NewsomJ. T. (2002). A multilevel structural equation model for dyadic data. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 431–447.
18.
SprenkleD. H. (2003). Effectiveness research in marriage and family therapy: Introduction. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 29, 85–96.
19.
TamblingR. B. (2008). Expectations about counseling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
20.
TinsleyH. E.WorkmanK. R.KassR. A. (1980). Factor analysis of the domain of client expectancies about counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 561–570.
21.
VermeerschD. A.LambertM. J.BurlingameG. M. (2000). Outcome questionnaire: Item sensitivity to change. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 242–261.
