FaHCSIA Internet > Subject Areas > Families & Children > Publications & Articles > Study of Australian Relationship Education Service Activities > 5. Construction of Typology

As the descriptive data presented in Chapter 4 of this report demonstrate, the term "relationship education activities" covers programs possessing a vast range of attributes. A key distinction made in Chapter 4 was between 'mainstream' and 'embedded' programs. That distinction is maintained in the development of the typology, which is restricted to mainstream programs. Embedded programs were not the primary focus of this study and the information obtained from providers of embedded programs pertained specifically to the relationship aspects of their curriculum. Hence the typology described in this chapter was based on only those 163 programs identified as mainstream.

5.1 Conceptualising the Typology

A standard statistical procedure for developing a classification framework is cluster analysis, whereby cases (in this context, cases are programs) are allocated to a single 'cluster' or group of programs on the basis of a particular set of characteristics. All programs assigned to a given cluster would be expected to share these characteristics to a high degree (be internally consistent), but to not share the characteristics of programs allocated to a different cluster (be distinct from other clusters). The commonalities among programs within a cluster can be used to create a meaningful label for the cluster that reflects the characteristics of the programs, or the program 'type'. Grouping programs in this way provides a heuristic tool to facilitate both the understanding of the kinds of services provided and the future evaluation of program effectiveness. To be effective and user-friendly, it is important that there not be too many or too few 'types' of programs in the typology. It is also important that the characteristics on which the types are based represent the range of characteristics of the field of programs and contribute meaningfully to the descriptions of programs. There are several ways of generating clusters, depending largely on the nature and volume of the data.

From a statistical point of view, the type of data gathered determines whether the number of clusters is determined by a statistical procedure or by the researcher. Where the data are dichotomous (where the numerical value represents only the presence or absence of a particular attribute, such as a content area), or represent a category of program characteristic (such as secular, church-based or church-affiliated), as is the case for many of the variables measured in this project, the number of clusters must be specified by the researcher on theoretical, conceptual or practical grounds. While it is possible to have as many clusters as there are cases in the dataset, having large numbers of clusters is usually impractical and having too few clusters can mask important groupings by combining cases into larger clusters rather than allowing smaller but more meaningful clusters to stand alone. Additionally, the interpretation of larger clusters can be problematic. Extreme values on the variables included in the cluster analysis can also markedly affect the size and clarity of clusters. In addition, with dichotomous data, the performance of resulting clusters – that is, their internal consistency and distinctiveness - cannot be evaluated by statistical means. The definition and interpretation must be done by inspection of the characteristics of the cases allocated to each cluster.

Before the typology of programs can be constructed, the data gathered about the programs must be treated to ensure it meets statistical and practical constraints. Just as determining the number of clusters to represent types of programs is an important part of the process, the choice of the characteristics by which programs are to be clustered is also critical. Including too many characteristics may complicate the interpretation and labelling of each cluster and may invalidate the use of the statistical procedure, while too few may mean that characteristics contributing to the understanding of a particular cluster are omitted and the resulting description of the cluster is too narrow. The number of discrete variables generated in the current data collection process is too high to allow them all to contribute to the development of the typology. Therefore the amount of data was reduced by various means in preparation for their inclusion in the procedure by which the typology would be devised.

The data reduction process

For variables where providers could supply multiple responses, programs were clustered so that the patterns of responses on those particular variables could be identified. This clustering process creates groups or 'types' of programs based on a particular characteristic. For example, providers nominated sixteen content areas. Some programs cover only one or two of these - others cover several. Rather than have 16 variables, each with two categories (presence or absence of the attribute), denoting each individual content area included in a program, one variable was created by grouping or clustering programs that are similar with respect to the content areas in their curricula. Through this process seven clusters of programs were defined by their content. Thus the 16 content variables were reduced to a single variable that has seven categories. Each program is given a value corresponding to its particular pattern of content areas. For example a program that primarily covers the topics of understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality is given the value of one on the content cluster variable. A program that addresses family of origin, sexuality and communication and conflict resolution is assigned a value of two on the content cluster variable. This single variable, representing seven types of programs based on their content, is later included in the process by which the final typology is derived.

The set of newly created variables, along with others for which no reduction was necessary, then became the foundation on which the final typology of programs was based. The overall process is illustrated in Figure 5.1 below. Full details of this data reduction process used to create the foundation for the typology can be found in Appendix G and Table 5.1 presents a summary of the new variables.

Figure 5.1: Variables contributing to the final typology.

INSERT content of Figure 5.1 ... where to get the contents from

Table 5.1: Newly created clusters of variables for the development of the typology

Variable	Newly created clusters
Target groups	1. Program targeting individuals or couples in a single client group across a range of life circumstances 2. Couples across the life course (including parents) 3. Pre-marital, married or committed couples
Content areas 1	1. Understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality 2. Family of origin, sexuality, communication / conflict resolution 3. Self management (includes, self awareness, self esteem, self confidence, values), children and relationships, communication / conflict resolution 4. Assertiveness 5. Self management 6. Family or origin, communication / conflict resolution, understanding relationships 7. Self-management, communication / conflict resolution
Skills2	1. No skills focus 2. Communication and life skills 3. Assertiveness, life skill, communication and goal setting 4. Communication and conflict resolution
Learning outcomes	1. Cognitive only 2. Affective only 3. Psychomotor only 4. Cognitive and affective 5. Cognitive and psychomotor 6. Affective and psychomotor 7. Cognitive, affective and psychomotor

1. Programs in each of the above groups are not restricted to just those content areas named in the description. These labels indicate the content areas occurring among all, or almost all, programs in that cluster. Any given program may address one or more of the other content areas, but the primary focus for the group of programs as a whole is on those named in the cluster label.
2. Thirty-three of the 163 mainstream providers indicated they did not teach skills in their programs. However some of those who indicated that skills training were a part of the program did not then specify those skills. Some providers commented that, while skills training is part of the program, particular skills are not articulated prior to the particular program being run. In these programs skills training takes place as the need arises or is driven by the needs of the particular group.

Table 5.1 cont: Newly created clusters of variables for the development of the typology

Variable	Newly created clusters
Teaching methods	1. Lecture / talks with couple time 2. Large group work with lecture / talks and handouts 3. Games with lecture / talks, large group work and couple time 4. Discussion groups and brainstorming
Protective and risk factors3	Protective factors 1. Programs that address all five factors 2. Programs addressing fun, commitment, sensuality and interpersonal support 3. Programs addressing friendship, fun, interpersonal support and commitment 4. Programs addressing no or a single factor Risk factors 1. Programs addressing violence in family of origin, negative couple interactions, poor communication and conflict resolution skills, dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes 2. Programs that deal with none of the risk factors or only with negative couple interactions and poor communication and conflict resolution skills 3. Programs dealing with negative couple interactions, poor communication and conflict resolution skills and dysfunctional attitudes and beliefs 4. Programs dealing with all risk factors except premarital cohabitation 5. Programs dealing with dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes and poor communication and conflict resolution skills

3. Protective factors included friendship, fun, sensuality, commitment and interpersonal support. Risk factors included negative couple interactions, poor communication and conflict resolution skills, dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes, violence in family of origin, experience of parental divorce and premarital cohabitation.

Table 5.1 cont: Newly created clusters of variables for the development of the typology

Variable	Newly created clusters
Educator qualifications and ongoing training	1. Both qualifications and ongoing training originate within the agency 2. Where qualifications are external and ongoing training is in the form of supervision, team meetings, conferences and training conducted by both internal and external providers 3. Formal qualifications only 4. Qualifications that are both internal and external (including formal degrees, life experience and in-house and external training) on ongoing training includes regular supervision and team meetings 5. Both qualifications and ongoing training are external in the forms of life experience, conference attendance and ongoing training is provided by external consultants
Assessment and evaluation practices	1. Assessment comprises general observation of participants by educators and clients provide self-reports. Evaluations are based on observation, post course surveys and clients' and educators' reports 2. Assessment includes specific and general observations of clients made by educators and client self report data. Evaluations are conducted by observation, post course surveys and data provided by educators and clients 3. Assessment is by participant self report only and evaluation consists of post course surveys and client feedback 4. Assessment comprises general and specific observation by educators, participant self-reports. Evaluation is in the form of observations by educators and client feedback

5.2 Profiles of Preparatory Program Clusters

Having generated a series of clusters through the data reduction process, the next step was to examine these clusters with respect to other program characteristics. As well as yielding valuable information in their own right, examining the profiles of each of these clusters of programs can highlight which characteristics have the potential to contribute to the final typology. Where the data were categorical (for example, provider type) cross tabulations were conducted, and analysis of variance was used to identify statistically significant differences among the types of programs within clusters with respect to variables such as cost of programs or number of target groups.

Programs clustered by content areas

The seven types of programs identified by the clustering process outlined above focus on:

• understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality
• family of origin, sexuality, communication and conflict resolution*
• self-management, children and relationships, communication and conflict resolution*
• assertiveness
• self-management
• family of origin, communication and conflict resolution, and understanding relationships
• self-management, communication and conflict resolution

(*These clusters contained only nine and twelve programs respectively, too few to allow for meaningful profiles to be generated.)

The key characteristics of each of these groups of programs are described below.

Programs that focus on understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality (n = 29) tend to be offered by church-affiliated providers (55%) and are most likely to be offered in metropolitan (35%) or both rural and metropolitan regions (28%). Most (70%) operate with two paid staff members (too few providers responded to questions relating to the use of volunteers, making any assertions on this aspect of program management not possible). In most programs (79%) the educators have formal qualifications, receive in-house training (86%) or bring life experience (86%) to their work. Ongoing training most commonly takes the form of regular team meetings (93% of programs), via regular supervision (79% of programs), attendance at conferences (66%) or by ongoing training within the agency (79%). The average cost of these programs is $94 per couple (maximum of $290) for a course lasting approximately thirteen hours over an average of eight sessions. Typically there are no more than 19 participants in a program. Programs usually address between three and four target client groups and cover an average of eight content areas.

These types of programs focus on an average of four learning objectives that tend to be a combination of both cognitive and psychomotor (42% of programs). Ninety or more per cent of these programs address all five protective factors (friendship, interpersonal support, fun, commitment, and sensuality), as well as the risks associated with negative couple interactions, poor communication and conflict resolution skills and dysfunctional attitudes and beliefs. Relatively few programs focus on the risks associated with parental divorce (21%), premarital cohabitation (36%) or violence in the family of origin (50%). Educators in these programs use approximately eight different teaching methods on average, most of which involve limited participation on the part of those attending.

Assessment of learning in these programs is typically in the form of self-reports (86%), general (86%) or specific (76%) observations. Partner reports (14%) and quizzes (7%) are seldom used to obtain information about client learning. Course evaluations are conducted by observation and by post-course surveys in 90 per cent of programs, and via follow up interviews and surveys in 21 per cent of instances. Clients contribute to the evaluation process in 97 per cent of programs, educators provide feedback in 76 per cent of programs, and referring agencies participate in evaluations of 38 per cent of programs.

Programs that focus on assertiveness (n = 27) are generally secular and offered in metropolitan (54%) or rural (36%) areas. They function with one (31%) or two (58%) paid staff. In 93% of programs, educators have formal qualifications. Sixty-four per cent receive in-house training and 61% draw on life experience. About one third of programs employ educators trained by an external provider. In most (93%) programs regular supervision of educators is maintained, as are regular team meetings (79%) and ongoing training within the organisation (79%). Fewer programs provide training by external agencies (54%) or via conference attendance (57%). Assertiveness programs cost an average of $25 per couple (maximum of $160) for a program averaging 14 hours over six sessions. On average, a program comprises no more than 13 participants from five target groups, and covers five content areas.

Assertiveness programs typically have four learning objectives drawn from the cognitive (35%) or cognitive and psychomotor (35%) domains. On average, seven teaching strategies are employed, half of which involve participants to a limited extent. Eighty per cent of programs address interpersonal support and 65% discuss friendship as protective factors. Fun and commitment are included in just over half the programs (54% each), however sensuality is a component of only 35% of assertiveness programs. As would be expected, all assertiveness programs address the risks of poor communication and conflict resolution skills, and most dysfunctional beliefs (82%) and negative couple interactions (78%). Just over half attend to the risks of violence in the family of origin, while relatively few programs discuss the effects of parental divorce (30%) or premarital cohabitation (11%).

Client learning is assessed by general observation in all assertiveness programs, and in 89 per cent of cases participants' self-reports are employed. In 71% of programs, clients' learning is assessed by observation of a specific task situation but partner reports and quizzes are used infrequently (18% and 11% of programs respectively). Evaluations are most commonly conducted using observations (89%) and post-course surveys (86%), with one quarter of programs conducting follow up interviews and surveys. Clients and educators are the source of evaluations in 89% and 75% of programs respectively, while almost one third of programs receive evaluation information from referring agencies.

Self-management programs (n = 31), where the emphasis is on issues such as self-esteem and knowledge, are mostly secular (74%) and offered in metropolitan areas (65%). Programs employ one (55%) or two (31%) paid staff, most of who have formal qualifications (87%). Nearly two thirds of these programs provide in-house training for their educators compared to 39% who report educators having some training from external providers. Sixty-one per cent of providers report their educators are also qualified via their life experience. Ongoing training is reported by most providers to be in the form of regular supervision (87%) regular team meetings (80%), in-house training (73%) or conference attendance (60%). Training by external providers (33%) is less common. Self-management programs cost couples $20 on average (maximum of $165), lasting approximately 15 hours over nine sessions. Typically programs are aimed at six target groups and cover only two topics. No more than 21 participants would attend a typical program.

Self-management programs have an average of three learning objectives, which focus on the cognitive (44%) or cognitive and psychomotor (30%) learning domains. Seventy-one per cent of programs are reported to include the protective effects of interpersonal support in their programs, sixty-five per cent include friendship and fifty-eight per cent stress the importance of fun. Commitment (45%) and sensuality (36%) are less commonly reported. Three risk factors are commonly incorporated into programs: negative couple interactions (65%), poor communication and conflict resolution skills (77%) and dysfunctional attitudes and beliefs (69%). However few providers report addressing the risks associated with parental divorce (8%), violence in family of origin (23%), or premarital cohabitation (4%). Five teaching strategies are usually employed, mostly involving some limited participation by participants.

Assessment of client learning is generally achieved via general observation (87%) and participant self-reports (68%), with 45 per cent of programs using observation of a specific task as an assessment tool. Little use is made of partner reports (10%) or quizzes (13%). Post-course surveys (71%) and observation (68%) are the primary means of evaluating programs. Few (13%) programs conduct follow up interviews and surveys. The vast majority (90%) of programs obtain evaluation data from their clients. Educators provide evaluation information to 65% of programs while in 23% referring agencies become involved in the evaluation process.

Programs that focus on issues of family of origin, communication and conflict resolution, and understanding relationships (n = 21) are only slightly more likely to be offered by secular providers (52%) compared to church-affiliated (44%), but are most likely to be offered in metropolitan areas (71%). They are typically staffed by one (57%) or two (33%) paid employees, all of whom have formal qualifications. The majority of employees have received in-house training (81%) or bring life experience to their work (86%). However, only one-third has received training from another relationships service provider. Ongoing training is provided via regular supervision and regular team meetings in 76% of programs, by in-house training in 81% of programs and via conference attendance in 62% of programs. Ongoing training by an external provider is reported by 29% of providers of these programs. These programs typically cost $47 per couple (with a maximum of $210) and last an average of twelve hours over five sessions. A maximum of 15 participants typically attend. Programs are aimed at an average of three target groups and typically cover five content areas.

These programs set participants an average of four learning objectives and are mostly focussed on the cognitive (35%) or a combination of cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning domains (25%). Almost all of these programs include the protective factors of friendship (95%) and interpersonal support (95%), while two-thirds incorporate consideration of the protective effects of fun and sixty-two per cent addressed commitment. The risks of poor communication and conflict resolution skills and dysfunctional attitudes and beliefs are addressed by 90% and 84% of programs respectively. Just over two-thirds of programs discuss problems associated with negative couple interactions and 42% violence in the family of origin. The potential effects of the experience of parental divorce are dealt with in 26% of programs, while the risks associated with premarital cohabitation are incorporated into only five per cent of programs. On average seven teaching strategies are employed in the delivery of programs, typically requiring limited participation on the part of couples.

General observation as a means of assessing client learning is used by all of these programs. Self-reports are employed in the vast majority of programs (86%) and to a lesser degree (57%) assessment is via observation of specific tasks. Few programs use partner reports (14%) or quizzes (5%) as assessment tools. Course evaluation in most programs is conducted via observation (95%) and post-course surveys (95%), less often through follow up interviews and surveys (19%). Evaluation information is usually provided by clients (91%) and educators (91%), with only 19% of programs involving their referring agencies.

Self-management, communication and conflict resolution programs are offered by secular (40%) and church-affiliated (44%) providers, and most are conducted in metropolitan (56%) or rural (32%) locations. One (52%) or two (43%) staff are employed to provide the program. Employees have formal qualifications in 88% of programs. Educators are trained in-house for 58% of programs, but in 54% the educators have received training from external relationship services providers. Ongoing training occurs through regular supervision (83%), regular team meetings (83%) and conference attendance (79%). Professional development also tends to occur within the agency (63%) rather than externally (38%). The cost of these programs to couples averages $39, although the most expensive charge $180. Programs last approximately nine hours over four sessions, with a maximum of 19 participants in each program. The average number of target groups addressed by programs is usually four. Approximately five content areas are covered throughout each program.

An average of four learning objectives are set for these programs, grounded in the cognitive (30%), cognitive and psychomotor combined (30%) or cognitive and affective combined (26%) domains. The benefits of interpersonal support are addressed by 96% of programs, commitment by 92%, fun by 83%, and both sensuality and friendship by 79% of programs. The risks of poor communication and conflict resolution skills are included in 83% of programs, and sensuality in 79%. Negative couple interactions and dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes both appear in 78% of programs, and violence in the family of origin in 39%. Fewer programs however deal with the risks of experiencing parental divorce (26%) or premarital cohabitation (4%). An average of seven teaching strategies are employed in conducting programs, typically requiring limited participation on the part of those attending.

Learning in programs focussing on self-management, communication and conflict resolution is most commonly assessed by general observation (92%) and participants' self reports (83%). Only half of these programs assess learning via observation of a specific task. Partner reports and quizzes are not often used (17% and 21% respectively). Most programs are evaluated by observation (83%) and post-course surveys (75%) rather than follow up interviews and surveys (13%). Contributions to the evaluation process come mostly from clients (83%) and educators (71%). Only 29 per cent of programs have evaluation information provided by the referring agencies.

Programs clustered by skills

Four types of programs were identified based on the skills incorporated into curricula:

• No skills focus (n = 81);
• Communication and life skills (n = 14);
• Assertiveness, life skills, communication and goal setting (n = 20); and
• Communication and conflict resolution (n = 48).

Programs that have no skills focus are largely offered by secular (48%) or church-affiliated providers (37%), and tend to be conducted in metropolitan (52%) and rural (35%) communities. One (49%) or two (41%) paid staff who have formal qualifications (86%) or life experience (74%) oversee the programs. These staff are likely to have been trained within the agency (68%) rather than by an external relationship provider (35%). Their ongoing training usually takes the form of regular team meetings (87%), regular supervision (83%), conference attendance (69%) and in-house development activities (73%). External relationship providers are involved in the ongoing professional development of educators working in 34% of programs. The average cost of these programs is $43 per couple (with a maximum of $410), for a program lasting an average of 13 hours over six sessions. An average maximum of 19 clients participate in these programs although up to 70 may attend, drawn from an average of four target groups. While six content areas is typical, up to 14 content areas may be covered.

Where skills are not a central part of the program curricula, programs are based on an average of three learning objectives based on cognitive (43%) or cognitive or psychomotor (25%) learning objectives. They typically address the benefits of interpersonal support (84%), friendship (74%), fun (73%), commitment (68%) and sensuality (55%). Few programs devote time specifically to the risks associated with parental divorce (31%) or premarital cohabitation (18%), focusing instead on poor communication and conflict resolution skills (83%), dysfunctional beliefs (79%), negative couple interactions (72%) and violence in the family of origin (44%). In running the program, educators employ approximately six teaching strategies.

Educator observations (90%) and client self-reports (82%) are the more common methods of assessing client learning; specific observation (45%) and partner reports (23%) are used less frequently, while in only nine per cent of programs do educators administer a quiz. Program evaluations typically involve educator observations (81%) and post-course surveys (76%), but few programs are evaluated via follow up interviews or surveys (15%). Clients (91%) and educators (66%) tend to inform evaluations, although referring agencies contribute evaluation information to 35% of programs.

Programs in which communication and life skills It is important to bear in mind the small number of these programs in the sample (n = 14) when interpreting the percentages given below. are taught tend to be offered by church-affiliated (64%) rather than secular (36%) providers and are conducted in metropolitan (36%), rural (21%), both metropolitan and rural (21%) communities and nationwide (21%). They are staffed by one (25%) or two (25%) paid employees who have formal qualifications (86%) or who have been selected for their life experience (74%) and who are likely to have been trained in-house (68%) rather than by some external agency (35%). The educators typically receive ongoing training in the form of regular supervision (83%) or regular team meetings (87%), conference attendance (69%) and in-house professional development activities (73%). One third of programs are run by educators who have access to professional development activities provided by external relationship agencies. Couples pay $57 on average for these programs, but some programs can cost up to $220. Programs on average cover 15 hours over eight sessions. The maximum number of participants can be up to 50, but programs tend to average 17. Participants are usually drawn from across five target groups. Programs usually focus on an average of seven content areas.

Programs usually focus on an average of four learning outcomes. Half of the programs are grounded in cognitive learning domains. Most address the protective effects of friendship (93%), interpersonal support (93%), fun (86%), commitment (64%) and sensuality (64%). They all deal with the risks associated with poor communication and conflict resolution skills and most address dysfunctional beliefs (93%) and negative couple interactions (79%). Violence in the family of origin is dealt with in 43 per cent of programs, but parental divorce and premarital cohabitation occur less frequently (14% and 14% respectively). In the course of a program educators use an average of eight different teaching methods.

Assessment of client learning is largely done by general observations (79%), participant self-reports (93%) and specific observations (57%). Few programs obtain feedback from partners or administer a quiz. All programs are evaluated by observations and to a large extent post-course surveys are used (93%). Just over one third of programs (36%) are evaluated by follow up interviews or surveys. Clients (93%) and educators (93%) typically provide evaluation data, while referring agencies provide feedback to less than one third of these programs (29%).

Programs that focus on teaching goal setting, assertiveness, life skills and communication are typically offered by secular (65%) rather than church-affiliated (35%) providers and most are conducted in metropolitan (60%) communities. One (44%) or two (50%) staff are paid to oversee the programs. Most programs are run by educators who have formal qualifications (95%), are trained in-house (60%) or have been selected for their life experience (65%). Thirty five per cent of programs are conducted by educators who are trained by external relationship service providers. Their ongoing training typically involves regular supervision (85%), in-house professional development activities (75%) and regular team meetings (70%); conference attendance as ongoing professional development occurs in 45 per cent of programs. Less than half (45%) of these programs engage an external training provider to provide ongoing training. For an average cost of $28 (ranging up to $130), couples attending these programs spend an average of 14 hours over five sessions working through five content areas. No more than 13 participants drawn from six target groups will attend a program on average.

These programs focus, on average, on four learning objectives grounded in the cognitive (42%) or cognitive and psychomotor (37%) domains. Programs that teach this particular combination of skills also deal with the protective effects of interpersonal support (80%), commitment (65%) and friendship (60%). Fewer programs address fun (45%) and sensuality (45%). All of them however address the risks associated with poor communication and conflict resolution skills, and most deal with dysfunctional beliefs (90%) and negative couple interactions (85%). Only half include violence in the family of origin and less deal with parental divorce (35%) or premarital cohabitation (20%). An average of seven different teaching strategies are used by educators in conducting the programs.

All programs of this type use general observation of clients as an assessment tool. Participant self-reports (90%) and specific observations (75%) are also common, however the use of partner reports and quizzes is less frequent (15% and 20% respectively). The majority of programs are evaluated via observations (90%) and post-course surveys (80%), but little use is made of follow up interviews and surveys (20%). Clients themselves contribute evaluation information (85%) and to a lesser degree feedback is obtained from educators (55%) and referring agencies (20%).

Communication and conflict resolution skills programs tend to be offered by church-affiliated (54%) rather than secular (31%) providers and operate largely in metropolitan (46%) or rural (31%) areas. Programs are generally staffed by one (30%) or two (58%) paid employees who have formal qualifications (87% of programs), in-house training (87%) or have been selected for their life experience (87%). Around half (55%) of these programs have educators trained by external agencies. Ongoing professional development activities are in the form of regular supervision (87%), regular team meetings (85%), conference attendance (70%) and in-house training (83%). Educators in only 36% of these programs have access to ongoing training from external agencies. These programs can cost up to $260 per couple, although the average is $79 for 13 hours over six sessions. The highest reported maximum number of participants is 44, but the average attendance is 20 clients drawn from three target groups. Programs cover an average of seven content areas.

On average a communication and conflict resolution program is based on five learning objectives, primarily cognitive and psychomotor (48%) or cognitive and affective (21%). Most programs deal with each of the protective factors: friendship (87%), interpersonal support (92%), fun (81%), commitment (85%) and sensuality (66%). They also typically address the risks of poor communication and conflict resolution skills (93%), negative couple interactions (87%) and dysfunctional beliefs (78%). Parental divorce (20%), premarital cohabitation (16%) and violence in the family of origin (49%) are less frequently included in the curricula. An average of seven different teaching methods are used in the conduct of programs.

Assessment of learning is usually achieved via general observation (96%), specific observation (78%) and clients' self-reports (76%). Partners of clients (20%) and quizzes (9%) are less commonly used as assessment tools. Evaluation data are typically provided by educator observations (85%) and post-course surveys (85%), but rarely by follow up interviews and surveys (15%). Sources of evaluation information are usually clients (96%) or educators (89%). Referring agencies are consulted in the evaluation of only 35% of programs.

Programs clustered by targets.

Clustering programs by their target groups resulted in three types of programs:

• individuals or couples in a single client group across a range of life circumstances
• couples across the life course
• premarital, committed and married

Programs targeting individuals or couples in a single client group are more likely to be offered by secular (64%) than church-affiliated providers (33%), and are more likely to be offered in metropolitan (56%) than rural (38%) areas. They are conducted by one (38%) or two (50%) paid employees. In 90% of programs educators' qualifications are formal while in 62% educators have been selected on the basis of the life experience they bring to their work. In-house training is provided in 67% of programs, but only 38% use educators trained by external relationship agencies. Ongoing training in these programs most often takes the form of regular supervision (83%) or regular team meetings (81%), although in 70% of programs other professional development activities are conducted within the agency. In just over half of the programs (55%) educators attend conferences but only one-third of agencies use external training providers. On average programs directed at individuals or couples in a single client group cost $19 per couple, although they can cost as much as $260. The mean length of these programs is 16 hours over seven sessions, and typically there are no more than 14 participants. They usually address five content areas during the course of the program.

On average four learning objectives are established for these programs, largely in the cognitive (33%) or cognitive and psychomotor (27%) domains. Most programs address the protective effects of interpersonal support (80%), friendship (76%) and fun (61%), however less than half (47%) include commitment or sensuality (39%). Discussion of the risks associated with having poor communication and conflict resolution skills and dysfunctional beliefs are included in 86% and 84% of programs respectively. Negative interactions (59%) and violence in the family of origin (45%) are elements of programs, however experience of parental divorce (16%) and premarital cohabitation (5%) are not commonly addressed. Educators employ an average of six different teaching strategies in running the programs, mostly methods that require limited involvement by participants.

Client learning is assessed in most programs by observation (96%) or participants' self-reports (79%). Assessment by observation of a specific task occurs in 57%. Quizzes are employed in only 13% of programs. Six percent of programs use information from the clients' partner as a source of assessment data. The method of evaluation in 78% of programs is observation and in 80% post course surveys are employed. Only 15% of programs use follow up interviews and surveys to evaluate the course. Clients provide program feedback in 87% of programs and the educators themselves provide evaluation data in 71% of cases. Feedback from referring agencies or individuals is obtained for 30% of programs.

Secular providers offer 58% of programs that target couples across the life course while 33% are conducted by church-affiliated agencies. Almost half (46%) are provided in metropolitan areas and 38% in rural communities. There is one paid employee in 55% of programs and in 30% two paid employees conduct the program. In the majority of programs educators are equipped with formal qualifications (90%), in-house training (67%) or specific life experience (62%). Educators trained by an external relationships services provider conduct only 38% of these types of programs. Ongoing professional development takes the form of regular supervision (83% of programs), regular team meetings (81% of programs) or training provided within the agency (70% of programs). In just over half of the programs (55%) ongoing development is facilitated by conference attendance and in almost two-thirds (64%) external agencies provide additional training. The averages cost to couples of these programs is $51, but can be as high as $220. Programs last an average of 12 hours over five sessions, and typically comprise 23 participants.

Programs for couples across the life course tend to have four learning objectives, grounded in the cognitive (50%) or cognitive and psychomotor (36%) domains. They deal with the protective effects of interpersonal support (92%), commitment (83%), fun (79%), friendship (75%), and, to a lesser extent, sensuality (54%). The risks associated with negative couple interactions and poor communication and conflict resolution skills appear in 100% and 94% of programs respectively. Eighty-three percent address dysfunctional beliefs but only half include parental divorce and 56% address violence in the family of origin. One-third of programs deal with premarital cohabitation. Typically six different teaching strategies are used.

Assessment of couple learning most often takes the form of observation (83% of programs) or participant self-report (74%). Observation of a specific task occurs in 57 percent of programs, while partner reports (22%) and quizzes (4%) are less common. Observation (91%) and post-course surveys (87%) are the primary methods for evaluating programs, with less than one-fifth (17%) of programs conducting follow up interviews or surveys. Ninety-one percent of programs are evaluated by clients, but a large proportion of programs (83%) are evaluated by educators. Referring agencies provide evaluation feedback to 22% of programs.

Church-affiliated (58%) or church-based (23%) providers conduct most programs that are delivered to premarital, committed and married couples. They are located in metropolitan (45%), rural (28%) or both metropolitan and rural (20%) communities and run by one (38%) or two (47%) paid employees. Most programs are run by educators who bring with them life experience (88% of programs) or formal qualifications (87% of programs). In 78% of programs educators receive in-house training. Programs run by educators trained in other relationship service agencies are less common (41%). Regular supervision occurs in 90% of programs and regular team meetings in 84%. Eighty-two percent of programs provide ongoing training within the agency but only 33% retain the services of external training providers. Professional development for educators occurs through conference attendance in 73% of programs. Programs cost an average of $88 (but can range up to $410) for a program lasting 12 hours over five sessions on average. Twenty participants typically attend these programs.

These programs focus on an average of four learning objectives that tend to be located in the cognitive (33%) or cognitive and psychomotor (36%) domains. Discussion of the protective effects of commitment occurs in 93% of programs, as does discussion of interpersonal support (91%), fun (82%), friendship (81%) and sensuality (77%). Over 90% of programs address risks associated with negative couple interactions (91%) and poor communication and conflict resolution skills (93%). Dysfunctional beliefs are dealt with in 78% of programs, and violence in the family of origin in 44% of cases. Less than one-third tackle the risks of experiencing parental divorce and only one quarter include discussion of premarital cohabitation as a risk factor. Educators employ an average of seven different teaching methods in the conduct of a program.

Client learning in these programs is assessed largely by general observation (91%), participants' self-reports (88%) and observations of specific tasks (63%). Less than one third (31%) of programs employ partner reports and only 12 percent use quizzes to assess learning. Ninety percent of programs are evaluated by observation and 79% by post-course surveys. Only 19% of programs gather evaluation data via follow up interviews and surveys. Clients and educators contribute feedback in 97% and 74% of programs respectively. In 38% of programs, referring agencies provide feedback.

Programs clustered by risk and protective factors

Risk Factors.

Programs that address the risks associated with violence in the family of origin, poor communication and conflict resolution skills, dysfunctional beliefs and negative couple interaction are usually offered by church-affiliated (52%) or secular (33%) agencies in metropolitan (46%) or rural (42%) communities. They are usually staffed by two paid workers (62%) with formal qualifications (91%), life experience (85%), in-house training (79%) or who have been trained by an external provider (46%). Ongoing professional development for educators is in the form of regular supervision (91%) and regular team meetings (82%), conference attendance (61%) or training activities conducted within the agency (82%) or by an external provider (36%). The average cost of these programs is $47 although they can range up to $150. They last an average of 11 hours over six sessions. The number of participants per program ranges from five to forty, although on average 17 participants from three target client groups will attend a program that will cover an average of six content areas.

On average these programs have four learning objectives, generally in the cognitive (32%) or cognitive and psychomotor (39%) domains. The number of different teaching strategies employed in the delivery of programs averages seven.

Within these programs educators tend to assess client learning via general (94%) and specific observations (75%), and seek client self-reports (88%). Evaluation of programs occurs through observation (88%) and post-course surveys (84%), and evaluation data are drawn from clients (94%) and educators (69%) rather than referring agencies (38%).

Programs that address none or limited risk factors are equally likely to be offered by secular (44%) as church-affiliated (44%) metropolitan agencies (61%). One (58%) or two (32%) paid staff are responsible for the program's delivery, usually having formal qualifications (78% of programs) or life experience (74% of programs). Their training is more likely to be within the agency (65%) than with an external provider (30%). Ongoing training is most often in the form of regular supervision (91%) and regular team meetings (78%). Conference attendance (78%) and professional development activities within the agency (70%) are more common than training provided by an external agency (17%). The average cost of the program is $38, with a maximum of $165. Programs last eight hours on average, over four sessions. Up to 44 participants may attend any particular program, although on average there will be 17 participants from three target client groups attending a program in which four content areas are covered.

These programs with limited or no focus on risk factors tend to have an average of three learning objectives grounded in the cognitive (32%) or cognitive and psychomotor (32%) learning domains. On average five different teaching methods are used in program delivery.

Assessment of learning is primarily through general observation (74%) and participants' self-reports (70%). Observation of specific tasks (44%) and partner reports (30%) are less commonly used, and only 13% of programs use a quiz to assess client learning. Observation is also commonly used to evaluate programs (65%), along with post-course surveys (65%). Only 17% of programs obtain evaluation data through follow up interviews and surveys. Evaluation information is provided primarily by clients (87%). Just over half (57%) of the programs are evaluated by educators and only 17% of programs seek feedback from referring agencies.

Over half of the programs dealing with the risks associated with negative couple interaction, poor communication and conflict resolution skills and dysfunctional beliefs are conducted by church-affiliated agencies (51%) and about one-third by secular providers (35%). They are offered in metropolitan (37%) and rural (30%) communities and run by one (44%) or two (44%) paid staff who are formally qualified (86% of programs) or have relevant life experience (86%). Programs are more likely to be run by staff trained within the agency (69%) than by an external provider (30%). Educators in most agencies have ongoing regular supervision (80% of programs), regular team meetings (80%), professional development activities within the agency (73%) and access to conference attendance (63%). Only 30% of programs are staffed by educators who receive ongoing training from external providers. Couples pay $62 on average for these programs (ranging up to $260). They last for an average of 14 hours over five sessions. A maximum of 70 participants may attend, although on average there are 23 individuals present. Programs cover an average of six content areas and four target groups.

Programs that include these risk factors have an average of four learning objectives, almost half of which are grounded in cognitive domain (46%) and one third in the cognitive and psychomotor (33%) learning domain. Educators use an average of seven different teaching strategies in program delivery.

Client learning is assessed primarily by general observation of clients (90%) and self-reports (83%). Educators in fewer than half of the programs make specific observations of clients (46%) and few seek information from the client's partner (15%) or administer a quiz (7%). Evaluation information is also obtained largely via observation (90% of programs) although a significant proportion conducts post-course surveys (73%). In only 17% are follow up evaluation interviews or surveys conducted. The vast majority of programs are evaluated by clients (91%), with educators (69%) and referring agencies (24%) also contributing to the evaluation process.

Most of the programs that deal with the risks of poor communication and conflict resolution skills, negative couple interaction, dysfunctional beliefs, experience of parental divorce and violence in family of origin are offered by church-affiliated (45%) or secular (39%) providers. Programs tend to be conducted in rural communities (45%) or metropolitan areas (39%) and are conducted by one (30%) or two (48%) paid employees. Programs tend to be conducted by educators who have formal qualifications (86% of programs), have been trained in-house (86%) or have relevant life experience (83%). Just over half of these programs (59%) are conducted by educators trained by external providers. Professional development activities in most programs take the form of regular team meetings (93%), ongoing training provided within the agency (90%), regular supervision (87%) and conference attendance (83%). Around half of the programs (53%) are staffed by educators who can receive ongoing training from an external provider. On average these programs cost $84, but can cost up to $290, and run for an average of 13 hours over 5 sessions. Up to 38 may participate but on average there will be 16 attendees drawn from five target groups. Programs will generally cover eight different content areas.

The curricula for these programs are designed around an average of four learning objectives based on three learning domains: cognitive (30% of programs), cognitive and affective (26%), or cognitive and psychomotor (33%). In their delivery, an average of seven different teaching strategies are used.

Participants provide feedback on their own learning in all programs of this type. Educators' general observations (97%) and their observations of specific tasks (73%) are also used to assess client learning, as are partner reports and quizzes to a lesser degree (40% and 13% respectively). Evaluation of programs is conducted primarily via observation (90%) and post-course surveys (93%). Few programs are evaluated by follow up interviews and surveys (13%). Most programs are evaluated by clients (93%) and educators (87%), although referring agencies contribute to the process for 53%of the programs.

Programs that include discussion of the risks of poor communication and conflict resolution skills and dysfunctional beliefs are usually offered by secular (58%) or church-affiliated (42%) providers and located in metropolitan (58%) or rural (26%) communities. One (32%) or two (47%) paid staff members conduct the programs. Their qualifications are usually formal (in 95% of programs) but they may also be equipped with relevant life experience (53% of programs). In sixty-three per cent educators have been trained in-house while in 32% they have received training from an external provider. Ongoing training tends to be via regular supervision (90%) and regular team meetings (79%). In some programs professional development occurs via conference attendance (53% of programs) and activities conducted within the agency (63%). External training providers are used for the ongoing development of educators working on only 37% of programs. The average cost of programs of this type is $26, up to a maximum of $210, and they last 16 hours on average. Up to 30 individuals may attend, although on average there are 13 participants from three target groups taking part. An average of five areas of content are addressed over seven sessions.

An average of four learning objectives guide these programs, grounded them in the cognitive (24%), cognitive and affective (29%) or cognitive and psychomotor (24%) domains. Program delivery involves the use of an average of seven different teaching methods.

Client learning is assessed through general observation (100%) and client self-reports (90%). Just over half of the programs (53%) observe clients in specific tasks. Eleven per cent ask for input from the clients' partner and 16 % have clients complete a quiz to assess learning. Program evaluation is typically done via observation of programs (79% of programs) or post-course surveys (74%). Only 16% of programs are evaluated through follow up interviews and surveys. Evaluation information is provided by clients themselves (95%) or educators (79%), and referring agencies are included in the evaluation process of 37% of programs.

Protective Factors.

Programs that address all protective factors are likely to be offered by church-affiliated (48%) rather than secular (35%) providers and be located in metropolitan (44%) and rural (31%) regions. They are run by one (35%) or two (49%) paid employees who usually have formal qualifications (82% of programs), in-house training (85%), life experience, (87%) or have been trained by an external provider (58%). Ongoing professional development takes the form of regular supervision in 88 per cent of programs, as well as regular team meetings (91%), conference attendance (79%) and training activities conducted within the agency (85%). In 54 per cent of programs educators receive ongoing training provided by external organisations. On average the cost of these programs is $73, ranging up to $290 per couple. They are usually 13 hours long, conducted over six sessions. A maximum of 50 individuals may attend although on average there are 19 participants. A program covers an average of seven content areas directed towards six target client groups.

An average of four learning objectives are reported for this type of program, usually located in the cognitive and psychomotor (35%), cognitive (30%) or cognitive and affective (25%) domains. In delivering the program, educators draw on an average of seven different teaching methods.

Participant learning tends to be assessed by general observation (92% of programs), specific observation (67%) or through clients' self-reports (82%), but only occasionally are partner reports requested (20%) or is a quiz administered (15%). Program evaluation is usually conducted by observation (86%) and post-course surveys (85%), but follow up interviews and surveys are less common (17%). Clients (94%) and educators (79%) are the major contributors to the evaluation process, although referring agencies provide information to 42% of these programs.

Over half (55%) of the programs that deal with all the protective factors except friendship It is important to bear in mind the small number of these programs in the sample (n = 11) when interpreting the percentages given below. The description of these programs is less comprehensive due to the small numbers of programs with some attributes. are offered by secular providers. They are largely conducted by one (56%) or two (33%) paid staff in metropolitan communities (64%). Educators in these programs tend to have formal qualifications (100% of programs) or life experience (90%) and receive ongoing regular supervision (89%), have regular team meetings (89%), attend conferences (78%) and attend in-house professional development activities (78%). Programs tend to cost around $50 on average and typically run for seven hours over 3 sessions. They are usually attended by an average of 24 participants, with a maximum of 50 permitted to attend. Programs cover an average of five content areas targeted at three client groups.

On average, three learning objectives grounded largely in the cognitive domain (44%) are reported, and educators use an average of five different teaching strategies in delivering the program. Participant self-reports provide the data for assessment of client learning for 89% of programs, and their responses to post-course surveys contribute to the evaluation of all programs of this kind.

Programs in which all protective factors except sensuality are covered tend to be secular (58%) rather than church-affiliated (40%) providers and are offered in metropolitan (61%) and rural (28%) areas. One (51%) or two (38%) paid employees with formal qualifications (98% of programs) or life experience (77%) oversee programs. Educators are generally trained in-house (67%) rather than by an external provider (33%).

In 76 per cent of programs educators receive ongoing training in the form of regular supervision, in 71 per cent there are regular team meetings, half are able to attend conferences and in 64 per cent professional development activities are held within the agency. Occasionally ongoing training is provided by an external agency (24%). These programs cost an average of $28 per couple, ranging up to $210. The average program runs for 12 hours over 5 sessions. Up to 20 participants may be present, however there are typically 14 participants in a program covering five content areas on average. Programs are directed towards four target groups.

These programs are based on an average of four learning objectives, which tend to be grounded in the cognitive (34%) or cognitive and psychomotor (24%) domains. In delivering the program, educators draw on an average of 7 different teaching strategies.

The major tools for assessing client learning are general observation (98% of programs), specific observation (61%) or clients' self-reports (86%); partner reports and the administration of a quiz are much less common (14% and 7% respectively). Observations (88%) and post-course surveys (79%) are the primary methods of program evaluation, with follow up interviews and surveys being used in only 16% of programs. Evaluation is in most programs provided by clients (88%) and educators (74%). Referring agencies contribute to the evaluation process of only 19% of programs.

Forty-eight per cent of programs in which only one, if any, protective factors is addressed are offered by secular providers and 48% by church-affiliated providers. Over half (57%) are conducted in rural communities and 39% in metropolitan areas. They are staffed by one (32%) or two (50%) paid employees who in the majority of programs have formal qualifications (83%). In 48 per cent educators have relevant life experience. Their training is usually in-house (65%) rather than provided by an external agency (17%). Educators receive regular supervision in 91% of programs or attend regular team meetings (74%); in just over half of the programs (57%) educators attend conferences as part of their ongoing professional development and in 74% of programs the educator attends training within the agency. External providers are retained for ongoing training of educators for only 17% of programs. The programs cost an average of $32 per couple, and range up to $160. On average programs run for 15 hours over seven sessions, covering four content areas. While there may be up to 70 individuals present, on average programs have 16 participants from three client groups.

An average of three learning objectives guide the curriculum of these programs. In 57% of programs they are grounded in the cognitive domain and in 38% combined cognitive and psychomotor learning objectives are set. On average eductors use five different teaching methods in delivering the program.

The tools most commonly used to assess learning are general observation (91%) and clients' self-reports (70%), with specific observations (39%), partner reports (26%) and quizzes (13%) used less frequently. Observation and post-course surveys are the most common evaluation tools, being used in 83% and 57% of programs respectively. Follow up interviews and surveys are employed in only 17% of cases. Contributions to the evaluation process are most likely to be drawn from the participants (91%) or educators (65%), although just over one third of programs (35%) are evaluated by referring agencies.

5.3 Comparisons Across Preparatory Program Clusters

Comparisons among the preparatory clusters of programs reveal a number of instances where programs differ significantly on certain attributes. These comparisons can highlight the potential contribution of a particular characteristic. (Figures in brackets are averages; all analyses conducted at the .05 level of significance.)

Differences among types of content.

Differences among the types of content are found with respect to cost of programs, the number of content areas contained within a program and the number of teaching methods used in the provision of a program.

Program cost:

Programs that focus on self-management ($21) tend to be significantly cheaper than those focussing on:

• understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality ($94);
• family of origin, sexuality and communication/conflict resolution ($102); and
• self management, children and relationships and communication/conflict resolution ($107).

Number of content areas:

Programs that focus on understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality cover a significantly wider range of content (eight content areas) than:

• assertiveness programs (five content areas);
• self management programs (two content areas);
• family of origin, communication/conflict resolution, and understanding relationships programs (five content areas); and
• self management and communication/conflict resolution programs (also five content areas).

Programs that focus on family of origin, sexuality and communication/conflict resolution cover significantly more content areas (nine content areas) than:

• assertiveness programs (five content areas);
• self management (two content areas); and
• self management and communication/conflict resolution (five content areas).

Programs that focus on self management, children and relationships, and communication/conflict resolution deal with significantly more content areas (up to ten content areas) than:

• assertiveness (five content areas);
• self management (two content areas);
• family of origin, communication/conflict resolution, and understanding relationships (five content areas); and
• self management and communication/conflict resolution (five content areas).

Assertiveness programs (five content areas) cover significantly more content areas than self management programs (two content areas), and self management programs (two content areas) cover significantly fewer content areas than either family or origin, communication/conflict resolution, and understanding relationships programs (five content areas) or self management and communication/conflict resolution programs (also five content areas).

Number of teaching methods used:

The number of teaching methods used by educators conducting self-management programs (five teaching methods) is significantly fewer than those conducting programs focussing on understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality (eight teaching methods).

Differences among types of skills.

Programs that differ in terms of the types of skills they teach also differ significantly with respect to number of learning outcomes and the number of teaching methods.

Number of learning outcomes:

Programs where limited, if any, skills training takes place have significantly fewer learning outcomes (three learning outcomes) compared to the number reported for programs that focus on communication and conflict resolution skills (five learning outcomes).

Number of teaching methods used:

Where limited or no skills are taught, significantly fewer (six) teaching methods are reported compared to programs that focus on communication and conflict resolution (seven) and those that teach communication, conflict resolution and life skills (eight).

Differences among programs using different types of teaching strategies.

Programs based on the teaching strategies employed differ significantly on cost and the number of teaching strategies used.

Cost of programs to couples:

Programs based on lectures ($56), discussion and brainstorming ($47), or large group work ($23) are significantly less expensive than programs based on games ($104).

Number of teaching strategies:

Programs based on lectures (using five different teaching methods) employ significantly fewer teaching strategies than those based on either discussion and brainstorming or large group work (both types of programs using up to seven different teaching methods). Games-based programs tend to use significantly more teaching strategies (up to nine different methods) than lecture-based (five different methods), discussion and brainstorming (seven different methods) or large group programs (seven different methods).

Differences among types of target groups.

Differences among types of programs based on their target group were found with respect to their cost, the numbers of participants, and the number of content areas.

Cost of programs to couples:

The cost of programs aimed at individuals and couples in a range of life circumstances ($19) is significantly less than programs targeting either couples across the life course ($51) or pre marriage/married/committed couples ($88).

Maximum number of participants:

Programs aiming at individuals and couples in a range of life circumstances (14 participants) conduct significantly smaller groups than programs for couples across the life course (23 participants) or pre marriage/married/committed couples (20 participants).

Number of content areas:

Programs aiming at individuals and couples in a range of life circumstances (addressing five different content areas) and couples across the life course (also five content areas) cover significantly fewer content areas than those targeting pre marriage / married / committed clients (seven content areas).

Differences among clusters based on protective factors.

Programs classified according to the protective factors included in their curricula differed with respect to their cost, the number of content areas and maximum numbers of participants in programs.

Cost to couples:

Programs that omit sensuality from their curricula cost significantly less ($27) than those where all five protective factors are addressed ($69).

Number of content areas:

Programs where all protective factors are addressed have a broader range of content areas (seven content areas) than programs that do not include sensuality in their curriculum (six content areas) or programs that address none or only one of the protective factors (four content areas).

Maximum number of participants:

The average maximum number of participants is significantly higher in programs where all protective factors are dealt with (20 participants) than in programs where none or only one of the factors is addressed (16 participants).

Differences among programs classified according to risk factors.

Differences were found across programs classified according to the risk factors they address with respect to the number of content areas and target groups.

Number of content areas:

Programs that address the risks associated with poor communication and conflict resolution skills target significantly fewer content areas (four content areas) than programs that address all risk factors except premarital cohabitation (eight content areas). Programs that include the risks of poor communication and conflict resolution skills as well as dysfunctional beliefs also target significantly fewer content areas (five content areas) than those programs addressing all risk factors except premarital cohabitation (eight content areas).

Number of target groups:

Programs where premarital cohabitation is not addressed target significantly more client groups (six target groups) than programs that address only the risks associated with poor communication and conflict resolution skills and dysfunctional beliefs (three target groups).

5.4 Final Program Typology

The new variables created by the clustering process described above (e.g., variables representing programs clustered on the basis of their content or target groups) form the basis of the final typology of programs. Additional variables contributing to the final typology are the cost of programs to couples, learning domains, locale, provider type, the number of teaching strategies employed, the number of target groups, the number of content areas included in curricula and the number of learning objectives on which curricula were based. Solutions for up to six clusters of programs were obtained. Forty-two programs could not be classified on the basis of the above variables because of missing data. (To distinguish the clusters derived from individual variables as described above from the clusters that form the final typology, the latter will be described hereafter as "final program clusters".)

The large number of variables used to derive the final program clusters stretches the statistical 'rule of thumb' regarding the number of variables that can be analysed relative to the number of cases (a ratio of 10 variables per case is acceptable). However it was considered sufficiently important to include them because they reflect the major aspects of the range of programs. In the process of examining the final program clusters formed at this stage, it was determined that only eight variables contributed usefully to the descriptions of each program cluster. In determining the major commonalities among programs in each final program cluster only the following were considered:

• content type,
• protective factors,
• target type,
• cost to couples,
• locale,
• provider type,
• number of teaching strategies, and
• number of content areas.

The two- and three-cluster solutions yielded clusters of programs in which the commonalities were difficult to identify. The four-, five- and six-cluster solutions generated clusters in which the common attributes could be fairly easily discerned. However, the sizes of some clusters were rather small (comprising only four or six programs). The four-cluster solution was selected for the final typology because the clusters were reasonably clear and there was only one small cluster, comprising eight programs. The primary characteristics of the programs in each of these clusters were:

Final Program Cluster 1: high cost programs offered by church-affiliated providers in which all protective factors are addressed.

Final Program Cluster 2: church-affiliated programs of moderately high cost for pre marriage married and committed couples.

Final Program Cluster 3: low cost programs.

Final Program Cluster 4: moderately low cost church-affiliated programs for pre marriage, married and committed couples in which all protective factors are addressed.

5.5 Profiles of Final Program Clusters

Once the final program clusters were determined, each program type was examined with respect to other characteristics for which data was available.

Program Type 1 (n = 8): high cost programs, offered by church-affiliated providers in which all protective factors are addressed.

These programs are designed primarily for committed couples and those either preparing to marry or recently married. The main focus in these relatively long programs is on developing couples' understanding of relationships, intimacy and sexuality and their ability to articulate and resolve conflict through a wide range of didactic and interactive methods and activities.

A strengths approach is evident in the emphasis placed on protective factors (fun, friendship, commitment, sensuality and interpersonal support). Only half of the risk factors are addressed, these being negative patterns of couple interaction, poor communication skills and dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes. Educators conducting these types of programs are most likely to have their initial training and ongoing professional development provided by the providing agency or organisation. Client achievement of program outcomes is assessed via both general and specific observations made by educators during the program, and the information by which the program itself is evaluated is drawn from both clients and educators.

Program Type 2 (n = 17): programs offered by church-affiliated providers that are of moderate to high cost for pre marriage, married and committed couples.

These largely metropolitan programs focus on understanding relationships in combination with intimacy and sexuality or with family of origin and communication and conflict resolution. These emphases and the high number of didactic and interactive teaching strategies used by eductors in training couples in the development of communication and conflict resolution techniques are reflected in the use of both cognitive-only and cognitive and psychomotor learning objectives. While all protective factors are dealt with, the experience of parental divorce and/or premarital cohabitation are not part of these program curricula. Educator qualifications, training and ongoing professional development are of two main kinds: where both originate or occur solely within the agency or organisation, or where educators can be qualified by internal or external means but professional development activities are conducted in-house. Educators' general and specific observations over the course of the program provide assessments of the amount of learning achieved by participants, and couples and educators are also the primary mechanism by which programs are themselves evaluated.

Program Type 3 (n = 77): low cost programs.

Programs of this type are the most numerous in this sample and are likely to be conducted by both secular and church-affiliated providers. This group includes those programs for which no fee is charged at all. They are offered in both metropolitan and rural communities and are largely focussed on personal development for individuals or couples in various life circumstances or for couples whose marriage is imminent or recent. This type of program addresses one of three major but narrowly defined content areas: assertiveness; self-management; or self management and communication and conflict resolution. They deal with all or most of the protective factors (omitting sensuality) but are unlikely to address the risks associated with parental divorce, premarital cohabitation or violence in the family of origin. Groups tend to be comparatively small and educators use a narrower range of teaching strategies comprising lectures combined with couple time, or lectures combined with large group work and handouts. The skills focussed on are either limited or specific communication and conflict resolution skills. In-house training is used extensively to prepare educators to work in these programs and their ongoing professional development needs are addressed within the agency or organisation. Assessment of client learning is made by general and specific observations of participants during the program, while evaluation of the program itself occurs via feedback from couples and educators.

Program Type 4 (n = 19): moderately low cost programs for pre marriage, married and committed couples in which all protective factors are addressed.

In this group of programs, committed couples, those who are soon to be married or those who have recently been married undertake a relatively short program that focuses on one of three combinations of content: understanding relationships, intimacy and sexuality; family of origin, sexuality and communication and conflict resolution; or self-management and communication and conflict resolution. Although the programs are based on cognitive and psychomotor learning objectives, lectures and couple time are the main teaching strategies employed by educators to help couples develop and enhance communication and conflict resolution skills. They address the risks associated with violence in the family of origin, poor communication skills, dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes and negative couple interactions but not parental divorce and premarital cohabitation. Educators are trained in-house and participate in professional development activities within the agency or organisation. Educators assess whether participants have achieved the identified learning objectives via general and specific observations throughout the program, and both couples and educators contribute to the overall evaluation of the program itself.

Table 5.2 below sets out the four program types and their key selected characteristics.

Table 5.2 Selected Characteristics of Program Types.

	1 High cost, church-affiliated, all protective factors (n = 8)	2 Moderately high cost, church-affiliated programs (n = 17)	3 Low cost courses (n = 77)	4 Moderately low cost programs, all protective factors (n = 19)
Average Cost	$243	$134	$9	$95
Average # hours	15.8	12.0	12.9	9.1
Average max. participants	21.6	19.3	15.8	21.6
Average # learning objectives	4.5	4.8	3.8	4.3
Average # teaching methods	8.1	8.6	6.2	6.7
Average # sessions	6.6	5.7	5.6	5.5
Offer fee assistance	100%	82%	(where fee charged) 48%	58%
Locale	50% Nationwide	Metropolitan	Metropolitan; Rural	Metropolitan; Rural; Both
For Profit	0%	0%	1%	0%
Provider Type	75% Church-Affiliated	77% Church-Affiliated	49% Secular; 42% Church-affiliated	63% Church-affiliated; 32% Church-Based

5.6 Extended analysis of the final four program clusters

An alternative way of viewing the differences among the four program types is to identify where the proportion of programs with a particular characteristic stands out as notably higher or lower than might be expected. For instance, based on the proportion of programs of type three in the sample (64%), we can expect there to be similar proportions of type three programs in the other categories in the table. A deviation of plus or minus ten per cent from that which is expected is considered notable. Table 5.3 below shows the notable findings from this analysis.

Table 5.3 Selected Characteristics of Program Types

Characteristic	Program type
	1 (7%)2 (14%)3 (64%)4 (16%)
Assessment and evaluation Assessment = general observation by educators / client self report; Evaluation = observations and post course surveys and reports from clients and educators (23#) Assessment = active observation by educators client feedback; Evaluation = observations, post program surveys provided by educators and clients (66) Assessment = client self report' Evaluation = post course surveys and client feedback (15) Assessment = active observation by educators and participant self-reports; Evaluation = educator observations and client feedback (17)	9% 6% 13% 0% 13% 20% 7% 0% 78% 52% 67% 88% 0% 23% 13% 12%

*Bolded numbers are those that deviate by +/- 10% from the sample proportion of that program type.
#Numbers in brackets are the number of programs with that characteristic.

Table 5.3 cont: Selected Characteristics of Program Types

Characteristic	Program type
	1 (7%)2 (14%)3 (64%)4 (16%)
Content Understanding relationships, intimacy, sexuality (25)	20% 16% 44% 20%
FOO, sexuality, communication and conflict resolution (8)	0% 38% 13% 50%
Self-management, children and relationships, communication and conflict resolution (10)	18% 27% 36% 18%
Assertiveness (22)	0%9%82%9%
Self management (20)	0%5%90%5%
FOO, communication, conflict resolution, understanding relationships (16)	6% 25% 63% 6%
Self-management, communication, conflict resolution (19)	0% 0% 79% 21%
Domains Cognitive, affective, psychomotor (14)	0% 21% 71% 7%
Cognitive, affective (21)	10%0%71%19%
Cognitive only (40)	10%15%63%13%
Psychomotor only (3)	0%0%100%0%
Affective only (3)	0%0%67%33%
Cognitive and psychomotor (40)	5%20%55%20%

Table 5.3 cont: Selected Characteristics of Program Types

Characteristic	Program type
	1 (7%)2 (14%)3 (64%)4 (16%)
Locale Metropolitan (54)	4% 17% 65% 15%
Rural (44)	5%11%71%14%
Both metropolitan and rural (15)	0%20%47%33%
Nationwide (8)	50%0%50%0%
Qualifications and training / professional development for educators Both internal only (48)	8% 13% 65% 15%
External qualifications, internal and external training / professional development (30)	10% 13% 53% 23%
Formal qualifications only (13)	0%0%92%8%
Internal / external qualifications, internal training and professional development (21)	5% 24% 52% 19%
Both external (9)	0%22%78%0%
Provider type Secular (44)	5% 7% 86% 2%
Church-based (14)	0%7%50%43%
Church-affiliated (63)	10%21%51%19%
Protective factors All (67)	10% 15% 51% 24%
Not friendship (7)	0%29%71%0%
Not sensuality (27)	4%11%85%0%
None or one only (20)	0%10%75%15%

Table 5.3 cont: Selected Characteristics of Program Types

Characteristic	Program type
	1 (7%)2 (14%)3 (64%)4 (16%)
Risk factors Not divorce or cohabitation (28)	0% 18% 61% 21%
Poor communication / conflict resolution skills (19)	0%16%68%16%
Negative interactions, poor communication / conflict resolution skills, dysfunctional beliefs (33)	12% 9% 67% 12%
Not cohabitation (25)	12%20%44%24%
Poor communication / conflict resolution skills, dysfunctional beliefs (16)	6% 6% 88% 0%
Skills development Limited (52)	4% 10% 69% 17%
Communication, life skills (13)	15%15%69%0%
Goals, assertiveness, life skills, communication (18)	0%11%78%11%
Communication, conflict resolution (38)	11%21%47%21%
Targets Individuals and couples in a range of life circumstances (51)	4% 6% 88% 2%
Couples across the life course (13)	15%0%69%15%
Pre marriage, married, committed (57)	7%24%40%28%

Table 5.3 cont: Selected Characteristics of Program Types

Characteristic	Program type
	1 (7%)2 (14%)3 (64%)4 (16%)
Teaching methods Lecture with couple time (46)	7% 7% 67% 20%
Large group with lectures and handouts (30)	0%7%83%10%
Games and lectures with large group and couple time (24)	17%38%29%17%
Discussion groups and brainstorming (21)	5%14%67%14%

From the table some interesting patterns can be discerned, most of which relate to the low cost programs. Of the 44 secular programs, 86 per cent are low cost. The low cost programs are more prevalent than expected in narrow-focus content categories – those giving primary attention in their curricula to assertiveness or to self-management issues. The higher degree of specificity of content is also reflected in the high proportion of low cost programs that target individuals and couples in a range of life circumstances and the lower than expected prevalence of low cost programs that are aimed at engaged, committed or married couples. Paradoxically however, these programs make up the majority of programs that focus on a broader range of skills than other types of programs. They also use one of the least interactive of the teaching method categories.

Whereas low cost programs tend to be the more narrowly-focussed programs in terms of content, high cost, church-affiliated programs address the broader categories of relationship issues such as understanding of relationships, intimacy and sexuality or self-management, children and relationships and communication and conflict.

Moderately high cost church-affiliated programs for engaged, committed or married couples are relatively interactive, combining games, large group and couple work with lectures. Their targeting of engaged, committed and married couples is reflected in their attention to family of origin issues and their presence in the group of programs dealing with self-management, children and relationships and communication and conflict resolution.

More of the moderately low cost preparation programs in which all protective factors are generally addressed are run by church-based providers, and much fewer are secular than would be expected. They tend to focus on family of origin, sexuality and communication and conflict resolution rather than self-management issues and more of them are conducted in both metropolitan and rural communities than one might expect.

5.7 Conclusion

The production of a simple typology of relationship education programs is a complex undertaking given the wide diversity that exists in current approaches to service provision. The final four-cluster typology is the product of an iterative process of analysis for the expressed purpose of developing a typology that is be able to be applied as a useful tool in a range of processes including those used to make meaningful comparisons between programs.

The next chapter builds on this detailed analysis of the mainstream programs collected as part of this study by focussing on the audit of relationship education activities. This exercise provides additional information, at a more general level, of a range of service activities offered by a wide range of service providers, particularly in relation to the manner in which relationship education service activities are embedded in a range of education and human service functions.

Previous: Mapping Relationship Education Service Activities Next: Audit of Organisations