Experiences With Coparenting Scale: A Semantic Differential Measure of Postdivorce Coparenting Satisfaction

Abstract

Using data from 280 divorced or separated parents, we provide initial evidence of the psychometric properties and validity of the Experiences with Coparenting Scale (ECS), an 11-item semantic differential measure of divorced parents’ satisfaction with their coparenting relationships. The ECS consisted of a single factor with high internal reliability. ECS scores were significantly associated with self-reported coparenting behaviors and intentions, even after controlling for demographic variables and participants’ positive feelings about their ex-spouses. Therefore, we conclude that the ECS is a brief measure of the affective domain of postdivorce coparenting. We discuss how the ECS can be used by researchers to enhance their understanding of the development and impacts of postdivorce coparenting and by practitioners as part of family programs for divorced and divorcing parents.

Keywords

postdivorce coparenting satisfaction divorce ex-spouse relationship postdivorce coparenting

Despite the unique conditions under which divorced parents rear their children, there are few instruments specifically designed to assess the quality and content of their coparenting (Schum & Stolberg, 2007). As a result, researchers have focused on limited aspects of postdivorce coparenting, adapting instruments originally designed to assess coparenting in first marriage biological families and inferring coparenting from items that were not specifically created to capture coparenting behaviors. Additionally, there has been a tendency for researchers to focus on coparenting behaviors rather than on how satisfied divorced parents are with the coparenting relationship; this may be due to the absence of a suitable measure of postdivorce coparenting satisfaction. Therefore, a new measure specifically designed to assess postdivorce coparenting satisfaction will enhance our understanding of these relationships and improve our capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of postdivorce coparenting education programs. To increase the available pool of postdivorce coparenting instruments, we developed the Experiences with Coparenting Scale (ECS), a sematic differential assessment of the affective domain of postdivorce coparenting relationships. This new measure captured how divorced parents feel about their coparenting relationship. In this study, we used a sample of divorced or separated parents to establish the psychometric properties and initial validity of this new measure (see Current Study section for a more detailed description of this process). We then discuss how the ECS may be used to enhance research and practice on postdivorce coparenting.

Postdivorce Coparenting

Divorced parents’ coparental relationships involve their ongoing interactions regarding their child’s or children’s care, activities, and needs (Kelly & Emery, 2003; Markham, Ganong, & Coleman, 2007; Sobolewski & King, 2005). These interactions do not necessarily need to be face-to-face, but they must represent efforts to coordinate those aspects of children’s lives. The emphasis on coordination among parents distinguishes coparenting from parenting (i.e., behaviors directed at children; Adamsons & Pasley, 2006; Sigal, Sandler, Wolchik, & Braver, 2011). Although married and divorced parents can both engage in coparenting, divorced parents do so in a context that is qualitatively different from that of married parents. For example, divorced parents almost always live in separate homes, creating a physical distance across which their coparenting must occur. These living arrangements also create new activities (e.g., transferring children between parents) that must be coordinated. Divorced parents are more likely to experience acrimony than married parents, which may undermine the quality and effectiveness of communication between ex-spouses (Fischer, de Graaf, & Kalmijn, 2005; Jamison, Coleman, Ganong, & Feistman, 2014). They also frequently deal with feelings of distress and hurt over the end of their marriages. Therefore, divorced parents must coparent within the context of greater physical and often emotional distance than do first married parents. These differences mean that although some instruments may be able to accurately capture some components of coparental relationships in both divorced and married families (e.g., conflict), additional measures may be needed that specifically address the unique context of coparenting following divorce.

Quantitative studies of postdivorce coparenting have generally focused on indicators of communication, cooperation, and conflict, as these are all components of what has been termed cooperative postdivorce coparenting (Ahrons, 2007; Sobolewski & King, 2005; Whiteside, 1998). The emphasis on the components of cooperative postdivorce coparenting may reflect researchers’, practitioners’, and courts’ expectations that this arrangement benefits children’s postdivorce well-being (see Sigal et al., 2011). Postdivorce coparenting relationships, however, are multidimensional, including the types of coparenting behaviors in which divorced parents engage and their subjective feelings about and evaluations of these relationships. Several recent qualitative studies have found that the affective domain (e.g., how divorced parents feel about and their satisfaction with their coparental relationships) can influence the type and amount of coparenting behavior in which they engage (Jamison et al., 2014; Markham & Coleman, 2012; Troilo & Coleman, 2012). Affective components can include divorced parents’ subjective ratings of coparenting quality and satisfaction with their coparental relationships.

The ability for researchers and practitioners to assess the multidimensional nature of postdivorce coparenting relationships is critically important as these relationships are expected to play a significant role in how a family adapts to divorce (Kelly & Emery, 2003; Sigal et al., 2011; Whiteside, 1998). For example, the content and quality of coparenting relationships are associated with contact between children and nonresidential fathers, postdivorce parenting behaviors, conflict between divorced parents, and divorced parents’ satisfaction with each other (Ahrons, 2007, 2011; Bonach, 2009; DeGarmo, Patras, & Eap, 2008; Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2002; Sobolewski & King, 2005; Whiteside & Becker, 2000). Although there may be limited direct benefits of cooperative and supportive postdivorce coparenting relationships on children’s well-being following divorce (Amato, Kane, & James, 2011; Beckmeyer, Coleman, & Ganong, 2014), those processes noted above may provide mechanisms through which postdivorce coparental relationships influence the well-being of parents and their children.

Experiences with Coparenting Scale

There are no measures that specifically assess divorced parents’ satisfaction with their coparental relationships. Researchers have long acknowledged that intrapersonal aspects of relationships (i.e., subjective feelings and evaluations about specific relationships) have important implications for relationship interactions and individual well-being (Fincham & Rogge, 2010). Although some researchers have assessed divorced parents’ perceptions of their coparenting relationship, they have done so using scales that have included behavioral items (e.g., Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999; McKenry, Clark, & Stone, 1999). Therefore, those scales have not distinguished between relationship evaluations (e.g., how satisfying is the relationship) and the specific behaviors that occur within the relationship (e.g., postdivorce coparenting behaviors). It is possible that some divorced parents are unsatisfied with a highly cooperative coparental relationship and others are satisfied with one featuring less cooperation. Therefore, by focusing on satisfaction, the ECS can provide important unique information about the postdivorce coparenting context.

The ECS utilizes a semantic differential approach to assess divorced parents’ level of satisfaction with their postdivorce coparental relationships. Sematic differential measures have previously been used to assess satisfaction with other types of interpersonal relationships such as romantic relationships and marriages (e.g., Mattson, Rogge, Johnson, Davidson, & Fincham, 2013). The semantic differential method is well suited for assessing attitudes with evaluative components such as experiences in intimate relationships (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). Sematic differential scales provide participants with sets of bipolar adjectives that are separated by a gradient 7-point scale with the middle point representing a neutral response. Participants respond by deciding which adjective best describes the scale’s stimulus concept and then to what degree it reflects their experience with the concept. With the ECS we were interested in divorced parents’ overall satisfaction with their coparental relationship. Therefore, we presented participants with the stimulus concept of coparenting with my ex-husband is (for mothers) and coparenting with my ex-wife is (for fathers). All of the adjective sets (e.g., rigid–flexible; see Table 1 for all adjective sets) reflected evaluative feelings and perceptions and none reflected coparenting behaviors and were rated on a 7-point scale anchored by neutral in the middle and slightly, quite, and extremely on each side.

Table 1.

Item Frequencies on the ECS (N = 280).

		Response frequencies in %
Item	Negative adjective	Extremely	Quite	Slightly	Neutral	Slight	Quite	Extremely	Positive adjective
1	Irresponsible	9.6	3.2	5.4	12.9	8.2	25.0	35.7	Responsible
2	Conflictual	20.4	13.9	27.5	14.3	6.8	13.2	3.9	Peaceful
3	Unpleasant	20.0	15.7	19.3	19.6	10.7	11.1	3.6	Pleasant
4	Rigid	14.3	10.0	12.5	22.1	13.9	17.9	9.3	Flexible
5	Unfriendly	16.4	12.9	13.6	20.0	12.1	19.3	5.7	Friendly
6	Hard	27.9	15.0	19.6	13.9	7.9	11.4	4.3	Easy
7	Bad	14.3	10.7	11.8	22.9	11.4	20.4	8.6	Good
8	Unfair	12.5	10.0	11.8	25.0	10.0	23.6	7.1	Fair
9	Unsuccessful	21.4	4.3	13.6	16.8	13.6	21.4	8.9	Successful
10	Worthless	12.9	7.5	6.4	14.6	11.4	23.9	23.2	Valuable
11	Tense	26.1	13.9	22.9	15.0	5.4	13.6	3.2	Relaxed

Note. ECS = Experiences with Coparenting Scale. For ease of presentation all adjective sets are displayed as negative–positive.

Current Study

The expectation that divorced parents should engage in coparenting is so strong that most postdivorce education programs, at least partially, focus on increasing cooperative coparenting (Blaisure & Geasler, 2006). There also has been a significant shift by courts toward the use of parenting plans (Elrod & Dale, 2008), which encourage coparenting by their focus on describing how custody plans will be implemented. Despite the intense interest in the development, implementation, and effects of postdivorce coparental relationships, there exist few quantitative instruments to assess them (Schum & Stolberg, 2007). To increase our capacity to study postdivorce coparenting relationships, we developed the ECS, a semantic differential that assesses divorced parents’ satisfaction with their coparental relationships. In the current study, we present data regarding its internal reliability and validity using a sample of divorced or separated individuals who each have at least one child aged between 3 and 18 years. To determine the component structure (i.e., does the measure comprise a single or multiple components) of the ECS, we first conducted a principal components analysis (PCA). To establish its initial construct validity (i.e., that the ECS captures an aspect of the postdivorce coparenting relationship), we tested the ECS’ associations with self-reported postdivorce coparenting behaviors. Specifically, we expected that ECS scores would be positively associated with self-reported coparenting communication and cooperation but negatively associated with coparenting conflict. To establish that the ECS is not just a proxy for postdivorce coparenting behavior, we tested if it accounted for variance in divorced parents’ intentions to continue coparenting and their perceptions of their ex-spouses in general, beyond the variance accounted for by their coparenting behaviors. Specifically, we expected that divorced parents who are more satisfied with their ongoing coparenting relationships would also report a greater intent to continue coparenting and feel more positively about their ex-spouses.

Method

Participants

Study participants were recruited through a court-ordered, education program that took place in a Midwestern state. In this state, divorcing couples with a minor child must complete a postdivorce education program. Parents who completed the program were asked if researchers could contact them in the future regarding opportunities to participate in research. A total of 756 parents, with at least one child age between 3 and 18 years, were contacted, and 414 agreed to participate in this study. Parents who agreed were mailed a packet containing a survey on which they reported their own, their ex-spouses’, and a target child’s behavior. If parents had more than one child between 3 and 18 years, the youngest child was selected as the target child and parents were instructed to respond to the survey items with regard to the target child and that child’s other biological parent.

Eighty percent (327 of the 414 parents) returned the surveys they were sent. Parents were removed from the sample if they completely skipped the scales or did not report on the demographic information requested. The data set was checked to ensure that only one partner per couple was included in the final sample. To retain parents who provided at least partial data on the study scales, we used individual mean replacement when no more than two values were missing on a scale with five or more items or when they had a single missing value on scales with fewer than five items. The imputed value was based on each participant’s individual mean response on the items they completed on a given scale. Although mean replacement can reduce sample variability and bias parameter estimates, such effects are not problematic when it is used in the limited manner as done for this study (McKnight, McKnight, Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007).

Sample Demographics

After removing the parents with complete missing data on the scales or demographic items or who did not provide enough data to impute new scale scores, the final sample consisted of 280 divorced or separated parents. Most parents were mothers (61.8%), White (97.1%), 57.3% had a household income of $30,000 or more (household income ranged from less than $10,000 to more than $70,000), were not currently repartnered (58.9%), and shared joint legal custody (73.2%) with their ex-spouse. Parents were approximately 38 years old (M = 37.96 years, range = 23-55), had been separated just over 3 years (M = 3.32 years, range = 0-16), and 60% had two or more children (M = 1.85, range = 1-5) with their ex-spouse. Target children were approximately split between males (49.3%) and females (50.7%) and were on average 8.72 years old (range = 3-18 years).

Measures

Experiences with Coparenting Scale

The ECS consisted of 11 pairs of bipolar adjectives that assess divorced parents’ satisfaction with their coparental relationship. The adjective pairs were developed based on pilot focus groups with divorced parents and a review of postdivorce coparenting literature. Participants were provided the following instructions: “For each item, place an X on the line that best describes your opinion. Please mark only one line for each item.” They were then presented with the stimulus phrase “Coparenting with my ex-husband/ex-wife is.” Positive and negative adjectives were randomly placed on either the right or left side of the scale to avoid a response set bias. Each set of adjectives was rated using a 7-point scale with a middle anchor of neutral, extremely, quite, and slightly to the left of neutral, and slightly, quite, and extremely to the right of neutral (see Table 1). We assigned neutral responses a score of 0, responses to the left of neutral scores of −3, −2, and −1, and responses to the right of neutral scores of 1, 2, and 3. For example, on the set of adjectives unpleasant–pleasant, a participant who rated their coparental relationship as slightly unpleasant would receive a score of −2.

A PCA, with principal components analysis as the extraction method with a varimax (orthogonal) rotation (see Table 2), indicated that the ECS comprised a single component (eigenvalue = 7.14), which accounted for 64.94% of the variance and had high internal reliability (α = .95). PCA is a common starting point for scale reduction; if results support the presence of multiple unique components, the PCA can be followed-up with exploratory factor analysis to identify, rotate, and extract factors (Norušis, 2009). As our results supported a single component we did not rotate the solution and computed ECS scores by summing across the items after recoding the items so that the negative adjective (e.g., unpleasant) was the left side of the scale and its positive bipolar option was on the right side of the scale (e.g., pleasant); this means that higher scores reflect a more positive evolution of the postdivorce coparenting relationship. Based on the overall sample mean score of −1.32, it appears that on average divorced parents in this sample were slightly dissatisfied with their postdivorce coparenting relationship.

Table 2.

ECS Principal Components Analysis, Descriptive Statistics (N = 280).

Scale Item	Component loading	Extracted communalities
1. Irresponsible–responsible	.70	.48
2. Conflictual–peaceful	.79	.63
3. Unpleasant–pleasant	.82	.67
4. Rigid–flexible	.74	.55
5. Unfriendly–friendly	.82	.67
6. Hard–easy	.85	.72
7. Bad–good	.89	.79
8. Unfair–fair	.80	.63
9. Unsuccessful–successful	.87	.75
10. Worthless–valuable	.75	.56
11. Tense–relaxed	.84	.70
Eigenvalue	7.14
Component variance	64.94
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy	.95
α	.95
M	−1.32
SD	16.59
Range	−33.00 to 33.00

Note. ECS = Experiences with Coparenting Scale; PCA = principal components analysis. Stimulus item for each set of adjectives was “Coparenting with my ex-spouse is”; For ease of presentation all adjective sets are displayed as negative–positive. Extraction method principal component analysis. In PCA all initial communalities = 1.00.

Postdivorce Coparenting Behaviors

Parents’ reports of their own postdivorce coparenting behavior were assessed in terms of communication, cooperation, and conflict. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never to 5 = Always). Coparenting communication was assessed with the Coparental Interaction Scale, which measures how often parents communicate about caregiving tasks and decisions (Ahrons, 1981; 10 items; α = .95). Coparenting communication scores were computed by summing across the items; higher scores reflect parents’ perceptions that they and their ex-spouses engage in more frequent coparenting communication. Coparenting cooperation was assessed with the coparenting cooperation subscale of the Coparenting Questionnaire (CQ; Margolin, Godis, & John, 2001; 6 items; α = .86). Scores were computed by summing across the items; higher scores reflect parents’ perceptions that they engage in more cooperative coparenting with their ex-spouses. Coparenting conflict was assessed with the coparenting conflict subscale of the CQ (4 items; α = .66). Scores were computed by summing across the items; higher scores reflect parents’ perceptions that they and their ex-spouse have greater conflict regarding their coparenting.

Intentions to Coparent

Parents’ intentions to continue coparenting with their ex-spouse was assessed with two items: “I plan to continue sharing childrearing decisions with my ex-spouse” and “I plan to continue to coparent with my ex-spouse.” Parents responded to both items on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree). Responses on the two items were summed together; higher scores reflect a stronger intention to continue coparenting.

Perceptions of Ex-Spouse

Parents completed a separate 17-item semantic differential that assessed how positively they viewed their ex-spouse (α = .89). Each item consisted of a set of bipolar adjectives (e.g., mean–nice, dishonest–honest, controlling–accommodating); positive and negative adjectives were randomly placed on either the right or left of the scale as to avoid a response set bias. Each set of adjectives is rated using a 7-point scale with a middle anchor of neutral, extremely, quite, and slightly to the left of neutral, and slightly, quite, and extremely to the right of neutral. We assigned neutral responses a score of 0, responses to the left of neutral scores of −3, −2, and −1, and responses to the right of neutral scores of 1, 2, and 3. For scoring purposes, all items were recoded so that the negative adjective was the left side of the scale and its positive bipolar option was on the right side of the scale. Scores were created by summing across the items, with higher scores reflecting a more positive view of an ex-spouse.

Postdivorce Family Demographic Controls

We included eight control variables in the regression analyses, described below, that researchers have previously found to affect postdivorce coparenting (see Amato, 2010; Lansford, 2009). Parent and child sex were coded as 1 = male and 0 = female. Parent and child age were measured in years. Parent race was coded as 1 = White and 0 = others. Parents reported the number of children they had with their ex-spouse and if they shared joint legal custody (1 = yes and 0 = no). Household income was measured by having respondents select which of eight categories (less than $10,000 to $70,000 or more) reflected their annual household income. Parents’ current romantic partnership was coded as 1 = repartnered and 0 = not repartnered. Length of time since separation was measured with the item, “How many years have you been separated from your ex-spouse?”

Results

Initial Validity of the ECS

Bivariate and Partial Correlations

To establish the initial construct validity of the ECS, we first computed a correlation matrix that included the ECS, postdivorce coparenting behaviors, and intentions to coparent (Table 3). As expected, parents’ ECS scores were correlated with their self-reported coparenting behavior and intentions (Table 3, above the diagonal). Scores on the ECS were positively correlated with coparenting communication, r = .72, p < .000, and cooperation, r = .67, p < .000, and intentions to coparent with ex-spouses, r = .59, p < .000. It was also negatively correlated with coparenting conflict, r = −.43, p < .000. A similar pattern of results was found, although smaller in magnitude, when we conducted partial correlations, accounting for perceptions of ex-spouses, between ECS scores and postdivorce coparenting behaviors (Table 3, below the diagonal). The partial correlations allowed us to demonstrate that the correlations between the ECS and these postdivorce coparenting behaviors are not just a reflection of how divorced parents feel about their ex-spouses more broadly. Therefore, the ECS is associated with postdivorce coparenting behaviors and intentions and remains so even when accounting for how they feel about their ex-spouses more generally.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the ECS, Postdivorce Coparenting Behaviors, Intentions to Coparent, and Perceptions of Ex-Spouses (N = 280).

Study variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Experiences with coparenting^a	−1.32	16.59	—	.72***	.67***	−.43***	.59***	.87***
2. Coparenting communication	28.64	10.98	.35***	—	.78***	−.17**	.59***	.69***
3. Coparenting cooperation	18.05	5.80	.34***	.62***	—	−.18**	.64***	.61**
4. Coparenting conflict	10.05	3.03	−.22***	.13*	.06	—	−.15*	−.38***
5. Intentions to coparent	6.20	1.49	.30***	.36***	.46***	.07	—	.54***
6. Perceptions of ex-spouse^a	−1.75	18.77						—

Note. ECS = Experiences with Coparenting Scale.

Variables are scored so a score of 0 indicates neutral, negative scores reflect negative perceptions, and positive scores reflect positive perceptions. Bivariate correlations are above the diagonal and partial correlations controlling for perceptions of ex-spouse are below the diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .000.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses

We used hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) models to determine if the ECS was associated with parents’ postdivorce coparenting behavior while controlling for postdivorce family demographics. These analyses further demonstrate that the ECS is uniquely associated with postdivorce coparenting behavior. Each model consisted of a first step that contained the control variables (parents’ and children’s sex and age, parents’ race, parents’ annual household income, years since the separation, and if they were repartnered) and a second step that included the ECS. Separate models were computed for each of the postdivorce coparenting behaviors. In a second set of HMR models, we tested if the ECS accounted for variance in parents’ postdivorce coparenting intentions and perceptions of their ex-spouses beyond that of their postdivorce coparenting behaviors. These analyses were conducted to illustrate that the ECS is not just a proxy for postdivorce coparenting behavior (i.e., the ECS taps a different aspect of the postdivorce coparental relationship). Each model consisted of a first step that included the control variables and postdivorce coparenting behavior and a second step that included the ECS. Separate models were computed for postdivorce coparenting intentions and perceptions of ex-spouses. For ease of presentation, we only include the coefficients from the final models in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4.

HMR Results for Postdivorce Coparenting Behaviors (N = 280).

	Postdivorce coparenting communication			Postdivorce coparenting cooperation			Postdivorce coparenting conflict
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Male	−0.66	0.95	−.03	1.07	0.54	.09*	−0.10	0.36	−.02
Age	0.08	0.09	.05	−0.05	0.05	−.06	−0.02	0.03	−.04
Male child	1.13	0.88	.05	0.23	0.50	.02	0.30	0.33	.05
Child age	−0.24	0.15	−.09	−0.12	0.08	−.08	−0.07	0.06	−.09
# kids with ex-spouse	−1.04	0.52	−.08*	−0.27	0.30	−.04	−0.17	0.20	−.05
White	−1.41	2.67	−.02	−0.07	1.52	−.00	−0.80	1.00	−.04
Income	0.49	0.24	.09*	0.27	0.14	.10*	−0.10	0.09	−.07
Years separated	−0.45	0.19	−.11**	−0.20	0.11	−.09	−0.02	0.07	−.01
Is repartnered	−1.52	1.01	−.07	−0.79	0.57	−.07	0.03	0.38	.01
Shared legal custody	2.30	1.04	.09*	1.51	0.59	.12*	−0.32	0.39	−.05
ECS^a	0.44	0.03	.66***	0.21	0.02	.60***	−0.08	0.01	−.42***
R² Step 1	.18			.19			.05
F for ΔR² Step 1	5.92***			6.15***			1.52
ΔR² Step 1 to 2	.40			.33			.16
F for ΔR² Step 2	251.54***			178.28***			56.19***

Note. HMR = hierarchical multiple regression; ECS = Experiences with Coparenting Scale.

Variable is scored so a score of 0 indicates neutral, negative scores reflect dissatisfaction, and positive scores reflect satisfaction. Coefficients are from the final model.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .000.

Table 5.

HMR Results for Postdivorce Coparenting Intentions and Perceptions of Ex-Spouses (N = 280).

	Postdivorce coparenting intentions			Perceptions of ex-spouse^a
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Male	0.62	0.14	.21***	−2.70	1.18	−.07*
Age	0.01	0.01	.06	0.04	0.11	.02
Male child	−0.17	0.13	−.06	−1.64	1.09	−.04
Child age	0.01	0.02	.04	−0.11	0.18	−.03
# kids with ex-spouse	−0.01	0.08	−.01	−1.27	0.64	−.06*
White	−0.62	0.38	−.07	1.79	3.28	.02
Income	0.02	0.04	.02	0.00	0.30	.00
Years separated	0.03	0.03	.05	0.23	0.23	.03
Is repartnered	−0.31	0.15	−.10*	0.11	1.25	.00
Shared legal custody	0.15	0.15	.05	1.74	1.30	.04
PD coparening communication	0.01	0.01	.10	0.20	0.09	.12*
PD coparening cooperation	0.08	0.02	.33***	−0.02	0.16	−.01
PD coparening conflict	0.05	0.02	.10*	−0.15	0.21	−.02
ECS^a	0.03	0.01	.32***	0.89	0.05	.79***
R² Step 1	0.50			0.56
F for ΔR² Step 1	20.34***			26.43***
ΔR² Step 1 to 2	.04			.22
F for ΔR² Step 2	21.25***			269.09***

Note. HMR = hierarchical multiple regression; PD = postdivorce; ECS = Experiences with Coparenting Scale.

Variable is scored so a score of 0 indicates neutral, negative scores reflect dissatisfaction, and positive scores reflect satisfaction. Coefficients are from the final model.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .000.

Although not reported here, we also computed the models for the postdivorce coparenting behaviors and the intentions to coparent with a third step that included the perceptions of ex-spouses. This was done to determine if the addition of those scores changed the pattern of results for those outcomes. We did not initially include the perceptions of ex-spouses variable as a control in these models due to the potential for multicollinearity with the ECS. The third step was only significant for postdivorce coparenting communication, accounting for an additional 1% variance, and did not change the overall pattern of results (results available from the first author).

HMR models for postdivorce coparenting behavior

Divorced parents’ ECS scores accounted for significant variance in each of the postdivorce coparenting behaviors beyond that of the control variables (Table 4). As expected, ECS scores were positively associated with postdivorce coparenting communication, β = .66, p < .000 (squared partial correlation = .48), and cooperation, β = .60, p < .000 (squared partial correlation = .40), and negatively associated with postdivorce coparenting conflict, β = −.42, p < .000 (squared partial correlation = .17). Thus, parents who are more satisfied with their coparental relationship reported engaging in more postdivorce coparenting communication and cooperation but less conflict with their ex-spouse.

HMR models for postdivorce coparenting intentions and perceptions of ex-spouses

Divorced parents’ ECS scores accounted for unique variance in their intentions to continue coparenting and how they feel about their ex-spouses in general, beyond the variance accounted for by the control variables and postdivorce coparenting behaviors (see Table 5). Specifically, postdivorce coparenting relationship satisfaction was positively associated with, β = .32, p < .000 (squared partial correlation = .07), and accounted for an additional 4% of the variance in postdivorce coparenting intentions. It was also positively associated with, β = .79, p < .000 (squared partial correlation = .50), and accounted for an additional 22% of the variance in perceptions of ex-spouses.

Overall, the HMR analyses provided further validity that the ECS assessed the affective domain of the postdivorce coparenting relationships and is not a proxy for postdivorce coparenting behavior. The significant associations between the ECS and these self-reported postdivorce coparenting behaviors, even after accounting for postdivorce family demographics, support that the ECS is capturing a part of the postdivorce coparenting experience. Accounting for variance in postdivorce coparenting intentions and perceptions of ex-spouses beyond that of the coparenting behaviors supports that the ECS is capturing a component of postdivorce coparenting relationships that is distinct from coparenting behaviors. Overall, we posit that our results support that the ECS is an internally reliable measure of divorce parents’ satisfaction with their coparenting relationship and warrant its use in future research and practice.

Discussion

Despite the importance placed on postdivorce coparenting by researchers, practitioners, and the courts, there are relatively few measures purposefully designed to assess the multiple domains of these relationships. Herein we described the properties and provided initial validity of the ECS, a new semantic differential measure that assesses the affective dimension of postdivorce coparenting. Specifically, the ECS provides important information about how divorced parents feel about their coparental relations rather than what they do in these relationships. Subjective ratings of relationship satisfaction are routinely considered as important markers of the health of marriages, romantic relationships, and parent–child relationships, but the concept has not been extensively applied to postdivorced coparental relationships. Based on our results, the ECS comprises a single scale with high internal reliability that is associated with self-reported postdivorce coparenting behaviors and intentions. Therefore, we are confident that the ECS can be used to enhance research and practice on postdivorce coparenting. In addition to discussing what our results tell us about postdivorce coparenting relationships, we propose several ways for the use of the ECS in future research and practice.

Although our analyses were primarily used to validate the ECS as a new measure, they also provide information about postdivorce coparenting relationships and behaviors. As expected, satisfaction with one’s postdivorce coparenting relationship was associated with engaging in the types of behaviors that underlie cooperative postdivorce coparenting and a greater intention to continue engaging in postdivorce coparenting. Therefore, it appears, not unexpectedly, that how divorced parents feel about their coparental relationship is associated with their coparenting behaviors. Similarly, divorced parents’ satisfaction with their coparental relationships is also positively associated with their positive feelings about their ex-spouses more generally. Yet postdivorce coparenting satisfaction remains associated with postdivorce coparenting behaviors and intentions even when perceptions of ex-spouses are controlled for in the partial correlations. Previously, Kamp Dush, Kotila, and Schoppe-Sullivan (2011) found that relationship quality prior to separation influences couples coparenting behaviors 1 year later. As the parents in our sample, on average, had been separated just over 3 years, it may be that satisfaction with coparenting relationships rather than feelings about ex-spouses more generally drives coparenting behaviors the longer it has been since their separation occurred. It may be that as parents are divorced longer, they are better able to separate their coparenting and personal aspects of their ex-spousal relationships. This would be a positive trend as the ability to do so is important for coparenting resiliency (Jamison et al., 2014).

Potential Research Uses for the ECS

The ECS provides researchers with the ability to assess a domain of postdivorce coparenting relationships beyond behaviors and quality, the primary focus of past quantitative research in this area (e.g., Amato et al., 2011; Beckmeyer et al., 2014; DeGarmo et al., 2008; Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999; McKenry et al., 1999). Postdivorce coparenting satisfaction provides important information about the context in which coparenting behaviors are taking place. By assessing the affective domain, the ECS allows researchers to investigate how the behavioral and affective domains of parents’ postdivorce coparental relationships interact. This can provide new ways to classify postdivorce coparental relationships and their impact on families’ adjustment following parental divorce. For example, divorced parents who are unsatisfied with a cooperative coparental relationship may not experience the same benefits as divorced parents who are satisfied with such a coparental relationship. Alternatively, a parent satisfied with a coparental relationship that has fewer positive behaviors may be less negatively affected than if they were unsatisfied. The ECS also allows researchers to compare the similarity of former spouses’ satisfaction with their current coparenting relationship. Coparenting is inherently a dyadic processes, and the similarity of divorced parents’ feelings about their coparental relationship may play a role in its stability or change overtime. Assessing postdivorce coparenting behaviors and satisfaction over time will allow researchers to examine how their stabilities and patterns of interaction evolve. Due to our cross-sectional data, we cannot determine if satisfaction leads to more cooperative behaviors and greater intentions to coparent or if behaviors and intentions affect divorced parents’ coparenting satisfaction. A better understanding of how these domains affect each other in the months and years following separation can help family educators articulate to divorcing parents how their coparenting relationships may gradually change. Additionally, over time divorced parents typically engage in less coparenting (Maccoby, Buchanan, Mnookin, & Dornbusch, 1993). Using the ECS in longitudinal studies may help researchers understand if parents are satisfied with less coparenting behavior the longer they are divorced. Last, the ECS will also allow researchers to distinguish between how divorced parents feel about their coparenting relationship and how they feel about their ex-spouse more broadly. In qualitative studies, researchers are finding that when divorced parents are able to separate their coparental and personal relationships with ex-spouses, they demonstrate more coparenting resiliency and satisfaction (Jamison et al., 2014).

Potential Practice Uses of the ECS

Most states provide access to postdivorce education programs, and these programs generally include a focus on cooperative coparenting (Blaisure & Geasler, 2006; Pollet & Lombreglia, 2008) and require the use of parenting plans (Elrod & Dale, 2008), meaning that divorcing parents are in effect being required to engage in at least a minimal amount of coparenting. The degree to which divorced parents follow parenting plans and engage in coparenting that is cooperative rather than conflictual may depend, at least in part, on their satisfaction with their coparenting relationship. Therefore, the ECS may be a tool for family life educators and family therapists to illustrate to divorcing parents how they are feeling about their coparenting relationship. It may also be helpful in exercises designed to help divorced parents distinguish between their feelings about their ex-spouses, the divorce process, and their coparenting interactions. By having divorced parents specifically focus on how they feel about this one aspect of the divorce process, they may gain an understanding of how to separate it from other aspects of postdivorce coparenting relationships. Finally, the ECS can be used as part of program evaluations. Previously, evaluations have focused mostly on changes in coparenting behaviors and quality (e.g., Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999; McKenry et al., 1999), which may be difficult to induce through programs that are typically short in duration (Sigal et al., 2011). In addition to providing an additional outcome area, the ECS also can be used to elucidate any program impacts, or lack thereof, on participants’ coparenting behaviors.

Strengths and Limitations

The strengths of this study include the assessing of the affective domain of postdivorce coparenting relationships, the ability to account for divorced parents’ feelings about their ex-spouses in general, and demonstrating that the ECS is associated with other aspects of postdivorce coparenting relationships. Previous quantitative studies have focused on how postdivorce coparenting behaviors are associated with postdivorce family relationships, parenting behaviors, and family members’ personal well-being. Qualitative researchers (e.g., Jamison et al., 2014), however, have noted that coparenting relationships also include emotional responses and feelings regarding coparenting with ex-spouses. The ECS provides a new means for quantitative researchers to capture these aspects of the postdivorce coparenting experience. We are also able to control for participants’ positive feelings about their ex-spouses in general. This is important as relationship quality prior to separation has previously been found to influence coparenting behavior (Kamp Dush et al., 2011). Last, we demonstrate that the ECS is associated with self-reported postdivorce coparenting behaviors but can also account for variance in postdivorce coparenting intentions and perceptions of ex-spouses beyond what is accounted for by those coparenting behaviors. Therefore, the ECS is assessing a part of the postdivorce coparenting experience that is distinct from behaviors.

We recognize that the limitations of this study allow for only preliminary validity for the ECS. Because of the cross-sectional nature of the study, we are not able to assess true predictive validity nor are we able to establish if parents’ scores remain stable over time. Future longitudinal studies are needed to address these limitations. The ECS also uses a bipolar evaluative scale approach rather than having participants rate both the positive and negative adjectives as has been done with other semantic differentials (e.g., Mattson et al., 2013). Therefore, the ECS, as we use it here, does not separately assess the positive and negative components of the postdivorce coparenting relationships. As interpersonal relationships are not solely positive or negative (Fincham & Rogge, 2010), in future studies researchers may find it fruitful to have divorced parents rate the degree to which the positive and the negative adjectives reflect their coparental relationship. We also lacked measures such as parenting behaviors, the quality of parent–child relationships, and parents’ well-being, which would have allowed us to provide additional evidence of construct and divergent validity. The study sample, relatively homogenous, comprised mostly of White mothers, is also a limitation. Divorced parents’ coparenting relationships may be influenced by gender, racial, and cultural experiences that we are unable to account for in this sample. Additionally, participants had all taken part in a brief postdivorce education program, which may have influenced how they perceive their coparenting relationships. Therefore, the ECS needs further validation using more representative and diverse samples (e.g., those with more fathers, different races and ethnicities, and greater economic diversity), at different times during the divorce process (e.g., shortly after separation), and with divorced parents who have not completed a postdivorce education program. Additionally, we do not know if family violence played a role in our participants’ divorce experiences. Research by Hardesty and colleagues (Hardesty & Ganong, 2006; Hardesty, Khaw, Chung, & Martin, 2008) shows that mothers who were abused by their ex-husbands do coparent with them, but these experiences can be marked by fear and provide fathers with the opportunity to continue controlling their ex-wives. Our data also are only from one member of the divorcing dyad so we may not be getting the full picture. Last, the reliability of the postdivorce coparenting conflict scale only had acceptable reliability, which may undermine its associations with the other variables in our regression models (Card & Barnett, 2015). Despite these limitations, we feel our study provides strong initial evidence that the ECS is a reliable and valid measure of divorced parents’ coparenting satisfaction.

Conclusion

Although postdivorce coparenting is expected to influence how families adjust to the process of divorce, there are relatively few measures purposefully designed to assess these relationships, particularly how divorced parents feel about these relationships. To increase the available pool of measures for postdivorce coparenting researchers, we developed the ECS, a brief scale that measures how satisfied parents are with their coparenting relationships following divorce. The ECS demonstrates high internal reliability and associations to self-reported coparenting behaviors and intentions. Future research is needed to replicate these initial results regarding its reliability and validity; however, we are confident that this new measure can be used to enhance understanding of these relationships, aid family life educators and clinicians in providing effective programs to divorced parents, and improve our capacity to evaluate those programs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adamsons

Pasley

(2006). Coparenting following divorce and relationship dissolution. In Fine

M. A.

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 241-261). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ahrons

C. R.

(1981). The continuing co-parental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 415-428.

Ahrons

C. R.

(2007). Family ties after divorce: Long-term implications for children. Family Process, 46, 53-65. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00191.x

Ahrons

C. R.

(2011). Commentary on “reconsidering the ‘good divorce.’” Family Relations, 60, 528-532. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00676.x

Amato

P. R.

(2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650-666. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Amato

P. R.

Kane

J. B.

James

(2011). Reconsidering the “good divorce.” Family Relations, 60, 511-524. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00666.x

Beckmeyer

J. J.

Coleman

Ganong

L. H.

(2014). Postdivorce coparenting typologies and children’s adjustment. Family Relations, 63, 526-537. doi:10.1111/fare.12086

Blaisure

K. R.

Geasler

M. J.

(2006). Educational interventions for separating and divorcing parents and their children. In Fine

M. A.

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 575-604). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bonach

(2009). Empirical support for the application of the forgiveness intervention model to postdivorce coparenting. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 38-54. doi:10.1080/10502550802365631

10.

Card

N. A.

Barnett

M. A.

(2015). Methodological considerations in studying individual and family resilience. Family Relations, 64, 120-133. doi:10.1111/fare.12102

11.

DeGarmo

D. S.

Patras

Eap

(2008). Social support for divorced fathers’ parenting: Testing a stress-buffering model. Family Relations, 57, 35-48. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00481.x

12.

Elrod

L. D.

Dale

M. D.

(2008). Paradigm shifts and pendulum swings in child custody: The interests of children in the balance. Family Law Quarterly, 41, 381-418.

13.

Fincham

F. D.

Rogge

(2010). Understanding relationship quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 227-242. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x

14.

Fischer

T. F. C.

de Graaf

P. M.

Kalmijn

(2005). Friendly and antagonistic contact between former spouses after divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1131-1163. doi:10.1177/0192513x05275435

15.

Hardesty

J. L.

Ganong

L. H.

(2006). How women make custody decisions and manage co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 23, 543-563. doi:10.1177/0265407506065983

16.

Hardesty

Khaw

Chung

G. H.

Martin

J. M.

(2008). Coparenting relationships after divorce: Variations by type of marital violence and fathers’ role differentiation. Family Relations, 57, 479-491. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00516.x

17.

Jamison

T. B.

Coleman

Ganong

L. H.

Feistman

R. E.

(2014). Transitioning to postdivorce family life: A grounded theory investigation of resilience in coparenting. Family Relations, 63, 411-423. doi:10.1111/fare.12074

18.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

Kotila

L. E.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J

. (2011). Predictors of supportive coparenting after relationship dissolution among at-risk parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 356-365. doi:10.1037/a0023652

19.

Kelly

J. B.

Emery

R. E.

(2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352-362. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00352.x

20.

Lansford

J. E.

(2009). Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 140-152. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01114.x

21.

Maccoby

E. E.

Buchanan

C. M.

Mnookin

R. H.

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1993). Postdivorce roles of mothers and fathers in the lives of their children. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 24-38. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.24

22.

Madden-Derdich

D. A.

Arditti

J. A.

(1999). The ties that bind: Attachment between former spouses. Family Relations, 48, 243-249. doi:10.2307/585633

23.

Madden-Derdich

D. A.

Leonard

S. A.

(2002). Shared experiences, unique realities: Formerly married mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of parenting and custody after divorce. Family Relations, 51, 37-45. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00037.x

24.

Markham

M. S.

Coleman

(2012). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Divorced mothers’ experiences with coparenting. Family Relations, 61, 586-500. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00718.x

25.

Markham

M. S.

Ganong

L. H.

Coleman

M. A.

(2007). Coparental identity and mothers’ cooperation in coparental relationships. Family Relations, 56, 369-377. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00466.x

26.

Margolin

Godis

E. B.

John

R. S.

(2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parenting families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3-21. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.3

27.

Mattson

R. E.

Rogge

R. D.

Johnson

M. D.

Davidson

E. K. B.

Fincham

F. D.

(2013). The positive and negative semantic dimensions of relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20, 328-355. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01412.x

28.

McKenry

P. C.

Clark

K. A.

Stone

(1999). Evaluation of a parent education program for divorcing parents. Family Relations, 48, 129-137. doi:10.2307/585076

29.

McKnight

P. E.

McKnight

K. M.

Sidani

Figueredo

A. J.

(2007). Missing data: A gentle introduction. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

30.

Norušis

M. J.

(2009). PASW statistics 18 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

31.

Osgood

Suci

Tannenbaum

(1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

32.

Pollet

S. L.

Lombreglia

(2008). A nationwide survey of mandatory parent education. Family Court Review, 46, 375-394. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00207.x

33.

Schum

Stolberg

A. L.

(2007). Standardization of the co-parenting behavior questionnaire. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47, 103-132. doi:10.1300/j087v47n03_06

34.

Sigal

Sandler

Wolchik

Braver

(2011). Do parent education programs promote healthy postdivorce parenting? Critical distinctions and a review of the evidence. Family Court Review, 49, 120-139. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01357.x

35.

Sobolewski

J. M.

King

(2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1196-1212. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x

36.

Troilo

Coleman

(2012). Full-time, part-time full-time, and part-time fathers: Identities following divorce. Family Relations, 61, 601-614. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00722.x

37.

Whiteside

M. F.

(1998). The parental alliance following divorce: An overview. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 3-24. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1998.tb01060.x

38.

Whiteside

M. F.

Becker

B. J.

(2000). Parental factors and the young child’s postdivorce adjustment: A meta-analysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 5-26. doi:10.1037//0893-3200.14.1.5