TYRO Couples Project Study

Impact Evaluation of the TYRO Couples Project

This study uses an RCT design with repeated measures to test the impact of two different delivery formats for the TYRO Couples curriculum. Eligible study participants are males or females who are at least 18 years of age and within 9 months of release from incarceration. Incarcerated participants randomly assigned to the treatment group receive the TYRO Couples curriculum in-person, whereas those assigned to the comparison group experience an on-demand format. Study results that show no discernable differences in outcomes between groups will make it easier to serve more participants because service delivery formats can accommodate different life circumstances and preferences.

Study Overview

• Status: Recruiting
• Conditions: Couples
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Intervention #1: Treatment Group Receiving On-Demand TYRO Services; Other: Intervention #2: Control Group Receiving In-Person TYRO Services

Detailed Description

The TYRO Couples curriculum Is based upon the Couples Communication curriculum, and was developed by a Christian, non-profit organization in Ohio called The RIDGE Project. The purpose of TYRO Couples is to provide training and opportunities for participants from families affected by the incarceration of a father to practice healthy relationship skills that build a foundation for healthy and successful marriages and lifelong partnerships. Curriculum components also address healthy financial and employment skills. Previous research suggests the TYRO Couples curriculum is efficacious in increasing skills related to: relationship building, couples communication, conflict resolution, and relationship satisfaction.

Typically, TYRO Couples is delivered in-person in a classroom setting. Using an in-person format results in a more personal, organic experience for participants but it requires a commitment that is difficult for some of them are unable to make because of the time and effort that is necessary to meet in a specific place for a predetermined amount of time. On-line access does not offer the same experience as in-person service delivery, but it does offer greater accessibility for participants to learn at their own pace in a self-directed learning environment of their own choosing. In theory, both formats offer program participants different types of access to service delivery and it is not clear if there is a disparate impact on the educational outcomes that define program benefits, which are improved attitudes, expectations and behaviors that promote healthy family relationships and economic stability for their households.

Testing the delivery format of TYRO Couples is important for several reasons. First, more research is needed to better understand which prison-based learning methods are more effective on marriage/intimate partner relationship and economic stability outcomes. Although there are some previous studies of best practices for prison-based learning, there are no studies, to our knowledge, that examine the effectiveness of on-demand learning on relationship and economic outcomes among couples affected by incarceration. Second, previous studies suggest that on-demand learning can be a helpful tool that empowers learners to digest the course material at their own pace. Learner control is a theory that derives from several motivational theory underpinnings, which includes attribution theory, motivation theory, and information processing theory. Previous research guided by learner control theory suggests that self-guided, on-demand learning is positively related to greater learner satisfaction and higher levels of learning compared with those who did not use this format.

Therefore, it is important that effective, prison-based learning methods are identified and used so that program participants can experience the most robust relationships and economic stability outcomes. Informed by the self-efficacy and learner control theory, the purpose of this study is to assess the extent to which TYRO Couples training delivered in an on-demand format has a disparate impact compared to in-person services on marriage/intimate partner relationships and economic stability outcomes among couples facing incarceration.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Estimated): 1658
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: Matt D Shepherd, PhD; Phone Number: 6202086143; Email: matt.shepherd@midwestevaluation.com
• Study Contact Backup: Name: Theodore C Jurkiewicz, PhD; Phone Number: 3135950088; Email: ted.jurkiewicz@midwestevaluation.com

Study Locations

• United States
  • Ohio
    • McClure, Ohio, United States, 43534
      • Recruiting
      • The RIDGE Project
      • Principal Investigator: Matt D Shepherd, PhD
      • Contact: Tim Snoke; Phone Number: 419-278-0092; Email: timothy.snoke@theridgeproject.com

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Male or Female Adult (age 18 and older)
• Incarcerated
• Within 9 months of release in OH

Exclusion Criteria:

• Minor (under the age of 18)
• Not incarcerated
• Incarcerated but not within 9 months of release in OH

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Treatment-On Demand Format; Treatment group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in an on-demand format that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.	Other: Intervention #1: Treatment Group Receiving On-Demand TYRO Services; Treatment group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in an on-demand format that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.
Experimental: Control-Virtual or In-Person Format; Control group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in a live format (virtual or in-person) that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.	Other: Intervention #2: Control Group Receiving In-Person TYRO Services; Control group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in a live format (virtual or in-person) that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Primary Outcome Measure 1: partner relationship behavior	What is the impact of on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to in-person delivery of the TYRO Couples curriculum (control) on partner relationship behaviors one year after enrollment?; 7 survey items measure the reported frequency the respondent engaged in a series of healthy behaviors with a partner using categories on a 7-point partner relationship behavior scale (1 'Never', 2 'Rarely', 3 'Sometimes', 4 'Often', 5 'Always').; Lower scores on all items are positive (ex. - How often do you and your partner disagree about religious matters?)	change from baseline to 12-month follow-up

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Secondary Outcome Measure 1: partner relationship attitudes	What is the impact of on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to in-person delivery of TYRO Couples curriculum (control) on partner relationship attitudes and expectations one year after enrollment?; 8 survey items measure the reported frequency of agreement with healthy partner relationship attitudes on a 5-point partner relationship attitudes scale (1 'Strongly Disagree', 2 'Disagree', 3 'Neither Agree Nor Disagree', 4 'Agree', 5 'Strongly Agree').; Higher scores on all items are positive (ex. - I want to grow old with my partner.)	change from baseline to 12-month follow-up
Secondary Outcome Measure 2: employment attitudes	What is the impact of on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to in-person delivery of the TYRO Couples curriculum (control) on employment attitudes one year after enrollment?; 4 survey items measure the reported frequency of agreement with key co-parenting behaviors using categories on a 5-point scale (1 'Strongly Disagree', 2 'Disagree', 3 'Neither Agree Nor Disagree', 4 'Agree', 5 'Strongly Agree').; Higher scores on 5 items are positive (ex. - I can overcome almost any challenge to get a decent job.)	change from baseline to 12-month follow-up
Secondary Outcome Measure 3: healthy financial attitudes	What is the impact of on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to in-person delivery of the TYRO Couples curriculum (control) on financial attitudes one year after enrollment?; 3 survey items measure the reported agreement for key financial attitudes using categories on a 5-point employment attitudes scale (1 'Strongly Disagree', 2 'Disagree', 3 'Neither Agree Nor Disagree', 4 'Agree', 5 'Strongly Agree').; Higher scores on 3 items are negative (ex. - I am overwhelmed when I think about my financial situation.)	change from baseline in behavior to 12-months after program completion

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Midwest Evaluation & Research
• Collaborators: The RIDGE Project
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Matt D Shepherd, PhD, Midwest Evaluation & Research

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. No abstract available.
• Allred, S. L., Harrison, L. D., & O'Connell, D. J. (2013). Self-Efficacy: An important aspect of prison-based learning. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 211 - 233. doi:10.1177/0032885512472964
• Chou, S., & Liu, C. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: A learner-control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 65 - 76.
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Routledge.
• Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2009). The Mass Incarceration of Parents in America: Issues of Race/ Ethnicity, Collateral Damage to Children, and Prisoner Reentry. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 179-194. doi:10.1177/0002716208331123
• Frisco ML, Muller C, Frank K. Parents' Union Dissolution and Adolescents' School Performance: Comparing Methodological Approaches. J Marriage Fam. 2007 Aug 1;69(3):721-741. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00402.x.
• Johnson, B., Wubbenhorst, W., Schroeder, C., & Corcoran, K. E. (2014). Stronger Families, Stronger Society: An Analysis of the RIDGE Project, Inc. Baylor University. Waco, TX: Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion.
• La Vigne, N. G., Naser, R., Brooks, L. E., & Castro, J. L. (2005, November). Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(4), 314 - 335. doi:10.1177/1043986205281727
• Miller, S. L., Nunnally, E. W., & Wackman, D. B. (1976). A communication training program for couples. Social Casework, 57(1), 9 - 18.
• Ribar, D. C. (2015). Why marriage matters for child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 25(2), 11-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2015.0010
• Shepherd, M. (2011). A statistical Analysis of Client Data from the Keeping Families and Inmates Together in Harmony (Keeping FAITH) Program for the RIDGE Project. Emporia, KS: Midwest Evaluation and Research.
• Siennick SE, Stewart EA, Staff J. EXPLAINING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCARCERATION AND DIVORCE. Criminology. 2014 Aug;52(3):371-398. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12040.
• Visher, C. A., Debus-Sherrill, D., & Yahner, J. (2011). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly, 28(5), 698 - 718. doi:10.1080/07418825.2010.535553
• Western B, Braga AA, Davis J, Sirois C. Stress and Hardship after Prison. AJS. 2015 Mar;120(5):1512-47. doi: 10.1086/681301.
• Wildeman, C. (2014). How the criminal justice system shapes social inequality and the capacity of citizens: Parental Incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651(1), 74-296.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): April 1, 2021
• Primary Completion (Estimated): April 1, 2025
• Study Completion (Estimated): August 15, 2025

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: February 23, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: February 23, 2022
• First Posted (Actual): March 4, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): October 19, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 17, 2023
• Last Verified: October 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: #2021/03/34

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO
• IPD Plan Description: All participant data will be confidential and aggregated. No individual participant data will be released unless requested by the courts. This study looks at data as a whole.

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No