The New Beginnings Podcast: Brief Audio Intervention for Parents From Divorced and Separated Families

Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)

The FIM assesses the extent to which an intervention can be successfully used or carried out in a given context or setting (Weiner et al., 2017). It includes 4 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Completely disagree to 5=Completely agree). Item responses are averaged (range 1-5); higher scores indicate greater perceived feasibility. Psychometric evaluation shows acceptable reliability and validity alongside AIM and IAM.

Intervention Usability Scale (IUS)

Usability of the intervention will be assessed using the Intervention Usability Scale (IUS), a 10-item self-report questionnaire adapted from the System Usability Scale (SUS). Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 to 4, with response options reflecting increasing agreement. Item scores span the full possible range (0-4). Item responses are averaged to compute a mean usability score (range 0-4), with higher scores indicating greater perceived usability. Emerging psychometrics support a two-factor structure ("Usable" and "Learnable") alongside a reliable total score (Lyon et al., 2021).

Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM)

The AIM assesses perceived acceptability of an intervention among intended users/implementers (Weiner et al., 2017). It contains 4 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Completely disagree to 5=Completely agree). Scores are typically averaged (range 1-5), with higher values indicating greater acceptability. Initial development and testing demonstrated strong content validity, structural validity, reliability, known-groups validity, and responsiveness

Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM)

The IAM assesses perceived appropriateness or fit of an intervention for a given setting, provider role, or target population (Weiner et al., 2017). It includes 4 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Completely disagree to 5=Completely agree). Item responses are averaged to produce a 1-5 score; higher values indicate the intervention is viewed as a better fit. Development work shows sound psychometric properties consistent with AIM and FIM.

Child internalizing asymptoms will be assessed using BPM-Y, the youth self-report version of the Brief Problem Monitor (a 19-item short form derived from the CBCL/YSR). Subscales for Internalizing problems will be scored by summing responses to relevant items (0 = "not true," 1 = "somewhat true," 2 = "very true"), with higher totals indicating greater symptom severity. The BPM-Y is intended for youth (typically ages 11 and above) and provides a rapid, validated self-report of internalizing and externalizing behavior (Achenbach et al., 2011; Piper et al., 2014).

Child internalizing symptoms will be assessed using the Brief Problem Monitor (BPM), a 19-item validated short-form version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) using parent-report. I The BPM parent-report yields an internalizing subscale scores based on responses (0 = "not true," 1 = "somewhat true," 2 = "very true") summed across relevant items. Higher scores reflect greater symptom severity.

Child externalizing symptoms will be assessed using the Brief Problem Monitor (BPM), a 19-item validated short-form version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) using parent-report. The BPM parent-report yields an externalizing subscale scores based on responses (0 = "not true," 1 = "somewhat true," 2 = "very true") summed across relevant items. Higher scores reflect greater symptom severity.

Child externalizing asymptoms will be assessed using BPM-Y, the youth self-report version of the Brief Problem Monitor (a 19-item short form derived from the CBCL/YSR). Subscales for externalizing problems will be scored by summing responses to relevant items (0 = "not true," 1 = "somewhat true," 2 = "very true"), with higher totals indicating greater symptom severity. The BPM-Y is intended for youth (typically ages 11 and above) and provides a rapid, validated self-report of internalizing and externalizing behavior (Achenbach et al., 2011; Piper et al., 2014).

Interparental conflict as perceived by the child (via parent informant) will be measured using the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC). Perception of frequency and intensity of interparental conflict is assessed using the 6-item frequency and 7-item intensity subscales of the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict scale (CPIC; (Grych et al., 1992). The CPIC is rated on a 3-point scale (1 = true, 2=sort of true, 3 = false) and scored as average rating, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived interparental conflict.The CPIC has well-established psychometric properties.

Thee quality of parent-child communication (parent's perspective) will be assessed using the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS). PACS is a 10-item self-report measure in which respondents rate statements on a 5-point Likert scale (Disagree a lot to Agree a Lot) reflecting how well items describe communication openness and communication problems (e.g., discussing beliefs, avoiding difficult topics). Higher scores indicate more positive communication. The PACS has been widely used in adolescent and family research and demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity across diverse populations (Barnes & Olson, 1982; see also systematic reviews of parent-child communication scales).

Parenting self-perceptions will be evaluated by the Me as a Parent - Short Form (MaaP-SF). The MaaP-SF is a brief 4-item instrument assessing parents' confidence, sense of doing a good job, perceived competence, and regulatory self-efficacy in parenting. Responses are given on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly agree) and summed. Higher scores reflect greater parenting self-efficacy and reflective capacity. The measure is derived from a validated full form and has been used in parent outcome research, showing acceptable internal consistency and construct validity (Matthews et al., 2022).

Parent's perceptions of parental warmth and positive regard will be assessed via the Acceptance subscale of the Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; 16 items), parent-report version. Parents rate statements on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Items are averaged. Higher scores indicate greater perceived acceptance, warmth, and involvement from the parent. The CRPBI has long been used to gauge positive parenting dimensions, and its acceptance-rejection dimension is one of the most replicated parenting factors (King et al., 2023; Rodriguez et al., 2024).

Parent's perceptions of rejection will be assessed via the Rejection subscale of the Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; 16 items), parent-report version. Parents rate statements on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Items are averaged. Higher scores reflect more perceived rejection, hostility, or detachment. The rejection dimension oppositely complements the acceptance dimension and is well established in the literature on perceived negative parenting (Schaefer, 1965; Rodriguez et al., 2024).

The extent to which the child feels "caught in the middle" between caregivers will be measured via the Caught in the Middle (CIM; 7 items) scale (child report only). The CIM asks children how often or strongly they feel they are drawn into parental disputes, forced to choose sides, or mediating conflict. Responses are rated on a 1 (Never) to 4 (Very Often) and averaged. Higher scores reflect greater triangulation or children's perceived involvement in parental conflict. The CIM has been used to gauge child perceptions of boundary crossing in interparental conflict (O'Hara et al., 2019) and is grounded in the cognitive-contextual framework of children's conflict appraisals (Grych & Fincham, 1992).

Interparental conflict as perceived by the child self-report will be measured using the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPIC). Perception of frequency and intensity of interparental conflict is assessed using the 6-item frequency and 7-item intensity subscales of the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict scale (CPIC; (Grych et al., 1992). The CPIC is rated on a 3-point scale (1 = true, 3 = false) and scored as an average rating. Higher scores indicate more frequent or intense perceived conflict and more negative emotional/appraisal responses (Grych et al., 1992; Moura et al., 2010).

Children's perceptions of parental warmth and positive regard will be assessed via the Acceptance subscale of the Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; 16 items), self-report version. Children rate statements on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Higher scores indicate greater perceived acceptance, warmth, and involvement from the parent. The CRPBI has long been used to gauge positive parenting dimensions, and its acceptance-rejection dimension is one of the most replicated parenting factors (King et al., 2023; Rodriguez et al., 2024).

Children's perceptions of parental rejection will be assessed via the Rejection subscale of the Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; 16 items), self-report version for ages 11 and older. Children rate statements on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Higher scores reflect more perceived rejection, hostility, or detachment. The rejection dimension oppositely complements the acceptance dimension and is well established in the literature on perceived negative parenting (Schaefer, 1965; Rodriguez et al., 2024).