Translating Psychological Science into the Law Clinic: T2 Translational Research

1. Translating Psychological Science into the Law Clinic:T2 Translational Research Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Ph.D. Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences Amy G. Applegate, J.D. Indiana University Maurer School of Law Indiana University, Bloomington Supported by funds from the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Maurer School of Law, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Program at Indiana University.

2. IUB Collaboration Between Psychology and Family Law • My past psychology research: • Problematic relationship and family issues: • couples therapy, intimate partner violence (IPV) • Law School Collaborator: Amy Applegate • Family and Child Mediation Clinic Director • For divorce and parental separation cases • Training clinic for law students (become state registered mediators) • Mediation cases from Monroe and Owen County courts (established relationship with judges and courts, who refer cases) • Interested in effectiveness of her training and program • Other Collaborators: • Brian D’Onofrio (Psychology) • Jack Bates (Psychology) • Graduate and Law Students • Robin Ballard: CTSI pre-doctoral fellowship recipient

3. Why Target Divorce/Separation? • Prevalent • Over 1/3 of children will experience separation of their parents by age 18 • Increases Risk in Offspring • Doubles risk of behavioral and psychological problems • Increases risk of other problems (e.g., academic, relationship) • We know a lot about the related family processes from basic research

4. Family Conflict Poor Parenting Inadequate Financial Resources Loss of Relationships with Both Parents Numerous Family Transitions Divorce/ Separation Offspring Adjustment

5. Family Law Interventions: Mediation • How to intervene to minimize negative impact on children? • Traditional legal approach: family court (litigation) • Mediation: newer approach: parties meet with mediator, try to reach an agreement • Assumptions re Mediation: • Less adversarial than litigation (court) • Parents know what is best for family (vs judge) • Less inter-parental conflict • Better for children • Widespread but little data on efficacy • only one methodologically rigorous study (Emery et al.) • Need for program evaluation research

6. Program Evaluation Research • Empirically Supported Treatments (ESTs) • Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) • Use best available research evidence to choose interventions • Idea introduced in legal realm • But lack of empirical evidence for Family Law interventions • **Conversations to plan research to test efficacy of different mediation approaches: • psychology researchers • lawyers, mediators, and family court judges

7. Family Courts and Psychology Research: A Potentially Fruitful Collaboration • Researchers could benefit: • Almost all divorcing families come to attention of court (reachable and identifiable sample) • Courts have authority over families (e.g., can mandate to programs) • Courts have expanded from justice-dispensing, reactive role to proactively offering programs to help divorcing parents (e.g., parent education) • Family Courts could benefit: • Want to offer programs that work • Some such programs exist but most not easily accessible ; need new programs • Don’t have resources to offer comprehensive in-house services, so looking for new programs

8. Law vs Psychology:Different World Views • Psychology: • Truth: Scientific method used to determine “truth” that is general (may not apply to individual case) and temporary (may change based on new data) • Goals: • Therapeutic (or intervention) • Scientific acquisition of research knowledge • Law: • Truth: Often case specific (each side makes arguments and judge decides) • Goals: • Procedural Justice (including equal access) • System efficiency

9. Legal Experts’ Concerns Re Program Evaluation (and Our Responses) • Terminology • Experiment • “program evaluation” • “Psycho-” (e.g., psycho-educational) • don’t use this term • Study participant recruitment • Coercion; Consent • understand what we do • Confidentiality • Privileged communication (e.g., attorney – client) • Don’t observe atty-party interactions; don’t tape mediation sessions • Party Protection from self-incrimination (self-reports) • Measure choices (e.g., public information; drop some measures) • Questions (e.g., hearsay, not self-report of criminal behavior or bad parenting) • Don’t identify individuals • Understand what we do

10. Legal Experts’ Concerns Re Program Evaluation (and Our Responses) • Random assignment • Lack of equal access to interventions (concerns re procedural justice goals) • Lack of judicial control (judicial expertise) • Assume we have good new intervention, so give it to all • “Do No Harm” and need for studies of program efficacy first • Ease of implementation and support for involvement in research • Can we offer this program without extra funding and extra staff? • We provide staff and funding • Need approval and support from centralized authority • Work with judges and continue to meet with them

11. Building Collaboration to do Research • After addressing such concerns, worked with judges to establish a study of mediation approaches • at IU School of Law Mediation Clinic • Nov 07 conference: • introduced different forms of mediation (judges excited) • Meetings and conference with judges: • elicited their concerns; shared concepts and issues • input when planning study • Continue to meet with judges and lawyers • study ongoing (e.g., monthly judges meeting)

12. Divorce Mediation Approaches: McIntosh’s Research • Two new mediation approaches • Include “voice” or “best interests” of the child in mediation • McIntosh: Child Consultants • Child Focused (CF) Mediation • Child Consultant in Mediation (parent feedback session) • Educates parents re effects of divorce and parental conflict on children (psycho-educational materials) • General information (research based) but still individualized • Child Inclusive (CI) Mediation • Child Consultant interviews children • Child Consultant in Mediation (parent feedback session) • Individualized information to parents about their children

13. IU Child Involved Mediation Study (CIMS) • McIntosh et al. study compared CF and CI • methodological weaknesses in that study • At IUB: • Translational study of new mediation methods • Random assignment of cases to 3 conditions: • CI • CF • MAU (treatment as usual control) • Translational, interdisciplinary student training • Law student mediators • Psychology student child consultants

14. IU Child Involved Mediation Study (CIMS) • Cases referred, by court, to Law School Mediation Clinic invited to participate • Pre-Treatment (Predictive and Baseline) Data: • Parent and Child Research Assessment • (e.g., child mental health; inter-parental conflict and communication; parenting) • Intervention and “Therapist” adherence and competency: • Code mediation sessions • Post-Treatment Data: • Parent Outcome Form (e.g., satisfaction) • Mediator and Child Consultant Outcome Form • Agreement (reached or not; code content) • Follow-up (starting one-year follow-up) • Parent and Child Research Assessment • (e.g., child mental health; inter-parental conflict and communication; parenting) • Court records (e.g., further litigation)

15. IU CIMS: Integrating Law and Psychology • Pilot Study going well, but… • Unanticipated concerns: • Over-enthusiasm among some judges • Assigning cases to study or to certain type of mediation • Lack of referrals from other judges • Get busy and forget study • Some attorney’s biased against mediation or psychologists or students in training • Inter-disciplinary issues and confusion • Initial student concerns (e.g., mediators: neutrality; time) • Coordination of cases • Program drift of MAU as mediators get trained in interdisciplinary approach

16. Translational Student Training • Interdisciplinary training • Psych Graduate Students: learn law • Law Students: learn social science and program evaluation (train future lawyers and judges) • Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) study • Each semester: pre- and post-semester measures: • Knowledge test (multiple choice) • Student focus groups • (Future: Attitudes test) • Baseline semester (Sp 09) • New intervention semesters (Fall 09, Sp 10, Fall 10) • Initial findings: • Knowledge tests: law students acquiring psych knowledge • Focus groups: benefits to training; more positive attitudes towards other field

17. IU CIMS: Integrating Law and Psychology • T2 Translational Work and Student Training • Conducting intervention efficacy, or program evaluation, research in real world setting • Requires sometimes difficult collaboration • Exciting: interdisciplinary collaboration • Have to explain your own discipline • Have to understand concerns/approach of other discipline • Worth it! • Building a program of research: • ESTs for family law interventions • Training students