Hold me Tight/Let me Go: Effectiveness of a Course to Enhance Parent-adolescent Relationship

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age12-18
SponsorUniversity of Amsterdam

About this trial

HmT/LmG is a group course for 4-6 parental dyads and consists of 4 group sessions with psycho-education and skills training and 3 individual sessions per family (i.e., 1 session with the adolescent, 1 session with the parents, and 1 session with parents and adolescent together). We want to evaluate effectiveness and treatment process mechanisms applying self-reports, audio observation and interviews.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Families with one or both parents/primary caretaker (single parent or blended families are allowed) with one adolescent of 12 to 18 years of age;

Adolescent problems are deemed to be exacerbated by a stressful parent-adolescent relationship.

Participants in command of the Dutch language.

Parents/primary caretakers and adolescents with severe psychopathology (e.g., psychosis, acute suicidality, severe depression) that will interfere with participation in the program.

Disqualifiers

None

Trial population

Families with adolescents aged 12 to 18 years will be recruited via participating clinical practices (mental health organizations) in the Netherlands. Recruitment will focus on families experiencing difficulties in the parent-adolescent relationship that are believed to contribute to the adolescent's emotional or behavioral problems. The population includes single-parent families, two-parent families, and blended families. The intervention is offered in the context of regular care.

Trial design

Design model

Cohort

Time perspective

Prospective

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Hold me Tight / Let me Go

    Behavioral

    Hold Me Tight / Let Me Go (HmT/LmG) is a manualized, group-based behavioral intervention for parents of adolescents aged 12 to 18. Grounded in Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) and Hold me Tight for couples. HmT/LmG aims to improve the parent-adolescent relationship by enhancing emotional validation, secure attachment, and effective communication. The intervention consists of four group sessions for parents, supplemented by three structured individual or dyadic sessions involving both parents and adolescents. Key components include psycho-education, role plays, emotion-focused conversations, and exercises targeting validation, apologizing, and supportive limit setting. Families complete pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and a follow-up assessment to evaluate changes in relationship quality and psychological well-being.

Treatment groups

No treatment groups listed

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Change in relationship satisfaction (CSI-4)

Positive change in relationship satisfaction of partners and adolescents (partners will report about their partner relationship, and parents and adolescents report about the parent-adolescent relationship). Satisfaction with the partner relationship of the parents, and the parent-adolescent relationship will be assessed with the 4 item Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI-4; Funk \& Rogge, 2007). Funk, J. L., \& Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572-583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

Time frame
Change from baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)
2

Change in negative patterns (RDS)

Negative change in negative patterns of partners and parents (partners will report about their partner relationship and parents and adolescents report about the parent-adolescent relationship). Negative patterns between the parents as partners and between parents and adolescent will be measured by the Relationship Dynamics Scale (RDS; Stanley et al., 2006) a four item self-report questionnaire. An example item is: 'When we argue, one of us withdraws, that is, does not want to talk about it anymore or leaves the scene.' Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., \& Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 117-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.117

Time frame
Change from baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)

Secondary outcomes

1

Adolescents psychological need fulfillment (BPNS-9)

Increase in psychological need fulfillment of adolescents (adolescents will report about themselves). Need fulfillment in the context of the parent-adolescent relationships will be measured with the 9 item Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in Relationships scale (BPNS-R). The adolescent version is based on the partner version (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, \& Deci, 2000) and inspired in its wording by the Flemish version (Van der Kaap-Deeder et., 2020). La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., \& Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384. http://doi.org/dhghf4 Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Ryan, R. M., \& Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). Manual of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS). Ghent University, Belgium.

Time frame
Change from baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)
2

Adolescents support seeking to parent (IERQ-3)

Increase in support seeking behavior of partners and adolescents (parents will report about their partner relationship and adolescents about the parent-adolescent relationship). Support seeking will be measured with a slightly adapted version of the Soothing subscale of the Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ; Hofman et al., 2016). We shortened the original version from five to three items and adapted the wording from referring to 'others' into the partner or one of the parents. Hofmann, S. G., Carpenter, J. K., \& Curtiss, J. (2016). Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (IERQ): Scale development and psychometric characteristics. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 40(3), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-016-9756-2

Time frame
Change from baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)
3

Adolescents quality of life (KIDSCREEN-10)

Increase in quality of life of adolescents (parents and adolescent will report about adolescent). Quality of life in terms of physical, mental, and social well-being will be determined by both the official parental and adolescent versions of the KIDSCREEN-10 (Ravens-Sieberer, 2006). Ravens-Sieberer, U. The Kidscreen Questionnaires: Quality of Life Questionnaires for Children and Adolescents; handbook; Pabst Science Publ.: Lengerich, Germany, 2006.

Time frame
Change from baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)
4

Perceived ARE from parent to adolescent (BARE-6)

Increase in the accessibility and responsiveness of partners and parents (partners will report about their partner and adolescents and parents about the parent). Accessibility and responsiveness to the partner's and adolescent's needs will be assessed with the 6 item Brief Accessibility, Responsiveness and Engagement scale (BARE: Sandberg et al., 2012). Sandberg, J. G., Busby, D. M., Johnson, S. M., \& Yoshida, K. (2012). The Brief Accessibility, Responsiveness, and Engagement (BARE) Scale: A tool for measuring attachment behavior in couple relationships. Family Process, 51(4), 512-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01422.x

Time frame
Change from baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)

Other outcomes

1

Attachment

Attachment (partners will report about their relationship with the partner, adolescents about the relationship with the parent). Attachment will be assessed with the Experiences in Close Relationships -Relationship Structures questionnaire in the official partner and parent-adolescent versions (ECR-RS; Fraley et al., 2011). Its nine items measure Anxiety about Rejection and Avoidance of Intimacy. Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., \& Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships-Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological assessment, 23(3), 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898

Time frame
baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)
2

Emotional clarity (understanding own emotions)

Emotional Clarity (parent and adolescents will report about themselves). Emotional clarity will be measured with 5 items of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Roemer \& Gratz, 2003). It measures Clarity, or understanding of own emotions.

Time frame
baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)
3

Validation of emotions

Validation of emotions (parents and adolescent report about the parent). Validation of the adolescent by the parent will be measured with the Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale (IRIS; Swerdlow \& Johnson, 2022). We shortened the original version from ten to five items and referred to one of the parents. Swerdlow, B. A., \& Johnson, S. L. (2022). The Interpersonal Regulation Interaction Scale (IRIS): A multistudy investigation of receivers' retrospective evaluations of interpersonal emotion regulation interactions. Emotion, 22(6), 1119-1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000927

Time frame
baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)
4

Apologizing and repair

Apologizing (parents and adolescent report about the parent). Apologizing of the parent to the adolescent will be measured with a self-constructed questionnaire based on the Proclivity to Apologize measure (PAM; Howell et al., 2011) and questions formulated by Bachman and Guerrero (2006). Bachman, G. F., \& Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Fogiveness, Apology, and Communicative Responses to Hurtful Events. Communication Reports, 19(1-2), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210600586357 Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Turowski, J. B., \& Buro, K. (2011). The disposition to apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 509-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.009

Time frame
baseline (pre-waiting, week 0) to post-intervention (week 5) and follow-up (week 13)

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.