Introducing a common taxonomy to support learning from failure in conservation

Although some sectors have made significant progress in learning from failure, there is currently limited consensus on how a similar transition could best be achieved in conservation and what is required to facilitate this. One of the key enabling conditions for other sectors is a widely accepted and standardized classification system for identifying and analyzing root causes of failure. We devised a comprehensive taxonomy of root causes of failure affecting conservation projects. To develop this, we solicited examples of real-life conservation efforts that were deemed to have failed in some way, identified their underlying root causes of failure, and used these to develop a generic, 3-tier taxonomy of the ways in which projects fail, at the top of which are 6 overarching cause categories that are further divided into midlevel cause categories and specific root causes. We tested the taxonomy by asking conservation practitioners to use it to classify the causes of failure for conservation efforts they had been involved in. No significant gaps or redundancies were identified during this testing phase. We then analyzed the frequency that particular root causes were encountered by projects within this test sample, which suggested that some root causes were more likely to be encountered than others and that a small number of root causes were more likely to be encountered by projects implementing particular types of conservation action. Our taxonomy could be used to improve identification, analysis, and subsequent learning from failed conservation efforts, address some of the barriers that currently limit the ability of conservation practitioners to learn from failure, and contribute to establishing an effective culture of learning from failure within conservation.

Finer Distinctions: Variability in Satisfied Older Couples' Problem-Solving Behaviors

This study utilized observational and self-report data from 64 maritally satisfied and stable older couples to explore if there were meaningful differences in how couples approached marital disagreements. Using a typology approach to classify couples based on their behaviors in a 15-minute problem-solving interaction, findings revealed four types of couples: (1) problem solvers (characterized by both spouses' higher problem-solving skills and warmth), (2) supporters (characterized by both spouses' notable warmth), (3) even couples (characterized by both spouses' moderate problem-solving skills and warmth), and (4) cool couples (characterized by both spouses' greater negativity and lower problem-solving skills and warmth). Despite the differences in these behaviors, all couples had relatively high marital satisfaction and functioning. However, across nearly all indices, spouses in the cool couple cluster reported poorer marital functioning, particularly when compared to the problem solvers and supporters. These findings suggest that even modest doses of negativity (e.g., eye roll) may be problematic for some satisfied couples later in life. The implications of these typologies are discussed as they pertain to practitioners' efforts to tailor their approaches to a wider swath of the population.

Multiproblem Families Referred to Youth Mental Health: What's in a Name?

The purpose of this study was threefold, namely (1) to differentiate between multiproblem families and control families on characteristics and processes within the family based on a theoretical framework, (2) to identify multiproblem families by establishing cut-off scores on various questionnaires, and (3) to categorize multiproblem families into subtypes by cluster analyses. Various questionnaires were administered to multiproblem families (n = 85) and control families (n = 150). Results showed that what we propose to refer to as multiproblem families present a broad range of problems on seven domains: (1) child factors, (2) parental factors, (3) childrearing problems (inadequate or inconsistent parenting), (4) family functioning problems, (5) contextual problems, (6) social network problems, and (7) mental health care problems. Further, reliable cut-off scores were established for various questionnaires. Finally, three types of families were found: (1) community-problem families, (2) multiproblem families, and (3) child-focused mild-problem families. This paper looks to advance an evidence-based definition and assessment of "multiproblem families" suggesting the possible value of defining and assessing multiproblem families in relation to these seven dimensions. Moreover, the classification of multiproblem families stresses the importance of providing tailored treatments.

Intimate partner relationship distress in the DSM-5

Over the past 40 years, a large body of literature has documented intimate partner relationship distress as a primary reason for seeking mental health services as well as an integral factor in the prognosis and treatment of a range of mental and physical health conditions. In recognition of its relevance to clinical care, the description of intimate partner relationship distress has been expanded in the DSM-5. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant if the DSM-5 code for intimate partner relationship distress is not reliably used in clinical practice and research settings. Thus, with the goal of dissemination in mind, the purpose of this paper was to provide clinicians and researchers with specific guidelines on how to reliably assess intimate partner relationship distress and how this information can be used to inform treatment planning. In addition to the implications for direct clinical care, we discuss the importance of reliable assessment and documentation of intimate partner relationship distress for future progress in epidemiology, etiology, and public health research.