Open Access

Psychometric properties of the Observing Mediational Interactions (OMI) coding system during mother-adolescent conflict discussions

Sophie Kerr
Sophie Kerr
, 
Madeleine Allman
Madeleine Allman
, 
Cilly Shohet
Cilly Shohet
, 
Stephanie Stepp
Stephanie Stepp
 and 
Carla Sharp
Carla Sharp
   | Aug 17, 2023
Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Aug 17, 2023
Page range: 95 - 107
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sjcapp-2023-0010
© 2023 Sophie Kerr et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

FIGURE 1.

The conceptual model guiding the Mediational Intervention for Sensitizing Caregivers (MISC).
The conceptual model guiding the Mediational Intervention for Sensitizing Caregivers (MISC).

OMI positive and negative cognitive components.

Cognitive component Description Positive example Negative example
Focusing Statement/behavior that is intentionally directed toward affecting a child’s perception or behavior. Pointing to conflict task instructions. “Come on, (child name)…”*points to task
Child response: looks to instructions, begins reading Tone: hostileChild response: looks down, slowly moves toward instructions
Affecting Provision or request for meaning. Expresses significance of things. Must convey meaning, express excitement, or identify objects or people by name. “Who else gets involved in the arguments?” “That is not a good answer.”
Child response: “Usually Dad is there too” Content: invalidatingTone: insensitiveChild response: Looks down, sad affect
Expanding Directed toward extending the child’s awareness beyond the immediate need or context that triggered the interaction. Must attempt to expand the child’s awareness beyond the immediate context of the interaction, attempt to connect present, past or future experiences, relate to a general, social or biological principal or process, or “tell” about things not seen or heard at the moment. “What do you think was going through dad’s mind?” “Why did you think that an okay thing to do? “
Child response: “Maybe he was worried about me being safe” Content: invalidating [based on context]Tone: hostileChild response: “I don’t know! I already said sorry!”, appears exasperated
Rewarding Expresses satisfaction with a child’s behavior and identifies a specific component that contributes to success. “You worked really hard on that math assignment.You’re doing a great job in school this year” “You did that all wrong.”
Child response: smiling Content: invalidatingTone: insensitiveChild response: Looks away, does not respond
Regulating Behaviors or statements that model, demonstrate, and/or verbally suggest to the child regulation of behavior. Raises the child’s awareness to the possibility of “thinking” before doing and of planning steps of behavior towards a goal. “What will you do first when you get home from school to make sure you finish chores today?” “Don’t say that, just calm down.”
Child response: “I’ll come check in with you first” Content: controllingTone: hostileChild response: Angry affect

Frequency of OMI components and Interrater Reliability.

n with 1+ code ICC
Composite scores
   1 Emotional sum NA .76*
   2 Pos. composite NA .92**
   3 Neg. composite NA .94**
Pos. components
   4 Focusing 13 NA
   5 Affecting 56 .92**
   6 Expanding 54 .93**
   7 Rewarding 6 NA
   8 Regulating 51 .81*
Neg. components
   4 Focusing 1 NA
   5 Affecting 46 .92**
   6 Expanding 20 .63
   7 Rewarding 0 NA
   8 Regulating 27 .98**

Sample characteristics (N = 56 mother – child dyads).

Child n or M SD or %
Age 12.29 .83
Gender (female) 30 53.6%
Race\Ethnicity*
   Black 21 37.5%
   White 23 41.1%
   Hispanic 2 3.6%
   Multiracial 12 21.4%
CBCL psychopathology (borderline; clinical range, n=50)
   Total problems 12; 7 21.4%; 12%
   Internalizing problems 8; 8 14.3%; 14.3%
   Externalizing problems 15; 5 26.8%; 8.9%
K-SADS DSM-5 diagnoses
   Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 35 62.5%
   Oppositional defiant disorder 26 46.4%
   Major depressive disorder 20 35.7%
   Generalized anxiety disorder 15 26.8%
   Separation anxiety disorder 13 23.3%
   Conduct disorder 12 21.4%
   Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder 4 7.1%
   Social anxiety disorder 6 10.7%
   Post-traumatic stress disorder 3 5.4%
   Panic Disorder 2 3.6%
Childhood Interview for Borderline Personality Disorder diagnosis 18 32.1%
Mother n or M SD or %
Age 40.30 7.28
Race\Ethnicity*
   Black 19 33.9%
   White 33 58.9%
   Hispanic 2 3.6%
   Multiracial 3 5.4%
Marital status
   Married/living as married 20 37.5%
   Never married 20 37.5%
   Divorced/separated 14 25%
Highest level of education
   < High school 7 12.5%
   High school/GED 20 36.4%
   Associate’s 10 18.2%
   Bachelor’s/graduate 18 32.14%
Household income .50
   < $20,000 17 31.5%
   $20,000 - $39,000 10 18.5%
   $40,000 - $59,000 12 22.2%
   > $60,000 15 27.8%

Hierarchical Linear Regressions Testing Utility of Negative Composite over Positive Composite in Predicting Construct Validity Variables

b SE β t p Adj. R2 ΔAdj. R2
DV = SCIFF Anger/frustration
 Step 1a -.016
     Pos. cognitive composite -.003 .01 -.05 -.36 .72
 Step 2b .246 .262***
     Pos. cognitive composite .01 .01 .20 1.56 .12
     Neg. cognitive composite .06 .01 .58 4.44 < .001
DV = SCIFF Emotional support
 Step 1c .105
     Pos. cognitive composite .02 .01 .35 2.70 .008
 Step 2d .146 .041
     Pos. cognitive composite .01 .01 .24 1.70 .096
     Neg. cognitive composite -.03 .02 -.26 -1.88 .066
DV = SCIFF Respect for autonomy
 Step 1e .137
     Pos. cognitive composite .02 .01 .39 3.10 .003
 Step 2f .236 .099**
     Pos. cognitive composite .01 .01 .23 1.76 .085
     Neg. cognitive composite -.03 .01 -.37 -2.82 .007
DV = FACES-IV Cohesion
 Step 1g .070
     Pos. cognitive composite .21 .10 .30 2.0 .048
 Step 2h .333 .263***
     Pos. cognitive composite .10 .09 .15 1.10 .278
     Neg. cognitive composite -.87 .21 -.55 -4.14 < .001
DV = FACES-IV Flexibility
 Step 1i .088
     Pos. cognitive composite .23 .10 .33 2.25 .03
 Step 2j .174 8.6*
     Pos. cognitive composite .16 .10 .23 1.6 .118
     Neg. cognitive composite -.52 .23 -.34 -2.3 .028

Pearson’s correlations among OMI variables and construct validity variables.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Composite scores
   1 Emotional sum  
   2 Pos. composite .50**  
   3 Neg. composite -.51** -.44**  
Pos. components
   4 Focusing -.01 -.02 .06  
   5 Affecting .49** .94** -.43** .01  
   6 Expanding .03 .07 -.12 -.16 -.16  
   7 Regulating .16 .48** -.08 .02 .22 .03  
Neg. components
   8 Affecting -.48** -.41** .97** .04 -.39** -.12 -.12  
   9 Expanding -.39** -.31** .55** -.14 -.34* .09 -.10 .43**  
   10 Regulating -.25 -.23 .54** .23 -.26 -.16 .15 .36** .23  
SCIFF
   11 Cohesiveness .59** .34* -.23 -.27* .36** -.12 .14 -.20 -.20 -.17  
   12 Focus of Problem .28* .22 -.25 -.10 .27* .02 -.11 -.23 -.14 -.18 .51**  
   13 Positive Affect .57** .35** -.20 .20 .39** -.17 .10 -.20 -.23 -.04 .58** .36**  
   14 Anger/Frustration -.23 -.05 .49** .39** -.01 -.15 -.01 .43** .47** .32 -.40** -.29** -.15  
   15 Rejection/ Invalidation -.24 -.11 .25 .27* -.13 .08 -.05 .20 .26 .25 -.57** -.47** -.29 .58**  
   16 Withdrawal -.42** -.33* -.03 -.005 -.25 -.23 -.19 -.07 -.001 .12 -.27** -.18 -.15 -.006 .06  
   17 Coerciveness -.08 -.004 .24 .35** .001 -.07 .04 .21 .09 .25 -.25 -.26 -.14 .48** .39** .03  
   18 Emotional Support .40** .35** -.36** -.20 .39** -.06 .04 .35** -.29* -.13 .38** .55** .44** -.51** .66** -.22 -.45**  
   19 Respect for Autonomy .48** .39** -.47** -.09 .44** -.08 .04 -.46** -.42** -.13 .53** .48** .37** -.39** -.54** -.09 -36** .81**  
FACES-IV (n=43)
   20 Cohesion .31* .30* -.59** -.20 .32* .11 -.01 -.46** -.53** -.43** .13 .19 .06 -.51** -.50** -.08 -.26 .45** .53**  
   21 Flexibility .03 .33* -.40** -.15 .27 .12 .24 -.29 -.43** -.33** .05 .05 -.11 -.43** -.34* -.11 -.22 .34* .35* .67**  
   22 PSS°(n=5O) -.03 -.29 -.10 .11 -.19 -.16 -.31* -.08 -.12 -.09 -.08 .19 -.06 .03 .25 .07 -.08 -.15 -.06 -.07 .19

Hierarchical Linear Regressions Testing the Effect of Baseline Affect.

b SE β t p Adj. R2 ΔAdj. R2
DV = Mother’s post-discussion PA
 Step 1a .505
     Pre-discussion PA .81 .11 .72 7.6 < .001
 Step 2b .519 .014
     Pre-discussion PA .77 .11 .68 7.12 < .001
     Pos. mediation composite .04 .02 .15 1.58 .120
DV = Mother’s post-discussion PA
 Step 1c .505
     Pre-discussion PA .81 .11 .72 7.6 < .001
 Step 2d .541 .036*
     Pre-discussion PA .74 .11 .65 6.8 < .001
     Neg. mediation composite -.10 .04 -.22 -2.3 .027
eISSN:
2245-8875
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Medicine, Basic Medical Science, other
Journal RSS Feed