ObjectiveThe purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore the impact of miscarriage on the couple relationship, particularly lived experiences related to partners' perceptions of increased closeness and strength in the relationship.BackgroundCurrent miscarriage literature lacks a process‐oriented understanding of how miscarriage influences partner interactions and how partner interactions influence resilience and coping after this loss.MethodThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews to conduct a combination of dyadic and individual interviews with six couples, resulting in 18 interviews.ResultsThe couples described themes of both positive and negative impact on the relationship, the shared nature of the loss, dyadic coping strategies, and specific partner interactions that supported resilience.ConclusionExperiencing miscarriage as a shared loss seemed to create important opportunities for healthy dyadic coping and interactional processes.ImplicationsFindings can guide medical and mental health professionals in providing more effective support to couples after miscarriage.

No abstract

No abstract

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale IV (FACES-IV) was developed to capture the balanced and unbalanced levels of cohesion and flexibility in families. Although this measure has been shown to be valid and reliable, its length at 62 items limits utility and uptake in clinical and research settings. This paper details the development of a shorter form of the FACES-IV (the FACES-IV Short Form) using two studies. In the first study, three itemlevel analyses were used to identify 24 items that provided the best measurement of each of the scales of the FACES-IV. In the second study, the reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of the short form was tested. Results suggest that the FACES-IV-SF is a valid and reliable measure that adheres to the theory underlying the original FACES-IV but may be better utilized in clinical and research settings due to its brevity. Specific theoretical models for conceptualizing family functioning are critical for the development of evidence-based, family-oriented clinical approaches. Providing clear pathways by which unique constructs within family process impact one another to create specific patterns of family functioning is necessary to guide therapeutic intervention and scientific inquiry. One such theoretical model which has garnered a great deal of evidence is Olson's (2010; 2011) Circumplex Model. The Circumplex Model assumes three key dimensions in conceptualizing family functioning and interactions: cohesion, flexibility, and communication. This approach hypothesizes that healthy functioning families have balanced levels of cohesion (i.e., separated or connected, rather than disengaged or enmeshed) and flexibility (i.e., flexible or structured, rather than chaotic or rigid), while problematically functioning families report unbalanced levels of both. The third dimension of the model, communication, operates to facilitate the relative levels of cohesion and flexibility within families. In other words, communication in families allows family members to vacillate in their flexibility and cohesion. When communication is healthy, it supports family members' engagement with and responsiveness to one another. Measurement is a critical next step in conveying family functioning theory to clinical practice. Accordingly, alongside the development of the Circumplex Model, Olson (2010) developed the