Data were collected by trained research assistants who examined the case records at courthouses in 10 representative counties. Information was recorded on standardized forms, developed specifically for the project, to capture all relevant data contained in final decrees, as well as information from petitions, counter petitions, temporary orders, amendments, and supplemental actions. The current analyses report only information from final decrees, the document that specifies the findings of fact and conclusions of law, signed by the judge, and stamped with a filing date.
A second data collector and the data collection supervisor completed an inter-rater reliability check on at least every tenth case during data collection. Any inconsistency was immediately resolved by verifying information directly from the case. To ensure reliability, data collection supervisors recorded any inconsistencies or unresolved questions from each data collection session, and conferred with the project manager and principle investigator to determine answers to the disadvantages of intellectual property rights. Each answer was placed in a data procedure manual and distributed to all data collectors.
After the accuracies were verified, the forms were coded and entered into a database using the SPSS, statistical package. The accuracy of data coding was monitored for consistency by two procedures. First, the questions about coding were directed to coding supervisors who were responsible for maintaining consistency across cases. Second, a coding auditor checked 10% of all forms for consistency across all cases and all forms. Selection Procedures for Study Sample The 414 cases for the current study sample were obtained from the previously described sample of 1,708 court records.
Cases were selected that had complete information on the following variables needed for analysis: (a) gross incomes for both parents; (b) length of marriage; (c) sole physical custody, where the child/children resided primarily with one parent, or joint physical custody where one parent was identified as the child/children's primary residence; (d) specified amount of child support the mother or father was ordered to pay; or (e) specified that neither parent was ordered to pay support, or child support award was reserved (not ordered).
The strategies/formulas selected for the analyses required the use of gross rather than net income. The child/children's primary residence was required to determine the income adequacy of the post-divorce households. For example, cases were included when the mother or father was ordered physical custody, as well as cases where joint custody was ordered, and the primary residence was specified as either with the mother or father. Cases were not included where joint custody was ordered and there was no information regarding the child/children's primary residence.
Income adequacy could not be calculated for varying amounts of time a child might spend with each parent. It was difficult to determine how much time the child/children spent with each parent in joint physical custody cases. The percentage of joint physical custody cases in the study sample was significantly lower than in the entire sample, because many of the cases did not specify a primary residence for the child/children, or the percentage of time that each parent would have the child/children.
No comments:
Post a Comment