Putting Empirical Knowledge to Work: Linking Research and Programming on Marital Quality Francesca Adler-Baeder,* Brian Higginbotham, and Leanne Lamke When selecting a marriage education curriculum, educators can turn to programs that have been evaluated for effective- ness; however, few curricula have undergone such study. An alternative approach, consistent with best practices, is to ensure a research base for program content. A translation process model is offered as an initial attempt to explicate the often advocated yet seldom described research–practice linkage. This process is used to examine recent research on marital quality and provide examples of research-based content in existing marriage education programs. R ecently, leaders and policymakers at the highest levels have begun to emphasize the need to promote the avail- ability of community-based programs to strengthen mari- tal relationships. Support for these programs is based on empirical evidence that healthy marital relationships are benefi- cial to the adults involved and to the children growing up in the context of these relationships (Parke & Ooms, 2002). It is from this child-centered perspective that the current federal administra- tion has proposed an initiative to allow states to compete for ear- marked funds for ‘‘marriage strengthening and family formation’’ programs; this is the first time that such funds will be made avail- able (Parke & Ooms). Bolstered by both the understanding of the benefits of healthy couple functioning for adult and child well- being and the potential for program support for offerings to the broader population, community family life educators and organ- izations who traditionally offer parenting and child development educational programming anticipate expanding their offerings to include marriage education programs. Currently, a plethora of marriage education curricula exist. Marriage education efforts target audiences in religious settings, communities in general, schools, universities, and clinical prac- tice. However, the question arises as to how to select a curriculum among those available. One approach is to select a curriculum based on evaluations of program effectiveness. Recent reviews indicate that a handful of curricula demonstrate short-term and limited sustained positive program effects (Carroll & Doherty, 2003; Halford, Markman, Kline, & Stanley, 2003; Jakubowski, Milne, Brunner, & Miller, 2004). The overwhelming majority of existing programs have not been empirically evaluated for a vari- ety of reasons (e.g., lack of funding to support evaluation research, lack of evaluation expertise). Thus, an alternative ap- proach is needed to guide decisions about program selection. One such strategy is to compare program content with find- ings from an appropriate research base. This approach is consis- tent with best practices in family life education (e.g., Hennon & Arcus, 1993). Hughes (1994) stated that ‘‘ . a well-grounded family life education program needs . a demonstrated research basis in regards to the topic, the content, and the application techniques’’ (p. 75). Hennon and Arcus encouraged family life educators to critically assess program content and ensure that cur- ricula are not based on outdated or nonempirically supported information. When marriage education content is consistent with implications from empirical research, educators are armed with program content that theoretically provides participants with an effective learning experience (Hughes). Although the importance of linking research with practice has been emphasized in family science over the last several de- cades, there is little, if any, description of the process of translating research into practice (i.e., educational programs). This linkage often is encouraged (e.g., Dumka, Roosa, Michaels, & Suh, 1995) but not explained. Therefore, our purpose was twofold: (a) to offer a description of a model for this translation process of linking research and educational program content, and (b) to review recent research on marital quality and provide research- based examples of its applications in marriage education pro- grams. We do not examine existing curricula and retrospectively look for empirical support for program content, either explicitly or implicitly. In addition, providing specific curricula review is beyond our scope here. We hope that our effort will assist edu- cators as they attempt to identify research-supported program content in existing marriage education curricula. Further, the guidelines we offer may help educators to determine the implica- tions for education of new research as it becomes available. Thus, our intent was both to offer guidelines for educators whose pri- mary goal is to deliver sound marital education programming and to open dialogue on the translation process in general family sci- ence research and education. Our approach is deductive and prospective. As illustrated in Figure 1, the translation process begins with the identification of relevant literature and proceeds to a narrowing of the potential studies based on the application of exclusion and inclusion crite- ria. Exclusion criteria may consist of several factors, including nonrefereed publications, clinical studies, and instrument validity studies. Inclusion criteria are application driven. Consistent with research-based program development procedures previously de- scribed (Dumka et al., 1995), the focus for application is on po- tential modifiable mediators of marital quality outcomes. We then organized the research by major themes, and the studies were assessed using identified criteria for research rigor. Next, a summary of research findings was used to guide the iden- tification of marriage education content that is consistent with the empirical findings. Using a risk and resiliency approach and assumptions from intervention theory (Coie et al., 1993), we expected that modifiable factors found to negatively affect marital quality are risk factors that can be addressed in practice with the intention of reversing or avoiding them, thus positively af- fecting marital quality and or reducing marital dissatisfaction. *Address correspondence to: Dr. Francesca Adler-Baeder, 286 Spidle Hall, Department of Human Development and Human Studies, Auburn University, AL 36849, (adlerfr@ auburn.edu). Work on this manuscript was shared equally among the authors. Key Words: education, marriage, marital quality, prevention, programs. (Family Relations, 2004, 53, 537–546) 2004, Vol. 53, No. 5 537