Ubicación del Departamento de Auditoría Interna

2.1.2.1 Sampling strategy

The sampling frame for DiF was the Belgian National Register(Pasteels, Mortelmans, & Van Bavel, 2011).⁴ The study aimed to obtain a representative sample of marriages (hereafter: the reference marriage) with the following characteristics:

• The data of the reference marriage fell between 1/1/1971 and 31/12/2008

• The reference marriage involved two persons from a different sex

• The reference marriage was the first marriage for both spouses

• Both spouses were minimum 18 and maximum 40 years old at the date of the reference marriage

• Both spouses had the Belgian nationality from birth

• Both spouses were domiciled in the Flemish Region at the date of the reference marriage

• Both spouses had experienced maximum one legal divorce at the sampling date

• Both spouses were alive at the sampling date

• Both spouses were domiciled in the Flemish Region at the sampling date

To obtain this sample of marriages, individuals, and not marriages, were sampled from the National Register. Two stratification criteria were used: the year of the reference marriage (between 1971-2008) and the status of the reference marriage on the sampling date (intact versus dissolved). The year of the reference marriage was aimed to be proportional to the population figures. The stratification on marriage status was not proportional to the population because this would generate too small a number of ever-divorced individuals to answer the research questions. Therefore, the study aimed at a distribution of 1/3 reference marriages that were still intact and 2/3 that were dissolved at the sampling date. Finally, 17012 persons were selected from the Belgian National Register: 5004 were married and 12008 were divorced

4 For a detailed description of the sampling strategy, see Van Bavel (2007).

(Pasteels, Mortelmans, & Van Bavel, 2011). These people made part of 2502 intact reference marriages and 6004 dissolved reference marriages.

2.1.2.2 Multi-actor design

DiF was designed as a multi-actor study, which means that several related actors were included in the research design. The reference marriage of both (ex-)spouses served as the central research entity. Both (ex-)spouses were approached for participation in the study. When the reference marriage was still intact, both partners lived at the same address and formed one household. When the reference marriage was dissolved, both partners lived at different addresses, in two different households.

When studying divorce and its consequences, it is hardly impossible to ignore the child’s point of view. Therefore, DiF also aimed at questioning one child of each reference marriage.

Preference was given to a resident child instead of an independently living child. This choice was related to the survey method for both types of children. However, not all resident children had equal chance to be selected as target child (see section 2.1.2.4 for a detailed description of the selection of the target child).

Most divorced people engage sooner or later in a new relationship. Because incorporating these new partners’ points of view may results in a more complete picture of the post-divorce family, the new (cohabiting) partner was also included in the study. The term ‘new partner’ is used to emphasize that this person did not belong to the original reference marriage. The selection procedure for new partners is not described in this chapter because this research does not use the data of the new partners.

A divorce may also affect both ex-partners’ parents. In particular when the couple has children, grandparents may have an important function for their grandchildren and vice versa (Jappens &

Van Bavel, 2012). Therefore, DiF also included grandparents in the multi-actor scheme. If possible, one parent from each partner of the reference marriage was questioned. When both (grand)parents were still alive, one of them was randomly chosen. The selection procedure for grandparents is not described in this chapter.

The multi-actor schemes for intact and dissolved reference marriages are respectively shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.

2.1.2.3 Multi-method design

DiF applies a multi-method design, which means that the used survey method varies per actor.

Both partners of the reference marriage, as well as the resident child, were interviewed by means of Computer Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI). They were personally approached by an interviewer to participate in the study. For minor children, a parental permission was required beforehand. The structured interviews were conducted within the respondents’

households.

Figure 8 Multi-actor scheme for intact marriages

Independently living children, as well as (grand)parents, received a written paper-and-pencil questionnaire, after their address had been provided during the partner interviews. These children had two options to complete their questionnaire: returning the paper questionnaire by post, or completing an online questionnaire, which could be accessed through a personal code.

The new partners received a drop-off questionnaire, which was a paper-and-pencil questionnaire left behind by the interviewer just after the partner interview. This questionnaire had to be returned via normal mail.

Partner 1 Partner 2

Independently living child

Parents- P1 Parents- P2

Resident child Paper-and-pencil

questionnaire or websurvey

Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or

websurvey Face-to-face

interview

Figure 9 Multi-actor scheme for dissolved marriages

2.1.2.4 Selection of the target child

To maximize the value of the multi-actor design, all questioned related to children, for all actors (partners, grandparents, new partners), referred to one specific child. This target child was also the child that was approached for an interview or sent a written questionnaire. Target children were always biological or adoptive children of both parents of the reference marriage with identical descent to both parents. In other words: both partners were either the two biological or the two adoptive parents of the child. Not all children had an equal chance to be selected as target child. Several priority rules were implemented to maximize the survey response on the child level. For a correct interpretation of the (extrapolation of) the results presented in this research, it is important to understand how the selection of the target child occurred.⁵ The development of the priority rules relied on two important criteria: the survey method for different categories of target children, and legal procedures for contacting children in surveys.

The priority rules for target children were in the first place based on the survey method for different categories of target children. Two groups of target children could be distinguished according to their living situation: resident target children, who were living in the household of their parents, and independently living target children, who were not living in the household of

5 The procedure for the selection of the target child was slightly different for intact and dissolved reference marriages. Because this research only deals with dissolved marriages, the selection procedure for intact reference marriages is not outlined here. For more information, see Pasteels et al. (2011).

their parents. A further distinction could be made within the group of resident target children:

those living in the household of both parents (joint physical custody) and those living in the household of one parent (sole physical custody). Resident target children that had reached the age of 10 could be questioned by means of a face-to-face interview. The lower age boundary was included because the questionnaires were not adapted to children below 10 years old.

Independently living target children that had reached the age of 18 could be questioned by means of a written paper-and-pencil questionnaire (or an online survey if they preferred so).

Secondly, the priority rules for target children were designed in accordance with the legal contacting procedure of children in surveys. In Belgium, both parents are supposed to have joint legal custody rights over their children since 1995. Therefore, important decisions related to the child (e.g. survey participation) should be taken by both parents together. In case of divorce, a third party (e.g. an interviewer) is allowed to believe ‘in good faith’ that a decision taken by one parent is supported by the other parent. However, the legal advisors of the DIF-project recommended to embed an additional question to verify the likelihood that both parents would be on the same line. Therefore, specific rules were designed before minor children could be approached for an interview. The first interviewed partner received the following question “As mentioned earlier we will also interview other persons. [Name target child] is selected to participate in this research. Is it okay for you that we interview [name target child]? The interview will last approximately 40 minutes.” If the parent agreed with contacting the target child for an interview, he received a second question: “Do you think your ex-spouse will object to this?”. If the answer to this question was ‘no’, the child could be contacted for an interview. If the answer to this question was ‘yes’ or ‘I don’t know’, the procedure for contacting the child was put on hold until the other parent was interviewed and gave his/her explicit permission for contacting the child. If the second partner refused permission or did not participate in the study for another reason, the target child could not be contacted for an interview. When the first parent refused the interview and the second parent was convinced that his/her ex-spouse would object the decision to contact the child, the target child could not be interviewed.

Two important priority rules were applied when selecting a target child: 1) preference was given to children that could be questioned by a personal interview over children that could only be questioned by a paper-and-pencil or online questionnaire, and 2) preference was given to children that were living (either full-time or part-time) in the household of the first interviewed partner over children that lived in the other parent’s household. This resulted in four different groups of target children who received a different priority value. Resident children who had reached the age of 10 and who were living with the first interviewed partner (either in sole or in joint physical custody) received the highest priority of 1. Next, resident children who had reached the age of 10 and who were not living with the first interviewed partner (but with the other parent) received priority 2. Independently living target children that reached the age of 18 years old received priority 3. Resident or independently living target children that did not met the age requirements (named alternative target children) received the lowest priority of 4.

Children with a higher priority were selected as target children over children with a lower priority. If several children received the same priority, one child was randomly chosen by a random seed of the computer.