About

Armeda Wojciak is an Associate Professor in the Family Social Science program at the University of Minnesota, where she also serves as the Program Director and holds the Olson Family Professorship. Her research program is focused on improving outcomes for at-risk youth and families with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) through interventions that are designed and evaluated across various formats including family, foster care, school, and youth camp settings. Her work aims to develop effective strategies to support vulnerable populations and enhance family resilience.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Psychology
• Clinical psychology
• Political Science
• Psychiatry
• Medical emergency
• Developmental psychology
• Social psychology
• Statistics
• Internal medicine
• Nursing

Selected publications

• Trauma-Informed Parenting Interventions in Child Welfare: A Scoping Review

  Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work · 2026-03-04

  article1st authorCorresponding

  PURPOSE: As our awareness of the prevalence and impact of trauma increases, so has the need for trauma-informed practices and interventions. Within child welfare, parent training is an important mechanism for supporting children and families. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the ways in which trauma-informed parent training programs were used in the child welfare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search included studies written in English, could be representative of interventions delivered globally, identified using trauma-informed approaches, served caregivers/parents involved with child welfare. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were identified and included for review. The majority of studies were designed for foster or resource parents with a focus on helping the child's trauma symptoms. Four studies were designed for birth parents and addressed parent own trauma and how that influences their parenting. DISCUSSION: Findings across all studies indicated that there were significant improvements in study variables for both children and parents. Group format was the most prominent intervention delivery method. A description of trauma content covered in each intervention and unique trauma-informed components of interventions were identified. CONCLUSION: Based on the review, it is clear that trauma-informed parent training is a growing area with most studies being completed within the last 5-7 years. Information in this review can be used by interventions interested in supporting children and families in child welfare through a trauma-informed lens, of which this scoping review shows promise of incorporating.

  PublisherDOI

• Attachment, regulation, and competency in emerging adults: Validating a framework of resilience in a population with adverse childhood experiences

  Children and Youth Services Review · 2024-03-11 · 7 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• The moderating role of resilience factors for at-risk U.S. army soldiers-in-training: An expansion of a person-centered approach to adverse childhood experiences.

  Traumatology An International Journal · 2024-02-15

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Comparing the Circumplex Model and the Paradigmatic Framework

  Journal of Family Theory & Review · 2024-12-18 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  The circumplex model of marital and family systems (Olson et al., 1979) was developed to bridge the gap between theory, research, and clinical practice (Olson et al., 1989). The Circumplex Model (CM) is based on theoretical ideas from a variety of theorists and researchers who have worked independently (see Olson et al., 2019 for a comprehensive list). From this work, a conceptual clustering of over 200 concepts from both the general and family systems fields yielded three dimensions (cohesion, flexibility, and communication) that comprise the dimensions of the Circumplex Model (Olson et al., 1979). The Circumplex Model is a theoretical model, but there is also a self-report assessment called the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES I, II, IIII, IV) and an observational rating scale called the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS) that was created to measure the three dimensions. These measures have been used in empirical studies, clinical assessment, and treatment planning. FACES and the CRS have also been used to evaluate outcomes of couple and family therapy (Olson, 2000). To date, there have been over 1200 published studies that have used the Circumplex Model as the theoretical foundation (Olson et al., 2019). Global interest in using FACES has steadily increased (Olson et al., 2019), indicating the universal applicability of the model in diverse couple and family contexts. The prolific and ongoing translation of the Circumplex Model and accompanying measures is based in part on the direct applicability of the three hypotheses driving the Circumplex Model. The central hypothesis is: balanced couples and families function more adequately than unbalanced couples and families. The second hypothesis is: balanced couples and families have more positive communication skills than unbalanced couples and families. The third hypotheses is: there will be changes in levels of cohesion and flexibility to deal with stress. This last hypothesis ensures that the Circumplex Model is a dynamic model that can be useful to understand couples and families as they encounter different life experiences and developmental trajectories. Changes can be tracked across the five-by-five map (Olson et al., 2019), which creates 25 systemic types. As illustrated in the Circumplex Model (see Figure 1), there are nine Balanced types, four Unbalanced types, and 12 Mid Range types. Furthermore, FACES IV also provides a communication scale to better understand the way communication facilitates or inhibits family functioning. FACES IV also includes a couple/family satisfaction scale to examine an outcome measure that is specific to the couple or family completing the measure. Cumulatively, the Circumplex Model has bridged the theory, research, and clinical practice gap and continues to evolve and show applicability across diverse family contexts. To illustrate the clinical application of FACES IV and the CRS, we will provide a brief case example, as well as a baseline assessment and 6 months into treatment assessment of FACES IV, to demonstrate FACES ability to track change over time (see Figure 2). The last 3 years for the Jones family have resulted in a few significant transitions. The couple has three children: Jesse (14 years old), Sam (10 years old), and Jordan (8 years old). Two and a half years ago, the parents decided to separate to see if they could work on their relationship and if the mom could get support and address her drinking problem. Unfortunately, despite concerted efforts, the couple decided to divorce. After the divorce, the dad has primary custody of the three children. The dad was and continues to be the primary provider for the family. The mom was a full-time parent prior to the divorce, and as her alcohol addiction progressed after the separation and divorce, she has less and less contact with the children. Consequently, the separation and divorce, and transition to more time with their dad and less time with their mom, has been difficult. Jesse, a teenager, has been shifting away from her family whenever she can, especially at the dismay of her two younger siblings. The two youngest siblings openly talk about missing their mom and wish that their dad was not so stressed all the time. They also wish that their older sister would spend more time with them like she use to do. The dad wants to do what is best for his kids but is not sure what that looks like. He feels like he is floundering. Six months ago, he decided to bring his kids in for family therapy. The therapist administered FACES IV to the dad and daughters, and completed the Clinical Rating Scale. The therapist first identified that the mom was currently disengaged due to her alcohol problem and inconsistent communication and connection with her kids. Jesse also appeared disengaged. The therapist speculated that this may be explained by both adolescent development and the family transitions that can be addressed throughout the course of family therapy. At the time of assessment, FACES IV indicated that the family was somewhat connected and very flexible. The Clinical Rating Scale helped to show that the family as a unit had more separate time than together time, with the exception of the two younger. They spent a lot of time together and more time with their dad than did the oldest girl. As a result of this greater level of closeness, the younger kids had greater loyalty to their dad, but they reported feeling torn in their loyalty because they miss their mom and want her around more. The dad has tried to navigate his new sole leadership and discipline role in the family in a way that engages with his kids, specifically trying to engage Jesse the most. When she does not engage with him, he consequently is firmer with the younger kids. The younger kids felt that their father tried to engage them in important family discussions like household chores and access to technology, but feel like Jesse gets all the attention and effort. The therapist observes that the dad is fairly consistent in his role and his rules are pretty clear, but he can use support to be more consistent across all kids. After 6 months of family therapy, in which the therapist and family worked on creating a safe environment for the dad and kids to process the changes in their family together and work together to identify new roles, rules, and ways of interaction, the family communication improved, particularly between the dad and Jesse. Consequently, the family has seen a shift in their level of cohesion, to that of connected across the dad and kids and a slight shift in flexibility by all family members (see Figure 2), but still rated as very flexible. This shift did not change too much because the father was already trying to be flexible with the family as he knew his kids were going through a lot. Instead, the therapist worked with him to be more intentional in discerning what aspects of parenting he wanted/needed to be flexible in for his family. This case example illustrates the way in which the Circumplex Model can provide a snapshot in time to understand the family and what needs to be addressed to support the family and to see objective improvement. The Paradigmatic Framework was created with concepts and principles from general system theory to help understand human systems (Constantine, 2024). A paradigm is both a model and a world view. Constantine has provided examples of how the Paradigmatic Framework was systematically developed and has provided multiple theoretical applications of the Paradigmatic Framework within family therapy (Constantine, 1984; Constantine & Israel, 1985) and adolescent development in families (Constantine, 1987). The Circumplex Model and the Paradigmatic Framework are in general agreement on two central dimensions. The Circumplex Model has cohesion, and the Paradigmatic Framework has connection. The Circumplex Model has flexibility, and the Paradigmatic Framework has variability. The two-by-two typology created by the Circumplex Model is also used in a variety of other system models. At one level in the Paradigmatic Framework, the two models merge. Figure 3 and Table 1 illustrate their convergence. There is an inverse relationship between the four Paradigmatic Framework Paradigms and the four Circumplex Model scores. The higher the score on the Paradigmatic Framework types, the less Balanced on the Circumplex Model type scales. Conversely, the more Balanced the scores on cohesion and flexibility on the Circumplex Model, the lower the scores on the Paradigmatic Framework. The Paradigmatic Framework conceptually goes beyond the two-by-two typology of the Circumplex Model. But when it includes several additional paradigms, such as synergy, it becomes challenging to conceptualize and operationalize. Furthermore, when the Paradigmatic Framework includes the fifth paradigm, the model becomes a pentahedroid. As Constantine (2024) notes: “For some in family science, this might be a dimension too far” (p. 14). More specifically, at the fifth paradigm level, the Paradigmatic Framework becomes difficult to create, understand, measure, and use with couples and families. A major difference between the Circumplex Model and Paradigmatic Framework is regarding empirical assessment and evaluation. In terms of assessment, the Circumplex Model has both a self-report scale called FACES IV and an observational scale called the Clinical Rating Scales (CRS). Both of these have been used for research and clinical assessment of couples and families. In terms of research and validation studies, the self-report scale of various versions of FACES has been used in over 1200 studies. Findings from FACES have found the scale to have high reliability and validity. The CRS has mainly been used in clinical assessment rather than research. The Paradigmatic Framework has not developed scales that can be easily used for assessing the validity or reliability of the Paradigmatic Framework paradigms. This lack of empirical testing is a challenge for the Paradigmatic Framework as it moves beyond being a creative and comprehensive model to adding assessment tools that can be used in research and in further validation of the model. Constantine has developed the Paradigmatic Framework and demonstrated the linkages conceptually with other family system models, including the Circumplex Model. The next step is to operationalize the paradigms and develop both self-report and observational scales so that the Paradigmatic Framework can be tested for validity and reliability and compared empirically with other models. While reading Constantine (2024), we were struck with the description and definitions of salient features of human system paradigms, particularly the inclusion of the unified paradigm. Despite this addition from his previous conceptualizations (Constantine, 1987, 1988), there is a lack of exploration or inclusion of the paradigm in his figures or examples of how the unified paradigm is integrated into the Paradigmatic Framework. In previous writings, Constantine (1984) explored more of the unifying theoretical perspective and identified the interrelated maps of individual and systemic behavior. The interplay between individual and family/collective behavior to get a unifying theoretical perspective seems like it may be useful in pushing the Paradigmatic Framework further, particularly since Constantine's dimension of synergy addresses an integration of individual and collective interests and needs. Although the curvilinear dimensions of cohesion and flexibility were presented as a critique of the Circumplex Model by Constantine (2024), we posit that the identification of extreme ends enables the Circumplex Model to be a more usable and understandable framework. The Circumplex Model five-by-five model helps couples, families, and therapists more easily understand a range of functioning and allows for reflection and conversations about goals and next steps. Perhaps most importantly, particularly for clinicians, is that the Circumplex Model is a tool that helps support couples and families to highlight where they are at one point in time and can track movement toward a more balanced function, as demonstrated in the case example. An important step in theory development is to operationalize the concepts and illustrate them with actual couple and family interview data. Both the Circumplex Model and the Paradigmatic Framework were created to understand couple and family relationships as complex and dynamic systems. We have described the strengths of both the Circumplex Model and the Paradigmatic Framework and have highlighted the ways in which the two models share some commonality and ways in which they are different. The CM was also created to bridge the gap between theory, research, and practice and this is a next step for the Paradigmatic Framework.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Identifying at-risk marines: A person-centered approach to adverse childhood experiences, mental health, and social support

  Journal of Affective Disorders · 2023-01-07 · 9 citations

  articleOpen access

  BACKGROUND: Previous research indicates an association between adverse childhood experiences (ACES) and health outcomes; however, most of these studies rely on variable-centered techniques. This study implemented a person-centered approach to provide a more nuanced understanding of these relations. METHODS: The sample consisted of 3611 male Marines who completed two surveys, one prior to service and another during or after service. A series of latent class analyses were conducted to identify homogenous subgroups, using ACE categories as indicators. Hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the relationships between classes, deployment experiences, depression and PTSD, and social support problems. RESULTS: Five classes were identified: Low Adversity (48.8 %), Low Adversity - Parental Separation (PS; 33.1 %), Elevated Adversity (7.0 %), Moderate Adversity - Violence/Safety (5.7 %), and Moderate Adversity - Parental Loss (PL; 5.4 %). Several classes were associated with outcomes; in reference to Low Adversity, Moderate Adversity - PL was associated with depression and PTSD, Elevated Adversity was associated with PTSD and social support problems, and Low Adversity - PS was associated with social support problems. Experiencing moderate to high combat appeared to modify the associations between Moderate Adversity - PL and depression and PTSD. LIMITATIONS: Study sample was limited to U.S. Marines; ACEs indicators were limited to specific categories, not allowing for a full range of potential childhood traumatic experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a nuanced connection between ACEs and mental health; using specific patterns of ACEs, particularly multifaceted indicators of adversity that are inclusive of parental absence may have more utility than the sheer number of ACEs as an indicator for those who may at a heightened risk for mental health concerns.

  PublisherDOI

• Barriers and facilitators of sibling relationships of youth in foster care from an ecological perspective

  Children and Youth Services Review · 2023-12-18 · 3 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Belonging mediates changes to resilience among separated siblings at camp-based reunification intervention

  Children and Youth Services Review · 2023-11-22 · 1 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• A multi-year study of camp-based reunification and the well-being of siblings separated by out-of-home care

  Journal of Public Child Welfare · 2023-10-26 · 2 citations

  articleSenior author

  Camp-based reunification is a developmentally informed approach to strengthen the relationships of siblings in out-of-home care. Little is known about the collective impact of these programs, or if there is a benefit to multiple camp experiences. To address this, data were collected from 2,260 youth who were campers at one of 16 sibling reunification programs in the U.S. or Australia between 2013-2019. Increases in resilience, decreases in sibling support, and decreases in sibling conflict were observed among first-time campers. For repeat campers, changes to resilience were greatest during youths' first year of camp. Recommendations for research and practice are provided.

  PublisherDOI

• The Importance of Sibling Relationships in Buffering Against Depressive Symptoms of Youth in Foster Care

  Families in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2022-12-21 · 4 citations

  articleSenior author

  Sibling relationships are among the most influential relationships of one’s life. For youth in foster care, sibling relationships may be particularly important. Using National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) II data, this study tested if higher sibling relationship quality was associated with lower depressive symptoms among youth in foster care, and the interactive effects of relationships with siblings and biological mothers on youth depressive symptoms. Results indicated higher sibling and mother relationship quality were associated with lower depressive symptoms. Regarding interactive associations, the protective effects of sibling relationships on youth depressive symptoms were stronger when youth reported lower levels of relationship quality with biological mothers, highlighting the importance of good sibling relationships, especially in the absence of a positive relationship with biological mothers.

  PublisherDOI

• Perceptions of We Can! Building Relationships and Resilience: A School Wide Trauma-Informed Training, from Trainers and Recipients

  Adversity and Resilience Science · 2022-02-08 · 3 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Lenore M. McWey

  14 shared

• Jeffrey Waid

  University of Minnesota

  13 shared

• Morgan E. Cooley

  9 shared

• Casey Gamboni

  Family Research Institute

  7 shared

• Kayla Reed‐Fitzke

  East Carolina University

  7 shared

• Heather Thompson

  7 shared

• Anthony J. Ferraro

  Kansas State University

  6 shared

• Aislinn Conrad

  6 shared

Education

• Doctor of Philosophy, Child and Family Sciences

  Florida State University

  2014

• Masters of Science, Marriage and Family Therapy

  University of Nevada Las Vegas

  2010

• Bachelors of Arts, Psychology

  University of Nevada Las Vegas

  2006

Awards & honors

• 2025 CEHD Marty and Jack Rossman Faculty Development Award