children from divorced families

Children of Divorce

Daniel S. Shaw & Erin M. Ingoldsby

Introduction

Divorce is one of the most common environmental stressors experienced by children. As more has been learned about children's adjustment to divorce and response to treatment, researchers have come to view it as a complex series of transitions and adaptations, rather than a simplistic, unitary event. Within this process framework, a greater appreciation for the differential effects of divorce and application of treatment has been achieved. This paper will review present conceptualizations of the impact of divorce on children's adjustment, literature pertinent to treatment outcome, and suggestions to optimize intervention. At the conclusion of the chapter, a case illustration is provided to demonstrate the multifaceted issues involved in clinical work with this population of children.

Core Features and Epidemiology

Within the last two decades, the divorce rate in the United States has increased substantially. Since 1958, when there were 2.1 divorces per 1,000 population, a gradual increase in the number of divorces has occurred, peaking at 5.3 per 1,000 population in 1979 and 1981 (Glick & Lin, 1986), and stabilizing at 4.7 as of 1990 (US Department of Health & Human Services, 1990). According to projections based on 1990 census data, 40% of all children can expect to live in a single-parent household because of divorce before the age of 16 (Cherlin, 1992). Based on the increase of divorces over the last three decades and the prospect that a similarly high number will occur in the future, it remains imperative to understand the effects of divorce on children's adjustment.

At a basic level, it can be stated with assurance that all divorces involve change for children. Some of these changes might occur prior to the parental separation; some might produce improved rather than worsened conditions. Whatever the outcome, these changes require that children adapt to new environmental conditions. Despite the growing commonality of divorce in the United States, the transitions that are typically involved in the family adaptation to divorce should not be minimized. These involve significant changes in daily living for parents and children. On the other hand, to assert that these changes will necessarily result in a pathological outcome for children would be an inaccurate representation of our current knowledge base. In this section, important issues related to children's adjustment to divorce will be examined. This will include a review of factors that have been found to increase or decrease children's vulnerability to the effects of marital dissolution and a review of children's outcome to divorce in specific domains.

Types of Problems Experienced by Divorced Children

Although many children from divorced families will never show signs of severe psychopathology, a substantive body of research indicates that divorce does place children at an increased risk for three different types of adjustment difficulties: (1) externalizing problems, (2) internalizing

problems, and (3) cognitive deficits (Amato & Keith, 1991; Emery, 1988; Wallerstein, 1991; Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, 1993).

Externalizing Problems. Perhaps the most robust and consistent finding in the divorce literature relates to the association between divorce and children's externalizing problems (Grych & Fincham, 1992). These include such behaviors as delinquency, aggression, and disobedience. Although early research on this relation did not attempt to control for such variables as the reason for the parental separation and socioeconomic status (SES) (Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1957), later more sophisticated research designs have replicated this result repeatedly (Grych & Fincham, 1992; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978). Using data from the National Survey of Children (NSC), a nationally representative sample of 1,423 was evaluated three times between 1976 and 1987 when children were ages 7-11, 12-16, and 18-22, respectively (Furstenberg & Allison, 1989; Furstenberg, Peterson, Nord, & Zill, 1993; Zill et al., 1993). The majority of families remained married during this 11-year duration; however, a large minority experienced a parental separation before or during the course of the study, permitting investigators to examine the effects of age and divorce on children's short- and long-term functioning at home and school. At all three age periods, children of divorced parents were found to have higher rates of externalizing problems than children from two-parent families according to mothers, teachers, and their own self-report.

Hetherington and colleagues (1978), in their comparison of children from divorced and married families, also found children from divorced families to demonstrate more disobedient and aggressive behavior than peers from two-parent families. In addition, children from divorced families have been overrepresented among delinquents according to the self-reports of boys (Goldstein, 1984) and girls (Kalter, Riemer, Brickman, & Chen, 1985), and official delinquency statistics (Wadsworth, 1979). Recent studies of this association concur that divorced children are at risk for externalizing problems, particularly boys (Camera & Resnick, 1988; Forehand, McCombs, Wierson, Brody, & Fauber, 1990).

Internalizing Problems. The relation between divorce and internalizing problems has been less compelling than for externalizing problems. However, increasing evidence does suggest there might be such a relation (Forehand et al., 1990; Hoyt, Cowan, Pedro-Carroll, & Alpert-Gillis, 1990), particularly for girls (Furstenberg & Allison, 1989).

In two studies of samples of 200 children, consisting of middle school and high school students, respectively (Raschke & Raschke, 1979; Slater & Haber, 1984), no differences were found in the reported self-concepts of children from divorced and two-parent families. Berg & Kelly (1979) also found no differences between the same two groups in a sample of boys ranging from grammar to high school age. On the other hand, in a study of recently divorced families of 11 to 13 year-old children, significant differences were found between divorced and married families (Forehand, McCombs, Long, Brody, & Fauber, 1988). Another study involving second and third grade children from divorced families also found both parents and teachers to rate children as more depressed and anxious than children from first-time, two-parent families (Hoyt et al., 1990). Finally, results from the NSC data base indicate an increase in self-reported distress and depression at ages 12-16 and 18-22 among children from divorced families (Furstenberg &

Allison, 1989; Zill et al., 1993).

Cognitive Deficits and Academic Problems. Like much of the research on divorce and children's adjustment, the majority of investigations in this area have not partitioned out the effects of "third variables" in explaining children's functioning. Single-parent status and lowered family income, two common consequences of divorce, are two factors that need to be ruled out before attributing changes in child functioning to the parental separation. For example, there is agreement that children raised in single-parent families perform more poorly than children from two-parent families in a number of academic areas, although the magnitude of these differences tends to be small. In reviews by Hetherington, Camera, Featherman (1981) and Shinn (1978), children from single-parent families show deficits in (1) IQ scores, ranging between 1 and 7 points; (2) school achievement scores averaging less than one year in school; and (3) grade attainment of three-quarters of a year. However, not all of these families attained single-parent status via divorce.

Socioeconomic status (SES) also has been related to poor school achievement and correlated with single-parent status. However, when the effects of social class are taken into account, though academic differences are less, children from single-parent families still show significantly poorer academic functioning than children from two-parent families (Featherman & Hauser, 1978; Ferri, 1976; Guidubaldi, Perry, & Cleminshaw, 1984; Lambert & Hart, 1976; Zill, 1978). Moreover, when both the effects of SES and the reason for single-parent status are accounted for, investigators have found that children from divorced families do more poorly on academic tasks than children from other types of single-parent families (Grych & Fincham, 1992; Brody & Neubaum, 1996; Zill, 1978). Children from non-divorced, single-parent families, in turn, appear to experience more academic difficulties than children from two-parent families.

Guidubaldi and colleagues (1984) study of 699 children from 38 states provides some insight as to how children from divorced families might differ from children from other types of single-parent and two-parent families. Again, we know from other research that children from single-parent families show small, but significant differences on measures of intellectual capacity and school achievement compared to two-parent families. However, these differences are much larger, according to the Guidubaldi data, if measured by teacher behavior ratings, grade point averages, school attendance, and number of years in school. Divorced children were found to be significantly more dependent, noncompliant, and unpopular with peers according to teacher reports, had a history of lower grades in history and math, and were more likely to have repeated a grade. These findings were supported in a recent meta-analysis of 92 studies, which found children from divorced families to have significantly lower school achievement scores than nondivorced children (Amato & Keith, 1991). The authors note that effect sizes were generally modest.

Diagnosis and Assessment

Although children from divorced families show a wide array of behavioral difficulties at home and in school, the criteria used for diagnosis of these problems does not differ considerably from

children from two-parent families. What does differ for children from divorced families are the issues that may precipitate problems. This section will review factors that have been related to poorer outcomes for divorced children.

As stated in the previous section, divorce in and of itself is not a reliable indicator of child psychopathology. As research on divorce and children's adaptation has accumulated, there has been a gradual shift in emphasis from family structure to family process (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Emery, 1988; Grych & Fincham, 1992). That is, events that accompany marital dissolution, rather than the event of divorce per se, have been identified as potentially more salient correlates of children's adjustment. Longitudinal investigations of divorced families (Hetherington et al., 1978, 1981; Wallerstein, 1991) have provided particularly strong support for this focus on family process. Rather than discuss how "the" divorced child will adapt to divorce per se, investigators have redirected their attention to mediating factors that might account for the heterogeneity of child outcomes to divorce.

From within this family process perspective, Emery (1988) and Hetherington (1981) have suggested that the psychological impact of divorce on children needs to be divided into at least two levels. The first level relates to the short-term effects of the parental separation on the children's adjustment, a process that all children must undergo. Hetherington has conceptualized this initial transition in terms of a crisis model. From this perspective, children and adults must adapt to stresses associated with the parental separation, including marital conflict, loss, and uncertainty. The second level is related to the long-term psychological impact of divorce on children's adjustment. In the long-term, children's functioning reflects the family's adaptation to the changes necessitated by the divorce. As we shall see, children's long-term adjustment to divorce may be better, worse, or merely different than their pre-divorce adjustment, but appears to be mediated by several interrelated family process variables. These process variables include changes and adaptations in the following areas: (1) interparental conflict; (2) separation from an attachment figure; (3) temporal influences, including the passage of time and the children's age at the time of divorce; (4) parenting practices and nature of the relationship between the residential parent and children; (5) the relationship between children and their nonresidential parents; (6) remarriage; and (7) family economics.

Interparental conflict. Although clinicians have postulated an association between parental conflict and maladjustment in children for many years (Baruch & Wilcox, 1944; Minuchin; 1974), empirical attention to the effects of parental discord on children has increased only in the last two decade. From these recent controlled studies and from earlier reports of "broken" families, interparental conflict has been consistently identified as a major source of behavior problems in children across a wide array of family structures and settings (for reviews see Davies & Cummings, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 1990), including divorced and separated families (Hetherington et al., 1978). There is some evidence to suggest that parental conflict is the most salient influence on children's adjustment to divorce. In a recent meta-analysis, Amato and Keith (1991) compared the relative efficacy of three variables (parental absence, economic disadvantage, and parental conflict) to mediate the effects of divorce on children's adjustment. Although moderate effect sizes were found for both parental absence and economic disadvantage, parental

conflict accounted for more of the negative consequences of divorce.

Studies involving between-family comparisons support the notion that separation per se is not necessarily as important to children's later development as the quality of the parents' relationship with one another. First, comparisons between two-parent and conflict-free, divorced families consistently have reported that children in the latter group have fewer emotional difficulties (Gibson, 1969; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979; McCord, McCord, & Thurber, 1962; Rutter, 1979). Second, several investigators have reported children from divorced families to experience more behavioral problems than children from families where a father has died (Douglas, Ross, Hammond, & Mulligan, 1966; Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Gregory, 1965).

Separation from an Attachment Figure. Despite the evidence implicating the greater importance of interparental conflict than separation from an attachment figure in mediating children's adjustment to divorce, literature from other areas of child development suggests that children's separation from, and loss of, attachment figures relates to difficulties in interpersonal relationships (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1980; Rutter, 1995). Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research that examines how divorce per se affects children's attachment to their parents and their other interpersonal relationships. Clinical experience and research from other contexts (i.e., children's reactions to parental death, separation due to military service) indicate that the short-term consequences of separation from an attachment figure follow a three-stage "acute distress syndrome" of upset/protest, followed by apathy/despair, and subsequent loss of interest/detachment (Bowlby, 1980; Rutter, 1981). Less is known about the long-term adjustment of children who experience such a loss, particularly in the context of divorce, where visitation schedules and custody arrangements are subject to change. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain if problems are directly related to the separation per se, to other family process variables, or to a combination of factors. It appears likely that the latter case would be the norm, with the loss of the attachment figure being more of a cause for concern to the child when the divorce has taken place recently. Other family process variables may also exacerbate the child's sense of loss and provide him/her with little sense of security to function in the post-divorce environment.

Temporal Influences. One temporal influence is the passage of time since the parental separation. There is an old adage, "Time heals all wounds." In understanding children's adjustment to divorce, the maxim has proven to be quite accurate. From a theoretical perspective, the healing properties of time have been conceptualized within Hetherington's (1981) crisis model of the short-term adaptation to divorce. As time passes, many of the stressors associated with divorce are lessened in intensity as adults and children adapt to new living situations. Thus, an eight year old child whose parents were divorced six years ago will most likely appear different from a child of the same age whose parents separated last year.

Unfortunately, from an empirical perspective, many investigators have failed to consider how long it has been since the parental separation took place when presenting their findings. For example, in their meta-analysis of 92 studies, Amato and Keith (1991) found only 40% to report the length of time since the parents' separation. Yet Kurdek (1981), Hetherington (1981), and Wallerstein and Kelly (1983) have all found that children's adjustment improves with time, as family members

learn to cope with the new living arrangements. Although this evidence is not conclusive, children do experience greater adjustment difficulties in responding to divorce in the short run versus the long run. In the most methodologically rigorous longitudinal study, Hetherington (1979) found that the majority of children were showing improved functioning after two years following the parental separation, provided other family process variables were not interfering with the adaptation process (e.g., continued conflict between parents).

Another temporal issue of considerable practical significance is the child's age at the time of the divorce. Parents often wonder whether they should stay together "for the sake of the child" until a certain age. There are several theoretical viewpoints on this topic that suggest children will differentially interpret the parental separation according to their stage of cognitive and emotional development (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1980). However, relatively little empirical data have been gathered to answer this question, particularly studies that control for both the children's age at the time of divorce and the length of time since the parental separation occurred. Moreover, the research that has been carried out has typically compared children who were younger than five or six years old when their parents separated with children whose parents separated after that age, making the task of drawing inferences between school-age and adolescent children difficult. In general, there are reasons to believe that many age groups might be more vulnerable to the effects of divorce.

Some investigators have hypothesized that preschoolers may be the most vulnerable group in dealing with a divorce because of their limited cognitive capacity (Brody & Neubaum, 1996; Hetherington, 1991; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Preschool age children often report feeling they are to blame for their parents' troubles due to an inability to fully appreciate the complexity of their parents' feelings and behavior (Hetherington, 1979).

Although school-age children have been found to be more aware of the reasons and rationales for their parents' emotional difficulties, some of these children have exhibited marked signs of distress and depression (Hetherington, 1981). Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) found children in the five to eight year range overcome by pervasive sadness, and a yearning for their parents' reconciliation. Children age nine and ten, while sharing some of the same feelings of sadness, displayed a greater capacity for worry and genuine empathy for their parents.

Some investigators have argued that adolescents should have fewer emotional problems in coping with divorce because of their advanced cognitive maturity, and their increased likelihood for having social support outside of the nuclear family (Brody & Neubaum, 1996). However, others have hypothesized that these children should be the most affected due to their longer exposure to the conflict (Buchanon, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), and their more pronounced feelings of responsibility for their parents' separation. Kurdek and associates (1981) have completed a longitudinal study of upper middle class adolescents whose parents had separated within the last one to seven years, and found children's levels of interpersonal reasoning and locus of control to be important mediating variables in predicting their adjustment later in time. Other researchers have found similar components important in mediating adolescents' divorce experience, including the development of heterosexual relations, self-identity, and

independence (Hetherington, 1972; O'Brien, Margolin, & John, 1995).

The Relationship between the Residential Parent and the Child. The term "change" was used to describe children's adaptation to divorce at the beginning of this chapter. Nowhere are these changes more apparent than in the relationships children have with their parents following the marital dissolution. Although this is true for both nonresidential and residential parents, disruptions in the latter's childrearing activities are so frequent and dramatic in the first few years following divorce that Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) have termed it a time of "diminished parenting." Since mothers continue to dominate as primary residential parents (i.e., the rate of father-custody families continues to be about 10%), even in families that share legal custody, the discussion that follows will pertain to issues faced in mother-headed divorced families. For the residential parent, many of these changes reflect the challenges of single-parent family status. As homeostatic balances in the family are disrupted, new equilibriums must be achieved in at least three substantive areas: (1) affectional relationships; (2) family authority structure; and (3) household task completion (Emery, 1988; Haurin, 1992).

First, affectional relationships may be drawn closer or more distant due to the parent's own emotional needs, the parent's perception of her child's needs, or loyalty dilemmas in the parent-child-parent triad. Since Hetherington's longitudinal study of mother-custody families is the most detailed empirical investigation of parenting practices in divorcing families, these findings will be the primary source of reference in this area. In the first year following divorce, Hetherington found divorced mothers to be less affectionate with their children, particularly boys. Although by the 2-year follow-up, there was an increase in maternal nurturant behavior towards children, at the 6-year follow-up divorced mothers continued to have more conflict with both their sons and daughters than mothers from nondivorced families (Haurin, 1992).

Hetherington also found the same disorganization-reorganization pattern of events in the domains of family structure and household task completion. Both processes appear to undergo dramatic change in the first year following divorce as children assume a greater amount of independence and number of responsibilities. This transformation, however, is not particularly smooth in the first year. Hetherington and others (Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Simons, Whitbeck, Beaman, & Conger, 1994) report that custodial mothers make fewer maturity demands, communicate less well, and generally show more negative and inconsistent parenting practices than do married mothers. At the two-year follow-up, Hetherington's mothers had become more consistent and better able to control their children, though overall, children from divorced families remained less compliant than children from two-parent families. Finally, at the 6-year follow-up, divorced mothers were just as nurturant as nondivorced mothers, but continued to be more negative and less competent in disciplining their sons.

Although there is little empirical evidence to document other dysfunctional patterns of parent-child relationships following divorce, clinical experience suggests that problems at the opposite extremes also occur. For example, some mothers might become overly permissive, rigid, or emotionally dependent on their children. When parents lack a supportive other, discipline policies might be compromised because of the increased emotional dependence on the child,

changing the nature of the hierarchical parent-child relationship to one where parent and child are confidantes. Unfortunately, parents who share this type of relationship with their children are more likely to use permissive parenting strategies for fear of loss of the child's willingness to play the role of friend. Similarly, it is likely that some parents react to adverse changes in emotional and financial resources associated with the divorce with a more rigid type of parenting style.

In sum, long-term disturbances in parenting are probably mediated by a number of factors, including the mother's emotional well-being, the social and economic support available to her, and the number, ages, and sex of the children (Emery, 1988; Hetherington, 1991). This has been demonstrated empirically, as mothers who are depressed, cut off from family and friendship support networks, have more severe economic difficulties or a number of young children are more likely to have parenting difficulties with their children (Emery, Hetherington, & DiLalla, 1984).

The Relationship between the Nonresidential Parent and the Child. The relationship between children and their nonresidential parents also must undergo a great transformation following divorce. The frequency of contact obviously changes as nonresidential parents, typically fathers, establish a new homeostatic balance with their children. However, before we review how this factor might affect children's adjustment, it is important to understand how frequent such visitations are on the average. Using the NSC data based on a nationally representative sample (Furstenberg et al., 1983), it is illuminating to note that 50% of children did not see their fathers in the past year, and only 16.4% saw them as frequently as once a week or more. Contact with nonresidential mothers is substantially higher, with only 13% of children not seeing their nonresidential mothers in the past year and 31% seeing their mothers on at least a weekly basis. Several factors are related to frequency of visitation for fathers. They include (1) time: as it passes, contact decreases; (2) education: more highly educated fathers spend significantly more time with their children; (3) race: African-American fathers spend significantly less time with their children than do whites or other minorities, and (4) distance to the residential parent's house: the closer the distance, the greater the amount of visitation.

Another basic issue is the relation between children's adjustment and regular contact with the nonresidential parent. Research does not indicate that regular contact with the nonresidential parent is necessarily a positive outcome. In Amato and Rezac's (1994) review of the literature, they found 18 studies that suggested children's well-being was positively related to the frequency of contact with the nonresidential parent. In constrast, nine studies found no relation, and six studies found frequency of contact to be associated an increase in child problems. Findings using the nationally-representative NSC data base are typical of the latter. Furstenberg and Allison (1989) found few significant relations between frequency of contact and child adjustment covering a wide variety of domains. It is likely that results are mixed because frequency of contact fails to provide a full picture of nonresidential parent-child relationship. Frequency of contact and child adjustment are probably mediated by other factors, including the quality of both the father-child and father-mother interaction. In one study that simultaneously examined the relationship between nonresidential parent contact, parental conflict, and child adjustment, an interactive relation was found (Amato & Rezac, 1994). Contact with the residential parent was associated with child adjustment problems most strongly in families in which parental conflict was high. However,

children with regular contact with the nonresidential parent whose parents were low on parental conflict showed the lowest rates of behavior problems. This study is notable because the sample included over 12,000 children, including an oversampling of minority and different types of single-parent families.

This is not to suggest that a strong relationship with the nonresidential parent can have a positive affect on the child's functioning. There is some research to suggest that having a good relationship with one parent can buffer the adverse effects of divorce (Amato & Rezac, 1994; Hetherington et al., 1979; Peterson & Zill, 1986). More research that takes into account family process variables (e.g., parental conflict) is needed before the effects of the nonresidential parent contact can be appropriately evaluated.

Remarriage. Remarriage is another environmental stressor many children from divorced families must face. The NSC data indicate that within five years of a marital disruption, four of seven white children and one of eight African-American children will enter stepfamilies (Furstenberg et al., 1983). Thus, for at least the majority of children from white families, living in a single-parent family will not be a long-term circumstance. For children from African-American families, single-parent status is likely to be more of an enduring condition. Although space does not permit a thorough investigation of how this transition affects children's functioning, a few pertinent findings will be discussed.

First, because of the increased complexity of remarriage, it is fraught with more methodological problems than research on children's adjustment to divorce. Preliminary evidence indicates that adjustment may vary as a function of the child's sex and age at which remarriage occurred. For instance, preschool boys appear to experience benefits from remarriage (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1985; Zill et al., 1993), while adolescent-age boys appear to respond less favorably (Hetherington, et al., 1992). Girls generally have been found to show an increase in adjustment problems (Clingempeel, Brand, & Ievoli, 1984; Santrock, Warshak, Lindbergh, & Meadows, 1982), but both boys and girls fare equally poorly in adjusting to remarriages when they occur during adolescence. Some of these sex difference can be attributed to children's relationships with the custodial parent. Since most children reside with their mothers following divorce, this transition typically involves the addition of a stepfather. For boys, the addition of a same-sex parent during early childhood may serve to buffer the strained mother-son relationship that typically follows divorce at a time period in which children may show more openness towards the inclusion of a new parent (Hetherington et al., 1985). During adolescence, boys may be less willing to accept a new father figure in their lives. For girls, who tend to draw closer to mothers following divorce, the stepfather may be viewed as an intruder (Peterson & Zill, 1986), especially during adolescence, a period already marked by social and physical challenges (i.e., puberty).

Remarriage may also produce other changes for children, including a decrease of visitation with the nonresidential parent (Bray & Berger, 1993; Furstenberg et al., 1983), increased parental conflict between the children's biological parents (Hetherington, 1991), and an additional parental divorce (Brody & Neubaum, 1996; Kurdek, 1994). With regards to this latter finding, the presence of children from a previous marriage is associated with an increased risk of divorce (Capaldi &

Patterson, 1991; Emery, 1988). In the NSC study, 37% of children who entered a stepfamily later experienced an additional parental divorce, with 10% experiencing three or more marital changes.

Family Economics. Loss of family income is a reality of divorce, particularly for mothers. Since mothers are generally the primary custodians of children following divorce, most children experience a lowered standard of living. In analyzing the effects of loss of income on children's adjustment to divorce, it has been difficult to partition out the effects of low-income and single-parent status (which occurs for a number of reasons other than divorce) from divorce per se (Amato & Keith, 1991; Laosa, 1988). However, using data from the Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (MPSID) based on the changing incomes of 2,400 women, Duncan and Hoffman (1985) has found that the real income of couples who divorced decreased 19.2% for men and 29.3% for women between 1968 and 1974. The fact that women were more likely to be responsible for the primary care of children was the single factor most responsible for the difference. Although many fathers are required to pay child support as a part of the divorce settlement, compliance with support orders is the exception, not the rule (Emery, 1988). In 1981, only 47% of mothers who were ordered to receive child support received the full amount; 28% received no payment at all (National Institute for Child Support Enforcement, 1986).

What does a loss of income mean to a child from a divorcing family? The impact is likely to include several changes that cumulatively appear to have the effect of debilitating children's coping resources. Some of the consequences include moving the family home, changing schools, losing contact with friends, spending more time in childcare settings while mother is working, and dealing with the parent's concerns over financial pressures (Emery, 1988; Haurin, 1992). These factors might, in turn, affect the quality and quantity of interactions children have with their residential parent. Relatively few investigators have attempted to identify how economic factors might be related to increased psychological impairment, but divorced working mothers provide less cognitive and social stimulation to their children than both married nonworking and married working mothers (MacKinnon, Brody, & Stoneman, 1982). Thus, children might be affected psychologically by the loss of income at two levels: (1) indirectly through poorer parenting, as residential parents have less time and energy to give to their children because of the increased demands necessitated by the loss of income; (2) directly through the changes in environmental circumstances such as lower quality schools and neighborhoods, and the loss of friends.

Treatment

Evidence for Prescriptive Treatment

Despite the multitude of modalities and techniques, there is a paucity of empirical evidence for prescriptive treatments with children of divorce. In two recent reviews, the authors report that only a handful of child- and adult-focused interventions have been empirically evaluated (Lee, Picard, & Blain, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 1992). They also note that there have been no systematic investigations of the efficacy of individual or family interventions designed specifically for divorced families. Treatment outcome research has consisted almost entirely of manualized group interventions conducted either with the children or their parents (at times, child and parent groups

are run concurrently). The results have been largely equivocal, with vast differences in effect sizes reported (Lee et al., 1994). Few studies have demonstrated any significant decrease in ratings of child externalizing problems, although children's coping skills, competence ratings, and interparental conflict were often rated as improved in the treated groups. A summary of these investigations is now discussed.

Child-Focused Interventions

The majority of well-controlled treatment research has been conducted with school-based, group interventions. Most primarily target the child, with varying levels of parental participation. These interventions are generally designed to help children identify and work through the often distressing and confusing issues surrounding the divorce, as well as to develop effective coping strategies for dealing with negative feelings and family interactions. Many of these findings are limited because in most cases, the children were not initially identified as clinically disturbed.

Stolberg and colleagues (Stolberg & Garrison, 1985) developed a preventive program, the Divorce Adjustment Project (DAP), intended for psychologically healthy children facing divorce. The DAP consisted of school-based, children's support groups (CSG) and community-based, single parent's support groups (SPSG). The children's support group treatment consisted of 12 sessions. The first part of each 60-minute session was devoted to discussion of divorce-related topics; the second part focused on teaching problem-solving, anger control, communication, and relaxation skills. The parent's group, a 12-week support and skills-building program for divorced, custodial mothers, was expected to indirectly influence children's adjustment by enhancing parenting skills, and the post-divorce adjustment of their parents. Eighty-two children (aged 7-13) and their mothers participated in one of four treatment groups: child intervention alone, parent intervention alone, concurrent child and parent intervention, and no intervention. At post-treatment and five-month follow-up, subjects in the children's support group reported statistically significant improvements in self-concept and adaptive social skills. When parents participated in the support group, treatment prevented the deterioration in parent adjustment found in the other groups at post-testing, but had no demonstrable effect on children's adjustment. The concurrent child and parent intervention yielded no significant improvements for either children or parents. This may have been due to significant between-group differences. Mothers in the parent-child treatment group had been separated longer, had lower employment status, and reported less time spent by noncustodial fathers with their children.

As an outgrowth of the DAP, Pedro-Carroll and Cowen (1985) created the children of divorce intervention project (CODIP), that was focused on building mutual support, cognitive-behavioral skills, and self-esteem. In two studies on the efficacy of CODIP with 4th-6th grade suburban school children (Pedro-Carroll & Cowen, 1985; Pedro-Carroll, Cowen, Hightower, & Guare, 1986), the experimental groups demonstrated greater improvement on child, parent, and teacher ratings of adjustment than comparison and control groups. Similar positive effects were reported with both younger (Alpert-Gillis, Pedro-Carroll, & Cowen, 1989) and same-age urban school children (Pedro-Carroll, Alpert-Gillis, & Cowen, 1992), using age-appropriate and culturally-sensitive versions of the program. It should be noted that this study also was limited to

children who were not currently receiving mental health services; thus, it is unclear whether differenes among groups were clinically significant. Parents and teachers also were aware of the children's group status, indicating a potential for bias and need for caution in interpreting results.

Bornstein, Bornstein, and Walters (1985) developed and investigated a six-session, group treatment program focusing on identification of feelings, communication skills, and anger control skills. The first five sessions involved only the children (aged 7 to 14 years). The sixth session also included their recently separated or divorced parents. Subjects were assigned to one of two experimental groups or a delayed treatment control group, matched for age, sex, and parent ratings of parent-parent conflict. Although teachers reported a decrease in problem behavior in the experimental group, overall child adjustment was judged unchanged by both parent and child reports. Despite the apparent lack of improvement, both child and adult consumer satisfaction questionnaires revealed high levels of satisfaction with the treatment program.

Recently, Stolberg and colleagues attempted to address previous criticisms by studying the effects of treatment in a sample with higher rates of clinically-significant problems at pre-treatment, and comparing specific components of the intervention. Building upon the support group and skills training model of the DAP and CODIP interventions, Stolberg and Mahler (1994) compared the additive effects of each of three treatment components among children from 103 divorced and 26 nondivorced families: support, skills training, and transfer of skills to "real-life" situations through workbook assignments for both parents and children. Almost half of the children met criteria for diagnosis according to DSM-III at the pre-treatment assessment.

In general, the children in the skills and support condition had higher ratings of improvement in adjustment at post-testing than other groups. Contrary to the authors' predictions, the transfer, skills, and support condition failed to demonstrate any additional gains in treatment effectiveness over other treatment conditions or controls. In addition, none of the treatment conditions showed long-term effects at the one-year follow-up with the exception of behavior in the home. Parents rated the child's behavior as significantly improved, although no differences were found among the three treatment conditions. The authors concluded that the failure to see improved treatment effects for the transfer, skills, and support group may have resulted from limited parental and child interest in completing out-of-session homework assignments, or from parents' potential inability to facilitate the learning of the transfer skills (completion of the out-of-session assignments were not monitored).

Interventions Targeting Post-Divorce Parental Relationships

As discussed above, several interrelated familial and environmental factors have been proposed as influencing children's adjustment to divorce. Recently, there have been efforts to develop and evaluate interventions that target specific components of post-divorce family functioning, particularly interparental conflict, discipline practices, and the quality of parent-child relationships. These interventions typically have been parent-focused group treatments, which are designed to increase parents' awareness of the effects of divorce on their children, decrease parental conflict, and enhance parenting skills. As with the child-focused treatments, evaluations of these

interventions have produced mixed results (Lee et al., 1994). Although most studies report positive effects for the targeted behaviors (i.e. improved relations between parents, increased awareness of children's divorce-related feelings), few demonstrate improvement in child adjustment. The most methodologically sound of these are discussed below.

Wolchik and colleagues (1993) evaluated a parent-based intervention that was designed to affect five factors thought to influence children's adjustment to divorce: quality of the custodial parent-child relationship, negative divorce-related events including parental conflict, contact with the non-custodial parent, support from non-parental adults for both parents and children, and disciplining practices. Seventy recently divorced residential parents and children were placed randomly in either the treatment or wait-list control group. Treatment effects for child adjustment outcome measures were mixed. The treated group reported lower ratings of aggression than the control group 10-12 weeks post-treatment. The two groups did not differ on ratings of anxiety or conduct disorder. However, there was a significant interaction between the intervention and pre-test behavior problems on post-treatment behavior problems, with those children with poorer initial functioning demonstrating the largest positive effects. Results primarily involved pre- and post-treatment differences on two factors: quality of the custodial parent-child relationship and negative divorce-related events.

Given the established relation between post-divorce parental acrimony and child behavior problems, two types of interventions have been carried out to decrease interparental conflict. The first, divorce mediation, offers an indirect means of providing assistance to children caught in the middle of their separated parents' conflict. Although the most obvious goal of divorce mediation is to negotiate a mutually-acceptable divorce settlement, it provides a chance for couples to address areas of disagreement, and possibly decrease the amount of acrimony for future relations (Emery, Shaw, & Jackson, 1987). Thus far, research on divorce mediation has demonstrated that it represents a viable alternative to the antagonistic climate of traditional divorce court proceedings, and an especially more appealing alternative for fathers who often feel dissatisfied with adversarial procedures (Emery & Wyer, 1987). However, little data are currently available to assess whether mediation's hypothesized potential for decreasing parental conflict also may have long-term benefits for children's psychological well-being. In a nine-year follow-up study comparing families who experienced divorce mediation to those who went through traditional litigation procedures, no significant differences were found on child adjustment at time of divorce or on subsequent use of child mental health services between the two groups (Dillon & Emery, 1996). However, the reports of child adjustment were retrospective and based on the informant's response to a single question in a telephone interview, and approximately half of the subjects were unavailable for the follow-up assessment.

A second intervention designed to decrease parental conflict involves psychoeducational classes for parents seeking a divorce. Arbuthnot and Gordon (1996) evaluated consumer satisfaction and child adjustment at the end of a two-hour, mandatory education class. The intervention consisted of watching a videotape focused on increasing parents' sensitivity to their children's difficulties surrounding the divorce, and participating in skills-building exercises focused on lowering

children's exposure to parental conflict. The treatment group consisted of 89 treament families and 23 no-treatment families who had filed for a divorce in the past year. Parents' skills training items and child exposure to conflict and adjustment were evaluated post-treatment and six months later, but only 46 of the 89 treatment families completed the follow-up.

Parents in the treatment group showed improvement on skills training and expression of anger towards ex-partner compared to parents in the comparison group, which were maintained at follow-up. Although most of the child adjustment ratings did not differ, children in the treatment group had fewer school absences and visits to the physician in the three months prior to the follow-up. This investigation, while providing preliminary support for positive effects of divorce education, has important limitations. Child adjustment ratings were based on single-items and measurement was limited to parental report.

Selecting Optimal Treatment Strategies

Overall, the research on group treatment of divorced children has demonstrated few consistent positive effects. While specific components of interventions which target specific factors appear theoretically promising, more research is needed to bridge the gap between basic research and intervention. As shown above, it appears unlikely that interventions that target only the child or only the residential parents will have powerful immediate or long-term effects on children's adjustment. Divorce is influenced by many interrelated familial and environmental factors. Interventions which attempt to address individual, family and contextual issues are likely to have greater success.

Problems in Carrying Out Interventions and Relapse Prevention

As implied above, probably the most important element that precludes successful intervention is the complexity of changes that accompany divorce. Children who are having problems adjusting to divorce often are dealing with several changes in family functioning. It is likely that the child's adjustment will be no better than that of the residential parent because of the child's emotional dependence on the parent. Issues that are dependent on the parent's adjustment include (1) the level of parental acrimony, which may affect both the residential and nonresidential parent's relationship with the child; and (2) the residential parent's ability to be involved with the child and consistent in administering discipline. A second group of issues appears to be only at most, partially mediated by the parent's adjustment. These include (1) the child's adjustment to new schools, new peers, and new neighborhoods often resulting from the family's loss of income; (2) temporal influences discussed above including the child's developmental status and the time since the divorce occurred; and (3) remarriage which involves adjusting to a new parent and often new siblings. Handling any one of these issues may be challenging for a child, but dealing with several of them at once is often typical. Thus, effective treatment involves successfully combating several fronts. Similarly, relapse is often a function of change in one or two areas that were previously calm. For instance, divorced fathers typically remarry more quickly than divorced mothers. In a divorced family in which the biological father had regular contact with children from the first marriage, this may change when he remarries and begins having children in his second family. A

child who made use of the biological father prior to his remarriage may only show adjustment problems as visitation by the father decreases 2-3 years after the divorce. More typical is the chaos that ensues in adjusting to the biological parents' initial separation. Often there are too many holes to fill simultaneously for the family to feel "adjusted." The following case illustration, based on a compiliation of several real cases, demonstrates some of these challenges.

Case IllustrationCase Description

Initially, Mrs. Joanne Pilbus, age 32, contacted the Psychology Department Clinic because of the problematic behavior of her 11 year-old son, Reggie. At the time of the phone intake, Mrs. Pilbus mentioned that she had separated from her husband, Jim Pilbus, age 35, nine months ago. Reggie's behavior had begun deteriorating a few months prior to the separation. Mrs. Pilbus noted that her other child, Alicia, age 8, had shown few behavior problems since the separation, though Alicia did speak of missing her father about once every two weeks. According to Mrs. Pilbus, Reggie was currently disruptive at home and at school. At home, he was noncompliant and defiant, refusing to complete daily chores and consistently challenging Mrs. Pilbus' authority. Reggie had also developed an "attitude" towards Alicia, regularly starting fights and acting aggressively towards her. At school, Reggie's grades had fallen from A's and B's to C's and D's in the past 6 months, and he had been suspended from school twice during the same period of time for fighting with peers. This pattern of disruptive behavior had begun approximately two months prior to the parental separation. Previously, Reggie had questioned his mother's authority once every month or two, and had never engaged in fighting at school.

During the phone intake, Mrs. Pilbus described her relationship with Mr. Pilbus as "horrible," commenting that the divorce had become "messier and messier" during the past year. According to Mrs. Pilbus, the marriage had dissolved because Mr. Pilbus had engaged in several extramarital affairs. Mr. Pilbus was now living with Ms. Sylvia Duncan, age 24, whom he had begun seeing prior to the Pilbus' separation. Mrs. Pilbus stated that she was still extremely angry at Mr. Pilbus concerning the affairs and the dissolution of the marriage. When asked if and how often the two children were seeing their father, Mrs. commented that Mr. Pilbus' visitation was "irregular at best." During the first few months after the initial separation, he had seen the children at least once every two weeks, but during the past 4-5 months, his contact had decreased dramatically. In the past two months, he had seen the children only once. Mr. Pilbus had also been negligent in making child support payments, wavering from an initially consistent record.

Because of the ongoing tensions between the parents, the initial intake session included Mrs. Pilbus and the two children. During the intake, Mrs. Pilbus was very adamant about both Reggie's and Mr. Pilbus' misbehavior. Alicia spoke only when spoken to, but Reggie articulately defended his own and his father's behavior, and challenged Mrs. Pilbus' competency to make decisions. When Reggie was asked about his behavior at school, he stated only that he would be "... ok if people just left him alone." When asked to describe the quality of his relationship with his father, Reggie said it was "good," but that he would like to see his father more often.

Assessment Findings

The Pilbus family was dealing with several of the most problematic issues facing recently separated families. These include highly acrimonious relations between the separating parents, disturbed relations between the residential parent and her son -- including problems in parenting, and problematic relations between the nonresidential parent and the two children. It was also clear that at least Reggie missed seeing Mr. Pilbus. Finally, Mr. Pilbus wanted the children to become better acquainted with his new partner, Ms. Duncan. The children had only met Ms. Duncan twice.

The family appeared to be in the midst of Hetherington's crisis phase in adapting to the separation. For the family to make a successful adjustment, several unresolved issues would need to be addressed. The following goals were suggested for intervention: (1) decreasing the amount of parental acrimony between the parents; (2) improving the relationship between Mrs. Pilbus and her children; (3) assisting Mrs. Pilbus to establish a more consistent and firm discipline practices;

(4) exploring ways to improve the children's quality and frequency of contacts with Mr. Pilbus; and (5) finding an outlet for the children, particularly Reggie, to vent some of their hurt and frustration in dealing with the loss of their parents' marriage and contact with their father.

Treatment Selection

Treatment was planned to address as many of the aforementioned issues as possible. First, to improve the parenting of Mrs. Pilbus and relations between her and Reggie, family sessions were held. Second, an attempt was made to contact Mr. Pilbus despite Mrs. Pilbus' objections, to explore ways of improving the couple's relationship as well as Mr. Pilbus' relationship with his children. Finally, an attempt was made to find a group for children from divorced families, for both Reggie and Alicia, to help cope with the complex transitions of the divorce process.

Treatment Course and Problems in Carrying out Interventions

A multifaceted treatment package was designed and implemented based on the goals detailed above. In the first few months, treatment was marked by variability in Reggie's behavior and by problems in implementing specific components of intervention. Family meetings with Mrs. Pilbus and the two children were initiated immediately following the first intake session. Family work was aimed at improving the quality of communication between the children and Mrs. Pilbus, particularly Reggie and his mother. The therapist also worked to improve the consistency of Mrs. Pilbus' parenting, encouraging her to provide and uphold a firm set of rules for the children. Both Reggie and Alicia were encouraged to help Mrs. Pilbus design family regulations; however, Mrs. Pilbus was treated as the higher voice of authority in resolving disputes. Reggie's behavior showed dramatic improvement during the first few weeks of therapy, but there were two weeks in the second and third months of treatment that he showed signs of regression. On one occasion, Reggie became involved in a fight at school, while on another occasion he refused to complete chores at home for a full week. Overall Mrs. Pilbus was showing greater consistency in setting and enforcing rules, while Reggie's behavior was marked by inconsistency.

While "family" treatment was initiated without delay, involving Mr. Pilbus in therapy was a more difficult task. Although Mr. Pilbus sounded eager to be more involved with his children and resolve disputes with Mrs. Pilbus during the initial phone contact, he was less cooperative in his attendance at sessions. After two cancellations, Mr. Pilbus did meet with the therapist. Mr. Pilbus agreed with many of the goals expressed by Mrs. Pilbus and the children; he wanted to spend more time with them and improve the parental relationship so it would not get in the way of his relationship with Reggie and Alicia. He added to these goals a desire for the children to get to know Ms. Duncan. Conjoint sessions were planned with the children and with Mrs. Pilbus separately. Once the children had re-established contact with Mr. Pilbus, plans were made to include Ms. Duncan in family meetings with the children. During the second and third month of treatment, sessions with Mr. Pilbus were held two out of every three weeks. Mr. Pilbus was able to convey his regret about having less time for Reggie and Alicia due to his increased involvement with Ms. Duncan, but also his commitment to maintain his relationship with them. The children, especially Reggie, were permitted to vent their anger and hurt concerning their parents' divorce and their father's perceived abandonment of them since the separation.

At the end of three months of treatment, though some goals of therapy were beginning to become actualized (e.g., improved parenting of the residential parent, re-establishment of relations between the children and non-residential parent), several issues remained unresolved. First, no children's divorce group was located for Reggie or Alicia. Despite the therapist's efforts to find such a treatment modality throughout the course of treatment, these efforts were unsuccessful. Second and most notably, the parents' level of conflict continued to be elevated. To treat this latter issue, the next phase of intervention involved conjoint sessions with Mr. and Mrs. Pilbus without the children. Mrs. Pilbus was reluctant to attend sessions with Mr. Pilbus, but the therapist was able to convince her of the importance of the sessions for the children's well-being, if not for herself. Although the first two of these sessions were marked by hostile comments from Mrs. Pilbus and bitter counterattacks by Mr. Pilbus, both sessions were productive in establishing a structured medium for the parents to discuss timesharing issues. The therapist played an active role to minimize open conflict by structuring most of the sessions closely (see Emery et al., 1987). Both Mr. and Mrs. Pilbus were permitted to vent their anger, but only in a controlled manner (e.g., when tempers flared, the therapist intervened to literally stop the interaction). Discussions were focused on plans for changing the present circumstances concerning visitation and support. Mr. Pilbus was encouraged to visit more frequently, but at times all parties found acceptable. Mr. Pilbus also was encouraged to provide consistent child support payments. By the end of the second session, both Mr. and Mrs. Pilbus had agreed in principle to these proposed changes. The parents were encouraged to think of visitation plans that would be mutually acceptable during the week. In the meantime, a visit with the children was arranged for Mr. Pilbus. After four more sessions, firm plans were laid for visitation and support. Although Mr. and Mrs. Pilbus were not particularly friendly to one another during most of the meetings, they were able to work out their disagreements over timesharing.

While the work with Mr. and Mrs. Pilbus was taking place in months 4 to 6 of therapy, Reggie and Alicia also were meeting with the therapist each week. Some of these sessions were held with Mrs. Pilbus to continue working on parenting and mother-child relationship issues. Other sessions

involved Mr. Pilbus and sometimes Ms. Duncan, to discuss parent-child issues and relations with Ms. Duncan, respectively. The children initially were not pleased with the introduction of Ms. Duncan into sessions; however, once rapport with their father had been improved, her presence was tolerated and even appreciated at times (e.g., when she stood up for the children's point of view in discussing rules at Mr. Pilbus' residence). Finally, once a month the children met with the therapist alone to discuss intrapersonal issues surrounding the divorce process. These sessions allowed both Reggie and Alicia to explore and vent feelings relating to the divorce process.

All phases of therapy were terminated seven months after the initial intake. Many of the initial goals of therapy were attained. At termination, relations between Mr. and Mrs. Pilbus, and the children and their parents had showed great improvement. Reggie's behavior at home and school had returned to levels approaching his status prior to the parental separation. Fighting with peers at school and at home with Alicia had diminished dramatically. Reggie's school work had also improved some, but not to the level of his pre-separation performance. Mr. and Mrs. Pilbus continued to minimize contact with one another, but were successful in establishing a consistent visitation schedule for their children. Mr. Pilbus also was more consistent with support payments.

Summary This chapter has outlined the complex issues involved in treating children from divorced families. Several core diagnostic issues have been described that are often related to child behavior problems in divorced families. These include interparental conflict, parenting practices and the nature of the relationship between the residential parent and children, loss of contact and relationship with the children's nonresidential parent, remarriage, and loss of family income. Though few empirical investigations have provided data that relate improvement in these factors to clinically significant gains in child behavior, it is suggested that clinicians pay close attention to these variables when intervening with troubled children from divorced families. A case example was provided to illustrate how successful intervention might be implemented. It is recommended that a multifaceted treatment package be used to deal with the complex issues facing families adapting to changes necessitated by divorce.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.

Alpert-Gillis, G.H. & Neubaum, E. (1996). Family transitions as stressors in children and adolescents. In C.R. Pfeffer (Ed.), Severe Stress and Mental Disturbance in Children.

控制软件说明书

控制软件说明书 PC端软件FTM 安装及应用 系统运行环境： 操作系统中英文Windows 98/2000/ NT/XP/WIN7/ Vista， 最低配置 CPU：奔腾133Mhz 内存：128MB 显示卡：标准VGA，256色显示模式以上 硬盘：典型安装 10M 串行通讯口：标准RS232通讯接口或其兼容型号。 其它设备：鼠标器 开始系统 系统运行前，确保下列连线正常： 1：运行本软件的计算机的RS232线已正确连接至控制器。 2：相关控制器的信号线，电源线已连接正确； 系统运行步骤： 1：打开控制器电源，控制电源指示灯将亮起。 绿色，代表处于开机运行状态；橙色代表待机状态。 2. 运行本软件 找到控制软件文件夹，点击FWM.exe运行。出现程序操作界面：

根据安装软件版本不同，上图示例中的界面及其内容可能会存在某些差别，可咨询我们的相关的售后服务人员。 上图中用红色字体标出操作界面的各部分的功能说明： 1. 菜单区：一些相关的菜单功能选择执行区。 2. 操作区：每一个方格单元代表对应的控制屏幕，可以通过鼠标或键盘的点选，拖拉的方式选择相应控制单元。 3.功能区：包含常用的功能按钮。 4.用户标题区：用户可根据本身要求，更改界面上的标题显示 5.用户图片区：用户可根据本身要求，更改界面上的图片显示，比如公司或工程相关LOGO图片。 6.附加功能区：根据版本不同有不同的附加项目。 7.状态区：显示通讯口状态，操作权限状态，和当前的本机时间，日期等。 如何开始使用 1. 通讯设置 单击主菜单中“系统配置”――》“通讯配置” 选择正确的通讯端口号，系统才能正常工作。 可以设置打开程序时自动打开串口。 2.系统配置

用友T软件软件操作手册

用友T6管理软件操作手册总账日常业务处理 日常业务流程 1、进入用友企业应用平台。 T6 双击桌面上的 如设置有密码，输入密码。没有密码就直接确定。 2、填制凭证进入系统之后打开总账菜单下面的填制凭证。如下图 丄总账［演示版】国B设畫 -二疑证 i :卜0 直接双击填制凭证，然后在弹出凭证框里点增 制单日期可以根据业务情况直接修改，输入附单据数数（可以不输），凭证摘要（在后面的匝可以选择常用摘要），选择科目直接选择（不知道可以选按F2或点击后面的一）, 输入借贷方金额，凭证完后如需继续作按增加自动保存，按保存也可，再按增加 3．修改凭证 填制凭证 证 证 证 总 ￡ ■ 凭 汇 汇 流

没有审核的凭证直接在填制凭证上面直接修改，改完之后按保存。（审核、记帐了凭 证不可以修改，如需修改必须先取消记帐、取消审核）。 4．作废删除凭证只有没有审核、记帐的凭证才可以删除。在“填制凭证”第二个菜单“制单” 下面有 一个“作废恢复”，先作废，然后再到“制单”下面“整理凭证”，这样这张凭证才被彻底删除。 5．审核凭证 双击凭证里的审核凭证菜单，需用具有审核权限而且不是制单人进入审核凭证才能审核（制单单人不能审核自己做的凭证） 选择月份，确定。 再确定。 直接点击“审核”或在第二个“审核”菜单下的“成批审核” 6．取消审核 如上所述，在“成批审核”下面有一个“成批取消审核”，只有没有记帐的凭证才可 以取消审核

7．凭证记账 所有审核过的凭证才可以记帐，未审核的凭证不能记账，在“总帐——凭证——记账” 然后按照提示一步一步往下按，最后提示记帐完成。 8．取消记帐 在“总帐”—“期末”—“对帐”菜单按“ Ctrl+H ” 系统会提示“恢复记帐前状态已被激活”。然后按“总帐”——“凭证”——“恢复 记帐前状态”。最后选“月初状态”，按确定，有密码则输入密码，再确定。 10、月末结转收支 当本月所有的业务凭证全部做完，并且记账后，我们就要进行当月的期间损益结转。 点击：月末转账并选择期间损益结转。 选择要结转的月份，然后单击“全选”。点击确定后

智能窗户控制系统软件说明

智能窗户控制系统软件V1.0设计说明 目录 前言 (1) 第一章软件总体设计 (1) 1.1. 软件需求概括 (1) 1.2. 定义 (1) 1.3. 功能概述 (1) 1.4. 总体结构和模块接口设计 (2) 第二章控制系统的总体设计 (3) 2.1. 功能设计 (3) 第三章软件控制系统的设计与实现 (5) 3.1. RF解码过程程序设计介绍 (5) 3.2. RF对码过程设计 (6) 3.3. 通信程序设计 (8) 3.4. IIC程序设计介绍 (9) 3.5. 接近开关程序设计 (12) 3.6. 震动开关检测程序设计 (13) 3.7. 墙面按键程序设计 (15) 第四章智能窗户控制系统的设计 (17) 第五章实测与结果说明 (18) 第六章结论 (18)

前言 目的 编写详细设计说明书是软件开发过程必不可少的部分，其目的是为了使开发人员在完成概要设计说明书的基础上完成概要设计规定的各项模块的具体实现的设计工作。 第一章软件总体设计 1.1.软件需求概括 本软件采用传统的软件开发生命周期的方法，采用自顶向下，逐步细化，模块化编程的软件设计方法。 本软件主要有以下几方面的功能 (1)RF遥控解码 (2)键盘扫描 (3)通信 (4)安全检测 (5)电机驱动 1.2.定义 本项目定义为智能遥控窗户系统软件。它将实现人机互动的无缝对接，实现智能关窗，遥控开关窗户，防雨报警等功能。 1.3.功能概述 1.墙体面板按键控制窗户的开/关 2.RF遥控器控制窗户的开/关 3.具有限位，童锁等检测功能 4.实时检测大气中的温湿度，下雨关窗 5.具有防盗，防夹手等安全性能的检测

用友NC财务信息系统操作手册全

NC系统培训手册 编制单位：用友软件股份有限公司 中央大客户事业部 目录 一、NC系统登陆 .................................... 二、消息中心管理................................... 三、NC系统会计科目设置 ............................ 四、权限管理....................................... 五、打印模板设置................................... 六、打印模板分配................................... 七、财务制单....................................... 八、NC系统账簿查询 ................................ 九、辅助余额表查询................................. 十、辅助明细账查询................................. 十一、固定资产基础信息设置......................... 十二、卡片管理..................................... 十三、固定资产增加................................. 十四、固定资产变动................................. 十五、折旧计提..................................... 十六、折旧计算明细表...............................

软件操作说明书

门禁考勤管理软件 使 用 说 明 书

软件使用基本步骤

一．系统介绍―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――2二．软件的安装――――――――――――――――――――――――――――2 三．基本信息设置―――――――――――――――――――――――――――2 １）部门班组设置―――――――――――――――――――――――――3 ２）人员资料管理―――――――――――――――――――――――――3 ３）数据库维护――――――――――――――――――――――――――3 ４）用户管理―――――――――――――――――――――――――――3 四．门禁管理―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――4 １）通迅端口设置―――――――――――――――――――――――――4２）控制器管理――――――――――――――――――――――――――4３）控制器设置――――――――――――――――――――――――――6４）卡片资料管理―――――――――――――――――――――――――11 ５）卡片领用注册―――――――――――――――――――――――――12６）实时监控―――――――――――――――――――――――――――13 五．数据采集与事件查询――――――――――――――――――――――――13 六．考勤管理―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――14 1）班次信息设置――――――――――――――――――――――――――14 2）考勤参数设置――――――――――――――――――――――――――15 3）考勤排班――――――――――――――――――――――――――――15 4）节假日登记―――――――――――――――――――――――――――16 5）调休日期登记――――――――――――――――――――――――――16 6）请假/待料登记―――――――――――――――――――――――――17 7）原始数据修改――――――――――――――――――――――――――17 8）考勤数据处理分析――――――――――――――――――――――――17 9）考勤数据汇总―――――――—――――――――――――――――――18 10）考勤明细表—―――――――――――――――――――――――――18 11）考勤汇总表――――――――――――――――――――――――――18 12）日打卡查询――――――――――――――――――――――――――18 13）补卡记录查询—――――――――――――――――――――――――19

博思软件操作步骤

开票端操作说明 双击桌面“博思开票”图标，单击“确定”，进入开票界面： 一、开票： 日常业务——开票——选择票据类型——增加——核对票号无误后——单击“请核对票据号”——输入“缴款人或缴款单位”——选择”收费项目”、“收入标准”——单击“收费金额”。 （如需增加收费项目，可单击“增一行”） （如需加入备注栏（仅限于收款收据）），则在右侧“备注”栏内输入即可） 确认无误后，单击“打印”——“打印” 二、代收缴款书： 日常业务——代收缴款书——生成——生成缴款书——关闭——缴款——输入“专用票据号”——保存——缴款书左上角出现“已缴款”三个红字即可。 三、上报核销： 日常业务——上报核销——选择或输入核销日期的截止日期——刷新——核销。 （注意：“欠缴金额”处无论为正或为负均不可核销，解决方法见后“常见问题”）

常见问题 一、如何作废“代收缴款书” 日常业务——代收缴款书——缴款——删除“专用票据号”和“缴款日期”——保存——作废。 二、上报核销时出现欠缴金额，无法完成核销，或提示多缴。 1、首先检查有没有选择好截止日期，选择好后有没有点击“刷新”。 2、其次检查有没有做代收缴款书。注意：最后一张缴款书的日期不得晚于选择上报核 销日期。 3、若上述方法仍无效，则可能是由于以前作废过票据而未作废缴款书。解决方法： 首先作废若干张缴款书（直到不能作废为止），然后重新做一张新的缴款书。再核销。 三、打开“博思开票”时，出现“windows socket error：由于目标机器积极拒绝，无法连接。 （10061），on API’connect’” 单击“确定”，将最下面一行的连接类型“SOCKET”更换为“DCOM”，再点“连接” 即可。 四、如何设置密码 双击桌面“博思开票”，单击登录界面的右下方“改口令”输入用户编号、新密码和确认密码，单击“确认”即可。 五、更换开票人名称或增加开票人 进入开票系统——系统维护——权限管理 1、更换开票人名称：单击“用户编码”——删除“用户名”——输入新的开票人名称 ——单击“保存用户”即可。 2、增加开票人：单击“新增用户”——输入“用户编码”和“用户名”——单击“保 存用户”——单击新增的用户编码——将右边的“权限列表如下”下面的“所有”前的小方框勾上——单击右侧“保存用户权限”。 六、重装电脑系统 1、由于博思开票软件安装在D盘，所以重装电脑系统前无需做任何备份。 2、重装系统后，打开我的电脑—D盘，将“博思软件”文件夹复制到桌面上（或U盘）。 3、将安装时预留的安装光盘放入主机，打开后找到“票据核销及管理_开票端(江西欠 缴不能上报版)”（或者进入D盘----开票软件备份目录勿删文件夹里也可找到）。双 击，按提示点击“下一步”，直到“完成”。 4、双击桌面任务栏右下角“博思开票服务器”，将其关闭（或右键点击“博思开票服 务器”——“关闭服务器”）。 （这一步若找不到“博思开票服务器”，也可以用重启电脑来代替） 5、将刚才复制到桌面（或U盘）的“博思软件”再复制粘贴回D盘，若提示“此文 件夹已包含名为博思软件的文件夹”，点击下面的“全部”。 6、双击桌面“博思开票”——输入用户编码(001)——确定。 7、确认原来的票据数据没有丢失后，将桌面（或U盘）的“博思软件”文件夹删除。

控制系统使用说明

控制系统使用说明 系统针对轴流风机而设计的控制系统, 系统分为上位监视及下位控制两部分 本操作为上位监控软件的使用说明: 1: 启动计算机: 按下计算机电源开关约2秒, 计算机启动指示灯点亮, 稍过大约20秒钟屏幕出现操作系统选择菜单, 通过键盘的“↑↓”键选择“windows NT 4.0”菜单，这时系统进入WINDOWS NT 4.0操作系统，进入系统的操作画面。 2：系统操作 系统共分：开机画面、停机画面、趋势画面、报警画面、主机流程画面、轴系监测画面、润滑油站画面、动力油站画面、运行工况画面、运行记录画面等十幅画面，下面就十幅画面的作用及操作进行说明 A、开机画面： 开机： 当风机开始运转前，需对各项条件进行检查，在本画面中主要对如下指标进行检查，红色为有效： 1、静叶关闭：静叶角度在14度

2、放空阀全开：放空阀指示为0% 3、润滑油压正常 4、润滑油温正常 5、动力油压正常 6、逆止阀全关 7、存储器复位：按下存储器复位按钮，即可复位，若复位不成 需查看停机画面。 8、试验开关复位：按下试验开关按钮即可，试验开关按钮在风 机启动后，将自动消失，同时试验开关也自动复位。 当以上条件达到时，按下“允许机组启动”按钮，这时机组允许启动指示变为红色，PLC机柜里的“1KA”继电器将导通。机组允许启动信号传到高压柜，等待电机启动。开始进行高压合闸操作，主电机运转，主电机运转稳定后，屏幕上主电机运行指示变红。这时静叶释放按钮变红，按下静叶释放按钮后，静叶从14度开到22度，静叶释放成功指示变红。 应继续观察风机已平稳运行后，按下自动操作按钮，启机过程结束。 B、停机画面： 停机是指极有可能对风机产生巨大危害的下列条件成立时，PLC 会让电机停止运转： 1、风机轴位移过大

用友T+软件系统操作手册范本

用 友 T+ 软 件 系 统 操 作 手 册版本号：v1.0

目录 一、系统登录 (3) 1.1、下载T+浏览器 (3) 1.2、软件登陆 (3) 二、基础档案设置 (5) 2.1、部门、人员档案设置 (5) 2.2、往来单位设置 (6) 2.3、会计科目及结算方式设置 (6) 三、软件操作 (9) 3.1、凭证处理 (9) 3.1.1、凭证填制 (9) 3.1.2、凭证修改 (10) 3.1.3、凭证审核 (11) 3.1.4、凭证记账 (12) 3.2、月末结转 (13) 四、日常帐表查询与统计 (14) 4.1、余额表 (14) 4.2、明细账 (15) 4.3、辅助账 (16) 五、月末结账、出报表处理 (17) 5.1、总账结账 (17) 5.2、财务报表 (20)

一、系统登录 1.1、下载T+浏览器 首次登陆需要用浏览器打开软件地址，即：127.0.0.1:8000(一般服务器默认设置，具体登陆地址请参考实际配置)，第一次登陆会提示下载T+浏览器，按照提示下载安装T+浏览器，然后打开T+浏览器，输入软件登陆地址。 ，T+浏览器， 1.2、软件登陆 按键盘上的“回车键（enter）”打开软件登陆页面，如下： 选择选择“普通用户”，输入软件工程师分配的用户名和密码，选择对应的账套，以下以demo 为例，如下图：

点击登陆，进入软件，

二、基础档案设置 2.1、部门、人员档案设置 新增的部门或者人员在系统中可按照如下方法进行维护，

2.2、往来单位设置 供应商客户档案的添加方法如下： 添加往来单位分类： 2.3、会计科目及结算方式设置会计科目：

威利普LEDESC控制系统操作说明书

LED-ECS编辑控制系统V5.2 用 户 手 册 目录 第一章概述 (3) 1.1LED-ECS编辑控制系统介绍 (3) 1.2运行环境 (3) 第二章安装卸载 (3) 2.1安装 (3) 2.2卸载 (5) 第三章软件介绍 (5) 3.1界面介绍 (5) 3.2操作流程介绍 (13) 3.3基本概念介绍 (21) 第四章其他功能 (25) 4.1区域对齐工具栏 (25) 4.2节目对象复制、粘贴 (26) 4.3亮度调整 (26) 第五章发送 (27) 5.1发送数据 (27) 第六章常见问题解决 (28) 6.1计算机和控制卡通讯不上 (28) 6.2显示屏区域反色或亮度不够 (29)

6.3显示屏出现拖尾现象，显示屏的后面出现闪烁不稳定 (29) 6.4注意事项 (31) 6.5显示屏花屏 (31) 6.6错列现象 (32) 6.7杂点现象 (32) 第一章概述 1.1LED-ECS编辑控制系统介绍 LED-ECS编辑控制系统，是一款专门用于LED图文控制卡的配套软件。其具有功能齐全，界面直观，操作简单、方便等优点。自发布以来，受到了广大用户的一致好评。 1.2运行环境 ?操作系统 中英文Windows/2000/NT/XP ?硬件配置 CPU:奔腾600MHz以上 内存:128M 第二章安装卸载 2.1LED-ECS编辑控制系统》软件安装很简单，操作如下：双击“LED-ECS编辑控制系统”安装程序，即可弹出安装界面，如图2-1开始安装。如图所示 图2-1 单击“下一步”进入选择安装路径界面，如图2-2，如果对此不了解使用默认安装路径即可 图2-2 图2-3 单击“完成”，完成安装过程。 2.2软件卸载如图2-2 《LED-ECS编辑控制系统V5.2》提供了自动卸载功能，使您可以方便的删除《LED-ECS编辑控制系统V5.2》的所有文件、程序组件和快捷方式。用户可以在“LED-ECS编辑控制系统V5.2”组中选择“卸载LED-ECS编辑控制系统V5.2”卸载程序。也可以在“控制面板”中选择“添加/删除程序”快速卸载。卸载程序界面如图2-4，此时选择自动选项即可卸载所有文件、程序组和快捷方式。 图2-4 第三章、软件介绍

财政票据 网络版 电子化系统开票端操作手册

财政票据(网络版)电子化系统 开票端 操 作 说 明 福建博思软件股份有限公司

目录 1.概述 业务流程 流程说明：

1.单位到财政部门申请电子票据，由财政把单位的基本信息设置好并审核完后，财政部门给用票单位发放票据，单位进行领票确认并入库。 2.在规定时间内，单位要把开据的发票带到财政核销，然后由财政进行审核。 系统登录 登入系统界面如图： 登录日期：自动读取主服务器的日期。 所属区划：选择单位所属区划编码。【00安徽省非税收入征收管理局】 所属单位：输入单位编码。 用户编码：登录单位的用户编码【002】 用户密码：默认单位密码为【123456】 验证码：当输入错误时，会自动换一张验证码图片； 记录用户编码：勾选系统自动把用户编码保存在本地，第二次登录不需要重新输入。 填写完正确信息，点【确定】即可登入系统。 进入系统 进入系统界面如图： 当单位端票据出现变动的时候，如财政或上级直管下发票据时，才会出现此界面:

出现此界面后点击最下方的确认按钮，入库完成。 当单位端票据无变动时，直接进入界面： 2.基本编码人员管理 功能说明：对单位开票人员维护，修改开票人名称。 密码管理 修改开票人员密码，重置等操作。 收发信息 查看财政部门相关通知等。

3.日常业务 电脑开票 功能说明：是用于开票据类型为电子化的票据。 在电脑开票操作界面，点击工具栏中的【增加】按钮，系统会弹出核对票号提示框，如图： 注意：必须核对放入打印机中的票据类型、号码是否和电脑中显示的一致，如果不一致打印出来的票据为无效票据，核对完后，输入缴款人或缴款单位和收费项目等信息，全部输入完后，点【增加】按钮进行保存当前票据信息或点【打印】按钮进行保存当前票据信息并把当前的票据信息打印出来；点电脑开票操作界面工具栏中的【退出】则不保存。 在票据类型下拉单框中选择所要开票的票据类型，再点【增加】进行开票。

用友T软件系统操作手册

用友T软件系统操作手 册 Pleasure Group Office【T985AB-B866SYT-B182C-BS682T-STT18】

用 友 T+ 软 件 系 统 操 作 手 册 版本号：目录

一、系统登录 、下载T+浏览器 首次登陆需要用浏览器打开软件地址，即：(一般服务器默认设置，具体登陆地址请参考实际配置)，第一次登陆会提示下载T+浏览器，按照提示下载安装T+浏览器，然后打开T+浏览器，输入软件登陆地址。 ，T+浏览器， 、软件登陆 按键盘上的“回车键（enter）”打开软件登陆页面，如下： 选择选择“普通用户”，输入软件工程师分配的用户名和密码，选择对应的账套，以下以demo为例，如下图： 点击登陆，进入软件， 二、基础档案设置 、部门、人员档案设置 新增的部门或者人员在系统中可按照如下方法进行维护， 、往来单位设置 供应商客户档案的添加方法如下： 添加往来单位分类： 、会计科目及结算方式设置 会计科目： 系统预置170个《2013小企业会计准则》科目，如下：

结算方式，如下： 三、软件操作 、凭证处理 填制 进入总账填制凭证菜单，增加凭证，填制摘要和科目，注意有辅助核算的会计科目， 以下为点开总账的处理流程图： 如若现金流量系统指定错误，可按照以下步骤修改： 凭证在没有审核时，可以直接在当前凭证上修改，然后点击“保存”完成修改； 凭证审核 进入总审核凭证菜单下，如下图： 选择审核凭证的会计期间： 、凭证记账 进入凭证菜单下的记账菜单， 、月末结转 期间损益结转 四、日常帐表查询与统计 、余额表 用于查询统计各级科目的本期发生额、累计发生额和余额等。传统的总账，是以总账科目分页设账，而余额表则可输出某月或某几个月的所有总账科目或明细科目的期初余额、本期发生额、累计发生额、期末余额，在实行计算机记账后，我们建议用户用余额表代替总账。

控制软件操作说明书

创维液晶拼接控制系统 软件操作指南 【LCD-CONTROLLER12】 请在使用本产品前仔细阅读该用户指导书

温馨提示:: 温馨提示 ◆为了您和设备的安全，请您在使用设备前务必仔细阅读产品说明书。 ◆如果在使用过程中遇到疑问,请首先阅读本说明书。 正文中有设备操作的详细描述,请按书中介绍规范操作。 如仍有疑问,请联系我们,我们尽快给您满意的答复。 ◆本说明书如有版本变动,恕不另行通知,敬请见谅！

一、功能特点 二、技术参数 三、控制系统连接示意图 四、基本操作 五、故障排除 六、安全注意事项

一、功能特点创维创维--液晶液晶拼接拼接拼接控制器特点控制器特点 ★采用创维第四代V12数字阵列高速图像处理技术 视频带宽高达500MHZ，应用先进的数字高速图像处理算实时分割放大输入图像信号，在多倍分割放大处理的单屏画面上，彻底解决模/数之间转换带来的锯齿及马赛克现象，拼接画面清晰流畅，色彩鲜艳逼真。 ★具有开窗具有开窗、、漫游漫游、、叠加等功能 以屏为单元单位的前提下，真正实现图像的跨屏、开窗、画中画、缩放、叠加、漫游等个性化功能。 ★采用基于LVDS 差分传送技术差分传送技术，，增强抗干扰能力 采用并行高速总线连接技术，上位控制端发出命令后，系统能快速切换信号到命令指定的通道，实现快速响应。 采用基于LVDS 差分传送技术，提高系统抗干扰能力，外部干扰对信号的影响降到了最低，并且，抗干扰能力随频率提高而提升。★最新高速数字阵列矩阵通道切换技术 输入信号小于64路时，用户不需要再另外增加矩阵，便可以实现通道之间的任意换及显示。 ★断电前状态记忆功能 通过控制软件的提前设置，能在现场断电的情况下，重启系统后，能自动记忆设备关机前的工作模式状态。 ★全面支持全高清信号 处理器采用先进的去隔行和运动补偿算法，使得隔行信号在大屏幕拼接墙上显示更加清晰细腻，最大限度的消除了大屏幕显示的锯齿现象，图像实现了完全真正高清实时处理。纯硬件架构的视频处理模块设计，使得高清视频和高分辨率计算机信号能得到实时采样，确保了高清信号的最高视频质量，使客户看到的是高质量的完美画质。

工会经费收入专用收据(1)

工会经费收入专用收据(1) 福州博思软件开发有限公司 2010年6月 目录 第一部分初始安 装 ....................................................... (1) 1.1系统 安装 (1) 1.2系统登录 ............................................................ (4) 第二部分组成模块介 绍 ................................................... (4) 2.1模块组 成 (4) 2.1.1票据资料 .......................................................... (5) 2.1.2用户管 理 .......................................................... (5) 2.1.3 票据领用 (6) 2.1.4电脑开票 .......................................................... (6) 2.1.5手工开 票 .......................................................... (7) 2.1.6 手工批开票 (7) 2.1.7票据查询 .......................................................... (8) 第三部分软件操 作 ....................................................... (9) 3.2用户 管理 (10)

大屏幕控制系统软件详解说明V6.(完整)

大屏幕控制系统软件详解说明 一软件安装 安装注意事项： 非专业人事安装：安装前请先关闭防火墙（如360安全卫士，瑞星，诺盾等），等安装完并且成功启动本软件后可重新开启防火墙； 专业人事安装：先把防火墙拦截自动处理功能改为询问后处理，第一次打开本软件时会提示一个拦截信息； 安装前请校对系统时间,安装后不能在错误的系统时间下运行/启动软件,否则会使软件注册失效，这种情况下需要重新注册； Windows 7,注意以下设置 0.1)打开控制面板 0.2) 选择系统和安全 0.3) 选择操作中心 0.4) 选择更换用户帐户控制设置 0.5)级别设置，选择成从不通知 １．软件解压后，请选择双击，进入安装界面如图１，图２ 图1

图2 ２．选择键，进入下一界面如图3 图３ 3.选中项，再按键，进入下一界面如图４

图4 4.选择键，进入下一界面如图５ 图５ ５.选中项，再选择键，进入下一界面如图６

图６ ６.选择键，进入下一界面如图７ 图８ ７.选择键，软件安装完成 二软件操作 选择WINDOWS 下开始按钮，选择程序，选择Wall Control项， 点击Wall Control软件进入大屏幕控制系统软件主界面如图9所示,整个软件分为3个区，标题区，设置区，功能区

图9 1.1标题区 大屏幕控制系统软件(只有管理员才可设置此项目) 1.2设置区 1.2.1系统 高级功能：管理员登录。 产品选型：选择拼接盒型号。 定时系统：设置定时时间。 幕墙开机：开机 幕墙关机：关机 退出：退出软件系统。 1.2.2设置 串口设置：设置使用的串口参数。 矩阵设置：设置矩阵的相关参数。 幕墙设置：幕墙设置参数。 幕墙颜色：幕墙颜色设置。 标志设置：更改幕墙名称。 系统设置：控制软件系统设置。 1.2.3工具 虚拟键盘：虚拟键盘设置。 硬件注册：可以通过时钟IC注册处理器的使用权限。 1.2.4语言 中文选择:选择软件语言类型为中文。 Ｅnglish:选择软件语言类型为英语。

用友财务管理系统操作手册

用友财务管理系统操作手册 北京用友政务软件有限公司 2011年05月25日

一、账务系统： 流程：1、初始化设置及期初数装入=》2、凭证录入=》 3、凭证审核=》 4、凭证记账=》 5、月结 1、初始化设置: (1)、用自己的用户名登录【账务管理系统】=》 点击界面右边【基础资料】前的【+】号=》点击【会计科 目】前的【+】号=》双击【建立会计科目】=》设置会计科 目及挂接辅助账。(2)、点击界面右边【账务】前的【+】号 =》点击【初始建账数据】前的【+】号=》双击【期初余额 装入】=》点击【确定】=》然后对期初数据进行录入 2、凭证录入:用自己的用户名登录【账务管理系统】=》点击界 面右边【账务】前的【+】号=》点击【凭证管理】前的【+】 号=》双击【编制凭证】=》然后在【编制凭证】界面录入 收入/支出的凭证。 3、凭证审核：点击界面右边【账务】前的【+】号=》点击【凭 证管理】前的【+】号=》双击【凭证处理】=》选中需要审 核凭证的日期=》在左下角选择凭证的状态【未审核】=》 点击右键全选=》点击【审核】； 4、凭证记账：点击界面右边【账务】前的【+】号=》点击【期 末处理】前的【+】号=》双击【凭证处理】=》选中需要记 账凭证的日期=》在左下角选择凭证的状态【已审核】=》 点击右键全选=》点击【记账】； 5、月结：点击界面右边【账务】前的【+】号=》点击【期末

处理】前的【+】号=》双击【期末处理向导】=》点击【结 账向导】=》全部点击【下一步】=》下到最后点击【完成】 二、电子系统： 1、输出单位资产负债表：双击【电子报表系统】=》【管理员】 登录=》在右上角【报表数】下点击【基本户】/【专账一】 /【专账二】下前的【+】号=》双击【资产负债表】=》点击 最右上面【数据】下=》=》点击【登录数据库】=》双击【账 务系统】=》用自己的用户进行登录=》如果图片闪烁就证 明已经登录=》点击【退出】=》点击最右上角找到【插入】 功能菜单=》点击【表页】=》选择出报表的最后日期(如1 月：则时间2011年1月31日)=》选择复制指定表页 =》点击放大镜=》选择【本公司】=》选中【格式】点击【确定】=》在点【确定】=》左 下角有【第201101期】=》点击编制【眼睛图标】。=》调 试报表=》点击【保存】=》打印报表。 2、输出单位支出明细表：双击【电子报表系统】=》【管理员】 登录=》在右上角【报表数】下点击【基本户】/【专账一】 /【专账二】下前的【+】号=》双击【支出明细表】=》点击 最右上面【数据】下=》=》点击【登录数据库】=》双击【账 务系统】=》用自己的用户进行登录=》如果图片闪烁就证 明已经登录=》点击【退出】=》点击最右上角找到【插入】

控制系统说明书 V1.0

目录 1，系统概述--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1.1 系统简介---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 1.2 系统主要组成---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 1.3 系统硬件简要连接图------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 1.4 实际连线图------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 2,系统软件使用软件简要说明-----------------------------------------------------------------------------5 2.1 介绍---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 2.2 操作步骤---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 2.3 取景窗口---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 2.4 flash/cel文件的播放--------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 注1:连接网络的相关设置修改--------------------------------------------------------------9 注2:本机IP的查询----------------------------------------------------------------------------9 注3:本机IP的修改----------------------------------------------------------------------------10 注4:控制器IP的修改-------------------------------------------------------------------------11 3,对应表制作与选择-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 3.1 介绍---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 3.2 操作步骤---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 4,说明-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 4.1 ONC1A------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 4.2 ONC1B------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 4.3 ONC1C------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 4.4 ONC1D------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 4.5 ONC1E------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 4.6 ONC1F------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 4.7 ONC1G------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 4.8 ONC1F------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 5,附件-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 5.1 数码按钮控制板说明--------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 5.2 象素点排列说明--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

福建省政府采购供应商手册

政府采购网上公开信息系统供应商操作指南 福建博思软件股份有限公司 2017年06月

目录 1. CA办理 (4) 1.1 CA办理 (4) 1.2 CA盖章 (4) 2. 系统注册 (4) 2.1系统注册 (4) 2.2 注册成功，供应商登录 (5) 3.系统基础操作 (6) 3.1 CA控件下载 (6) 3.2进行政府采购活动 (9) 3.3 供应商资料维护 (10) 3.4 供应商项目报名 (11) 3.5供应商用户管理 (11) 4．投标流程 (11) 4.1项目报名 (11)

4.2 投标文件编制 (13) 4.2.1客户端安装 (13) 4.2.2投标客户端路径修改 (15) 4.2.3应答 (16) 4.2.4标书加密 (21) 4.2.5接着点击退出系统 (21) 4.3投标文件上传： (22) 4.4合同签订： (23) 4.5验收申请： (23)

1.CA办理 供应商须办理福建省CA，进行政府采购活动 1.1CA办理 可登陆https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ba13049189.html,/或者联系客服0591-968975。 1.2CA盖章 CA盖章操作系统为：XP(SP2)不支持（浏览器目前测试都支持）。 2. 系统注册 2.1系统注册 登入福建省政府采购网https://www.wendangku.net/doc/ba13049189.html,/，找到登陆与注册进行供应商注册

2.2 注册成功，供应商登录 注：原省网已注册的供应商已完成迁移，请各供应商使用注册时的组织机构代码登录，密码初始为1。

3.系统基础操作 3.1 CA控件下载与安装 登录之前可先进行CA控件下载 (1)打开ISignature,点击installer.exe进行安装

用友-财务软件操作流程手册

用友财务软件操作流程手册 系统管理 一增加操作员 1、系统管理→系统→注册→输入用户名（admin）→无密码→确定 2、单击权限→操作员→点增加→输入编号、姓名、口令→点增加 二、建新账套 1、系统管理→系统→注册→输入用户名（admin）→无密码→确定 2 单击帐套→建立→输入帐套号、帐套名称、→设置会计期间→下一步→ 输入单位名称→下一步→选择企业类型（工业类型比商业类型多产成品入库单，和材料出库单）→行业性质→选择帐套主管→在“行业性质预置科目”前面打钩则系统将预置所选行业会计科目（否则不予预置）→下一步→如需分类在项目前面方框内打钩→下一步→完成 三、分配权限 1、系统管理→系统→注册→输入用户名（admin）→无密码→确定 2、赋权限的操作顺序： A 受限，明细权限设置权限”-→“权限”菜单→首先选择所需的账套→选操作员→点增加 B 帐套主管权限设置选择所需帐套→再选操作员→在帐套主管前面直接打钩 四、修改账套 1、以“账套主管（不是admin）”身份进入“系统管理”模块（进入系统服务→系统管理→注册） 2、单击帐套→修改 五．备份 打开系统管理→系统→注册admin →帐套→备份→选择存放路径 六．恢复 系统管理→系统→注册→admin →帐套→恢复（选择本分文件的路径，lst为后缀名的文件）总帐系统 初始化 一、启用及参数设置 二、设置“系统初始化”下的各项内容（其中：最后设置会计科目和录入期初余额，其余各项从上向 下依次设置） 1 会计科目设置 1、指定科目 系统初始化→会计科目→编辑（菜单栏中的）→指定科目 现金总帐科目把现金选进以选科目 银行总帐科目把银行存款选进已选科目

动环监控软件操作手册

动环监控软件操作 手册

深圳市通讯威科技有限公司 EP-MEVP SYSTEM 动力环境集中监控系统 安装使用说明书 版本 2.0

目录 第一章软件的安装卸载升级 ................................. 错误!未定义书签。 1.1软件安装对计算机的配置要求........................ 错误!未定义书签。 1.2软件的安装 ....................................................... 错误!未定义书签。 1.3软件的卸载 ....................................................... 错误!未定义书签。 1.4软件的升级 ....................................................... 错误!未定义书签。第二章软件的基本操作 .......................................... 错误!未定义书签。 2.1登录和进入软件操作界面................................ 错误!未定义书签。 2.2添加/设置/修改/删除硬件设备以及参数设置错误!未定义书签。 2.2.1添加/设置控制器、采集器参数................. 错误!未定义书签。 2.2.2修改/删除硬件设备 .................................... 错误!未定义书签。 2.3监控设置及记录查询 ....................................... 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.1报警方式定义 ............................................. 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.2语音电话报警 ............................................. 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.3短信报警 ..................................................... 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.4监控实时记录 ............................................. 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.5监控报警记录 ............................................. 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.6温湿度数据记录.......................................... 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.7 UPS监控数据记录 ...................................... 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.8 电话短信报警数据记录 .............................. 错误!未定义书签。 2.3.9 空调监控数据记录...................................... 错误!未定义书签。