Spanier 1976

Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar
Dyads
Author(s): Graham B. Spanier
Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Feb., 1976), pp. 15-28
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/350547
Accessed: 18-04-2015 10:20 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Marriage and Family.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:20:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales
for Assessing the Quality of Marriage
and Similar Dyads*
GRAHAM B. SPANIER**
The Pennsylvania State University
This study reports on the development of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, a new mea-
surefor assessing the quality of marriage and other similar dyads. The 32-item scale
is designed for use with either married or unmarried cohabiting couples. Despite
widespread criticisms of the concept of adjustment, the study proceeds from the
pragmatic position that a new measure, which is theoretically grounded, relevant,
valid, and highly reliable, is necessary since marital and dyadic adjustment continue
to be researched. This factor analytic study tests a conceptual definition set forth in
eariler work and suggests the existence of four empirically verified components of
dyadic adjustment which can be used as subscales [dyadic satisfaction, dyadic cohe-
sion, dyadic consensus and affectional expression]. Evidence is presented suggesting
content, criterion-related, and construct validity. High scale reliability is reported.
The possibility of item weighting is considered and endorsed as a potential measure-
ment technique, but it not adopted for the present Dyadic Adjustment Scale. It is
concluded that the Dyadic Adjustment Scale represents a significant improvement
over other measures of marital adjustment, but a number of troublesome method-
ological issues remain for future research.
The concept of marital adjustment has taken field.1 Although writers such as Lively (1969)
a prominent place in the study of marriage have suggested that we abandon the use of
and family relationships. Despite widespread such vague and ambiguous concepts, it is
criticism of marital adjustment and related clear that this advice has not been heeded
concepts (Spanier and Cole, 1974; Hicks and since a plethora of studies on marital
Platt, 1970), it is probably the most adjustment have been published since these
frequently studied dependent variable in the criticisms have appeared. My colleagues and
I have argued, from a pragmatic standpoint
(Spanier and Cole, 1974), that methodolo-
*Paper presented at the annual meeting of the gists cannot ignore the clear continuing need
National Council on Family Relations, August, 1975, that family researchers have for adequate
Salt Lake City, Utah. This research has been supported
by grants from the College of Human Development, The measures, including those of the paper and
Pennsylvania State University. The assistance of Jean pencil type, in order to assess the quality of
Edmondson Kleber in data collection and project
adjustment in marital relationships.2
planning, Dean Morey in data preparation, and Jim
Brehony in data analysis is gratefully acknowledged. 'Spanier and Cole (1974) cited over 150 empirical
Professor John Nesselroade provided valuable advice on studies using the marital adjustment concept. In a
factor analytic procedures and statistical considerations marital adjustment propositional inventory and theo-
in scaling and measurement. Bernard Murstein, David retical integration project presently being conducted in
Klein, Ted Huston, Harold Feldman, James Hawkins, collaboration with Robert Lewis, we have identified over
David Olson, Brent Miller, Dwight Dean, Eleanore 300 articles in which marital adjustment or a related
Luckey, Robert Ryder, Wayne Lucas, and Charles Cole concept is the dependent variable.
made valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this
manuscript. 'Although previous work has been critical of marital
adjustment scales and research (Spanier, 1972; Spanier,
1973; Spanier and Cole, 1974; Spanier, Lewis, and Cole,
**Division of Individual and Family Studies and De- 1975), we have argued that it would be most fruitful to
partment of Sociology. The Pennsylvania State Univer- direct our efforts at clarification of the problems in
sity, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. definition, conceptualization, and measurement. The
February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 15
During the past few years an increasing cepts; (2) It would be operationalizable. In
interest in the study of nonmarital cohabita- other words, a measure could be developed
tion and other emerging household arrange- which follows from and is consistent with the
ments has suggested the importance of definition proposed; (3) It would account for
generalizing our methods for assessing all criteria thought to be important in the
relationship adjustment to include nonmar- conceptualization of adjustment; (4) It would
ital dyads. It can be argued that a family not be so abstract that it could not be clearly
sociology which has as its foundation the conceptualized nor would it be so specific
study of familial structures and functions that it could not apply to a study of all
must also provide for the study of household marriages.
arrangements in which functions common to Previous scale development has focused on
formal marriage arrangements exist within the marital dyad, since this relationship was
the context of variant family structures.3 of greatest interest to family researchers.
This article presents a new scale for the However, the need to have more general
measurement of dyadic adjustment, includ- measures which will allow us to simultaneous-
ing subscales which measure four empirically ly or independently study nonmarital dyads
verified components: dyadic satisfaction, led us to consider a fifth point suggesting
dyadic consensus, dyadic cohesion, and that: (5) Definitionally, we can allow for
affectional expression. The scale construction investigation of any nonmarital dyad which is
process is among the most comprehensive a primary relationship between unrelated
used to date in the development of a measure adults who are living together.
of adjustment for dyadic relationships, Marital or dyadic adjustment may be
including marriage. This article presents a viewed in two distinct ways-as a process, or
summary of the process followed in scale as a qualitative evaluation of a state. Defining
construction; the theoretical rationale and dyadic adjustment as a process rather than a
state has several implications for measuring
conceptual framework used as a basis for the
study; an evaluation of validity and reliabil- the concept, the most important of which is
ity; and a factor analytic assessment of the that a process can best be studied over time.
relationship between the items, subscales and Although cross-sectional studies have some
the total Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The final value in the investigation of adjustment, it is
32-item scale is presented in the appendix. evident that "process" could be studied best
with a longitudinal design.
CONCEPTUAL RATIONALE4 The second view of adjustment, as a
Spanier and Cole (1974), in addressing qualitative evaluation, may itself be defined
in two distinct ways. First, the assessment of
conceptual and measurement problems asso-
ciated with marital adjustment scales, adjustment may assume that there exists a
continuum of adjustment in which a
suggested that an adequate scale would need
to follow from a definition of adjustment "snapshot" of the continuum is taken at one
which met the following conditions: (1) It point in time. This definition acknowledges a
would be distinguishable from other con- process, but studies dyadic adjustment by
looking at the process only at specific points
present study is an attempt to improve the measurement on the continuum. It is the evaluation of the
in this area by integrating nominal definitions, characteristics and interactions of the
operational definitions, and measurements in a more relationship which are the focus of this
consistent manner than has been done previously. It has
been argued (Spanier and Cole, 1974) that adjustment is approach. Alternately, one may define dyadic
an appropriate concept for investigation and can be adjustment without reference to a time
conceptually distinguished from concepts such as success, dimension. When adjustment is conceptu-
happiness, satisfaction, stability, integration, cohesive- alized as an unchanging state, the technique
ness, or consensus. of studying it is simplified since the
researcher need only be concerned with the
3Winch (1974) has called such an arrangement a
"domestic family." He delineates the specific variants of quality of the relationship at the time of data
familial social systems when structural and/or functional collection.
requirements are not met. Current measures of marital adjustment
4The discussion in this section is adapted from Spanier generally do not assess a changing process,
and Cole (1974). but rather measure a position on a continuum
16 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976
from well-adjusted to maladjusted. A "pro- of the definition suggested above. A final
cess" definition, however, is predicated not working definition, designed to determine the
only on the existence of a continuum, but also presence of the suggested components, will be
on the belief that movement along the presented.
continuum. Definitionally, then, we could say
measured. The process consists of those PREVIOUS MEASURES OF
MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
events, circumstances and interactions which
move a couple back and forth along this The study of marital adjustment has a
continuum. Definitionally, then, we could say history dating back to Hamilton's (1929)
that dyadic adjustment is a process of classic study. Since that time a number of
movement along a continuum which can be measures have been developed which have
evaluated in terms of proximity to good or purported to assess the quality of marital
poor adjustment. relationships. The measures which have been
Considering both the complexities of developed and published over the years and
studying process and the oversimplification descriptive information about them are
resulting from a static "snapshot" concep- summarized in Table 1. A cursory examina-
tion, a definition evolved which represents a tion of these previous measures indicates that
synthesis of the marital adjustment literature few of them have an adequate demonstration
as well as our own thinking about the and reporting of validity and reliability, nor
phenomenon (Spanier and Cole, 1974). We do they have a clear conceptual plan behind
have accepted the idea that dyadic adjust- the scale development. In addition, none of
ment is a process rather than an unchanging these previous scales is specifically designed
state, but that the most heuristic definition for use with dyads other than marriage.
would allow for a measure which would
OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURES
meaningfully evaluate the relationship at a
given point in time. This approach is most The procedures used in the development of
consistent, we believe, with previous research the Dyadic Adjustment Scale are extensions of
which has sought to evaluate the quality of those used by Terman (1938) and Locke and
the marital (dyadic) relationship within a his colleagues (Locke, 1947; Locke and
given time frame. Thus, we subscribe to the Karlsson, 1952; Locke and Wallace, 1959;
notion that adjustment is an ever-changing Locke and Williamson, 1958) many years
process with a qualitative dimension which ago. The present scale, however, is the
can be evaluated at any point in time on a product of a more comprehensive process,
dimension from well adjusted to malad- which attempts to go beyond the procedures
justed. Consistent with this point of view, used by Locke, his colleagues, and the
dyadic adjustment can be defined as a developers of other marital adjustment scales
process, the outcome of which is determined (e.g., Nye and MacDougal, 1959; Orden and
by the degree of: (1) troublesome dyadic Bradburn, 1968; Burgess and Cottrell, 1939).
differences; (2) interpersonal tensions and The process is briefly outlined below, and is
personal anxiety; (3) dyadic satisfaction; (4) discussed in more detail in subsequent
dyadic cohesion; and (5) consensus on matters sections of this article:
of importance to dyadic functioning. We have 1. All items ever used in any scale
suggested that these hypothesized compo- measuring marital adjustment or a related
nents of adjustment are applicable to both concept were identified. This search pro-
marital and other dyadic relationships. duced a pool of approximately 300 items.
Consequently, my purpose in developing the 2. All duplicate items were then elimina-
Dyadic Adjustment Scale is to create a ted from the original pool of items, thus
measure which can be used by researchers leaving for further analysis all items
interested in the marital relationship but also previously used at least once.
by researchers interested in other dyadic 3. Three judges other than the principal
relationships, such as unmarried cohabiting investigator examined all items for content
couples. The present study attempts to go validity. Items were judged unacceptable and
beyond the standard procedure of presenting eliminated if a consensus existed that an item
the scale and its reliability and validity by did not meet content validity criteria. Items
additionally attempting to test the adequacy had to be relevant for relationships in the
TABLE 1. OVERVIEW OF PUBLISHED MEASURES OF MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AND RELATED CON-
CEPTS*
Year Reli- Number of

Number of
Developer Name of Scale Published ability Validity Questions Respondents
Adams Marriage Adjustment 1960 NRt Predictive, Concur- 743tt 100
Prediction Index rent, and Construct
Bernard Success in Marriage 1933 .96 - .97 Content, Concurrent, 100 115 males
Instrument Split half Construct 137 females
Bowerman Bowerman Marriage 1957 .80 - .90 Concurrent 67 102 couples
Adjustment Scales Repro-
ducibility
Buerkle & Yale Marital 1959 .90 Concurrent 40 186 adjusted
Badgley Interaction Repro- couples
Battery ducibility 36 unadjusted
couples
Burgess & Burgess-Cottrell 1939 NR Content, Concurrent, 130 526 couples
Cottrell Marital Adjustment Predictive
Form
Hamilton Marital Adjustment 1929 NR Concurrent, Construct 13 104 couples
Test
Inselberg Marital Satisfaction 1961 NR Concurrent 13 29 wives
Sentence Completion 80 couples
Katz Semantic Differ- 1965 NR Content, Construct 20 40 couples
ential as Applied to
Marital Adjustment
Locke Marital Adjustment 1951 NR Concurrent 29 201 divorced
Test couples
200 happy
couples
127 others
Locke & Marital Adjustment 1958 NR Concurrent 20 171 males
Williamson Test 178 females
Locke & Short Marital 1959 .90 Content, Concurrent 15 118 males
Wallace Adjustment Test Split half 118 females
Manson & Marriage Adjust- 1962 NR Construct 157 120 males
Lerner ment Inventory 117 females
Manson & Marriage Adjust- 1962 NR Content 100 120 males
Lerner ment Sentence 117 females
Completion Survey
Most Rating of Marital 1960 NR Concurrent, Construct 65 40 females
Satisfaction and
Friction
Nye & Nye-MacDougall 1959 .86 - .97 None 9 1300 females
MacDougall Marital Adjustment Repro-
Scale ducibility
Orden & Dimensions of 1968 NR Content, Construct 18 781 males
Bradburn Marriage Happiness 957 females
Terman Marital Happiness 1938 .60 Concurrent 90 792 couples
Index H-W
Correlation
*Adapted from Straus (1969) and original sources. This summary does not include related measures of variables
such as marital integration (Farber, 1957), marital strain (Hurvitz, 1965), or marital communication (Navran,
1967); some scales based on modification of earlier scales (Burgess and Wallin, 1953; Karlsson, 1951); indirect
measures (Kirkpatrick, 1937); single-item measures (Rollins and Feldman, 1970); or multiple-item measures not
intended for use as scales (Burr, 1970).
tNR = Not Reported
ttNot all questions in this scale were considered measures of marital adjustment
1970's and judged to be indicators of marital and all items with low variance and high
adjustment or a closely related concept, as skewness were eliminated.
defined by Spanier and Cole (1974). This 9. Questions with alternative wording,
preliminary screening of items was necessary structure, and category choices were further
to avoid presenting the respondent with too examined. Where differences in response
lengthy a questionnaire. variation were significant, items with the
4. Approximately 200 remaining items lesser variation were excluded.
were included in a questionnaire with a 10. Remaining variables were analyzed
standard complement of social background using a t-test for significance of difference
variables. Among the questionnaire's 200 between means of the married and divorced
items were several new items which were samples. Items which were not significantly
developed to tap areas of adjustment which I different at the .001 level were eliminated.
thought had been ignored in previous Fifty-two variables remained following ap-
measures. In addition, sets of items and plication of this stringent criterion.
scales previously used were expanded in order 11. Remaining questions with alternative
to make them more complete. Finally, to test wording were reexamined and items with the
the hypothesis that alternative wording in a lowest t-value were excluded. Forty items
fixed-choice dyadic adjustment scale might remained at this point.
produce different results and unpredictable 12. The remaining 40 variables were factor
response sets, approximately 25 items were analyzed to assess the adequacy of our
included with alternative wording in the definition, determine the presence of hy-
question and in the fixed-choice response pothesized components, and make a final
categories. determination of items which were to be
5. The questionnaire was administered to included in the scale. Thirty-two items
a purposive sample of 218 married persons in remained after eight were eliminated due to
central Pennsylvania. The sample consisted low factor loadings (below .30).
primarily of working and middle class 13. The issue of variable weighting was
residents of the area who worked for one of considered. After empirical comparisons
four industrial or corporate firms which were considered, using alternative weighting
agreed to cooperate in the study. procedures and consideration of the scaling
6. Questionnaires were mailed to every literature, a decision was made against
person in Centre County, Pennsylvania, who weighting.
had obtained a divorce decree during the 12
months previous to the mailing. These SAMPLING AND SOCIAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE
respondents were asked to respond to the
relationship questions on the basis of the last A nonprobability purposive sampling
month they spent with their spouses. technique was used to locate respondents for
Ninety-four usable questionnaires were ob- this study. It was not the study's objective to
tained from approximately 400 persons whom generalize findings to a larger population,
we were able to locate. but rather to obtain samples of married and
7. A small sample of never-married divorced persons who would complete a
cohabiting couples was given the question- lengthy self-administered questionnaire in
naire to determine potential problems in order to allow us to do a comprehensive item
question-wording and applicability of the analysis and scale assessment. Therefore,
scale for nonmarital dyads. These data are probability sampling techniques were not
not part of the scale construction analysis.s considered necessary.
8. Frequency distributions were analyzed Two hundred and eighteen white, married
persons were located through the cooperation
of four corporations in Centre County,
'Although the Dyadic Adjustment Scale was designed Pennsylvania. We wanted to avoid the
for use with unmarried dyads and pretested for validity, university community and any special
appropriateness and relevance, only married couples problems with response sets which might
were used to assess reliability. Future research has been
planned (Lewis and Spanier, 1975) which will assess the
exist in a population of sophisticated
reliability of the scale for unmarried dyads and which test-takers. However, limited funds neces-
will allow us to compare married and unmarried couples. sitated that we remain within 30 miles of the
university. Consequently, the strategy de- FACTOR ANALYSIS: TESTING THE
scribed was utilized for locating the married ADEQUACY OF THE DEFINITION
sample. Respondents were promised and
subsequently given a summary of the Following the selection of the best 40
findings, and employers were promised and potential items for the scale, a factor analysis
was performed with the following objectives:
given a similar, but more complete, summary
of the study. (1) To test the adequacy of the proposed
The divorced sample was obtained through definition of dyadic adjustment. Our interest
was in confirming whether or not the
questionnaires which were mailed to all
persons in Centre County, Pennsylvania, hypothesized components of adjustment
whose final decree had been granted during could be empirically verified; (2) To
the 12 months previous to the mailing of the determine which items should be included in
the final adjustment scale; whether each item
questionnaire. These respondents, located
loaded highly on the appropriate factor, and
through county divorce records, were asked
to respond to each item in the context of the whether items could be eliminated without
last month they spent with their former influencing the validity or reliability of the
spouse. Four hundred of the five hundred scale; (3) To facilitate understanding of how
and fifty persons were located using the each of the items included in the scale relates
addresses available in the courthouse records. to each other, the subscales, and the total
Ninety-four completed questionnaires were scale.
obtained through this process.6 Selected The factor analysis program available in
social characteristics of the sample are SPSS was used for this study.7 Since the
summarized in Table 2. hypothesized factors were thought to be
interrelated and not orthogonal, oblique
TABLE 2. SELECTED SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS rotation was specified.8 Using the criteria
OF MARRIED AND DIVORCED RESPONDENTS specified in the previous section, all of the
items included in the questionnaire which
Married Divorced were designed to assess interpersonal tensions
Characteristic Sample Sample and personal anxiety had been discarded.9
Thus, the 40 items included in the factor
Number of males 109 41
Number of females 109 49 analysis tested the adequacy of four of the
Number married only original five dimensions (dyadic satisfaction,
once 206 74 dyadic cohesion, dyadic consensus, and
Number married more troublesome dyadic differences).
than once 12 20
Mean age 35.1 30.4
Median months 6This low response rate appears to be normative for
7 4 survey samples of recently divorced individuals. See, for
engaged
Mean number of years example, Scanzoni (1968:455) and Dean and Bresnahan
married 13.2 8.5 (1969).
Percent Catholic 12.4 14.4
Percent Methodist 38.7 26.7 7The factor analysis program available in SPSS (Nie,
Bent, and Hull, 1970) was used and the following
Percent Lutheran 11.5 13.3
Percent Presbyterian 7.4 11.1 program options were in effect: oblique rotation,
Percent Other principal factoring with iteration, maximum number of
factors specified = 5, minimum eigenvalue = 1.0,
Protestant 25.1 23.3 maximum number of iterations = 25, delta value for
Percent Jewish None 1.1
Percent Atheist, oblique rotation = zero.
Agnostic, None 5.1 10.0
8Indeed, the average intercorrelation between the four
Percent interfaith
19.7 46.7 empirically derived subscales was subsequently found to
marriages be .68.
Median frequence of
church attendence Once a month Occasionally
Median yearly family 9This finding should not be interpreted to mean that
income interpersonal tensions and personal anxiety are unim-
$12,000.00 $10,000.00 portant to dyadic functioning, but rather that it is not a
Mean years education 13 14
Median family clearly identified component of dyadic adjustment, as
conceptualized and operationalized in this study. I
life-cycle stage should like to hypothesize for future research that this
(Duvall, 1967) 4 3 dimension is an important, but conceptually separate,
Mean number of children 2.0 1.6 dimension of dyadic functioning.
SUBSCALEAFFILIATION,AND SUBSCALEFACTORLOADINGSOF
TABLE3. SCALECOMMUNALITY,
DYADICADJUSTMENTSCALEITEMS
FactorLoadings
Dyadic Dyadic Dyadic Affectional
Variable Commu- Consensus Satisfaction Cohesion Expression
Number nality Subscale Factor Factor Factor Factor
1 .62 DyadicConsensus .54 -.15 .10 -.02
2 .63 DyadicConsensus .72 .12 .14 -.01
3 .31 DyadicConsensus .57 .09 .05 .02
4 .75 AffectionalExpression .35 -.10 .12 -.57
8 .61 DyadicConsensus .73 -.15 -.06 -.05
12 .56 DyadicConsensus .59 -.22 .13 .04
14 .47 DyadicConsensus .52 -.15 .16 ,--.06
16 .71 DyadicSatisfaction -.03 -.70 .01 -.20
17 .53 DyadicSatisfaction .01 -.54 .12 -.09
20 .69 DyadicSatisfaction .01 -.82 -.01 .02
23 .44 DyadicSatisfaction .14 -.32 .28 .09
24 .47 DyadicCohesion .20 -.11 .50 .07
25 .48 DyadicCohesion -.09 .01 .71 -.05
26 .68 DyadicCohesion .16 -.09 .65 -.07
27 .66 DyadicCohesion .17 -.04 .68 -.04
28 .51 DyadicCohesion -.00 -.05 .65 -.02
29 .24 AffectionalExpression -.04 .06 -.02 -.48
32 .57 DyadicSatisfaction .27 -.62 -.07 .06
The analysis indicated that one of the according to their position in the scale, as
hypothesized factors, troublesome dyadic presented in the appendix.
differences, could not be empirically verified Table 3 indicates that 32 items remained in
and these items were accordingly elimina- the total Dyadic Adjustment Scale following
ted.o However, four items which were the elimination of the eight items suggested
thought to be indicators of dyadic satisfaction as inappropriate by the factor analysis. Three
or dyadic consensus were combined and of the original five hypothesized components
verified as a separate factor, which I have were found to exist (dyadic satisfaction,
called affectional expression. dyadic consensus, and dyadic cohesion). In
Table 3 lists the item communality with the all cases, except the four affectional-expres-
total scale, the subscale affiliation of each sion items, the items hypothesized as
item, and the loading for each item on each indicators of each factor were confirmed to
subscale factor. The items are numbered have their highest loading (in all cases above
.30) with that factor.1"
"'Conceptually,troublesome dyadic (marital) dif-
ferencesmay be indistinguishablefrom consensus on I"It can be notedthat an earlierfactoranalyticstudy
matters of importance to dyadic functioning. The by Lockeand Williamson(1958) identifiedfour factors
attemptto define two groupsof items which separate similarto those found in the presentstudy (companion-
these concepts may be prematurefrom a conceptual ship, agreement,affectionalintimacy, and euphoria).
standpoint.Nevertheless,itemswereretainedin the scale However,Lockeand Williamson'sinterpretationof the
only if they had a factor loading above .30. The factorsand the itemswhichloadedhighlyon each factor
troublesomedyadicdifferencesquestionsdid not emerge are at variancewith the findings in the currentstudy,
as a clearly identified factor, and had lower than eventhoughmanyof the items are identicalor similar.
acceptablefactorloadingson any otherfactor. This differentialfinding may be due to differencesin
The factor analysis allows us to conclude We cannot claim to have adequately dealt
that 32 items give a more or less complete with the problems of conventionality and
indication of dyadic adjustment. These 32 social desirability as measurement issues
items can be grouped into four meaningful (Edmonds, Withers and Dibatista, 1972;
components (dyadic satisfaction, dyadic Spanier and Cole, 1974) but recent research
cohesion, dyadic consensus, and affectional and critiques (Dean and Lucas, 1974;
expression) which are conceptually and Clayton, 1975) suggest that these limitations
empirically related to dyadic adjustment. may have been overstated. We have
attempted to minimize these and other
SCALE DESCRIPTION traditional methodological problems through-
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale is designed out. However, researchers concerned about
to serve a number of different needs. First, these issues who still wish to measure ad-
for those wishing to use an overall measure of justment could use the approaches of
dyadic adjustment, the 32-item scale can be Murstein and Beck (1972) or Dean and Lucas
completed in just a few minutes, is only two (1974), who measured potentially confound-
pages in length, can easily be incorporated ing influences and then controlled for them in
into a self-administered questionnaire, and their final analyses. It should be noted,
can be adapted for use in interview studies. however, that neither set of findings was
The scale is additionally useful since it
significantly altered by controls for conven-
allows researchers with more limited needs to tionality or social desirability.
use one of the subscales alone without losing Previous work has explored the problem of
confidence in the reliability or validity of the unit of analysis in marital adjustment scales
measure. For example, researchers interested
(Spanier, 1972, 1973; Spanier and Cole,
specifically in dyadic satisfaction may use the 1974). The problem of clarifying whether the
10-item subscale for this purpose. The format
of the scale allows for easy coding or scoring. present scale can be considered a measure of
individual adjustment to the relationship
We have not been able to deal adequately versus adjustment of the dyad as a
with the problems of direction-of-wording
functioning group has not been solved. Some
and halo effects, but we have attempted to scale items (notably item 32) assess the
structure the scale in a way that encourages individual's adjustment to the relationship.
the respondent to think about each of the Most of the items, however, attempt to assess
items being presented. the respondent's perception of the adjust-
The scale has a theoretical range of 0-151. ment of the relationship as a functioning
The source of the items included in the scale
varies considerably. Some will be found in group. Since this latter type of item
predominates, the researcher could assume
previous scales, others are modifications of that partner differences in responding to the
items used previously, and others were scale items largely reflect differing percep-
developed specifically for the present study.'" tions of the relationship's functioning.
procedures or may indicate a shift in the nature of VALIDITY
marital adjustment during the 20 years since the data for
the first study were collected. A fifth factor found in the Content Validity. 13 Items included in the
earlier study, masculine interpretation-wife accommoda- Dyadic Adjustment Scale were evaluated by
tion, did not emerge in the present study. It must be three judges for content validity. Items were
stated, however, that the factors found by Locke and
Williamson are lacking in conceptual clarity, since a included only if the judges considered the
cursory examination suggests that some of the items items: (1) relevant measures of dyadic
associated with the factors appear to be conceptually adjustment for contemporary relationships;
unrelated.
(2) consistent with the nominal definitions
2Some questions included in the final scale were not and an argument was made for its inclusion in future
originally intended as measures of adjustment, but met measures of the concept. The importance of this concept
the criteria for inclusion in our study. For example, items as a component of adjustment was confirmed in the
25-28 are from a marital stress scale developed by
Feldman (1965). The final item on the scale, part of the present study.
dyadic adjustment component, was developed originally 13Contentvalidity involves the systematic examination
as a measure of commitment (Spanier, 1971). A later of the test content to determine whether it covers a
study (Dean and Spanier, 1974) suggests that commit- representative sample of the behaviors, attitudes, or
ment was an overlooked variable in marital adjustment characteristics to be measured.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
AND ITS SUBSCALES, BY MARITAL STATUS
Married Divorced Total
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Dyadic Consensus Subscale 57.9 8.5 41.1 11.1 52.8 12.1
Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale 40.5 7.2 22.2 10.3 35.0 11.8
Dyadic Cohesion Subscale 13.4 4.2 8.0 4.9 11.8 5.1
Affectional Expression Subscale 9.0 2.3 5.1 2.8 7.8 3.0
DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE 114.8 17.8 70.7 23.8 101.5 28.3
N = 218 N = 94 N = 312
suggested by Spanier and Cole (1974) for among married respondents and .88 among
adjustment and its components (satisfaction, divorced respondents (p < .001). 16
cohesion, and consensus); and (3) carefully Construct validity was further established
worded with appropriate fixed choice re- through the factor analysis of the final
sponses. 32-item scale. As previously noted, four
Criterion-related Validity. 14 The scale interrelated components (dyadic satisfaction,
was administered to a married sample of 218 dyadic cohesion, dyadic consensus, and
persons and a divorced sample of 94 persons. affectional expression), three of which were
Each of the 32 items in the scale correlated hypothesized as components of adjustment,
significantly with the external criterion of were found to exist. Thus, the Dyadic
marital status. In other words, for each item, Adjustment Scale partially appears to
the divorced sample differed significantly measure the theoretical construct defined
from the married sample (p < .001) using a earlier (Spanier and Cole, 1974).
t-test for assessing differences between RELIABILITY
sample means. In addition, the mean total Because of this study's interest in
scale scores for the married and divorced
producing a comprehensive dyadic adjust-
samples were 114.8 and 70.7 respectively. ment scale, with identifiable and empirically
These total scores are significantly different
verified components, reliability was deter-
at the .001 level. Table 4 presents the
mined for each of the component scales as
summary scores for the Dyadic Adjustment well as the total scale. The most appropriate
Scale and each of its subscales. measure of internal consistency reliability is
Construct Validity. " Since all items with Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha (1951), a
content validity used in previous marital conservative estimate of internal consistency
adjustment scales were included in the which is a variant of the basic Kuder-Rich-
research instrument originally tested, it is ardson (1937) formula (Anastasi, 1968).
possible to assess how the Dyadic Adjustment Table 5 summarizes the reliability coefficients
Scale correlated with other, previously-used
marital adjustment scales. We selected the 16Thecorrelation for the total sample (N = 312) was
Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale .93 (p < .001). The high correlation between the Dyadie
Adjustment Scale and the Locke-Wallace Marital
(1959-the most frequently used scale) for Adjustment Scale suggests the possibility that the scales
assessing whether the Dyadic Adjustment are redundant. It can be argued that an established scale
Scale measures the same general construct as with a large normative data base is preferable, all other
a well-accepted marital adjustment scale. things being equal, to a newer scale tested on a limited
The correlation between these scales was .86 population. The high correlation was expected, however,
since many of the items are similar, if not idqntical, and
since the basic procedures for scale development were
also similar. Nevertheless, I shall argue that the
'4Criterion-relatedvalidity indicates the effectiveness of
a test in predicting an individual's behavior, attitudes, or advantages of the present scale (namely, its appropriate-
ness for use with unmarried dyads; the availability of
characteristics in specified situations (predictive validity)
subscales with separate reliability estimates; an
or diagnosing or assessing an existing status (concurrent evaluation of validity using a contemporary sample; and
validity). The present scale has been demonstrated to the consideration of a number of methodological and
have concurrent validity.
conceptual issues not previously included in reports of
marital or dyadic adjustment scale development) speak
IsConstructvalidity refers to the extent to which a test favorably for its use in future research requiring a paper
measures a theoretical construct or trait. and pencil measurement assessing dyadic adjustment.
TABLE 5. RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR THE consequence to the relationship if the couple
DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE AND ITS COM-
PONENT SUBSCALES*
disagrees on a matter of no importance than
if they disagree on an item of great
Reli- Number importance.
Scale ability of Items Our data demonstrate quite clearly that
individuals are able to answer two-part
Dyadic Consensus Subscale .90 13
Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale .94 10 questions of this nature without difficulty,
Dyadic Cohesion Subscale .86 5 and they are able to make a clear judgment
Affectional Expression Subscale .73 4 about the importance of the item. However,
DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE .96 32 we found that on the areas surveyed by the 32
*Cronbach's coefficient alpha is used as the reliability items in the scale, the importance variable is
estimate. skewed in the direction of "very important."
The only items on which a nontrivial
for the total scale and its components. The
proportion of the respondents indicated that
total scale reliability is .96."7 The data indi- the item was not at all important were
cate that the total scale and its components
religious matters (28.7 percent) and ways of
have sufficiently high reliability to justify dealing with in-laws or parents (20.6 per-
their use. cent).
The correlation between weighted and
THE WEIGHTING ISSUE unweighted adjustment scores was .53 among
In an earlier discussion of the weighting married persons, .48 among divorced per-
issue (Spanier and Cole, 1974), it was sons, and .63 for the total sample. The
suggested that paper and pencil adjustment analysis indicated, therefore, that correla-
scales have the disadvantage of having to tions between weighted and unweighted
define, a priori, which variables are adjustment scores, although significant at the
.001 level, are sufficiently different from 1.0
important for assessing the quality of a to merit consideration of weighting. However,
relationship. We suggested that only in the
event that empirical research should confirm primarily because of the skewness toward
that couples nearly universally define the "very important" in rating areas of dyadic
same areas as important in their relation- adjustment and the moderately high correla-
tion between the weighted and unweighted
ships, would it be acceptable to use fixed lists
of items from one couple to the next. We also scores in the present sample, a decision was
made not to use weighted scores. Although
pointed out, however, that previous research
in other areas has found attempts at theoretically and methodologically relevant,
weighting items troublesome. This study has weighting does not appear to enhance our
examined the problems associated with ability to assess adjustment to a degree which
would indicate that weighting items accord-
weighting items by including a set of items in
the questionnaire which asked the respondent ing to importance is worth the additional
to: (1) indicate the importance of each of the effort. Consequently, the evidence for the use
items on a traditional list of problem areas of weighted items was not compelling in the
(on a dimension of very important, somewhat present study.
An extensive literature has developed
important or not at all important); and (2)
indicate the approximate extent of agreement concerning the desirability of another form of
or disagreement between the respondent and weighting, namely, weighting items accord-
his or her partner. ing to factor loadings obtained through factor
The purpose of this dual approach was to analysis or beta weights obtained through
assess whether items should be weighted on multiple regression analysis (e.g., Allen,
the agreement-disagreement continuum ac- 1973; Smith, 1974; Werts and Linn, 1970;
Lawler and Porter, 1967, 1973; Nathanson
cording to their importance to the person. It and Becker, 1973). The Locke-Wallace
can be argued, for example, that it is of lesser
Marital Adjustment Scale (1959), among
others, contains differential weights for each
"A separate assessment of scale reliability using the of the 15 items. Locke and Wallace did not
Spearman-Brown average inter-item formula for internal
consistency (Guilford, 1954: 354, 359) was also found to explain how they decided on the weights for
be .96. their items, but researchers have continued to
use the scale without questioning the coding article might profitably start from a larger
scheme. pool of items. These should reflect a broader
In a further similar analysis, items were conception of marital functioning, including
weighted by factor loadings and the total the concept of marital adjustment but also
scale scores correlated with unweighted scale dimensions of marital quality, such as
scores. The correlations were similar to those adaptability, communication, interpersonal
reported for weighting by importance. After tensions, or conflict. Such a reconceptualiza-
carefully examining the arguments for and tion could be combined with the use of
against weighting according to norms unidimensional and multidimensional scaling
empirically derived from one or more techniques to provide carefully validated,
samples, we have decided against weighting reliable and relevant marriage and family
the items. Although there is a theoretical measurement instruments.
rationale, but not a convincing empirical
basis, for weighting, the Dyadic Adjustment REFERENCES
Scale is coded according to interval con- Adams, C. R.
tinuums ranging from zero to one less than 1960 "Marital Happiness Prediction Inventory."
the number of fixed choices. The suggested University Park, Pennsylvania: Division of
coding scheme is indicated in the appendix. Marriage and Family Service.
Allen, M. P.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1973 "Construction of optimally reliable and valid
FOR THE FUTURE composite measures: canonical factor regres-
sion method." Paper presented at the annual
The primary objective of this study was to meeting of the American Sociological Associa-
develop a scale which could be used with tion.
confidence to assess the quality of marriage Anastasi, Anne
and similar dyads. This paper has attempted 1968 Psychological Testing (3rd ed.). New York:
to thoroughly present the results of a scale Macmillan Publishing Co.
Bernard, Jessie
development process designed to meet the 1933 "An instrument for measurement of success in
need for relevant, valid and reliable measures marriage." American Sociological Society 27:
which can be used in survey research on 94-106.
marital and nonmarital dyadic relationships. Bowerman, Charles
An earlier paper (Spanier and Cole, 1974) 1957 "Adjustment in marriage: overall and in spe-
cific areas." Sociology and Social Research
attempted to present an exhaustive review of 41 (March-April):257-263.
the problems with and prospects for Buerkle, Jack V., and Robin F. Badgley
developing a measure of dyadic adjustment. 1959 "Couple role-taking: Yale Marital Interaction
This study and the scales which have resulted Battery." Marriage and Family Living 21 (Feb-
cannot claim to have solved all of the ruary):53-58.
methodological problems which have plagued Burgess, Ernest W., and Leonard Cottrell, Jr.
the field for some time. I believe, however, 1939 Predicting Success or Failure in Marriage. New
York:Prentice Hall.
that the process used in this study and the Burr, Wesley
scales which have resulted represent a step in 1970 "Satisfaction with various aspects of marriage
the desired direction. over the life-cycle: a random middle class
Methodological problems inherent in the sample." Journal of Marriage and the Family
use of paper and pencil measures can only be 32 (February):29-37.
Campbell, Donald T., and Donald W. Fiske
minimized, never eliminated. Indeed, it 1959 "Convergent and discriminant validation by
would be desirable to supplement the present the multitrait-multimethod matrix." Psycho-
study with one which would develop measures logical Bulletin 56:81-105.
for use in laboratory or observational Cronbach, L. J.
research. The multitrait-multimethod ap- 1951 "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests." Psychometrika 16:297-334.
proach (Campbell and Fiske, 1959) would, of Clayton, Richard R.
course, give us greater confidence in our 1975 The Family, Marriage and Social Change. Lex-
methods. Future studies should consider the ington, Massachusetts:D.C. Heath and Com-
problems of conventionality, social desira- pany.
bility, unit of analysis, and husband-wife or Dean, Dwight G., and Brenda Snare Bresnahan
1969 "Ecology, friendship patterns and divorce: a
partner differences in perceptions. Finally, research note." Journal of Marriage and the
research similar to that presented in this Family 31 (August):462-463.
Dean, Dwight G., and Wayne L. Lucas marital interaction." Journal of Marriage and
1974 "Improving marital prediction: a model and a the Family 31 (February):108-114.
pilot study." Revised version of paper pre- Locke, Harvey J.
sented at the annual meeting of the National 1947 "Predicting marital adjustment by comparing
Council on Family Relations, St. Louis, Mis- a divorced and happily married group." Ameri-
souri, October. can Sociological Review 12 (April):187-191.
Dean, Dwight G., and Graham B. Spanier 1951 Predicting Adjustment in Marriage: a Com-
1974 "Commitment: an overlooked variable in parison of a Divorced and a Happily Married
marital adjustment?" Sociological Focus 7 Group. New York:Henry Holt and Company.
(Spring):113-118. Locke, Harvey J., and George Karlsson
Edmonds, Vernon, Glenne Withers, and Beverly Diba- 1952 "Marital adjustment and prediction in Sweden
tista and the U. S." American Sociological Review
1972 "Adjustment, conservatism, and marital con- 17 (February):10-17.
ventionalization." Journal of Marriage and the Locke, Harvey J., and K. M. Wallace
Family 34 (February):96-103. 1959 "Short marital adjustment and prediction tests:
Farber, Bernard their reliability and validity." Marriage and
1957 "An index of marital integration." Sociometry Family Living 21 (August):251-255.
20 (June):117-134. Locke, Harvey J., and Robert C. Williamson
Feldman, Harold 1958 "Marital adjustment: a factor analysis study."
1965 "The development of the husband-wife rela- American Sociological Review 23:562-569.
tionship: a research report." Ithaca, New Manson, M. P., and A. Lerner
York:Cornell University. 1962 "The marriage adjustment sentence comple-
Guilford, J. P. tion survey manual." Beverly Hills, California:
1954 Psychometric Methods (2nd ed.) New York: Western Psychological Services.
McGraw-Hill. Most, Elizabeth
Hamilton, George 1964 "Measuring changes in marital satisfaction."
1929 A Research in Marriage. New York:Boni. Social Casework 9.
Hicks, Mary, and Marilyn Platt Murstein, Bernard I., and Gary D. Beck
1970 "Marital happiness and stability: a review of 1972 "Person perception, marriage adjustment, and
the research in the 60's." Journal of Marriage social desirability." Journal of Consulting and
and the Family 32 (November):553-574. Clinical Psychology 39(3):396-403.
Hurvitz, Nathan Nathanson, Constance A., and Marshall H. Becker
1965 "The measure of marital strain." American 1973 "Job satisfaction and job performance: an em-
Journal of Sociology 65 (May):610-615. pirical test of some theoretical propositions."
Inselburg, Rachel M. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
1964 "The sentence completion technique in the mance 9 (April):267-279.
measure of marital satisfaction." Journal of Navran, Leslie
1967 "Communication and adjustment in mar-
Marriage and the Family 26 (August):339-341.
Karlsson, G. riage." Family Process 6 (September):173-184.
1951 "Adaptability and communication in marriage: Nie, Norman, Dale H. Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull
a Swedish predictive study of marital satisfac- 1970 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New
tion." Uppsala, Sweden:Almqvist and Wik- York:McGraw-Hill.
sells. Nye, F. Ivan, and Evelyn MacDougall
Katz, M. 1959 "The dependent variable in marital research."
1965 "Agreement on connotative meaning in mar- Pacific Sociological Review 2 (Fall):67-70.
riage." Family Process 4:64-74. Orden, Susan, and Norman Bradburn
Kirkpatrick, C. 1968 "Dimensions of marriage happiness." Ameri-
1937 "Community of interest and the measurement can Journal of Sociology 73 (May):715-731.
of marriage adjustment." Family 18:133-137. Rollins, Boyd, and Harold Feldman
Kuder, G. F., and M. W. Richardson 1970 "Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle."
1937 "The theory of estimation of test reliability." Journal of Marriage and the Family 32 (Febru-
Psychometrika 2:151-160. ary):20-27.
Lawler, E. E., and L. W. Porter Scanzoni, John
1967 "The effect of performance on job satisfac- 1968 "A social system analysis of dissolved and
tion." Industrial Relations 7:20-28. existing marriages." Journal of Marriage and
1973 Motivation in Work Organization. Monterey, the Family 30 (August):452-461.
California:Brooks Cole. Smith, Kent W.
Lewis, Robert A., and Graham B. Spanier 1974 "Forming composite scales and estimating
1975 "Syndyasmos: married and unmarried cohab- their validity through factor analysis." Social
itation." Unpublished research proposal. The Forces 53 (December):168-180.
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Spanier, Graham B.
Pennsylvania. 1971 A study of the relationship between and social
Lively, Edwin correlates of romanticism and marital adjust-
1969 "Toward conceptual clarification: case of ment. Unpublished masters thesis. Iowa State
University.
1972 "Further evidence on methodological weak- Straus, Murray A.
nesses in the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjust- 1969 Family Measurement Techniques. Minneapo-
ment Scale and other measures of adjust- lis:University of Minnesota Press.
ment." Journal of Marriage and the Family 34 Terman, Lewis
(August):403-404. 1938 Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness.
1973 "Whose marital adjustment: A research New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company.
note." Sociological Inquiry 43(1):95-96. Werts, C. E., and R. L. Linn
Spanier, Graham B., and Charles L. Cole 1970 "Cautions in applying various procedures for
1974 "Toward clarification and investigation of mar- determining the reliability and validity of mul-
ital adjustment." Revision of a paper presented ti-item scales." American Sociological Review
at the National Council on Family Relations, 35 (August):577-579.
Toronto, October. Winch, Robert F.
Spanier, Graham B., Robert A. Lewis, and Charles L. 1974 "Theorizing about the family." Pp. 21-30 in
Cole Robert F. Winch and Graham B. Spanier
1975 "Marital adjustment over the family life cycle: (Eds.), Selected Studies in Marriage and the
the issue of curvilinearity." Journal of Marriage Family. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Win-
and the Family 37 (May):263-275. ston.
APPENDIX
DYADIC ADJUSTMENTSCALE
Mostpersonshavedisagreementsin their relationships.Pleaseindicatebelowthe approximateextent of agreement
or disagreementbetweenyou and your partnerfor each item on the followinglist.
Almost Occa- Fre- Almost
Always Always sionally quently Always Always
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree
1. Handlingfamilyfinances 5 4 3 2 1 0
2. Mattersof recreation 5 4 3 2 1 0
3. Religiousmatters 5 4 3 2 1 0
4. Demonstrationsof affection 5 4 3 2 1 0
5. Friends 5 4 3 2 1 0
6. Sexrelations 5 4 3 2 1 0
7. Conventionality (corrector
properbehavior) 5 4 3 2 1 0
8. Philosophyof life 5 4 3 2 1 0
9. Waysof dealingwith parents
or in-laws 5 4 3 2 1 0
10. Aims, goals, and things
believedimportant 5 4 3 2 1 0
11. Amountof time spenttogether 5 4 3 2 1 0
12. Makingmajordecisions 5 4 3 2 1 0
13. Householdtasks 5 4 3 2 1 0
14. Leisuretime interestsand
activities 5 4 3 2 1 0
15. Careerdecisions 5 4 3 2 1 0
More
All Mostof often Occa-
the time the time than not sionally Rarely Never
16. Howoftendo youdiscussor have
youconsidereddivorce,separation,
or terminatingyour relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 5
17. Howoftendo youor yourmate
leavethe houseaftera fight? 0 1 2 3 4 5
18. In general,howoftendo you think
that thingsbetweenyou and your
partnerare goingwell? 5 4 3 2 1 0
19. Do youconfidein yourmate? 5 4 3 2 1 0
20. Do you everregretthat you
married?(orlivedtogether) 0 1 2 3 4 5
21. How often do you and your
partnerquarrel? 0 1 2 3 4 5
22. Howoftendo you andyourmate
"geton each other'snerves?" 0 1 2 3 4 5
Almost Occa-
Every Day Every Day sionally Rarely Never
23. Do you kiss your mate? 4 3 2 1 0
All of Most of Some of Very few None of
them them them of them them
24. Do you and your mate engage in
outside interests together? 4 3 2 1 0
How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate?
Less than Once or Once or
once a twice a twice a Once a More
Never month month week day often
25. Have a stimulating exchange
of ideas 0 1 2 3 4 5
26. Laugh together 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. Calmly discuss something 0 1 2 3 4 5
28. Work together on a project 0 1 2 3 4 5
These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometime disagree. Indicate if either item below
caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no)
Yes No
29. 0 1 Being too tired for sex.
30. 0 1 Not showing love.
31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle
point,
"happy," represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the
degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Fairly A Little Happy Very Extremely Perfect

Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy
32. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship?
5 I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that it does.
4 1 want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does.
3 1 want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does.
2 It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I
can't do much more than I am doing now to help it
succeed.
1 It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refitse to do any more than I am doing now to
keep the relation-
ship going.
0 My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going.

Spanier 1976

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Spanier 1976

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar

February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 15

16 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976

February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 17

Year Reli- Number of

18 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976

February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 19

20 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976

February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 21

22 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976

February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 23

24 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976

February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 25

26 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976

February 1976 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 27

Extremely Fairly A Little Happy Very Extremely Perfect

28 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY February 1976

Potrebbero piacerti anche