The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.
Abstract
The present study took a critical look at a central construct in couples research: relationship satisfaction. Eight well-validated self-report measures of relationship satisfaction, including the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; H. J. Locke & K. M. Wallace, 1959), the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; G. B. Spanier, 1976), and an additional 75 potential satisfaction items, were given to 5,315 online participants. Using item response theory, the authors demonstrated that the MAT and DAS provided relatively poor levels of precision in assessing satisfaction, particularly given the length of those scales. Principal-components analysis and item response theory applied to the larger item pool were used to develop the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) scales. Compared with the MAS and the DAS, the CSI scales were shown to have higher precision of measurement (less noise) and correspondingly greater power for detecting differences in levels of satisfaction. The CSI scales demonstrated strong convergent validity with other measures of satisfaction and excellent construct validity with anchor scales from the nomological net surrounding satisfaction, suggesting that they assess the same theoretical construct as do prior scales. Implications for research are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The CSI-32 was found to have excellent construct validity and convergent validity with other measures of relationship satisfaction (Funk and Rogge, 2007).”
From Partner symptom accommodation in generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary examination of correlates with symptoms and cognitive behavioural therapy outcome (2024) · cites this paper as Funk and Rogge, 2007
Citations
Cites
A Global Measure of Perceived Stress
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136404 · Cited by 32,807
Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286 · Cited by 3,970
Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Berns, S., Wheeler, J., Baucom, D. H., & Simpson, L. E. (2004) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.72.2.176 · Cited by 380
A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier dyadic adjustment scale
Sharpley, C. F., & Cross, D. G. (1982) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/351594 · Cited by 297
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review.
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0031859 · Cited by 1,764
“We recommend that future large epidemiological studies consider a more recently developed, but brief, four-item Couples Satisfaction Inventory that was developed empirically based on item analyses of the most commonly used marital quality measures (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodCaring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research
Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008 · Cited by 852
Self-citationThe effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study.
Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013969 · Cited by 656
Rolffs, J. L., Rogge, R. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2018) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191116645905 · Cited by 504
“Participants with children also answered a modified version of the Couples Satisfaction Inventory–4 in regard to their satisfaction with their relationship with their children.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationDyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis
Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. B., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002 · Cited by 539
“Data collected from the following relationship satisfaction measures were included: the Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007), the Daily Dairy of Relationship Quality (DDRQ;Hemphill, 2013), theDyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), the Marital Happiness Rating Scale (MHRS;…”
Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: a meta-analysis
Mitnick, D. M., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2009) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017004 · Cited by 391
“Given this, we recommend that future researchers use newly available global measures of satisfaction derived from Item Response Theory analyses (Funk & Rogge, 2007) that are far more reliable than older adjustment or global satisfaction measures (Rogge, Funk, & Lee, 2009).”
MethodMarriage in the New Millennium: A Decade in Review
Fincham, F., & Beach, S. (2010) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00722.x · Cited by 372
“Using classical test theory and IRT, Funk and Rogge (2007) set out to increase the precision of measurement in the field by analyzing an item pool of 180 items representing eight widely used measures of marital satisfaction, including the DAS and MAT.”
MethodIntimate Relationships and Psychopathology
Whisman, M., & Baucom, D. (2012) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-011-0107-2 · Cited by 360
“First, relationship problems can be stressful, particularly if they are severe and/or chronic in nature; measures of marital adjustment are highly correlated with perceived stress (Funk and Rogge 2007).”
To have and to hold: Gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds.
Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028723 · Cited by 320
“In the third step, after establishing the two-factor structure of the AIR Scale, we examined its convergent and discriminant validity using two additional samples.”
InfluentialVulvodynia: Assessment and Treatment
Goldstein, A. T., Pukall, C. F., Brown, C., Bergeron, S., Stein, A., & Kellogg-Spadt, S. (2016) · The Journal of Sexual Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.020 · Cited by 292
The reliability of relationship satisfaction: a reliability generalization meta-analysis.
Graham, J. M., Diebels, K. J., & Barnow, Z. B. (2011) · Journal of family psychology · doi:10.1037/a0022441 · Cited by 289
Benefits of Expressing Gratitude
Lambert, N., Clark, M., Durtschi, J., Fincham, F., & Graham, S. M. (2010) · Psychology Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610364003 · Cited by 271
“We assessed relationship satisfaction using Funk and Rogge’s (2007) four-item measure (e.”
MethodUnderstanding relationship quality: theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment
Fincham, F., & Rogge, R. (2010) · Journal of Family Theory & Review · doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x · Cited by 249
“As with the concerns raised by the noise in measurement of the MAT and DAS, only time will reveal how forcing negative and positive evaluations onto a single scale might have obscured many potentially interesting and informative results.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationResearch on Marital Satisfaction and Stability in the 2010s: Challenging Conventional Wisdom
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2020) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.1111/jomf.12635 · Cited by 312
“Psychometrically sound and theoretically coherent instruments for assessing marital satisfaction are in wide use (e.g., Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
BackgroundMarital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1222447110 · Cited by 223
“34], and neither test was significant after controlling for covariates [χ(2)(10) = 14.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKouros, C. D., Papp, L. M., Goeke‐Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2014) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0036804 · Cited by 209
Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. (2010) · Journal of family psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020836 · Cited by 202
“The measure correlated with standard relationship assessments in a large sample of dating and married participants (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
MethodCui, M., & Fincham, F. (2010) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01279.x · Cited by 192
“Specifically, we used four items from the couple satisfaction index (Funk & Rogge, 2007) to form the construct of relationship quality: satisfaction (from 1 = worse than all others/extremely bad to 6 = better than all others/extremely good ), reward (from 1 = not at all to 6 = very much or…”
MethodAn IRT analysis of motive questionnaires: The Unified Motive Scales
Schönbrodt, F., & Gerstenberg, F. (2012) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.010 · Cited by 183
“3 There is empirical evidence that diferent response formats within one scale are no obstacle for measuring the same latent construct (Funk & Rogge, 2007; Hohensinn & Kubinger, 2011). the structure of the motive scales and to finally construct the UMS.”
BackgroundStephenson, K. R., & Meston, C. M. (2013) · Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2013.811450 · Cited by 240
“The correlates and consequences of a satisfying sex life are important areas of research that are gaining increasing attention in the psychological and medical literature.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAttitudes toward intimate partner violence in dating relationships.
Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Braithwaite, R. S., & Pasley, K. (2008) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.260 · Cited by 173
“Relationship satisfaction. Starting with 180 items previously used to assess relationship satisfaction, Funk and Rogge (2007) conducted an item-response theory analysis to develop a four-item measure of relationship satisfaction with optimized psychometric properties.”
MethodDeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T., Finkel, E. J., Luchies, L. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2011) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025497 · Cited by 171
Doss, B. D., Cicila, L. N., Georgia, E. J., Roddy, M. K., Nowlan, K. M., Benson, L. A., & Christensen, A. (2016) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000063 · Cited by 239
“Global relationship satisfaction was measured using the 4-item version of the Couple Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007); an example item is, “In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?””
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Role of Sleep in Interpersonal Conflict
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2014) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550613488952 · Cited by 168
“Participants also completed measures of relationship satisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007; a¼ .89) and depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977; a ¼ .87) prior to their laboratory session.”
MethodHealthy marriage initiatives: on the need for empiricism in policy implementation.
Johnson, M. D. (2012) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0027743 · Cited by 166
Have you thanked your spouse today?: Felt and expressed gratitude among married couples.
Gordon, C. L., Arnette, R. A. M., & Smith, R. E. (2011) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.012 · Cited by 166
Early Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Relationship Satisfaction and Attributions
Williamson, H. C. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620972688 · Cited by 190
“Global sentiment toward the relationship was measured at all time points with the four-item version of the Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
MethodMcDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., Cravens, J. D., & Drouin, M. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.019 · Cited by 162
“—Participants rated their relationship satisfaction using the 4-item Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
MethodStigma and intimacy in same-sex relationships: a narrative approach.
Frost, D. M. (2011) · Journal of family psychology · doi:10.1037/a0022374 · Cited by 156
Contextualizing Change in Marital Satisfaction During Middle Age
Gorchoff, S. M., John, O., & Helson, R. (2008) · Psychology Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02222.x · Cited by 150
“This commonly used measure of marital satisfaction has been included in numerous multi-item scales (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
MethodPapp, L. M., Danielewicz, J., & Cayemberg, C. (2011) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0291 · Cited by 172
“The CSI correlated with standard relationship assessments in a large sample of dating and married participants.(29) Participants completed the verbal conflict subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale,(30) which was included as a covariate when predicting relationship satisfaction.”
Social Stigma and Sexual Minorities’ Romantic Relationship Functioning
Doyle, D. M., & Molix, L. A. (2015) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167215594592 · Cited by 172
Effects of relationship education on maintenance of couple relationship satisfaction
Halford, W. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2013) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.02.001 · Cited by 151
Relationship adjustment, depression, and anxiety during pregnancy and the postpartum period.
Whisman, M. A., Davila, J., & Goodman, S. H. (2011) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023790 · Cited by 152
Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: Mediating mechanisms.
Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Fincham, F. D. (2011) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0024526 · Cited by 140
“Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI): Starting with 180 items previously used to assess relationship satisfaction, Funk and Rogge (2007) conducted an Item Response Theory analysis to develop a 4-item measure of relationship satisfaction with optimized psychometric properties.”
MethodKiecolt‐Glaser, J. K., Wilson, S. J., Bailey, M. T., Andridge, R., Peng, J., Jaremka, L. M., Fagundes, C. P., Malarkey, W. B., Laskowski, B. F., & Belury, M. A. (2018) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.08.007 · Cited by 163
“Developed using item response theory, the CSI discriminates well between satisfied and dissatisfied couples with greater precision than the most commonly used marital scales (Funk and Rogge, 2007).”
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000039 · Cited by 184
“We measured relationship satisfaction with the four-item version of the Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
MethodWhitton, S., & Kuryluk, A. D. (2012) · Journal of family psychology · doi:10.1037/a0027267 · Cited by 132
Zaidman‐Zait, A., Mirenda, P., Zumbo, B. D., Wellington, S., Dua, V., & Kalynchuk, K. (2010) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02266.x · Cited by 131
Young Adult Romantic Relationships: The Role of Parents' Marital Problems and Relationship Efficacy
Cui, M., Fincham, F., & Pasley, B. K. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167208319693 · Cited by 129
“Specifically, four indicators derived from an item response theory analysis of 180 items previously used to assess relationship satisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007) were used.”
MethodThe Marriage Checkup: A randomized controlled trial of annual relationship health checkups.
Córdova, J. V., Fleming, C. J. E., Morrill, M. I., Hawrilenko, M., Sollenberger, J. W., Harp, A. G., Gray, T. D., Darling, E. V., Blair, J. M., Meade, A. E., et al. (2014) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037097 · Cited by 139
“To compare the initial distress level of our sample with community couples, we used the previously established cutoff score on the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) of 30.5, with scores below 30.5 indicating significant distress (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
MethodInfluentialMcDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M. A., & Cravens, J. D. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.031 · Cited by 182
Meis, L. A., Barry, R. A., Kehle, S. M., Erbes, C. R., & Polusny, M. A. (2010) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020925 · Cited by 107
Wood, N. D., Gnonhosou, D. C. A., & Bowling, J. W. (2015) · Marriage and Family Review · doi:10.1080/01494929.2015.1059785 · Cited by 115
“This criticism of multiple component marital assessments has been endorsed by later research (e.g., Fincham & Linfield, 1997; Fincham & Rogge, 2010; Funk & Rogge, 2007; Weiss, 2005).”
MethodRogge, R. D., Daks, J. S., Dubler, B. A., & Saint, K. J. (2019) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.10.001 · Cited by 109
Self-citationUsing the Right Yardstick: Assessing Financial Literacy Measures by Way of Financial Well‐Being
Schmeiser, M., & Seligman, J. S. (2013) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2014444 · Cited by 113
Braithwaite, S. R., & Fincham, F. D. (2009) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0014061 · Cited by 112
“At baseline, 8 weeks postbaseline, and approximately 10 months (44 weeks) postbaseline, participants completed questionnaires that assessed symptoms of depression and anxiety (i.e., Beck Depression Inventory, Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988; Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988), intimate partner vi…”
Lamela, D. J. P. D. V., Soreira, C. S. S., Matos, P., & Morais, A. (2020) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.066 · Cited by 151
Frost, D. M., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2016) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430216642028 · Cited by 89
“The four-item version of the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007) was included to assess individuals’ satisfaction with their current primary romantic relationships.”
InfluentialQadir, F., Khalid, A., Haqqani, S., Zill-e-Huma, & Medhin, G. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1150 · Cited by 113
“, 1988), Couple satisfaction Index (CSI-4) [36], Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (LWMAT) [37], Relationship Dynamic Scale (RDS) [38] and Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) [39] and (2) to apply the structure equation model (SEM) to examine the associations between martial circumstances, perceived socia…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialPrimary Relationships, HIV Treatment Adherence, and Virologic Control
Johnson, M. O., Dilworth, S., Taylor, J. M., Darbes, L., Comfort, M. L., & Neilands, T. (2012) · Aids and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-011-0021-0 · Cited by 112
“Relationship satisfaction: The 4-item Couples Satisfaction Index [49] measured relationship satisfaction (a = 0.93).”
InfluentialDoss, B. D., Knopp, K., Roddy, M. K., Rothman, K., Hatch, S. G., & Rhoades, G. K. (2020) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000479 · Cited by 104
“An index of whether participants entered the study with clinical levels of relationship distress was created by dichotomizing baseline CSI-4 scores at the established cutoff of 13.5 (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
MethodInfluentialThe Role of Sexual Communication in Couples' Sexual Outcomes: A Dyadic Path Analysis.
Jones, A. C., Robinson, W., & Seedall, R. (2018) · Journal of Marital & Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.12282 · Cited by 106
“We used a 16-item version of the Couple Satisfaction Inventory (CSI) to measure individual’s satisfaction with a relationship using a 6-point Likert scale (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
InfluentialSpiritual Behaviors and Relationship Satisfaction: A Critical Analysis of the Role of Prayer
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., & Braithwaite, S. R. (2008) · Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.4.362 · Cited by 92
“Again the Funk and Rogge (2007) measure used in Study 1 served as an assessment of relationship satisfaction.”
MethodGambrel, L. E., & Piercy, F. P. (2014) · Journal of Marital and Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.12066 · Cited by 121
Faith and unfaithfulness: Can praying for your partner reduce infidelity?
Fincham, F. D., Lambert, N. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019628 · Cited by 109
“Starting with 180 items previously used to assess relationship satisfaction, Funk and Rogge (2007) conducted an item response theory analysis to develop a 4-item measure of relationship satisfaction with optimized psychometric properties.”
MethodRogge, R., Fincham, F., Crasta, D., & Maniaci, M. (2017) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000392 · Cited by 102
“This is consistent with recent findings that IRT (when used in large samples with large and diverse item pools) can offer a powerful method of optimizing measures (e.g., Funk & Rogge, 2007; Fraley et al., 2000).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationBarton, A. W., Lavner, J. A., Stanley, S. M., Johnson, M. D., & Rhoades, G. K. (2019) · Journal of family psychology · doi:10.1037/fam0000583 · Cited by 100
“Single-item questions were used to assess couple satisfaction (from Couple Satisfaction Index; Funk & Rogge, 2007; see Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2012a for similar assessment), personal commitment, perceived partner commitment (similar to standard, multi-item measures of dedication commitment;…”
MethodThe role of sexual mindfulness in sexual wellbeing, Relational wellbeing, and self-esteem
Leavitt, C. E., Lefkowitz, E. S., & Waterman, E. A. (2019) · Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2019.1572680 · Cited by 143
“The Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI, Funk & Rogge, 2007) is a 4-item measure previously validated to assess individual satisfaction within relationships.”
MethodThe positive and negative semantic dimensions of relationship satisfaction
Mattson, R. E., Rogge, R., Johnson, M. D., Davidson, E. K. B., & Fincham, F. (2013) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01412.x · Cited by 100
“Using IRT analysis, Funk and Rogge (2007) identified these items as providing the most information about relationship satisfaction from a pool of 176 items sampled mostly from 12 predominant measures of relationship satisfaction (e.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationSandberg, J., Busby, D., Johnson, S. M., & Yoshida, K. (2012) · Family Process · doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01422.x · Cited by 100
“Before reporting the results, it is important to provide a few guidelines to help interpret the findings, as this approach is relatively new in the literature (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
BackgroundStrober, L. B. (2018) · Disability and health journal · doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.05.003 · Cited by 99
McGill, J. M., Adler‐Baeder, F. M., & Rodriguez, P. (2016) · Journal of Human Sciences and Extension · doi:10.54718/ddca4089 · Cited by 119
“The Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007), a scale that measures relationship satisfaction or happiness, was used in one of the studies.”
MethodEvidence‐based couple therapy: current status and future directions
Snyder, D., & Halford, W. (2012) · Journal of Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2012.00599.x · Cited by 99
Subjective correlates and consequences of belief in free will
Crescioni, A. W., Baumeister, R., Ainsworth, S. E., Ent, M. R., & Lambert, N. (2016) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2014.996285 · Cited by 98
“Relationship satisfaction was measured using a four-item measure of relationship satisfaction developed by Funk and Rogge (2007), which included items such as “How rewarding is your relationship with your partner?””
MethodAssessing the Seeds of Relationship Decay
Lee, S., Rogge, R., & Reis, H. (2010) · Psychology Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610371342 · Cited by 97
Self-citationRomantic competence, healthy relationship functioning, and well‐being in emerging adults
Davila, J., Mattanah, J. F., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Feinstein, B. A., Eaton, N. R., Daks, J. S., Kumar, S. A., Lomash, E. F., Mccormick, M., et al. (2017) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/pere.12175 · Cited by 90
Mîrșu-Păun, A., & Oliver, J. A. (2017) · Journal of Relationships Research · doi:10.1017/jrr.2017.6 · Cited by 114
Change in relationship quality for partners from lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual couples.
Kurdek, L. (2008) · Journal of family psychology · doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.5.701 · Cited by 93
“Fourth, although there is evidence that the total score from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale has similar psychometric properties for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual partners (Kurdek, 1992), statistical evidence for stronger forms of measurement invariance—such as factor loading and intercept invariance (Widaman & Reise, 19…”
BackgroundMonson, C. M., Wagner, A. C., Mithoefer, A. T., Liebman, R. E., Feduccia, A. A., Jerome, L., Yazar-Klosinski, B., Emerson, A., Doblin, R., & Mithoefer, M. C. (2020) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008198.2020.1840123 · Cited by 96
“…Scale-5 (CAPS-5; Weathers et al., 2013a) was used as the clinician-rated primary outcome measure of PTSD symptoms, and the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5, patient and partner versions; Weathers et al., 2013b) and Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007) were used as self-report primary outcomes.”
MethodInfluentialHow implicit theories of sexuality shape sexual and relationship well-being.
Maxwell, J. A., Muise, A., MacDonald, G., Day, L. C., Rosen, N. O., & Impett, E. A. (2016) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000078 · Cited by 105
Transition to Parenthood and Marital Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis
Bogdan, I.-M., Turliuc, M., & Candel, O. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901362 · Cited by 90
Wilson, S. J., Bailey, B. E., Jaremka, L. M., Fagundes, C. P., Andridge, R., Malarkey, W. B., Gates, K. M., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2018) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.04.017 · Cited by 88
“Marital quality Administered at the first full-day visit, the 32-item Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) assessed marital satisfaction (Funk and Rogge, 2007).”
InfluentialVannier, S. A., & Rosen, N. O. (2017) · The Journal of Sexual Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.12.239 · Cited by 101
Bruner, M. R., Kuryluk, A. D., & Whitton, S. W. (2015) · Journal of American College Health · doi:10.1080/07448481.2014.975717 · Cited by 87
“The CSI-16 has demonstrated good reliability and validity with college age dating relationships.(35) In this sample, internal consistency was excellent (a D .”
BackgroundCorsini-Munt, S., Bergeron, S., Rosen, N. O., Mayrand, M.-H., & Delisle, I. (2014) · The Journal of Sexual Medicine · doi:10.1111/jsm.12646 · Cited by 87
Meta-analysis of couple therapy: Effects across outcomes, designs, timeframes, and other moderators.
Roddy, M. K., Walsh, L. M., Rothman, K., Hatch, S., & Doss, B. (2020) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000514 · Cited by 87
Ekas, N. V., Timmons, L., Pruitt, M. M., Ghilain, C. S., & Alessandri, M. (2015) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2362-4 · Cited by 106
“In order to assess the individual’s perceptions of their romantic relationship, participants completed the couples satisfaction index (CSI; Funk and Rogge 2007).”
MethodCan I tell you how I feel? Perceived partner responsiveness encourages emotional expression.
Ruan, Y., Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., Hirsch, J. L., & Bink, B. D. (2019) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000650 · Cited by 115
“The dataset included 2,110 valid observations (88.7% of the possible reports). Using the VARCOMP procedure in SPSS (Version 25), within-person effects were estimated to account for the following variance percentages in emotion expression: joy (62.8%), excitement (71.0%), contentment (63.1%), pride (69.4%), gratitude (…”
MethodInfluentialSchlagintweit, H. E., Bailey, K. M., & Rosen, N. (2016) · Journal of Sexual Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.08.006 · Cited by 86
Understanding Social Factors in the Context of Trauma: Implications for Measurement and Intervention
Wagner, A. C., Monson, C. M., & Hart, T. L. (2016) · Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma · doi:10.1080/10926771.2016.1152341 · Cited by 113
“To address the dearth of validated assessment tools to assess positive and negative social factors, using a tool such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale or the Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007) when studies include intimate partners could offer dimensionality to the understanding of social factors in trauma…”
MethodThe Role of Locus of Control in Daily Life
Ryon, H., & Gleason, M. (2014) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167213507087 · Cited by 83
Peltz, J. S., Rogge, R. D., & Sturge‐Apple, M. L. (2018) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/fam0000413 · Cited by 91
Self-citationBraithwaite, S. R., & Fincham, F. (2011) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2010.11.002 · Cited by 80
Galovan, A. M., Drouin, M., & McDaniel, B. T. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.017 · Cited by 79
Ryan, A. M., Kutob, R. M., Suther, E., Hansen, M., & Sandel, M. T. (2012) · Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved · doi:10.1353/hpu.2012.0179 · Cited by 79
Visschers, J., Jaspaert, E., & Vervaeke, G. (2017) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260515588922 · Cited by 78
“The short four-item version of the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI(4); Funk & Rogge, 2007) was used to assess relationship satisfaction.”
BackgroundMethodThe development of a reliable change index and cutoff for the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale.
Anderson, S. R., Tambling, R., Huff, S. C., Heafner, J., Johnson, L., & Ketring, S. A. (2014) · Journal of Marital & Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.12095 · Cited by 77
Cognitive emotion regulation and positive dyadic outcomes in married couples
Rusu, P., Bodenmann, G., & Kayser, K. (2019) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407517751664 · Cited by 76
“Studies reported good internal consistency for CSI4, with Cronbach’s a coefficient of .94 (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodEnhancing relationship quality measurement: The development of the Relationship Flourishing Scale.
Fowers, B. J., Laurenceau, J., Penfield, R. D., Cohen, L. M., Lang, S. F., Owenz, M. B., & Pasipanodya, E. (2016) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/fam0000263 · Cited by 94
“First, Funk and Rogge (2007) developed a global, one-dimensional couple satisfaction inventory (CSI) with factor analyses and item response theory (IRT) analyses.”
MethodTransactional relations between marital functioning and depressive symptoms.
Kouros, C. D., & Cummings, E. M. (2011) · American Journal of Orthopsychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01080.x · Cited by 64
“Based on item-response theory, Funk and Rogge (2007) found that the first item of the MAT provides a high amount of information for assessing relationship satisfaction.”
MethodKhaddouma, A. M., Gordon, K. C., & Bolden, J. (2014) · Sexual & Relationship Therapy · doi:10.1080/14681994.2014.992408 · Cited by 84
“The CSI has shown high measurement precision and strong convergent validity with other measures of relationship satisfaction in previous samples (Funk & Rogge, 2007) and is considered a superior measure of relationship satisfaction beyond previous measures, particularly in unmarried romantic…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKimmes, J. G., Jaurequi, M. E., May, R. W., Srivastava, S., & Fincham, F. D. (2018) · Journal of Marital and Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.12296 · Cited by 73
Godwin, E. E., Kreutzer, J. S., Arango‐Lasprilla, J. C., & Lehan, T. J. (2011) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/htr.0b013e3182048f54 · Cited by 74
Rus, H., & Tiemensma, J. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.004 · Cited by 72
“NA -Dyadic FB profile photo and FB status -Disagreement over FB relationship status - Conflict Subscale of Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) - CSI (Funk & Rogge, 2007) Males’ display of partnered status and females’ inclusion of partner in profile photo linked to greater relationship satisfaction.”
BackgroundInfluentialMcNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2101402118 · Cited by 108
“In Studies 7 and 8, marital satisfaction was assessed with the 16-item Couples Satisfaction Index [CSI (69)].”
MethodRothman, K., Salivar, E. G., Roddy, M. K., Hatch, S. G., & Doss, B. (2019) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260519870158 · Cited by 71
“Participants currently in a romantic relationship rated their relationship satisfaction using the four-item Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-4; Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGay fathers by surrogacy: Prejudice, parenting, and well-being of female and male children.
Green, R., Rubio, R. J., Rothblum, E., Bergman, K., & Katuzny, K. E. (2019) · Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity · doi:10.1037/sgd0000325 · Cited by 70
“Brief Form (Funk & Rogge, 2007) is a four-item scale measuring general relationship satisfaction.”
BackgroundDevelopment of the Sources of Spirituality Scale.
Davis, D. E., Rice, K. G., Hook, J. N., Tongeren, D. R. V., DeBlaere, C., Choe, E. J. Y., & Worthington, E. L. (2015) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/cou0000082 · Cited by 79
“To help eliminate redundancy in items, we also dropped items that were moderately related to each other after controlling for the total score on the latent construct (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
BackgroundKhaddouma, A., Coop Gordon, K., & Strand, E. B. (2017) · Family Process · doi:10.1111/famp.12226 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester (US)
- ORCID
- Rogge, Ronald D.
- Venue
- Journal of Family Psychology
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 572-583
- ISSN
- 0893-3200 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1293
- OpenAlex
- W2116307289
- Cited by
- 1,806
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 108 · 2025: 155 · 2024: 153 · 2023: 144 · 2022: 186 · 2021: 181 · 2020: 167 · 2019: 129 · 2018: 105 · 2017: 104 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 19.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Family Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Rochester
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
- Keywords
- relationship satisfaction, measurement precision, scale development, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, item response theory, convergent validity, construct validity, nomological network, couples
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Marriage, Middle Aged, Personal Satisfaction, Psychological Tests, Psychological Theory, Internet, Principal Component Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review