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;…”
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