The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis.
Abstract
We conducted a reliability-generalization meta-analysis of 7 of the most frequently used measures of relationship satisfaction: the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (LWMAT), the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS), the Quality of Marriage Index, the Relationship Assessment Scale, the Marital Opinion Questionnaire, Karney and Bradbury's (1997) semantic differential scale, and the Couples Satisfaction Index. Six hundred thirty-nine reliability coefficients from 398 articles and 636,806 individuals provided internal consistency reliability estimates for this meta-analysis. We present the average score reliabilities for each measure, characterize the variance in score reliabilities across studies, and consider sample and study characteristics that are predictive of score reliability. Overall, the KMS and the LWMAT appear to be the strongest and weakest measures, respectively, from a reliability perspective. We discuss the importance of considering reliability invariance when making cross-group comparisons and provide recommendations for researchers when electing a measure of relationship satisfaction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957) · Cited by 9,433
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads
Spanier, G. B. (1976) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/350547 · Cited by 7,050
Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory
Crocker, L. M., & Algina, J. J. (1986) · Cited by 5,090
Short Marital-Adjustment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and Validity
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959) · Marriage and Family Living · doi:10.2307/348022 · Cited by 2,913
A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction
Hendrick, S. S. (1988) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/352430 · Cited by 2,270
A Fail-Safe N for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis
Orwin, R. G. (1983) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164923 · Cited by 2,064 · cited 1×
“To assess for publication and reporting bias, we used a derivative of Orwin’s (1983) fail-safe N.”
MethodFunk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 · Cited by 1,806
Measuring Marital Quality: A Critical Look at the Dependent Variable
Norton, R. (1983) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/351302 · Cited by 1,791
Concurrent and Discriminant Validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/352405 · Cited by 724
Cited by
Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4 · Cited by 118
Khaddouma, A., Coop Gordon, K., & Strand, E. B. (2017) · Family Process · doi:10.1111/famp.12226 · Cited by 69
Ketcher, D., Trettevik, R., Vadaparampil, S. T., Heyman, R. E., Ellington, L., & Reblin, M. (2020) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-019-00128-y · Cited by 62
Kirk, E., & Preston, C. (2019) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000736 · Cited by 55
Parent, J., Clifton, J., Forehand, R., Golub, A., Reid, M., & Pichler, E. R. (2014) · Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/cfp0000020 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Graham, J. M., Diebels, K. J., & Barnow, Z. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Family Psychology
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-48
- ISSN
- 0893-3200 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1293
- OpenAlex
- W1997576886
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 16.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0022441
- The paper
- Graham, J. M., Diebels, K. J., & Barnow, Z. B. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022441
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
