The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Relational Health Indices: A Study of Women's Relationships
Abstract
A new measure of women's relationships, the Relational Health Indices (RHI), comprises three scales that assess growth-fostering connections with peers, mentors, and communities. The RHI was developed using the Relational Model (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, Surrey, 1991; Miller & Stiver, 1997), a theory of women's psychological development. The 37-item measure assesses three conceptual dimensions of growth-fostering relationships: engagement, authenticity, and empowerment/zest. This study examined the psychometric properties of the RHI with a group of 450 students at a women's liberal arts college, providing evidence for the reliability, validity, and utility of the new measure. The factor analyses confirmed a three-subscale structure: engagement, authenticity, empowerment/zest. The RHI's components generally demonstrate good overall internal consistency. Furthermore, associations between RHI scales and convergent validation scales were significant and in the direction hypothesized. Correlations with adjustment scales varied across the RHI components. The RHI has potential for enriching our understanding of important, subtle qualities and complex dynamics of both dyadic and group relationships, especially among women. The instrument is available for use by researchers interested in continuing the scale and theory development.
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
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2 · Cited by 13,339
The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472 · Cited by 5,173
Schafer, J. L. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800102 · Cited by 3,949
Cited by
Mereish, E. H., & Poteat, V. P. (2015) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/cou0000088 · Cited by 335
Meta‐Analysis of Risk Factors for Secondary Traumatic Stress in Therapeutic Work With Trauma Victims
Hensel, J. M., Ruiz, C., Finney, C., & Dewa, C. S. (2015) · Journal of Traumatic Stress · doi:10.1002/jts.21998 · Cited by 302
Natural mentoring and psychosocial outcomes among older youth transitioning from foster care
Munson, M. R., & McMillen, J. C. (2009) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.06.003 · Cited by 232
The relational health indices for youth: An examination of reliability and validity aspects
Liang, B., Tracy, A. J., Kenny, M. E., Brogan, D., & Gatha, R. (2010) · Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development · doi:10.1177/0748175609354596 · Cited by 80
Self-citationRivas, C., Vigurs, C., Cameron, J., & Yeo, L. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013135.pub2 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Liang, B., Tracy, A., Taylor, C. A., Williams, L. M., Jordan, J. V., & Miller, J. B.
- Venue
- Psychology of Women Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-35
- ISSN
- 0361-6843 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6402
- OpenAlex
- W2114410189
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.41
- 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 Relational Health Indices: A Study of Women's Relationships. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1471-6402.00040
- The paper
- Liang, B., Tracy, A., Taylor, C. A., Williams, L. M., Jordan, J. V., & Miller, J. B. (2002). The Relational Health Indices: A Study of Women's Relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00040
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.
