The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta‐Analysis
Abstract
We conducted a reliability generalization meta‐analysis to examine the internal consistency of Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) scores across 91 published studies with 128 samples and 25,035 participants. The DAS was found to produce total and Dyadic cohesion, Consensus, and Satisfaction scores of acceptable internal consistency, although lower than those originally reported by Spanier (1976). Reliability estimates of these scores did not differ by the sexual orientation, gender, marital status, or ethnicity of the sample. The Affective Expression subscale was found to produce scores with poor Cronbach’s alpha across studies. Reliability estimates of Affective Expression scores were highly influenced by sample characteristics. The implications of these results are discussed as they relate to the use of the DAS in research.
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
Review of Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
SITGREAVES, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 11,425
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
(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
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
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
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791
RUSBULT, C. E., MARTZ, J. M., & AGNEW, C. R. (1998) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x · Cited by 2,161
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×
“The robustness of each of the mean reliability estimates was tested using Orwin’s (1983) fail-safe n for effect sizes.”
Method
Cited by
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 254
Self-citationSexual functioning in military personnel: preliminary estimates and predictors
Wilcox, S. L., Redmond, S., & Hassan, A. M. (2014) · The Journal of Sexual Medicine · doi:10.1111/jsm.12643 · Cited by 54
Jarrett, R. B., & Thase, M. E. (2010) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2010.04.004 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Graham, J. M., Liu, Y. J., & Jeziorski, J. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Marriage and Family
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07-05
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 701-717
- ISSN
- 0022-2445 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3737
- OpenAlex
- W1989716040
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 124
- FWCI
- 13.43
- 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 Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta‐Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00284.x
- The paper
- Graham, J. M., Liu, Y. J., & Jeziorski, J. L. (2006). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00284.x
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.
