The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Assessment of Marital Quality: A Reevaluation
Abstract
This article examines afundamental problem in research using self-report measures of marriage: attempts have been made to measure and explain variance in quality without adequate understanding and specification of the construct of marital quality. A specific consequence of this shortcoming is that quality is not readily distinguished from other relevant constructs (e.g., communication). This, in turn, results in measures that have a great deal of overlap in item content, thus preventing clear interpretation of the empirical relationship between the constructs. The inability to establish unambiguous empirical relationships among relevant constructs severely limits theory development in this research domain. One means of avoiding these problems is to treat quality solely as the global evaluation of one's marriage. The implications of this strategy are examined in regard to three issues that have received insufficient attention in research: (a) the association between empirical and conceptual dependence; (b) the interpretation of responses to self-report inventories; and (c) the consideration of the purpose for which quality is measured. The advantages of adopting this approach, and the conditions under which it is most appropriate to do so, are also outlined.
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
Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.587 · Cited by 855
Cited by
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 · Cited by 1,806
Marital quality and personal well-being: a meta- analysis
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007) · Journal of Marriage and Family · doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x · Cited by 1,068
The 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
Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences.
Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.224 · Cited by 480
The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving
FINCHAM, F. D. (2000) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00001.x · Cited by 418
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Marriage and the Family
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1987-11
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 797
- ISSN
- 0022-2445 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090912124
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.42
- 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
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.