KANSAS MARITAL SATISFACTION SCALE, (KMS) Reference: ‘Schumm, W. A., Nichols, C, W., Scheetman, K, L., & Grigsby, C. C. (1983) CCharacteristis of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychological Reports, 53, 567-572, Description of Measure: ‘A 3-item measure designed to quickly assess ms cach item on satisfied), satisfaction, Respondents answer 1 7-point scale ranging from I extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely Abstracts of Selected Related Articles: Schumm, W. R., Pafl-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M Mens, L. D.. & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387, ‘The Kansas Marital Satisfaction (KMS) Scale is found to correlate substantially with both Spanier’ (1976) Dyadie Adjustment Scale (DAS) and Norton's (1983) Quality Marriage Index (QM), but not to correlate significantly more than those ‘to scales with a variety of other satisfaction items designed to assess the liscriminant validity of the KMS scale. Other characteristics ofthe KMS scale are similar to those reported in previous research and com pare favorably with those of the DAS and the QMI, even though the latter scales contain more items than the KMS scale. It is concluded that the KMS scale may serve as a useful brief ‘measure of marital satisfaction in future research with married couples, Dehle, C., Larsen, D., & Landers, J. E. (2001), Social support in marriage, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 307-324. ‘The current study examines the role of perceived adequacy of social support provided by spouses for both marital and individual functioning. Married individuals from a college sample (N = 177) recorded the adequacy of spec supportive behaviors provided by the spouse on a daily basis for 7 days. Perceived support adequacy was correlated in the expected direction with matital quality, depressive symptomatology, and perceived stress. Furthermore, hierarchical "multiple regressions indicated that perceived support adequacy accounts for significant unique variance in marital quality. depressive symptomatology, and perceived stress, even after controlling for social desirability. Discussion focuses ‘on limitations ofthe study and implications ofthe findings fr clinical work with couplesCane, D.R. & Middleton, K. C2000). Establishing citerion seores forthe Kansas Marital Satisfaction Seale and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Seale, The Amercian Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 53-60. ‘This study demonstrates the usefulness ofthe KMSS and RDAS in distinguishing between the martaly distressed and nonlistressed. For conceptual and statistical clarity, many marital interaction and marital therapy research measures, use single cutoff score. It was determined thatthe cutoff seore is 17 for the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Seale (KMSS) and 48 for the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Seale (RDAS) for husbands, wives, and couples. An equivalency table of ‘mathematical formulas is also presented, allowing the conversion of individual and couple scores from one measure of matital quality to another. It is now possible to convert a score from any one of a number of instruments (KMSS, RDAS, Dyadic Adjustment Seale, Marital Adjustment Test, Revised Marital Adjustment Test) to-an equivalent score as measured by another instrument, Scale: Contact author for permission o use items.MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TEST (MAT) Reference: Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959), Short marital adjustment and prediction tests Theit reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255 jon of Measure: n scale that measures marital satisfaction. It was initially used to differentiate ‘well-adjusted couples ftom distressed (unsatisfied) couples. The 15 items are answered na variety of response scales, Abstracts of Selected Related Articles: e Funk, JL. & Rogge, R.D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583. ‘The present study took a critical look ata 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 cen the length of those scales. Principal-components analysis and item response sary applied tothe larger item pool were used to develop the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) scales. Compared with the MAS and the DAS, the CSI seales 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 e satisfaction and excellent construct validity with anchor scales from the rnomological net surrounding satisfaction, suggesting that they assess the same theoretical construct as de prior scales, Implications for research are discussed. Kimmel, D. & Van Der Veen, F. (1974). Factors of marital adjustment in Locke's Marital ‘Adjustment Test, Journal of Marriage ancl the Family, 36, 57-62. Principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotations of data for 149 wives 157 husbands indicated that the instrument isan internally consistent measure of ‘marital adjustment, and that this general aspect consists of two separate ‘components--sexual congeniality and compatibility. sett nas rave and ng nr ton eeKeams, 1.N.& Leonard, K. E, (2004), Social networks, structural independence, and ‘marital quality over the transition to marriage: A prospective analysis, Sournal of Family Psychology, 18,383-39. ) ‘This study examined the relationship between couples’ network interdependence and marital quality ina sample of 347 couples that were recruited at the time of their first marrage, Husbands and wives completed separate, sel-administered questionnaires at home. Analyses are based on data collected atthe time of ‘marriage, at the first anniversary, and atthe second anniversary. Results indicated that after mariage, husbands’ and wives' friend and family networks became increasingly interdependent, Moreover, the interdependence of the friend and family networks at mareiage predicted wives’ marital quality a the first anniversary, whereas wives’ marital quality atthe fst anniversary predicted the interdependence of the friend network at the second anniversary. No significant longitudinal relations were observed for husband, Seale (also availble t hips faniynow 1 comieviewslockewallace hin: (ot: point for soring rt here included inthe sale) ® 1. Check the dot on te scale line below which best deseribes the degree of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage. The middle point, "happy," represents the degree of happiness which most people get from marriage and the scale gradually anges on one side to those few who are very unhappy in marriage, and onthe other, to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in marriage (eax z 7 5 [35 are] Vey lappy Periealy | Unhappy Happy. State the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between You and your mate follow ig 2 Almost Almost Always |AIM | Ocasionally | Froquntly | Always Alirays i isagree | AMAYS | Disagree ‘ager (AM | Diarer | Disagree | SIS. Diag (2, Handling Family | a ‘a Finances | [4. Demonstration of mee ares i [s. Friends 1 0 sete eset an Cangas ee: rl tfactn A|6, Sex Relations 5 7. Conventionality (right, good, or proper conduct) |S. Philosophy of | 1 0 p. Wars of eating wit | 1 | o 10, When disagreements arise, they usually result in: ‘husband giving in wife giving in agreement by mutual give and take 0 2 10 11. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? Allof them some of them very few of them none of them. 10 8 3 0 12, In eisure ime do yon generally prefer: tobe "onthe go" to say athome Does your mate generally prefer: tobe “on the go" to stay at home? (Stay at home for both, 10 points; "onthe 0" for both, 3 points: disagreement, 2 points) 13, Do you ever wish you had not marca? Frequently oceasionally rarely never 0 3 8 15 14, Ifyou had your life to live over, do you think you woula: ‘marry the same person marry a different person not marry at all, 15 o 1 15, Do you confide in your mate: ‘almost never rately in most things in everything 0 2 10 10 tet tg ees ed Cngnn Peers easoicon WY rtzer insiteScorin The scoring rubric (points fr each response) is included inthe above seale, but should not be included when giving the scale to respondents. The scores forall 15 items should ‘be added up together, Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. setae nut pon ers Mo aon Y Fete nseQUALITY OF MARRIAGE INDEX (QMI) Reference: Norton, R. (1983). Measuring matital quality: A critical look atthe dependent variable Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45,141-151 Description of Measure: ie of marital satisfaction, Respondents answer the first five items on a 7- point scale ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). ‘The sixth item is answered on a 10 point scale ranging from | (extremely low) to 10 (extsemely high). Abstracts of Selected Related Articles: Johnson, D, R., White, L. K., & Booth, A. (1986). Dimensions of marital quality: Toward ‘methodological and conceptual refinement, Journal of Family Issues, 7, 31-49. ‘The dimensionality of five conceptually distinct components of marital quality ‘was evaluated in a representative national sample of 1845 married people: Confirmatory factor analysis found two dimensions, one consisting of scales of ‘marital happiness and interaction; the other, of marital disagreements, problems, {and instability. Further examination ofthe two dimensions showed that they operate in distinctly different ways over forms of marital structure including -mployment, marital duration, sex, and presence of children. It was concluded that scales of marital quality that combine measures from these two dimensions are likely to yield ambiguous findings and contribute little to an understanding of marital processes. Stets, J. E, (1993). The link between past a Family Issues, 14, 236-260, present intimate relationships. Journal of This research addresses how past relationships inTuence the evaluative and interactive dimensions of curtent relationships. Data from the National Survey of Families and Houscholds are used to examine eohabiting and married relationships, The results show that after controlling for other factors, prior cohabiting relationships negatively influence current married and cohabiting, relationships. For marriage itis cohabitation with someone other than one's current spouse that prodhices this negative effect. It is suggested that either those ‘who cohabit with someone other than their intended spouse ate predisposed to problems in relationships (and they carry these problems into subsequent relationships) or people who have broken off relationships carry the negative clfects of failed relationships into later relationships. Salt Report Measures fo Love and Compasion Reseach Marl SotifacinBradbury, T. N. & Fincham, F, D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Pyrchology Bulletin, 107 The prevailing behavioral account of marriage must be expanded to include overt processes. Mis article therefore examines the attributions or explanations that spouses make for marital events. A review indicates that dissatisfied spou compared with satisfied spouses, make attributions forthe partner’ behavior that «ast it in a negative light, Experimenta, clinical outcome, and longitudinal data suggest further that attributions may influcnce marital satisfaction, Rival hypotheses for these findings are examined, Because continued empirical «evelopment inthis domain depends on conceptual progress a framework is presented that integrates atributions, behavior, and marital satisfaction. This framework points to several topies that require systematie study, and specific bhypotheses are offered for rescarch on these topics. tis concluded thatthe bromising tart mae toward understanding mara auibuions holds considerable Potential for enticing behavioral conceptions of mariage. 3 Seale: Contact author for permission to use items.THE COUPLES SATISFACTION INDEX (CSI) Reference: Funk, J. L. & Rogge, R.D, (2007), Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for telationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, $12-583, Description of Measu ‘A 32-item scale designed to measure one’s satisfaction in a relationship. The scale has a variety of items with different response scales and formats. The authors have also specified that the seale safely be shrunk to either a 16-item format or even a 4-item format depending on a researcher's needs, Abstracts of Selected Related Articles: Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987), The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and, Family, 49, 797-809. This article examines a fundamental problem in research using self-report ‘measures of marriage: attempts have been made to measure and explain va in marital quality without adequate understanding and specification of the construct of “marital quality.” A specific consequence ofthis shortcoming is that ‘marital quality isnot 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 ofthe empirical relationship between constructs. The inability to establish unambiguous empirical relationships among relevant constructs severely limits theory development inthis research domain. One means of avoiding these problems is to treat marital quality solely asthe global evaluation of one’s marriage. The implications of this strategy are examined in regard to three issues that have received insufficient attention in marital research: (a) the association between empirical and conceptual ‘dependence; (b) the interpretation of responses to self-report inventories; and (c) the consideration ofthe purpose for which marital quality is measured. The ‘advantages of adopting this approach, andthe conditions under which it is most appropriate to do so, are also outlined. Cui, M,,Fincham, F.D., & Pasley, B.K. (2008). Young adult romantic relationships: The Tole of parents’ marital problems and relationship efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Balletin, 34, 1226-1235. “This study examined the link between parental divorce and marital conflict and {young adult ramantc relationships, and it tested whether offspring efficacybeliefs and conflict mediate this association. Young adults (N = 358) provided dat at thee time points each separated by 7-week intervals. Results from stsuctural equation modeling demonstrated that (a) parents’ marital conflict, rather than parental divoree, was associated with offspring conflict behavior; (b) relationship efficacy mediated this association; and (c) conflict behavior, in turn, mediated the association between efficacy beliefs and the quality of offspring Tomantic relationships. These Findings ae discussed in terms oftheir implications for understanding the impact of parents’ marital problems on romantic relationships in young adulthood, Their implications for preventive interventions and fare research are also outined Fincham, F.D., Cui, M., Braithwaite, SR, & Pasley, K, (2008), Attitudes towards intimate partner violence in dating relationships. Psychological Assessment, 20, 260-269, Prevention of intimate partner violenes on college campuses includes programs designed to change atitudes, and hence, a sale that assesses such atitudes is 3 needed. Study 1 (V_859) cross validates the factor structure of the Intimate Parmer Violence Atiude Scale—Revised using exploratory factor analysis and presents initial vatdity data onthe seal. In Study 2 (N’_ 687), the obtained threes factor structure (Abuse, Control, Violence) is tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and its shown to be concurrently related to assault i romantic relationships and to predict psychological aggression [4 weeks later. The findings ate ciscussed in the context of how understanding and modifying attitudes assessed by the Intimate Partner Violence Attitude Seale—Revised may improve interventions aimed at reducing inximate partner violence Seale: 1. Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship. Exremely | Fatly | Aline | Happy] Vey] Exvemely | Petec Unhapoy | Unhappy |_Unhapoy Happy | Happ ore ee 2 5 7 Most people have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement ot disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list. ‘Always [Almost [Occasion | Frequent! [ Almost | Always Agree | Always | ally y Always | Disagree Agree | Disagree _| Disagree _| Disagree 2, Amount of time spent together Sears ate 3 L 0 3. Making major decisions See, 3 L 0[4 Demonstations of affection 5 zy sensual ras |snoese] Allthe — [Mostof | More [Occasion | Rarely [Never | Time | the Time | often than | ally : [no | | 5. In general, how often do you $ 4 Pace [eecomal: ‘think that things between you and jour partner are going well? 6. How often do you wish you 0 z 3 4 3 hhadn’ gotten ito this | relationship? Notatall [Ale | Somewhat [Mostly [Almost] Completely | Te |True | True | True | Completely | True Tue | 7-Tsil fala strong connection | 0 T z 3 a 5 © sity partner 8.161 had my life wo ve over, 1 0 7 2 3 a 5 ‘would marry (or live with ate) the same person 9. Out relationship is sang 3 i a 3 a 3 10. [sometimes wonder ithere 5 + 3 oual alo ee someone else out there for me | 11. My relationship with my 0 7 2 3 a 3 parinr makes me happ al 12. Thave a warm and comforable [0 7 7 3 a 5 relationship with my partner 1B. Lean't imagine ending my o H z 3 a 5 relationship with my partner 14. fel that ean confide inmiy | 0 T z Bei aa a parner about virwally anything oe | 15. Thave had second thoughts 3 7 3 z i 7] & shots elatonship een | 16. For me, my partner is the 0 T 2 3 ages perfet romantic partner | a 17H really fee ike partofateam | 0 7 z 3 3 cael swith my partner 18, Fcannot imagine another ° 7 alas a | person making me as happy as my partner does | l J Natal AM [ATitle [Somewhat [Mosly [Almost [ Completely ] completely | | 19, low rewarding your a 7 z 3 4 | relationship with your parner? sont mid pane eee Y eer insite‘meet your needs? | 20. How well does your parner 0 ae] eee 3 4 Aare 21. To what extent has your 1 2 3 4 . relationship met your original | | | expectations? | | 22. In general, how satisfied are 0 ce 2 3 gene aee S. {you with your relationship? ‘Werke dan all Better than all | others (extemely others (extremely as bad) good) Sie 23. How good is your relationship 0 Par 3 4 5 ‘compared to most? ‘Never Less than. | Once or | Once a day | More Often once twice a month week 9 2E-Do you enjoy yourpamners | 0 1 3 4 5 company? 25. How often doyouandyour | 0 i z 7 3 5 partner have fun together? For each of the following items, select the answer that best describes how you feel about your relationship. Base your responses on your first impressions and immediate feelings ‘about the item. 26. INTERESTING.__$ 432 10 BORING 27.__[ BAD. 5 std Wn ged Ea ALO nieT GOOD! 28. | FULL, sa AS 7 25GB 0 EMPTY | 20. | LONELY. Sf Ana 3 72s 0 ee NFRIENDLY. 30. | STURDY Sapehoas Jik O2 GE OLE FRAGILE: 31_[ DISCOURAGING $432 1 0 HOPEFUL 32. | ENIOVABLE Snge 4 esha 1a Of MISERABLE: 1 3 Seoriny For the 16-item version use 1, 5,9, 11, 12,17, 19, 20,21, 22, 26,27, 28, 30, 31, 32, For the 4item version use 1, 12, 19, 22. Scoring is kept continuous. sat entra and Copan Rh teectn WY Fez institute