Psychometrics Practicum

Scale Construction on Pre-marital relationship satisfaction.

Submitted by: Anushka Sharma

M.A Psychology
Roll No.: 23211725088
1st Year (II Semester)
Section – B

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
2024

Submitted to
Dr. Priyanka Tiwari
 Scale Construction on Pre – Marital Relationship Satisfaction

Humans are inherently social beings, driven by a fundamental desire for connection and
relationships. This need for belonging starts early in life and continues throughout our existence.
Sullivan's theory suggests that our self-concept is heavily influenced by how we perceive others'
opinions of us, shaping our feelings of security or anxiety. He identified three main aspects of the
self - the positive, negative, and excluded parts - which develop through social interactions and
greatly impact our sense of identity and emotional health. According to developmental
psychologist Erik Erikson (1950), human development involves a series of stages wherein
individuals grapple with various psychosocial challenges. Particularly during young adulthood,
Erikson proposed, individuals cultivate close bonds with others, characterized by intimacy and a
deep sense of care and affection. This statement is not merely a superficial understanding but
rather reflects a deeply ingrained aspect of psychological growth and maturation. It involves the
exploration of one’s identity in relation to others.
The dependency of love plays a crucial role in fostering a sense of belongingness, a
notion that varies across cultures but generally includes spending quality time together, sharing
similar values and beliefs, and feeling a special connection with one's partner. These bonds of
love typically begin to form as individuals enter the stage of emerging adulthood, a
developmental period marked by self-discovery and exploration (Arnett, 2004). During this
phase, love relationships offer individuals a space to explore their desires, preferences, and
perceptions of compatibility. This period of exploration allows individuals to discern what
qualities attract them to others, what qualities draw them to their partners, and what attributes
they deem essential in a potential "soulmate" (Arnett, 2004).
Relationship is defined as an enduring association between two persons (Reis, 2001).
Two people are said to be in a relationship with one another if they impact on each other and if
they are interdependent in the sense that a change in one person causes a change in the other and
vice versa. Research suggests that majority of people consider relationships to matter the most in
life and give its fullest purpose. Relationships are sources of joy and happiness (Buhler, J.L
2021). Relationships with other people are the bases for self-esteem and for the ability to relate
to others.
 One of these relationships which holds prime importance in the lives of emerging adults
are pre – marital relationships. Pre – marital relationships are defined as “ a period for two
different people who do not know each other, to know and understand each other and create
bonds of love” (Özgüven, 2000) which are often viewed as spaces of minor individualism.
Despite having the restrictive norms ruling in our culture, our youth is increasingly
experimenting their involvement. The taboos that used to haunt partners has also started to fade
away as the society becomes more and more open about the idea. Such relationships are no
longer seen as fleeting affairs driven by sexual urges, but as strong relationships involving
affinity and reciprocity of seeking intimacy.

Relationship satisfaction, broadly includes the feelings, behaviours which occur within a
relationship associated with feelings of love, commitment, self-disclosure, and relationship
investment. Several studies have shown that quality of romantic relationships is a significant
source of happiness (Argyle, 2001; Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 2000; Khaleque & Rohner,
2004). More specifically, studies suggested that satisfaction with romantic relationships is
associated with subjective well-being (Myers, 2003) and that quality of a relationship and
satisfaction with that relationship are related to happiness across the life span (Dush & Amato,
2005; Myers, 2003).

Sternberg’s theory of love offers a comprehensive framework to understand relationship

satisfaction as it addresses the multifaceted nature of relationships. Moreover, this theoretical
framework is widely used in studies across the globe which allows us to make more comparative
understanding.
Intimacy and Relationship Satisfaction: Sternberg (1986) described Intimacy as
“feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships”. According to
Sternberg, intimacy is an “emotional investment in the relationship” (Sternberg, 1986).
Sternberg & Grajek, (1984) found that intimacy essentially refers to feelings of a) promoting the
welfare of the other person; b) having high consideration of the other person; c) experiencing
joy; d) receiving and giving emotional support; e) counting on the other person in times of
requirement; f) having reciprocated understanding with each other; g) value him/her; h) sharing
deep personal information and belongings; and i) able to communicate with each other.
 Emotional intimacy was found to best predict relationship satisfaction out of physical,
emotional and verbal intimacy in relationships (Sternberg, Grajek 1984). Similar results were
found in a study conducted on online relationships which also found satisfaction and intimacy to
be the strongest predictors of Relationship Satisfaction. (Anderson et al. 2006).

Passion and Relationship Satisfaction: The second component is Passion, by Sternberg

(1986) was referred to as "romantic, and physical components of a relationship". The Passionate
component is dominated by the 'sexual needs' as in a relationship, and expression of needs is
through psychological and physiological arousal. Sprecher (2002), found both males and females
sexual satisfaction to positively correlate with Relationship Satisfaction, Commitment and love .
Sexual satisfaction was found to be associated with Relationship Satisfaction in both men and
women of 33-43 years of age (Santtila et al., 2007).
Commitment and Relationship Satisfaction: The third component is Commitment or the
decision, which was defined by Sternberg (1986, p. 315) as “in the short-term, to the decision
that one loves a certain other, and in the long-term, to one’s Commitment to maintain that love”.
By and large, it refers to one's cognitive preference to be involved in a relationship and continue
that relationship (Sternberg, 1986). Decision is the short-term aspect, which refers to one's
decision or choice to love someone, whereas Commitment, the long term aspect refers to one's
vow to uphold that love and it slowly increase with time. These components are independent of
each other.
Review of Literature
The relationships that an individual forms throughout their life affect their behavioural
characteristics and overall perception of themselves. Forming connections with those in one’s
environment has the potential to alter one’s perception of the world around them. Erikson (1968)
and Sullivan (1953) both predicted that long-term monogamous relationships are associated with
healthier functioning in late adolescence. Likewise, in describing the development of adolescent
love relationships,
A major reason for the strong scientific interest in relationship satisfaction is its
importance for personal and family well-being (Erol & Orth, 2014). To acquire evidence for this
notion, Erol and Orth (2014) administered a longitudinal study to analyse relationship
satisfaction in couples. The data showed that partners’ common relationship contentment led to
higher levels of self-worth. This result showed the true importance of having genuine, reciprocal
relationships in one’s life and a lack of these bonds may potentially lead to negative
consequences of low self-confidence. The status of relationships within an individual’s
environment overlaps in all other aspects of their lives as well.

Research suggests that romantic relationships have consequences for at least two
important life outcomes: subjective well-being and health. First, people who are satisfied with
their relationship are more satisfied with their life as a whole. Satisfaction in life domains such as
work and friendships is far less predictive of people’s overall happiness than is satisfaction in the
romantic relationship domain. Second, people who are in fulfilling relationships report better
health and live longer than people in less stable relationships ( Erol & Orth, 2014).
Robert Sternberg’s triangular love conception (1986) is one of the most relevant
theoretical models within the sphere of romantic relationships phenomena, according to
Masuda’s (2003) review; and Hatfield, Bensman, and Rapson (2012). The model proposes a
structure with three essential components of the romantic relationship: intimacy, passion and
decision/commitment. Those aspects are schematically organized and in their ensemble
constitute a triangle that, according to their combination in terms of presence, absence and
intensity of feelings, structure different possibilities of the expression of love.
In Sternberg’s theory, intimacy is related to feelings of proximity, consideration, bonds,
valuation of the love relationship and of the companion (Sternberg, 1986; Yela, 2006). Passion is
related to the physical attraction aspect and sexual contact, including interaction aspects linked to
the “expression of desires and needs” dyad and sex, involving behavioral, affective and cognitive
registers of esteem. Finally, decision/commitment is the part of the love feeling that is
responsible for the maintenance and decision of keeping oneself in the relationship, linked to the
expression of support, love and consideration.
Passion operates as an emotion, whereas intimacy is a condition for the maintenance of
the relationship. According to Kim and Hatfield (2004), couples that experience passionate love
tend to also experience positive effects, whereas companionate relationships are more associated
with life satisfaction. Baumeister and Bratslavsky (1999) signal that changes in intimacy and
passion levels are mutually interdependent. As intimacy is a necessary component to the
establishment of the relationship, with the passing of time it tends to increase, just as passion
decreases and has its determined course of time (Berscheid, 1983).
Results from Ahmetoglu, (2010) indicate that higher age is positively associated with
commitment and intimacy, while passion is negatively related to it, i.e., younger people guide
themselves more intensely by elements of attraction and sexuality and older ones favor aspects
associated with security, commitment and depth of involvement.

Based on an evolutionary psychology approach, carried out a study with 37 cultures of 33

countries about the aspects that influence partner choice, which pointed out that in many cultures
men prefer to get involved with younger women and the women, in contrast, seek association
with people with higher age than them. Moreover, in the physical attraction aspect, the author
showed that in most of the studied cultures, with the exception of India, Poland and Sweden,
good appearance significantly predicts the choice of the woman partner, i.e. physical attraction is
more strongly associated with the choice made by men. These tend to choose women with
proportional circumferences between waist and hips, a sign of high fertility in Europe and in the
United States.
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love has been used to assess the expectation of love. In
an examination of the Triangular Theory of Love, Ahmetoglu (2010) explored the relationship
between satisfaction, love, and arranged marriages in a sample of 40 married Jewish couples in
the United States. Schwartz was interested in understanding potential differences in love and
relationship satisfaction based on whether married couples were wed through arranged marriages
(exhibiting high collectivism) or romantic courtships (exhibiting high individualism). The study
supported use of Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love in a Jewish sample by demonstrating
that intimacy, passion, and commitment had significant correlations with relationship
satisfaction.
Expanding on cross-cultural love research, explored Sternberg’s Triangular Love Theory
along with relationship investment and relationship satisfaction for couples living in Cyprus. In a
sample of 110 participants involved in romantic relationships at the time of the study, Panayiotou
found the Triangular Theory to be valid in the cultural context of Cyprus. While reviewing we
understood that India, is one of those countries which gives special status to the role of others
due to its collectivistic culture. Togetherness is what rules here. However we observed a dearth
of researches in regard to love relations, which therefore widens the knowledge gap in
understanding the phenomenon from a cultural perspective. As also noted by Hatfield and
Rapson (1996) that most of the social sciences researches in the context of love has been
conducted by the west with a western perspective and with western subjects considering their
perspectives as universal.

Most of the researches in India have a focus upon particular aspects of relationships like
pre- marital sex or Sexually Transmitted Diseases but the role of interpersonal aspects and
psychological factors are still not given adequate attention leading to an unclear
conceptualization of pre – marital love relations in India. Therefore the need to study pre –
marital relationships in India from a psycho-social perspective is present. Moreover, there is not
even a single scale/ questionnaire/ assessment which focuses completely on pre – marital
relationship satisfaction. This reflects a significant gap in current researches and clinical practice.
As pre-marital relationships are now gaining prominence within the Indian diaspora, which is
fuelled by shifting cultural norms, globalization, and changing social dynamics, there is a
pressing need for research instruments that can capture the unique nuances and complexities of
these relationships.

Rationale
Relationship satisfaction is a crucial aspect of individuals' lives, influencing their
emotional well-being, mental health, and overall quality of life. Relationship satisfaction is the
most accurate predictor and interpreter of relationship stability (Horn et al., 1997). A research
conducted on online relationships found that communication satisfaction, trust, and intimacy are
the most powerful predictors of relationship satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2006).
In the Indian context, traditional notions of relationships, especially within the Indian
diaspora, have been largely characterized by arranged marriages and adherence to societal
expectations rather than individual desires. Historically, relationships were often seen as a union
between families rather than solely between individuals, and considerations such as caste,
community, and financial stability were prioritized over personal compatibility and emotional
fulfillment. This cultural backdrop underscores the limitations of using standard relationship
satisfaction scales that may not capture the unique dynamics and priorities of such relationships.
The absence of Indian scales on relationship satisfaction represents a significant gap in the field
of psychological assessment and research. This gap underscores the need for focused research
and study to develop culturally relevant and contextually appropriate measures that can
effectively capture relationship dynamics and satisfaction within the Indian cultural milieu.
Moreover, the evolution of societal norms and attitudes towards relationships in India has
undergone significant changes in recent years. While pre-marital relationships were traditionally
discouraged or frowned upon, there has been a notable shift towards greater acceptance and
freedom for individuals to explore relationships before marriage. This societal transformation
reflects a broader cultural shift towards individual agency, personal choice, and the recognition
of emotional fulfilment as essential components of relationships.
The development of relationship satisfaction scales in the Western research sphere has
indeed been a relatively recent phenomenon, with notable advancements occurring in the latter
half of the 20th century. One significant milestone in this domain was the work of Rubin Zick
Rubin in the 1970s, where he introduced a scale that delineated the spectrum of emotions from
"liking" to "loving." Subsequent scholars and researchers expanded upon his work by
incorporating additional dimensions such as intimacy, trust, communication, conflict resolution,
and compatibility into their scales. These efforts aimed to create more comprehensive
frameworks that could capture the diverse facets of relationship satisfaction and quality. Despite
these advancements, it's important to note that the field of relationship satisfaction assessment is
continually evolving, and there are still many aspects that remain unexplored or under-
researched. This is particularly relevant when considering non-Western contexts such as India,
where cultural, social, and historical factors shape relationship dynamics in unique ways.
In today's rapidly changing social landscape, terms like "hookup," "one-night stand," and
"casual culture" have become increasingly prevalent, reflecting shifts in relationship dynamics
and attitudes towards intimacy. These terms denote various forms of non-committal, often short-
term interactions that may not necessarily fit traditional notions of long-term, emotionally
invested relationships. As a result, the need to define and measure relationship satisfaction has
become a priority, given the diverse and evolving nature of modern relationships. Each of these
models comes with its own set of expectations, boundaries, and dynamics, influencing how
individuals experience and perceive relationship satisfaction.
Exploring relationship satisfaction in the population above 18 years old is crucial due to
several reasons, particularly during what Jeffrey Arnett termed as "emerging adulthood." Arnett
(2000) proposed this phase as a distinct period between adolescence and full-fledged adulthood,
typically spanning from ages 18 to 25. During this time, individuals experience significant
changes in various domains of life, including identity formation, education, career choices, and
interpersonal relationships. One of the defining features of emerging adulthood is the exploration
of romantic and intimate relationships. This period marks a transition where individuals begin to
navigate the complexities of romantic partnerships, often engaging in diverse relationship
experiences ranging from casual dating to more serious commitments. Much of the current
research has been done on college campuses, where 70% of sexually active 18–21 year olds
reported having had uncommitted sex within the last year (Grello, Welsh, Harper, & Dickson,
2003). Thus, studying relationship satisfaction at this period becomes crucial to understanding
the romantic trends that are emerging. This research helps to identify the satisfaction among
youth regarding romantic relationships and adds to further discourse on this emerging area of
research.
METHODOLOGY
Test Construction
Test construction in general is the set of activities involved in developing and evaluating
a test of some function. The steps include specifying the construct of interest, deciding the test’s
function, choosing a method (performance, behavioural observation, self-report), designing item
content, evaluating the reliability and validity of the test, and modifying the test to maximize its
utility. Test construction in psychometrics is a process that plays a fundamental role in
measuring and understanding human behavior, cognition, personality, and other psychological
phenomena. It encompasses a series of systematic steps aimed at developing assessments that are
reliable, valid, fair, and practical for evaluating specific constructs or traits of interest. This
comprehensive process involves defining the construct to be measured, generating a pool of test
items, selecting the most appropriate items, designing the test format, conducting pilot testing,
and evaluating the psychometric properties of the test. Through careful planning, rigorous
analysis, and validation procedures, test constructors strive to create assessments that provide
valuable insights into individuals' abilities, characteristics, and psychological states.

Steps of Test Construction

 Step 1- Identifying the Construct: This involves determining the specific trait, skill, or
knowledge that the test intends to measure. It's crucial for clarifying the purpose and focus of the
assessment.

Step 2- Defining the Construct: After identification, this step involves creating a clear
and precise definition of the construct. This definition serves as a foundation for developing test
items that effectively assess the construct.

Step 3- Designing and Writing Items: In this step, test items (questions or tasks) are
created to measure the defined construct. These items should be aligned with the construct's
definition and objectives of the test.

Step 4- Designing and Scoring the Responses: Here, scoring guidelines or rubrics are
developed to evaluate and assign scores to the responses provided by test-takers. This step
ensures consistency and fairness in scoring.

Step 5-Feedback from Subject Matter Experts: Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) review
the test items, scoring guidelines, and overall test design to provide feedback on validity, clarity,
and relevance. Their input helps improve the quality and accuracy of the assessment.

Step 6-Data Collection: Test administration occurs in this step, where data is collected
from participants' responses. This data forms the basis for analysis and evaluation of the test's
effectiveness.

Step 7-Item Analysis: After data collection, statistical techniques are applied to analyze
the performance of individual test items. This analysis helps identify items that are too easy, too
difficult, or not discriminating enough.

Step 8-Reliability: Reliability assessment determines the consistency and stability of the
test scores over time and across different administrations. This step ensures that the test produces
reliable and consistent results.
 RESULTS

Table 1

Overall Reliability of the Scale

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha N. of Items

.760 40

Table 2

Dimension Wise Reliability

 Dimension Wise Reliability
Dimension Cronbach’s Alpha N. of Items
Emotional Intimacy .921 12
Physical Intimacy .902 12
Commitment .915 12
General Questions .936 4

Table 3

Split Half Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Split Half Reliability N. of Items

.922 40

Table 4

Item to Total Correlation

Item Total Statistics

Items Corrected Item-Total Correlation
1 .804
2 .766
3 .892
4 .851
5 .829
6 .788
7 .895
8 .815
9 .890
10 .869
11 .849
12 .827
13 .865
14 .860
15 .853
16 .855
17 .899
18 .882
19 .873
20 .889
21 .877
22 .902
23 .804
24 .785
25 .834
26 .862
27 .910
28 .896
29 .824
30 .851
31 .880
32 .879
33 .904
34 .914
 35 .836
36 .900
37 .612
38 .597
39 .673
40 .653

Table 5

Relevance Ratings on the item Scale by experts

Items Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Experts in

Agreement
1 1 1 1 1 4
2 1 1 1 1 4
3 1 1 1 1 4
4 1 1 1 1 4
5 1 1 1 1 4
6 1 0 0 1 2
7 1 1 0 1 3
8 1 1 1 1 4
9 1 1 1 1 4
10 0 1 1 1 3
11 0 1 1 0 2
12 1 1 1 1 4
13 1 1 1 1 4
14 1 1 1 1 4
 15 1 1 1 1 4
16 0 1 0 1 2
17 0 0 1 1 2
18 1 1 1 1 4
19 1 1 1 1 4
20 1 1 1 1 4
21 1 1 1 1 4
22 1 1 1 1 4
23 1 1 1 1 4
24 1 1 1 1 4
25 1 1 1 1 4
26 1 1 1 1 4
27 1 1 1 1 4
28 1 1 1 1 4
29 1 1 1 1 4
30 1 1 1 1 4
31 1 1 1 1 4
32 1 1 1 1 4
33 1 1 1 1 4
34 1 1 1 1 4
35 1 1 1 1 4
36 1 1 1 1 4
37 1 1 1 1 4
38 1 1 1 1 4
39 1 1 1 1 4
40 1 1 1 1 4

Table 6

Clarity Ratings on the item Scale by experts

Items Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Experts in

 Agreement
1 1 1 1 1 4
2 1 1 1 1 4
3 1 1 1 1 4
4 1 1 1 1 4
5 1 1 1 1 4
6 1 0 0 1 2
7 1 1 0 1 3
8 1 1 1 1 4
9 1 1 1 1 4
10 0 1 1 1 3
11 0 1 1 0 2
12 1 1 1 1 4
13 1 1 1 1 4
14 1 1 1 1 4
15 1 1 1 1 4
16 0 1 0 1 2
17 0 0 1 1 2
18 1 1 1 1 4
19 1 1 1 1 4
20 1 1 1 1 4
21 1 1 1 1 4
22 1 1 1 1 4
23 1 1 1 1 4
24 1 1 1 1 4
25 1 1 1 1 4
26 1 1 1 1 4
27 1 1 1 1 4
28 1 1 1 1 4
29 1 1 1 1 4
30 1 1 1 1 4
 31 1 1 1 1 4
32 1 1 1 1 4
33 1 1 1 1 4
34 1 1 1 1 4
35 1 1 1 1 4
36 1 1 1 1 4
37 1 1 1 1 4
38 1 1 1 1 4
39 1 1 1 1 4
40 1 1 1 1 4

DISCUSSION

One of the most significant relationships for young adults is the pre-marital relationship,
characterized as a period where two individuals who are unfamiliar with each other get to know
and develop a bond of love, often seen as fostering minor individualism. Despite cultural norms
that once limited such relationships, young people are increasingly exploring them. As societal
attitudes become more accepting, the stigma surrounding these relationships is diminishing.
They are now viewed as meaningful connections focused on intimacy and mutual affection,
rather than mere flings or driven solely by sexual desires.
The level of satisfaction within a relationship plays a vital role in individuals' lives,
impacting their emotional state, mental wellness, and general life satisfaction. Studies suggest
that relationship satisfaction serves as a reliable indicator and evaluator of the durability of a
relationship (Horn et al., 1997). Research focusing on online relationships discovered that
communication satisfaction, trust, and intimacy are highly influential factors that determine the
level of satisfaction within a relationship (Anderson et al., 2006). A concerted effort was
undertaken to create a comprehensive scale specifically tailored to the Indian cultural context,
aimed at gauging Relationship Satisfaction and its multifaceted dimensions. This endeavor
entailed meticulously navigating through the intricate steps of test construction to ensure the
scale's accuracy and reliability. (Kline, 2005b)
Step 1: Identifying the Construct
 For constructing any scale, the foremost important step is to identify a construct about
which the scale is to be constructed. Based on the group discussion, it was decided to choose pre-
marital relationships as a choice of construct. After extensive review of existing research, a
dearth of research was found in the area of pre-marital satisfaction.. Despite India's emphasis on
collective values, research in this area remains scarce, with Western perspectives dominating the
existing literature. This gap leaves us with an incomplete understanding of the psychological and
interpersonal aspects shaping premarital relationships in India. Furthermore, the absence of
specialised assessment tools adds another layer of challenge. However, amidst these limitations,
there's a growing recognition of individual autonomy and evolving social norms, particularly
among those aged 18 and above, entering the phase of emerging adulthood. Hence, the construct
of pre-marital relationship satisfaction was chosen for scale construction.

Step 2: Defining the Construct

After identifying, the next step that comes is to define the construct. This requires
operationalization of the selected construct, which is an important step of item generation. For
operationalization of the construct of premarital relationship satisfaction, a theoretical approach
was opted. After reviewing multiple conceptual and operational definitions found in the
literature, it was decided to formulate a new operational definition which will capture the true
meaning of the construct. All the reviewed definitions defined relationship satisfaction in terms
of three components given by Robert Sternberg i.e. Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment.
Therefore, using the Triangular theory of love by Robert Sternberg as a foundation, following
operational definitions were formulated:
“Relationship satisfaction refers to an individual’s holistic assessment of the experienced
physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, and commitment in their relationship. It makes one feel
fulfilled. It is not merely a property of the relationship, as the two partners can have varying
levels of satisfaction.”
Physical intimacy - “Physical intimacy refers to “any touch with an intent to evoke feelings of
arousal and a trigger for sexual desire in the individual and their partner.”
Emotional Intimacy - “Emotional Intimacy refers to an emotional involvement that is facilitative
of warm and personal communication along with looking after the partners emotional well-
being.”
Commitment -” Commitment refers to a sustained desire for psychological attachment with the
partner accompanied by an inclination for relationship persistence”.
Step 3: Designing and Writing items.
The next step is construction of items based on the operationalization of the construct.
For designing the items of the tests, existing scales in the literature were examined and few
scales were finalised i.e. Burns relationship satisfaction scale (2007), Relationship Assessment
Scale (Hendrick, 1988), Rubin’s Love and Liking Scale (1990), Sternberg’s Triangular Love
Scale and Couple Satisfaction Index Scale (1997). A careful selection process was employed to
identify pertinent items, which were subsequently modified to suit the operational definition of
Pre- marital relationship satisfaction and its three components (Physical Intimacy, Emotional
Intimacy and Commitment). This iterative process ensured the incorporation of relevant content
while adapting items in the Indian context. In the end, a total of 45 items were generated.

Step 4: Designing and Scoring the Responses

The step after item generation is to decide the type of response required from the test
taker as well as format of the responses. The design and scoring of responses were structured
around a five-point intensity type likert- scale, ranging from 1 to 5. Participants were asked to
indicate their level of satisfaction, with descriptors including 'Extremely Dissatisfied,'
'Dissatisfied,' 'Average,' 'Satisfied,' and 'Extremely Satisfied,' corresponding to scores of 1
through 5 respectively. For the scoring it was decided that higher scores on the scale will be
interpreted as indicative of higher satisfaction levels, a pattern applied consistently across all
sub-components of the scale.
Step 5 : Feedback from Subject Matter Experts
The next step is consulting the SMEs and obtaining their feedback on the generated
items. A subject matter expert (SME) is an individual who has deep knowledge, expertise, and
experience in a specific subject area or field. SMEs are recognized for their proficiency and
understanding of the concepts, principles, practices, and trends within their domain of expertise.
They play a crucial role in various industries, organizations, and academic settings by providing
insights, guidance, and specialized knowledge related to their subject area. Subject Matters
Experts in the field of psychometric and social psychology were consulted. For this purpose,
Four SME’s were chosen. Two professors and two research scholars were asked for their inputs
on the items of the test. The clarity and relevance of the test items were verified through
consultation with them. These experts assessed the items for both clarity of language and
alignment with the selected construct. Their insights and feedback were instrumental in refining
the items to ensure their comprehensibility and relevancy.
During this consultation process, the primary focus was on assessing the clarity and
relevance of the test items. The SMEs meticulously analyzed each item, considering factors such
as language clarity and alignment with the targeted construct. By leveraging their profound
knowledge and experience, these experts played a pivotal role in refining the test items. Their
feedback was instrumental in ensuring the comprehensibility and relevancy of the items, thereby
enhancing the overall quality and efficacy of the test.
During the initial stages of scale development, our team meticulously crafted a
comprehensive questionnaire comprising 45 items aimed at gauging the nuances of pre-marital
relationship satisfaction. Each item was thoughtfully designed to capture various dimensions and
intricacies associated with individuals' experiences and perceptions in the context of pre-marital
relationships. However, recognizing the importance of expert input and validation, we sought the
valuable insights of subject matter experts (SMEs) who possess extensive knowledge and
expertise in the domain of relationship dynamics and psychological assessment.

The engagement with SMEs proved instrumental in refining and optimizing the scale.
After a thorough and meticulous review of the 45 items by the SMEs, their invaluable feedback
and recommendations led to a strategic decision to remove 5 statements from the scale. This
strategic refinement process resulted in a streamlined 40-item scale that embodies greater
precision, clarity, and relevance in measuring pre-marital relationship satisfaction.

The decision to eliminate specific statements from the initial pool of items was guided by
several key considerations. Firstly, the removal of redundant items ensured that the scale
remained focused and efficient without compromising the depth and breadth of the construct
being measured. Redundancy often leads to inflated response burden and can obscure the
distinctiveness of individual items, thereby diluting the scale's ability to capture nuanced
variations in respondents' experiences.
 Furthermore, the expertise of the SMEs facilitated the identification of items that lacked
direct relevance or did not contribute significantly to the overall construct of pre-marital
relationship satisfaction. By eliminating such items, we upheld the scale's integrity and precision,
ensuring that each remaining item plays a meaningful role in assessing the targeted dimensions
of satisfaction within pre-marital relationships.

In addition to relevance, the review process also considered factors such as item clarity,
interpretability, and psychometric properties. Items that were deemed ambiguous, confusing, or
inconsistent with the intended construct were rightfully excluded, thereby enhancing the scale's
reliability, validity, and interpretive value. Moreover, the decision to create a 40-item scale was
informed by practical considerations aimed at optimizing respondent engagement and data
quality. A more concise and focused scale not only reduces respondent fatigue and cognitive
load but also enhances the overall efficiency and effectiveness of data collection and analysis.

In essence, the collaborative effort between our team and the SMEs exemplifies a
rigorous and iterative approach to scale development, driven by a commitment to excellence and
accuracy in measuring pre-marital relationship satisfaction. The refined 40-item scale stands as a
testament to the synergistic blend of expertise, empirical rigor, and strategic refinement, poised
to yield meaningful insights into the dynamic landscape of pre-marital relationships.

Step 6: Data Collection

The preparation and circulation of a Google Form marked a meticulous step in gathering
data for analysis concerning pre-marital relationships. This form encompassed a set of 40 final
statements carefully curated to capture a broad spectrum of aspects relevant to these
relationships. Additionally, the form included sections prompting respondents to provide
demographic details such as age, gender, cultural background, and length of the relationship.
These demographic details serve a crucial role in contextualizing the responses and
understanding how various factors may influence perceptions and experiences within pre-marital
relationships.

The data collection process targeted individuals actively engaged in pre-marital

relationships, ensuring that the responses were reflective of the specific dynamics and nuances
inherent in this stage of romantic involvement. The deliberate inclusion of 107 respondents
further bolstered the robustness of the analysis, allowing for a more comprehensive examination
of the scale's applicability and effectiveness in capturing the intricacies of pre-marital
relationships.

By utilizing a digital platform like Google Forms, researchers streamlined the data
collection process, making it convenient for respondents to provide their inputs while also
facilitating efficient data management and analysis. The responses gathered through this form
laid the foundation for a thorough examination of key variables, enabling researchers to explore
correlations, patterns, and trends that shed light on the dynamics of pre-marital relationships.

Ultimately, the utilization of a Google Form, coupled with the inclusion of demographic
details and a substantial sample size of 107 respondents, played a pivotal role in assessing the
applicability and utility of the scale in capturing the multifaceted nature of pre-marital
relationships. This methodological approach not only enhanced the rigor of the analysis but also
paved the way for informed insights and recommendations applicable to individuals navigating
this crucial stage of romantic commitment.
Step 7: Item Analysis
After the items have been written, reviewed and carefully edited, they are subjected to a
procedure called item analysis. Item analysis is a set of procedures, that is applied to know the
indices for the truthfulness (or validity) of items. According to Guilford (1954), item analysis is
the best method for the selection of items in a test finally. In other words, item analysis is a
technique through which those items which are valid and suited to the purpose are selected and
the rest are either eliminated or modified to suit the purpose. For the purpose of selecting the
most appropriate, valid and discriminating items the individual item performance by a group of
examinees is compared to their performance on the whole test. In brief, it can be said that item
analysis demonstrates how effectively a given test item functions within the total test.

As a matter of fact, each item is an element within the test and in this sense, it is a test
within a test. The validity of the whole test is dependent upon the validity of the individual items.
Item analysis is a set of procedures that provides us with the estimate of validity of each item.
The items of the scale were analysed using Item to Total correlation. Item Total Correlation, also
known as Item-to-Total Correlation, is a method used in item analysis to determine how
individual items on a test or assessment relate to the overall test score. This analysis helps
evaluate the contribution of each item to the total score and assesses how well the item measures
the intended construct. The Item to total correlation range was calculated using SPSS v 28 which
ranged from 0.612-0.900. Overall, the items showed strong positive correlation. This high
correlation suggests that the items are effectively measuring the desired construct and are
contributing significantly to the overall test score. Such strong correlations validate the reliability
and validity of the scale, enhancing its utility for accurately assessing the targeted construct or
concept.
Step 8: Reliability
According to Drost (2011), reliability is "the extent to which measurements are
repeatable when different people perform the measurement on different occasion, under different
condition, supposedly with alternative instruments which measure the construct or skill".
Reliability of a test refers to the quality of the test that may inspire confidence and trust for the
measurement. And this quality can be attributed to only that test which provides the same score
every time it is performed on the same individual.

In our study, we utilized Cronbach's alpha as a pivotal metric to gauge the internal
consistency reliability of our measurement instrument. This statistic serves as a robust indicator
of how closely related items within a scale or test are to one another, providing insights into the
uniformity of their measurement of the targeted construct. Widely employed in psychometrics,
Cronbach's alpha plays a crucial role in verifying the reliability of scales, questionnaires, and
assessments by ensuring that the items maintain a consistent level of correlation with each other.
Our findings revealed a Cronbach Alpha value of 0.760 for the scale, a result deemed
acceptable within the realm of research. This value underscores the reliability of our
measurement, signifying that the items within our instrument reliably measure the intended
construct. This level of internal consistency assures researchers and practitioners of the stability
and dependability of our measurement tool, facilitating more accurate and meaningful
interpretations of study outcomes. In addition to assessing overall reliability using Cronbach's
alpha, we conducted a detailed analysis to evaluate the reliability of each dimension within our
measurement tool. Specifically, we calculated Cronbach Alpha scores for the dimensions of
Emotional Intimacy, Physical Intimacy, and Commitment.

The dimension of Emotional Intimacy demonstrated an exceptionally high Cronbach

Alpha score of 0.921, highlighting the strong internal consistency and reliability of items
measuring emotional closeness and connection within relationships. Similarly, the Physical
Intimacy dimension exhibited a robust Cronbach Alpha value of 0.902, indicating a high level of
reliability in measuring physical aspects of intimacy. Furthermore, the Commitment dimension
displayed an impressive reliability score of 0.936, underscoring the consistent and dependable
measurement of commitment levels in relationships.

Collectively, these dimension-wise Cronbach Alpha scores suggest very strong reliability
measures across all dimensions of our scale. This reinforces the scale's utility as a dependable
and accurate tool for investigating various facets of relationship satisfaction, including
emotional, physical, and commitment-related aspects. Researchers and practitioners can rely on
the scale's solid reliability to gain valuable insights into the nuanced dynamics of relationships,
aiding in informed decision-making and deeper understanding of relationship constructs.

Another reliability measure, Split Half Reliability was used to assess the reliability of the
overall scale. The reliability of a test can also be judged by dividing the components of the test
into even and odd whose results can be individually obtained. Now the results can be compared
between the groups to check the reliability of the test. The split half reliability score was 0.922,
indicating a very high level of internal consistency and reliability within a measurement
instrument. The score suggests that the items in one half of the test are highly correlated with the
items in the other half, indicating a strong degree of reliability in measuring the intended
construct. This level of reliability implies that the test consistently measures the same underlying
construct across its different sections, making it a reliable and dependable tool for assessing the
targeted domain.

LIMITATIONS
Acknowledging the constraints within the current study is imperative as these limitations
could have significantly impacted the results. The study's data collection was based on
heterogeneous couples, lacking representation from various orientations within the population,
which could have skewed the findings. Moreover, the absence of qualitative components
deprived the study of a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Additionally, with a sample
size of only 107 individuals, the study's generalizability becomes restricted, limiting the broader
applicability of its conclusions. Furthermore, the influence of social desirability bias on
participants' responses could have introduced a significant confounding factor, potentially
distorting the accuracy of the results. These identified limitations underscore the necessity for
caution when interpreting the study's outcomes and highlight areas for improvement in future
research endeavours.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
The current investigation holds significant implications for future research within the
field, contributing to the existing literature on the specified variables within the given sample and
its distinctive characteristics. These variables can be further explored across various societal
strata, including ethnicity, socio-economic classes, religion, and region. Multiple theoretical
frameworks have been established to scrutinize the construct, offering avenues for future studies
to examine the same constructs using different frameworks.

Expanding the scale to encompass a more comprehensive assessment of relationship

satisfaction could involve delving into additional dimensions beyond the traditional metrics. For
instance, incorporating elements such as communication styles, conflict resolution strategies,
emotional intimacy, and shared values could provide a more nuanced understanding of what
contributes to a fulfilling relationship. Moreover, given the evolving landscape of modern
relationships, including the burgeoning concept of situation ships—where individuals may have
a romantic or sexual connection without clearly defined labels or commitments—could offer
valuable insights into contemporary relationship dynamics. Exploring themes like ambiguity
tolerance, boundary-setting, and emotional investment within situation ships could add depth to
the scale and capture a broader spectrum of relationship experiences. By embracing these
emerging trends and adapting the scale accordingly, researchers can enhance its relevance and
applicability in capturing the complexities of modern relationship satisfaction.
 CONCLUSION
Test construction is a meticulous process that involves designing and developing assessments to
measure psychological constructs such as intelligence, personality traits, attitudes, and abilities.
Relationship satisfaction is a crucial aspect of human well-being, influencing our happiness,
mental health, and overall quality of life. It plays a significant role in shaping our emotional
well-being, mental health, and overall life satisfaction, making it a crucial area of study in
psychology and related fields. An effort was made to assess relationship satisfaction and it’s
dimensions, namely, Emotional Intimacy, Physical Intimacy and Commitment. A scale was
developed to measure the construct which involved steps such as defining the construct, taking
expert opinion, measuring the psychometric properties etc. The current scale displayed moderate
to good level of internal consistency reliability.

REFERENCES
Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The relationship between dimensions of
love, personality, and relationship length. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 39 (1), 1181-1190.
doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9515-5
Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Changes in sexuality: How sexuality changes across time,
across relationships, and across sociocultural contexts. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(1).
Argyle, M. (2003). 18 causes and correlates of happiness. Well-being: The foundations of hedonic
psychology, 353.
Anderson, T. L., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online
romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57 (2).
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970600666834
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. American Psychologist, 55 (5), 469–480.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function
of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 (1), 49-67.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_3
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L.
Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Edition.), Close
relationships (pp. 110-168). New York, NY: Freeman.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37
cultures. Behavioural and brain sciences, 12(1), 1-14.
Cassepp-Borges, V., & Teodoro, M. L. (2007). Propriedades psicométricas da versão brasileira da
Escala Triangular do Amor de Sternberg. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 20, 513-522.
Collins, W.A., Welsh, D., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Reviews of
Psychology, 60(1), 631-652.
Deenen, A. A., Gijs, L., & Van Naerssen, A. X. (1994). Intimacy and sexuality in gay male couples.
Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 23, 421-431.
Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status
and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 31(4), 419-436.
Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and
perspectives, 38(1), 105-123.
Duck, S. E., & Perlman, D. E. (1985). Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary
approach. Sage Publications, Inc.
Duck, S., & Sants, H. (1983). On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships interpersonal
states? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 27-41.
Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective
well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607-627.
Demirtas, S. C., & Tezer, E. (2012). Romantic relationship satisfaction, commitment to career choices
and subjective well-being. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46(1), 2542–2549.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.519
Erikson, E. H. (1968). *Identity: Youth and crisis*. W. W. Norton & Company.
Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2014). Development of self-esteem and relationship satisfaction in couples:
Two longitudinal studies. Developmental psychology, 50(9), 2291.
Furman, W., & Wehner, E. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 78, 21-36.
Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1981). The contribution of marital happiness to global happiness.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 161-168.
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., Harper, M. S., & Dickson, J. W. (2003). Dating and Sexual Relationship
Trajectories and Adolescent Functioning. Adolescent & Family Health.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1996). Stress and passionate love. In Stress And Emotion (pp. 29-50).
Taylor & Francis.
Hatfield, E., Bensman, L., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). A brief history of social scientists’ attempts to
measure passionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(2), 143-164.
Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective
well-being. Social indicators research, 24, 81-100.
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of social
and personal relationships, 15(1), 137-142.
Hernandez, J. A. E., & Oliveira, I. M. B. D. (2003). Os componentes do amor e a satisfação. Psicologia:
ciência e profissão, 23, 58-69.
Horn, K. R. V., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., DESLLETS, L., Sears, T., Giffin, M., & Brudi, R. (1997).
Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romantic relationships.
Personal Relationships, 4(1), 25-34.

Jain, D. (2022). Trust, Intimacy and Relationship Satisfaction among Young Adults. The International
Journal of Indian Psychology, 10.25215/1004.161
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived parental acceptance‐rejection and psychological
adjustment: A meta‐analysis of cross‐cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 64(1), 54-64.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: his and hers. Psychological
bulletin, 127(4), 472.
Kim, J., & Hatfield, E. (2004). Love types and subjective well-being: A cross-cultural study. Social
Behaviour and Personality, 32(1), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.2.173
Kline, T. J. (2005b). Psychological testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation. SAGE
Publications.
Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s lives. University
of Minnesota Press.
Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in young romantic relationships:
Successfully measuring the triangular theory of love. Psychological reports, 85(2), 497-503.
Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (2000). Intimacy, passion, and commitment among married individuals:
Further testing of the triangular theory of love. Psychological Reports, 87(3), 941-948.
Masuda, M. (2003). Meta‐analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same
psychological constructs? Japanese Psychological Research, 45(1), 25-37.
Miell, D., & Duck, S. (1986). Strategies in developing friendships. Friendship and social interaction,
129-143.
Myers, D. C. (2003). 19 close relationships and quality of life. Well-being: Foundations of hedonic
psychology, 374.
Panayiotou, G. (2005). Love, commitment, and response to conflict among Cypriot dating couples: Two
models, one relationship. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 108-117.
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well‐being: A meta‐
analysis. Journal of Marriage and family, 69(3), 576-593.

Reis, H.T. (2001). Relationship experiences and emotional well-being. In Ryff, C.D. & Singer, B.H.
(Eds.), Emotion, social relationships, and health (pp. 57–95). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of personality and social psychology, 16(2),
265.
Santtila, P., Wager, I., Witting, K., Harlaar, N., Jern, P., Johansson, A. D. A., ... & Sandnabba, N. K.
(2007). Discrepancies between sexual desire and sexual activity: Gender differences and
associations with relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 34(1), 31-44.
Sbarra, D. A., Law, R. W., & Portley, R. M. (2011). Divorce and death: A meta-analysis and research
agenda for clinical, social, and health psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(5),
454-474.
Smiler, A. (2008). “I wanted to get to know her better”: Adolescent boys’ dating motives, masculinity
ideology, and sexual behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 31(1), 17-32.
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love,
commitment, and stability. Journal of sex research, 39(3), 190-196.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 312-329.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. W. W. Norton & Company.
Whisman, M. A., Gilmour, A. L., & Salinger, J. M. (2018). Marital satisfaction and mortality in the
United States adult population. Health psychology, 37(11), 1041.
Yela, C. (2006). The evaluation of love. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 21-27.
Zaadstra, B. M., Seidell, J. C., Van Noord, P., te Velde, E. R., Habbema, J. D., Vrieswijk, B., & Karbaat,
J. (1993). Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on
conception rates. British medical journal, 306(6876), 484-487
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX A
Content Validity Form

Greetings!

We hope this message finds you well. We are students of the Department of Psychology pursuing Masters in
Psychology, University of Delhi (North Campus) currently working on developing a scale for assessing pre - marital
relationship satisfaction among Indian young adults, and would like to extend a warm invitation to you to review
our work as an expert in the field.

Your insights and expertise would be valuable in ensuring the quality and accuracy of this work and your feedback
will greatly enhance the overall quality and impact of the project. Your constructive criticism and suggestions for
improvement would be deeply appreciated.

The relevant materials have been attached for your review. Please feel free to reach out to (Khushi Chopra,
Sanskriti, Sanaa Batra) if you have any questions or need further information.

Thank you very much for considering this request. We eagerly await your feedback and are grateful for the
opportunity to benefit from your expertise.

Our scale comprises several questions that cover three domains, as we have adopted a theoretical orientation based on
Robert Sternberg’s Theory of Love (1986).

1. Passion
2. Intimacy
3. Commitment

Operational Definitions

Relationship satisfaction - Relationship satisfaction refers to an individual’s holistic assessment of the experienced
physical intimacy, emotional intimacy and commitment in their relationship. It makes one feel fulfilled. It is not
merely a property of the relationship, as the two partners can have varying levels of satisfaction.

Physical intimacy - Physical intimacy refers to “any touch with an intent to evoke feelings of arousal and a trigger for
sexual desire in the individual and their partner.

Emotional Intimacy - Emotional Intimacy refers to an emotional involvement that is facilitative of warm and personal
communication along with looking after the partners emotional well-being.

Commitment - Commitment refers to a sustained desire for psychological attachment with the partner accompanied by
an inclination for relationship persistence.

Conceptual Definition of Pre - Marital Relationships - “Premarital relationship period is a period for two different
people who do not know each other, to know and understand each other and create bonds of love” (Özgüven, 2000).
Tentative Specificities of our scale
We are constructing a normative scale, utilising close-ended questions and continuous responses in the form of a
Likert type 5-point scale ranging from 'Extremely Satisfied' to ‘'Extremely Dissatisfied'. This scale captures the
intensity of respondents' feelings.

Tentative Scoring
The scoring technique that we will utilise considering a 5 point Likert scale will be -
Extremely Dissatisfied = 1
Dissatisfied = 2
Average = 3
Satisfied = 4
Extremely Satisfied = 5
Higher scores on the scale will indicate High Satisfaction, the same will be implied for every sub-dimension.

Form for the Students

Instructions

Greetings!

We are currently working on developing a scale for assessing pre - marital relationship satisfaction among Indian
young adults.

Given below are 50 statements regarding your emotions, feelings and your overall experience about your relationship.
You have to think about your pre - marital relationship while answering. There are no right or wrong answers.

If you’re engaged in multiple pre - marital relationships currently (Situationships), think of any one relationship and
answer the following questions.

Your participation will be invaluable in providing insights that could significantly benefit our project.

If you have any inquiries, concerns or encounter issues during the survey, please reach out to us (Khushi Chopra,
Sanaa Batra, Sanskriti).

Demographics:
Name: _________________________
Age: _______________________(18 - 29 years, based on Arnett’s conceptualisation of emerging adulthood)
Gender: ___________________
Are you currently in a relationship? yes/no
How long have you been in this relationship? Less than 1 year, 1-2 years, More than 2 years
How would you describe your sexual orientation? ____________________
What is the number of past relationships you've had? 1,2,3,4, More than 4
What are your Living arrangements like? Living together/ long distance / Live nearby
Items
Emotional Intimacy - 14 Items
Physical Intimacy - 14 Items
Commitment - 14 Items
Overall assessment - 3 Items
VR = Very relevant
SR = Somewhat Relevant
SI = Somewhat Irrelevant
NR = Not at all Relevant
VC = Very Clear
SC = Somewhat Clear
SU = Somewhat Unclear
NC = Not at all Clear

s.no Items Relevanc Clarity

e
 VR SR SI NR VC SC SU NC

I feel satisfied……

1 With the emotional support I receive from my partner

2 As my partner’s emotional needs.

3 As my partner makes me feel comfortable.

4 That my partner feels comfortable.

5 That my partner understands me.

6 That I understand my partner.

7 As I find my partner attractive.

8 As my partner finds me attractive.

9 As I enjoy my partner’s company.

10 As my partner enjoys my company.

11 As I am comfortable discussing my physical needs and desires

with my partner.

12 That my partner is comfortable discussing their physical needs and

desires with me.

13 That I share a satisfying level of physical affection with my partner.

14 That my partner shares a satisfying level of physical affection with

me.

15 As I feel confident that my partner is there for me during both good

and bad times.

16 That I am present for my partner during both good and bad times.

17 That I plan my future aspirations with my partner.

18 As my partner plans their future aspirations with me.

19 That I have a healthy and fulfilling physical relationship with my

partner.

20 That my partner has a healthy and fulfilling physical relationship

with me.
21 As I generally feel satisfied with the physical affection my partner
shows me.

22 As I feel that my partner is satisfied with my physical affection.

23 As I feel a strong connection with my partner

24 That my partner feels a strong connection with me.

25 As my relationship with my partner is very romantic

26 That my partner has a very romantic relationship with me.

27 As I really feel like a team with my partner

28 As My partner feels a team with me.

29 As I take major life decisions considering my partner’s life.

30 That my partner makes major life decisions considering my life.

31
Because my primary focus is my partner's welfare.

32 As my partner’s primary focus is my welfare

33 And relaxed during physical moments with my partner.

34 Because my partner feels relaxed during physical moments with

me.

35 Because I think that our relationship is relatively permanent.

36 That my partner thinks that our relationship is permanent

37 Because I have confidence in the stability of our relationship with

my partner

38 As My partner has confidence in the stability of our relationship

39 That I bring comfort and joy to my partner

40 That my partner brings comfort and joy to me

41 As I feel like my true self with my partner

42 As my partner feels like their true self with me

43 How satisfied are you with the things between you and your
 partner?

44
To what extent has your relationship met your original
expectations?

45 Overall, How satisfied are you with your relationship?

Any other comments -

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Thanks and regards

Students in Charge,

Khushi Chopra
Sanaa Batra
Sanskriti Gautam
Ishwari Sinha
Sahil
Eshika
Anushka Sharma
 APPENDIX B
Final Questionnaire
Pre – Marital Relationship Satisfaction

Hello! We the students of M.A. Psychology, University of Delhi are conducting a project on constructing a scale on
"relationship satisfaction in pre-marital relationships" under the guidance of Dr. Priyanka Tiwari. We invite you to
be a part of this study by filing out the questionnaire given below.

You are eligible to participate if you:

1. fall in the age range of 18-29.
2. if you are in any kind of romantic relationship.
3. If you’re engaged in multiple pre - marital relationships currently (Situationships), think of any one relationship
and answer the following questions.

Given below are few statements regarding your emotions, feelings and your overall experience about your
relationship. You have to think about your pre - marital relationship while answering. There are no right or wrong
answers.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and we assure you that your information will be kept strictly
confidential and will only be used for academic and research purposes. For any further inquiry, please feel free to
contact us at the email IDs mentioned below:

sanskritig2023@gmail.com
choprakhushi101@gmail.com
Thank you for taking out your valuable time and participating in this research study.

I have read and understood the information provided about this study and agree to participate voluntarily. I give my
consent for participation and publication for the present study.
O Yes
O No

Demographics
Name __________________________
Age __________________________
Gender __________________________

Are you in a relationship?

O Less than 1 year
O 1-2 years
O More than 2 Years

How would you describe your sexual orientation?

O Straight
O Bisexual
O Asexual
O Gay
O Lesbian
Other__________________________

Number of past relationships you have had?

O0
O1
O2
O3
O More than 3

What your living arrangements like?

O Living together
O Long Distance
O Living Nearby
Other __________________________

In this section, there are forty-five statements. You have five response options: 'Extremely Dissatisfied,'
'Dissatisfied,' 'Average,' 'Satisfied,' and 'Extremely Satisfied.' Each option reflects your level of agreement with the
following statement, from lowest to highest. Please read each question carefully and select the response that best
matches your perspective.
ED = Extremely Dissatisfied
D = Dissatisfied
A = Average
S= Satisfied
ES = Extremely Satisfied
ED D A S ES

With the emotional support I receive from my partner

As my partner’s emotional needs are fulfilled.
As my partner makes me feel comfortable.
That my partner feels comfortable around me.
That my partner understands me.
That I understand my partner.
As I find my partner attractive.
As my partner finds me attractive.
As I enjoy my partner’s company.
As my partner enjoys my company.
That I share a decent level of physical affection with my partner.
That my partner shares a decent level of physical affection with me.
And confident that my partner is there for me during both good and bad times.
That I am present for my partner during both good and bad times.
That I have a healthy and fulfilling physical relationship with my partner.
That my partner has a healthy and fulfilling physical relationship with me.
with the physical affection my partner shows me.
As I feel that my partner is satisfied with my physical affection.
As my relationship with my partner is very romantic
That my partner has a very romantic relationship with me.
As I really feel like a team with my partner
As My partner feels a team with me.
As I take major life decisions considering my partner’s life.
That my partner makes major life decisions considering my life.
Because my primary focus is my partner's welfare.
As my partner’s primary focus is my welfare
And relaxed during physical moments with my partner.
Because my partner feels relaxed during physical moments with me.
Because I think that our relationship is relatively permanent.
That my partner thinks that our relationship is permanent
Because I have confidence in the stability of our relationship with my partner
As My partner has confidence in the stability of our relationship
That I bring comfort and joy to my partner
That my partner brings comfort and joy to me
As I feel like my true self with my partner
As my partner feels like their true self with me
How satisfied are you with the things between you and your partner?
To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?
Do you consider yourself happy in the relationship.
Overall, How satisfied are you with your relationship?