SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.22 número2Factores asociados a hospitalizaciones inadecuadas de adultos mayores en el servicio de emergencia del Hospital Edgardo Rebagliati Martins 2017Hábitos alimentarios y estilos de vida de los estudiantes de medicina a inicios de la pandemia Covid-19 índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

  • No hay articulos citadosCitado por SciELO

Links relacionados

  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Revista de la Facultad de Medicina Humana

versión impresa ISSN 1814-5469versión On-line ISSN 2308-0531

Rev. Fac. Med. Hum. vol.22 no.2 Lima abr./jun 2022  Epub 16-Mar-2022

http://dx.doi.org/10.25176/rfmh.v22i2.4763 

Original article

Couple relationship quality scale in the Covid-19 context

Gissel Arteta-Sandoval1 

Denis Frank Cunza-Aranzábal1 

Jazmin Madrid-Valdiviezo1 

July Vanessa Huamán-Pérez2 

1Graduate School, Peruvian Union University, Lima, Peru.

2Lima, Perú.

ABSTRACT

Introduction:

The pandemic caused by COVID-19 has affected the way of life of people, and particularly relationships. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Quality of Relationship of Couple Scale (CRP-ASO) within the context of compulsory social isolation due to COVID-19, in Peru.

Methods:

The CRP-ASO scale was applied to 499 adults (60% women; Mage= 41.54 years, Sage= 13.48). The internal structure of the instrument was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis (AFE) and confirmatory factor analysis (AFC). Reliability was also estimated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ꞷ) coefficients.

Results:

The item-test correlations indicated that all items should be kept (iHC > .2). According to the EFA (KMO = .956; Bartlett sphericity test p < .01) the emergent factor structure yielded 4 factors, confirmed through the CFA (SRMR = .059; R-CFI = .921; R-TLI = .913; R-RMSEA = .077). The factors were called consensus, complicity-intimacy, satisfaction in the relationship and stability in the relationship, with high indicators of internal consistency.

Conclusion:

It is concluded that the instrument has satisfactory psychometric properties and can be used in similar samples.

Keywords: Domestic Partners; COVID-19; Psychometrics; Factor Analysis; Reliability and Validity.(fuente: MeSH NLM).

INTRODUCTION

The pandemic caused by COVID-19 has impacted people's lives1, also affecting couple's relationships. Studies carried out in China at the beginning of the pandemic recorded high levels of anguish in people without a partner2, high prevalence of anxiety in married people3, and marital satisfaction as a protective factor against anxiety in parents4. Likewise, a study in Iran indicated that the fear that one of the relationship members would be infected influenced their partner’s mental health5. Thus, depending on the context, confinement impacts the couple’s well-being.

A couple is defined as the bonding unit in which two people consensually establish significant bonds of physical, emotional, and psychological intimacy, and with stability over time6, which in the present study includes married and de facto couples. One of the factors that are related to the well-being of those involved in the relationship is the quality that exists within it7. The quality of the couple's relationship is the degree to which each party shows intimacy, affection, and care8. There are four basic aspects for a couple of relationships to work properly: the willingness to agree, satisfaction, cohesion, and affective expression9.

The literature reveals various approaches to assess the quality of the couple relationship, unidimensionally10and based on four factors, such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale9, one of the most used instruments, applied for the first time in a North American sample obtained high reliability (global scale, 0.96; satisfaction, 0.94; consensus, 0.90; cohesion, 0.86 and affective expression, 0.73).

In a population similar to the original, the test showed a reliability of 0.91 on the full scale11, with similar results in Australia, for the full scale (between 0.90 and 0.92) and its dimensions (between 0.76 and 0.94); with the exception of the affective expression scale, with values between 0.53 and 0.6912.

The instrument was also validated in Italy, showing reliability of 0.93 on the total scale as well as a factorial structure equal to the original version13. Likewise, the reliability of the instrument in a Spanish sample was high (total scale: 0.94, consensus: 0.88, satisfaction: 0.88, cohesion: .85 and affective expression: 0.69); and a four-factor structure14.

However, a meta-analysis of the internal consistency of the scale showed that the test and its subscales reported acceptable reliability; except for the affective expression factor15. Similar results were reported in a sample of married people, fitted to a 3-dimensional model16. The number of items in some of the subscales was modified (consensus, 15 items; satisfaction, 8 items, and cohesion, 5 items) and the affective expression subscale was eliminated; obtaining in the consent factor reliability of 0.87; satisfaction, .84 and cohesion, 0.88. On the other hand, in a study with Spanish people with a stable partner, although the total reliability of the test was high (α =0.92); Problems in the internal structure of this scale were pointed out, given that in the exploratory factorial analysis the consensus explained most of the variance (3.63%) and some items obtained a greater load in a factor other than the original approach17. Finally, in a study in Hungary, the omega reliability coefficient was acceptable in the general test: .86, and the consensus dimensions: .60, and cohesion: .57; while it was low for the satisfaction subscales: .22, and affective expression: .3618.

Taking into account that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected married life and there are few instruments that assess the quality of the couple relationship in this context, the purpose of this study is 1) To identify the underlying relationships between the variables measured by the CRP-ASO scale using the Exploratory Factor Analysis, 2) Verify by means of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis the structure that emerges from the Exploratory Factor Analysis, 3) Evidence the convergent validity of the CRP-ASO scale and its dimensions with the complimentary items of happiness and comparative before and during social isolation 4) Determine the internal consistency reliability of the CRP-ASO scale.

METHODS

Design

This is an instrumental design investigation19because it analyzes the psychometric properties of a psychological measurement instrument.

Participants

A non-probabilistic convenience sampling method was used20. The sample consisted of a total of 499 participants, mostly women (300; 60%), with representatives from almost all regions of Peru. Regarding marital status, 72% reported being married, while 28% reported living with their partner. Likewise, according to the employment status of the respondents, 19% mentioned being unemployed and 49% employed. More detailed information can be seen inTable 1.

Table 1.  Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample 

    Count %     Count %
Age 18-24 years 19 3.8 religious Adventist 209 41.9 25-34 years 119 23.8 Agnostic 10 2.0 35-44 years 188 37.7 Atheist 3 .6 45-54 years 111 22.2 Catholic 225 45.1 55-64 years 44 8.8 Evangélica 32 6.4 65-77 years 18 3.6 Mormon 2 .4
Relationship time Menos de 5 years 117 23.4 R.O. 14 2.8 6-10 years 118 23.6 Jehovah's Witness 4 .8 11-20 years 161 32.3 Zones Norte 114 22.8 21-30 years 63 12.6 Centro 329 65.9 31-40 years old 28 5.6 Sur 36 7.2 Over de 41 years old 12 2.4 Otros 20 4

Note. North = Amazon. Cajamarca. Freedom. Lambayeque. Loretto. Piura. San Martin. tumbles; Center = Ancash. Shut up. Huanuco. Junin. Lima. Pasco. Ucayali; South = Arequipa. Ayacucho. Cusco. Huancavelica. Ica. Mother of God. Fist; Others = Peruvians in other parts of the world; RO= Eastern religions or philosophies (Buddhism, New age, Hare Krishna, etc.)

Instruments

To develop the instrument used in this study, some items were taken from the dyadic adjustment scale9and from the satisfaction scale (21 ), proposed in Spanish by Melero22, whose items were appropriate to the context of compulsory social isolation. Two items were added, one related to the preventive care of Covid-19 and the other to the virtual education of children.

The instrument developed is an adaptation, which was called the Couple Relationship Quality Scale in the context of Mandatory Social Isolation (CRP-ASO) and has 35 items. 11 items were taken from the "consensus" dimension of the dyadic adjustment scale and items 12 and 13 were added, item 12 is aimed at couples with children, items 15 to 22 were taken from the Hendrick satisfaction scale, being 15, 16, 20 and 22 of inverse qualification. Items 24 to 27 were appropriate from the "cohesion" dimension and items 29 to 32 from the "expression of affection" dimension of the dyadic adjustment scale. Other items are also included that are not part of the Couple Relationship Quality construct in the context of Mandatory Social Isolation: items 14, 23, 28, 33 that aim to differentiate how the dimensions manifest over time, in relation to the period of isolation social compared to the previous stage (better than before, the same as before, worse than before) and items 34 and 35 to assess the perception of happiness in the couple relationship. All these items were used for the convergent validity analysis.

Procedures

Data collection was carried out in the second half of May 2020, when the participants had spent at least 65 days of mandatory social isolation, in Peru. An online form was used and participation was invited through the social networks Facebook and WhatsApp, in addition to the paid advertising service by Facebook, to disseminate the survey nationwide. To move on to subsequent sections, responses to all items were required; therefore, there were no incomplete surveys.

Statistical analysis

The 499 records were randomly divided into two groups, one of 280 cases for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the other of 219 participants for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

The CFA was performed using the statistical software R. The items obtained from the AFE carried out with the first 280 cases were then submitted to the CFA considering the model derived from the factorial structure obtained in the AFE, but this time with 219 cases different from those first. The CFA was performed following the indications given by Rhemtulla, Brosseau-Liard, and Savalei23who maintain that since the data are categorical, by definition, they do not present a normal distribution; therefore, the analysis of these data should be done with robust estimators if they are considered as continuous data. The maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and a Satorra-Bentler (MLM) scaled test statistic presented in the Lavaan statistical package of R24were then chosen. To determine the fit of the model, the recently proposed robust indices CFI, TLI and RMSEA for non-normal data were used25.

Ethical aspects

Before starting the survey, instructions were provided and the informed consent of the participants was requested, also indicating that they could stop responding whenever they wished, in addition, the confidentiality of the data was guaranteed by requesting an anonymous response, avoiding any form of identification. of the participants.

RESULTS

The descriptive analysis of the items showed that 23.2% of the sample for the AFE and 21.9% for the AFC did not have children, reducing both samples, so item 12 was not considered for further analysis. Before carrying out the EFA, the nature of the variables under study was verified. Adequate item-test correlations were obtained without the analyzed item, also called corrected homogeneity index (iHC >.2), which indicates that it is not necessary to remove any item; Likewise, the asymmetry and kurtosis of the items showed that all of them are within the range of -2 and +2 (seetable 2), being acceptable values to consider that the data have an approximately normal distribution26. therefore, the Pearson product-moment correlation matrix is input for the EFA. The adequacy of the data was verified using the statistical program Jamovi 1.2.22, obtaining a KMO = .956 and a significant Bartlett sphericity test (p < 0.010). Parallel analysis was used as a method for determining the number of factors, the most recommended method for this purpose, while the least residual method was used for factor extraction and oblique oblimin rotation, obtaining 4 factors that explained 69.4% of the variance, with loads greater than .4, being a recommended minimum saturation size (table 3), with the first factor, consensus, explaining the highest percentage of variance (32.33%). The factors obtained correlated with each other with a minimum value of .319 and a maximum of .719 (table 4), higher than .30, so it is considered that the oblique rotation used in the exploratory factor analysis is adequate27.

Table 2.  Descriptive data of the variables under study in the sample used for the EFA 

  N Minimum Maximum Mean SD iHC Asymmetry Kurtosis
Item1 280 1 5 3.61 1.280 .811 -.752 -.480
Item2 280 1 5 3.83 1.383 .717 -.835 -.675
Item3 280 1 5 3.70 1.315 .861 -.831 -.464
Item4 280 1 5 3.71 1.286 .826 -.902 -.228
Item5 280 1 5 3.66 1.327 .806 -.714 -.639
Item6 280 1 5 3.64 1.246 .720 -.784 -.347
Item7 280 1 5 3.94 1.303 .826 -1.129 .069
Item8 280 1 5 3.88 1.316 .815 -1.036 -.137
Item9 280 1 5 3.68 1.246 .782 -.695 -.519
Item10 280 1 5 3.50 1.247 .800 -.628 -.583
Item11 280 1 5 4.01 1.314 .821 -1.210 .204
Item13 280 1 5 3.72 1.350 .802 -.865 -.490
Item15 280 1 5 3.80 .883 -.273 -.314 -.175
Item16 280 1 5 4.30 .985 -.414 -1.402 1.512
Item17 280 1 5 3.74 1.161 .661 -.849 .042
Item18 280 1 5 3.91 1.218 .669 -1.057 .198
Item19 280 1 5 3.94 1.137 .644 -.978 .170
Item20 280 1 5 4.16 1.100 -.257 -1.233 .828
Item21 280 1 5 3.80 1.149 .591 -.924 .173
Item22 280 1 5 3.78 1.058 -.363 -.864 .424
Item24 280 1 5 3.65 .922 .696 -.638 .730
Item25 280 1 5 3.98 .939 .682 -.769 .486
Item26 280 1 5 3.91 .942 .654 -.720 .405
Item27 280 1 5 3.83 1.071 .670 -.712 -.063
Item29 280 1 5 3.70 1.269 .632 -.686 -.466
Item30 280 1 5 3.89 1.078 .707 -.842 .222
Item31 280 1 5 3.74 1.118 .651 -.596 -.241
Item32 280 1 5 3.21 1.096 .322 -.203 -.396

Note. SD = Standard deviation, iHC = corrected homogeneity index

Table 3.  Factor loads of the items under study and reliability indices by internal consistency of the factors obtained 

Ítems F1 F2 F3 F4 Uniqueness
Item11 .931       .170
Item8 .923       .175
Item4 .899       .178
Item7 .898       .193
Item6 .865       .331
Item5 .862       .236
Item2 .855       .340
Item1 .803       .252
Item9 .799       .290
Item10 .774       .285
Item3 .769       .203
Item13 .763       .289
Item30   .860     .153
Item31   .842     .228
Item29   .812     .348
Item25   .756     .306
Item24   .645     .328
Item27   .583     .368
Item26   .556     .371
Item32   .446     .752
Item21     .897   .212
Item19     .858   .184
Item18     .857   .145
Item17     .780   .186
Item16       .668 .379
Item22       .657 .452
Item15       .613 .602
Item20       .572 .611
α de Cronbach .972 .924 .947 .772  
ꞷ de McDonald .972 .930 .947 .777  

The least residual extraction method was used in combination with the 'oblimin' rotation. F1 = Consensus; F2 = Complicity/intimacy; F3 = Satisfaction in the relationship; F4 = Compromise.

Table 4.  Matrix of correlations between factors 

  F1 F2 F3 F4
F1 .600 .514 .319
F2   .719 .625
F3     .522
F4      

Note. F1 = Consensus; F2 = Complicity/intimacy; F3 = Satisfaction in the relationship; F4 = Commitment

The proposed factorial model (Figure 1) based on the MLM robust analysis obtained a χ2 = 743.016 (df = 344; p<.01), which together with the reference model, saturated model or null model (χ2 = 4621.232, df = 378) allowed obtaining the values of the different adjustment statistics presented in Table 4, which show the viability of the reference model or proposed model, since the robust indices25are adequate (CFI >.9 ; TLI >.9) and RMSEA <.08, according to the indications of Schumacker and Lomax28.

Table 5.  Goodness-of-fit indices obtained from the CFA 

  χ2 (gl) p-valor χ2/gl SRMR R-CFI R-TLI R-RMSEA [IC 90 %]
Modelo de cuatro factores 743.016(344) 0.000 2.160 0.059 0.921 0.913 0.077[0.070; 0.085]

Note. R-CFI = Robust CFI, R-TLI = Robust TLI, R - RMSEA = Robust RMSEA.

The factors obtained are translated into 4 dimensions that are defined as follows. Consensus. It measures the degree of agreement between the members of the couple in important areas of the relationship such as values, education, housework, free time, relationships with family and friends, etc.9as well as decision-making in the context of confinement.

Complicity/Intimacy. Evaluates the degree to which the couple carries out joint activities and expressions of affection are manifested, generating closeness. It unites the original dimensions of expression of affection and cohesion by Spanier9adapted to Spanish by Melero22.

Satisfaction in the relationship. It allows assessing the degree to which the couple's relationship is perceived as pleasant and pleasant.

Commitment. It refers to the perceived commitment to the continuity of the relationship and emotional control in the face of couple problems.

Figure 1:  Factorial structure of the CRP-ASO. Note. Fc1 = Consensus; Fc2 = Complicity/intimacy; Fc3 = Satisfaction in the relationship; Fc4 = Commitment 

TheCRP-ASO scale shows adequate internal consistency in each of its dimensions:consensus (Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω= .972), complicity-intimacy (Cronbach's α = .924; McDonald's ω= . 930), relationship satisfaction(Cronbach'sα=.947; McDonald's ω = .947) and commitment (Cronbach's α = .772; McDonald's ω = .777). Regarding convergent validity (Table 6), the dimensions correlated positively, signicantly and with (29)an effect size between typical and relatively large29with various comparative items overtime:mutual agreement(item14);satisfaction with the couple relationship (item 23); feeling of closeness with the partner (item 28); expression of affection (item 33), perception of happiness in the couple before (item 34) and during compulsory social isolation (item 35).

Table 6.  Verification of the construct validity (convergent) of the dimensions and the complete scale of Couple relationship 

    Mutual agreement (14) Satisfaction in the couple relationship (23) Closeness (28) Expression of affection (33) Happiness in the couple-before social isolation (34) Happiness in the couple-during social isolation (35)
Consensus r 0.272 *** 0.293 *** 0.347 *** 0.373 *** 0.271 *** 0.354 ***
p < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001  
Complicity- Intimacy r 0.396 *** 0.502 *** 0.58 *** 0.585 *** 0.41 *** 0.618 ***
p < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001  
Relationship satisfaction r 0.287 *** 0.366 *** 0.453 *** 0.461 *** 0.393 *** 0.505 ***
p < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001  
Commitment r 0.304 *** 0.444 *** 0.447 *** 0.393 *** 0.403 *** 0.552 ***
p < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001  
Relationship quality r 0.366 *** 0.443 *** 0.513 *** 0.523 *** 0.402 *** 0.552 ***
p < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001   < .001  

Note. Items 14. 23. 28. 33. 34 and 35 identify the status of the relationship in the criteria described. during social isolation compared to the previous period. N = 499: r = Pearson's correlation. *** p < .001

DISCUSSION

For this study, it was proposed to identify the psychometric properties of the Partner Relationship Quality Scale in the context of mandatory social isolation in Peru, due to the Covid-19 disease.

Through the AFE, it was found that the CRP-ASO scale has 4 dimensions which were called: consensus (12 items), complicity-intimacy (8 items), satisfaction in the relationship (4 items) and commitment (4 items). . These dimensions were analyzed using the CFA, confirming their factorization, therefore, from this perspective, the quality of the couple relationship construct would be multidimensional. This result coincides with what was found by in other studies in which the existence of four dimensions was reported9,13,14,30and differs from the proposal of two dimensions18and three factors16found in other studies.

An outstanding finding is that the consensus dimension retains the same items of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale adapted by Melero22, which denotes the strength of this factor; Likewise, it is the factor that explains the highest percentage of variance of this scale, a result also found by Santos-Iglesias et al.17and Balzarini et al.31. As for the other factors, these underwent changes in their composition of items, which would show that the factorial structure of the scale can vary in various social and cultural contexts, which coincides with16. Proof of this is that the Satisfaction dimension, after the analysis, was divided into two factors: relationship satisfaction and commitment.

On the other hand, it stands out that item 32 "During social isolation, do you have sexual relations?", although it is grouped in complicity/intimacy, it obtains .73 in uniqueness, which expresses a certain tendency to be an autonomous item or even to be a dimension in itself. It may also be related to some variations in the response options given in the items (the word “almost” was added to the response options “never” and “every day”).

From the CFA, it is deduced that all the dimensions correlate with each other in a positive or direct and significant way with values from weak to strong32. The complicity-intimacy and satisfaction dimensions obtained the highest correlation (r = .72), which shows that the dimensions are part of the same construct, but remain different factors.

Likewise, the dimension of satisfaction in the relationship and commitment has the second-highest correlation (r = .76), which coincides with Balzarini et al.31, who found a correlation between satisfaction and commitment (r = .66), in a study conducted on couples from 57 countries, in the context of the pandemic.

Regarding the dimensions that had originally been called an expression of affection and cohesion, after the AFE and AFC, they came together and gave rise to the dimension that is currently called complicity-intimacy. This is so, probably because this entire section of questions expresses closeness, either through activities together or through physical displays of affection. Given that confinement has increased the physical proximity of the couple, it could happen that these dimensions are feeding back into each other, so that the limits between the two seem to become blurred.

On the other hand, the dimension that was raised as satisfaction in the relationship was divided into two dimensions. The first kept the name of satisfaction, and the second, with the items inverted, was called commitment, since the items that were grouped in this dimension describe the disposition of the couples to maintain the relationship and manage their emotions when problems arise. The results of the reliability analysis for internal consistency coincide with other authors (9,13-15,30) who found that the dimension with the highest reliability was consensus, as in this study, while the one with the least reliability was an effective expression, this last result being different from what was found in this study (compromise).

Regarding convergent validity, the four dimensions were correlated with the complementary and comparative items over time. Among the most outstanding results, it was found that the complicity-intimacy dimension achieves the highest correlations with almost all the complimentary items, which coincides with other studies on the relationship between intimacy and happiness33,34. Likewise, the item that evaluates happiness during social isolation obtains the highest correlation coefficients with the dimensions of the CRP-ASO scale, with the exception of consensus, which would indicate that couples who had a positive relationship before confinement, during this stage can maintain and even enhance the positive aspects of your relationship. It can also be noted that reports of happiness could be good predictors of the quality of the couple's relationship.

Among the limitations of the study, it can be mentioned that the sample consisted mainly of people who profess a Christian religion, with a higher university education level, with access to the Internet and social networks, and it was also a non-probabilistic sampling. Regarding convergent validity, unitary comparative items were considered instead of validated scales.

In future research, it should be included with much more specificity, the cultural aspects of their own, the changes in the ways of life and relationships imposed by the pandemic, and other effects (such as those of globalization) that influence the redefinition of the concept of quality of the couple relationship. Likewise, it is necessary to evaluate the stability of the factorial structure of the test in other populations and obtain other evidence of validity. Having an abbreviated version of this instrument would be highly recommended for epidemiological or clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Finally, the CRP-ASO and its four subscales, developed for use in the Peruvian context in conditions of social isolation, is a reliable instrument that has evidence of internal (construct) and external (convergent) validity and could be useful. in future studies that seek to know the quality of couple relationships.

REFERENCES

1. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Applying Relationship Science to Evaluate How the COVID-19 Pandemic May Impact Couples' Relationships. Am Psychol. 2020; [ Links ]

2. Wang H, Xia Q, Xiong Z, Li Z, Xiang W, Yuan Y, et al. The psychological distress and coping styles in the early stages of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic in the general mainland Chinese population: A web-based survey. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):1-10. [ Links ]

3. Tang F, Liang J, Zhang H, Kelifa MM, He Q, Wang P. COVID-19 related depression and anxiety among quarantined respondents. Psychol Heal. 2020;0(0):1-15. [ Links ]

4. Wu M, Xu W, Yao Y, Zhang L, Guo L, Fan J, et al. Mental health status of students' parents during COVID-19 pandemic and its influence factors. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33(4):e100250. [ Links ]

5. Ahorsu DK, Imani V, Lin CY, Timpka T, Broström A, Updegraff JA, et al. Associations Between Fear of COVID-19, Mental Health, and Preventive Behaviours Across Pregnant Women and Husbands: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Modelling. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020; [ Links ]

6. de la Espriella R. Couple Therapy: A Systematic Approach. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2021 Jun 25];37(1):175-86. Available from: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=80615420014Links ]

7. Nurhayati S, Faturochman F, Helmi A. Marital Quality: A Conceptual Review. Bul Psikol. 2019 Dec;7:109-24. [ Links ]

8. Collins WA, Welsh DP, Furman W. Adolescent Romantic Relationships. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009 Jan;60(1). [ Links ]

9. Spanier GB. Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976 Feb;38(1):15. [ Links ]

10. Norton R. Measuring marital quality: a critical look at the dependent variable. J Marriage Fam. 1983;45(1):141-51. [ Links ]

11. Spanier GB, Thompson L. A Confirmatory Analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. J Marriage Fam. 1982 Aug;44(3):731. [ Links ]

12. Antill JK, Cotton S. Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some Confirmatory Analyses. Aust Psychol. 1982;17(2):181-9. [ Links ]

13. Gentili P, Contreras L, Cassaniti M, D'arista F. La Dyadic Adjustment Scale : Una misura dell'adattamento di coppia. Minerva Psichiatr [Internet]. 2002;43(2):107-1016. Available from: https://www.minervamedica.it/it/riviste/minerva-psychiatry/articolo.php?cod=R17Y2002N02A0107Links ]

14. Cano-Prous A, Martín-Lanas R, Moyá-Querejeta J, Beunza-Nuin MI, Lahortiga-Ramos F, García-Granero M. Psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Int J Clin Heal Psychol [Internet]. 2014;14(2):137-44. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70047-XLinks ]

15. Graham JM, Liu YJ, Jeziorski JL. The dyadic adjustment Scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. J Marriage Fam. 2006 Aug;68(3):701-17. [ Links ]

16. Poliakova J, Sorokova MG, Garanian NG. Factor structure and reliability of dyadic adjustment scale (DAS) in the Russian population. Couns Psychol Psychother. 2018;26(3):105-26. [ Links ]

17. Santos-Iglesias P, Vallejo-Medina P, Sierra JC. Propiedades psicométricas de una versión breve de la Escala de Ajuste Diádico en muestras Españolas. - PsycNET. Int J Clin VALOR-SEGURA al Versión española la Spouse. 2009;9(3):501-17. [ Links ]

18. Vajda D, Thege BK, Rózsa S. Factor structure of the dyadic adjustment scale: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2019 May;35(3):326-34. [ Links ]

19. Ato M, López JJ, Benavente A. Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. An Psicol. 2013;29(3):1038-59. [ Links ]

20. Shaughnessy JJ, Zechmeister EB, Zechmeister JS. Research Methods in Psychology. 10th ed. New York, NY, US: McGrawHill; 2015. [ Links ]

21. Hendrick SS, Hendrick C, Adler NL. Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, and staying together. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):980-988. [ Links ]

22. Melero R. La relación de pareja, apego, dinámicas de interacción y actitudes amorosas: consecuencias de la calidad de relación [Internet]. Universitat de València; 2008 [cited 2021 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/10234/melero.pdf?sequence=1Links ]

23. Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When Can Categorical Variables Be Treated as Continuous? A Comparison of Robust Continuous and Categorical SEM Estimation Methods Under Suboptimal Conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(3):354-73. [ Links ]

24. Rosseel Y, Jorgensen TD. Package "lavaan" - Latent variable analysis [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 23]. Available from: http://lavaan.orgLinks ]

25. Savalei V. On the Computation of the RMSEA and CFI from the Mean-And-Variance Corrected Test Statistic with Nonnormal Data in SEM. Multivariate Behav Res. 2018 May 4;53(3):419-29. [ Links ]

26. Bandalos DL, Finney SJ. Factor Analysis: Exploratory and Confirmatory. In: Hancock GR, Stapleton LM, Mueller RO, editors. Reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Routledge; 2019. [ Links ]

27. Lloret-Segura S, Ferreres-Traver A, Hernández-Baeza A, Tomás-Marco I. Exploratory Item Factor Analysis: A practical guide revised and updated. An Psicol. 2014;30(3):1151-69. [ Links ]

28. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner´s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 4th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2016. [ Links ]

29. Gignac GE, Szodorai ET. Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Pers Individ Dif. 2016 Nov 1;102:74-8. [ Links ]

30. Garbarini C, Gerino E, Marino E, Rollé L, Brustia P. Psychometrical Properties of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for Measurement of Marital Quality with Italian Couples. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2014 Apr;127:499-503. [ Links ]

31. Balzarini RN, Muise A, Zoppolat G, Di Bartolomeo A, Rodrigues D, Alonso-Ferres M, et al. Love in the Time of Covid: Perceived Partner Responsiveness Buffers People from Lower Relationship Quality Associated with Covid-Related Stressors. 2020. [ Links ]

32. Dancey CP, Reidy J. Statistics without maths for Psychology. 7th ed. New York, NY, US: Pearson; 2017. [ Links ]

33. Sandhya S. The Social Context of Marital Happiness in Urban Indian Couples: Interplay of Intimacy and Conflict. J Marital Fam Ther. 2009 Jan;35(1):74-96. [ Links ]

34. Pourmousa H, Ali Mohammadifar M, Tale Pesand S, Mohammad Rezaei A. The effectiveness of intimacy training with cognitivebehavioral approach on couples' life quality and happiness. Electron J Gen Med. 2018;15(6). [ Links ]

Funding sources: Self.

Received: February 01, 2022; Accepted: March 07, 2022

Correspondence: Denis Frank Cunza-Aranzábal Address: Carretera Central, Km. 19.5, Lima, Perú. Telephone number: +51 955857465 E-mail:deniscunza@upeu.edu.pe

Authorship contributions: The authors participated in the genesis of the idea, project design, data collection and interpretation, analysis of results and preparation of the manuscript of this research work.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons