4.6 Article

Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Dyadic-Familial Relationship Satisfaction Scale

期刊

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-023-04603-3

关键词

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model; Adaptation; Dyadic-familial relationship satisfaction scale; Relationship satisfaction; Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Spanish version of the Dyadic-Familial Relationship Satisfaction Scale (Sp-DFRSS) has been validated and found to have good reliability and validity for measuring relationship satisfaction in cohabitant couples with children.
The Dyadic-Familial Relationship Satisfaction Scale (DFRSS) is a valid and reliable instrument to assess dyadic and familial dimensions of relationship satisfaction in cohabitant couples with children. The main goal of this research was to validate the Spanish version of the DFRSS (Sp-DFRSS) following the guidelines for cross-cultural adaptations. Three studies were conducted. In Study 1 (n = 151), an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring and oblimin rotation was performed to examine the factor structure of the Sp-DFRSS. In Study 2 (n = 500), a confirmatory factor analysis showed that a two factor model (dyadic and familial) provided the best fit to the data. In Study 3 (n = 100), we examined relationship satisfaction using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. The Sp-DFRSS as a whole and its subscales presented adequate reliability in the three studies, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.87 to 0.95. Moreover, convergent and divergent validity of the Sp-DFRSS was analyzed in Studies 1, 2 and 3, and significant correlations between the Sp-DFRSS' subscales, life satisfaction, negative and positive affect, attachment (anxiety and avoidance), and psychological well-being were found. The Sp-DFRSS has good psychometric properties in terms of validity and reliability, so that it may be used by the Spanish-speaking scientific community to measure relationship satisfaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据