Determining the Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of The Couple Flourishing Measure

Subject Areas :

Manouchehr Rezaee ¹ (M.A. Family counseling, Faculty of Psychology and educational sciences, department of counseling, University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran )
Belal Izanloo ² (Department of Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.)
Naser Abbasi ³
Habibeh Bashirnezhad dastjerdi ⁴ (M.A in Assessment and Measurement, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Assessment and Measurement, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran)

Received: 2023-03-15 Accepted : 2023-05-02 Published : 2023-10-07

Keywords: flourishing, couple relationship, validation, Item-Response theory, explor-atory graph analysis, invariance,

Abstract :

A lot of research has studied couple satisfaction, but little attention has been devoted to the nature and measurement of flourishing couple relationships. On the other hand, current scales that measure relationship quality are lacking in sensitivity at the upper end of the assessment continuum which hinders progress towards understanding couple flourishing and measuring it. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to translate and study the factorial structure adaptability of The Couple Flourishing Measure (CFM) among Iranian samples. The statistical population of the present study consisted of married teachers of Zanjan province in 2022 among them, 429 teachers were selected by convenience sampling method. The findings of the parallel analysis, MAP test and the exploratory graph analysis in this study indicated a single factor structure of the CFM. Moreover, the outputs of the bootstrap analysis to check the stability of the factor structure confirmed the unidimensionality of the CFM. Analyzes based on the Item-Response theory confirmed the fit of the items with the graded response model and the slope of the items indicated the discriminating power of all questions which shows that all items had information. Furthermore, the analysis based on the Item-Response theory proved that all three forms of the CFM, respectively from long form to short form, provide the highest amount of information which indicated the approp-riateness of short forms among the samples studied too. The fit indices, Alpha statistic, composite reliability and AVE index in all three forms of the CFM were proper both in the whole sample and by gender. The square root of AVE index in the whole sample was equal to .826 which indicated the establishment of discriminant validity on the construct level. The results related to the invariance of the factor structure based on gender in the long form in four models: configural, metric, scalar, and strict models showed that the invariance is maintain-ed in all models. The couple flourishing variable had significant relationships with other variables studied in this research which indicated the convergent and divergent validity of the CFM. The findings of the present study proved that the CFM has good reliability and validity and is compatible with the cultural norms of Iranian society.

References:

Agnew, C. R. (Ed.) (2014). Social influences on romantic relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59 (3), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.2307/353949.
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 273-284. https://doi.org /10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.273.
Beach, S. R., & Whisman, M. (2012). Relationship distress: Impact on mental illness, physical health, children, and family economics. In S. R. H. Beach, R. E. Heyman, A. M. Slep, & H. M. Foran (Eds.), Family problems and family violence: Reliable assessment and the ICD-11 (pp. 91-100). New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). MIRT: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06.
Coulter, K., & Malouff, J. M. (2013). Effects of an intervention designed to enhance romantic relationship excitement. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2 (1), 34-44. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a003171
Crasta, D., Rogge, R. D., Maniaci, M. R., & Reis, H. T. (2021). Toward an optimized measure of perceived partner responsiveness: Development and validation of the Perceived responsiveness and insensitivity scale. Psychological Assessment, 33 (4), 338-355. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/pas0000986.
de Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2006). Divorce motives in a period of rising divorce: Evidence from a Dutch lifehistory survey. Journal of Family Issues, 27 (4), 483-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192 513X05283982.
Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (2), 293-323. https://doi.org /10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.293.
Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process, 43 (3), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00024.x.
Eom, K., & Kim, H. S. (2015). Intersubjective norms: Cultural and interpersonal perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (10), 1313-1316. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/00220 2211560 0262.
Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (2), 268-285. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/ 0022-3514.92.2. 268.
Fincham, F., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Of memes and marriage: Toward a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2 (1), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17562589.2010. 00033.x.
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25 (1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10. 1080 /1047840X.2014. 863723.
Fitness, J., & Williams, V. (2013). The features and functions of positive emotions in close relationships. In M. Hojjat & D. Cramer (Eds.), Positive Psychology of Love (pp. 44-56). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: The curious case of homo sapiens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10 (1), 20-36. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1745691614561683.
Fowers, B. J., & Owenz, M. B. (2010). A eudaimonic theory of marital quality. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2 (4), 334-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00065.x.
Fowers, B. J., Penfield, R. D., Cohen, L. M., Lang, S. F., Owenz, M. B., & Pasipandoya, E. (2016). Enhancing relationship quality measurement: The development of the Relationship Flourishing Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 30 (8), 997-1007. https://doi. org/10.1037/fam0000263.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.56.3.218.
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21 (4), 572-583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4. 572.
Golino, H., & Christensen, A. P. (2022). EGAnet: Exploratory Graph Analysis - A framework for estimating the number of dimensions in multivariate data using network psychometrics. R package version 1.0.1.
Gottman, J. M. (2014) What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315806808.
Halford, W. K., Rahimullah, R. H., Wilson, K. L., Occhipinti, S., Busby, D. M., & Larson, J. (2017). Four years effects of couple relationship education on low and high satisfaction couples: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85 (5), 495-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000181.
Halford, W. K., Rhoades, G., & Morris, M. (2018). Effects of the parents’ relationship on children. In M. R. Sanders & A. Morawska (Eds.), Handbook of parenting and child development across the lifespan (pp. 97-120). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Hawkins, A. J., & Erickson, S. E. (2015). Is couple and relationship education effective for lower income participants? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology, 29 (1), 59-68. https://psycnet. apa.org/doi/10.1037/fam0000045.
Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76 (5), 723-734. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0012584.
Henderson, L. W., & Knight, T. (2012). Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand wellbeing and pathways to wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2 (3), 196-221. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.3.
Heyman, R. E., Sayers, S. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 8 (4), 432-446. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0893-3200.8.4.432.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1-55.
Kimmes, J. G., Jaurequi, M. E., May, R. W., Srivastava, S., & Fincham, F. D. (2018). Mindfulness in the context of romantic relationships: Initial development and validation of the Relationship Mindfulness Measure. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44 (4), 575-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft. 12296 .
Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17 (3), 377-390. https:// psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21 (3), 251-255. https://doi.org/10.2307/348022.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. New York: Sage publica-tions.
Moza, D., Lawrie, S. I., Maricuțoiu, L. P., Gavreliuc, A., & Kim, H. S. (2021). Not all forms of independence are created equal: Only being independent the “right way” is associated with self-esteem and life satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 606354. https:// doi.org /10.3389/fpsyg.2020.606354.
O’Leary, K. D., Fincham, F., & Turkewitz, H. (1983). Assessment of positive feelings toward spouse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 (6), 949-951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X. 51.6.949.
Proctor, C., Tweed, R., & Morris, D. (2014). The naturally emerging structure of well-being among young adults: “‘Big Two’” or other framework? Journal of Happiness Studies, 16 (1), 257-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-014-9507-6.
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/index.html.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2003). Toward a positive psychology of relationships. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well- lived (pp. 129-159). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Revelle, W. (Photographer). (2022). Psych: Procedures for personality and psycholo-gical research. Software. USA: Northwestern University, Evanston.
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54 (1), 134-141. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j. chb.2015.07.058 .
Rogge, R. D., Fincham, F. D., Crasta, D., & Maniaci, M. R. (2017). Positive and negative evaluation of relationships: Development and validation of the Positive-Negative Relationship Quality (PN-RQ) scale. Psychological Assessment, 29 (8), 1028-1043. https://doi. org/10. 1037/pas00003.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
Sanri, C., & Goodwin, R. (2014). The influence of globalization and technological development on intimate relationships. In C. R. Agnew (Ed.), Social influences on romantic relationships (pp. 11-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sanri, Ç., Halford, W. K., Rogge, R. D., & von Hippel, W. (2021). The Couple Flourishing Measure. Family Process, 60 (2), 457-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12632 .
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (6), 323-338. https://psycnet.apa.org/ doi/10.3200/ JOER.99.6.323-338.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. New York: psychology press. https://doi.org /10.4324/9781315749105.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38 (1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 350547.
Tolmacz, R., Lev-Ari, L., and Bachner-Melman, R. (2021) Refining the assessment of entitlement in romantic relationships: The sense of Relational Entitlement Scale-Revised (SRE-R). Frontiers in Psychology,12, 744618. ttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744618.
Voorhees, C., M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119-134. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/ 10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). The implica-tions of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9 (1), 41-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7.
Whisman, M. A., & Baucom, D. H. (2012) Intimate relationships and psychopathology. Clinical Child And Family Psychology Review, 15 (1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0107-2.
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Full-Text:

كاربرد مدل معادلات ساختاري در تعيين روايي و پايايي آزمون‌ها

تعیین ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی و تغییرناپذیری
اندازه‌گیری مقیاس شکوفایی زوجی

Determining the Psychometric Properties
and Measurement Invariance of
The Couple Flourishing Measure

منوچهر رضائی	Manouchehr Rezaee, M.A.
دانشگاه خوارزمی	Kharazmi University
دکتر بلال ایزانلو	Balal Izanloo, Ph.D.*
دانشگاه خوارزمی	Kharazmi University
ناصر عباسی	Naser Abbasi, M.A.
دانشگاه خوارزمی	Kharazmi University
حبیبه بشیرنژاد دستجردی	Habibeh Bashirnezhad Dastjerdi, M.A.
دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی	Allameh Tabatabai University

چکیده: رضایت زوجی در پژوهش‌های زیادی مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته اما به ماهیت و سنجش روابط زوجی شکوفا توجه کمی اختصاص یافته است. از طرف دیگر، مقیاس‌های فعلی اندازه‌گیری کیفیت رابطة در قسمت بالایی پیوستار سنجش، فاقد حساسیت هستند؛ نکته‌ای که مانع پیشروی به سمت درک و سنجش شکوفایی زوجی می‌شود. از این‌رو، هدف پژوهش حاضر، ترجمه و مطالعه قابلیت انطباق‌پذیری ساختار عاملی مقیاس شکوفایی زوجی (CFM) در نمونه‌های ایرانی بود. جامعه آماری مطالعه حاضر متشکل بود از معلمان متأهل استان ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

دریافت اصلاح نهایی مقاله: 24/12/1401

پذیرش مقاله: 12/2/1402

Abstract: A lot of research has studied couple satisfaction, but little attention has been devoted to the nature and measurement of flourishing couple relationships. On the other hand, current scales that measure relationship quality are lacking in sensitivity at the upper end of the assessment continuum which hinders progress towards understanding couple flourishing and measuring it. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to translate and study the factorial structure adaptability of The Couple Flouri-shing Measure (CFM) among Iranian samples. The statistical population of the present study ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

* izan.b@Khu.ac.ir

زنجان در سال 1401ـ1400 (2021-2022) که از میان آنان با روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس، 429 نفر انتخاب شدند. در مطالعه حاضر، یافته‌های حاصل از تحلیلِ موازی، آزمون MAP، و تحلیل شبکه اکتشافی حاکی از ساختار تک‌عاملی CFM بود. همچنین بروندادهای تحلیل بوت‌استرپ جهت بررسی میزان ثبات ساختار عاملی، تک‌بُعدی بودن CFM را مورد تأیید قرار دادند. تحلیل‌های مبتنی بر نظریه سؤال ـ پاسخ، برازش گویه‌ها با مدل پاسخ مدرج را تأیید کرد و شیب گویه‌ها حاکی از قدرت تمیز همه سؤالات بود که نشان می‌دهد همه گویه‌ها دارای آگاهی بودند. علاوه‌بر این، تحلیل‌های مبتنی بر نظریه سؤال ـ پاسخ تصدیق کرد که هر سه نسخه CFM به ترتیب از نسخه بلند تا نسخه کوتاه، بیشترین میزان آگاهی را ارائه می‌کنند که نشان‌دهنده مطلوب بودن نسخه‌های کوتاه در بین نمونه‌های مورد مطالعه نیز بود. شاخص‌های برازش، آماره‌های آلفا، پایایی ترکیبی، و شاخص AVE در هر سه نسخه CFM، هم در کل نمونه و هم به تفکیک جنسیت، مطلوب بودند. ریشه دوم AVE در کل نمونه برابر 826/0 بود که از برقرار بودن روایی تشخیصی در سطح سازه حکایت داشت. نتایج مربوط به تغییرناپذیری ساختار عاملی براساس جنسیت در نسخه بلند در چهار مدل شکلی، متریک، اسکالر و دقیق نشان داد که تغییرناپذیری در تمامی مدل‌ها برقرار است. متغیر شکوفایی زوجی با دیگر متغیرهای به‌کاررفته در این مطالعه روابط معناداری داشت که حاکی از روایی همگرا و واگرای مطلوب CFM بود. یافته‌های مطالعه حاضر گواه بر این بود که CFM از پایایی و روایی مطلوبی برخوردار است و با هنجارهای فرهنگی جامعه ایران سازگاری دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها: شکوفایی؛ رابطه زوجی؛ اعتباریابی؛ نظریه سؤال ـ پاسخ؛ تحلیل شبکه اکتشافی؛ تغییرناپذیری

consisted of married teachers of Zanjan province in 2022 among them, 429 teachers were selected by convenience sampling method. The findings of the parallel analysis, MAP test and the exploratory graph analysis in this study indicated a single factor structure of the CFM. Moreover, the outputs of the bootstrap analysis to check the stability of the factor structure confirmed the unidimensiona-lity of the CFM. Analyzes based on the Item-Response theory confirmed the fit of the items with the graded response model and the slope of the items indicated the discriminating power of all questions which shows that all items had information. Furthermore, the analysis based on the Item-Response theory proved that all three forms of the CFM, respectively from long form to short form, provide the highest amount of information which indicated the approp-riateness of short forms among the samples studied too. The fit indices, Alpha statistic, composite reliability and AVE index in all three forms of the CFM were proper both in the whole sample and by gender. The square root of AVE index in the whole sample was equal to .826 which indicated the establishment of discrimi-nant validity on the construct level. The results related to the invariance of the factor structure based on gender in the long form in four models: configural, metric, scalar, and strict models showed that the invariance is maintain-ed in all models. The couple flourishing variable had significant relationships with other variables studied in this research which indicated the convergent and divergent validity of the CFM. The findings of the present study proved that the CFM has good reliability and validity and is compatible with the cultural norms of Iranian society.

Keywords: flourishing, couple relationship; validation; Item-Response theory; explor-atory graph analysis; invariance

56 56

Share To

Article Url

Determining the Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of The Couple Flourishing Measure