Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 486–496 | Cite as

Psychometric Properties and Factorial Validity of the Dyadic Coping Inventory –the Persian Version

  • Reza FallahchaiEmail author
  • Maryam Fallahi
  • Shiva Chahartangi
  • Guy Bodenmann
Article

Abstract

This study seeks to investigate the factor structure, convergent validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in an Iranian sample. The sample consisted of 816 participants were involved in a questionnaire study. Factor analysis was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Results showed that internal consistency of this scale by using Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.84, and the internal consistency the subscales ranged from .64 to .81.The findings support the hypothesized five-factor structure (stress communication; emotion-focused dyadic coping; problem-focused dyadic coping; delegated dyadic coping; and negative dyadic coping) for the DCI and self- and other-perception. The psychometric properties of the DCI and its criterion validity with The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) were good. This study indicated satisfactory reliability and factor structure for the Persian version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Furthermore, DCI can be utilized for research and therapeutic purposes and it can inspire cross-cultural studies.

Keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis Dyadic coping Dyadic coping inventory Iranian couples Scale factorial structure 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was not funded by a specific project grant.

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Badr, H. (2004). Coping in marital dyads: A contextual perspective on the role of gender and health. Personal Relationships, 11, 197–211.Google Scholar
  2. Bertoni, A., Barni, D., Bodenmann, G., Charvoz, L., Gagliardi, S., Iafrate, R., & Rosnati, R. (2007). Comunicazione dello stress, coping diadico e benessere della coppia: Uno studio cross-sectional e cross-nazionale [Stress communication, dyadic coping, and couple well-being: A cross-sectional and cross-national study]. Eta` Evolutiva, 86, 58–66.Google Scholar
  3. Bodenmann, G. (1995a). A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 34–49.Google Scholar
  4. Bodenmann, G. (1995b). Dyadische coping und Partnerschaftszufriedenheit [dyadic coping and marital satisfaction]. PsychologischeBeiträge, 37, 72–89.Google Scholar
  5. Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping — A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 137–140.Google Scholar
  6. Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und coping bei Paaren [stress and coping in couples]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  7. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  8. Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual [dyadic coping inventory: Test manual]. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  9. Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2005). Stress and coping among stable satisfied, stable-dissatisfied and separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 71–89. doi: 10.1300/J087v44n01_04.Google Scholar
  10. Bodenmann, G., Charvoz, L., Widmer, K., & Bradbury, T. (2004). Differences in individual and dyadic coping among low and high depressed, partially remitted, and none depressed persons. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 75–85.Google Scholar
  11. Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485–493. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485.Google Scholar
  12. Bodenmann, G., Charvoz, L., Bradbury, T. N., Bertoni, A., Iafrate, R., Giuliani, C., Banse, R., & Behling, J. (2007a). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(5), 707–728. doi: 10.1177/0265407507081456.Google Scholar
  13. Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007b). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551–569.Google Scholar
  14. Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 114–128.Google Scholar
  15. Cutrona, C. E., & Gardner, K. A. (2006). Stress in couples: The process of dyadic coping. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Donato, S., Iafrate, R., Barni, D., Bertoni, A., Bodenmann, G., & Gagliardi, S. (2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of Bodenmann’s “dyadic coping questionnaire” in an Italian sample. TPM -testing, psychometrics. Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16(1), 25–47.Google Scholar
  17. Doohan, E. M., & Manusov, V. (2004). The communication of compliments in romantic relationships: An investigation of relational satisfaction and sex differences and similarities in compliment behavior. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 170–194.Google Scholar
  18. Falconier, M., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2012). Dyadic coping in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of the dyadic coping inventory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(4), 447–466, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2012.699045.Google Scholar
  19. Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Immigration stress and relationship satisfaction in Latino couples: The role of dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(8), 813–843.Google Scholar
  20. Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J., Hilpert, J., & Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46.Google Scholar
  21. Falconier, M. K., Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (Eds.). (2016). Couples coping with stress: A crosscultural perspective. Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, B. N., & Broussard, C. A. (2006). Men's adjustment to their partners' breast cancer: a dyadic coping perspective. Health & Social Work, 31(2), 117–127.Google Scholar
  23. García-López, C., Sarriá, E., Pozo, P., & Recio, P. (2016). Supportive dyadic coping and psychological adaptation in couples parenting children with autism Spectrum disorder: The role of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(11), 3434–3447.Google Scholar
  24. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  25. Gheysari, S., & Karimian, N. (2013). A causal model based on relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, marital quality, anxiety of sexual relationship, sexual assertiveness, and the frequency of intercourse in female married students of Bandar Abbas. Journal of Culture Counseling, 4(16), 85–106.Google Scholar
  26. Gmelch, S., & Bodenmann, G. (2007). Dyadisches coping in Selbst-und Fremdwahrnehmung als Prädiktor für Partnerschaftsqualität und Befinden [dyadic coping in the self and partner perception as a predictor of relationship quality and well-being]. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 15, 177–186.Google Scholar
  27. Graham, J. M., & Conoley, C. W. (2006). The role of marital attributions in the relationship between life stressors and marital quality. Personal Relationships, 13(2), 231–241.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, J. M., Diebels, K. J., & Barnow, Z. B. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 39–48.Google Scholar
  29. Hajizadeh, E., & Asghari, M. (2011). Statistical methods and analyses in health and biosciences: A methodological approach (1st ed.). ACECR Press: Tehran [In Persian].Google Scholar
  30. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142.Google Scholar
  32. Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Sorokowski, P., Atkins, D. C., Sorokowska, A., Ahmadi, K., & Błażejewska, M. (2016). The associations of dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction vary between and within nations: A 35-nation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106.
  33. Holmes, S. D., Krantz, D. S., Rogers, H., Gottdiener, J., & Contrada, R. J. (2006). Mental stress and coronary artery disease: A multidisciplinary guide. Prog Cardiovas dis., 49(2), 106–122.Google Scholar
  34. Kahn, J. R., & Pearlin, L. I. (2006). Financial strain over the life course and health among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 17–31.Google Scholar
  35. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Khojaste-Mehr, R., Naderi, F., & Sudani, M. (2013). The mediate role of dyadic coping in marital standards and marital satisfaction. Psychological Method and Models, 3(12), 47–67 [In Persian].Google Scholar
  37. Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (2004). SPSS 12 made simple. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  39. Lawrence, E., Rothman, A. D., Cobb, R. J., Rothman, M. T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2008). Marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 41–50.Google Scholar
  40. Lawshe, C. (1975). The quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575.Google Scholar
  41. Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S., Rossier, J., Bertoni, A., & Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics of the dyadic coping inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 201–212.Google Scholar
  42. Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M. F., Caron, A., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2014). Validation of the English version of the dyadic coping inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 215–225. doi: 10.1177/0748175614522272.Google Scholar
  43. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130.Google Scholar
  44. Mohammadi, R., KhoshKonesh, A., & Zade Mohammadi, A. (2014). Relationship between dyadic coping strategies with stress, marital satisfaction and burnout in the teachers. Journal of Family Research, 9(4), 471–487 [In Persian].Google Scholar
  45. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134–148. doi: 10.1177/0146167203255984.Google Scholar
  46. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc..Google Scholar
  47. Ozouni Davaji, R. B., Dadkhah, A., Khodabakhshi Kolaee, A., & Dolatshahi, B. (2012). Effectiveness of group training of couple’s coping skills enhancement on marital relationship quality in distressed couples. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 7–8 [In Persian].Google Scholar
  48. Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551–559.Google Scholar
  49. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2007). Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 459–467.Google Scholar
  50. Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 105–115.Google Scholar
  51. Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Jimenez-Arista, L. E., Walsh, K. J., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic Coping in the US: psychometric properties and validity for use of the english version of the dyadic coping inventory. Current Psychology, 35(4), 570–582.Google Scholar
  52. Revenson, T. A., Abraido-Lanza, A. F., Majerovitz, S. D., & Jordan, C. (2005). Couples coping with chronic illness: What’s gender got to do with it? In T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 121–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  53. Ruffieux, M., Nussbeck, F. W., & Bodenmann, G. (2014). Long-term prediction of relationship satisfaction and stability by stress, coping, communication, and well-being. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55(6), 485–501.Google Scholar
  54. Rusu, P. P., Hilpert, P., Turliuc, M. N., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Dyadic Coping in an Eastern European Context: Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Romanian Version of Dyadic Coping Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49(4), 274–285. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9624-6
  55. Sarmad, Z., Hejazi, Z., & Bazargan, A. (2008). Research methods in the behavioral sciences. Tehran: Agah Publication [In Persian].Google Scholar
  56. Schilling, E. A., Baucom, D. H., Burnett, C. K., Allen, E. S., & Ragland, L. (2003). Altering the course of marriage: the effect of PREP communication skills acquisition on couples' risk of becoming maritally distressed. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 41.Google Scholar
  57. Schreiber, J. B. (2006). Modeling and confirmatory factor analysis: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–336.Google Scholar
  58. Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 143–158.Google Scholar
  59. Stapleton, C. D. (1997). Basic Concepts in Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) as a Tool To Evaluate Score Validity: A Right-Brained Approach (pp. 1–8). Presented at the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin. http://ericae.net/ft/tamu/Efa.htm.
  60. Story, L. B., & Bradbury, T. N. (2004). Understanding marriage and stress: Essential questions and challenges. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1139–1162.Google Scholar
  61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  62. Tyssen, R., Vaglum, P., Gronvold, N. T., & Ekeberg, O. (2001). Factors in medical school that predict postgraduate mental health problems in need of treatment: A nationwide and longitudinal study. Medical Education, 35, 110–120.Google Scholar
  63. Vaughn, M. J., & Matyastik Baier, M. E. (1999). Reliability and validity of the relationship assessment scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 27(2), 137–147.Google Scholar
  64. Vedes, A., Nussbeck, F. W., Bodenmann, G., Lind, W., & Ferreira, A. (2013). Psychometric properties and validity of the dyadic coping inventory in Portuguese. Swiss Journal of Psychology/SchweizerischeZeitschriftfürPsychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 72(3), 149–157. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000108.Google Scholar
  65. Waltz, C., & Bausell, R. B. (1983). Nursing research: Design, statistics and computer analysis (1st ed.). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.Google Scholar
  66. Wunderer, E., & Schneewind, K. A. (2008). The relationship between marital standards, dyadic coping and marital satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 462–476.Google Scholar
  67. Xu, F., Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Quipuning, L., & Bodenmann, G. (2016). Validation of the dyadic coping inventory with Chinese couples: Factorial structure, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 28, E127–E140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reza Fallahchai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maryam Fallahi
    • 1
  • Shiva Chahartangi
    • 1
  • Guy Bodenmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HormozganBandar AbbasIran
  2. 2.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations