Assessing the Couple’s Adjustment to Cancer

  • Karen Kayser
  • Jennifer L. Scott


Breast Cancer Community Agency Support Person Assessment Session Assessment Interview 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Fritz, H. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: Self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 121–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Genero, N. P., Miller, J. B., Surrey, J., & Baldwin, L. (1992). Measuring perceived mutuality in close relationships: Validation of the mutual psychological development questionnaire. Journal of Family Psychology, 6(1), 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldstein, N. E., et al. (2004). Factors associated with caregiver burden among caregivers of terminally Ill patients with cancer. Journal of Palliative Care, 20(1), 38–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rascle, N., Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., & Sarason, I. G. (2005). Sarason’s social support questionnaire- short form. Psychological Reports, 97(1) 195–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005) Development and validation of a brief version of the dyadic adjustment scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological Assessment, 17(1) 15–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979a). Psychological androgyny and sex role flexibility: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1631–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979b). Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Kayser
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Scott
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Social WorkBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations