Psychometrics Properties of Persian Version of Disagreement in Romantic Relationships Scale

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD. Student of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Science & Culture, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor of Psychology Dept. at Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor of Psychology at University of Baghiatollah Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Department of psychology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Although conflicts and disagreements are inevitable in emotional relationships, they have many impressions on the quality and durability of the relationship. Clarifying the conflicts between the partners, in addition to being an effective step in evaluating the relationship, is a critical step of relationship assessment and a necessary factor in dissatisfaction intervention programs. Therefore, this study aims to prepare and standardize the Persian version of the Reasons for Disagreement in Romantic Relationship Scale (RDRRS).
Method: As the research sample, 285 men and women living in Tehran, completed RDRRS, Relationship Assessment Scale(RAS), Relationship Quality Scale(RQS), and Oxford Happiness Questionnaire(OHQ) among which the last 3 ones were carried out for assessing the RDRRS validity. The construct validity was examined with the methods of confirmatory factor analysis and convergent and divergent validity through Pearson correlation. To check its validity by calculating Cronbach's alpha, the main test was re-administered for 30 participants after two weeks.
Results: The factor analysis of RDRRS revealed six main factors: Inadequate Attention or Affection; Jealousy & Infidelity; Chores & Responsibilities; Sex; Control & Dominance; Future Plans & Money. The reliability coefficients using Cronbach Alpha were equal to 0.75 to 0.90 for the main factors, 0.82 for the total score, and 0.39 for the test-retest sample. Also, to check the convergent validity, a significant correlation was obtained between the factors of RDRRS with the relationship evaluation questionnaire and the divergent validity with the happiness questionnaire.
Discussion and conclusion : According to the acquired results, the Persian edition of RDRRS has a factorial structure the same as the original scale. The Persian edition of RDRRS is a suitable scale for studying disagreements among Iranian couples.

Keywords

References

  1. 1- Özad B, Uygarer G, Jamo MS, Okaiyeto S. Relationship Failure and Divorce Among Nigerian Couples: A Case of Poor Conflict Resolution. Journal of Social and Political Sciences. 2020 Apr 6;3(2).

    2- Chonody JM, Gabb J, Killian M, Dunk-West P. Measuring relationship quality in an international study: Exploratory and confirmatory factor validity. Research on Social Work Practice. 2018 Nov;28(8):920-30..

    3- Vogel-Scibilia SE, McNulty KC, Baxter B, Miller S, Dine M, Frese FJ. The recovery process utilizing Erikson’s stages of human development. Community mental health journal. 2009 Dec;45(6):405-14.

    4- Papp LM. Topics of marital conflict in the everyday lives of empty nest couples and their implications for conflict resolution. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy. 2018 Jan 2;17(1):7-24.

    5- Ahmadabadi, Z., Najman, J.M., Williams, G.M. and Clavarino, A.M., 2020. Income, gender, and forms of intimate partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(23-24): 5500-5525.

    6- Osarenren, N. (2013). The impact of marital conflicts on the psychosocial adjustment of adolescents in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 4(2), 320-326.

    7- Lopes GS, Shackelford TK, Buss DM, Abed MG. Individual differences and disagreement in romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020 Mar 1;155:109735.

     8- Carney MM, Barner JR. Prevalence of partner abuse: Rates of emotional abuse and control. Partner Abuse. 2012 Jan 1;3(3):286-335.

    9- Fülöp F, Bőthe B, Gál É, Cachia JY, Demetrovics Z, Orosz G. A two-study validation of a single-item measure of relationship satisfaction: RAS-1. Current Psychology. 2020 Apr 16:1-3.

    10- Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Schutte NS, Bhullar N, Rooke SE. The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality. 2010 Feb 1;44(1):124-7.

    11- Malouff JM, Schutte NS, Thorsteinsson EB. Trait emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 2014 Jan 1;42(1):53-66.

    12- Wright PJ, Tokunaga RS, Kraus A, Klann E. Pornography consumption and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research. 2017 Jul 1;43(3):315-43.

    1. بابلان زاهد، عادله؛ حسینی شورابه، مریم, پیری کامرانی، مرضیه و دهقان، فاطمه. مقایسه رضایت زناشویی، تعارض زناشویی و بخشش در زوجین عادی و در حال طلاق. مجله آسیب شناسی، مشاوره و غنی سازی خانواده. 2015;1(2): 74-84.
    2. تقی زاده، ایمان؛ فیروزجانی، زهره سادات؛ تقدسی، محسن و ترکی حبیب آباد، بدری. خصوصیات روان سنجی پرسشنامه کیفیت روابط بین زوجین. پایش. 2018;17(1): 85-94.
    3. رستمی، مهدی؛ نوابی‌نژاد، شکوه و فرزاد، ولی الله. آسیب‌‌شناسی مشکلات زوجین در مرحله نامزدی: یک مطالعه کیفی. روانشناسی خانواده. 2019;6 (1): 55-68.
    4. حسن‌زاده، رمضان؛ کوچسرایی، نیلا و فخری، محمدکاظم. مقایسه طرح‌واره‌های ناسازگار اولیه وبهزیستی روانشناختی در زنان با روابط فرا زناشویی، مطلقه و عادی. زن و مطالعات خانواده. 2020;13(47):131-58.

    17- Delatorre MZ, Wagner A. How do couples disagree? An analysis of conflict resolution profiles and the quality of romantic relationships. Revista Colombiana de Psicología. 2019 Dec;28(2):91-108.

    18- Buss DM, Duntley JD. The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2011 Sep 1;16(5):411-9.

    19-  Amato PR. Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of marriage and family. 2010 Jun;72(3):650-66.

    1. 20. ثنائی، باقر؛ علاقبند، سهیلا و فلاحتی، شهره (۱۳۸۷). مقیاس‌های سنجش خانواده و ازدواج. تهران: بعثت.

    21- Funk JL, Rogge RD. Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of family psychology. 2007 Dec;21(4):572.

    22- Hendrick SS. A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1988 Feb 1:93-8.

    1. پهلوان، مینا؛ موتابی، فرشته و مظاهری، علی. واکنش به تعارض زناشویی: مطالعه ای بین نسلی. مجله روانپزشکی و روانشناسی بالینی ایران. 2015;21(3):202-214.

    24- Umberson D, Williams K, Powers DA, Liu H, Needham B. You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of health and social behavior. 2006 Mar;47(1):1-6.

    1. دهدست، کوثر و قبادی، شهاب.. تبیین شاخص های گسست در خانواده ایرانی متأثر از فرایند نوسازی: یک فراتحلیل کیفی. فرهنگ مشاوره و روان درمانی. 2020;11(43):121-58.

    26- Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.. 2001.

    27- Graham JM, Diebels KJ, Barnow ZB. The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011 Feb;25(1):39.

    1. 28. دهشیری، غلامرضا و موسوی، فاطمه سادات. خصوصیات روان‌سنجی نسخۀ فارسی مقیاس سنجش رابطه بین زوجین. خانواده پژوهی. 2016;12(1):141-54.
    2. تقی زاده، ایمان؛ فیروزجانی، زهره سادات؛ تقدسی، محسن و ترکی حبیب آباد، بدری. خصوصیات روان سنجی پرسشنامه کیفیت روابط بین زوجین. پایش. 2018;17(1):85-94.

    30- Hills P, Argyle M. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and individual differences. 2002 Nov 1;33(7):1073-82.

    1. نجفی، محمود؛ دهشیری، غلامرضا؛ دبیری، سولماز؛ شیخی، منصوره؛ جعفری، نصرت.. خصوصیات روان سنجی نسخه فارسی پرسشنامه شادکامی آکسفورد در دانشجویان. فصلنامه اندازه گیری تربیتی، 10(3): 73-55.

    32- Gjersing L, Caplehorn JR, Clausen T. Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC medical research methodology. 2010 Dec;10(1):1-0.

    33- Alexopoulos DS, Kalaitzidis I. Psychometric properties of Eysenck personality questionnaire-revised (EPQ-R) short scale in Greece. Personality and individual Differences. 2004 Oct 1;37(6):1205-20.

    34- Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999 Jan 1;6(1):1-55.

    35- Helms JE, Henze KT, Sass TL, Mifsud VA. Treating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients as data in counseling research. The counseling psychologist. 2006 Sep;34(5):630-60.

    36- Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis New Jersy: Pearson Education.

    37- Huston TL. What's love got to do with it? Why some marriages succeed and others fail. Personal Relationships. 2009 Sep;16(3):301-27.

    38- Rezaei S, Rezaei F. Pridiction of marital burnout: Conflict resolution styles and marital expectations. Biannual Journal of Applied Counseling. 2018 Sep 23;8(2):23-38.

    39- Faraji J, Sanai B, Namvar H. A qualitative inquiry of effective factors on marital burnout: A case study of Tehran. Family Counseling and Psychotherapy. 2020 Feb 20;9(2):173-94.

    40- Pines* AM. Adult attachment styles and their relationship to burnout: A preliminary, cross-cultural investigation. Work & Stress. 2004 Jan 1;18(1):66-80.

    41- Pichon M, Treves-Kagan S, Stern E, Kyegombe N, Stöckl H, Buller AM. A mixed-methods systematic review: infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against women. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020 Jan;17(16):5682.

    42- Williamson HC, Hanna MA, Lavner JA, Bradbury TN, Karney BR. Discussion topic and observed behavior in couples' problem-solving conversations: Do problem severity and topic choice matter?. Journal of Family Psychology. 2013 Apr;27(2):330.

    1. قاسمی، بهزاد؛ سودجانی رنجبر، یوسف؛ شریفی، کبیر. نقش عملکرد جنسی و تجربه شکست عاطفی در گرایش زوجین به روابط فرا زناشویی. نشریه علمی رویش روان شناسی. 2017;6(1): 45-68.

    44- Rehman US, Rellini AH, Fallis E. The importance of sexual self‐disclosure to sexual satisfaction and functioning in committed relationships. The journal of sexual medicine. 2011 Nov 1;8(11):3108-15.

    45  .  امراللهی، ریحانه؛ روشن چسلی، رسول؛ شعیری، محمدرضا؛ نیک‌آذین، امیر. تعارض زناشویی، رضایت زناشویی و رضایت جنسی: مقایسه زنان دارای ازدواج‌های فامیلی و غیرفامیلی.  روانشناسی بالینی و شخصیت. 1392؛11(1): 22-11.

    1. قاسمی مقدم، کبری؛ شفیع‌آبادی، عبدالله؛ شریفی، اصغر. تعارضات زناشویی و نیازهای اساسی: نقش میانجی معنویت.روانشناسی بالینی و شخصیت. 1399؛ 18 (2): 65-55.

     

     

Clinical Psychology and Personality
Volume 20, Issue 2 - Serial Number 39
February 2023
Pages 207-220

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics