1. A Review of 3 Relationship Adjustment and Satisfaction Assessment Instruments

2. Three Instruments Reviewed Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS): Spanier, 1976 - Self-report measure of relationship adjustment/dissatisfaction Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): Hendrick, 1988 - Measure of global relationship satisfaction Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS): Schumm et. al., 1983 - Measure of relationship satisfaction

3. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS): Overview Developed by: Graham Spanier, PhD Targeted Population: Married/Cohabitating/Homosexual/Divorced adults Administration Time: 5-10 minutes Administration Type: Self-report Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha: (.76-.96) Formats: Hand Scored – Likert Scale

4. Dyadic Assessment Scale: Description 32-item measure of relationship quality –4 subscales Dyadic Consensus Dyadic Satisfaction Dyadic Cohesion Affectional Expression DAS and the 4 subscales are internally consistent The DAS measures more than just relationship quality Responses captured via Likert Scale

5. Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Research Purpose: Develop an abbreviated form of DAS using IRT Method: The sample consisted of 2,153 couples who had been married or cohabitating. The participants were given the 32 item comprehensive list of potential events that can occur in a couple’s relationship Instruments: DAS -32, DAS - 4 Results: Internal Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha: (>.81) for all levels of couple distress. (>.92) for non-distressed couples

6. Relationship Assessment Scale: Overview Developed by: Hendrick, 1988 Targeted Population: Married/cohabitating/dating/engaged adult couples Administration Time: 5 to 10 minutes Administration Type: Self-report Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha: (.70-.95) Formats: Hand Scored – Likert Scale

7. Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): Description 7-item measure of global relationship satisfaction Based on earlier used 5-item measure for marital satisfaction Useful for anyone in an intimate relationship –Dating, cohabitating, engaged Responses captured via Likert Scale Higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction

8. Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS): Research Purpose: Find correlation between RAS and DAS Method: 118 participants, predominately Caucasian. Internal consistencies of RAS total scores, DAS total scores, and DAS subscale scores were calculated. High correlations indicated that further analyses on the subscales was justified. Instruments: RAS & DAS Results: Coefficient alpha for total scores – (.91) –Interitem correlations range from.35 -.80

9. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: Overview Developed By: Schumm et. al. (1973) Targeted Population: Married/Cohabitating couples Administration Time: 3-5Minutes Administration Type: Self-report Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha : (.84-.98) Formats: Hand Scored-Paper and Pencil

10. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: Description Self report questionnaire that assesses marital satisfaction Consists of three questions Quick, inexpensive assessment to measure marital satisfaction Test—retest correlations of.71 are reported over a 10-week interval and ranged from.62 -.72 over six months

11. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: Description Total score of 17 or above indicates the individual/couple is nondistressed Total score of 16 or below indicates some degree of marital distress The lower the score, the greater the marital distress The Kansas Marital Satisfaction (KMS) Scale is found to correlate substantially with both Spanier's (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) and Norton's (1983) Quality Marriage Index (QMI)

12. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: Research Purpose: Comparing current scores to those collected in the 1980’s study Method: Different versions of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) were administered with five and seven-point responses to 154 Army personnel Instruments: KMSS, 5 and 7 response formats. Marital Stability Scale Results: High internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >.95) was obtained using both types of response format. Both versions of the KMSS also correlated substantially with a measure of marital instability. Scores on the KMSS strongly predicted categories of soldiers indicating their marriage was not “in trouble,” “was in trouble,” or they would be getting divorce

13. References Baier, M. E. M., Vaughn M. J. (1999). Reliability and Validity of the Relationship Assessment Scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 2, 137-147 Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98 Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., Valois, P. (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 Schumm, W. A., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L., & Grigsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychological Reports, 53, 567– 572 Schumm, W. R., et. al. (2008). Reliability and Validity of The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale With Different Response Formats in a Recent Sample of U.S. Army Personnel. Individual Differences Research. 6, 26-37.

14. References Cont’d. Schumm, W. R., Jurich, A.P., and Boliman, S.R. (1990). Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. In J Touliatos, B. F. Perimutter, and M.A. Straus (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques. Sage: Newbury Park, CA 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