Psychometric Properties of Marital Distress Scale - Aegaeum ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
Psychometric Properties of Marital Distress Scale
Delphi P.P1 & D.V. Nithyanandan2
1
PhD. Research Scholar, Department. of Psychology, Periyar University, Salem, Tamilnadu Mob: 8903276739
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Periyar University, Salem, Tamilnadu Mob: 9994620123
1
srprimachf@gmail.com
2
nittyvel@gmail.com
Abstract
Marital distress is an experience of emotional or physical conflicts or problems which result in the disappointment
and unhappiness between couples that may lead to the breakdown of the relationship. In order to address issue at the
local level, i.e., in Kerala – the state of India in which divorce cases are at an alarming rate, a proper measure was
felt required. Hence, the present study aimed to develop, standardize, and report the psychometric properties of
Marital Distress Scale. The sample consisted of 750 married people from Kerala, out of which 614 were considered
for the final study. Confirmatory factor analysis identified 4 components contributing to marital distress and its
reliability and validity. The findings of the study revealed that nineteen- item scale consisted of four subscales
namely, lack of acceptance, relational problem, domestic disputes, and sexual dissatisfaction. Reliability analysis of
the data revealed that the Cronbach alpha of lack of acceptance (0.83), relational problem (0.84), domestic disputes
(0.76), and sexual dissatisfaction (0.87) which indicating a high internal consistency, significant at 0.01 level.
KEYWORDS: Marital Distress, Acceptance, Relational Problem, Domestic Dispute, Relational Problem
1. Introduction
Marriage and family life are unique qualities of human beings and they are integral elements of social life.
It is a union in which two individuals from different background and who possess personality traits
interact and cohabit together for the purpose of establishing a family. Satisfying marriage or relationship
is one of the most important goals of individual (Whisman, Snyder, & Beach, 2009). People make the
decision to commit to a marital relationship, with dreams and aspirations of forming harmonious,
enjoyable, supportive, enduring, meaningful and satisfying relationship. Probably no one enters into
marital relationship in order to lead a distressed life. However, several of those relationships fail to reach
the goal of forming an enduring and satisfying union. Most of the cases are initiated due to the lack of
understanding, acceptance, and communication among couples. According to Swindle, Heller,
Pescosolido, and Kikuzawa (2000) the most commonly cited causes of acute distress were relationship
problems, including divorce, separation, and other marital strains. Similarly, drug addiction, and the
resultant violence and financial problems are major factors that contribute to this new trend. Modern era
is stigmatized by marital distress and family degeneration that cause psychological as well as physical
illness not only to married couples, but also to their family members.
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1014AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
Marital Distress
Marital distress is an experience of emotional or physical conflicts or problems which result in the
disappointment and unhappiness between couples that may lead to the breakdown of the relationship. The
major reason for marital distress is considered to be couples’ inability to spend time together preventing
their unification and oneness (Roman, Flood, & Genadek, 2017). Shocking notifications from the state of
Kerala reveal that the divorce rate is “5 every hour”. In other words, 130 divorces take place every day
(Saumya Tiwari, 2016). Furthermore, records from Family Court Palakkad, Kerala, states that the divorce
rate was 972 in 2016, which steadily increased to 1066, in 2017, 1200 in 2018, and 1297 in 2019. It must
be noted that the above were registered cases in family court. However, the number of divorces obtained
through other sources altogether may be much higher. According to information from the Ministry of
Law in 2018, Kerala has 52,000 divorce cases pending in its family courts (Indian Express, 8th Feb
2018).
A close observation of the records mentioned above reveals a shocking trend that even a very
simple reason (e.g. conflicting preferences for grocery items) prompts the couples to seek separation. The
family court record shows that the divorce rate is increasing every year. An examination of court records
and group discussion among young couples revealed that the major causes and distress in marriage are
lack of acceptance, domestic disputes, and relational problems.
2. Review of Literature
Acceptance is the key to a happy marriage. Accepting others doesn’t come naturally, rather it is a capacity
learned over time, especially in the case of married couples (Meerabelle, 2016). Acceptance plays a major
role in maintaining the relationship between partners and it is a determining factor in maintaining peace in
the family. In this regard, factors that contribute to acceptance are open-mindedness, willingness to share
opinions along with sharing responsibilities and other related actions to maintain peace in the family.
Relational problems involve persistent and painful patterns of feelings, behaviors, and
perceptions among two or more people in a close personal relationship such as the relationship between
husband and wife. It includes a pervasive sense of unhappiness with the relationship, thoughts, and
emotions that may lead to separation. According to Shimberg (2007), all relationship problems stem from
poor communication. The failure to fulfill these basic expectations results in decreased relationship
satisfaction (Long & Andrews, 1990). Moreover, when the partners are less helpful to each other, they
tend to become less satisfied with their relationships (Overall et al., 2010). It is also observed that
satisfaction in sex can help married couples to lead a fulfilling life and overcome many marital disputes.
A domestic dispute is a violence or other forms of abuse by one person against another in a
domestic setting in which the abuser uses some sort of means to control his/her spouse. The abuse is not
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1015AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
only physical but it could be verbal, financial, sexual or psychological which are unwanted and
unwarranted. Studies revealed that the interaction patterns of dissatisfied couples indicate that when
distressed couples attend to their partners, they typically lack appropriate responsiveness and display
distributive tactics (Canary & Cupach, 1988). Avoidant conflict tactics were found correlated with the
likelihood of conflict resolution, and also decrease in one’s own relationship satisfaction (Canary &
Cupach, 1988). The financial crisis, ego clash, lack of respect, unfair comparison with other married
couples are some of the important factors that cause an imbalance in the mind and behavior as well.
Hence marital disputes can lead to abuse and deepening relationship gap.
Having this back-ground the study aimed to explore the variables which affect the couples’
distress status in the context of Kerala culture. Although, different scales have been developed to measure
marital adjustment, satisfaction, conflict, and marital quality (e.g. The Kansas Marital Satisfaction
Scale,1986; Comprehensive Marital Satisfaction Scale, 2005; Quality Marriage Index, 1983; Marital
Taxon Self – Report Measures, 2008), they may not be applicable in Indian culture. These questionnaires
were developed according to western culture and norms. However, the married couple's lifestyles,
cognition, and many other aspects prevailing in Western culture are entirely different from the culture of
Kerala. As there is no direct measure of marital distress that is sensitive to the local context, the
researcher has decided to develop and standardize this measure.
Objective: - To design, develop, and validate a tool to measure Marital Distress among married couples
3. Method
4.1 Item Generation for Marital Distress Scale
The purpose of this phase was to create a pool of items relating to marital distress. A pool of 71 items was
generated based on the review of related past literature and focus group discussions conducted with young
married couples exploring the experience of their marital bond. These 71 items on various aspects of
marital distress were edited and refined for inclusion in the first draft. The linguistic content was checked
with language experts.
4.2 Content Validity
Face Validity is a matter of social acceptability, and not a technical form of validity in the same category
as content and construct validity (Nevo, 1985). To establish content validity, the generated items were
subjected to analysis by 24 psychologists. 21 psychologists expressed satisfaction about 90% of items.
The items approved by minimum 17 psychologists were pooled for the pilot study. In item analysis, all
the items were reviewed and then edited based on the expert opinion. Items that were valid and suited to
the purpose of the study were included and the rest were eliminated. Of the 65 items, 45 items were
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1016AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
positive and 20 items were negative. All the items were responded in a five-point Likert scale ranging
from ‘never to always' (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always) and were scored from 1 to 5.
4.3 Tool Construction
4.3.1 Objective: To design, develop, and validate a tool to measure Marital Distress among married
couples
The scale was evaluated through various content validation and psychometric test construction procedure
such as comprehensive literature review, operationalization of constructs, expert rating for content
validity, content validity index assessment, pilot study, reliability analysis, item analysis, unidimensional
testing, testing of construct and criterion validities (convergent validity, discriminant validity,
nomological validity, concurrent validity), assessment of common method of variance etc. All these
procedures were found the Marital Distress Scale is psychometrically robust.
4.3.2 Participants
To establish reliability and validity for the scale, a survey was conducted on a sample of married couples
up to 30 years of marriage. A sample of 750 married couples from the four districts of Kerala was
approached for this study and 614 responded positively. The respondents belong to different socio-
economic background.
Table 1: Constructs used and their literature support
Indicator of the
Constructs Previous researchers’ support
constructs
Cordova et,al.(2014); Becker,(2013); Kilmann &
Vendemia (2013); Rostosky, Otis,Riggle,Kelli &
1. Lack of Acceptance LAC
Brodinicky,(2008); Hayes et,al (2004).; Ottenbreit &
Dobson, (2004); Crdova,(2001)
Parikh and Anjenaya, Ghoi and Deshpande and
Shailesh (2013); Mahadevappa, Sinha, Mallik,
Sanyal, Dasgupta, Pal and Mukherjee, Kumar and
2. Domestic Disputes DDS
Shanta (2012); (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann,
2003); Kishwar, Madhu (1986); Locke, H. J., &
Wallace, K. M. (1959)
Proulx and Snyder-Rivas (2013; Fincham & Beach
3. Relational Problems RPR (2010); Funk, J. L. & Rogge, R. D. (2007); Reis
(2003) Norton, R. (1983); Spanier, G. (1976)
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1017AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
Litzinger and Gordon (2005); Hill (2004); Schumm,
4. Sexual W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F.
Dissatisfaction SDS C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A.
(1986); Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959)
In order to generate the items for this scale, the researcher adopted the items from existing scales and
generated items from related literatures. Generated items were formulated based on the researcher’s
understanding of the existing relevant related theories from literatures (The Triangle Theory of Love of
Sternberg, 1986; The Object Relations Theory of Freire, 2007)
4.3.3 Operationalization of the constructs and items
1. Lack of acceptance (LAC):- It means not to accept the partner as he/she is. Also, finding faults with
his/ her behavior and attitude and being dissatisfied by him/her
2. Relational Problems (RPR):- As communication breakdown and relationship strain happens, partners’
loose fidelity and compatibility which result in arguments and fights between them
3. Domestic Disputes (DDS):- It is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one
partner to gain or maintain control over another intimate partner.
4. Sexual Dissatisfaction (SDS):- The inability to fully enjoy sexual intercourse and unable to attain
sexual pleasure which leads to sexual frustration. Sexual dissatisfaction is due to excessive interest,
incapability to engage in sexual activities and lack of interest.
4.3.4 Testing of various validities
Validity is defined as the extent to which any measuring instrument measures what it is intended to
measure. There are three popular methods to evaluate the validity of scales. These are content validity,
criterion-related validity, and construct validity
4.3.5 Construct Validity
Construct validity measures the extent to which the items in a scale all measure the same construct (Flynn
et al., 1994). In this scale development process, Co-variance based Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
is used to assess the unidimensionality, convergent validity and divergent or discriminant validity by
using IBM SPSS AMOS 21 software package. Cronbach’s alpha is used to measure the final internal
consistency reliability of the instrument by using IBM SPSS 21.
4.3.6 Unidimensionality checking
Unidimensionality means that a set of items can be explained by a single underlying construct (Hair et al.,
2010). Scales which are unidimensional measure a single trait. In this scale development process,
unidimensionality was assessed by developing single factor CFA models for all constructs separately and
estimating its Goodness of Fit Indices (GFI). The threshold value of GFI for this is >0.90.
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1018AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
Table 2: Unidimensionality checking for all constructs
GFI Value** Test results of the
SI No. constructs
(Threshold is >0.90 ) constructs
1. Lack of acceptance (LAC) 0.989 Unidimensional
2. Relational Problems (RPR) 0.962 Unidimensional
3. Domestic Disputes (DDS) 0.993 Unidimensional
4. Sexual Dissatisfaction (SDS) 0.9892 Unidimensional
As all GFI values of all constructs are above the recommended threshold level (>0.90), it can be said that
all constructs are unidimensional in nature.
4.3.7 Convergent Validity
Pooled confirmatory factor analysis is also used in this study for validating Marital Distress constructs for
developing and validating Marital Distress Scale. By this process, the researcher was able to establish
convergent and divergent or discriminant validity in proper way. This process is given in figure 1.
(Figure 1: Pooled CFA Model of Marital Distress Constructs)
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1019AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
Table 3: Reliability and Convergent Validity for Marital Distress Constructs
No. of Composite Cronbach's
SI. No. Constructs AVE
Items Reliability Alpha (α)
1 Lack of acceptance (LAC) 5 0.506* 0.834* 0.835*
2 Relational Problems (RPR) 5 0.516* 0.841* 0.843*
3 Domestic Disputes (DDS) 3 0.516* 0.763* 0.761*
4 Sexual Dissatisfaction (SDS) 6 0.538* 0.872* 0.874*
Note = * denotes probability level of 0.001 (pAEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
2. Relational Problems (RPR) -0.326*
3. Domestic Disputes (DDS) -0.365*
4. Sexual Dissatisfaction (SDS) -0.291*
Note: * All Pearson correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; N= 614
The negative correlations within the four scales (predictor set), within the one measure (criterion set),
between the predictor set and criterion set was significant at the 0.01 level. Therefore, it can be concluded
that this set of scales have better criterion-related validity.
4.3.9 Fixation of Test Norms
Test norms consist of data that make it possible to determine the relative standing of an individual who
has taken a test. Mean plus or minus standard deviation (Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation) formula is used
(Immanuel Thomas & Sam Sananda Raj, 1982) for fixing norms in this scale.
Table 5: Criteria used for interpreting the test score of Marital Distress scale
SI
Scores lie between Qualitative interpretation
NO
1 20 to 61 Low level Marital Distress
2 62 to 80 Moderate level Marital Distress
3 81 to 95 High level Marital Distress
4.4 Conclusion
The study revealed a nineteen- item scale consisted of four subscales namely, sexual dissatisfaction, lack
of acceptance, relational problems and domestic disputes. The Marital Distress Scale exhibits good
reliability and internal consistency 0.83, 0.84, 0.76, and 0.87 for assessed by the alpha coefficient. The
reliability coefficients of the subscales are lack of acceptance, relational problem, domestic dispute, and
sexual dissatisfaction, respectively indicating the Marital Distress Scale was found to be internally
consistent and highly reliable, significant at the 0.01 level. The fit of the factor model of the MDS was
tested and found an adequate fit according to a range of indices. The negative correlations within the four
scales (predictor set – LAC, RPR, DDS & SDS), within the one measure (criterion set-Enrich Marital
Satisfaction Scale), between the predictor set and criterion set was significant at the 0.01 level.
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1021AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
The current study demonstrated that the 19 item Marital Distress measure has adequate
psychometric properties and reliably measures marital distress. MDS can serve as a useful tool for
researchers especially those who are interested in understanding the main factors related to marital
distress among married couples. Marriage counselors, as well as trainers of this field, can also use this
scale as a method of screening the level of distress among married couples.
4.5 Recommendation & Limitations
This work is a contribution to the study of marital distress among married couples. However, it has some
limitations. Firstly, marital distress is a self-report instrument; therefore the results may be affected by
response bias such as distortions. Secondly, the questionnaire has been tested with a limited population.
Marital distress is a topic which includes a lot of variables, but the present study focused only four major
issues related to the topic. Further studies can be carried out incorporating the other variables too.
REFERENCES
[1]Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.
[2]Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology 3, 77-85.
[3]Ellen A. Drost, (2011). Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38, 1.
[4]Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1993). Exploratory factor analysis: A users’ guide. International Journal of selection and
assessment, 1(2), 84-94.
[5]Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.C. and Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management research and an associated
measurement instrument .Journal of operations management, 11, 339-366.
[6]Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
[7]Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis. Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York.
[8]Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational
Research Methods, 1, 104-121. doi: 10.1177/109442819800100106
[9]Immanuel Thomas, & Dr. H. Sam Sananda Raj, (1982). self-esteem and academic achievement; a study in ninth grade
students. Journal of the Institute of Educational Research , 6.
[10]Jamwal, N. S. (2009). Marital discord and divorce in India. The Changing Profile Mainstream Weekly, 47(37).
[11]Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological
measurement, 20(1), 141-151.
[12]Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioural research. New York. Holt, Rinehart et Wintson.
[13]Meerabelle. (2016). https://www.huffpost.com/entry/acceptance-the-key-to-a-happy-marriage
[14]Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 287-293.
[15]Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[16]Roman, J. G., Flood, S. M., & Genadek, K. R. (2017). Parents’ time with a partner in a cross-national context: comparison of
the United States, Spain, and France. Demographic research, 36, 111.
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1022AEGAEUM JOURNAL ISSN NO: 0776-3808
[17]Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation in measure of
personality and social psychological attitudes: Calif: Academic Press, San Diego.
[18]Shimberg, E. F. (2007). Coping with COPD: Understanding, Treating and Living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease. Macmillan.
[19]Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). SAS for windows workbook for Tabachnick and Fidell using multivariate statistics.
Allyn and Bacon.
[20]Value Options Provider Handbook V-CODES/Relational Problems Copyright 2006: www.valueoptions.com
Volume 8, Issue 3, 2020 http://aegaeum.com/ Page No: 1023You can also read
