joshua dwire, psyd st george’s medical school grenada, the caribbean marvin w. acklin, phd

Paper Session

Seeing Ourselves as Our Spouses See Us: Cross-Informant Assessment of Marital

Compatibility

Joshua Dwire, PsyDSt George’s Medical School

Grenada, The CaribbeanMarvin W. Acklin, PhD

Department of Psychiatry, UH Manoa, &Argosy University, Honolulu, Hawaii

Seeing Ourselves as Our Spouses See Us: Cross-Informant Assessment of Marital Compatibility

Summary of Study• This study examined the relationship between inter-spousal

perception on marital adjustment and compatibility using cross-informant assessment. The Achenbach Adult Behavior Checklists, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and a proposed 10-item marital compatibility screening scale were administered to three groups of married couples: happy, unhappy, and medical. A dissonance index (Sum D) was operationalized as a numerical discrepancy score between inter-spousal behavior ratings. As a measure of inter-spousal conflict, Sum D demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity. The proposed relationship compatibility screening measure demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. Discrepancies in inter-spousal perceptions were found to be central factors in marital adjustment and compatibility. Findings indicate that cross-informed assessment is a robust and empirically grounded method for assessing inter-spousal appraisals and associated relationship adjustment and compatibility.


Subjects• One hundred and twenty two participants were recruited

from a clinical and forensic practice and local church congregations: Sixty one males and sixty one females provided their informed consent to participate in this study. Sixty percent of the sample was Caucasian, 16% were Asian-American, 5% Latino and, 9% reported mixed ethnicity. Average age was 44 years old. All participants were located on the island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii; they were 18 years old and older. Criteria for sample selection included all participants were married and both spouses had 8th grade reading skills. Couples were classified into three groups: Happy (couples who described themselves as happily married), Unhappy (divorcing couples undergoing a child custody evaluation), and Medical (couples where one partner was undergoing liver transplant evaluation).


Instruments• Each participant in the three groups (Happy,

Unhappy, and Medical) completed four instruments: 1) Achenbach Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL); 2) Achenbach Adult Self-Report Form (ASR); 3) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS); and 4) Dwire Acklin Relationship Compatibility Index (DARCI). A cross-informed assessment paradigm was utilized, where instruments were administered in a criss-cross fashion (each subject evaluated him or herself and their partner).


Instruments,con’t• The ABCL and ASR (Achenbach & Rescorla,

2003) are self-report behavioral checklists. Compared to normative samples of similarly aged adults, the ABCL and ASR measure an individual’s: Adaptive functioning; Empirically-based syndromes; Substance use; Internalizing of problems; Externalizing of problems; and Total problems.


Instruments, con’t• The DAS (Spanier, 2004) is a 32-item scale

assessing quality of the relationship between mates. Mates are asked to indicate the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement in fifteen areas. Couples are also asked to indicate how often they engage in behavior in seven areas. These areas are categorized into five domain scores: Overall Dyadic Adjustment, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion, Dyadic Consensus, and Affectional Expression (Spanier, 2004).


ResultsDyadic Dissonance: Sum D• 1. Sum D was the proposed measure of relationship

compatibility since it represents concordance or discrepancy in partner perception. As hypothesized, Sum D demonstrated an inverse relationship with DAS and DARCI measures of relationship adjustment and compatibility. Sum D and DAS Overall Dyadic Adjustment correlated negatively : -.44 (p = <.01, d = -1.22). Sum D correlated negatively with DAS scales as well: the Dyadic Consensus: -.45 (p = <.01, d = -1.22); Dyadic Satisfaction were: -.38 (p = <.01, d = -1.21); . DAS Affectional Expression: -.34 (p = <.01, d = -1.26); and Dyadic Cohesion: -.36 (p = <.01, d = -1.28). The correlation between Sum D and DARCI TCI was also negative : -.56, p = <.01, d = -.73). These results confirmed hypothesis 1. The effect sizes of these differences were all large.


Results, con’t2. Unhappy couples were hypothesized to

demonstrate the highest levels of Sum D and the lowest levels of adjustment and compatibility as measured by DAS and DARCI TCI scores. Unhappy couples displayed significantly higher Sum D scores compared to the Happy and Medical couples, F (2, 119) = 39.38, p = .000. Unhappy couples (M = 188.76, SD = 107.25) displayed significantly higher Sum D scores than Happy couples (M = 54.47, SD = 27.95), t(80) = -7.67, p = .000, d = -1.71, confirming hypothesis 2. The effect size of this difference was large.


Results, con’tHappy couples were expected to demonstrate the

lowest Sum D and the highest amount of concordance as measured by DAS adjustment and DARCI TCI compatibility scores. The three groups demonstrated statistically significant differences for Sum D, F (2, 119) = 39.38, p = .000. Happy couples (M = 54.47, SD = 27.95) displayed significantly lower Sum D scores than Unhappy couples (M = 188.76, SD = 107.25), t(80) = -7.67, p = .000, d = -1.71, confirming hypothesis 3. The effect size of this difference was large.


Results,con’t4. Medical couples were hypothesized to

demonstrate intermediate Sum D scores and intermediate levels of DAS adjustment and DARCI compatibility scores. Medical couples demonstrated significant differences on Sum D dissonance scores when compared to Happy and Unhappy couples, F (2, 119) = 39.38, p = .000. Medical couples (M = 87.57, SD = 45.90) scored higher on Sum D scores than Happy couples, t(78) = 3.89, p = .000, d =.871. They scored significantly lower on Sum D than Unhappy couples, t(80) = -5.50, p = .000, d = -1.22, confirming hypothesis 4. The effect size here was large.


Dyadic Adjustment—DAS• Happy couples (M = 50.72, SD = 4.83) demonstrated

significantly higher levels of DAS Overall Dyadic Adjustment than Unhappy (M = 29.97, SD = 9.10) and Medical couples (M = 43.27, SD = 4.83), F (2, 119) = 57.00, p = .000. On the DAS, Happy couples demonstrated significantly higher scores on Overall Dyadic Adjustment than Unhappy couples, t(80) = -12.79, p = .000, d = .284. Happy couples demonstrated significantly higher levels of Overall Dyadic Adjustment than Medical couples, t(78) = -3.77, p = .000, d = 1.54. Intermediately, Medical couples demonstrated significantly higher levels of DAS Overall Dyadic Adjustment than Unhappy couples, t(80) = 5.81, p = .000, d = -1.82.


• Happy couples (M = 50.15, SD = 4.30) also scored significantly higher levels of DAS Dyadic Consensus than Unhappy (M = 29.69, SD = 10.41) and Medical couples (M = 44.05 SD = 11.90), F (2, 119) = 50.56, p = .000. Happy couples demonstrated significantly higher levels of DAS Dyadic Consensus than Unhappy couples, t(80) = -11.51, p = .000, d = 2.56. Happy couples demonstrated significantly higher levels of DAS Dyadic Consensus than Medical couples, t(78) = -3.04, p = .003, d = .681. Medical couples demonstrated significantly higher levels of DAS Dyadic Consensus than Unhappy couples, t(80) = 5.82, p = .000, d = -1.28.


• Happy couples (M = 51.90, SD = 8.80) scored significantly higher on DAS Affectional Expression than Unhappy (M = 35.69, SD = 12.89) and Medical couples (M = 48.57, SD = 14.21), F (2, 119) = 20.31, p = .000. Happy couples scored significantly higher on DAS Affectional Expression than Unhappy couples, t(80) = -6.61, p = .000, d = 1.46. Happy and Medical couple scored similarly on DAS Affectional Expression t(78) = , p = 1.25, d = -.281.


• Happy couples (M = 56.27, SD = 7.78) scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Cohesion than Unhappy (M = 35.57, SD = 13.22) and Medical couples (M = 48.72, SD = 11.04), F (2, 119) = 37.61, p = .000. Happy couples scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Cohesion than Unhappy couples, t(80) = -8.58, p = .000, d = 1.90. Happy couples scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Cohesion than Medical couples, t(78) = -3.53, p = .001, d = .790. Medical couples scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Cohesion than Unhappy couples, t(80) = 4.87, p = .000, d = -1.07.


• Happy couples (M = 50.22, SD = 6.01) scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Satisfaction than Unhappy (M = 30.16, SD = 10.62) and Medical couples (M = 42.35, SD = 10.68) couples, F (2, 119) = 47.63, p = .000. Happy couples scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Satisfaction than Unhappy couples, t(80) = -10.45, p = .000, d = 2.32. Happy couples scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Satisfaction than Medical couples, t(78) = -4.06, p = .000, d = .908. Medical couples scored significantly higher on DAS Dyadic Satisfaction than Unhappy couples, t(80) = 5.17, p = .000, d = -1.14. These findings demonstrate large effect sizes and support hypotheses 1-4 that the three groups could be classified as low in adjustment (Unhappy group), intermediate (Medical group), and high (Happy group).


Dyadic Compatibility—DARCI• Significant differences on DARCI compatibility

measures were observed between the three groups, F (2, 119) = 87.57, p = .000. Happy couples (M = .82, SD = .06) scored significantly higher on DARCI TCI than Unhappy couples (M = .46, SD = .15), t(80) = -13.76, p = .000, d = 3.15. Medical couples (M = .64, SD = .13) scored significantly lower on DARCI TCI than Happy couples, t(78) = -7.79, p = .000, d = 1.77. Medical couples scored significantly higher on DARCI TCI than Unhappy couples, t(80) = 5.68, p = .000, d = 1.28. Again, these effect sizes were large. These findings support our hypotheses that the three groups could be classified as low in compatibility (Unhappy group), intermediate (Medical group), and high (Happy group).


Validation of the DARCI• The DARCI’s psychometric properties were examined to assess the

scale’s reliability and validity and convergent and discriminant validity (Clark & Watson, 1995). Criterion-related validity was examined in relation to the DAS (Spanier, 2004), a published relationship assessment instrument. The DARCI demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha of .92 (Nunnally, 1978). Inter-item correlations range from .22 - .83 with an average inter-item correlation of .55, p = <.05. The DARCI’s factor structure was examined using principle component analysis to assess the DARCI scale dimensionality. A varimax rotation yielded a first principal component that explained 60.3% of the total variance (eigenvalue = 6.03) and a second principal component that yielded 11.8% (eigenvalue = 1.18). This two factor solution accounted for 72% of the variance. Loadings greater than .40 on Factor 1 included all DARCI items except for sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction. Loadings on Factor 2 greater than .40 included sexual frequency, sexual satisfaction, and child rearing.


• Pearson correlations between the DARCI TCI and DAS subscales (overall dyadic adjustment, dyadic consensus, dyadic satisfaction, affectional expression and dyadic cohesion) were computed to assess the criterion-related validity of the DARCI. DARCI TCI scores are strongly correlated with the DAS subscales. The TCI has an average correlation of .71 with the DAS subscales. Correlations between the DAS subscales and the DARCI TCI scores ranged from .59 to .80. The strength of these associations suggests the DARCI demonstrates criterion-related validity in relation to the published measure (see Table 1).


Correlations between the DARCI TCI and DAS, N=122

Dyadic Adjustment.80**Dyadic Consensus.76**Dyadic Satisfaction .72**Affectional Expression .59**Dyadic Cohesion .69****

Correlations significant at, p < .001 (2-tailed).


Correlations of DARCI Items & Sum D, N=122• Manage Finances-.34**• Quality Time-.43**• Sexual Frequency-.17• Sexual Satisfaction-.31**• Child Rearing-.25**• Values-.42**• Life Values-.42**• Life Interests-.37**• Housekeeping-.25**• Communication-.48**** Correlations significant at, p < .01 (2-tailed).


• In summary, results of the study indicate that Sum D demonstrates convergent and discriminant validity—distinguishing the three groups—and that cross-informant discrepancy in partner perception demonstrated expected associations with relationship dissonance, adjustment, and compatibility.

• The DARCI demonstrates excellent psychometric characteristics—internal consistency, factor structure, and criterion-related validity.


Conclusions

The way that we see ourselves and the way that we are seen by others—especially intimate partners—forms the basis of relationships that are compatible and harmonious or conflictual and contemptuous. This can be clinically assessed in situations where relational assessment is indicated.


Limitations

The study is limited by the sample characteristics—this may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Need to examine a more diverse sample of happy and unhappy couples.


Future Research

• We are currently extending the current research to the cross-informed assessment of parenting capacity to examine the degree to which parents can validly assess parenting knowledge and conduct.

joshua dwire, psyd st george’s medical school grenada, the caribbean marvin w. acklin, phd

Documents

marital adjustment

medical couples

happy couples

interspousal appraisals

interspousal perceptions

groups of married couples

interspousal behavior

groups happy