Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-12
Factor structure and dyadic measurement invariance of the English version of the dyadic coping inventory measuring low-income couples in the United States
The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) is used widely in research with couples as a measure of stress coping between dyads. While several studies examined the factor structure of the DCI, as well as invariance with individual samples, no studies have examined the dyadic measurement invariance. Thus, we conducted a dyadic measurement invariance analysis with a community sample of 1,368 opposite-gendered couples. The DCI displayed a factor structure of five factors for dyadic coping by self or partner and two factors for common dyadic coping. Full configural, metric, scalar, and residual variance invariance were identified for the DCI across dyad members. The latent means comparison showed differences in dyadic coping behavior across dyad members.
Ab HamidM. R.SamiW.SidekM. M. (2017, September). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. In Journal of physics: Conference series (Vol. 890, No. 1, p. 012163). IOP Publishing.
2.
AlvesS.FonsecaA.CanavarroM. C.PereiraM. (2020). Does dyadic coping predict couples’ postpartum psychosocial adjustment? A dyadic longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 561091. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.561091.
3.
AlvesS.MilekA.BodenmannG.FonsecaA.CanavarroM. C.PereiraM. (2019). Romantic attachment, dyadic coping, and parental adjustment across the transition to parenthood. Personal Relationships, 26(2), 286–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12278
4.
ArnoldL. S.BeelmannA. (2019). The effects of relationship education in low‐income couples: A meta‐analysis of randomized‐controlled evaluation studies. Family Relations, 68(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12325
5.
BardenS. M.CarlsonR. G.Dillman TaylorD.DickensenT.GaoR. (2022). A randomized trial of relationship education using Within Our Reach for economically vulnerable couples. Family Process, 61(3), 1005–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12781
6.
BardenS. M.TaylorD. D.SilverioN.CarlsonR. G.WhitbeckM.CarrollN.VelezM. (2021). Motivations to enroll and engage in relationship education programs: A qualitative investigation of key process factors. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 20(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2020.1867685
7.
BartonA. W.BryantC. M. (2016). Financial strain, trajectories of marital processes, and African American newlyweds’ marital instability. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(6), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000190
8.
BodenmannG. (1997). Dyadic coping-a systematic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 137–140.
9.
BodenmannG. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In RevernsonT. A.Kayserk.BodenmannG. (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002.
BodenmannG.AristaL. J.WalshK. J.RandallA. K. (2018). Dyadic Coping Inventory. In LebowJ.ChambersA.BreunlinD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy. Springer.
12.
BodenmannG.FalconierM.RandallA. K. (2017). Systemic-transactional model of dyadic coping. In LebowJ.ChambersA.BreunlinD. C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy (pp. S1–S7). Springer International..
13.
BodenmannG.MeuwlyN.BradburyT. N.GmelchS.LedermannT. (2010). Stress, anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual and dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361616
14.
BodenmannG.PihetS.KayserK. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485
15.
BodenmannG.RandallA. K.FalconierM. K. (2016). Coping in couples: The systemic transac- tional model (STM). In FalconierM. K.RandallA. K.BodenmannG. (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 5–22). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
16.
BrownM.WhitingJ.Kahumoku‐FesslerE.WittingA. B.JensenJ. (2020). A dyadic model of stress, coping, and marital satisfaction among parents of children with autism. Family Relations, 69(1), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12375
17.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.
18.
CanziE.DonatoS.FerrariL.PariseM.PaganiA. F.LopezG.RosnatiR.RanieriS. (2019). “What makes us strong?”: Dyadic coping in Italian prospective adoptive couples. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00399
19.
CarlsonR. G.BardenS. M.DaireA. P.GreeneJ. (2014). Influence of relationship education on relationship satisfaction for low‐income couples. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92(4), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00168.x
20.
CarlsonR. G.DickensonT.RogersB. D.HippC. J.GlascoeG. (2021). Six month impact Evaluation of Prevention and relationship education Program’s (PREP’s) Within Our Reach in Orlando, Florida - final impact evaluation report for University of central Florida. Submitted to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/U_Central_FL_Impact_Report.pdf
21.
CarlsonR. G.GaoR.GordonR.GoJ.TaylorD. D.BardenS. M. (2023). Examining intervention hours attended for couples randomly assigned to receive relationship education. . Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,, 49(3), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12644
22.
CharlesP.OrthnerD. K.JonesA.ManciniD. (2006). Poverty and couple relationships: Implications for welfare policy. Marriage & Family Review, 39(1-2), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/j002v39n01_03
23.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
24.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
25.
CieciuchJDavidovESchmidtPAlgesheimerR (2019). How to obtain comparable measures for cross-national comparisons. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,, 71(1), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-019-00598-7.
26.
ClaxtonS. E.DelucaH. K.Van DulmenM. H. (2015). Testing psychometric properties in dyadic data using confirmatory factor analysis: Current practices and recommendations. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 22(2), 181–198.
27.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
28.
DakinJ.WamplerR. (2008). Money doesn't buy happiness, but it helps: Marital satisfaction, psychological distress, and demographic differences between low-and middle-income clinic couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(4), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180701647512
29.
EndersC. K.BandalosD. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0803_5
30.
FalconierM. K.JacksonJ. B.HilpertP.BodenmannG. (2015a). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002.
31.
FalconierM. K.KimJ.LachowiczM. J. (2022). Together – a couples program integrating relationship and financial education: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(1), 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221118816
32.
FalconierM. K.NussbeckF.BodenmannG. (2013a). Dyadic coping in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of the dyadic coping inventory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(4), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.699045
33.
FalconierM. K.NussbeckF.BodenmannG. (2013b). Immigration stress and relationship satisfaction in Latino couples: The role of dyadic coping. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(8), 813–843. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.8.813
34.
FalconierM. K.NussbeckF.BodenmannG.SchneiderH.BradburyT. (2015b). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intradyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well‐being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12073
35.
FallahchaiR.FallahiM.ChahartangiS.BodenmannG. (2019). Psychometric properties and factorial validity of the dyadic coping inventory–the Persian version. Current Psychology, 38(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9624-6
36.
FifeB. L.WeaverM. T.CookW. L.StumpT. T. (2013). Partner interdependence and coping with life-threatening illness: The impact on dyadic adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 702–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033871
37.
GreenS. B.YangY. (2015). Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(4), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12100
38.
HairJ. F.JrHultG. T. M.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
39.
HsuehJ.AldersonD. P.LundquistE.MichalopoulosC.GubitsD.FeinD.KnoxV. (2012). The supporting healthy marriage evaluation: Early impacts on low-income families. OPRE Report, 11. https://doi.org/10.1037/e565352012-001.
40.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
41.
JacksonG. L.KrullJ. L.BradburyT. N.KarneyB. R. (2017). Household income and trajectories of marital satisfaction in early marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(3), 690–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12394
42.
JohnsonM. D. (2012). Healthy marriage initiatives: On the need for empiricism in policy implementation. American Psychologist, 67(4), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027743
43.
JungE.YoonM. (2016). Comparisons of three empirical methods for partial factorial invariance: Forward, backward, and factor-ratio tests. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(4), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2015.1138092
44.
KanthB.RandallA. K.BodenmannG.IndumathyJ. (2022). Partners’ dyadic coping in India: Psychometric properties and validity of the Tamil version of the dyadic coping inventory. Marriage & Family Review, 58(2), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2021.1936743
45.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2020). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Publications.
46.
KnoxV.CowanP. A.Pape CowanC.BildnerE. (2011). Policies that strengthen, fatherhood and family relationships: What do we know and what do we need to know?The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635(1), 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210394769
47.
LedermannT.BodenmannG.GagliardiS.CharvozL.VerardiS.RossierJ.IafrateR.BertoniA. (2010). Psychometrics of the dyadic coping inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69(4), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000024
48.
LevesqueC.LafontaineM. F.CaronA.FitzpatrickJ. (2014). Validation of the English version of the dyadic coping inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614522272
49.
LiC. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
50.
McNeishD.AnJ.HancockG. R. (2018). The thorny relation between measurementquality and fit index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286
MitchellA. M.OwenJ.AdelsonJ. L.FranceT.InchL. J.BergenC.LindelA. (2015). The influence of dyadic coping in relationship education for low‐income racial and ethnic minority couples. Journal of Family Therapy, 37(4), 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12057
53.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. (2019). Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: User’s guide, 5.
54.
NepomucenoW. R.da Silva GonçalvesA.HernandezJ. A. E. (2022). Psychometric properties of the dyadic coping inventory: Systematic review. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 16(1), 96–119. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.7597
55.
NguyenT. P.WilliamsonH. C.KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (2017). Communication moderates effects of residential mobility on relationship quality among ethnically diverse couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6), 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000324
56.
OsburnH. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficents. Psychological Methods, 5(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.5.3.343
57.
PappL. M.WittN. L. (2010). Romantic partners' individual coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020836
58.
PortneyL. G.WatkinsM. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: Applications topractice (Vol. 892, pp. 11–15). Pearson/Prentice Hall.
59.
RandallA. K.HilpertP.Jimenez-AristaL. E.WalshK. J.BodenmannG. (2016). Dyadic coping in the US: Psychometric properties and validity for use of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Current Psychology, 35(4), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0
60.
Rauch-AndereggV.KuhnR.MilekA.HalfordW. K.BodenmannG. (2020). Relationship behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 41(4), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x19878864
61.
RaykovT. (2001). Bias of coefficient for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216010251005
ReisH. T. (2018). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Relationships, well-being and behaviour (pp. 113–143). Routledge.
64.
RusuP. P.HilpertP.TurliucM. N.BodenmannG. (2016). Dyadic coping in an eastern European context: Validity and measurement invariance of the Romanian version of dyadic coping inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49(4), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175616664009
65.
SchmittN.KuljaninG. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003
66.
ShevlinM.MilesJ. N. V.DaviesM. N. O.WalkerS. (2000). Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability?Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00093-8
67.
ShujjaS.AdilA.RandallA. K.BodenmannG.MalikF. (2020). Psychometric properties and validity of dyadic coping inventory-Urdu version for use in Pakistan. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 14(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v14i2.4069
68.
StaffH. R.DidymusF. F.BackhouseS. H. (2017). The antecedents and outcomes of dyadic coping in close personal relationships: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 30(5), 498–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2017.1329931
69.
StanleyS. M.AmatoP. R.JohnsonC. A.MarkmanH. J. (2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.117
70.
StanleyS. M.CarlsonR. G.RhoadesG. K.MarkmanH. J.RitchieL. L.HawkinsA. J. (2020). Best practices in relationship education focused on intimate relationships. Family Relations, 69(3), 497–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12419
71.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
72.
Van de SchootR.LugtigP.HoxJ. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
73.
VedesA.NussbeckF. W.BodenmannG.LindW.FerreiraA. (2013). Psychometric properties and validity of the dyadic coping inventory in Portuguese. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000108
74.
WeitkampK.BodenmannG. (2022). Couples coping together: A scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence and conceptual work across three decades. Frontiers in Psychology, 2967, 13, 876455. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.876455
75.
WendołowskaA. M.CzyżowskaD.BodenmannG. (2020). Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Polish version of the dyadic coping inventory. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00623-5
76.
WilliamsonH. C.KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (2013). Financial strain and stressful events predict newlyweds' negative communication independent of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031104
77.
WolfE. J.HarringtonK. M.ClarkS. L.MillerM. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
78.
WoodR. G.McConnellS.MooreQ.ClarkwestA.HsuehJ. (2012). The effects of building strong families: A healthy marriage and relationship skills education program for unmarried parents. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21608
79.
XuF.HilpertP.RandallA. K.LiQ.BodenmannG. (2016). Validation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory with Chinese couples: Factorial structure, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 28(8), Article e127–e140. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000329
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
