Factor structure and dyadic measurement invariance of the English version of the dyadic coping inventory measuring low-income couples in the United States

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Dyadic coping inventory factor structure dyadic measurement invariance latent mean comparison

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ab Hamid

M. R.

Sami

Sidek

M. 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.

Alves

Fonseca

Canavarro

M. C.

Pereira

(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.

Alves

Milek

Bodenmann

Fonseca

Canavarro

M. C.

Pereira

(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

Arnold

L. S.

Beelmann

(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

Barden

S. M.

Carlson

R. G.

Dillman Taylor

Dickensen

Gao

(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

Barden

S. M.

Taylor

D. D.

Silverio

Carlson

R. G.

Whitbeck

Carroll

Velez

(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

Barton

A. W.

Bryant

C. 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

Bodenmann

(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.

Bodenmann

(2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revernson

T. A.

Kayser

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002.

10.

Bodenmann

(2008). Dyadisches coping inventar (DCI). Testmanual [dyadic coping inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Huber.

11.

Bodenmann

Arista

L. J.

Walsh

K. J.

Randall

A. K.

(2018). Dyadic Coping Inventory. In Lebow

Chambers

Breunlin

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy. Springer.

12.

Bodenmann

Falconier

Randall

A. K.

(2017). Systemic-transactional model of dyadic coping. In Lebow

Chambers

Breunlin

D. C.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy (pp. S1–S7). Springer International..

13.

Bodenmann

Meuwly

Bradbury

T. N.

Gmelch

Ledermann

(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.

Bodenmann

Pihet

Kayser

(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.

Bodenmann

Randall

A. K.

Falconier

M. K.

(2016). Coping in couples: The systemic transac- tional model (STM). In Falconier

M. K.

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 5–22). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

16.

Brown

Whiting

Kahumoku‐Fessler

Witting

A. B.

Jensen

(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.

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.

18.

Canzi

Donato

Ferrari

Parise

Pagani

A. F.

Lopez

Rosnati

Ranieri

(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.

Carlson

R. G.

Barden

S. M.

Daire

A. P.

Greene

(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.

Carlson

R. G.

Dickenson

Rogers

B. D.

Hipp

C. J.

Glascoe

(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.

Carlson

R. G.

Gao

Gordon

Taylor

D. D.

Barden

S. 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.

Charles

Orthner

D. K.

Jones

Mancini

(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.

Chen

F. 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.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. 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.

Cieciuch

Davidov

Schmidt

Algesheimer

(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.

Claxton

S. E.

Deluca

H. K.

Van Dulmen

M. 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.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

(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.

Dakin

Wampler

(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.

Enders

C. K.

Bandalos

D. 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.

Falconier

M. K.

Jackson

J. B.

Hilpert

Bodenmann

(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.

Falconier

M. K.

Kim

Lachowicz

M. 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.

Falconier

M. K.

Nussbeck

Bodenmann

(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.

Falconier

M. K.

Nussbeck

Bodenmann

(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.

Falconier

M. K.

Nussbeck

Bodenmann

Schneider

Bradbury

(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.

Fallahchai

Fallahi

Chahartangi

Bodenmann

(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.

Fife

B. L.

Weaver

M. T.

Cook

W. L.

Stump

T. 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.

Green

S. B.

Yang

(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.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.

39.

Hsueh

Alderson

D. P.

Lundquist

Michalopoulos

Gubits

Fein

Knox

(2012). The supporting healthy marriage evaluation: Early impacts on low-income families. OPRE Report, 11. https://doi.org/10.1037/e565352012-001.

40.

L. T.

Bentler

P. 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.

Jackson

G. L.

Krull

J. L.

Bradbury

T. N.

Karney

B. 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.

Johnson

M. 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.

Jung

Yoon

(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.

Kanth

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

Indumathy

(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.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2020). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Publications.

46.

Knox

Cowan

P. A.

Pape Cowan

Bildner

(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.

Ledermann

Bodenmann

Gagliardi

Charvoz

Verardi

Rossier

Iafrate

Bertoni

(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.

Levesque

Lafontaine

M. F.

Caron

Fitzpatrick

(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.

C. 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.

McNeish

Hancock

G. 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

51.

Meredith

(1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294825

52.

Mitchell

A. M.

Owen

Adelson

J. L.

France

Inch

L. J.

Bergen

Lindel

(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.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

(2019). Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: User’s guide, 5.

54.

Nepomuceno

W. R.

da Silva Gonçalves

Hernandez

J. 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.

Nguyen

T. P.

Williamson

H. C.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. 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.

Osburn

H. 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.

Papp

L. M.

Witt

N. 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.

Portney

L. G.

Watkins

M. P.

(2009). Foundations of clinical research: Applications topractice (Vol. 892, pp. 11–15). Pearson/Prentice Hall.

59.

Randall

A. K.

Hilpert

Jimenez-Arista

L. E.

Walsh

K. J.

Bodenmann

(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-Anderegg

Kuhn

Milek

Halford

W. K.

Bodenmann

(2020). Relationship behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 41(4), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x19878864

61.

Raykov

(2001). Bias of coefficient for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216010251005

62.

Raykov

Marcoulides

G. A.

(2012). A first course in structural equation modeling. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203930687

63.

Reis

H. T.

(2018). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Relationships, well-being and behaviour (pp. 113–143). Routledge.

64.

Rusu

P. P.

Hilpert

Turliuc

M. N.

Bodenmann

(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.

Schmitt

Kuljanin

(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.

Shevlin

Miles

J. N. V.

Davies

M. N. O.

Walker

(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.

Shujja

Adil

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

Malik

(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.

Staff

H. R.

Didymus

F. F.

Backhouse

S. 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.

Stanley

S. M.

Amato

P. R.

Johnson

C. A.

Markman

H. 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.

Stanley

S. M.

Carlson

R. G.

Rhoades

G. K.

Markman

H. J.

Ritchie

L. L.

Hawkins

A. 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.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. 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 Schoot

Lugtig

Hox

(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.

Vedes

Nussbeck

F. W.

Bodenmann

Lind

Ferreira

(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.

Weitkamp

Bodenmann

(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.

Wendołowska

A. M.

Czyżowska

Bodenmann

(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.

Williamson

H. C.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. 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.

Wolf

E. J.

Harrington

K. M.

Clark

S. L.

Miller

M. 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.

Wood

R. G.

McConnell

Moore

Clarkwest

Hsueh

(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.

Hilpert

Randall

A. K.

Bodenmann

(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.

0.00 MB

0.32 MB