The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) Ronald D. Rogge Asst. Professor of Psychology University of Rochester rogge@psych.rochester.edu www.couples-research.com

Overview PART 1: Development of CSI Existing scales Development of new scale Cross-sectional validation Longitudinal validation PART 2: Use & Interpretation of CSI Administration Scoring Interpretation Norms

PART 1: Existing Scales Strengths Limitations 20-30 years of converging results Clearly measure satisfaction Limitations 20-30 years old Heterogeneous content Unknown noise

Existing Scales Scale Items Name Cit. Cit./Yr DAS 32 2,191 77.1 MAT Dyadic Adjustment Scale 2,191 77.1 MAT 15* Marital Adjustment Test 1,489 32.1 QMI 6 Quality of Marriage Index 221 9.9 RAS 7 Relationship Assessment Scale 156 8.8

Evaluating Scales Item Response Theory Used to create SAT, GRE, MCAT Item by item analysis If happy, higher responses? If unhappy, lower responses? Requires large samples Estimates parameters for each item Estimates parameter for each subject Sample-Independent Results

DAS-31 (Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.)

DAS/MAT 5 Agreement on: FRIENDS

Study 1: Goals Evaluate current scales Develop CSI DAS, MAT, QMI, RAS IRT in large sample Develop CSI Large item pool Factor analysis IRT

Study 1: Method Online survey (N = 5,315) Contents 141 satisfaction items Items from DAS, MAT, QMI, RAS 71 additional items 7 anchor scales e.g., neuroticism, hostile conflict, stress 2 validity scales

Study 1: Sample Avg 26yo (SD=10yr) 26% High School or less 83% Female 76% Caucasian Relationships 24% Married (avg 6.3yrs) 16% Engaged 60% Committed dating

Length of relationship Relationship Quality Sample Size (N) Length of relationship Satisfaction (DAS) Married 1254 9.0 yrs 108 Engaged 866 3.1 yrs 117 Dating 3194 1.7 yrs 113

Evaluating Previous Scales IRT results Evaluated 66 items of existing scales Some very informative items Many poor items

DAS-31 (Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.) Standard Deviation (SD) Units Standard Deviation (SD) Units

QMI-1 We have a good relationship

SMD-2 BAD 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 GOOD

DAS/MAT 5 Agreement on: FRIENDS

DAS/MAT 6 Agreement on: SEX RELATIONS

DAS/MAT 9 Agreement on: WAYS OF DEALING WITH PARENTS OR IN-LAWS

MAT 12 In leisure time, do you (and does your mate) prefer to be “on the go” or to stay at home?

From Items to Scales A scale’s information How informative = sum of information from each item How informative Across different levels of happiness

Scale Information

Summary MAT and DAS have poor items Increases NOISE MAT-15 no better than 4-item scale DAS-32 little better than 6-item scale Assess satisfaction, but not very efficiently Poor thermometers

Creating the CSI 141 item pool Screen for contaminating items Screen for redundant items IRT on remaining 66 items Select 32 most effective

Parameter Invariance

Basic Psychometrics Alpha Distress Cut Score Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. DAS .94 97.5 -- 2. MAT .84 95.5 .90 3. QMI .96 24.5 .85 .87 4. RAS .92 23.5 .86 .91 5. CSI-32 .98 104.5 6. CSI-16 51.5 .89 .95 7. CSI-4 13.5 .88 .93 .97

Correlations with Anchors Thoughts of Breakup Positive Communication Stress Hostile Conflict Sexual Chemistry Neuroticism DAS -.74 .73 -.53 -.54 .42 -.40 MAT .69 -.49 .41 -.38 CSI-32 -.78 .71 -.52 -.48 .45 CSI-16 .43 CSI-4 -.75 -.47 -.36

Criterion Validity DAS Distress groups DAS score < 97.5 Current gold-standard DAS score < 97.5 1027 DAS distressed P’s ROC’s to identify CSI cut scores Identified CSI distressed P’s 91% agreement w/ DAS

Summary Operate similar across CSI measures same construct Male vs. Female Older vs. Younger Married vs. Engaged vs. Dating CSI measures same construct Nearly identical correlations Highly similar screen for distress Evaluating Possible Improvement CSI-32 vs. DAS-32 CSI-16 vs. MAT-15 CSI-4 vs. DAS-4 More information? Less noise? Better thermometer?

Scale Information

Relative Efficacies

Satisfaction Groups IRT satisfaction estimates For each subject Based on MAT, DAS, & CSI items (equivalent of SAT scores) Created satisfaction groups N = 265 in each group Levels of sat. HIGHLY similar within each group MAT, DAS & CSI scores also similar?

Precision: CSI-32 vs. DAS

Precision: CSI-16 vs. MAT

Effect Size Ability to detect difference Effect Size = M1 – M2 . Between groups Pre – Post Effect Size = M1 – M2 . pooled SD Difference in SD units Power for detecting D’s in SAT groups

Power: CSI-32 vs. DAS

Power: CSI-16 vs. MAT

Conclusions CSI scales NEXT STEP More information Less noise More power Better thermometers NEXT STEP True over time? Better at detecting change?

Studies 2, 3, 4: Method Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 596 online respondents 1 and 2 week follow ups (n = 267) CSI, MAT, DAS Study 3 398 online respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 mo follow ups (n = 156) Study 4 1,062 online respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 mo follow ups (n = 545) CSI, MAT

Studies 2-4: Demographics SAMPLE N = 2,056 initial respondents N = 968 (47%) respondents with longitudinal data AGE M = 27.7yo (9.3yrs) GENDER 71% Female 29% Male RACE 83% Caucasian 5% Asian 4% African American 4% Latino SES 10% High school diploma or less 25K avg yearly income

Studies 2-4: Relationships Relationship Types 37% Married: 7.9 yrs (7.9 yrs) 13% Engaged: 3.2 yrs (2.4 yrs) 50% Dating: 1.8 yrs (1.9 yrs) Relationship Satisfaction (MAT) Married: 108 (32) Engaged: 122 (24) Dating: 116 (24) Dissatisfied Respondents 24% (n = 487)

Change Criterion How much has each of these changed? Much WORSE Somewhat WORSE A little WORSE Stayed the SAME A little BETTER Somewhat BETTER Much BETTER -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 How much has each of these changed? Overall happiness in the relationship Feeling close and connected Stability of the relationship Averaged responses Alpha = .92 Agree with MAT, DAS, & CSI scores?

Noise over time (SERM) Score scatter in “no change” group 238 “no change” at 1st assessment Repeated Measures MANOVA Scatter (noise) in scale scores across time SERM = 2*MSE Much WORSE Somewhat WORSE A little WORSE Stayed the SAME A little BETTER Somewhat BETTER Much BETTER -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3

Detecting Individual Change Can we detect individual change? Minimal Detectible Change (MDC95) RCI: Jacobson & Truax (1991) MDC95: Stratford et al. (1996) Pre-Post score change In one individual Necessary to exceed noise MDC95 (SD units) = 1.96*SERM . SD

Minimum Detectible Change How much must an individual’s score shift to show significant change? C* C C* B A

Detecting Individual Change CSI scales more sensitive Required smaller pre-post score shifts Longer scales more sensitive CSI-32 > CSI-16 > CSI-4 MAT & DAS not as sensitive Operated no better than CSI-4

Detecting Group Differences Can we detect clinically distinct groups? Improved vs. No-change Deteriorated vs. No-change Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Guyatt, Walter & Norman (1987) MCID Effect Size = M(improved) – M(no change) Noise over time (SERM) HLM framework Global change predicting D scores on scales 2,475 points of change from 968 respondents Improved vs. Deteriorated Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied Gender effects

MCID Effect Sizes How well can we detect naturally occurring change? B C D A A B E A B C D C C C A A B B B Dissatisfied Respondents Satisfied Respondents

Differences by Gender Scales showed slightly smaller effect sizes in men * * * *

Detecting Group Differences CSI-32 & CSI-16 Out performed DAS & MAT Improvement / Deterioration Satisfied / Dissatisfied CSI-4 Deterioration: Out performed DAS & MAT Improvement: Equivalent to DAS & MAT Weak gender effect All scales slightly less responsive in males

Summary of Development CSI scales represent improved thermometers Developed with IRT / FA No contaminating items Non-redundant items Most informative items Still measure satisfaction Consistent with MAT / DAS Offer greater power More information Less noise More sensitive cross-sectionally Detecting group differences More responsive over time Detecting change in a single individual Detecting differences between clinical groups

PART 2: Administration See CSI handout Spouses complete separately No discussion during administration Want unique perspectives Inform of confidentiality limits Feedback given? Dyadic or individual feedback? Normative data Should take 3-4 minutes

Scoring See CSI scoring handout Sum the item responses Total scores 10 reverse scored items High sat options offered first (items 2-5) Reversed wording (items 10, 15…) Total scores Range from 0-161

Interpretation Box Plots Dissatisfaction Cut Score Scores below 104.5 Lowest 25% of scores Median Highest 25% of scores 2nd quartile of scores 3rd quartile of scores

Norms in Dating Individuals

Norms in Engaged Individuals

Norms in Married Individuals

Norms in Married Individuals