1. The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI)
Ronald D. Rogge
Asst. Professor of Psychology
University of Rochester

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. DAS/MAT 5 Agreement on: FRIENDS

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

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

14. QMI-1 We have a good relationship

15. SMD-2 BAD 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 GOOD

16. DAS/MAT 5 Agreement on: FRIENDS

17. DAS/MAT 6 Agreement on: SEX RELATIONS

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

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

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

21. Scale Information

22. 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

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

24. Parameter Invariance

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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?

29. Scale Information

30. Relative Efficacies

31. 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?

32. Precision: CSI-32 vs. DAS

33. Precision: CSI-16 vs. MAT

34. 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

35. Power: CSI-32 vs. DAS

36. Power: CSI-16 vs. MAT

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

38. 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

39. 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

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

41. 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?

42. 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

43. 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

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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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

53. 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

54. Norms in Dating Individuals

55. Norms in Engaged Individuals

56. Norms in Married Individuals

57. Norms in Married Individuals