Abstract
There has long been a need for a well-balanced, comprehensive and up-dated self-report measure of dyadic relationship quality. The aim was to test the new Quality of Dyadic Relationship, QDR, on 90 men and women living in long-term relationships and on 94 men and women constituting 47 couples visiting family counselling. In the first group A, the experienced entire quality of the relationship, QDR index, was found to be 22, with a possible range between 5 and 30, which means rather a good quality in the relationship. The dimension Dyadic Consensus showed the highest marks together with Dyadic Satisfaction, indicating that these men and women did not just stay together by force of habit. In group B, the QDR-index was 20 before and 22 after counselling. Dyadic Sexuality was found to be lowest in both group A and B. QDR seems to be an instrument with good validity and reliability also in these study groups, according to the factor structure and Cronbach’s alpha. The entire QDR36 is hereby introduced and presented ready for use in different kinds of relationships.
References
(2000). First-time parents’ sexual relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3, 127–139.
(2001). The baby was the focus of attention – first-time parents’ experiences of their intimate relationship. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 15, 318–325.
(2005a). Quality of the intimate and sexual relationship in first-time parents six months after delivery. The Journal of Sex Research,42(2), 167–174.
(2005b). Assessing the quality of the dyadic relationship in first-time parents: Development of a new instrument. Journal of Family Nursing, 11, 19–37.
(2008) Sensual and sexual marital contentment in parents of small children - a follow-up study when the first child is four years old. Journal of Sex Research 45 (3), 295–304, 2008.
Partner relationship and long-term sick leave among female workers: consequences and impact on return to work.
Submitted .Self- assessed quality in the couple relationship in connection with family counseling - Introduction of a new instrument (QDR36),
Submitted .(2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203.
(2002). Cognitive- Behavioral Therapy. In Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy. () The Guilford Press, NY, 26–58.
(1997). The relationship between communication skill and marital satisfaction: Some moderating affects. Journal of Marrige & the Family, 59, 844–903.
(1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 39–63.
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 1st ed.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(1991). An empirical evaluation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Exploring the differences between marital “Satisfaction” and “Adjustment”. Behavioural assessment, 13, 199–220.
(2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship, quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27–37.
(1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health & Social Behaviour, 24, 122–131.
(1994). Long term marriages. A study of couples who have been married or lived together for approximately 25 years. Nordisk Psykologi, 46, 241–256.
(1988). The assessment of marital satisfaction: an evaluation of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 2, 82–91.
(1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in marital quality for husbands and wives over the first 10 years of marriage. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1283–1296.
(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.
(2005). SPSS survival manual, 2nd ed. New York: Open University Press.
(1976). Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 15–27.
(1979). The measurement of marital quality. Journal of Sex and Marital therapy, 5, 288–300.
(2001) Marital happiness, marital duration, and the U-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79, 1313–1341.
(1997). MAP-R for Windows: Multitrait/Multi-item analysis program - revised user’s guide. Boston: Health Assessment Lab.
(1992). Translation of an instrument. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 6, 161–164.
(1999). The influence of marital duration and the use of relationship maintenance behaviors. Communication Reports, 12 (2), 59–70.
