Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69 (4), 2010, 201–212

SwissJ. Psychol. 69 (4) T. © Ledermann 2010 Verlag etHans al.: Dyadic Huber, Coping HogrefeInventory AG, Bern

Original Communication

Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Three Language Groups
Thomas Ledermann1, Guy Bodenmann2, Simona Gagliardi2, Linda Charvoz3, Sabrina Verardi3, Jérôme Rossier3, Anna Bertoni4, and Raffaella Iafrate4
1

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA, 2University of Zurich, Switzerland, 3 University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 4Catholic University of Milan, Italy

Abstract. This article introduces the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008) and aims (1) to investigate the reliability and aspects of the validity of the Italian and French versions of the DCI, and (2) to replicate its factor structure and reliabilities using a new Swiss German sample. Based on 216 German-, 378 Italian-, and 198 French-speaking participants, the factor structure of the original German inventory was able to be replicated by using principal components analysis in all three groups after excluding two items in the Italian and French versions. The latter were shown to be as reliable as the German version with the exception of the low reliabilities of negative dyadic coping in the French group. Confirmatory factor analyses provided additional support for delegated dyadic coping and evaluation of dyadic coping. Intercorrelations among scales were similar across all three languages groups with a few exceptions. Previous findings could be replicated in all three groups, showing that aspects of dyadic coping were more strongly related to marital quality than to dyadic communication. The use of the dyadic coping scales in the actor-partner interdependence model, the common fate model, and the mutual influence model is discussed. Keywords: dyadic coping, validation, questionnaire, dyadic research

In the 1960s and 1970s, when scientists began to study coping with stress, coping was considered an individual phenomenon (e.g., Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Since the early 1990s, however, authors have begun to emphasize the significance of the social context and the role of significant others in managing stressful encounters. In addition to the research focusing on the exposure to stress of groups involving more than two people (e.g., Buchwald, Schwarzer, & Hobfoll, 2004; Hobfoll, 1998; Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998) and the investigation of the role of the partner with respect to social support (e.g., Barbee, 1990; Williamson & Clark, 1992; Winkeler & Klauer, 2003), there is a growing literature on coping with stress in intimate relationships (e.g., Berg, Meegan, & Deviney, 1998; Bodenmann, 1997, 2005; Bodenmann & Perrez, 1991; Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006; Coyne & Smith, 1991, 1994; Cutrona, 1996; DeLongis & O’Brien, 1990; Kayser, Sormanti, & Strainchamps, 1999). This article introduces the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) developed by Bodenmann to measure coping with daily stress in intimate relationships; it demonstrate the reliability of the Italian and French versions and replicates results obtained in previous studies of the German version of the DCI. In the early 1990s, Coyne and colleagues and Bodenmann – independently of each other – developed a dyadic stress-coping approach on the basis of Lazarus and FolkDOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000024

man’s (1984) transactional stress model. Coyne, Ellard, and Smith (1990) posited the notion of relationship-focused coping, in addition to problem- and emotion-focused coping. This notion was further elaborated by Coyne and Smith (1991), who postulated two forms of relationship-focused coping: active engagement (e.g., discussing the stressful situation with the partner, constructive interpersonal problem solving) and protective buffering (e.g., attempts to hide concerns and deny worries and to protect one’s partner from upset and burden). Bodenmann, on the other hand, developed a concept of dyadic coping in close relationships, proposing a systemic-transactional perspective of coping that has its origin in the systematic observation of interactions between spouses under stress (Bodenmann, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005). His theoretical framework is based on two key assumptions: First, stress and coping represent a dyadic (systemic) phenomenon. Second, dyadic coping with stress includes both stress expression and dyadic support (Bodenmann, 2000). There are two types of stress: relationship stress and external stress (Bodenmann, Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). The former originates inside the relationship due to differing goals, attitudes, or desires, whereas the latter originates outside the relationship in the form of work strains, social obligations, or conflicts with personal friends not shared with the partner.
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

2008).. Delegated dyadic coping occurs when one partner takes over responsibilities in order to reduce the partner’s stress. In addition to the introduction of the DCI and its background. evidence has been found that low scores in positive dyadic coping and high scores in negative dyadic coping are significantly associated with low relationship quality. They apply strategies focusing on resolving the problem together or helping each other reduce emotional arousal. the purpose of the current article is (1) to demonstrate the reliability and aspects of the construct validity of the Italian and French versions of the DCI in predicting marital functioning. joint information seeking. delegated dyadic coping is characterized by the expression of support by the stressed person and a new division of contributions to the coping process. Bodenmann. This form of dyadic coping is most commonly used in response to problem-oriented stressors. 2005. 2008). Based on the systemic-transactional perspective of dyadic coping. Whereas supportive dyadic coping means that one partner helps the other to deal with stress. or sarcasm). Joint dyadic coping refers to processes in which both partners participate more or less symmetrically in order to handle stressful encounters relevant to the couple.g. including marital quality and communication behaviors in conflict situations. two items were designed to reflect the quality of the self-perceived dyadic coping. including therapy evaluation (see. and joint dyadic coping. negative.e. mocking. measures one’s own as well as one’s perception of one’s partner’s stress communication as well as supportive and negative dyadic coping in close relationships when one or both partners are stressed.. Ledermann.e. helping the partner accomplish daily tasks and reframe the situation. Couples may use strategies such as joint problem solving. Bodenmann et al. For example. the partner who does not usually go grocery shopping does the shopping in order to reduce the partner’s stress. the perception of stress by the partner. or inefficient support).and emotion-focused support (e. communicating a belief in the partner’s capabilities or expressing solidarity with the partner). called the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI. Specifically. ambivalent dyadic coping (i. Because of its capability to assess changes over time. The results of a meta-analysis revealed that the total composite index of the dyadic coping scale accounted for 30% to 40% of the variance in marital satisfaction (Bodenmann. 2008). mutual commitment. 2000).g.: Dyadic Coping Inventory Within this perspective. Method Construction of the DCI The Dyadic Coping Inventory emerged from the Questionnaire to Assess Dyadic Coping as a Tendency (FDCT-N) developed by Bodenmann (e. 2008. sexual dysfunction) reported significantly higher scores on negative dyadic coping relative to couples where both partners were healthy (Bodenmann. Psychol. The finding that low communication competence coincides with low quality of dyadic coping supports the notion that communication is key to dyadic coping.. we report and discuss the results without distinguishing between men and women since previous studies using the current German version of the DCI reported only a few gender differences (Bodenmann. Bern sion of this scale. e.. sharing of feelings.. have supported the utility of the questionnaire in predicting marital functioning (Bodenmann. 2000).. A number of studies using a former verSwiss J. Bodenmann & Cina. Gmelch et al.. These findings stimulated research on dyadic coping in the French-speaking part of Switzerland and Italy using the DCI translated into French and Italian. and (2) to replicate previous results on the factor structure and reliabilities of the German version of the inventory using a new Swiss sample.. Bodenmann. but involves efforts to support the partner with the secondary goal of reducing one’s own stress as well (Bodenmann. The stress-coping process is regarded as a sequence consisting of stress expression by the stressed person. Studies evaluating gender differences in dyadic coping showed that there were nearly no significant differences in self-perceived dyadic coping. In this article. The questionnaire. joint dyadic coping implies that both partners are experiencing stress (often because of the same stressor) and try to manage the situation by coping together..202 T. Bodenmann developed a self-report questionnaire for assessing dyadic coping in close relationships consisting of four factors: stress communication. anxiety disorder. Evidence has also been found that couples with a partner suffering from a psychiatric disorder (depression. called the Questionnaire to Assess Dyadic Coping as a Tendency (FDCT-N). which was more often practiced by women than men (Widmer & Bodenmann. with the exception of stress communication. Supportive dyadic coping occurs when one partner assists the other in his or her coping efforts through problem. insincere or undedicated support). It is not simply altruistic behavior. and the partner’s coping reaction to the stressed person’s behavior (see Bodenmann. Dyadic coping is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct composed of four components: supportive. delegated. 1995). 2005). and joint (common) dyadic coping. 2008). or relaxing together. negative. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber.e. Predictive studies showed that dyadic coping is associated with future relationship quality and stability (e. the quality of one’s own and the partner’s as well as the joint dyadic coping are positively related to marital quality and communication behaviors. On the basis of ration- . dyadic coping is considered (1) one partner’s attempt to help reduce the external stress perceived by his or her partner and (2) a common endeavor to cope with stress that originates inside the relationship. As opposed to supportive dyadic coping. Hogrefe AG. Ledermann et al. Negative dyadic coping includes three subforms: hostile dyadic coping (i. providing practical advice. 2000). 2007). 2006). the DCI is also appropriate for use in treatment designs. & Cina. support behaviors that are accompanied by disparagement. 2006. and superficial dyadic coping (i. we expect to find that communication of stress. In all three language groups. In addition. supportive. reluctant insufficient.g.g.

The Italian and French versions of the DCI are a literal translation of the original German DCI. 1984. 36. the items are to be rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very rarely. The Swiss German group consisted of 216 participants (50. In addition to providing demographic information. These subscales can be combined to create a total score with high scores indicating high marital quality. and 89%. relationship duration. . “My partner criticizes me in a sar- .9). Separate analyses were conducted for the items measuring one’s own coping behavior. and the French group of 198 (48. supportive dyadic coping.. On average.4) years.7 (SD = 11. Tenderness (e. . negative dyadic coping. and Togetherness/Communication (e. the Italian group of 378 (50. The translations were carried out by native French and Italian speakers. The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) for the German. Individuals reported a mean relationship duration of 6. the Italian. Psychol. Hogrefe AG. Factors were extracted using principal components analysis (PCA) and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Bern Procedure Participants were recruited both by newspaper advertisements and by posters at universities in Switzerland and Italy. With regard to their level of education. respectively.6) years for the German group.36). gender.g. Table 1 presents the item loadings for the postulated factors of one’s own and the partner’s dyadic coping. which is different for one’s own. Individuals interested in the study were mailed a packet of questionnaires together with instructions to complete the forms and return the packet to the institute within 2 weeks. 68% of the German group. 3 = sometimes. A backtranslation was undertaken by two native German speakers (one with a good knowledge of French. see also Christensen. 9 = very likely). such as age. and the French group. and following discussion of relationship problems. they had 2. The internal consistencies as measured by Cronbach’s α were . The rating scale ranges from never (0) to very often (3). the partner’s. Measures Partnership Questionnaire (Partnerschaftsfragebogen. mutual constructive communication (4 items). and 0. The inventory takes about 15 minutes to complete. marital status. 1988) is a 35-item questionnaire assessing communication behaviors at the beginning.22). “My partner is affectionate toward me”).g.64 for the mutual avoidance pattern. while the other attempts to avoid discussion (6 items). “My partner shares his/her thoughts and feelings with me”). For the Italian and the French group.9% women). Results Factor Structure The theoretical structure proposed by Bodenmann was tested by means of factor analyses with varimax rotation.22) children. 37 out of 68 items were selected.93 (SD = 1. and . that is. The mean ages were 28.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 203 al grounds and statistical analyses. The DCI scales and subscales along with their construction are listed in the Appendix (Table 1A). 1. and . Communication Patterns Questionnaire (CPQ) The CPQ (Christensen & Sullaway. and joint coping. and 11. and the joint dyadic coping. during. . The items are: “I ask my partner to do things for me when I have too much to do” and “My partner asks me to do things for him/her when he has too much to do.79 for mutual constructive pattern.76 for the demand-withdraw pattern. In all language versions of the DCI. 2 = rarely. and demand-withdraw.8 (SD = 11.82. 19% of the German group.72. 61% of the Italian group.7 (SD = 14. and 33.3) for the Italian group. As can be seen. The patterns are mutual avoidance (3 items). 14. The likelihood of these behaviors being exhibited was rated on a 9-point scale (1 = very unlikely. and .T. and delegated dyadic coping for both one’s own and the partner’s dyadic coping.4) for the French group.90.g.5% women).” respectively. The majority were living with their partners: 88%. the partner’s coping behavior. and . 28% of the Italian group.. the other with a good knowledge of Italian) and compared to the original version.73 (SD = 1. 4 often.8 (SD = 13. education. 1996) This is a 30-item questionnaire consisting of the three subscales Quarreling (e.. castic way”). 97%. Italian. Ledermann et al.6 (SD = 12. In addition. This indicates that these two items do not represent a distinct indicator of one’s own and the partner’s stress communication in the Italian or French Swiss J.72.88.73. and 73% of the French group had earned a university degree.84.3% women). The reason for conducting separate analyses is the perspective of the rater. Samples Participants in this study were 792 individuals (not couples) belonging to three language groups. one partner attempts to engage in discussion. and French groups were .3). 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber.69. 5 = very often). the German group’s data provide evidence for the postulated structure with the factors stress communication. and .01 (SD = 1.91 for the German. . and number of children. Hahlweg. . participants completed the measures described in the following.32 (SD = 8. and 43% of the French group were married. the proposed factors for one’s own and the partner’s coping were able to be replicated only after items 2 and 17 of the stress communication scales were excluded. an English version was derived by using the same translation process as for the Italian and French versions.

67 .00 .02 –.03 .15 –.02 .14 .15 .13 –.13 .18 –.92 .04 .12 –.06 . and 1.01 .14 – –.02 .15 .18 .73 .33 –.36 .15 .21 –.1%.22 .23 –. respectively.12 . 2. “I blame my partner for not coping well enough with stress”).04 .72 . DC = dyadic coping.87.25 –.15 .73 – .03 .76 – .04 .80 .04 .01 .25 .13 –. Ledermann et al. The eigenvalues were 1. These findings provide evidence for configural (form) invariance (Horn.2%.11 .41 .10 –.57.87.79 .54 – .05 One’s own dyadic coping .67 .25 –.30 –.10 .06 .30 .03 . we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using structural equation mod- .27 .72 .06 .64 .02 .05 .06 –.79 . and .25 .12 .01 –.13 –.67 –.57 for the French group.09 –.16 –.23 .91 Supportive DC German Italian French Negative DC German Italian French Delegated DC German Italian French Partner’s dyadic coping 14 . Items 2 and 17 were excluded from the Italian and French versions of the DCI. .34 .02 –.05 .79 .90 .85.00 .15 .84 .62 .29 .15 .00 –.84 .49.06 –.02 –.66.00 –. . The stress communication scales exhibit configural invariance only across the Italian and the French groups.04 –.08 . and .70 .69 .24 – .15 –.1% for the partner’s coping.17 – –. see also Vandenberg & Lance.19 –. On the basis of the PCA result. 1.17 .3%. .01 .04 –.74 –.16 –.01 –.07 –.23 .26 .34 .e.83 .86 .76 .63 .67 . . the loadings of the items on the designated factors were all above .11 .01 –.10 .25 –.08 –.84.71 .04 –.75 –.29 .27 – .74 .02 .01 –.07 .20 –.11 .34 –.02 –. and .19 –.09 .06 .70 .12 –.22 .02 . and 2.04 .16 –.79 . 50.01 .10 . and 62.86 .22 – .2%.09 .06 –.11 –.13 –.12 .83 .41 for the Italian.01 .86 .19 .24 .21 –.00 .23.16 .21 –.47 –.04 –.8% for one’s own coping and 65.71 .03 .14 .32 .02 –.13 .13 –.69 .04 –.00 .07 .07 –.00 .05 –.35 for the German.51. and .10 .14 .80.24 .24 . and 61.26 .03 .02 – .15 .74 .90 .71.09 .03 –.65 .03 –.47 –.87.64 . The explained variances were 51.36 .71 .58 .17 – .15 . however. and French groups were 62.13 .81 .08 .10 – .05 .12 –.81 . 85.94 .4%.54 .04 .76 .11 .19 .09 for the partner’s coping.79.204 T.06 –.77 .77 .72 .02 .19 .07 –.29 .76 .63 . McArdle.08 . 67. and 54.00 –.03 .08 .06 –.13 –.23 .07 –.14 –.14.11 –.71 .47 –.09 .79 . Psychol.03 –.80 .18 –. 1983. The shaded areas denote the expected factor structure.08 –.76 . Italian. .20 –.53 .04 – . respectively.51 .40.37 –.15 –.07 . Bern (items 31 to 35) were .03 –.23 .00 .18 .37 .38 .54 . .00 .13 .35 .07 .20 .10 .56 .02 –.75 .15 . .77 .07 .07 .77 .80 .14 .68 .35 .65 .54 .16 .26 –.79 . .69 .88 Note.03 .90 .87 .12.54 . The explained variances for the German.38.: Dyadic Coping Inventory Table 1 Item loadings for subscales of the German.50 with the exception of item 22 (i.86 .18 .01 . In all three language groups.37 –.04 –. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber.08 .06 –. group.10 – .23 .40 .15 .08.04 .30 .5%.01 –.84 .30 . 1.08 . Italian. 64.26 –.81 .78 .13 .01 . The cross-loadings were all below .1%.03 .34 –.27 .. The loadings of the items measuring this type of coping Swiss J.74 – . The results of the principal components analyses also provided evidence for the factor joint dyadic coping.18 – .04 –.29 .19 –.09 –.13 –.34 – .02 Italian . Hogrefe AG.04 French . 2000) of the dyadic coping scales across all three language groups.00 .23 –.06 .06 .05 .20 .23 .04 –.01 .84 .82 .12 .03 .10 .10 .06 –. The eigenvalues for the joint dyadic coping factor were 2.52 .05 .27 .67 .11 .35 in the French group.83.31 –. and French versions of the DCI Stress communication Item 1 2 3 4 20 21 23 24 29 22 25 26 27 28 30 16 17 18 19 5 6 8 9 13 7 10 11 15 12 German .01 –. .14 .87 .26 –. and 1. & Mason.05 –.46 –. whose loading was .12 .21 .00 –.13 for one’s own coping and 1.

e.002 < .25–. delegated dyadic coping by oneself and the partner and evaluation of dyadic coping were reasonable and reliable.085 .877 .47–.00 . we found reasonable reliabilities in the German and Italian groups for all subscales with two exceptions: The negative dyadic coping scales in both language groups and joint dyadic coping in the Italian group showed borderline reliabilities ranging from .946 1.57 – – 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 – – – – – – < .76 .76 .214 . The reliabilities of the subscales ranged for the German.164 .89 . 2004).86 .95 χ² df p RMSEA CFI Range of stand. and the evaluation of dyadic coping are shown in Table 3. In terms of model fit and the convention that the indicators should have standardized loadings of .13 56.001 – – – – – – .61–. just identified) and.89.001 < .90 .002 .889 1.87 .80 .20 50.065 .16–.84–.992 .569 .214 < .001 . Using the conventional standard of .924 .156 – – .62 to .02 33..864 .001 – – – – < .001 .92 .166 .001 < . the composite scales.52–.85 .35–.35 – – 42.001 .79 . stand = standardized.001 < .970 .009 . eling (SEM) techniques. df = degrees of freedom.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 205 Table 2 Model fit and range of standardized factor loadings of the DCI subscales and the evaluation scales Version Subscales scales Stress communication by oneself G I F Stress communication by the partner G I F Supportive DC by oneself G I F Supportive DC by the partner G I F Negative DC by oneself G I F Negative DC by the partner G I F Delegated DC by oneself G I F Delegated DC by the partner G I F Joint DC G I F Evaluation of DC G I 15. the loading of both indicators were constrained to one.243 – – . in models with two indicator variables.60–.85–.94 91.89–.92–.086 < .91 .90–.100 < . and the French groups from . loadings F – 0 – – – Note.57 .g.86.187 .69 .58–.92 1. and from .48 0.00 – – – – – – .001 – – < . from .71 .00 1.T.119 .74–.86 . consequently. Italian.75 .960 .84 .89.56–.45–.50 – – 27..01 4.49–.20 0.00 .91 .229 – – . Reliabilities and Item Correlations The reliabilities measured by Cronbach’s α and the corrected item-total correlations of the subscales. Schumacker & Lomax.001 < .43 . Ledermann et al.50 to . Hogrefe AG.84 .82 . respectively.929 – – .923 .67.61 to .204 . Psychol.65–.960 – – .905 .28–.001 < .83 .87 19.84 .78 83.17–.90 .89 . the loading of one indicator was set to one.997 .51–.72–. In the French group.847 – – .31–. Bern .13 9. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber.59–.025 .82–.70 .40 12.08 0.06 – – – – – – 34. Models with three or fewer indicators are saturated (i.990 .70 or higher (e. have zero degrees of freedom (df).965 1.45–. all subscales were reliable with the excepSwiss J.61 to . Factor loadings of models with a bad model fit are likely to be biased.82 .58–.70 as the minimal acceptable level of reliability.79 .001 .80 .77–. The model fit and the range of the standardized factor loadings of the dyadic coping subscales and the scales measuring evaluation of dyadic coping are presented in Table 2.80–. All other scales were either inconsistent with the data or showed low loadings or both.51–. In models with three or more indicator variables.

10 3.53 .62 .39 .53 14.90 3.91 0.80 3.50 0.44 3.015 .71 .61 .77 .15 0.98 3.19** 0. . = reliability (Cronbach’s α).84 to . Rel. and French groups German Variable Subscales Stress communication by oneself Stress communication by the partner Supportive DC by oneself Supportive DC by the partner Negative DC by oneself Negative DC by the partner Delegated DC by oneself Delegated DC by the partner Joint DC Composite scales DC total by oneself DC total by the partner DC total 4.83 .44 3.19–.78 .86 .70 .48 0.50–.73 .71 .006 . = corrected item-total correlation. DC = dyadic coping. which yielded a borderline reliability of .75 .93 0.07–.78 .37 0.83 . Italian.27–.42 3.: Dyadic Coping Inventory Table 3 Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) and range of corrected item-total correlations for the German.46–71 .70–.68 .68 .42 0. Evaluation of DC .42 1.00 9.60 .45 0.74 .51 .04 3.80 0.43 0. Item corr.70 .50 0. Ledermann et al.013 .64 3.17 – – .73 0.76 0. Item corr.80 .003 .01 133.87 0.35 3. Italian.72 .61 31–. and negative dyadic coping.78 .66 0.79 .46–. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber.005 .77 0.23–.64.77 0. Psychol.55 .50 0.60 Rel.20–.08–.57 3.23–.74 .88 1.12 8.28 0.67 0.91 3.55–.09–.50 . tion of stress communication by oneself.55–.58 0. and evaluation of dyadic coping.00 3.49 0. and French groups German N = 216 Variable Subscales Stress communication by oneself Stress communication by the partner Supportive DC by oneself Supportive DC by the partner Negative DC by oneself Negative DC by the partner Delegated DC by oneself Delegated DC by the partner Joint DC Composite scales DC total by oneself DC total by the partner DC total . whose reliability was very low.05.66 .57 . *p < . Swiss J.14 4.92*** .08–.92.51–.42–.35 1. Bern Means and Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations Among Subscales Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for all three language groups.69 .91 .84 0.89 .43 3.48 13.51–. ***p < .69 .96 126.57–.30 3.84 .60 0.030 3.86 0.75 .27 3.75 .73 .82 .16 3.78 .03–. The reliabilities for the three composite scales were reasonable with the exception of the borderline reliability for dyadic coping by oneself total in the French group. **p < .97 125.80 .70 Note.51 . DC = dyadic coping.90 .81 1.001.001 .21 – 12.49 .62 .82 .89 0.81 .76 1.84 0.55–.46 0.57 0. There were reasonable reliabilities for evaluation of dyadic coping across all three language groups that ranged from .01.035 M SD Italian M SD French M SD F η2 Evaluation of DC 4.70 – –* 1.82 Note.82 .87 0.31–.61 .36 1.206 T.08 3.29 0.90 .92 . Item corr.40–.86 .002 – .55–.09** 1.03 3. Table 4 Means and standard deviations and results of the analysis of variance for the German. Hogrefe AG.53 .67 .38–. Italian N = 378 Rel.83 4.018 .63 . French N = 198 Rel. Substantial group differences were revealed for negative dyadic coping by oneself.76 .70 .42 3.79 0.69 .86 .46–.81 .72 .54 0.82 0.48 3.59 3.64 .20 3.69 .44 1.62 . Item corr.64 .44 0.68 .63 3.06 4.68 0.25–.68 .03 3.51 15.89 0.14–.35–.90 .49 1.89 . delegated dyadic coping by oneself.84 .76 .46 .76 .75 .

T. Bern . 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber. Hogrefe AG.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 207 Swiss J. Ledermann et al. Psychol.

Finally. the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by oneself and supportive dyadic coping by oneself was substantially lower for the Italian group relative to the other two groups. three substantial differences were revealed.50) across all three language groups were found for the correlations between dyadic coping by oneself and by the partner. Intercorrelations among the scales and subscales are given in Table 5. In the German and French group. between a small and a medium effect) or higher as substantial. between joint dyadic coping and supportive dyadic coping by oneself and the partner. the means of the subscales measuring negative dyadic coping were somewhat lower than for the other subscales (Table 4). between evaluation and supportive dyadic coping by the partner.: Dyadic Coping Inventory In all three cases. stress communication by oneself and by the partner were most strongly related to marital quality and most weakly with CPQ demand-withdraw across all three language samples. assessed by the Communication Patterns Questionnaire (CPQ). the dyadic coping scales were correlated with marital quality.e. the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by the partner and supportive dyadic coping by the partner was substantially stronger for the German group than for the other two groups. between dyadic coping by the partner and joint dyadic coping. Second. between supportive dyadic coping by oneself and the partner.208 T. Strong effects (≥ . Among the dyadic coping subscales. Using this criterion. we consider a difference of . one’s own stress communication was a better predictor for marital quality than the partner’s stress communication. between negative dyadic coping by oneself and the partner. Bern . Correlations with Other Constructs In order to test aspects of construct validity. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber. supportive dyadic coping by oneself was less correlated with CPQ demand-withdraw than the other subscales. The intercorrelations are depicted in Table 6. As can be seen. The direction and magnitude of the correlations were largely as expected. measured by the relationship questionnaire. and communication behaviors.20. which allows a sample size independent comparison. the strongest correlations with marital quality and CPQ avoidance and CPQ constructive communication were found for both forms of supportive and negative dyadic coping and joint dyadic coping. between dyadic coping by the partner and evaluation.. Psychol. Ledermann et al. All other group differences were smaller than . First. Delegated dyadic coping was generally less associated with marital communication and CPQ communication than stress communication and the other dyadic Swiss J. and between evaluation and joint dyadic coping. Hogrefe AG. Among them. Furthermore.20 (i. the means were somewhat higher in the Swiss German group. To examine differences in the correlations between groups. the association between delegated dyadic coping by the partner and supportive dyadic coping by oneself was much stronger for the German group than for both the Italian and the French groups.

05.51*** 0.23*** 0.33*** –0.51*** –0.38*** 0.08 –0.47*** –0.42*** 0.39*** –0.15* –0.33*** 0.55*** –0. Bern . I = Italian. Psychol.54*** 0.46*** –0.70*** 0.63*** 0.55*** –0.26*** –0.30*** –0.27*** 0.27*** 0.48*** –0.55*** –0.40*** 0.22** –0. Ledermann et al.29*** 0.56*** 0.14** –0.68*** 0.50*** 0.26*** –0.47*** –0.35*** 0.T.11* –0.26*** 0.07 –0.31*** 0.40*** –0.51*** –0.55*** –0.51*** 0.22** –0.12* –0.63*** 0.24*** 0. **p < .38*** –0.32*** –0.26*** –0.41*** –0.34*** 0.67*** –0.15* –0.58*** 0.36*** 0.34*** –0.41*** 0.57*** 0.60*** 0.64*** 0.74*** 0.11 –0.32*** –0.37*** 0.15* –0.24*** –0.12* –0.30*** 0.48*** 0.51*** –0.30*** –0.46*** 0.32*** –0.21** 0.33*** –0.52*** –0.56*** 0.06 0.17** –0.71*** 0.37*** –0.52*** –0.30*** 0.35*** –0.36*** 0.19** –0. F = French. *p < .33*** –0.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 209 Table 6 Correlations of the dyadic coping scales with marital quality and marital communication patterns (CPQ) Variable Subscales Stress communication by oneself G I F Stress communication by the partner G I F Supportive DC by oneself G I F Supportive DC by the partner G I F Negative DC by oneself G I F Negative DC by the partner G I F Delegated DC by oneself G I F Delegated DC by the partner G I F Joint DC G I F Composite scales DC total by oneself G I F DC total by the partner G I F DC total G I F Evaluation of DC G I F 0.41*** –0.55*** 0.03 –0.64*** –0.29*** –0.38*** –0.27*** 0. Hogrefe AG.31*** 0.23*** –0.49*** –0.26*** 0. Swiss J.07 –0.42*** 0.35*** –0.001.21*** 0.13 –0.25*** 0.27*** 0.43*** 0.48*** –0.64*** 0.31*** 0.40*** 0.31*** –0. G = German.26*** 0.60*** –0.51*** –0.34*** 0.30*** 0.41*** Version Marital quality CPQ avoidance CPQ constructive CPQ demand-withdraw Note.15** 0.23** 0.40*** –0.31*** –0.47*** 0.46*** 0.32*** –0.42*** –0.61*** 0.35*** 0.36*** 0.35*** –0.48*** 0. DC = dyadic coping.44*** 0.50*** 0.43*** 0.01.62*** –0.19*** –0.41*** –0.21** 0.53*** –0.29*** 0. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber.31*** 0.48*** 0. ***p < .68*** 0.21*** –0.19** –0.32*** –0.50*** 0.13* 0.05 –0.45*** 0.35*** –0.19** –0.36*** –0.26*** –0.35*** 0.60*** 0.08 0.68*** 0.

the findings provide evidence for the reliability and aspects of validity of the DCI as well as for the consistent factor structure of the DCI across the three language verSwiss J. there are three generic data-analytic models that take into account the nonindependence of such data (see. Gmelch et al. The CFM (e. whose factor structure is not configural invariant across the three groups. observational data would be needed to control for this effect. in couples in stable relationships. the DCI focuses explicitly on the support provided by the partner when a person feels stressed. 378 Italian-. which allows an assessment of one’s own as well as the partner’s rating.. the results were in line with previous findings (e. and 198 Frenchspeaking participants support the proposed factor structure of the inventory after excluding two items from the stress communication scales in the Italian and French versions. especially in the field of couples and family research but also in social. Griffin & Gonzalez. and prognostic validity).g. When collecting data from dyads. The generalizability of the presented results. both higher means and internal consistencies have been found (Bodenmann. in all three samples. The third exception was the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by the partner and supportive dyadic coping by the partner. 1996) is theoretically limited to variables representing dyadic constructs whose focus is on the dyad rather than the individual (see Ledermann & Macho. The second exception was the association between delegated dyadic coping by the partner and supportive dyadic coping by oneself. that data may be biased by self-evaluation of dyadic coping and marital quality or communication... It is possible. the means for negative dyadic coping were low and that high scores (i. the wife’s and husband’s stress communication could be implemented as independent variables. Ledermann et al. the internal consistencies of all scales and subscales were good and comparable with previously reported results (Bodenmann. Discussion Along with introducing the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) and its theoretical background. divergent. Intercorrelations among the DCI scales and subscales were similar across all three languages groups with three exceptions. 1995.g. These types of . With regard to the association between the dyadic coping scales and marital functioning in the form of marital quality and dyadic communication. who found that a high score on negative dyadic coping is a good indicator of low relationship quality. The first exception was the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by oneself and supportive dyadic coping by oneself.. The models are called the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM). a researcher may employ the APIM to test the influence of a wife’s stress communication on her own positive dyadic coping (actor effect) and on her partner’s positive dyadic coping (partner effect). 2008) and support the predictive validity of the DCI. we are also aware that further research is needed in Italian and French samples to yield information about different types of validity (convergent. All dyadic coping scales are suitable for use in an APIM or a MIM.: Dyadic Coping Inventory coping measures. with delegated coping as a dependent variable to assess the reciprocal effects between wife’s and husband’s delegated coping. it is unlikely to observe a high mean on negative dyadic coping. the common fate model (CFM). 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber. the goals of this article were (1) to investigate the reliability and aspects of the validity of the Italian and French versions of the DCI and (2) to replicate previous results on the factor structure and internal consistency of the German DCI using a new Swiss sample. the variable joint dyadic coping is particularly suitable for being modeled as a common fate factor with wife’s and husband’s self-rated joint dyadic coping as indicator variables (considering that joint dyadic coping as a person’s individual attitude toward the dyadic construct joint dyadic coping can also be used in an APIM). e. 2008). however. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that delegated dyadic coping by oneself and the partner and evaluation of dyadic coping were reasonable and reliable in terms of model fit and factor loadings. In more diverse samples.. Bodenmann. The results of the principal component analyses based on 216 German-. can be employed in psychological research. Exceptions are French negative dyadic coping.e. Bern sions.210 T. In contrast to instruments measuring social support (e. Winkeler & Klauer. Among the DCI scales. Hogrefe AG. personality. criterion. 2008.g.g. Kenny. 1996). 2008). Thus. The low reliabilities of the negative dyadic coping scales may be due mainly to the fact that. 2009). The three composite scales and evaluation of dyadic coping were similarly correlated with martial quality and the three CPQ scales. four or five) were rarely reported by the participants. which do not allow us to analyze correlations between partners. whose reliability was low. A second limitation is that only individual data were gathered. A first limitation is that the samples were not representative. however. Psychol. Using the MIM. Moreover. and stress communication. For example. must be qualified by several limitations. and clinical psychology. Moreover. The selection of the scales and the data-analytic model along with the setup of the model should be guided by the hypotheses to be tested. With the exception of the subscales measuring negative dyadic coping. Finally. 2003). Among the dyadic coping scales. A third limitation concerns the use of self-report data in testing aspects of validity. This is in accordance with observations made by Bodenmann (2000). The instrument. 2008).. In sum. so that the reported means should not have been used as norm values to compare the means of other studies with the sample means of this study. and the mutual influence model (MIM). 2005. it can be used to assess the quality of dyadic coping in a person or a couple by computing an idiographic profile for each person (see Bodenmann. Kenny. associations between delegated dyadic coping and marital communication were generally somewhat lower.

Ledermann. D. it is evident that such analyses should be done before the DCI is published in the form of a test manual in French or Italian. Swiss Journal of Psychology... G. (2004). (1988). Bodenmann.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 211 validity were deemed adequate for the German version of the DCI (Bodenmann. Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. C. 2008). Despite these limitations. T.). Sarason. Gmelch. & Gonzalez. Bodenmann. Couples coping with myocardial infarction: Contextual perspective on patient self-efficacy. and community. Ellard. & Mason. Coyne. P. Fitzpatrick (Eds.. DeLongis. G. K. London. Ledermann. (1984). 279–294. A. Stress and coping in later-life families (pp. and well-being: A two year longitudinal study. & O’Brien. S. H. Bodenmann. & D. Berg. C. & Smith. Sarason. (1990). A. New York: Plenum. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 44. 13. 22. 33–50). 239–261. J. Coyne. Griffin.. A. C. D. 71–89. 2008). Stephens. (1997). Crowther. Göttingen: Hogrefe.. K. and unhelpful exchanges. Meuwly. F. Bodenmann. K. New York: Wiley. Perspectives on marital interaction (pp.. 1–13. (1999). 129–149).). E. CA: Sage.. K. McArdle. Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp.. A. & Strainchamps. Psychology of Women Quarterly. & Deviney. The DCI might be especially useful for gaining a better understanding of couples’ coping behaviors in relationship research. E. Buchwald. Los Angeles. (1995). & Sullaway.. S. T. Coyne.). CA: University of California. L. Thousand Oaks. J. Duck (Ed. & Kayser. sex. (1998). G. & Smith. Switzerland: Huber. we believe that the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) could be a valuable instrument for couples’ research and clinical practice. Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: A contextual perspective on wives’ distress. 137–140. Noller & M. (1998). (2006). & Hobfoll. S. C. stable-distressed and separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. & G. 485–493. 20. A systemic-transactional view of stress and coping in couples. B. Authors’ Note The items along with the instructions for the Dyadic Coping Inventory in English. Stress. M. Personal relationships and social support (pp. G. 221–240). Kayser. Psychol. Dyadic coping – a systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. Bodenmann.uzh. Bodenmann. G. 725–739. 551–569. Stress und Coping bei Paaren [Stress and coping in couples]. 179–188. Hobfoll. & Smith. Bern . In P. P. M. T. 20. Communication patterns questionnaire. Washington. Stress gemeinsam bewältigen: Ressourcenmanagement und multiaxiales Coping [Coping with stress together: Resource management and multiaxial coping]. J. W. N. A social contextual model of coping with everyday problems across the life span. & Perrez. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. P. F. G. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Italian. In M. Revenson. S. 4–25. P. Philadelphia. G. A. (1990). we did not conduct separate factor analyses separately for men and women in this paper as three language groups were examined. D. Horn. J.). and satisfaction in marriage. Pihet. Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik (FPD) [Partnership questionnaire]. Bodenmann (Eds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In T. Christensen. Along with the Relationship-Focused Coping Scale (RFCS) by Coyne and Smith (1991). Bodenmann. (1994). 23.. 4. When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist’s look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. Cutrona. G. 430–445. J... Bodenmann. O.. Personal Relationships. (1991). Stress. Pierce (Eds. Kenny. culture. Hahlweg. J. and French can be ordered from Guy Bodenmann (guy. 54. An interpersonal framework for stress and coping: An application to the families of Alzheimer’s patients. (1995). (1990). Ledermann et al. The relationship between dyadic coping. Stress and coping among stable-satisfied. 31–52). Southern Psychologist. D. Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. the DCI is one of the only scales that measures dyadic coping in couples. 61. G.. Hobfoll. Hogrefe AG. 118. A. Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI): Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung des partnerschaftlichen Umgangs mit Stress [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI): A questionnaire assessing dyadic coping in couples]. Such data are available for the German version of the DCI (Bodenmann. J.. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. N. Unpublished manuscript. D. & Striegl.. R. Christensen. A. M. (2007).. In I.. Unsupportive relationships. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung. (2005). (1996). Journal of Family Psychology. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung. A. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber. (1991). interdependence. (2006). S. Women coping with cancer: The influence of relationship factors on psychosocial adjustment. J. E.. (2008).. (2008). Steffen-Sozinova.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. K. S. A. marital quality. E. As mentioned above. 8.. (1996). A.. Tennenbaum (Eds. R. in order to reduce complexity. (Eds. L.. 46–65). Swiss J. Interactive coping: The cheering-up process in close relationships. New York: Hemisphere. C.T.). However. & Cina. Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. Psychological Bulletin. & Bradbury. Bodenmann. 185–203. F. A. G. PA: Multilingual Matters. G. European Review of Applied Psychology. P.bodenmann@psychologie. Bern. Bodenmann. Dyadisches Coping: Eine systemische Betrachtungsweise der Belastungsbewältigung in Partnerschaften [Dyadic coping: A systemic perspective on coping in couples].). Social support: An interactional view (pp. Göttingen: Hogrefe. 404–412. 3. Schwarzer. Kayser. Meegan. Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of stress. R. (2000). A.ch). 34–49. T. C.. The German version is available from Verlag Hans Huber. In S. (1983). (1996). UK: Sage. Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. 14. 47. H. Sormanti. DC: American Psychological Association.. References Barbee. & G. Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual [Dyadic Coping Inventory: Test manual].

5 = 1). 3. & Cina. 8. M.. appraisal. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed. Mickelson. Mediation in dyadic data at the level of the dyads: A structural equation modeling approach. 11r. 29. R. S. 4 16... (2003). 29. M. 25r. Lyons. 3. G. Vandenberg. 10r. (1966). 13. Williamson. 35 Note. 8. E.: Dyadic Coping Inventory Lazarus. & Macho. J. 24. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber. (1984). Ledermann. 24. Thomas Ledermann Department of Psychology University of Connecticut Storrs. K. S. and recommendations for organizational research.. (1992). 18. G. 19. 27r. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 12.. r = reverse-scored (i. 10–18. 49. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 16. New York: Springer. (2). R. 9. 26. Sullivan. C.e. 11. 22r. 21. 13. Schumacker. 19. 12. Psychol. Widmer. Journal of Family Psychology. I. DC = dyadic coping. 30 5. coping and well-being in couples: An analysis of gender differences]. 3. L.. 34. Hogrefe AG. S. J. 26r. Swiss J. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions. 15r. 661–670. G. 30. 2–21. 6.. T. (1998). & Klauer. Bodenmann. Impact of desired relationship type on affective reactions to choosing and being required to help. 18. K.. 23. Diagnostica. 22r. G. (17).. 15 31 to 35 36. 1 = 5. 19 20. The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction.. 28. C. S. (2000). 11r. 18. Organizational Research Methods. 26r. & Schooler. practic- es. (2009). CT 06269-1020 USA thomas. 23. (2). 20. Winkeler. 105–115. & Clark. 10. Ledermann et al. R. 28. Coping und Befindlichkeit: Paare im Geschlechtervergleich [Everyday stress. C. M. 9. 37 20. M. K.. 2 = 4. 9. 29 5.. Bern . Ledermann. 24. G. aItalian and French versions without Item 2 and 17. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. The efficacy of the Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) in improving relationship quality. 15r. R. Stress. 12–23. 21. Alltagsstress. Lazarus. 6. & Bodenmann. (1978). 4–70. 27r. Mahwah. 7r. J. 25r. 4 = 2.. & Bodenmann.edu Appendix A Table 1A The DCI scales and subscales and their construction Scale Stress communication by oneselfa Stress communication by the partnera Supportive DC by oneself Supportive DC by the partner Delegated DC by oneself Delegated DC by the partner Negative DC by oneself Negative DC by the partner Joint DC Evaluation of the quality of DC DC total by oneself DC total by the partnera DC total No. 6. L. (2009). R. 5. Pearlin. 29. A. 13 28. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie. 9. 14. 4. New York: McGraw-Hill. 940–959. The structure of coping. Inventar zur sozialen Unterstützung in Dyaden (ISU-DYA): Konstruktionshintergrund und erste Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Validität [Inventory of social support in dyads: Construction and initial results on reliability and validity]. D. & Folkman. 33. (2007)... T. 7r. of items 4/3 4/3 4 4 2 2 4 4 5 2 11 11 35/33 Items 1. 14 1. F. 17–26.212 T. 31. & Coyne. and coping. Coping as a communal process. 32. (2000). 8. T.). S. NJ: Erlbaum. (2004). 10r. Randall. 21. E. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. & Lance. (17). 15.ledermann@uconn. A. Clinical Psychology Review. & Lomax. Psychological stress and the coping process. 23. 30 12. 14 22. 25 to 27 7. 579–605. R. 23.