The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI)

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

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 20-30 years of converging results Clearly measure satisfaction Limitations 20-30 years old Heterogeneous content Unknown noise

4. Existing Scales

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 5Agreement on: FRIENDS

8. Study 1: Goals Evaluate current scales 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. Relationship Quality

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.)

14. QMI-1We have a good relationship

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

16. DAS/MAT 5Agreement on: FRIENDS

17. DAS/MAT 6Agreement on: SEX RELATIONS

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

19. MAT 12In 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 = 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

26. Correlations with Anchors

27. Criterion Validity DAS Distress groups 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 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 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 More information Less noise More power Better thermometers NEXT STEP True over time? Better at detecting change?

38. Studies 2, 3, 4: Method Study 2 596 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) CSI, MAT, DAS 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: 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)

41. Change Criterion 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

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?

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?

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 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

54. Norms in Dating Individuals

55. Norms in Engaged Individuals

56. Norms in Married Individuals

57. Norms in Married Individuals