Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index.

By Janette L Funk, Ronald D. Rogge. Journal of family psychology, 2007

1,759 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7e6a9c4cf6a01d5f3d23ba28d3b4bd548e96e1c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Mindfully in Love: A Meta-Analysis of the Association Between Mindfulness and Relationship Satisfaction (2016, methodology): “The Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007), a scale that measures relationship satisfaction or happiness, was used in one of the studies.”
An IRT analysis of motive questionnaires: The Unified Motive Scales (2012, background): “3 There is empirical evidence that diferent response formats within one scale are no obstacle for measuring the same latent construct (Funk & Rogge, 2007; Hohensinn & Kubinger, 2011). the structure of the motive scales and to finally construct the UMS.”
The positive and negative semantic dimensions of relationship satisfaction (2013, methodology): “Using IRT analysis, Funk and Rogge (2007) identified these items as providing the most information about relationship satisfaction from a pool of 176 items sampled mostly from 12 predominant measures of relationship satisfaction (e.”
The Role of Sleep in Interpersonal Conflict (2014, methodology): “Participants also completed measures of relationship satisfaction (Funk & Rogge, 2007; a¼ .89) and depressive symptoms (Radloff, 1977; a ¼ .87) prior to their laboratory session.”
Daily exposure to negative campaign messages decreases same-sex couples’ psychological and relational well-being (2016, neutral): “The four-item version of the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007) was included to assess individuals’ satisfaction with their current primary romantic relationships.”
Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review (2013, methodology): “We recommend that future large epidemiological studies consider a more recently developed, but brief, four-item Couples Satisfaction Inventory that was developed empirically based on item analyses of the most commonly used marital quality measures (Funk & Rogge, 2007).”
SPIRITUAL BEHAVIORS AND RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF PRAYER (2008, methodology): “Again the Funk and Rogge (2007) measure used in Study 1 served as an assessment of relationship satisfaction.”
Subjective correlates and consequences of belief in free will (2016, methodology): “Relationship satisfaction was measured using a four-item measure of relationship satisfaction developed by Funk and Rogge (2007), which included items such as “How rewarding is your relationship with your partner?””
The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy: Men Who Perceive Women's Nurturance and Sexuality as Mutually Exclusive Endorse Patriarchy and Show Lower Relationship Satisfaction (2018, methodology): “Using a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (all the time), participants filled out a 14-item version of the Couple Satisfaction Inventory (translated by the authors from Funk and Rogge 2007).”
The differential effects of parental divorce and marital conflict on young adult romantic relationships (2010, methodology): “Specifically, we used four items from the couple satisfaction index (Funk & Rogge, 2007) to form the construct of relationship quality: satisfaction (from 1 = worse than all others/extremely bad to 6 = better than all others/extremely good ), reward (from 1 = not at all to 6 = very much or…”
Understanding relationship quality: theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment (2010, methodology): “As with the concerns raised by the noise in measurement of the MAT and DAS, only time will reveal how forcing negative and positive evaluations onto a single scale might have obscured many potentially interesting and informative results.”