RELATE: Relationship Evaluation of the Individual, Family, Cultural, and Couple Contexts*

By D. Busby, Thomas B. Holman, N. Taniguchi. 2001

365 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Using Technology to Connect in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Attachment, Relationship Satisfaction, and Stability in Emerging Adults (2013, methodology): “…to have test-retest reliability values Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 323 between .78 and .86, to be appropriately correlated with other relationship quality measures, and to be valid in cross-sectional and longitudinal research (Busby et al., 2001, 2007, 2009).”
Measuring Marital Satisfaction: A Comparison of the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Satisfaction with Married Life Scale (2009, methodology): “Future research may include comparing the SWML to other marital satisfaction instruments such as the RELATionship Evaluation questionnaire (Busby, Holman, & Taniguchi, 2001 ), Martial Adjustment Scale (MAT: Locke & Wallace, 1959 ), Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983 ), and Kansas Marital Sat”
Materialism, Perceived Financial Problems, and Marital Satisfaction (2007, background): “This may be a particularly useful approach to assessing the impacts of materialism on marriages given that other scholars have shown that reports on spouse typically have a stronger relationship than reports on self on spouses’ perceptions of relationship quality (Busby et al., 2001).”
Couple Communication as a Mediator Between Work–Family Conflict and Marital Satisfaction (2013, neutral): “See Busby et al. (2001) for more detail.”