Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582

DOI 10.1007/s12144-015-9323-0

Dyadic Coping in the U.S.: Psychometric Properties

and Validity for Use of the English Version
of the Dyadic Coping Inventory
Ashley K. Randall 1 & Peter Hilpert 2 & Laura E. Jimenez-Arista 1 & Kelsey J. Walsh 1 &
Guy Bodenmann 3

Published online: 9 April 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract A majority of individuals living in the U.S. experi- Being “stressed out” may be the new normal, according to the
ence unhealthy levels of stress; however, romantic partners Stress in America survey published by the American
can help mitigate stress’ deleterious effects by coping together Psychological American Psychological Association (2013).
(dyadic coping). The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) mea- People in the U.S. experience unhealthy levels of stress, and
sures coping behaviors when one or both partners experience report not being able to effectively manage their stress. For
stress. Specifically, the DCI measures a) partner’s self-report decades, research on stress has shown its ubiquitous negative
of his/her own (Self) and their partner’s (Partner) behavior, effects on individual (Coyne and Downey 1991) and relational
and b) Common DC during the experience of a common (Randall and Bodenmann 2009) well-being. While stress and
stressor. Despite its wide use, the DCI has not yet been vali- coping have traditionally been considered individual con-
dated for use in the United States (U.S.). The aim of this study structs (Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend 1974; Hobfoll et al.
was to address this gap in the literature. Using a sample of 938 1994; Lazarus and Folkman 1984), recent theoretical models
individuals in the U.S. currently involved in a romantic rela- (e.g., Berg and Upchurch 2007; Kayser et al. 2007; Revenson
tionship, we validated the English version of the DCI by an- et al. 2005) and empirical research (e.g., Falconier et al. 2014;
alyzing its factorial structure and psychometric properties. Randall and Bodenmann 2009) support the notion of examin-
Results supported the theoretically assumed factorial structure ing stress and coping as dyadic constructs.
of the DCI. Convergent and discriminant validity, as well as Relationship researchers and clinicians interested in under-
measurement invariance across gender and culture using the standing stress from a dyadic perspective should take into con-
original Swiss sample, was confirmed. The English version of sideration the origin of the stress (Randall and Bodenmann
the DCI is a valid self-report instrument for assessing couples' 2009). Stress that occurs outside one’s relationship (external
coping in the U.S. stress) may initially only affect one partner; however, the ef-
fects of this stress can spill-over into the relationship causing
stress for both partners (internal stress; Bodenmann et al.
Keywords Dyadic coping . Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) . 2007). For example, everyday stressors, such as having a bad
Psychometric properties . Stress . Couples day at work, can affect a person even after they have left the
office, decreasing communication and time spent with one’s
partner when they arrive home (e.g., Repetti 1989). Couples
that are able to positively cope with stress together (dyadic
* Ashley K. Randall coping) can, however, alleviate stress’ negative effects
[Link]@[Link]
(Bodenmann et al. 2006; Bodenmann and Randall 2011;
Merz et al. 2014; Papp and Witt 2010).
1
Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Arizona State University, The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann 2008) is
446 Payne Hall, Tempe, AZ 85287-0811, USA a widely used self-report instrument designed to measure dy-
2
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, University of adic coping between partners (e.g., Austin and Falconier
Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 2013; Heinrichs et al. 2011; Meuwly et al. 2012). The DCI
3
Department of Psychology, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland measures partners’ behaviors when one or both partners
Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582 571

experience stress: partner’s report on his/her own (Self) and and German (Ledermann et al. 2010). However, studies using
their partner’s (Partner) behavior, as well as what happens confirmatory factor analysis showed a slightly different struc-
when they both face a common stressor (Common DC). ture after removing several items that load the least: five factors
While the original German version of the DCI has been trans- for DC by Self and Partner (Stress Communication, Emotion-
lated and validated in several languages (Donato et al. 2009; Focused SDC, Problem-Focused SDC, Delegated DC, and
Falconier et al. 2013; Ledermann et al. 2010; Vedes et al. Negative DC) and two factors for CDC (Emotion-Focused
2013), this measure has not been validated for use in the and Problem-Focused) for Italian (Donato et al. 2009),
U.S. To address this gap, we used a sample of 938 individuals Spanish (Falconier et al. 2013), and Portuguese (Vedes et al.
in the U.S. who are currently involved in romantic relationship 2013). Thus it seems that by using confirmatory factor analy-
to evaluate psychometric properties and validity of the English sis, supportive DC can be differentiated into emotion-focused
version of the DCI. and problem-focused behavior.

Empirical Support for the DCI The DCI has been used in
Theoretical Basis of the Dyadic Coping Inventory multiple research contexts across the world. One such area is
(DCI) relationship functioning, where the scale was used to examine
the role of dyadic coping on relationship satisfaction
According to the systemic-transactional model (STM) of dyadic (Bodenmann et al. 2006; Bodenmann et al. 2011; Herzberg
coping (Bodenmann 1995), stress and coping are considered 2013; Levesque et al. 2014; Papp and Witt 2010). The DCI
systemic constructs. The STM is a multi-dimensional model that has also been utilized in studies that have examined stress
takes into consideration both partners’ stress signals and reac- (Falconier et al. 2013; Falconier et al. 2014) and chronic illness
tions towards a stressful situation. Take for example a couple (e.g., Badr et al. 2010; Zimmerman et al. 2011). Other studies
wherein Partner A is stressed and seeks support from Partner B; have used the DCI to examine the role of dyadic coping with
the STM of dyadic coping examines: (1) how Partner A com- particular personality traits such as attachment (Meuwly et al.
municates the stress verbally and/or nonverbally to his/her 2012), spirituality (Austin and Falconier 2013), and perception
Partner (Stress Communication), (2) whether Partner B engages (Donato et al. 2009). The DCI has been used with middle-aged
in supportive behaviors such as trying to understand or empa- and elderly couples (Landis et al. 2013), and with heterosexual
thize with Partner A (Emotion-Focused Supportive Dyadic and same-sex couples (Meuwly et al. 2013; Weaver 2014). In
Coping (SDC)), (3) whether Partner B tries to find solutions or sum, the DCI is a widely used measure amongst different de-
reframes the problem for Partner A (Problem-Focused SDC), mographics of couples, context of stressors, and countries.
(4) whether Partner B tries to subsume some of Partner A’s
responsibilities to help reduce the stress (Delegated Dyadic Present Study
Coping (DC)), or (5) whether Partner B dismisses or minimizes
Partner A’s stressful experience (Negative DC). In addition, the Given the epidemic of stress in the U.S., and evidence sug-
STM conceptualizes partners’ common coping resources when gesting that partners can help to effectively cope with stress
partners experience common stressors (e.g., financial or familial (dyadic coping), there is a need for an empirically validated
issues): (1) Emotion-Focused Common Dyadic Coping (CDC), self-report measure that assesses partners’ dyadic coping be-
which includes sharing feelings about the stressor, and (2) haviors. Using a sample of individuals currently in a commit-
Problem-Focused CDC), which includes seeking common so- ted romantic relationship, we tested the psychometric proper-
lutions in an attempt to cope with the stressor. ties of the English version of the DCI. Based on prior valida-
tion studies (e.g., Vedes et al. 2013), we hypothesized that our
Description of the DCI The DCI (Bodenmann 2008) is a 37- analysis would result in a five-factor solution for DC for Self
item self-report measure that was developed based on the STM and Partner and two factors for CDC. In addition, we tested
of dyadic coping (Bodenmann 1995). The DCI is a theoreti- for measurement invariance (MI) between gender and across
cally based multi-faceted instrument that allows researchers culture (Vandenberg and Lance 2000).
and clinicians to work with the appraisals of each partner’s
coping behaviors and the couple’s common coping behaviors,
as measured by subscales and aggregate scales. In the original Method
German version of the DCI (Bodenmann 2008), exploratory
factor analyses confirmed a four factor structure for DC by Self Recruitment and Participants
and Partner (Stress Communication, Positive Supportive DC,
Delegated DC, and Negative DC) and one factor structure for Participants were recruited by undergraduate and graduate
CDC. These factor structures were replicated using exploratory students at a large university in the Southwest. Students
factor analysis in a study validating the DCI in Italian, French, earned extra credit by passing a flyer on to other individuals
572 Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582

(e.g., friends, co-workers, and family members) who met the Swiss Sample to test MI Across Culture In order to test for
study criteria, or by participating in the study if they met the MI across culture, we used a sample of 368 couples (N = 736
eligibility criteria. Participants had to meet the following individuals) from the German region of Switzerland where the
criteria in order to participate: (1) over the age of 18, (2) DCI was originally developed. Participants’ age ranged from
married or cohabitating with their romantic partner for at least 19 to 82 years old (MMen = 49.3, SD =18.3; MWomen = 47.3,
2 years, and (3) living in the U.S. Informed consent was ob- SD =18.4), with an average relationship duration of 21.4 years
tained from all individual participants included in the study. (SD = 18.2).
The original sample consisted of 1207 individuals who
agreed to participate; however, only 989 participants complet- Procedures
ed the relevant survey measures. Additionally, 51 participants
were excluded from the current analyses because they did not All data collection took place online via a secure website.
meet our inclusion criteria of being in a relationship for at least Participants received a study flyer detailing the eligibility
2 years. Our final sample included 938 individuals (29.2 % criteria of the study, along with instructions to log on to the
men and 70.8 % women) ranging in age from 18 to 75 years secure website to complete the survey. The first page of the
old (MMen = 32.4, SD = 12.4; MWomen = 33.4, SD = 12.1). survey contained the full disclosure agreement. Upon consent,
Approximately 51.1 % of the sample was married, 9.3 % re- participants were then directed to the survey, which contained
ported being engaged, 27.3 % reported being in a committed standard demographic questions and the questionnaires listed
heterosexual relationship and living with their partner, 9.8 % below.
reported being in a committed heterosexual relationship but
not living with their partner, and 2.1 % identified their rela- Measures
tionship status as “other.” Participants reported knowing their
partner for an average of 12.5 years (SD = 11.9 years), and Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann 2008) For the
being in a relationship with their partner for an average of purpose of our study, we translated the original German ver-
10.8 years (SD = 10.1 years; range = 2 to 56 years). sion of the DCI into English. The instrument was first trans-
Additional descriptives are presented in Table 1. lated from German to English by a native-English speaker,
who is also fluent in German. The translated English version
of the DCI was checked by two colleagues in the U.S. The
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all study variables finalized English version of the DCI was then back-translated
Variable Men Women
into German by a German researcher and checked again by
Percentage Percentage the author of the instrument.

Ethnicity The 37-item DCI is designed to assess Self (15 items) and
European American 30.3 % 24.4 % Partner’s coping behavior (15 items), CDC (5 items), and
African American 8.4 % 5.9 % overall satisfaction with dyadic coping (2 items). Consistent
Asian American 2.6 % 3.6 % with previous validations (e.g., Vedes et al. 2013), we did not
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.4 % 0.6 % include overall satisfaction with dyadic coping in the present
Non-Hispanic White 38.0 % 42.8 % analyses. The DCI has participants rate their responses using a
Other 19.3 % 22.1 % five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all/very rarely to 5 = very
Education often). The DCI assesses: (1) Stress Communication (SC) by
Graduate Degree 7.3 % 7.7 % Self (e.g., “I let my partner know that I appreciate his/her
Undergraduate Degree 25.2 % 23.2 % practical support, advice, or help”) and Partner (e.g., “My
Professional Program 3.3 % 3.3 % partner lets me know that he/she appreciates my practical sup-
Some College 49.6 % 57.2 % port, advice, or help”); (2) two types of SDC: (i) Emotion-
High School 13.9 % 7.7 % Focused by Self (e.g., “I show empathy and understanding”)
Less than High School 0.7 % 0.6 % and Partner (e.g., “My partner shows empathy and under-
Yearly Household Income standing”), and (ii) Problem-Focused by Self (e.g., “I tell my
$0–$25,000 22.3 % 19.6 % partner that his/her stress is not that bad and help him/her to
$25,000–$50,000 27.4 % 27.9 % see the situation in a different light”) and Partner (e.g., “My
$50,000–$75,000 20.4 % 19.3 % partner helps me to see stressful situations in a different
$75,000–$100,000 12.4 % 16.6 % light”); (3) Delegated DC by Self (e.g., “I take on things that
$100,000–$150,000 6.6 % 9.6 % my partner would normally do in order to help him/her out”)
Greater than $150,000 10.2 % 6.9 % and Partner (e.g., “My partner takes on things that I normally
do in order to help me out”); and (4) Negative DC by Self (e.g.,
Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582 573

“I blame my partner for not coping well enough with stress”) couples’ research and shows good psychometric properties
and Partner (e.g., “My partner blames me for not coping well (e.g., Hendrick et al. 1998). In our study, the RAS showed
enough with stress”). The scales above are combined to create good internal consistency for men (α = .90) and women
an aggregate scale of DC by Self and Partner. In addition, two (α = .91).
types of CDC are assessed: (i) Emotion-Focused CDC (e.g.,
“We help each other relax with such things like massage, The Brief COPE (Carver 1997) The Brief COPE is a 28-
taking a bath together, or listening to music together”) and item self-report measure designed to assess different in-
(ii) Problem-Focused CDC (e.g., “We engage in a serious dividual coping strategies. Participants rate their re-
discussion about the problem and think through what has to sponses using a four-point scale (1 = I haven’t been do-
be done”). In the current study, internal consistency ranged ing this at all to 4 = I’ve been doing this a lot). For the
from acceptable to very good for all subscales and total scales purpose of our study, we used two subscales of the
of the DCI (.68 ≤ α ≥ .95) with the exception of Emotion- Brief COPE to measure discriminant validity. We as-
Focused SDC, where internal consistency was inadequate sumed that dyadic coping is less associated with indi-
(αMen = .54; αWomen = .45; see Table 2). vidual coping as it is a dyadic construct (Bodenmann
2008). First, we tested the two-item Active Coping sub-
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick et al. scale (“I’ve been concentrating my efforts on doing
1998) The RAS is a 7-item self-report instrument that requires something about the situation I’m in,” and, “I’ve been
participants to rate statements about their relationship using a taking action to try to make the situation better”). This
five-point scale. The RAS measures how well the partner subscale showed acceptable internal consistency for men
meets one’s needs, general relationship satisfaction, relation- (α = .68) and women (α = .75), which is consistent with
ship expectations, and love for one’s partner, and it assesses reliability from the original validation (α = .68) (Carver
the severity of problems in the relationship. For the purpose of 1997). Additionally, we tested the 10-item grouped sub-
our study, the RAS was used as a measure of convergent scale of Active Emotional Coping (venting, positive
validity since the DCI has been shown to be a dyadic construct reframing, humor, acceptance, and emotional support
(Bodenmann 2008). The RAS has been widely used in subscales) based on recommendations by Schnider and
colleagues (Schnider et al. 2007). This subscale also
showed good internal consistency for men (α = .80)
Table 2 Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and mean differences on and women (α = .83).
DCI

Men Women M-W U

Analytic Strategy

M SD α M SD α p Factorial Structure Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)

were conducted to test the five-factor structure for DC by
Stress Communication (S) 3.64 0.93 .77 3.88 0.82 .68 .001 Self and Partner and the two-factor structure for CDC, which
Stress Communication (P) 3.70 0.88 .72 3.35 1.01 .74 .000 has been previously validated with Spanish (Falconier et al.
Emotion-Focused SDC (S) 3.92 0.84 .82 4.12 0.70 .78 .001 2013) and Portuguese (Vedes et al. 2013) couples. Common
Emotion-Focused SDC (P) 3.81 0.97 .86 3.80 0.94 .84 .794 structural equation modeling indices were used to evaluate the
Problem-Focused SDC(S) 3.63 0.75 .54 3.62 0.76 .45 .906 model to data fit: the comparative fit index (CFI > .95), the
Problem-Focused SDC (P) 3.59 0.85 .68 3.59 0.95 .80 .639 root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .06),
Delegated DC (S) 3.73 0.77 .80 3.90 0.74 .80 .001 the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR < .08),
Delegated DC (P) 3.38 0.90 .80 3.45 0.98 .87 .243 and the chi-square (χ2) test of exact fit (Hu and Bentler
Negative DC (S) 2.21 0.86 .81 1.83 0.72 .73 .000 2000; Kline 2004; Schermelleh-Engel et al. 2003). The sub-
Negative DC (P) 2.24 0.89 .80 2.12 0.84 .77 .074 scales were non-normally distributed; therefore, the robust
Emotion-Focused CDC 3.32 1.07 .79 3.26 1.12 .77 .507 maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) in Mplus version
Problem-Focused CDC 3.72 0.84 .87 3.86 0.88 .91 .014 7.11 was used (Muthén and Muthén 2012).
Evaluation of DC 3.72 1.01 .94 3.78 1.03 .95 .373
Total DC (S) 3.76 0.61 .86 3.98 0.52 .82 .000 Construct Validity In order to test the construct validity of the
Total DC (P) 3.67 0.68 .88 3.66 0.75 .91 .797 DCI, we tested for both convergent and discriminant validity.
DC Total 3.67 0.60 .95 3.79 0.58 .94 .006 Based on prior research (Bodenmann 2008), we hypothesized
that dyadic coping would be more strongly associated with a
S Self, P Partner, SCD Supportive Dyadic Coping; DC Dyadic Coping,
CDC Common Dyadic Coping, M-U W = Mann–Whitney U Test to test
dyadic construct, such as relationship satisfaction (convergent
for differences between men and women. Bold values signify significant validity), than with an individual coping construct (i.e., active
differences at p < .05 coping, active emotional coping; divergent validity).
574 Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582

Measurement Invariance (MI) We examined MI to deter- Factor Structures

mine if the five-factor structure for Self and Partner and the
two-factor structure for CDC held between gender and across We examined the same structure used in prior validation stud-
culture. Specifically, we used the following steps to determine ies with Spanish (Falconier et al. 2013) and Portuguese (Vedes
the different levels of invariance for these models: First, to test et al. 2013) samples, which included a five-factor solution for
for configural invariance, we kept the same factor structure Self and Partner and a two-factor solution for CDC. Multiple
across groups (i.e., across genders or nations) but none of the models were built in order to identify the best-fitting structure.
parameters in the models were restricted to be equal. This is The first model included 15 items and represented the five-
the weakest form of MI, indicating that the pattern of DC is factor structure (DC by Self or Partner) for men and women.
invariant across groups. Second, to test for metric invariance, The fit indices did not indicate acceptable fit for men, women,
loadings were constrained to be equal across groups. oneself, and one’s partner (see Table 4). For DC by Self, two
Statistically equivalent loadings indicate that the increase of items from the Stress Communication by Self subscale pre-
one unit on the latent factor of one group represents an in- sented low factor loadings. Item 2 (“I ask my partner to do
crease of one unit in the other group (Brown 2006; things for me when I have too much to do” (λmen = .52;
Vandenberg and Lance 2000) allowing us to test the associa- λwomen = .53)) and item 3 (“I show my partner through my
tion across gender and culture (i.e., the association between behavior when I am not doing well or when I have problems”
DC and relationship satisfaction). Third, to test for scalar in- (λmen = .45; λwomen = .29)) showed the lowest loadings in their
variance, intercepts were additionally constrained to be equal. subscales. Similarly, the equivalent items from Stress
This indicates that both groups would have equivalent ob- Communication by Partner, items 17 and 18, showed low
served scores on an indicator at a given level of the latent factor loadings. Item 17 (“My partner asks me to do things
factor (Brown 2006) and mean differences in DC can directly for him/her when he/she has too much to do”(λmen = .48;
be compared between gender/culture. Lastly, given that full λwomen = .38)) and item 18 (“My partners shows me through
MI could not be found, we examined partial scalar invariance, his/her behavior that he/she is not doing well or when he/she
which allowed the intercepts of some items to be estimated has problems” (λmen = .39; λwomen = .26)) showed the lowest
freely across groups (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthen, 1989). We loadings. Additionally, the RMSEA indices did not show
followed Schwarz and colleagues’ suggestions (Schwartz good fit; RMSEA ranged from .058 to .080 for men and
et al. 2014), which propose that the assumptions of full scalar .053 to .060 for women.
invariance can be retained if fewer than half of the intercepts Based on the results above, items 2 and 3 (from the DC
vary freely across groups. Finally, we evaluated the invariance by Self structure) and items 17 and 18 (from the DC by
of the metric and scalar invariance model with the baseline Partner structure) were removed (Figure 1). We tested
model (i.e., the configural model) using the recommended model 2 (including 13 items each), and the fit indices im-
procedure detailed in Chen’s (2007) Monte Carlo study (for proved compared to model 1, but still did not show good
unequal sample size): an increase in the CFI of ≥ .010 or an fit (e.g., for DC by Partner in men RMSEA = 0.071).
increase of RMSEA of ≥ .015 indicates a failure of invariance. Additionally, results showed one more item with a low
All analyses were computed using the lavaan 0.5–16 package loading. Item 24 from Emotion-Focused SDC by Self (“I
(Rosseel 2012) in R (R version 3.1; R Core Team 2014). listen to my partner and give him/her space and time to
communicate what really bothers him/her” (λmen = .65;
λ women = .58)) and the corresponding item 9 from
Emotion-Focused SDC by Partner (“My partner listens to
Results me and gives me the opportunity to communicate what
really bothers me” (λmen = .79; λwomen = .79)) showed the
Descriptive Statistics lowest loadings in their subscales. Items 24 and 9 were
removed and model 3 was examined. This final model,
Descriptive statistics, mean differences and reliabilities be- which included 12 items each, showed the best fit of the
tween genders of the DCI can be found in Table 2. Result data to the model as indicated by fit indices (see Table 4).
show that participants report relatively high levels of dyadic Standardized factor loadings for Self and Partner for this
coping, with exception of negative DC. All subscales showed final model are presented in Figure 2. In addition, we ex-
acceptable to good internal consistency, ranging from .68 to amined a two factor structure for CDC including five items
.95 with the exception of Problem-Focused SDC (αMen = .54; (model 4). Results showed acceptable fit (see Table 4). In
αWomen = .45). Inter-correlations among the subscales ranged summary, the five-factor and two-factor structure of this
from (−.80 < r > .92) for both genders (see Table 3), which validation using a U.S. sample is comparable with prior
indicates that subscales share common variance but do not validations given that the same factor structure was
correlate perfectly. confirmed.
Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582 575

Table 3 Inter-correlations among DCI Subscales for Men and Women

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Stress Communication (S) .42 .54 .50 .40 .52 .43 .48 -.34 -.35 .47 .53 .51 .68 .55 .70
2. Stress Communication (P) .46 .48 .62 .40 .52 .41 .53 -.29 -.44 .47 .54 .59 .50 .76 .72
3. Emotion-Focused SDC (S) .54 .40 .45 .49 .39 .52 .37 -.57 -.39 .40 .54 .51 .81 .52 .72
4. Emotion-Focused SDC (P) .52 .57 .42 .36 .62 .35 .54 -.35 -.53 .50 .59 .62 .53 .81 .78
5. Problem-Focused SDC(S) .34 .28 .33 .28 .36 .56 .24 -.25 -.22 .31 .47 .35 .62 .36 .53
6. Problem-Focused SDC (P) .48 .47 .36 .60 .33 .32 .62 -.24 -.37 .45 .62 .57 .43 .73 .69
7. Delegated DC (S) .30 .24 .42 .25 .36 .25 .33 -.32 -.28 .25 .50 .41 .67 .43 .58
8. Delegated DC (P) .45 .44 .27 .58 .31 .53 .25 -.24 -.37 .46 .53 .55 .40 .70 .64
9. Negative DC (S) -.34 -.29 -.48 -.35 -.18 -.35 -.28 -.26 .63 -.27 -.38 -.40 -.80 -.52 -.67
10. Negative DC (P) -.42 -.51 -.38 -.66 -.20 -.47 -.18 -.50 .54 -.30 -.48 -.54 -.57 -.80 -.74
11. Emotion-Focused CDC .42 .44 .39 .41 .28 .46 .21 .38 -.31 -.32 .53 .61 .44 .51 .63
12. Problem-Focused CDC .57 .52 .49 .61 .37 .58 .37 .51 -.39 -.52 .49 .70 .60 .67 .81
14. Total DC (S) .68 .47 .75 .51 .57 .49 .60 .41 -.76 -.52 .46 .61 .57 .65 .86
15. Total DC (P) .58 .73 .46 .84 .34 .73 .29 .74 -.48 -.86 .49 .68 .77 .62 .92
16. DC Total .69 .69 .61 .78 .47 .72 .41 .67 -.61 -.77 .62 .80 .80 .82 .92
S Self, P Partner, SCD Supportive Dyadic Coping; DC Dyadic Coping, CDC Common Dyadic Coping. All correlations are significant at p < .01. Men’s
correlations are presented above the diagonal and women’s correlations are presented below the diagonal

Construct Validity and Active Emotional coping (.03 < r men < .15; −.02 <
rwomen < .15).
Overall, our results suggest that the DCI subscales and aggre-
gate scales are more correlated with relationship satisfaction Measurement Invariance
than with active (individual) coping, which supports the con-
struct validity of the DCI (see Table 5). Results show that the MI Across Gender Table 6 shows the invariance analyses
DCI subscales and aggregate scales correlated significantly across gender for all models. Configural invariance was tested
with relationship satisfaction (−.59 < rmen < .73; −.63 < r- across men (N = 274) and women (N = 664) with uncon-
women < .72). These results suggest the DCI shows convergent strained factor loadings and intercepts. The invariant form
validity when compared to relationship satisfaction. In con- models show good model to data fit for all three models: DC
trast, results for discriminant validity show that DCI subscales by Self, DC by Partner, and CDC indicating configural invari-
and aggregate scales are less correlated with Active ance. All changes in CFI and RMSEA for invariant loadings
(individual) Coping (−.08 < rmen < .13; −.09 < rwomen < .20) and intercepts were below the critical value (Chen and Li

Table 4 Goodness of fit indices for the confirmatory factor analyses of DC by self and by partner and CDC for men’s and women’s report

Model Men’s reports Women’s reports

χ2 df p CFI SRMR RMSEA (90 % χ2 df p CFI SRMR RMSEA (90 %

CI) CI)

DC by Self and Model 1 (5 factors - 15 items)

by Partner Self 153.1 80 .00 .947 .056 .058 (.044, .071) 228.6 80 .00 .934 .048 .053 (.045, .061)
Partner 221.3 80 .00 .911 .064 .080 (.068, .093) 273.5 80 .00 .946 .056 .060 (.053, .068)
Model 2 (5 factors - 13 items)
Self 88.8 55 .00 .972 .038 .047 (.028, .065) 95.4 55 .00 .980 .029 .033 (.022, .044)
Partner 130.8 55 .00 .947 .047 .071 (.055, .087) 129.3 55 .00 .978 .030 .045 (.035, .055)
Final- Model 3 (5 factors - 12 items)
Self 72.5 44 .00 .975 .037 .049 (.027, .068) 73.5 44 .00 .984 .027 .032 (.018, .044)
Partner 88.7 44 .00 .964 .043 .061 (.042, .079) 104.9 44 .00 .979 .030 .046 (.034, .057)
CDC Model 4 (2 factors - 5 items) 9.9 4 .04 .986 .023 .073 (.013, .132) 7.3 4 .12 .997 .010 .035 (.000, .075)

DC Dyadic Coping, CFI Comparative Fit Index, SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation;
90 % CI: 90 % Confidence Interval for RMSEA
576 Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582

Fig. 1 Five-factor structure for

DC by Self, five-factor
structurefor DC by Partner, and
two-factor structure for Common
DC

2007) indicating full metric and full scalar invariance across models and partial invariant intercepts for DC by Self (free
gender for all subscales. intercepts of two items), full invariant intercepts for DC
by Partner, and partial invariant intercepts for CDC (free
MI for Men Across Culture Table 7 shows the invariance intercepts of one item).
analyses for men across culture for all models. Configural
invariance was tested across U.S. males (N = 274) and MI for Women Across Culture Table 8 shows the invari-
Swiss males (N = 368) with unconstrained factor loadings ance analyses for women across culture for all models.
and intercepts. The invariant form models showed good Configural invariance was tested across U.S. women
model to data fit for the three models: DC by Self, DC (N = 664) and Swiss women (N = 368) with unconstrained
by Partner, and CDC indicating configural invariance. In factor loadings and intercepts. The invariant form models
terms of changes in CFI and RMSEA for invariant load- showed good model to data fit for all three models: DC by
ings and intercepts, we found full metric invariance for all Self, DC by Partner, and CDC indicating configural
Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582 577

Fig. 2 Constrained standardized

factor loadings for men’s and
women’s DC for a five-factor
model (by Self and Partner) and a
two-factor model for Common
DC. All factor loadings are
statistically significant at the
p < .05 level

invariance. In terms of changes in CFI and RMSEA for and a two-factor structure for CDC after six items were re-
invariant loadings and intercepts, we found partial invariant moved to reach a good model to data fit (3 items for Self, 3
intercepts for all three subscales. items for Partner). After testing MI in the final model, the
results showed that the abbreviated version of the DCI (i.e.,
31 item scale) can be used for cross-cultural comparisons.

Discussion
Construct Validity
The goal of the present study was to validate the English
version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann Both the convergent validity and discriminant validity sup-
2008), which is a widely used self-report measure designed ported the construct validity of the DCI. Specifically, the
to assess coping behavior between partners based on the STM DCI was found to be highly correlated with relationship sat-
of dyadic coping (Bodenmann 1995). In accord with prior isfaction, which is in accord with prior empirical literature
validation studies (Falconier et al. 2013; Vedes et al. 2013), (Bodenmann et al. 2006; Bodenmann et al. 2011; Falconier
we found a five-factor structure for DC by Self and Partner et al. 2013; Ledermann et al. 2010; Levesque et al. 2014;
578 Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582

Table 5 Correlations of the DCI subscales with RAS and brief COPE subscales

RAS Brief COPE Brief COPE

Relationship satisfaction Active coping Active emotional coping

Men (r) Women (r) Men (r) Women (r) Men (r) Women (r)

Stress Communication (S) .45 .49 .09 .20 .10 .14

Stress Communication (P) .51 .47 .12 .05 .09 .02
Emotion-Focused SDC (S) .45 .41 .13* .15 .09 .12
Emotion-Focused SDC (P) .60 .61 .03 .09* .05 .10*
Problem-Focused SDC(S) .35 .27 .13* .14 .15* .13
Problem-Focused SDC (P) .47 .54 .03 .12 .13* .15
Delegated DC (S) .38 .22 .08 .17 .03 .15
Delegated DC (P) .42 .47 .04 .04 .08 .11
Negative DC (S) −.46 −.43 −.08 −.09* .03 −.01
Negative DC (P) −.59 −.63 −.05 −.07 .08 −.02
Emotion-Focused CDC .44 .43 .03 .05 .09 .06
Problem-Focused CDC .60 .63 .12 .12 .07 .15
Total DC (S) .57 .52 .11 .20 .06 .11
Total DC (P) .67 .69 .09 .09* .05 .07
DC Total .73 .72 .12 .13 .08 .10

S Self, P Partner, SCD Supportive Dyadic Coping; DC Dyadic Coping, CDC Common Dyadic Coping, All correlations are significant at p < .01 with the
exception of the items marked with an asterisk (*), which are significant at p < .05, and the bold values are ns

Vedes et al. 2013). The DCI showed good discriminant valid- Measurement Invariance
ity in comparison with the Active Coping and Active
Emotional Coping subscales (venting, positive reframing, hu- For each measure, we tested three types of invariance:
mor, acceptance, etc.) of the Brief COPE (Carver 1997), configural, metric, and scalar invariance. We found full metric
which demonstrates that dyadic coping includes additional and full scalar invariance across gender and full metric and
strategies above and beyond individual coping strategies full/partial scalar invariance across culture for men and wom-
(Bodenmann 2005; Herzberg 2013; Papp and Witt 2010). en. Specifically, we found invariance of identical loadings and

Table 6 Invariance tests for DCI across gender

Invariance Level df MLR χ2 CFI RMSEA Model Comparison Δdf ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

5 Factor structure DC by self

1. Invariant Form 88 140.3 .981 .037
2. Invariant Loadings 95 150.1 .980 .036 2 vs. 1 7 .001 .001
3. Invariant Intercepts 102 164.5 .978 .037 3 vs. 1 14 .003 .000
5 Factor Structure DC by Partner
1. Invariant Form 88 191.7 .974 .052
2. Invariant Loadings 95 201.3 .973 .050 2 vs. 1 7 .001 .002
3. Invariant Intercepts 102 216.8 .971 .051 3 vs. 1 14 .003 .001
2 Factor Structure CDC
1. Invariant Form 8 19.4 .993 .054
2. Invariant Loadings 11 22.1 .993 .047 2 vs. 1 .000 .007
3. Invariant Intercepts 14 24.5 .993 .041 3 vs. 1 .000 .013

df degrees of freedom, MLR χ2 robust maximum likelihood estimation of chi square, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of
approximation, CDC Common Dyadic Coping
Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582 579

Table 7 Invariance tests for DCI Men across U.S. and Swiss culture

Invariance level df MLR χ2 CFI RMSEA Model comparison Δdf ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

5 Factor Structure DC by Self

1. Invariant Form 88 127.9 .978 .038
2. Invariant Loadings 95 127.4 .982 .033 2 vs. 1 7 .004 .005
3. Invariant Intercepts 102 173.1 .961 .047 3 vs. 1 14 .017 .009
4. Partial Invariance Intercepts (item 22, 25) 100 151.2 .972 .041 3 vs. 1 12 .006 .003
5 Factor structure DC by partner
1. Invariant Form 88 136.6 .976 .042
2. Invariant Loadings 95 145.7 .975 .041 2 vs. 1 7 .001 .001
3. Invariant Intercepts 102 165.5 .968 .045 3 vs. 1 14 .008 .003
2 Factor structure CDC
1. Invariant Form 8 15.4 .992 .054
2. Invariant Loadings 11 21.8 .989 .056 2 vs. 1 .003 .002
3. Invariant Intercepts 14 57.8 .954 .100 3 vs. 1 .038 .046
4. Partial Invariance Intercepts (item 31) 13 25.8 .987 .056 3 vs. 1 .005 .002

df degrees of freedom, MLR χ2 robust maximum likelihood estimation of chi square, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of
approximation, CDC Common Dyadic Coping

intercepts for MI across gender in all three factor models (DC models (DC by Self, DC by Partner, and CDC). Overall, these
by Self, DC by Partner, and CDC), indicating that observed findings suggest there are different underlying latent factors of
score differences are due to true differences on the factor coping behavior within dyads. In all cases of partial scalar
mean. According to MI for men across culture, results showed invariance we were below the critical criterion (Schwartz
invariance of identical loadings and full/partial invariance of et al. 2014), indicating that the assumption of full scalar in-
intercepts (full scalar invariance for DC by Partner, partial variance can be retained. Thus, observed score differences
scalar invariance for DC by Self and CDC). Finally MI for between gender and across culture are due to true differences
women across culture indicated invariance of identical load- on the factor mean. The results of testing for MI across gender
ings and partial invariance of intercepts for all three factor and culture showed that invariance findings were robust.

Table 8 Invariance tests for DCI Women across U.S. and Swiss culture

Invariance Level df MLR χ2 CFI RMSEA Model Comparison Δdf ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

5 Factor structure DC by self

1. Invariant Form 88 146.2 .978 .036
2. Invariant Loadings 95 167.4 .972 .039 2 vs. 1 7 .006 .003
3. Invariant Intercepts 102 233.1 .949 .051 3 vs. 1 14 .029 .015
4. Partial Invariance Intercepts (item 21, 26, 27) 99 169.5 .973 .038 3 vs. 1 11 .006 .008
5 Factor structure DC by partner
1. Invariant Form 88 176.2 .979 .045
2. Invariant Loadings 95 213.1 .972 .050 2 vs. 1 7 .007 .005
3. Invariant Intercepts 102 353.9 .941 .071 3 vs. 1 14 .038 .026
4. Partial Invariance Intercepts (item 5, 13, 14) 99 224.2 .971 .051 3 vs. 1 11 .008 .006
2 Factor structure CDC
1. Invariant Form 8 16.4 .995 .052
2. Invariant Loadings 11 35.1 .987 .063 2 vs. 1 .008 .011
3. Invariant Intercepts 14 78.1 .966 .095 3 vs. 1 .029 .043
4. Partial Invariance Intercepts (item 31, 35) 12 38.1 .986 .065 3 vs. 1 4 .009 .013

df degrees of freedom, MLR χ2 robust maximum likelihood estimation of chi square, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of
approximation, CDC Common Dyadic Coping
580 Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582

Overall, this indicates that the DCI in English is a good and in treatment, such as stress disclosure and empathic under-
reliable instrument for assessing self-reported dyadic coping standing, for ameliorating couples’ concerns (Bodenmann
behavior in the U.S. and allows for comparison between gen- and Randall 2011; Randall et al. 2010). This research high-
der and across culture. lights additional key components in dyadic coping, such as
collaboration in daily decisions, couple identity, relationship
Limitations awareness, mutuality, and authenticity that can be emphasized
in clinical practice with couples.
Limitations of the current study must be noted. First, we used Stress has become an epidemic that affects millions of
a recruitment method commonly found in romantic relation- Americans each year (American Psychological American
ship research (e.g., Totenhagen et al. 2012); however, results Psychological Association 2013). For adults, both theoretical
were based on a convenience sample of students affiliated and empirical research point to the notion that coping with
with undergraduate and graduate courses, which may limit stress should be reflective of a relational process between
the generalizability of our results to individuals connected to partners (Bodenmann 1995, 1997), which calls for assess-
a University. Despite this, our participants were diverse in ments that can measure this interdependent coping process.
terms of age, relationship length, and type, as compared to The results of this study show that the Dyadic Coping
those typically found in research pools limited to undergrad- Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann 2008) - a self-report measure
uate courses (e.g. Psychology 101). Second, our sample in- developed to assess partners’ coping resources under stress –
cluded a majority of individuals that identified either as Non- is a useful measure for evaluating the ways in which individ-
Hispanic White or European American with some college uals in the U.S. cope with stress.
education. Therefore, the generalizability of the results to all
individuals in a romantic relationship living in the U.S should
be carefully considered. We must recognize and acknowledge
the diversity of cultural and ethnic backgrounds in the U.S.,
which could have differential effects on the types of stressors References
individuals, couples, and families may face, as well as the
types of coping resources that are common to specific cultures American Psychological Association (2013). Stress in America [Press re-
lease]. Retrieved from [Link]
or sub-cultures. As the DCI has already been validated in
Austin, J. L., & Falconier, M. K. (2013). Spirituality and common dyadic
Latino couples in the U.S. (Falconier et al. 2013), findings coping: Protective factors from psychological aggression in Latino
on African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans immigrant couples. Journal of Family Issues, 34(3), 323–345.
and other minorities are lacking. Third, our measures did not doi:10.1177/0192513X12452252.
include a question regarding the type of relationship (e.g., Badr, H., Carmack, C. L., Kashy, D. A., Cristofanilli, M., & Revenson, T.
A. (2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health
opposite or same-sex). Therefore, we are unable to explicitly Psychology, 29(2), 169–180. doi:10.1037/a0018165.
speak to whether or not individuals in same-sex relationships Berg, C. A., & Upchurch, R. (2007). A developmental contextual model
completed the survey, which is an important area for future of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span.
research. Fourth, while the use of cross-sectional self-report Psychological Bulletin, 133, 920–954. doi:10.1037/0033-
data is appropriate for our study, future studies should gather 2909.133.6.920.
Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of
data across multiple time points (i.e., longitudinal data) in stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 34–
order to assess test-rest reliability and the predictive validity 49.
of the DCI across multiple stressful situations (e.g., financial, Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping - a systemic-transactional view of
health, significant life events, etc.). Fifth, although this study stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings.
European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 137–140.
utilized participants that were currently in a romantic relation-
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significant for marital
ship for at least two years, our results should be tested using functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.),
varying dyadic data to determine the psychometric properties Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic
of the DCI with couples in the U.S. coping (pp. 33–50). Washington, D.C: American Psychological
Association.
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Test manual
Implications and Conclusion
[Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern, Göttingen:
Huber &Hogrefe.
Dyadic coping research has important implications for rela- Bodenmann, G., & Randall, A. K. (2011). Common factors in the en-
tionship education programs (Couples Coping Enhancement hancement of dyadic coping. Behavior Therapy, 43, 88–98.
Training (CCET); Bodenmann and Shantinath 2004), and doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.04.003.
Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The Couples Coping
therapeutic interventions (Coping-Oriented Couple Therapy Enhancement Training (CCET): A new approach to prevention of
(COCT); Bodenmann et al. 2008). Empirical research has marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations, 53,
supported the efficacy of utilizing dyadic coping components 477–484. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x.
Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582 581

Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080
dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. /10705519909540118.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485–493. doi:10.1037/0893- Kayser, K., Watson, L. E., & Andrade, J. T. (2007). Cancer as a “we-
3200.20.3.485. disease”: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspec-
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, tive. Families, Systems and Health, 25(4), 404–418. doi:10.1037
and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 407–425. /1091-7527.25.4.404.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x. Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation
Bodenmann G., Plancherel B., Beach S. R., Widmer K., Gabriel, B., modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Meuwly, N., … & Schramm, E. (2008). Effects of coping-oriented Landis, M., Peter-Wight, M., Martin, M., & Bodenmann, G. (2013).
couples therapy on depression: A randomized clinical trial. Journal Dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of older spouses in long-
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 944–54. doi: 10.1037 term marriage. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric
/a0013467. Psychiatry, 26(1), 39–47. doi:10.1024/1662-9647/a000077.
Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualiza- Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
tions of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship York: Springer.
quality and individual wellbeing. European Psychologist, 16, 255– Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S.,
266. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000068. Rossier, J., … Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Coping Inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of
New York: Guilford. Psychology/SchweizerischeZeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too Suisse de Psychologie, 69(4), 201–212. doi:10.1024/1421-0185
long: Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral /a000024
Medicine, 4, 92–100. Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M. F., Caron, A., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2014).
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of mea- Validation of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory.
surement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47,
doi:10.1080/10705510701301834. 215–225. doi:10.1177/0748175614522272.
Chen, F. M., & Li, T. S. (2007). Marital enqing: An examination of its Merz, C. A., Meuwly, N., Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2014).
relationship to spousal contributions, sacrifices, and family stress in Engaging in dyadic coping: Buffering the impact of everyday stress
Chinese marriages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 393– on prospective relationship satisfaction. Family Science, 5, 30–37.
412. doi:10.3200/SOCP. 147.4.393-412. doi:10.1080/19424620.2014.927385.
Coyne, J. C., & Downey, G. (1991). Social factors and psychopathology: Meuwly, N., Bodenmann, G., Germann, J., Bradbury, T. N., Ditzen, B., &
Stress, social support, and coping processes. Annual Review of Heinrichs, M. (2012). Dyadic coping, insecure attachment, and cor-
Psychology, 42, 401–425. doi:10.1146/[Link].42.1.401. tisol stress recovery following experimentally induced stress.
Dohrenwend, S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1974). Stressful life events: Their Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 937–947. doi:10.1037
nature and effects. New York: Wiley. /a0030356.
Donato, S., Iafrate, R. D., Bertoni, A., Bodenmann, G., & Gagliardi, S. Meuwly, N., Feinstein, B. A., Davila, J., Nunenz, D. G., & Bodenmann,
(2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of G. (2013). Relationship quality among Swiss women in opposite-
Bodenmann’s “Dyadic Coping Questionnaire” in an Italian sample. sex versus same-sex romantic relationships. Swiss Journal of
TPM- Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, Psychology, 72(4), 229–234. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000115.
16, 25–47. Retrieved from [Link] Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (version 7.11) [Computer
pdf. Software]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Dyadic coping Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping
in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of the Dyadic strategies and dyadic doping: Implications for relationship function-
Coping Inventory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(4), 447–466. ing. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551–559. doi:10.1037
doi:10.1080/10615806.2012.699045. /a0020836.
Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., Bodenmann, G., Schneider, H., & R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical
Bradbury, T. N. (2014). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
effects on intra-dyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical Austria. URL[Link]
and psychological well-being. Journal of Marital and Family Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close
Therapy, advanced online publication. relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review,
Heinrichs, N., Zimmerman, T., Huber, B., Herschbach, P., Russell, D. W., 29(2), 105–115.
& Baucom, D. H. (2011). Cancer distress reduction with a couple- Randall, A. K., Bodenmann, G., Molgora, S., & Margola, D. (2010). The
based skills training: a randomized controlled trial. Annual benefit of stress and coping research in couples for couple therapy.
Behavioral Medicine, 43(2), 239–252. doi:10.1007/s12160-011- In F. Angeli (Ed.), Close relationships and community psychology:
9314-9. An international psychological perspective(p. 169–186). Milan:
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship Catholic University.
assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior
15, 137–142. doi:10.1177/0265407598151009. during marital interaction: The roles of social withdrawal and spouse
Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 651–
individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satis- 659. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.4.651.
faction. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 26, 136–153. doi:10.1080 Revenson, T., Kayser, K., & Bodenmann, G. (Eds.). (2005). Emerging
/10615806.2012.655726. perspectives on couples’ coping with stress. Washington, DC:
Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). American Psychological Association.
Gender and coping: The dual-axis model of coping. American Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation
Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 49–82. doi:10.1007 Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Retrieved
/BF02506817. from [Link]
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari- Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003).
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance
582 Curr Psychol (2016) 35:570–582

and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and rec-
Schnider, K. R., Elhai, J. D., & Gray, M. J. (2007). Coping style use ommendations for organizational research. Organizational
predicts posttraumatic stress and complicated grief symptom sever- Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002.
ity among college students reporting a traumatic loss. Journal of Vedes, A., Nussbeck, F. W., Bodenmann, G., Lind, W., & Ferreira, A.
Counseling Psychology, 54, 344–350. doi:10.1037/0022- (2013). Psychometric properties and validity of the Dyadic Coping
0167.54.3.344. Inventory in Portuguese. Swiss Journal of Psychology/
Schwartz, S. J., Benet-Martinez, V., Knight, G. P., Unger, J. B., SchweizerischeZeitschriftfürPsychologie/Revue Suisse de
Zamboanga, B. L., Des Rosiers, S. E., … & Szapocznik, J. (2014). Psychologie, 72(3), 149–157. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000108.
Effects of language on assessment on the measurement of accultur- Weaver, K. M. (2014). An investigation of gay male, lesbian, and trans-
ation: Measurement equivalence and cultural frame switching. gender dyadic coping in romantic relationships (Doctoral disserta-
Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 100–114. doi: 10.1037/a0034717 tion, Spalding University).
Totenhagen, C. J., Serido, J., Curran, M. A., & Butler, E. A. (2012). Daily Zimmerman, T., Herschbach, P., Wessarges, M., & Heinrichs, N.
hassles and uplifts: A diary study on understanding relationship (2011). Fear of progression in partners of chronically ill pa-
quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 719–728. doi:10.1037 tients. Behavioral Medicine, 37(3), 95–104. doi:10.1080
/a0029628. /08964289.2011.605399.