See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/35816493

A factor analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with distressed and non-
distressed couples

Article  in  American Journal of Family Therapy · March 1991

DOI: 10.1080/01926189108250835 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

59 400

3 authors, including:

D. Russell Crane Jeffry H. Larson

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
99 PUBLICATIONS   2,590 CITATIONS    104 PUBLICATIONS   2,693 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Family Therapy Outcomes for Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder across Professional License Types and Modalities View project

The Regulation of Family Therapists Around the World View project

All content following this page was uploaded by D. Russell Crane on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CAMILY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE

DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE WITH
DISTRESSED AND NONDISTRESSED COUPLES

D. RUSSELL CRANE, DEAN M . BUSBY, and IEFFRY H . LARSON

The American Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 1991 0 Bmnner/Mazel, Inc.
 FAMILY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE

DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE WITH
DISTRESSED AND NONDISTRESSED COUPLES

D. RUSSELL CRANE, DEAN M . BUSBY, arid IEFFRY H . LARSON

This study was an attempt to replicate the ori~irlalfactor analysis duile

by Spanier when he created the Dyadic Adj~lstniei~tSnilr (DASI.
Unlike previous studies, this oire used a sarirple of distressed oizd
noiidistressed couples. The same factor annl!ysis pn)cedures Synr~ier
used in developing the DAS were used riiifh thrse samples. The Dyadic
Satisfaction Subscale mas 1101 urzlidated ~uithany of the s[~lmplesfrom
this study. This subscale should riot be used &zd interp,.cted &r its
own. The factor analysis for the nondistressed sarnple rt)us much less
supportive of the four subscales of the DAS than the factor analysis
for the distressed sample. Marriage and family therapists, family life
educators, and researchers silould be cautious wheir using the DAS
ruifh nu~tdistressedsawiples as one-third of the items did not factor well
for this sample. Past research with nondistressed samples should be
reevaluated. -
In this study, the validity of the four subscales of the Dyadic Adjust-
ment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) was investigated for a sample of dis-
tressed and nondistressed couples. Although the DAS has been used in
over 1,000 studies since it was created (Spanier, 1985), to date we could
only find one study that attempted to evaluate the DAS empirically with
a clinical sample (Crane et al., 1990).

Paper originally presented at the National Council on Family Relations 50th annual
meeting, November 15, 1988, Philadelphia. Support for this article was provided by a
grant from the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences of Brigham Young Uni-
versity.
D. Russell Crane, 1'h.D.. is the Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Programs,
Department of Family Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602. Dean M.
Busby, Ph.D., is now an Assistant Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy, Department
of Child and Family Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, Jeffry H. Larson,
Ph.D., is an Associate Clinical Professor in the Counseling and Development Center,
Brigham Young University, Provo. UT 84602. Address correspondence to Dr. Crane.
Family Measurement Techniques

Spanier (1976) has stated that practitioners could use one of the subs-
'rles alone without losing confidence in the reliability or validity of the
DAS. If the subscales of the DAS are not valid it has little to offer over
shorter instruments such as the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (Schumm
et al., 1986) or the Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959).
There have been three previous attempts to evaluate the subscales of
the DAS. The first attempt was when Spanier (1976) developed the DAS.
The factor analysis was to evaluate the appropriateness of the individual
items, as well as to test the idea that dyadic adjustment was a combination
of related subscales.
The second factor analysis was done by Spanier and Thompson (1982).
In this study, they collected data from individuals who had been sepa-
rated from their spouses for an average of 10 months. The authors were
not able to replicate exactly their original subscales, but they interpreted
their results to mean that the subscales were valid and could be used
with confidence.
The third study was conducted by Sharpley and Cross in 1982. Their
sample consisted of married persons (oniy one member of each dyad
filled out the DAS) who had been married a minimum of three years.
Sharpley and Cross used the same factor analysis procedure that Spanier
(1976) used and were not able to replicate the original factor structure.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the DAS
and its subscales for family practitioners and researchers. The results of
this evaluation are especially useful to marital and family therapists and
family life educators, who frequently work with distressed and nondis-
tressed populations in therapy, marriage enrichment groups, workshops,
rd classes.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects for this study were 98 distressed couples seeking marital ther-
apy and 145 nondistressed couples who were volunteers. The distressed
couples were seeking therapy at one of two practicum facilities: Brigham
Young University or Montana State University. The nondistressed cou-
ples data were collected by graduate students at the two universities.

Data Analysis

A number of different statistical procedures can be applied when factor

analyzing an instrument, each yielding different results. Therefore, the
exact exploratory procedures that Spanier (1976) reported he used were
followed to factor analyze the results from this sample.
In the present study, three factor analyses were performed: one with
the distressed sample, one with the volunteer sample, and one with the
two samples combined. These three analyses were then compared to
62 The American Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 19, No. I, Spring 1991
each other as well as to the three factor analyses dr-- 4y Spanier (1976)
8panier and Thompscn (l?&)rrnd 3hrpley rllld i {~YBz)~
S L,
RESULTS

The test used for measuring the appropriateness of the correlation

matrix was the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling ade-
quacy (Norusis, 1985). The KMO test produces a value between one and
zero. A value above .60 suggests that a factor analvsis of the variables
is appropriate. The KMO test results for the total sample, nondistressed
sample, and distressed sample were .95, .76, and .75, respectively. The
eigenvalues and percent of variance explained by each subscale are pre-
sented in Table 1.
Table 2 illustrates that the Dyadic Consensus Subscale explains most
of the variance in all three samples. For the total sample, the Dyadic
Consensus Subscale explains twice as much of the variance as it does for
the nondistressed or distressed samples alone. The Dyadic Cohesion
Subscale explains more than twice as much of the variance for the dis-
tressed sample than it does for the nondistressed sample (8.3% versus
4.1%).
The specific factor loadings for each item on its subscale are presented
in Table 2 for the three previous studies that performed a factor analysis
of the DAS and for the three samples of this study. Substantial differences
are evident between the distressed and nondistressed samples on three
of the four subscales. On the Dyadic Consensus Subscale, items 1, 2, 3,
11, and 14 had much lower factor loadings for the nondistressed sample
than for the distressed sample. On the Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale, ite-
18, 20, and 22 had lower loadings for the nondistressed sample than IW

TABLE 1
Eigenvalues and Percent of Variance Explained
by Each Subscale for the Total Sample,
the Nondistressed Sample, and the Distressed Sample
Sample Subscale Eigenvalue Percent of Variance
Total Consensus 13.26 41.4
Cohesion 1.40 4.4
Satisfaction .87 2.7
Affectional -84 2.6
Nondistressed Consensus 5.84 18.2
Affectional 1.57 4.9
Satisfaction 1.34 4.2
Cohesion 1.30 4.1
Distressed Consensus 6.08 19.0
C O ~ - -++- 4-
Satisfaction 1.58 5.0
Affectional 1.40 4.4
 Family ble.~surenientTechniques

.- . TABLE 2
Factor Loadings for Each Subscale of DAS from the Three Samples of
This Study and Three Previous Studies
Dyadic Consensus Subscale
Stud! Items: 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distressed Sample .38 .39 .61 .44 .52 .63 .27 .67 -58 .58 .31 .57 .48
Nolidistressed 1 5 .17 .41 -37 .47 .71 .39 .67 .16 .46 .24 .20 .40
Sample
Total Sample .34 .49 .73 .58 -70 .78 .41 .83 .59 .65 .39 .58 .62
Spmier 1976 .54 .72 .57 .64 .55 .73 .46 .59 .34 .59 .51 .52 .40
Spanier 1982 .34 .67 .47 .34 .53 .54 .38 .52 .48 .53 -49 .73 .43
Sharpley 1982 .43 .80 .05 .62 .4.4 .31 .31 .50 .77 .69 .31 .88 .55

Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale

Study Items: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 31 32

Distressed Sample -.66 -.23 -.71 .07 -.71 -.52 -.63 .12 -.53 -.27
Nondistressed Sample -.67 -.37 -.46 .13 . 5 4 -.57 -.38 .02 -.53 -.27
Total Sample -.44 -.27 -.34 -.02 .36 -.40 -.34 -.08 -.27 -.lo
Spanier 1976 -.70 -.54 -.67 -.48 -32 -.65 -.61 -.32 -.53 -.62
Spanier 1982 .35 .47 .50 .28 .41 .67 .79 .20 .27 .22
Sharpley 1982 -.05 .OO -.I2 .05 .07 .09 .17 -.04 .08 -.lo

Dyadic Cohesion Subscale

'tudy Items: 24 25 26 27 28

Distressed Sample .47 .73 .62 .63 .53

Nondistressed Sample .23 .82 .52 .46 .54
Total Sample .48 .94 .67 .68 .69
Spanier 1976 .50 .71 .65 .68 .65
Spanier 1982 .32 .76 .72 .64 .52
Sharpley 1982 .04 .71 .75 .91 .54
Affectional Expression Subscale
Study Items: 4 6 29 30

Distressed Sample .44 .52 .36 .20

Nondistressed Sample .33 .41 .27 .36
Total Sample .53 .66 .53 .49
Spanier 1976 -.57 -.56 -.48 -.55
Spanier 1982 .44 .72 .29 .32
Sharpley 1982 .34 .XI .19 .41
 The American Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. '19, No. 1, Spring 1991

TABLE 3
-
Factor Loadinns of Each Item of the Dvadic Adiustment Scale
for the Total samGle
Dyadic Dvadic Ilyadic Affectiondl
Consensus Cohesion Satisfaction Expression
Item DAS Subscale Factor Factor Factor Factor

Dyadic Consensus .44 .02 .03

Dyadic Consensus .49 .03 .23
Dyadic Consensus 73 .07 -11
Affectional Expression -17 .19 .02
Dyadic Consensus .58 -.07 .OO
Affectional Expression .12 .06 .ll
Dyadic Consensus .70 -.02 -.I5
Dyadic Consensus .79 .03 -.I2
Dyadic Consensus .41 .07 .02
Dyadic Consensus .83 .09 -.07
Dyadic Consensus .59 .OO .05
Dyadic Consensus .65 .06 .06
Dyadic Consensus .39 .17 .06
Dyadic Consensus .58 .17 .29
Dyadic Consensus .62 .06 .05
Dyadic Satisfaction .31 .19 -.46
Dyadic Satisfaction .25 .I5 -.27
Dyadic Satisfaction .24 .29 -.33
Dyadic Satisfaction .27 .37 -.02
Dyadic Satisfaction .36 .20 -.36
Dyadic Satisfaction .14 .05 -.40
Dyadic Satisfaction .23 .15 -.34
Dyadic Satisfaction ' .21 .40 -08
Dyadic Cohesion .16 .48 .I5
Dyadic Cohesion -.I2 .94 .03
Dyadic Cohesion .02 .67 -.06
Dyadic Cohesion .06 -68 -.I2
Dyadic Cohesion -.08 .69 -.07
Affectional Expression -09 .01 -.M
Affectional Expression .13 .09 -.08
Dyadic Satisfaction .30 .33 -.27
Dyadic Satisfaction .33 .17 -.lo

the distressed sample. The Dyadic Cohesion Subscale had the same pat-
tern with items 24 and 27, both having lower loadings for the nondis-
tressed sample than for the distressed sample.
With the exception of item 30 and item 9, the Dyadic Consensus, the
Dyadic Cohesion, and the Affectional Expression items all had factor
loadings above .30 for the total and distressed samples. The nondis-
tressed sample was more problematical, with 7 of the 22 items on the
DAS falling below a factor loading of .30 on the same scales. The Dvadic
 Family Measurement Techniques

-9, 23, and 32 were below .30.In addition, item 17 was below .30 for the
~ t aand
l nondistressed samples, and item 31 was below .30for the total
sample.
Table 3 presents some additional problems with the Dyadic Satisfaction
Subscale. While items 16, 17, and 22 had their highest loadings on the
correct subscale, items 18, 19,21,23,31, and 32 had their highest loadings
on one of the other three subscales.
DISCUSSION
The Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale was not supported with the samples
of this study. Five of the 10 items would be deleted if the minlmum factor
load~ngof .30 that Spanier (1976) usvd were applied to the total sample.
Table 2 demonstrates that the problem with the Dyadic Satisfaction Sub-
scale is not limited to this study. Spanier and Thomson's (1982) and
Sharpley and Cross's (1982) studies provide further evidence that the
Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale is problematical.
When the individual questions are examined in detail, it is not difficult
to see the reasons why this scale does not hold together well. Why
questions such as items 16, "How often do you discuss or have you
considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship?" and
23, "Do you kiss your mate?' are on the same subscale is unclear. It
would seem theoretically that item 23, "Do you kiss your mate?" would
be part of the Affectional Expression or Dyadic Cohesion Subscale. In
fact, Table 3 shows that item 23 had a loading of .40 on the Cohesion
Subscale and only a loading of .08 on the Satisfaction Subscale. Item 19,
30 you confide in your mate?" is similar to item 23, in that it does not
~ e e mto fit well with item 16. Again Table 3 shows that it has a higher
loading on the Cohesion subscale than on the Satisfaction Subscale.
In addition to the problems with the Dyadic Satisfaction Subscale, the
Dyadic Consensus Subscale was not supported for the nondistressed
sample. Five of the items (1,2, 11, 13, and 14) for this sample were below
.30.
Implications

Although the DAS is a very popular instrument, its validity as a meas-

ure of marital quality with nondistressed couples is highly questionable.
Hence, we suggest that family professionals use a different measure of
marital quality with nondistressed couples. Alternatively, the DAS ap-
pears to be a valid measure of marital quality when used with distressed
couples. However, family practitioners are cautioned not to use the
Dyadic Satisfaction subscale alone with any sample, as this subscale was
problematical in our study as well as in previous research (Sharpley &
Cross, 1982: Spanier &Thompson, 1982).The other subscales of the DAS
appear safer to use by themselves, if necessary.
The results from this study emphasize the importance of matching
instruments with samples. The validity of an instrument may vary ac-
 66 The American Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 1991

cording to the type of sample with which it is used. Hence, family prac-
titioners and researchers ihould cl~oosean instrument that has bee, -
validated on a population similar to the one under study. Family prac-
titioners also need to understand and be able to determine other types
of instrument validity, including construct validity, content validity, con-
current validity, and predichve validity (see Sabatelli, 1988). Careful con-
sideration of both the reliabilityand validity of marital qualityinstruments
will increase the rigor, quality, and replicability of studies of marriage
enrichment, education, and therapy programs.
REFERENCES
Crane. D. R., Allgood, S. M., Larson, J. H., & Griffin, W. (1990) Assessing martial
quality with distressed and nondistressed couples: A comparison and equivalencv
table for three frequently used measures. /ourrial of Marrin,q~an l i d ihr Fasiilv, 5?(1),
87-91
-.
Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests:
Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Famil!, Lining, 2 1 , 251-255.
Norusis, M. J. (1985). SPSSX advanced stalisticr guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sabatelli, R. M. (1988). Measurement issues in marital research: A review and critiquv
of contemporary suwey instruments. lourno1 of Marrin~eand the Family. 50, 891-915.
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A,, Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, 1. M.,
Meens, L. D., & Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of
the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Fan~ily,48, 381-387.
Sharpley, C. F., & Cross, D. G. (1982). A psychometric evaluation of the Spanier Dyadic
Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 739-741.
Spanier, G. 8. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality
of marriage and similar dyads. Jounial of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.
Spanier, G. B. (1985). Improve, refine, recast, expand, clarifydon't abandon. / o u r ~ ~ a l
of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1073-1074.
Spanier, G. B., 61Thompson, L. (1982). A confirmatory analysis of the dyadicadjustmen..
scale. Journai of Marriage and the Family, 44, 731-738.

View publication stats