Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72 (3), 2013, 149–157

A. Vedes
Sw issJ. Psychol. et©al.:
73 (3) Dyadic
2013 Coping
Verlag Inventory
Hans Huber, in Portuguese
Hogrefe AG , Bern

Original Communication

Psychometric Properties and

Validity of the Dyadic Coping
Inventory in Portuguese
Ana Vedes1,3, Fridtjof W. Nussbeck2, Guy Bodenmann3,

io s
ut of
Wolfgang Lind1, and Ana Ferreira1

n
rib ro
1
((Department?)), University of Lisbon, Portugal
2

st p
((Department?)), University of Bielefeld, Germany
3
((Department?)), University of Zurich, Switzerland
di ted
Abstract. Several studies have shown that dyadic coping, that is, the way couples cope with stress, plays a unique role in intimate
or c
relationships. The aim of this study is to validate the Portuguese version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008) by
analyzing the factorial structure and psychometric properties of the DCI as well as its convergent and criterion validity. A multigroup
t f rre

confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in a community sample of 605 participants living in Portugal who had been in a close
relationship for at least 2 years. The findings support the hypothesized five-factor structure for the DCI and self- and other-perception,
and a two-factor structure for joint dyadic coping. The psychometric properties of the DCI and its criterion validity with other relationship
no nco

measures (RAS and B-SRQ) were good. These results add an important contribution to the determination of the criterion validity of the
DCI with measures of other crucial domains of couples’ functioning (Shared Meaning, Conflict Processes, and Quality of Sexuality,
Passion, and Romance); to the cross-cultural validation [OK??]of the DCI; and to the demonstration that negative DC has a significant
effect on intimate relationship processes, which contradicts the findings of previous studies. Moreover, it provides an additional tool for
U

working with Portuguese-speaking individuals all over the world.

Keywords: dyadic coping, Dyadic Coping Inventory, psychometric properties, intimate relationships

In the past two decades, stress and coping within intimate
relationships have received increased attention in psycho-
logical research and interventions. Stress is a well-known
risk factor for individuals, but also for couples, as it pro-
motes poor subjective well-being, poor relationship func-
tioning, and a higher risk of dissolution of the relationship
(Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). On the other hand, good
dyadic coping (DC) has proved to be a protective factor
that is associated with better relationship quality, less neg-
ative interaction between partners, fewer psychological
problems, better physical well-being, and greater relation-
ship stability (see Bodenmann, Randall, & Cutrona,
2012[not in refs, or in press?]; Revenson, Kayser, &
Bodenmann, 2005). Interestingly, DC affects well-being
above and beyond individual coping strategies (Falconier,
Nussbeck, & Bodenmann, 2012; Papp & Witt, 2010).
Given that this construct is highly relevant for understanding
intimate processes and outcomes, this study aims to validate
the Portuguese version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory
(DCI) developed by Bodenmann (2008). It is important to
have a Portuguese version of this questionnaire for several
reasons: (1) There is presently no measure of DC in Portu-
guese; (2) Portuguese is the sixth most-often spoken language
in the world, with over 200 million native speakers widely
distributed in many parts of the world (Wolfram Alpha,
2011); (3) the divorce rate in Portugal is very high (in 2009,
66% of all marriages ended in divorce; Pordata, 2009); and
(4) many Portuguese live as immigrant workers in foreign
countries, which may make them more vulnerable to stress.
The Portuguese version of the DCI may help us to better
understand the process of DC among Portuguese-speaking
individuals. This understanding in turn may help mental
health professionals in their work with this population.
The Systemic-Transactional Dyadic
Coping Model
Bodenmann’s (1997, 2005) concept of DC is a genuine sys-
temic-transactional approach, extending Lazarus’ stress

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000108 Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
150 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese
and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) to a dyadic
perspective. It considers not only support from the partner,
but also joint DC as a response to stress. According to
Bodenmann’s model, DC is a circular interpersonal process
involving both individual and partner appraisals, common
goals, and resources. This process begins with the verbal
or nonverbal communication of specific stress signals by
one partner and is followed by the perception and interpre-
tation of these signs by the other partner – and then his/her
reactions. These reactions can be (1) ignoring (due to lack
of motivation or skill deficits), (2) stress contagion, or (3)
DC by engaging in supportive or joint DC (e.g., Boden-
mann, 1995[not in refs], 2005).
Positive forms of DC are: supportive DC (problem- or
io s
emotion-focused), which refers to assistance from the non-
stressed partner to the other (e.g., practical advice, help
ut of
with daily tasks, empathy, allying, exploration of solu-
n
rib ro
tions); delegated DC, which results from the stressed part-
ner explicitly asking the other to take over some of his/her
st p
ordinary tasks and functions; and joint DC, which occurs
when both partners are directly affected by the stressful
event and engage in a symmetric or complementary, prob-di ted
lem- or emotion-focused process of coping (e.g., joint in-
formation/solution seeking, sharing of feelings, mutual
or c
commitment, or relaxation together). Negative DC in-
t f rre
cludes hostile DC (distant or criticizing support, minimiz-
ing the severity of the partner’s stress), ambivalent DC (un-
motivated provision of support), and superficial DC (vague
no nco
or uninspired support; Bodenmann, 2005).
Further strengths of Bodenmann’s model of DC are as
follows: (1) A questionnaire (DCI) has been developed that
U
assesses the different dimensions of the construct, (2) the
model has been evaluated in different contexts and with
large samples in different countries, and (3) the model has
preventive and clinical implications as reflected in Couples
Coping Enhancement Training (CCET; Bodenmann &
Shantinath, 2004) and Coping-Oriented Couples Therapy
(COCT; Bodenmann, 2010). In the context of intimate re-
lationships, DC is not a selfless behavior, but rather a cou-
ple’s mutual engagement to reduce a partner’s or the cou-
ple’s stress. It serves to foster a feeling of we-ness and, thus,
to protect and boost the relationship quality (Bodenmann,
2005; Vedes, Nussbeck, Bodenmann, Lind, & Ferreira,
2013[not in refs]).
The DCI and Validation Studies
The nine subscales of the DCI assess three domains of DC
and evaluate discrepancies regarding equity, congruence,
and reciprocity between the two partners. These measures
have important implications for couples interventions and
research (Bodenmann, 2008).
Apart from the evaluation study with 2,399 Swiss par-
ticipants presented in the German DCI manual (Boden-
mann, 2008), in which the original structure of the DCI was
Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
statistically analyzed, only three DCI validation studies
have been published to date. In the evaluation study, using
exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Bodenmann found a
four-factor structure for the self- and partner domains of
DC (i.e., Stress Communication, Supportive DC, Delegat-
ed DC, Negative DC) and a one-factor domain for Joint
DC. Thus, although Bodenmann’s theory of DC proposes
that Supportive and Joint DC can be emotion- or problem-
focused, they load on the same factor in the statistical anal-
ysis of the questionnaire. Also, Negative DC, albeit theo-
retically distinguished in different forms, statistically con-
stitutes a one-factor construct.
One validation study conducted an EFA and a confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA), whereby the CFA was only at
the subscale level, comparing three language groups in
Switzerland (Italian, French, and German; see Ledermann
et al., 2010). This study, after excluding items 2 and 3 were
in the French and Italian groups, replicated the structure
found in the evaluation study.
Another validation study was done in a Northern Italian
sample (Donato et al., 2009) with a 41-item version of the
DCI. The authors used CFA and did not completely repli-
cate the original structure, but rather reported a five-factor
solution (i.e., Stress Communication, emotion- and prob-
lem-focused Supportive DC, Delegated DC, and Negative
DC) for self- and partner domains and a three-factor solu-
tion for Joint DC (problem-focused, seeking closeness, and
relaxation). The most recent validation study also used a
CFA to analyze the DCI structure in a Latin American im-
migrant sample (Falconier et al., 2012) and found the same
five-factor solution for self- and partner domains and a two-
factor structure for Joint DC (i.e., emotion- and problem-
focused), after excluding six items (2, 3, 15, 17, 18, 26).
Therefore, the empirical distinction between emotion-
and problem-focused DC found in some studies is in line
with Bodenmann’s theoretical model, though it has only
been found in the Latin American and Italian samples and
in studies using a confirmatory approach. Findings con-
cerning the criterion validity of the DCI have been highly
consistent. Relationship satisfaction is positively associat-
ed with positive DC and negatively associated with Nega-
tive DC (Bodenmann, 2005). In addition, positive forms of
DC have been found to be associated with constructive
communication in couples (Bodenmann, 2008; Ledermann
et al., 2010), effective individual coping strategies (Falco-
nier et al., 2012; Papp & Witt, 2010), constructive conflict
resolution (Falconier et al., 2012), and stronger perceptions
of “we-ness” (Vedes, Nussbeck, Bodenmann, Lind, & Fer-
reira, 2013[not in refs]). In addition, the DCI has demon-
strated good predictive explanatory power, being able to
predict relationship quality and stability over a 2- to 5-year
period (Bodenmann & Cina, 2006; Bodenmann, Pihet, &
Kayser, 2006).
Almost all reported studies, as in other studies in the
context of intimate relationships (see Karney & Bradbury,
2010), analyzed convenience samples, which limits the
generalizability of the findings. All of the validation study
 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese
samples (including ours) were quite similar concerning re-
lationship length, mean age, education level, number of
children, and recruitment strategy. Specifically, our sample
is a national sample, more heterogeneous concerning in-
come, although the ratio between groups is more unequal
but still adequate. Thus, the results of DCI validation stud-
ies can only be generalized to the age range, income, SES,
and relationship satisfaction of the population of partici-
pants who volunteer to take part in the studies.
Purpose
io s
This study investigates the psychometric properties of the
ut of
Portuguese version of the DCI. We inspect the factor struc-
ture, hypothesizing that we will result in a five-factor solu-
n
rib ro
tion for the partner domains of DC and a two-factor solu-
tion for joint DC due to cultural similarities between Italy
st p
and Portugal as well as with Spanish-speaking migrants in
the United States. Furthermore, we examine the internal
di ted
reliability of the DCI subscales as well as their convergent
and criterion validity, not only with measures of relation-
or c
ship satisfaction, but also with measures of Shared Mean-
ing, Conflict Processes, and Quality of Sexuality, Ro-
t f rre
mance, and Passion. In addition, we explore gender differ-
ences.
no nco
Method
U
Participants
A group of 605 individuals living in Portugal (23.6% male
and 76.4% female) participated in this study. The women’s
mean age was 36.0 (SD = 9.7), and the men’s mean age was
40.7 (SD = 10.5). All participants had been in a close rela-
tionship for at least 2 years. The majority of participants
were married (74.2%); the remaining 25.8% had been co-
habitating for at least 2 years. On average, married partic-
ipants had been together for 11.5 years (SD = 10.6) and
cohabitating participants for 5.5 years (SD = 4.0). Also,
69.8% of the participants had children (Mdn = 2). Partici-
pants were on average satisfied with their relationship (M
= 3.9, SD = .79, min = 1.57, max = 5, for men; M = 3.9,
SD = .87, min = 1.43, max = 5 for women).
As to education, 45.5% of men and 49.8% of women
had a college degree. For the majority of women
(38.3%[not a majority]), the monthly income was be-
tween e 500 and e 999; for the majority of men
(33.6%[not a majority]), it was between e 1000 and
e 1499. On the lower end, 4.2% of men and 12.8% of
women earned less than e 500 per month. In Portugal, the
minimum living wage per month is e 485 (Federation of
European Employers, 2011).
151
Measures
DCI (Bodenmann, 2008)
The DCI is a self-report inventory with 37 items, measured
on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very rarely to 5 = very
often). The original DCI has nine subscales: Stress Com-
munication by Self, Stress Communication by Partner (or
Other), Supportive DC by Self, Supportive DC by Partner,
Negative DC by Self, Negative DC by Partner, Delegated
DC by Self, Delegated DC by Partner, and Joint DC. The
first eight subscales describe behavior shown either by one-
self or by one’s partner, whereas the Joint DC subscale de-
scribes behavior shown jointly by both partners. All nine
subscales can be used to describe DC behavior. In addition,
two items (36 and 37) evaluate how satisfied individuals
are with their DC, though these items are not used to de-
scribe DC behavior itself. The mean of all 35 items (recod-
ing items 7, 10, 11, 15, 22, 25, 26, 27) serves as the total
score for the DCI. The DCI has shown good reliabilities in
previous validation studies (see Bodenmann, 2008; Donato
et al., 2009; Falconier et al., 2012; Ledermann et al., 2010).
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick,
Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998)
The RAS is a seven-item measure that assesses a couple’s
relationship satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale. The
Portuguese version of the RAS (Santos et al., 2000[not in
refs]; revised by Lind, 2008) has shown excellent psycho-
metric properties in several samples. In the present study,
Cronbach’s α was .92 for men and .94 for women.
Brief Sound Relationship Questionnaires (B-SRQ;
Gottman & Gottman, 2006)
The B-SRQ is a short version of the original Sound Rela-
tionship House Questionnaires, developed on the basis of
Gottman’s theory (Gottman, 1999). These true-false scales
were developed to assess the domains of couple function-
ing relevant to quality, stability, and communication pat-
terns within marriage. In the present study, we used the
following established domains (with five items each): (1)
Shared Meaning (subscales Rituals, Roles, Goals, and
Symbols), (2) Constructive Conflict Processes (subscales
Accepting Influence, Effective Repair Attempts, and Com-
promise), and (3) Destructive Conflict Processes (subscales
Harsh Startup, the Four Horsemen, Gridlock on Perpetual
Issues, Flooding, and Negative Sentiment Override).
In addition, we administered 10 items (1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
11, 12, 13, 14) from the long-version subscale called Qual-
ity of Sexuality, Romance, and Passion to cover that aspect
of relationship quality. We selected the items on the basis
of two criteria: (1) focus on “we-ness” and (2) no redun-
dancy with other included items. All domains used in North
Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
152 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese
American studies (Gottman, 2003; Ryan & Gottman, 2000)
and all domains of the Portuguese version, which we used,
have shown good reliabilities. In this study, Cronbach’s α
for the Quality of Sexuality, Romance, and Passion sub-
scale was .90 for men and .89 women; for Shared Meaning
was .90 for both sexes; for Constructive Conflict Processes
was .82 for men and .80 for women; and for Destructive
Conflict Processes was .94 for both sexes.
Procedure
A native speaker of Portuguese translated the English ver-
sion of the DCI into Portuguese, and a bilingual profession-
io s
al translator backtranslated it into English. These two ver-
sions were then compared to ensure the accuracy of the
ut of
translation. Several pretests were conducted (Portuguese
n
rib ro
version available upon request) to ensure that the partici-
pants completely understood the scale.
st p
Individuals were recruited by flyers distributed in differ-
ent settings (e.g., schools, family and children’s associa-
di ted
tions, hospitals, cultural associations). The flyers invited
people to voluntarily participate in our online research
study by filling out a few questionnaires about intimate re-
or c
lationships. The inclusion criteria were: (1) being married
t f rre
or having cohabitated for at least 2 years; (2) living in Por-
tugal; (3) being at least 18 years old; and (4) providing
informed consent.
no nco
Analytic Strategy
U
Based on the hypothesized five-factor structure (i.e., Stress
Communication, emotion- and problem-focused Support-
ive DC, Delegated DC, and Negative DC) for self- and
other perceptions and the two-factor structure for Joint DC
(i.e., emotion- and problem-focused) for both sexes, we
conducted a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis. Sex
was chosen as a grouping variable to detect possible differ-
ences between male and female participants. All analyses
were run using Mplus6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010)
using a robust version of the maximum likelihood estimator
with mean- and variance-adjusted χ² statistics (MLMV es-
timator). Goodness of fit was determined using the χ² test.
Bentler’s comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square
residual of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) were used to assess
goodness-of-model fit (whereby, following Hu and Bentler,
1999, CFI > .95; RMSEA < .06; SRMR < .08 were consid-
ered to indicate good model fit). The Akaike information
criterion (AIC) was used to assess the goodness-of-model
fit of nonnested models.
For each perspective (own DC and other DC), two mul-
tigroup models were run: a four-factor (as originally pro-
posed for DCI) and a five-factor solution (as found in non-
Swiss samples). For joint DC, a one-factor and a two-factor
model were run to test whether participants differed with
Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
respect to emotion- and problem-focused Joint DC. After
identifying the factorial structure, additional invariance re-
strictions on model parameters were implemented until the
best model was found. Due to unequal group size, in a first
step, all models were run separately for male and female
participants. In a second step, the loadings and intercepts
of male participants were restricted to the female partici-
pants’ values. All models showed adequate fit to the data,
so only the results of multigroup models are reported.
Cronbach’s α was used to estimate the reliabilities of the
scales and subscales. Spearman correlations were estimat-
ed to analyze the convergent validity of the subscales,
whereby moderate to high (but not perfect) correlations
were expected. Criterion validity was examined by com-
paring the DCI (sub)scales to the RAS and B-SRQ sub-
scales. Finally, scale means were compared across sexes.
Results
DCI Structure
The results of the fit indices showed that the hypothesized
five-factor models for self- and other perceptions fit the
data acceptably. The AIC indicated that the five-factor so-
lutions fit the data better than the four-factor solution did.
The restricted two-factor solution for Joint DC outper-
formed the one-factor and unrestricted two-factor solution
in terms of model fit (as shown in Table 1). Imposing meas-
urement invariance restrictions (i.e., requiring loading pa-
rameters and intercepts to be equal across sexes) yielded
acceptably well-fitting models (as compared to uncon-
strained models as well). The application of additional re-
strictions (factorial means, variances, or covariances) re-
sulted in a significant decrease in model fit. Thus, men and
women appear to have used the DCI in the same manner.
As illustrated in Figure 1, standardized factor loadings
for self-perceptions ranged from .45 to .88 for men and
from .49 to .89 for women. For other perceptions, the factor
loadings ranged from .52 to .91 for men and from .51 to
.94 for women. For Joint DC, the factor loadings ranged
from .46 to .94 for men and from .52 to .92 for women.
Item 32 (“We engage in a serious discussion about the
problem, and we think about what must be done”) showed
lower factor loadings (.46 for men and .52 for women) than
in other DCI validation studies. This may be due to the fact
that, in Portuguese, “discussion” has an ambiguous mean-
ing and can be interpreted as being either positive (con-
structive conversation) or negative (arguments). So, we
suggest that the word “discussion” be replaced by “conver-
sation” in future studies. As in other studies, items 2 and
17 showed relatively low factor loadings (.45 and .52 for
men; .49 and .51 for women), but we do not recommend
dropping them since the model fits ranged from acceptable
to very good.
 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese 153

Table 1
Fit indices of the models tested for multigroup analyses
Models χ² (p) df CFI RMSEA AIC SRMR pc
ab
1. Self DC 4 F MG 173.074 (p = .000) 78 .915 .063 21639 .065
2. Self DC 5 F MGab 164.855 (p = .000) 87 .931 .054 21551 .060 .92
a
3. Other DC 4 F MG 216.105 (p = .000) 91 .940 .067 22890 .056
4. Other DC 5 F MGa 184.315 (p = .000) 88 .954 .060 22822 .054 .88
5. Joint DC 1 F MGa 160.237 (p = .000) 15 .898 .898 8074 .059
6. Joint DC 2 F MGa 13.832 (p = .311) 12 .999 .022 7906 .018 .53
Notes. DC = dyadic coping; DDC = delegated DC; F = factors; [Please explain all of the abbreviations used in the table]. aFactor loadings
and intercepts constrained to be identical across sexes. bTo locally identify the model, the unstandardized factor loading of Item 30 was fixed
to 1. cp value of the χ² difference test of the model with identical factor loadings and intercepts against the completely unconstrained model
using the DIFFTEST option in Mplus. p values are only reported for the best-fitting models.

io s
ut of
n
rib ro
st p
di ted
or c
t f rre
no nco
U

Figure 1. Constrained standardized factor loadings for men’s and women’s DC for a five-factor model (self and other)
and a 2-factor model for joint DC. All factor loadings and intercepts are statistically significant at the .05 level.

Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
154 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese

Table 2
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and mean differences
Scales Men Women
M (SD) α M (SD) α M-W U (p)
Stress Communication S 3.57 (0.68) .64 3.87 (0.72) .73 .000
O 3.61 (0.77) .78 3.47 (0.87) .77 .060
Emot. Foc. Supp. DC S 4.04 (0.74) .81 4.11 (0.75) .73 .241
O 3.89 (0.91) .88 3.78 (1.04) .92 .373
Probl. Foc. Supp. DC S 3.70 (0.82) .75 3.74 (0.83) .63 .745
O 3.44 (0.97) .84 3.41 (1.07) .81 .891
Delegated DC S 3.56 (0.87) .82 3.78 (0.87) .75 .008
O 3.36 (0.95) .70 3.36 (1.08) .84 .388
Negative DC S 1.95 (0.73) .75 1.89 (0.77) .77 .329

io s
O 2.16 (0.90) .81 2.34 (0.93) .80 .031

ut of
Emot. Foc. Joint DC 2.97 (1.23) .88 3.06 (1.26) .83 .504

n
rib ro
Probl. Foc. Joint DC 3.57 (0.87) .80 3.60 (0.91) .80 .549
Evaluation of DC 3.70 (1.16) .97 3.60 (1.24) .97 .461

st p
Global DC 3.69 (0.59) .94 3.71 (0.64) .95 .717
Notes. DC = Dyadic coping, [Please explain all of the abbreviations used in the table]; M-W U = Mann-Whitney U test; N = 143 men and
462 women. di ted
or c
Table 3
t f rre

Correlations among DCI Scales for men and women

Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
no nco

1 Stress Com. (S) .46 .46 .49 .40 .45 .33 .52 –.30 –.32 .38 .48 .45 .62
2 Stress Com. (O) .46 .51 .55 .54 .50 .47 .43 –.24 –.44 .50 .54 .53 .72
3 Emot. Foc. Supp. DC (S) .57 .46 .59 .67 .53 .49 .37 –.52 –.44 .51 .57 .55 .73
U

4 Emot. Foc. Supp. DC (O) .52 .53 .58 .43 .77 .30 .66 –.46 –.72 .62 .68 .80 .88
5 Probl. Foc. Supp. DC (S) .47 .55 .62 .54 .43 .55 .35 –.30 –.33 .40 .51 .42 .62
6 Probl.Foc. Supp. DC (O) .43 .61 .52 .71 .59 .31 .63 –.44 –.64 .54 .62 .75 .81
7 Delegated DC (S) .29 .45 .51 .44 .53 .39 .28 –.26 –.19 .32 .37 .30 .49
8 Delegated DC (O) .48 .45 .42 .60 .47 .62 .39 –.27 –.54 .49 .55 .63 .71
9 Negative DC (S) –.18* –.09 –.41 –.26 –.23 –.24 –.23 –.24 .52 –.34 –.32 –.45 –.58*
10 Negative DC (O) –.17* –.30 –.31 –.55 –.27 –.39 –.18* –.42 .57 –.50 –.52 –.70 –.77
11 Emot. Foc. Joint DC .38 .52 .40 .63 .48 .54 .40 .46 –.30 –.41 .63 .72 .73
12 Probl. Foc. Joint DC .45 .60 .46 .68 .63 .65 .43 .51 –.26 –.45 .56 .69 .79
13 Evaluation DC .38 .49 .50 .77 .50 .68 .39 .57 –.38 –.52 .73 .65 .85
14 Global DC .60 .68 .69 .84 .68 .78 .57 .71 –.50 –.67 .73 .78 .80
Notes. DC = Dyadic coping, [Please explain all of the abbreviations used in the table]; N = 143 men and 462 women. White cells indicate
correlations between variables in the male reports; light gray cells indicate correlations between variables in the female reports. 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 that
are ns.

Internal Consistency and Gender Differences
As shown in Table 2, all subscales (with the exception of
male’s Stress Communication by Self, α = .64, and fe-
male’s own problem-focused DC, α = .63) and the total
score showed at least acceptable reliabilities (Cronbach’s
α ranging from .70 to .97).
Regarding gender differences, the Mann-Whitney U-
tests revealed that female participants reported a signifi-
cantly higher perception of Stress Communication by Self
and Delegated DC by Self and Negative DC by Partner than
male participants.
Convergent Validity of the Subscales
In order to inspect the convergent validity of the subscales,
we calculated their Spearman correlations. As Table 3

Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese 155

Table 4
Correlations of the DCI scales with RAS and B-SRQ domains
Scales RAS B-SRQ
Rel. Satisfaction Sex, Rom. & Pass. Const. Conf. Dest. Conf. Shar. Mean.
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Stress Com. (S) .41 .42 .43 .30 .33 .29 –.36 –.28 .37 .37
Stress Com. (O) .41 .50 .47 .45 .46 .41 –.37 –.37 .46 .50
Emotion-Foc. Supp. DC (S) .48 .57 .38 .41 .38 .39 –.44 –.37 .37 .50
Emotion-Foc. Supp. DC (O) .70 .76 .64 .57 .64 .65 –.66 –.65 .61 .70
Problem-Foc. Supp. DC (S) .42 .39 .42 .29 .33 .24 –.33 –.21 .41 .36
Problem-Foc. Supp. DC (O) .53 .69 .50 .49 .52 .56 –.46 –.53 .55 .63
Delegated DC (S) .27 .31 .34 .24 .27 .18 –.24 –.17 .30 .25
Delegated DC (O) .50 .60 .39 .44 .43 .49 –.42 –.50 .48 .55

io s
Negative DC (S) –.34 –.50 –.27 –.35 –.32 –.34 .40 .43 –.38 –.43

ut of
Negative DC (O) –.52 –.64 –.37 –.49 –.57 –.55 .58 –.50 –.55 –.62

n
rib ro
Emotion-Foc. Joint DC .58 .66 .69 .68 .63 .56 –.59 –.49 .65 .62
Problem-Foc. Joint DC .53 .60 .53 .49 .51 .51 –.44 –.47 .51 .59

st p
Evaluation DC .75 .80 .68 .62 .70 .68 –.70 –.67 .74 .75
Global DC .70 .80 .65 .63 .68 .64 –.67 –.63 .70 .75
di ted
Notes. DC = dyadic coping, [Please explain all of the abbreviations used in the table]; All correlations are significant at p < .01; N = 143
men and 462 women.
or c
t f rre

shows, most of the correlations among the 13 subscales Sexuality, Romance and Passion; and Shared Meaning.
ranged from r = .30 to .80, indicating that subscales share Negative DC is negatively associated with these variables.
common variance but do not correlate perfectly with each
no nco

other. The smallest correlation coefficients were found for

men’s Negative DC with their own and their partner’s pos-
itive coping behaviors. Discussion
U

In this study, we investigated the factorial structure of the

Criterion Validity
Criterion validity was determined using Spearman correla-
tions between DCI subscales and the total score with rela-
tionship satisfaction; Quality of Sexuality, Romance, and
Passion; Constructive Conflict Processes; Destructive
Conflict Processes; and Shared Meaning (see Table 4).
Considering all scales except the evaluation score, correla-
tions ranged from r = .17 to r = .76 for the subscales and
from r = .63 to r = .80 for the total score. The correlations
between the total DC score and the other scores were rela-
tively high for both male and female participants. The cor-
relations were slightly higher for relationship satisfaction
and Shared Meaning.
With respect to the subscales and the evaluation scale,
the correlations of the emotion-focused Supportive DC by
Partner and Joint DC subscales with the criterion variables
were the highest, followed by Negative DC and problem-
focused Supportive DC by Partner. The lowest correlations
were found for the self-perception subscales, especially for
Delegated DC by Self. As expected, positive strategies of
DC are strongly associated with higher (positive) values of
Constructive Conflict; relationship satisfaction; Quality of
Portuguese version of the DCI, its psychometrics proper-
ties, and its validity. Overall, our findings support the va-
lidity of the instrument and confirm our hypotheses: (1) We
found a five-factor structure for self- and partner percep-
tions and two factors for Joint DC. (2) The Portuguese ver-
sion of the DCI yielded good internal consistency as well
as convergent and criterion validity. (3) The measurement
models were comparable for women and men, meaning
that men’s and women’s item scores can be compared to
each other. (4) We also found the DCI to be sensitive to
mean and covariance differences across gender.
Our findings confirm the hypothesized five-factor struc-
ture of the DCI, suggesting that the factorial structure of
the DCI is different in samples outside Switzerland and
when CFA is used. The reason for this finding is unclear
since studies using CFA in Swiss samples had not been
performed previously, so we do not know the extent to
which our findings are a result of the type of analysis. In
addition, it would be premature to interpret them as cultural
differences since cross-cultural and standardization studies
have not yet been conducted. Contrary to previous valida-
tion studies, we did not omit any items of the DCI.
We found good reliabilities for all subscales, although
previous studies had found lower Cronbach’s α values for

Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
156 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese
Negative DC (Donato et al., 2009; Falconier et al., 2012;
Ledermann et al., 2010). This adds support to the impor-
tance negative DC should have in a couple’s interventions
(e.g., by making couples aware of the negative implications
that supporting the partner in a superficial, ambivalent, or
hostile way has for the relationship and by fostering posi-
tive forms of DC that match the partner’s needs). DC was
significantly correlated not only with relationship satisfac-
tion, but also with relevant dimensions like Shared Mean-
ing, Conflict Processes, and Quality of Sexuality, Ro-
mance, and Passion. All of these variables have been found
to be important in the prediction of marital quality and di-
vorce (e.g., Gottman & Gottman, 2008). These results are
compatible with previous research, which found substantial
io s
associations between DC and couple functioning (Boden-
mann, 2000; Bodenmann et al., 2006; Falconier et al.,
ut of
2012) and increase the DCI’s criterion validity. The corre-
n
rib ro
lations with Shared Meaning and Quality of Sexuality, Ro-
mance, and Passion support the theoretical rationale that
st p
DC may promote a feeling of “we-ness” (Bodenmann,
2005).
di ted
Interestingly, the correlations for both men and women
were higher for partner’s subscales (especially for emotion-
focused support) and for Joint DC (see also Bodenmann,
or c
2000; Falconier et al., 2012). This finding suggests that (1)
t f rre
the more one partner perceives the other as being support-
ive and responsive (mainly in an emotional way), the more
satisfied he/she is with the relationship and, consequently,
no nco
the more positively he/she perceives his/her partner; (2) the
more individuals cope together as a unit, the stronger the
feeling of “we-ness” and fulfillment ensue (Patrick, Knee,
U
Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007; Vedes, Nussbeck, Boden-
mann, Lind, & Ferreira, 2013[not in refs]). These results
agree with previous results stating the relevance of emo-
tional and joint DC over other DC processes (e.g., Boden-
mann & Cina, 2006).
Unlike other validation studies, but similar to the eval-
uation study, the correlations between Negative DC and
other DCI subscales, as well as with Shared Meaning, Con-
flict Processes, and Quality of Sexuality, Romance, and
Passion were (almost) all significant and strong – and in
the expected direction. As mentioned above, these findings
add additional support for the notion that negative ways of
supporting the partner are relevant to the quality of the re-
lationship.
Consistent with findings from previous studies, we
found gender differences (Bodenmann et al., 2006; Falco-
nier et al., 2012), with women perceiving themselves as
communicating more stress and providing more delegated
DC than their partners, and also perceiving more negative
DC in their partner. This finding suggests that men and
women seem to have incongruent perceptions of their own
and their partner’s DC. These findings underscore the need
to attend to gender specificities, to use congruence/discrep-
ancy measures within[?? for] the couples’ DC, and their
implications for couples’ bonding, as well as the impor-
tance of integrating DC into couple’s interventions like
Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
[abbreviation for what??] (COETT) and coping-oriented
couples therapy (COCT) do.
The limitations of this study include the fact that we used
a national convenience sample, so generalizations can be
made only with caution. Also, the design was cross-sec-
tional, including only self-report measures from individ-
uals; and test-retest reliability, discriminate and predictive
validity, and treatment sensitivity were not addressed. In
addition, the sample consisted solely of participants resid-
ing in Portugal, so that generalizations to other Portuguese-
speaking cultures or immigrant subcultures in general can-
not be drawn. Future research should include studies with
these other cultures.
Nevertheless, the findings of this study support the no-
tion that the DCI is a valuable instrument for assessing DC,
a construct now receiving increased attention, in Portu-
guese-speaking individuals. Its use will facilitate research
on DC as well as clinical and preventive DC interventions
in this population.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grant SFRH/BD/63182/2009
from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology.
References
Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping – A systemic-transaction-
al view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and em-
pirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47,
137–140.
Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren [Stress and
coping in couples]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for
marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Boden-
mann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspec-
tives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Test-
manual [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern,
Switzerland: Huber.
Bodenmann, G. (2010). New themes in couple therapy: The role
of stress, coping and social support. In K. Hahlweg, M. Grawe,
& D. H. Baucom (Eds.), Enhancing couples: The shape of cou-
ple therapy to come (pp. 142–156). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe.
Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping among
stable/satisfied, stable/distressed and separated/divorced Swiss
couples. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 71–89.
Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship
between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitu-
dinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485–493.
[not in text]Bodenmann, G., Randall, A., & Cutrona, C. (in
press). Social support and dyadic coping: Commonalities and
differences. [WHERE??]
Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. (2004). The Couples Coping
Enhancement Training (CCET): A new approach to prevention
 A. Vedes et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese
of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Rela-
tions, 53, 477–484.
Donato, S., Iafrate, R., Barni, D., Bertoni, A., Bodenmann, G., &
Gagliardi, S (2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial
structure of Bodenmann’s Dyadic Coping Questionnaire in an
Italian sample. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Ap-
plied Psychology, 16, 25–47.
Falconier, M., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2012). Dyadic
coping in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of
the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. Ad-
vance online publication. doi 10.1080/10615806.2012.699045
Federation of European Employers. (2011). FedEE Review of
minimum wage rates. Retrieved from
http://www.fedee.com/minwage.html [this page would ap-
pear to cost money]
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based
io s
marital therapy. New York: Norton.
ut of
Gottman, J. M. (2003). [title of chapter??]. In Child Trends (Ed.),
Conceptualizing and measuring “healthy marriages” for em-
n
rib ro
pirical research and evaluation studies: A compendium of
measures – Part II (pp. 25–29, 71–74). Washington, DC: Child
st p
Trends.
Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2006). The Brief Sound Rela-
di ted
tionships Questionnaires. In J. M. Gottman & J. S. Gottman
(Eds.), The art and science of love: A workshop for couples
(pp. 291–300). Seattle, WA: The Gottman Institute.
or c
Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2008). Gottman method couple
t f rre
therapy. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple
therapy (4th ed., pp. 138–166). New York: Guilford.
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relation-
no nco
ship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 15, 137–142.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
U
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.
Karney, R. B., & Bradbury, N. T. (2010). Intimate relationships.
New York: Norton.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and cop-
ing. New York: Springer.
Ledermann, T., Bodenmann G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verar-
157
di, S., Rossier, J., . . . Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics of the
dyadic coping inventory in three language groups. Swiss Jour-
nal of Psychology, 69, 201–212.
Lind, W. (2008). Casais biculturais e monoculturais: Diferenças
e recursos [Monocultural and bicultural couples: Differences
and resources] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Lisbon, Portugal.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998/2010). Mplus user’s guide
(6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual
coping strategies and dyadic coping: Implications for relation-
ship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551–559.
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007).
The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and
well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434–457.
Pordata, (2009). Número de divórcios por 100 casamentos em
Portugal [Number of divorces per 100 marriages in Portugal].
Retrieved from http://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Nu-
mero+de+divorcios+por+100+casamentos-531
Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on
close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychol-
ogy Review, 29, 105–115.
Revenson, A., Kayser, K., & Bodenmann, G. (2005). Emerging
perspectives on couples’ coping with stress. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Ryan, K., & Gottman, J. M. (2000). Validation of the Sound Re-
lationship House Scales. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Wolfram Alpha. (2011). Portuguese. Retrieved from http://www.
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=portuguese
Ana Vedes
Binzmuhlestrasse 14/23
8050 Zurich
anavedes@gmail.com
Swiss J. Psychol. 73 (3) © 2013 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern