slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI)

The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI)

4284 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

    1. The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) Ronald D. Rogge Asst. Professor of Psychology University of Rochester

    2. Overview PART 1: Development of CSI Existing scales Development of new scale Cross-sectional validation Longitudinal validation PART 2: Use & Interpretation of CSI Administration Scoring Interpretation Norms

    3. PART 1: Existing Scales Strengths 20-30 years of converging results Clearly measure satisfaction Limitations 20-30 years old Heterogeneous content Unknown noise

    4. Existing Scales

    5. Evaluating Scales Item Response Theory Used to create SAT, GRE, MCAT Item by item analysis If happy, higher responses? If unhappy, lower responses? Requires large samples Estimates parameters for each item Estimates parameter for each subject Sample-Independent Results

    6. DAS-31 (Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.)

    7. DAS/MAT 5 Agreement on: FRIENDS

    8. Study 1: Goals Evaluate current scales DAS, MAT, QMI, RAS IRT in large sample Develop CSI Large item pool Factor analysis IRT

    9. Study 1: Method Online survey (N = 5,315) Contents 141 satisfaction items Items from DAS, MAT, QMI, RAS 71 additional items 7 anchor scales e.g., neuroticism, hostile conflict, stress 2 validity scales

    10. Study 1: Sample Avg 26yo (SD=10yr) 26% High School or less 83% Female 76% Caucasian Relationships 24% Married (avg 6.3yrs) 16% Engaged 60% Committed dating

    11. Relationship Quality

    12. Evaluating Previous Scales IRT results Evaluated 66 items of existing scales Some very informative items Many poor items

    13. DAS-31 (Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.)

    14. QMI-1 We have a good relationship

    15. SMD-2 BAD 1 2 3 4 5 6 GOOD

    16. DAS/MAT 5 Agreement on: FRIENDS

    17. DAS/MAT 6 Agreement on: SEX RELATIONS


    19. MAT 12 In leisure time, do you (and does your mate) prefer to be on the go or to stay at home?

    20. From Items to Scales A scales information = sum of information from each item How informative Across different levels of happiness

    21. Scale Information

    22. Summary MAT and DAS have poor items Increases NOISE MAT-15 no better than 4-item scale DAS-32 little better than 6-item scale Assess satisfaction, but not very efficiently Poor thermometers

    23. Creating the CSI 141 item pool Screen for contaminating items Screen for redundant items IRT on remaining 66 items Select 32 most effective

    24. Parameter Invariance

    25. Basic Psychometrics

    26. Correlations with Anchors

    27. Criterion Validity DAS Distress groups Current gold-standard DAS score < 97.5 1027 DAS distressed Ps ROCs to identify CSI cut scores Identified CSI distressed Ps 91% agreement w/ DAS

    28. Summary Operate similar across Male vs. Female Older vs. Younger Married vs. Engaged vs. Dating CSI measures same construct Nearly identical correlations Highly similar screen for distress Evaluating Possible Improvement CSI-32 vs. DAS-32 CSI-16 vs. MAT-15 CSI-4 vs. DAS-4 More information? Less noise? Better thermometer?

    29. Scale Information

    30. Relative Efficacies

    31. Satisfaction Groups IRT satisfaction estimates For each subject Based on MAT, DAS, & CSI items (equivalent of SAT scores) Created satisfaction groups N = 265 in each group Levels of sat. HIGHLY similar within each group MAT, DAS & CSI scores also similar?

    32. Precision: CSI-32 vs. DAS

    33. Precision: CSI-16 vs. MAT

    34. Effect Size Ability to detect difference Between groups Pre Post Effect Size = M1 M2 . pooled SD Difference in SD units Power for detecting Ds in SAT groups

    35. Power: CSI-32 vs. DAS

    36. Power: CSI-16 vs. MAT

    37. Conclusions CSI scales More information Less noise More power Better thermometers NEXT STEP True over time? Better at detecting change?

    38. Studies 2, 3, 4: Method Study 2 596 online respondents 1 and 2 week follow ups (n = 267) CSI, MAT, DAS Study 3 398 online respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 mo follow ups (n = 156) CSI, MAT, DAS Study 4 1,062 online respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 mo follow ups (n = 545) CSI, MAT

    39. Studies 2-4: Demographics SAMPLE N = 2,056 initial respondents N = 968 (47%) respondents with longitudinal data AGE M = 27.7yo (9.3yrs) GENDER 71% Female 29% Male RACE 83% Caucasian 5% Asian 4% African American 4% Latino SES 10% High school diploma or less 25K avg yearly income

    40. Studies 2-4: Relationships Relationship Types 37% Married: 7.9 yrs (7.9 yrs) 13% Engaged: 3.2 yrs (2.4 yrs) 50% Dating: 1.8 yrs (1.9 yrs) Relationship Satisfaction (MAT) Married: 108 (32) Engaged: 122 (24) Dating: 116 (24) Dissatisfied Respondents 24% (n = 487)

    41. Change Criterion How much has each of these changed? Overall happiness in the relationship Feeling close and connected Stability of the relationship Averaged responses Alpha = .92 Agree with MAT, DAS, & CSI scores?

    42. Noise over time (SERM) Score scatter in no change group 238 no change at 1st assessment Repeated Measures MANOVA Scatter (noise) in scale scores across time SERM = 2*MSE

    43. Detecting Individual Change Can we detect individual change? Minimal Detectible Change (MDC95) RCI: Jacobson & Truax (1991) MDC95: Stratford et al. (1996) Pre-Post score change In one individual Necessary to exceed noise MDC95 (SD units) = 1.96*SERM . SD

    44. Minimum Detectible Change How much must an individuals score shift to show significant change?

    45. Detecting Individual Change CSI scales more sensitive Required smaller pre-post score shifts Longer scales more sensitive CSI-32 > CSI-16 > CSI-4 MAT & DAS not as sensitive Operated no better than CSI-4

    46. Detecting Group Differences Can we detect clinically distinct groups? Improved vs. No-change Deteriorated vs. No-change Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Guyatt, Walter & Norman (1987) MCID Effect Size = M(improved) M(no change) Noise over time (SERM) HLM framework Global change predicting D scores on scales 2,475 points of change from 968 respondents Improved vs. Deteriorated Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied Gender effects

    47. MCID Effect Sizes How well can we detect naturally occurring change?

    48. Differences by Gender Scales showed slightly smaller effect sizes in men

    49. Detecting Group Differences CSI-32 & CSI-16 Out performed DAS & MAT Improvement / Deterioration Satisfied / Dissatisfied CSI-4 Deterioration: Out performed DAS & MAT Improvement: Equivalent to DAS & MAT Weak gender effect All scales slightly less responsive in males

    50. Summary of Development CSI scales represent improved thermometers Developed with IRT / FA No contaminating items Non-redundant items Most informative items Still measure satisfaction Consistent with MAT / DAS Offer greater power More information Less noise More sensitive cross-sectionally Detecting group differences More responsive over time Detecting change in a single individual Detecting differences between clinical groups

    51. PART 2: Administration See CSI handout Spouses complete separately No discussion during administration Want unique perspectives Inform of confidentiality limits Feedback given? Dyadic or individual feedback? Normative data Should take 3-4 minutes

    52. Scoring See CSI scoring handout Sum the item responses 10 reverse scored items High sat options offered first (items 2-5) Reversed wording (items 10, 15) Total scores Range from 0-161

    53. Interpretation Box Plots Dissatisfaction Cut Score Scores below 104.5

    54. Norms in Dating Individuals

    55. Norms in Engaged Individuals

    56. Norms in Married Individuals

    57. Norms in Married Individuals