The info presented try accumulated when you look at the context away from greater research systems, which contains an in depth sociodemographic and you may dating review, as well as other scales from inside the range off romantic relationship
With respect to the overall duration of the relationship, the average, in years, for the other statuses revealed was, respectively: dos.89 (SD = dos.27); cuatro.94 (SD = 2.97), both communities varying ranging from 6 months and you can 11 several years of relationships; seven.76 (SD = 4.01), anywhere between two and you can 19 many years; and you will (SD = 4.82), ranging from less than annually and you will 31 many years. 8%) and lived with friends, when you find yourself the individuals managing their partners was in fact primarily working some one (69.2%), from which 53% got university otherwise postgraduate level. Of one’s certified partnership members, 67% had college or blog post-graduate stages, where 89.8% was in fact functioning, 2% retired and you can 8.2% unemployed. The working situation for the hitched players is actually comparable: 89.5% was basically doing work, dos.9% was in fact resigned and you may six.3% was basically underemployed, and step one.3% introduced another a position status. Contained in this classification, 62.5% of the users had college or postgraduate grade.
Private relationship is examined with regards to the Portuguese adaptation (Desk step 1) of your own shorter types of new Work Level (Stanley, 1986), that was interpreted with respect to the pursuing the interpretation and you will retroversion methods: just after consent was given by author, the initial size is interpreted of the several experts in industry, both of these translations was in fact confronted with retroversion because of the two benefits, you to definitely bilingual plus one experienced in employing the latest English language; ultimately, for every single type is actually compared to totally new size, going for the aid of this new conditions and items with higher distance so you can they. This new Portuguese version for this reason contains this new fourteen fresh points and you can the same respond to level and you can try called, immediately after deliberation from the party, the non-public Connection Level (‘Escala de Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). For the latest phase of your interpretation processes, new software was given to three users for the aim of verifying new adequateness of your language escort girl Birmingham in addition to unambiguous understanding of those things, that have been talked about to the members after applying of brand new questionnaire. Since there had been zero statements saying if not, stuff remained a comparable.
As a result of a revision of the fresh Davis (1996, quoted within the Lind, 2008) size, that it device is meant to measure relationships high quality effect, with the hope that, according to theoretic assumptions, each other bills have a tendency to undoubtedly associate
Relationship Quality, chosen to verify criteria validity, was measured with the Relationship Rating Form–Revised (RRF-R; Davis, 1996, adapt. by Lind, 2008). The items are presented in the form of questions that the subjects will answer according to a rating scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (completely or extremely). The Portuguese version consists of a total of 46 items grouped in four dimensions: Passion, Confidence, Conflict and Intimacy. The RRF-R revealed psychometric properties ranging from good to excellent, obtaining an excellent internal consistency at the total scale level, with Cronbach’s alpha values between .97 and .98, for women and men respectively, and .81 and .97 at subscale level, a good temporal stability (significant correlations ranging between .70 and .87; p < .01) and high concurrent validity with a marital satisfaction scale (significant global score correlations between .88 and .85, for women and men respectively; p < .01). In the current sample, the RRF-R presented for the total scale, an excellent Cronbach's alpha of .96; .94 for the Passion subscale, .93 for Confidence, .77 for Conflict and .83 for Intimacy. The internal consistency of the total scale remained excellent for the four subsamples: .95 for participants in a dating relationship, .94 for those in a dating relationship with cohabitation and .97 for participants in both formal unions and married relationships.
