Brigham Young University Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive
Faculty Publications
1995-7
A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed
and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and
multidimensional scales multidimensional scales
Dean M. Busby
Brigham Young University - Provo
, dean_busby@byu.edu
Clark Christensen
Syracuse University
D. Russell Crane
Brigham Young University - Provo
Jeffry H. Larson
Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub
Part of the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons
Original Publication Citation Original Publication Citation
Busby, D. M., Crane, D. R., Larson, J., & Christensen, C. (1995). A revision of the dyadic
adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and
multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289-308.
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Busby, Dean M.; Christensen, Clark; Crane, D. Russell; and Larson, Jeffry H., "A revision of the dyadic
adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and
multidimensional scales" (1995).
Faculty Publications
. 4591.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/4591
This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more
information, please contact ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use
with distressed and nondistressed couples:
Construct hierarchy and multidimensional
scales
Busby, Dean M; Christensen, Clark; Crane, D Russell; Larson, Jeffry H . Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy ; Hoboken Vol.21,Iss.3, (Jul 1995): 289.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
A study of the effectiveness of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, commonly used as an instrument for measuring
adjustment in relationships, is presented. A revised scale is proposed.
FULL TEXT
INTRODUCTION
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) is a frequently used instrument for measuring adjustment in
relationships (Spanier, 1985). The DAS has particular value for both researchers and clinicians since it is relatively
short (32 items) yet is multidimensional in that it contains four subscales.
Most of the researchers who have investigated the psychometric properties of the DAS have utilized nonclinical
samples and have focused on the applicability of the DAS for use in survey research (Sabatelli, 1988; Sharpley
&Cross, 1982; Spanier &Thompson, 1982). However, recently researchers have paid more attention to the
appropriateness of the DAS for use in clinical research (Crane, Allgood, Larson, &Griffin, 1990; Kazak, Jarmas,
&Snitzer, 1988; Spanier, 1988).
The DAS has been shown to distinguish reliably between distressed and nondistressed samples (Crane et al.,
1990), but at least two of the subscales (Dyadic Satisfaction subscale and Affectional Expression subscale) have
been problematical (Crane, Busby, &Larson, 1991; Sharpley &Cross, 1982; Spanier &Thompson, 1982). This study
was an attempt to understand the problems with the subscales of the DAS by evaluating their adherence to
standards of construct hierarchy for multidimensional instrument development (Comrey, 1988). In addition, this
study was an attempt to revise the DAS by following the standards more carefully so that the instrument would be
more appropriate for clinical and research use.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In 1976 Spanier created an instrument to measure the separate components of marital adjustment and called it
the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). The separate dimensions of marital adjustment were reported to be the
following: (a) consensus on matters of importance to marital functioning, (b) dyadic satisfaction, (c) dyadic
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 19
cohesion, and (d) affectional expression.
After presenting the DAS, Spanier (1976) concluded that it could be used as an overall measure of marital
adjustment, or the specific subscales could be used independently without losing confidence in the reliability or
validity of the measure. Since the creation of the DAS, it has become one of the most widely used instruments in
the family field (Crane et al., 1990; Sabatelli, 1988; Spanier, 1985, 1988).
An empirical follow-up on the DAS was done in 1982 by Spanier and Thompson with a sample of 50 separated
persons and 155 divorced persons. This article was the first of what were to be five factor analyses on the DAS
(Crane et al., 1991; Kazak et al., 1988; Sabourin, Lussier, Laplante, &Wright, 1990; Sharpley &Cross, 1982; Spanier
&Thompson, 1982) An important result from their study was that the goodness of fit statistic implied that it was
very likely that another structure, rather than the four factors designed by Spanier(1976), would represent the data
better.
Spanier and Thompson (1982) analyzed the DAS in a variety of ways to find a more acceptable solution.
Alternative structures were compared to the original factor structure and the results verified that a four-factor
solution was still the most appropriate. The final results from their analyses indicated that the Consensus,
Satisfaction, and Cohesion subscales were "replicated fairly well," although the negative and positive items of the
Satisfaction subscale did not group together as originally hypothesized. Finally, the Affectional Expression
subscale was problematical since two of the four items had small loadings.
In conclusion, Spanier and Thompson (1982) reported that the DAS was originally designed as a global
assessment device and as such it was a reliable and valid instrument. Second, they reported that the domains of
the specific dimensions (subscales) of marital adjustment were not sampled and screened with the intent of
developing distinct measures of the facets (subscales). Nevertheless, Spanier and Thompson (1982) reported that
the four factors were robust and had distinct meaning, citing research in which the subscales were used
separately (Thompson &Spanier, 1983). Finally, they suggested that future work should weed out items which did
not mark the factors across samples.
The work by Spanier and Thompson (1982) initiated a debate over whether the DAS was a global unidimensional
instrument or a multidimensional instrument. This debate has not been satisfactorily ended to date since some
authors continue to present the instrument as unidimensional while others report that it is multidimensional
(Sabourin et al., 1990; Spanier, 1988; Thompson, 1988).
There seems to be little practical use for 32 items if discriminating between distressed and nondistressed couples
is the only valid way the DAS can be used; this can be done adequately by much shorter instruments like the
Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke &Wallace, 1959) or the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS; Schumm et
al., 1986). This illustrates the primary distinction of the DAS in relation to other marital adjustment instruments; it
has the potential of being multidimensional, thereby providing more information to clinicians and researchers.
Virtually all of the studies exploring the psychometric strengths of the DAS have utilized factor analytic
techniques.
Another factor analysis was performed on the DAS in 1982 by Sharpley and Cross. The sample in this study
consisted of 95 married persons. They reported that although a four-factor solution was found to be appropriate
for the data, the rotated factor solution did not resemble the subscales presented by Spanier (1976). A careful
investigation of Sharpley and Cross's (1982) results shows that the Affectional Expression and Dyadic Satisfaction
subscales were the most problematical subscales.
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 19
One of the few studies with a sample of distressed and nondistressed couples was that by Crane et al. (1991).
They found results similar to those of Sharpley and Cross (1982) and Spanier and Thompson (1982) in that the
Dyadic Satisfaction subscale did not fair well since half of the items did not produce high factor loadings on the
appropriate subscale. In addition, when separate analyses were conducted with the distressed and nondistressed
samples, the problems with the Dyadic Satisfaction subscale were amplified, and most of the subscales were not
satisfactory with the nondistressed sample.
The next factor analysis of the DAS reviewed in this study was performed by Kazak et al. (1988). They chose to do
a separate factor analysis for men and women, which makes it difficult to compare their results to those of
previous studies. The samples for the study consisted of 219 women and 190 men. Kazak et al. summarized their
results by saying that there was weak support for the presence of four subscales. Particular problems were
apparent with the Consensus and Satisfaction subscales since items cross-loaded on both scales. The items of
the Affectional Expression subscale, on the other hand, received better support than in previous studies. Kazak et
al. concluded by proposing that the DAS only be used as a general assessment instrument and that the subscales
not be used separately.
Spanier (1988) responded to Kazak et al.'s (1988) article, as did Thompson (1988). Spanier (1988) reiterated that
the DAS worked best as a global summary measure and that he had not used subscale scores in any of his own
research. He concluded by suggesting that future research be focused on specific refinements of the DAS and that
another generation of measures should be developed without the problems of the current instruments.
Thompson (1988) responded by suggesting again that the DAS was best as a summary measure and should not
be used for assessment of the separate dimensions of marital quality. Thompson complained that doubters
continued to find fault with the DAS while believers continued to use it. A request was made to move beyond
criticism of the scale to revision of it.
The final study considered in this review included the only treatment of the DAS in a hierarchical fashion (Sabourin
et al., 1990). These researchers proposed that some of the problems with the DAS could have been a result of not
taking into consideration the hierarchical nature of the instrument. Their solution to the unidimensional versus
multidimensional argument was to consider a third option: that the DAS was hierarchical. They proposed that the
DAS consisted of 4 first-level factors which combined to form a second-level global factor. Using a confirmatory
factor analysis with a sample of volunteer couples, they determined that this structure more adequately
represented their data than either a unidimensional or a multidimensional model. Nevertheless, some items in their
study on both the Consensus and Affectional Expression subscales had low loadings.
Summary from the Literature Review
A number of conclusions were summarized from the existing research on the DAS.
First, marital adjustment was originally defined (Spanier &Cole, 1976) as a multidimensional phenomenon which
the DAS was reported to measure adequately (Spanier, 1976). Second, the DAS was presented as a scale that
could be used both as a summary measure by utilizing the total score and as a measure of the separate
components of marital adjustment by using the subscales separately (Spanier, 1976, 1979; Spanier &Thompson,
1982) . Third, factor analyses of the DAS demonstrated that there were problems with the validity of the Dyadic
Satisfaction and Affectional Expression subscales (Crane et al., 1991; Kazak et al., 1988; Sharpley &Cross, 1982).
Fourth, the samples used to evaluate the DAS often consisted of separated or divorced individuals rather than
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 19
distressed and nondistressed couples (Spanier, 1976; Spanier &Thompson, 1982). Fifth, one promising method of
eliminating the unidimensional/multidimensional argument is to consider the DAS a hierarchical measure with
first- and second-order constructs. Sixth, future studies on the DAS should revise and improve the DAS rather than
just criticize it (Spanier, 1988; Thompson, 1988).
Construct Hierarchy and Multidimensional Scales
From the literature review, it is evident that the controversy surrounding the DAS centers on the question of
whether the scale is a unidimensional global measure or a multidimensional instrument. This controversy has
occurred because of the empirical work that failed to validate the subscales of the DAS. Since the original
definition of dyadic adjustment was multidimensional in nature (Spanier &Cole, 1975; Spanier, 1976) and the
subscales of the DAS are what make it unique among instruments in the field, it seems more appropriate to revise
the instrument so that the subscales are valid than to suggest that it is now only a global instrument.
The problems with the subscales of the DAS can be understood and corrected by considering issues of construct
hierarchy. The accepted method of developing scales in the social sciences follows a number of specific steps
(American Psychological Association, 1985; Comrey, 1988):
1. The researcher decides what concept is to be measured.
2. The researcher must then make an assessment of the construct hierarchy of the proposed concept that is to be
measured. Is the concept at the first level of the hierarchy, such as a four-item measure of family finances?
Concepts at the First level are measured by creating questions that are homogeneous or alternate forms of one
another. If the concept being measured is a second-order concept like dyadic consensus, it is a combination of a
number of first-order concepts such as finances, leisure activities, and decision making.
3. Once the construct hierarchy is delineated, homogeneous questions can be written for each of the first-order
concepts.
4. The internal consistency of each first-order subscale is then demonstrated by a series of factor analyses which
show that all homogeneous items have substantial factor loadings on their respective subscales.
5. To evaluate the ability of the first-order constructs to measure the second-order constructs, a second-order
factor analysis would be conducted.
An example of this process follows: Suppose that Dyadic Consensus was defined as stated in Spanier's article
(1976): "consensus on matters of importance to marital functioning" (p. 128). Suppose that there were four areas
of importance, such as finances, affection, decision making, and values. These four areas are first-order subscales
and could each be measured by four homogeneous items, two positive and two negative. An example of a positive
item could be the following: My partner and I have similar opinions about how we should handle finances in our
marriage. A negative item could be: My partner and I do not agree about financial issues in our marriage. The
questions would be answered on a 5-point scale with responses ranging from most of the time to never. Once the
items were written and data were collected, a factor analysis could be conducted to see if the four items of each
concept factored correctly on their respective subscales (Comrey, 1988).
To assess the ability of these four subscales (finances, affection, decision making, and values) to measure the
second-order concept of consensus, a second-order factor analysis would be conducted (Comrey, 1988). The
PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 19