This study investigates the psychometric properties of the Romanian version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory with data from 510 married couples. The results confirm the theoretical factorial structure of the Dyadic Coping Inventory for both partners, indicating convergent validity, discriminate validity, and measurement invariance (across genders and across cultures).
BodenmannG. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In RevensonT.KayserK.BodenmannG. (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping. Decade of behavior (pp. 33–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
BodenmannG. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Test manual [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber & Hogrefe.
3.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
4.
DonatoS.IafrateR.BarniD.BertoniA.BodenmannG.GagliardiS. (2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of Bodenmann’s Dyadic Coping Questionnaire in an Italian sample. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16, 25–47. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485
5.
FalconierM. K.JacksonJ. B.HilpertP.BodenmannG. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46.
6.
FalconierM. K.NussbeckF.BodenmannG. (2013). Dyadic coping in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26, 447–466. doi:10.1080/10615806.2012.699045
7.
FifeB. L.WeaverM. T.CookW. L.StumpT. T. (2013). Partner interdependence and coping with life-threatening illness: The impact on dyadic adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 702–711. doi:10.1037/a0033871
8.
FunkJ. L.RoggeR. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
9.
GarnefskiN.KraaijV.SpinhovenP. H. (2002). Manual for the use of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Leiderdorp, Netherlands: DATEC.
10.
HilpertP.RandallA. K.SorokowskiP.AtkinsD. C.SorokowskaA.AhmadiK.. . . BłażejewskaM. (2016). The associations of dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction vary between and within nations: A 35-nation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1106.
11.
LedermannT.BodenmannG.GagliardiS.CharvozL.VerardiS.RossierJ.. . . IafrateR. (2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 69, 201–212. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000024.
12.
LevesqueC.LafontaineM.-F.CaronA.FitzpatrickJ. (2014). Validation of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 215–225. doi:10.1177/0748175614522272.
13.
PornprasertmanitS.MillerP.SchoemannA.RosseelY. (2013). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling: R package version 0.4-0. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
14.
RStudio. (2012). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 0.96.122) [Computer software]. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.org/
15.
RevensonT. A.LeporeS. J. (2012). Coping in social context. In BaumA.RevensonT. A.SingerJ. (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 193–217). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
16.
RobilaM. (2004). Child development and family functioning within Romanian context. In RobilaM. (Ed.), Families in Eastern Europe (pp. 141–154). New York, NY: Elsevier.
17.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
18.
RusuP. P. (2012). Religiosity and religious coping in couple and family relations: Therapeutical implications (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). “Al. I. Cuza” University of Iasi, Iaşi, Romania.
19.
Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.MüllerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
20.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
21.
VedesA.NussbeckF. W.BodenmannG.LindW.FerreiraA. (2013). Psychometric properties and validity of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 149–157. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000108
22.
VerhofstadtL. L.BuysseA.RosseelY.PeeneO. J. (2006). Confirming the three-factor structure of the quality of relationships inventory within couples. Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 15–21. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.15
