Ledermann Bodenmann Et Al. (2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Three Language Groups

T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping InventorySwissJ. Psychol. 69 (4) 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Original Communication

Psychometrics of the Dyadic CopingInventory in Three Language GroupsThomas Ledermann1, Guy Bodenmann2, Simona Gagliardi2, Linda Charvoz3,

Sabrina Verardi3, Jrme Rossier3, Anna Bertoni4, and Raffaella Iafrate4

1University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA, 2University of Zurich, Switzerland,3University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 4Catholic University of Milan, Italy

Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69 (4), 2010, 201212

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000024

Abstract. This article introduces the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008) and aims (1) to investigate the reliability andaspects of the validity of the Italian and French versions of the DCI, and (2) to replicate its factor structure and reliabilities using a newSwiss German sample. Based on 216 German-, 378 Italian-, and 198 French-speaking participants, the factor structure of the originalGerman inventory was able to be replicated by using principal components analysis in all three groups after excluding two items in theItalian and French versions. The latter were shown to be as reliable as the German version with the exception of the low reliabilities ofnegative dyadic coping in the French group. Confirmatory factor analyses provided additional support for delegated dyadic coping andevaluation of dyadic coping. Intercorrelations among scales were similar across all three languages groups with a few exceptions. Previousfindings could be replicated in all three groups, showing that aspects of dyadic coping were more strongly related to marital quality thanto dyadic communication. The use of the dyadic coping scales in the actor-partner interdependence model, the common fate model, andthe mutual influence model is discussed.

Keywords: dyadic coping, validation, questionnaire, dyadic research

In the 1960s and 1970s, when scientists began to study copingwith stress, coping was considered an individual phenome-non (e.g., Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pearlin& Schooler, 1978). Since the early 1990s, however, authorshave begun to emphasize the significance of the social con-text and the role of significant others in managing stressfulencounters. In addition to the research focusing on the expo-sure to stress of groups involving more than two people (e.g.,Buchwald, Schwarzer, & Hobfoll, 2004; Hobfoll, 1998; Ly-ons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998) and the investiga-tion of the role of the partner with respect to social support(e.g., Barbee, 1990; Williamson & Clark, 1992; Winkeler &Klauer, 2003), there is a growing literature on coping withstress in intimate relationships (e.g., Berg, Meegan, &Deviney, 1998; Bodenmann, 1997, 2005; Bodenmann & Per-rez, 1991; Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006; Coyne &Smith, 1991, 1994; Cutrona, 1996; DeLongis & OBrien,1990; Kayser, Sormanti, & Strainchamps, 1999). This articleintroduces the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) developed byBodenmann to measure coping with daily stress in intimaterelationships; it demonstrate the reliability of the Italian andFrench versions and replicates results obtained in previousstudies of the German version of the DCI.

In the early 1990s, Coyne and colleagues and Boden-mann independently of each other developed a dyadicstress-coping approach on the basis of Lazarus and Folk-

mans (1984) transactional stress model. Coyne, Ellard,and Smith (1990) posited the notion of relationship-fo-cused coping, in addition to problem- and emotion-focusedcoping. This notion was further elaborated by Coyne andSmith (1991), who postulated two forms of relationship-fo-cused coping: active engagement (e.g., discussing thestressful situation with the partner, constructive interper-sonal problem solving) and protective buffering (e.g., at-tempts to hide concerns and deny worries and to protectones partner from upset and burden). Bodenmann, on theother hand, developed a concept of dyadic coping in closerelationships, proposing a systemic-transactional perspec-tive of coping that has its origin in the systematic observa-tion of interactions between spouses under stress (Boden-mann, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005). His theoretical frameworkis based on two key assumptions: First, stress and copingrepresent a dyadic (systemic) phenomenon. Second, dyadiccoping with stress includes both stress expression and dy-adic support (Bodenmann, 2000). There are two types ofstress: relationship stress and external stress (Bodenmann,Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007; Randall & Bodenmann,2009). The former originates inside the relationship due todiffering goals, attitudes, or desires, whereas the latter orig-inates outside the relationship in the form of work strains,social obligations, or conflicts with personal friends notshared with the partner.

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Within this perspective, dyadic coping is considered (1)one partners attempt to help reduce the external stress per-ceived by his or her partner and (2) a common endeavor tocope with stress that originates inside the relationship. Thestress-coping process is regarded as a sequence consistingof stress expression by the stressed person, the perceptionof stress by the partner, and the partners coping reactionto the stressed persons behavior (see Bodenmann, 2008).

Dyadic coping is conceptualized as a multidimensionalconstruct composed of four components: supportive, delegat-ed, negative, and joint (common) dyadic coping. Supportivedyadic coping occurs when one partner assists the other in hisor her coping efforts through problem- and emotion-focusedsupport (e.g., providing practical advice, helping the partneraccomplish daily tasks and reframe the situation, communi-cating a belief in the partners capabilities or expressing sol-idarity with the partner). It is not simply altruistic behavior,but involves efforts to support the partner with the secondarygoal of reducing ones own stress as well (Bodenmann,1995). Delegated dyadic coping occurs when one partnertakes over responsibilities in order to reduce the partnersstress. As opposed to supportive dyadic coping, delegateddyadic coping is characterized by the expression of supportby the stressed person and a new division of contributions tothe coping process. This form of dyadic coping is most com-monly used in response to problem-oriented stressors. Forexample, the partner who does not usually go grocery shop-ping does the shopping in order to reduce the partners stress.Negative dyadic coping includes three subforms: hostile dy-adic coping (i.e., support behaviors that are accompanied bydisparagement, mocking, or sarcasm), ambivalent dyadiccoping (i.e., reluctant insufficient, or inefficient support), andsuperficial dyadic coping (i.e., insincere or undedicated sup-port). Joint dyadic coping refers to processes in which bothpartners participate more or less symmetrically in order tohandle stressful encounters relevant to the couple. Couplesmay use strategies such as joint problem solving, joint infor-mation seeking, sharing of feelings, mutual commitment, orrelaxing together. Whereas supportive dyadic coping meansthat one partner helps the other to deal with stress, joint dyadiccoping implies that both partners are experiencing stress (of-ten because of the same stressor) and try to manage the situ-ation by coping together. They apply strategies focusing onresolving the problem together or helping each other reduceemotional arousal.

Based on the systemic-transactional perspective of dy-adic coping, Bodenmann developed a self-report question-naire for assessing dyadic coping in close relationshipsconsisting of four factors: stress communication, support-ive, negative, and joint dyadic coping. In addition, twoitems were designed to reflect the quality of the self-per-ceived dyadic coping. The questionnaire, called the DyadicCoping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008), measuresones own as well as ones perception of ones partnersstress communication as well as supportive and negativedyadic coping in close relationships when one or both part-ners are stressed. A number of studies using a former ver-

sion of this scale, called the Questionnaire to Assess Dy-adic Coping as a Tendency (FDCT-N), have supported theutility of the questionnaire in predicting marital functioning(Bodenmann, 2005, 2008). Specifically, evidence has beenfound that low scores in positive dyadic coping and highscores in negative dyadic coping are significantly associat-ed with low relationship quality. The finding that low com-munication competence coincides with low quality of dy-adic coping supports the notion that communication is keyto dyadic coping. The results of a meta-analysis revealedthat the total composite index of the dyadic coping scaleaccounted for 30% to 40% of the variance in marital satis-faction (Bodenmann, 2005). Predictive studies showed thatdyadic coping is associated with future relationship qualityand stability (e.g., Bodenmann & Cina, 2006). Evidencehas also been found that couples with a partner sufferingfrom a psychiatric disorder (depression, anxiety disorder,sexual dysfunction) reported significantly higher scores onnegative dyadic coping relative to couples where both part-ners were healthy (Bodenmann, 2000). Studies evaluatinggender differences in dyadic coping showed that there werenearly no significant differences in self-perceived dyadiccoping, with the exception of stress communication, whichwas more often practiced by women than men (Widmer &Bodenmann, 2000). Because of its capability to assesschanges over time, the DCI is also appropriate for use intreatment designs, including therapy evaluation (see, e.g.,Bodenmann et al., 2006; Ledermann, Bodenmann, & Cina,2007). These findings stimulated research on dyadic cop-ing in the French-speaking part of Switzerland and Italyusing the DCI translated into French and Italian.

In addition to the introduction of the DCI and its back-ground, the purpose of the current article is (1) to demonstratethe reliability and aspects of the construct validity of the Ital-ian and French versions of the DCI in predicting marital func-tioning, including marital quality and communication behav-iors in conflict situations, and (2) to replicate previous resultson the factor structure and reliabilities of the German versionof the inventory using a new Swiss sample. In all three lan-guage groups, we expect to find that communication of stress,the quality of ones own and the partners as well as the jointdyadic coping are positively related to marital quality andcommunication behaviors. In this article, we report and dis-cuss the results without distinguishing between men andwomen since previous studies using the current German ver-sion of the DCI reported only a few gender differences(Bodenmann, 2008; Gmelch et al., 2008).

Method

Construction of the DCI

The Dyadic Coping Inventory emerged from the Question-naire to Assess Dyadic Coping as a Tendency (FDCT-N)developed by Bodenmann (e.g., 2000). On the basis of ration-

202 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory


al grounds and statistical analyses, 37 out of 68 items wereselected. The Italian and French versions of the DCI are aliteral translation of the original German DCI. The transla-tions were carried out by native French and Italian speakers.A backtranslation was undertaken by two native Germanspeakers (one with a good knowledge of French, the otherwith a good knowledge of Italian) and compared to the orig-inal version. In addition, an English version was derived byusing the same translation process as for the Italian andFrench versions. In all language versions of the DCI, theitems are to be rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very rarely, 2 =rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 often, 5 = very often). The DCI scalesand subscales along with their construction are listed in theAppendix (Table 1A). The inventory takes about 15 minutesto complete.

Samples

Participants in this study were 792 individuals (not couples)belonging to three language groups. The Swiss Germangroup consisted of 216 participants (50.9% women), the Ital-ian group of 378 (50.3% women), and the French group of198 (48.5% women). The mean ages were 28.7 (SD = 11.6)years for the German group, 36.8 (SD = 13.3) for the Italiangroup, and 33.7 (SD = 14.4) for the French group. Individualsreported a mean relationship duration of 6.32 (SD = 8.4)years, 14.6 (SD = 12.3), and 11.8 (SD = 11.9). On average,they had 2.73 (SD = 1.36), 1.01 (SD = 1.22), and 0.93 (SD =1.22) children. 19% of the German group, 61% of the Italiangroup, and 43% of the French group were married. The ma-jority were living with their partners: 88%, 97%, and 89%,respectively. With regard to their level of education, 68% ofthe German group, 28% of the Italian group, and 73% of theFrench group had earned a university degree.

Procedure

Participants were recruited both by newspaper advertise-ments and by posters at universities in Switzerland and It-aly. Individuals interested in the study were mailed a packetof questionnaires together with instructions to complete theforms and return the packet to the institute within 2 weeks.In addition to providing demographic information, such asage, gender, education, marital status, relationship dura-tion, and number of children, participants completed themeasures described in the following.

Measures

Partnership Questionnaire(Partnerschaftsfragebogen; Hahlweg, 1996)

This is a 30-item questionnaire consisting of the three sub-scales Quarreling (e.g., My partner criticizes me in a sar-

castic way), Tenderness (e.g., My partner is affectionatetoward me), and Togetherness/Communication (e.g., Mypartner shares his/her thoughts and feelings with me). Therating scale ranges from never (0) to very often (3). Thesesubscales can be combined to create a total score with highscores indicating high marital quality. The internal consis-tencies as measured by Cronbachs were .90, .88, and .91for the German, the Italian, and the French group.

Communication Patterns Questionnaire (CPQ)

The CPQ (Christensen & Sullaway, 1984; see also Chris-tensen, 1988) is a 35-item questionnaire assessing commu-nication behaviors at the beginning, during, and followingdiscussion of relationship problems. The patterns are mu-tual avoidance (3 items), mutual constructive communica-tion (4 items), and demand-withdraw, that is, one partnerattempts to engage in discussion, while the other attemptsto avoid discussion (6 items). The likelihood of these be-haviors being exhibited was rated on a 9-point scale (1 =very unlikely, 9 = very likely). The internal consistencies(Cronbachs ) for the German, Italian, and French groupswere .82, .84, and .79 for mutual constructive pattern, .69,.72, and .64 for the mutual avoidance pattern, and .73, .72,and .76 for the demand-withdraw pattern.

Results

Factor Structure

The theoretical structure proposed by Bodenmann was test-ed by means of factor analyses with varimax rotation. Fac-tors were extracted using principal components analysis(PCA) and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Separate analyseswere conducted for the items measuring ones own copingbehavior, the partners coping behavior, and joint coping.The reason for conducting separate analyses is the perspec-tive of the rater, which is different for ones own, the part-ners, and the joint dyadic coping. Table 1 presents the itemloadings for the postulated factors of ones own and thepartners dyadic coping. As can be seen, the Germangroups data provide evidence for the postulated structurewith the factors stress communication, supportive dyadiccoping, negative dyadic coping, and delegated dyadic cop-ing for both ones own and the partners dyadic coping. Forthe Italian and the French group, the proposed factors forones own and the partners coping were able to be repli-cated only after items 2 and 17 of the stress communicationscales were excluded. The items are: I ask my partner todo things for me when I have too much to do and Mypartner asks me to do things for him/her when he has toomuch to do, respectively. This indicates that these twoitems do not represent a distinct indicator of ones own andthe partners stress communication in the Italian or French

T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 203


group. In all three language groups, the loadings of theitems on the designated factors were all above .50 with theexception of item 22 (i.e., I blame my partner for not cop-ing well enough with stress), whose loading was .35 in theFrench group. The cross-loadings were all below .40. Theexplained variances for the German, Italian, and Frenchgroups were 62.1%, 64.3%, and 61.8% for ones own cop-ing and 65.1%, 67.4%, and 62.1% for the partners coping,respectively. The eigenvalues were 1.23, 1.08, and 1.13 forones own coping and 1.14, 1.12, and 1.09 for the partnerscoping. The results of the principal components analysesalso provided evidence for the factor joint dyadic coping.The loadings of the items measuring this type of coping

(items 31 to 35) were .87, .87, .84, .49, and .35 for theGerman, .85, .87, 85, .38, and .41 for the Italian, and .79,.83, .80, .66, and .57 for the French group. The explainedvariances were 51.5%, 50.2%, and 54.2%, respectively.The eigenvalues for the joint dyadic coping factor were2.57, 2.51, and 2.71. These findings provide evidence forconfigural (form) invariance (Horn, McArdle, & Mason,1983; see also Vandenberg & Lance, 2000) of the dyadiccoping scales across all three language groups. The stresscommunication scales exhibit configural invariance onlyacross the Italian and the French groups, however.

On the basis of the PCA result, we conducted confirma-tory factor analyses (CFA) using structural equation mod-

Table 1Item loadings for subscales of the German, Italian, and French versions of the DCI

Stress communication Supportive DC Negative DC Delegated DCItem German Italian French German Italian French German Italian French German Italian FrenchOnes own dyadic coping1 .76 .76 .54 .24 .22 .34 .14 .10 .17 .08 .04 .102 .76 .06 .03 .04 3 .81 .81 .69 .04 .12 .14 .00 .01 .12 .01 .02 .134 .82 .86 .79 .15 .18 .11 .11 .00 .13 .06 .01 .0320 .29 .27 .41 .54 .75 .72 .46 .21 .13 .23 .15 .0021 .34 .25 .47 .56 .71 .67 .36 .21 .15 .19 .13 .0423 .04 .01 .14 .76 .78 .77 .16 .13 .04 .02 .02 .0024 .24 .16 .10 .65 .79 .79 .26 .21 .11 .26 .16 .0229 .16 .25 .30 .72 .75 .69 .07 .01 .05 .19 .23 .2722 .07 .03 .30 .06 .06 .13 .54 .62 .35 .02 .00 .2525 .03 .06 .19 .02 .13 .02 .74 .67 .70 .09 .13 .0526 .01 .04 .06 .16 .31 .13 .65 .64 .73 .00 .04 .1027 .08 .20 .29 .18 .12 .07 .74 .74 .70 .09 .07 .0428 .04 .03 .14 .15 .12 .12 .04 .03 .08 .90 .90 .9230 .08 .10 .07 .25 .34 .01 .08 .07 .07 .86 .79 .94Partners dyadic coping16 .77 .74 .73 .27 .24 .18 .15 .27 .02 .14 .14 .1717 .71 .07 .08 .00 18 .83 .80 .84 .02 .10 .08 .02 .06 .04 .00 .07 .0619 .84 .80 .86 .19 .23 .15 .18 .05 .03 .10 .03 .055 .23 .24 .30 .53 .77 .54 .47 .23 .47 .38 .15 .226 .35 .34 .40 .54 .72 .52 .37 .15 .32 .30 .09 .198 .05 .07 .03 .87 .83 .86 .15 .02 .02 .11 .13 .069 .23 .15 .29 .67 .84 .71 .37 .19 .26 .29 .09 .1813 .15 .11 .12 .79 .79 .81 .14 .01 .05 .20 .23 .207 .01 .09 .01 .01 .00 .00 .71 .69 .64 .06 .01 .0610 .01 .10 .04 .25 .06 .01 .77 .76 .67 .12 .13 .0511 .03 .09 .04 .34 .26 .33 .63 .63 .58 .15 .03 .0815 .15 .11 .03 .20 .36 .10 .67 .68 .51 .17 .10 .0412 .02 .04 .05 .22 .13 .06 .18 .04 .03 .87 .90 .9114 .11 .00 .00 .26 .37 .23 .21 .12 .02 .84 .80 .88Note. DC = dyadic coping. Items 2 and 17 were excluded from the Italian and French versions of the DCI. The shaded areas denote the expectedfactor structure.



eling (SEM) techniques. In models with three or more in-dicator variables, the loading of one indicator was set toone, in models with two indicator variables, the loading ofboth indicators were constrained to one. Models with threeor fewer indicators are saturated (i.e., just identified) and,consequently, have zero degrees of freedom (df). The mod-el fit and the range of the standardized factor loadings ofthe dyadic coping subscales and the scales measuring eval-uation of dyadic coping are presented in Table 2. In termsof model fit and the convention that the indicators shouldhave standardized loadings of .70 or higher (e.g., Schu-macker & Lomax, 2004), delegated dyadic coping by one-self and the partner and evaluation of dyadic coping werereasonable and reliable. All other scales were either incon-sistent with the data or showed low loadings or both.

Reliabilities and Item Correlations

The reliabilities measured by Cronbachs and the correct-ed item-total correlations of the subscales, the compositescales, and the evaluation of dyadic coping are shown inTable 3. The reliabilities of the subscales ranged for theGerman, Italian, and the French groups from .61 to .86,from .62 to .89, and from .50 to .89, respectively. Using theconventional standard of .70 as the minimal acceptable lev-el of reliability, we found reasonable reliabilities in the Ger-man and Italian groups for all subscales with two excep-tions: The negative dyadic coping scales in both languagegroups and joint dyadic coping in the Italian group showedborderline reliabilities ranging from .61 to .67. In theFrench group, all subscales were reliable with the excep-

Table 2Model fit and range of standardized factor loadings of the DCI subscales and the evaluation scales

Version df p RMSEA CFI Range ofstand. loadings

Subscales scalesStress communication by oneself G 15.50 2 .002 .156 .960 .56.76

I 0 .65.90F 0 .51.76

Stress communication by the partner G 27.35 2 < .001 .243 .929 .52.90I 0 .59.79F 0 .61.91

Supportive DC by oneself G 42.40 5 < .001 .187 .864 .49.80I 12.87 5 .025 .065 .990 .58.82F 19.02 5 .002 .119 .960 .47.84

Supportive DC by the partner G 33.94 5 < .001 .164 .923 .60.82I 91.20 5 < .001 .214 .992 .74.86F 50.08 5 < .001 .214 .889 .58.83

Negative DC by oneself G 0.20 2 .905 < .001 1.00 .28.71I 0.01 2 .997 < .001 1.00 .45.69F 4.92 2 .085 .086 .946 .25.57

Negative DC by the partner G 1.13 2 .569 < .001 1.00 .45.75I 9.48 2 .009 .100 .965 .51.70F 0.06 2 .970 < .001 1.00 .31.43

Delegated DC by oneself G 0 .84.89I 0 .72.80F 0 .92.87

Delegated DC by the partner G 0 .80.85I 0 .77.79F 0 .82.84

Joint DC G 34.78 5 < .001 .166 .924 .16.91I 83.13 5 < .001 .204 .877 .17.89F 56.57 5 < .001 .229 .847 .35.86

Evaluation of DC G 0 .85.84I 0 .89.92F 0 .90.95

Note. df = degrees of freedom; stand = standardized. Factor loadings of models with a bad model fit are likely to be biased.



tion of stress communication by oneself, which yielded aborderline reliability of .64, and negative dyadic coping,whose reliability was very low. The reliabilities for thethree composite scales were reasonable with the exceptionof the borderline reliability for dyadic coping by oneselftotal in the French group. There were reasonable reliabili-ties for evaluation of dyadic coping across all three lan-guage groups that ranged from .84 to .92.

Means and Standard Deviations andIntercorrelations Among Subscales

Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for allthree language groups. Substantial group differences wererevealed for negative dyadic coping by oneself, delegateddyadic coping by oneself, and evaluation of dyadic coping.

Table 3Reliabilities (Cronbachs ) and range of corrected item-total correlations for the German, Italian, and French groups

German Italian FrenchN = 216 N = 378 N = 198

Variable Rel. Item corr. Rel. Item corr. Rel. Item corr.SubscalesStress communication by oneself .80 .50.68 .78 .57.70 .64 .40.51Stress communication by the partner .82 .51.73 .75 .51.62 .78 .55.71Supportive DC by oneself .76 .46.64 .86 .55.74 .82 .4671Supportive DC by the partner .82 .55.71 .89 .70.79 .84 .55.74Negative DC by oneself .61 .23.51 .62 .35.49 .53 .20.46Negative DC by the partner .66 .38.55 .67 .42.53 .50 .23.39Delegated DC by oneself .86 .75 .73 .57 .89 .80Delegated DC by the partner .81 .68 .76 .61 .81 .69Joint DC .70 .27.63 .68 31.61 .76 .46.60Composite scalesDC total by oneself .77 .09.60 .78 .14.69 .69 .03.62DC total by the partner .83 .31.75 .83 .25.75 .78 .19.68DC total .91 .08.69 .90 .08.72 .90 .07.70Evaluation of DC .84 .72 .90 .82 .92 .86Note. DC = dyadic coping; Rel. = reliability (Cronbachs ); Item corr. = corrected item-total correlation.

Table 4Means and standard deviations and results of the analysis of variance for the German, Italian, and French groups

German Italian FrenchVariable M SD M SD M SD F 2

SubscalesStress communication by oneself 3.43 0.77 3.44 0.84 3.48 0.73 Stress communication by the partner 3.44 0.79 3.59 0.77 3.27 0.86 * Supportive DC by oneself 3.98 0.54 3.90 0.60 3.91 0.57 1.44 .003Supportive DC by the partner 3.88 0.67 3.76 0.76 3.81 0.68 1.12 .005Negative DC by oneself 1.49 0.50 1.35 0.48 1.36 0.42 8.19** .018Negative DC by the partner 1.42 0.50 1.30 0.49 1.42 0.45 0.00 .015Delegated DC by oneself 3.35 0.87 3.16 0.80 3.10 0.89 9.09** .013Delegated DC by the partner 3.20 0.89 3.03 0.93 3.08 0.91 1.80 .006Joint DC 3.46 0.64 3.28 0.63 3.58 0.70 3.17 .035Composite scalesDC total by oneself 4.06 0.43 4.04 0.44 4.03 0.37 0.42 .001DC total by the partner 4.01 0.51 3.97 0.53 3.96 0.48 1.21 .002DC total 133.50 15.14 125.57 14.29 126.00 13.66 Evaluation of DC 4.15 0.70 3.82 0.83 3.87 0.84 12.92*** .030Note. DC = dyadic coping. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



In all three cases, the means were somewhat higher in theSwiss German group. Furthermore, the means of the sub-scales measuring negative dyadic coping were somewhatlower than for the other subscales (Table 4).

Intercorrelations among the scales and subscales are giv-en in Table 5. The direction and magnitude of the correla-tions were largely as expected. Strong effects ( .50) acrossall three language groups were found for the correlationsbetween dyadic coping by oneself and by the partner, be-tween dyadic coping by the partner and joint dyadic cop-ing, between dyadic coping by the partner and evaluation,between supportive dyadic coping by oneself and the part-ner, between negative dyadic coping by oneself and thepartner, between joint dyadic coping and supportive dyadiccoping by oneself and the partner, between evaluation andsupportive dyadic coping by the partner, and between eval-uation and joint dyadic coping.

To examine differences in the correlations betweengroups, we consider a difference of .20 (i.e., between asmall and a medium effect) or higher as substantial. Usingthis criterion, which allows a sample size independent com-parison, three substantial differences were revealed. First,the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by oneselfand supportive dyadic coping by oneself was substantiallylower for the Italian group relative to the other two groups.Second, the association between delegated dyadic copingby the partner and supportive dyadic coping by oneself wasmuch stronger for the German group than for both the Ital-ian and the French groups. Finally, the correlation betweendelegated dyadic coping by the partner and supportive dy-adic coping by the partner was substantially stronger forthe German group than for the other two groups. All othergroup differences were smaller than .20.

Correlations with Other Constructs

In order to test aspects of construct validity, the dyadic cop-ing scales were correlated with marital quality, measuredby the relationship questionnaire, and communication be-haviors, assessed by the Communication Patterns Ques-tionnaire (CPQ). The intercorrelations are depicted in Ta-ble 6. As can be seen, stress communication by oneself andby the partner were most strongly related to marital qualityand most weakly with CPQ demand-withdraw across allthree language samples. In the German and French group,ones own stress communication was a better predictor formarital quality than the partners stress communication.Among the dyadic coping subscales, the strongest correla-tions with marital quality and CPQ avoidance and CPQconstructive communication were found for both forms ofsupportive and negative dyadic coping and joint dyadiccoping. Among them, supportive dyadic coping by oneselfwas less correlated with CPQ demand-withdraw than theother subscales. Delegated dyadic coping was generallyless associated with marital communication and CPQ com-munication than stress communication and the other dyadic



Table 6Correlations of the dyadic coping scales with marital quality and marital communication patterns (CPQ)Variable Version Marital quality CPQ avoidance CPQ constructive CPQ demand-withdrawSubscales

Stress communication by oneself G 0.41*** 0.26*** 0.31*** 0.03

I 0.36*** 0.31*** 0.21*** 0.17**

F 0.50*** 0.33*** 0.23** 0.07Stress communication by the partner G 0.31*** 0.31*** 0.27*** 0.15*

I 0.37*** 0.35*** 0.23*** 0.14**F 0.26*** 0.15* 0.25*** 0.07

Supportive DC by oneself G 0.45*** 0.33*** 0.35*** 0.15*I 0.46*** 0.38*** 0.27*** 0.24***

F 0.47*** 0.35*** 0.26*** 0.11Supportive DC by the partner G 0.68*** 0.46*** 0.55*** 0.29***

I 0.64*** 0.48*** 0.40*** 0.30***

F 0.62*** 0.50*** 0.40*** 0.34***Negative DC by oneself G 0.51*** 0.35*** 0.47*** 0.30***

I 0.38*** 0.34*** 0.26*** 0.27***

F 0.36*** 0.31*** 0.22** 0.30***

Negative DC by the partner G 0.60*** 0.48*** 0.47*** 0.38***

I 0.48*** 0.40*** 0.32*** 0.26***

F 0.35*** 0.35*** 0.30*** 0.32***Delegated DC by oneself G 0.27*** 0.23*** 0.21** 0.13

I 0.13* 0.12* 0.06 0.11*

F 0.08 0.08 0.21** 0.05Delegated DC by the partner G 0.36*** 0.19** 0.24*** 0.19**

I 0.31*** 0.19*** 0.15** 0.12*F 0.33*** 0.26*** 0.29*** 0.19**

Joint DC G 0.54*** 0.52*** 0.56*** 0.34***I 0.51*** 0.39*** 0.43*** 0.21***F 0.67*** 0.56*** 0.52*** 0.41***

Composite scales

DC total by oneself G 0.57*** 0.42*** 0.48*** 0.26***I 0.48*** 0.41*** 0.29*** 0.30***

F 0.51*** 0.41*** 0.36*** 0.22**DC total by the partner G 0.74*** 0.51*** 0.58*** 0.37***

I 0.68*** 0.51*** 0.42*** 0.32***F 0.64*** 0.53*** 0.46*** 0.40***

DC total G 0.71*** 0.55*** 0.60*** 0.32***I 0.68*** 0.55*** 0.43*** 0.33***F 0.70*** 0.55*** 0.50*** 0.35***

Evaluation of DC G 0.63*** 0.49*** 0.61*** 0.41***

I 0.63*** 0.51*** 0.42*** 0.32***F 0.64*** 0.60*** 0.55*** 0.44***

Note. DC = dyadic coping; G = German, I = Italian, F = French. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



coping measures. The three composite scales and evalua-tion of dyadic coping were similarly correlated with martialquality and the three CPQ scales.

Discussion

Along with introducing the Dyadic Coping Inventory(DCI) and its theoretical background, the goals of this ar-ticle were (1) to investigate the reliability and aspects ofthe validity of the Italian and French versions of the DCIand (2) to replicate previous results on the factor structureand internal consistency of the German DCI using a newSwiss sample. The results of the principal component anal-yses based on 216 German-, 378 Italian-, and 198 French-speaking participants support the proposed factor structureof the inventory after excluding two items from the stresscommunication scales in the Italian and French versions.Confirmatory factor analyses showed that delegated dyadiccoping by oneself and the partner and evaluation of dyadiccoping were reasonable and reliable in terms of model fitand factor loadings. With the exception of the subscalesmeasuring negative dyadic coping, the internal consisten-cies of all scales and subscales were good and comparablewith previously reported results (Bodenmann, 2008;Gmelch et al., 2008). The low reliabilities of the negativedyadic coping scales may be due mainly to the fact that, inall three samples, the means for negative dyadic copingwere low and that high scores (i.e., four or five) were rarelyreported by the participants. This is in accordance with ob-servations made by Bodenmann (2000), who found that ahigh score on negative dyadic coping is a good indicator oflow relationship quality. Moreover, in couples in stable re-lationships, it is unlikely to observe a high mean on nega-tive dyadic coping. In more diverse samples, both highermeans and internal consistencies have been found (Boden-mann, 2008).

Intercorrelations among the DCI scales and subscaleswere similar across all three languages groups with threeexceptions. The first exception was the correlation betweendelegated dyadic coping by oneself and supportive dyadiccoping by oneself. The second exception was the associa-tion between delegated dyadic coping by the partner andsupportive dyadic coping by oneself. The third exceptionwas the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by thepartner and supportive dyadic coping by the partner.

With regard to the association between the dyadic cop-ing scales and marital functioning in the form of maritalquality and dyadic communication, the results were in linewith previous findings (e.g., Bodenmann, 2005, 2008) andsupport the predictive validity of the DCI. Among the DCIscales, associations between delegated dyadic coping andmarital communication were generally somewhat lower. Insum, the findings provide evidence for the reliability andaspects of validity of the DCI as well as for the consistentfactor structure of the DCI across the three language ver-

sions. Exceptions are French negative dyadic coping,whose reliability was low, and stress communication,whose factor structure is not configural invariant across thethree groups.

In contrast to instruments measuring social support (e.g.,Winkeler & Klauer, 2003), the DCI focuses explicitly onthe support provided by the partner when a person feelsstressed. The instrument, which allows an assessment ofones own as well as the partners rating, can be employedin psychological research, especially in the field of couplesand family research but also in social, personality, and clin-ical psychology. Moreover, it can be used to assess thequality of dyadic coping in a person or a couple by com-puting an idiographic profile for each person (see Boden-mann, 2008). When collecting data from dyads, there arethree generic data-analytic models that take into accountthe nonindependence of such data (see, e.g., Kenny, 1996).The models are called the actor-partner interdependencemodel (APIM), the common fate model (CFM), and themutual influence model (MIM). All dyadic coping scalesare suitable for use in an APIM or a MIM. For example, aresearcher may employ the APIM to test the influence of awifes stress communication on her own positive dyadiccoping (actor effect) and on her partners positive dyadiccoping (partner effect). Using the MIM, the wifes and hus-bands stress communication could be implemented as in-dependent variables, with delegated coping as a dependentvariable to assess the reciprocal effects between wifes andhusbands delegated coping. The CFM (e.g., Griffin &Gonzalez, 1995; Kenny, 1996) is theoretically limited tovariables representing dyadic constructs whose focus is onthe dyad rather than the individual (see Ledermann & Ma-cho, 2009). Among the dyadic coping scales, the variablejoint dyadic coping is particularly suitable for being mod-eled as a common fate factor with wifes and husbandsself-rated joint dyadic coping as indicator variables (con-sidering that joint dyadic coping as a persons individualattitude toward the dyadic construct joint dyadic copingcan also be used in an APIM). The selection of the scalesand the data-analytic model along with the setup of themodel should be guided by the hypotheses to be tested.

The generalizability of the presented results, however,must be qualified by several limitations. A first limitationis that the samples were not representative, so that the re-ported means should not have been used as norm values tocompare the means of other studies with the sample meansof this study. A second limitation is that only individualdata were gathered, which do not allow us to analyze cor-relations between partners. A third limitation concerns theuse of self-report data in testing aspects of validity. It ispossible, however, that data may be biased by self-evalua-tion of dyadic coping and marital quality or communica-tion. Thus, observational data would be needed to controlfor this effect. Finally, we are also aware that further re-search is needed in Italian and French samples to yield in-formation about different types of validity (convergent, di-vergent, criterion, and prognostic validity). These types of



validity were deemed adequate for the German version ofthe DCI (Bodenmann, 2008). As mentioned above, in orderto reduce complexity, we did not conduct separate factoranalyses separately for men and women in this paper asthree language groups were examined. However, it is evi-dent that such analyses should be done before the DCI ispublished in the form of a test manual in French or Italian.Such data are available for the German version of the DCI(Bodenmann, 2008).

Despite these limitations, we believe that the DyadicCoping Inventory (DCI) could be a valuable instrument forcouples research and clinical practice. Along with the Re-lationship-Focused Coping Scale (RFCS) by Coyne andSmith (1991), the DCI is one of the only scales that mea-sures dyadic coping in couples. The DCI might be especial-ly useful for gaining a better understanding of couples cop-ing behaviors in relationship research.

Authors Note

The items along with the instructions for the Dyadic Cop-ing Inventory in English, Italian, and French can be orderedfrom Guy Bodenmann ([email protected]). The German version is available from VerlagHans Huber.

References

Barbee, A. P. (1990). Interactive coping: The cheering-up processin close relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationshipsand social support (pp. 4665). London, UK: Sage.

Berg, C. A., Meegan, S. P., & Deviney, F. P. (1998). A social contex-tual model of coping with everyday problems across the life span.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 239261.

Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional view of stress andcoping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 3449.

Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping a systemic-transactionalview of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empir-ical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47,137140.

Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren [Stress andcoping in couples]. Gttingen: Hogrefe.

Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance formarital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Boden-mann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspec-tives on dyadic coping (pp. 3350). Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual[Dyadic Coping Inventory: Test manual]. Bern, Switzerland:Huber.

Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping amongstable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorcedSwiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Jour-nal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 7189.

Bodenmann, G., & Perrez, M. (1991). Dyadisches Coping: Einesystemische Betrachtungsweise der Belastungsbewltigung in

Partnerschaften [Dyadic coping: A systemic perspective oncoping in couples]. Zeitschrift fr Familienforschung, 3, 425.

Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress,sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14,551569.

Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationshipbetween dyadic coping, marital quality, and well-being: A twoyear longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20,485493.

Buchwald, P., Schwarzer, C., & Hobfoll, S. E. (Eds.). (2004).Stress gemeinsam bewltigen: Ressourcenmanagement undmultiaxiales Coping [Coping with stress together: Resourcemanagement and multiaxial coping]. Gttingen: Hogrefe.

Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in cou-ples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives onmarital interaction (pp. 3152). Philadelphia, PA: Multilin-gual Matters.

Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication patternsquestionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles, CA:University of California.

Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1991). Couples coping with a myo-cardial infarction: A contextual perspective on wives distress.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 404412.

Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1994). Couples coping with myo-cardial infarction: Contextual perspective on patient self-effi-cacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 113.

Coyne, J. C., Ellard, J. H., & Smith, D. A. (1990). Unsupportiverelationships, interdependence, and unhelpful exchanges. InI. G. Sarason, B. R. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.), Social sup-port: An interactional view (pp. 129149). New York: Wiley.

Cutrona, C. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a re-source in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeLongis, A., & OBrien, T. (1990). An interpersonal frameworkfor stress and coping: An application to the families of Alz-heimers patients. In M. A. P. Stephens, J. H. Crowther, S. E.Hobfoll, & D. L. Tennenbaum (Eds.), Stress and coping in la-ter-life families (pp. 221240). New York: Hemisphere.

Gmelch, S., Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Ledermann, T., Stef-fen-Sozinova, O., & Striegl, K. (2008). Dyadisches CopingInventar (DCI): Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung des partner-schaftlichen Umgangs mit Stress [Dyadic Coping Inventory(DCI): A questionnaire assessing dyadic coping in couples].Zeitschrift fr Familienforschung, 20, 185203.

Griffin, D. W., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis ofdyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bul-letin, 118, 430445.

Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik(FPD) [Partnership questionnaire]. Gttingen: Hogrefe.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community. New York:Plenum.

Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., & Mason, R. (1983). When is invariancenot invariant: A practical scientists look at the ethereal conceptof factor invariance. Southern Psychologist, 4, 179188.

Kayser, K., Sormanti, M., & Strainchamps, E. (1999). Womencoping with cancer: The influence of relationship factors onpsychosocial adjustment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23,725739.

Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadicresearch. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13,279294.



Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping pro-cess. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and cop-ing. New York: Springer.

Ledermann, T., & Macho, S. (2009). Mediation in dyadic data atthe level of the dyads: A structural equation modeling ap-proach. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 661670.

Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2007). The efficacyof the Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) in im-proving relationship quality. Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 26, 940959.

Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C.(1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 15, 579605.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 221.

Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress onclose relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychol-ogy Review, 29, 105115.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginners guide tostructural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesisof the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practic-

es, and recommendations for organizational research. Organi-zational Research Methods, 3, 470.

Widmer, K., & Bodenmann, G. (2000). Alltagsstress, Coping undBefindlichkeit: Paare im Geschlechtervergleich [Everydaystress, coping and well-being in couples: An analysis of genderdifferences]. Zeitschrift fr Medizinische Psychologie, 9,1726.

Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1992). Impact of desired re-lationship type on affective reactions to choosing and beingrequired to help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18, 1018.

Winkeler, M., & Klauer, T. (2003). Inventar zur sozialen Unter-sttzung in Dyaden (ISU-DYA): Konstruktionshintergrundund erste Ergebnisse zur Reliabilitt und Validitt [Inventoryof social support in dyads: Construction and initial results onreliability and validity]. Diagnostica, 49, 1223.

Thomas Ledermann

Department of PsychologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrs, CT [email protected]

Appendix A

Table 1AThe DCI scales and subscales and their constructionScale No. of items ItemsStress communication by oneselfa 4/3 1, (2), 3, 4Stress communication by the partnera 4/3 16, (17), 18, 19Supportive DC by oneself 4 20, 21, 23, 24, 29Supportive DC by the partner 4 5, 6, 8, 9, 13Delegated DC by oneself 2 28, 30Delegated DC by the partner 2 12, 14Negative DC by oneself 4 22, 25 to 27Negative DC by the partner 4 7, 10, 11, 15Joint DC 5 31 to 35Evaluation of the quality of DC 2 36, 37DC total by oneself 11 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 22r, 25r, 26r, 27r, 28, 30DC total by the partnera 11 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 7r, 10r, 11r, 15r, 12, 14DC total 35/33 1, (2), 3, 4, 16, (17), 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29,

22r, 25r, 26r, 27r, 28, 30, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 7r, 10r,11r, 15r, 12, 14, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Note. DC = dyadic coping. aItalian and French versions without Item 2 and 17. r = reverse-scored (i.e., 1 = 5; 2 = 4; 4 = 2; 5 = 1).



Documents

Ledermann Bodenmann Et Al. (2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Three Language Groups