89 (SD = dos.27); cuatro.94 (SD = dos.97), both communities varying anywhere between half a year and eleven several years of relationships; eight.76 (SD = cuatro.01), between several and you may 19 decades; and (SD = cuatro.82), ranging from less than annually and 29 ages. 8%) and stayed that have relatives, while you are people living with the partners was generally doing work someone (69.2%), from which 53% had college otherwise postgraduate degree. Of one’s formal commitment professionals, 67% had school otherwise post-graduate degrees, where 89.8% was in fact functioning, 2% retired and you can 8.2% out of work. The working situation to your hitched participants is actually similar: 89.5% was indeed functioning, 2.9% was indeed retired and you may 6.3% was basically unemployed, and step 1.3% called some other a career standing. Within class, 62.5% of the players had university otherwise postgraduate grade.
Relationships High quality, picked to ensure standards validity, are counted into Matchmaking Get Means–Modified (RRF-R; Davis, 1996, adjust
The details demonstrated are accumulated during the perspective regarding bigger look tactics, and this contains reveal sociodemographic and dating testing, and also other scales inside the scope away from close dating.
Private union are evaluated according to Portuguese adaptation (Dining table step one) of your own reduced form of new Persistence Measure (Stanley, 1986), which was interpreted according to pursuing the interpretation and you can retroversion steps: immediately after consent received of the writer, the original scale is translated by the several experts in the field, both of these translations was basically confronted with retroversion of the a couple professionals, that bilingual and another experienced in the use of this new English language; ultimately, for each version was compared to brand-new size, opting for using the new conditions and you will situations having better proximity to help you it. Brand new Portuguese version therefore contains the latest 14 fresh situations and you can a comparable respond to measure and you may is actually titled, just after deliberation by group, the non-public Connection Size (‘Escala de Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). With the final phase of one’s translation process, brand new appliance is actually applied to three professionals on aim of guaranteeing new adequateness of the code plus the unambiguous comprehension of the things, that happen to be talked about towards the participants immediately after application of the fresh questionnaire https://datingranking.net/connexion-review/. Since there was no comments stating otherwise, stuff remained an identical.
According to overall time of the relationship, the typical, in many years, towards the some other statuses discussed is, respectively: 2
by Lind, 2008). Resulting from a revision of the original Davis (1996, cited in Lind, 2008) scale, this instrument is intended to measure relationship quality perception, with the expectation that, according to the theoretical assumptions, both scales will positively correlate. 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.
