89 (SD = 2.27); 4.94 (SD = dos.97), both groups differing anywhere between six months and eleven many years of relationship; seven.76 (SD = 4.01), ranging from one or two and 19 age; and (SD = cuatro.82), ranging from below a-year and you will 31 age. 8%) and you may lived having nearest and dearest, if you are people managing its lovers was generally operating individuals (69.2%), of which 53% got school or postgraduate levels. Of your own formal union players, 67% had school or article-scholar amount, where 89.8% was indeed functioning, 2% resigned and you can 8.2% out of work. The working disease with the married users are equivalent: 89.5% were working, dos.9% was indeed retired and you can 6.3% was basically out of work, and you may 1.3% called another a job condition. Within this category, 62.5% of one’s participants had school otherwise postgraduate values.
Relationship Top quality, selected to verify criteria validity, is mentioned to the Matchmaking Rating Setting–Changed (RRF-R; Davis, 1996 what is eastmeeteast, adapt
The details displayed is actually accumulated inside framework from wider lookup methods, hence contained reveal sociodemographic and you will matchmaking evaluation, along with other balances during the range regarding intimate matchmaking.
Private relationship are examined according to the Portuguese type (Dining table 1) of your own quicker style of the latest Work Measure (Stanley, 1986), which had been interpreted with respect to the following translation and you may retroversion strategies: once consent gotten by author, the first measure is actually interpreted from the several specialists in the field, these two translations had been confronted with retroversion because of the a couple of benefits, one to bilingual and one proficient in the utilization of the newest English language; in the long run, for each and every version are than the new level, opting for the application of the fresh new terms and factors which have better proximity to help you it. This new Portuguese type thus contained the fresh fourteen amazing facts and you can an equivalent answer measure and you will is actually entitled, after deliberation of the class, the private Union Scale (‘Escala de Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). With the final phase of your own translation process, the newest tool is administered to 3 participants with the purpose of guaranteeing the adequateness of your language in addition to unambiguous knowledge of the things, which have been chatted about to the users shortly after application of the fresh new questionnaire. Since there have been zero statements claiming or even, the items stayed a comparable.
With respect to the full lifetime of the partnership, an average, in years, to your different statuses revealed is actually, respectively: dos
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.