Post on 19-Dec-2015
The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI)
Ronald D. RoggeAsst. Professor of Psychology
University of Rochester
rogge@psych.rochester.eduwww.couples-research.com
Overview
PART 1: Development of CSI Existing scales Development of new scale Cross-sectional validation Longitudinal validation
PART 2: Use & Interpretation of CSI Administration Scoring Interpretation Norms
PART 1: Existing Scales
Strengths20-30 years of converging results Clearly measure satisfaction
Limitations20-30 years oldHeterogeneous contentUnknown noise
Existing Scales
Scale Items Name Cit. Cit./Yr
DAS 32 Dyadic Adjustment Scale 2,191 77.1
MAT 15* Marital Adjustment Test 1,489 32.1
QMI 6 Quality of Marriage Index 221 9.9
RAS 7 Relationship Assessment Scale 156 8.8
Evaluating Scales
Item Response Theory
Used to create SAT, GRE, MCAT
Item by item analysis• If happy, higher responses?• If unhappy, lower responses?
Requires large samples• Estimates parameters for each item• Estimates parameter for each subject
Sample-Independent Results
DAS-31 (Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse .
1 - Extremely Unhappy
2 - Fairly Unhappy
3 - A little unhappy
4 - Happy
5 - Very Happy
6 - Extremely Happy
7 - Perfect
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
DAS/MAT 5Agreement on: FRIENDS
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse . 1 - Always Disagree
2 - Almost Always Disagree
3 - Frequently Disagree
4 - Occasionally Disagree
5 - Almost Always Agree
6 - Always Agree
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
Study 1: Goals
Evaluate current scales
DAS, MAT, QMI, RAS IRT in large sample
Develop CSI
Large item pool Factor analysis IRT
Study 1: Method
Online survey (N = 5,315)
Contents141 satisfaction items
Items from DAS, MAT, QMI, RAS 71 additional items
7 anchor scales e.g., neuroticism, hostile conflict, stress
2 validity scales
Study 1: Sample
Avg 26yo (SD=10yr)26% High School or less83% Female76% CaucasianRelationships
24% Married (avg 6.3yrs)16% Engaged60% Committed dating
Relationship Quality
Sample Size(N)
Length of relationship
Satisfaction (DAS)
Married 1254 9.0 yrs 108
Engaged 866 3.1 yrs 117
Dating 3194 1.7 yrs 113
Evaluating Previous Scales
IRT results
Evaluated 66 items of existing scales
Some very informative items
Many poor items
DAS-31 (Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse .
1 - Extremely Unhappy
2 - Fairly Unhappy
3 - A little unhappy
4 - Happy
5 - Very Happy
6 - Extremely Happy
7 - Perfect
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
Standard Deviation (SD) Units Standard Deviation (SD) Units
QMI-1We have a good relationship
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rma
tio
n (
the
ta)
.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
ba
bil
ity o
f e
ac
h r
esp
on
se
.
1 Very Strong Disagreement
2
3
4
5
6
7 Very Strong Agreement
SMD-2BAD 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 GOOD
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse .
1 - BAD
2
3
4
5
6 - GOOD
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
DAS/MAT 5Agreement on: FRIENDS
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse . 1 - Always Disagree
2 - Almost Always Disagree
3 - Frequently Disagree
4 - Occasionally Disagree
5 - Almost Always Agree
6 - Always Agree
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
DAS/MAT 6Agreement on: SEX RELATIONS
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse .
1 - Always Disagree
2 - Almost Always Disagree
3 - Frequently Disagree
4 - Occasionally Disagree
5 - Almost Always Agree
6 - Always Agree
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
DAS/MAT 9 Agreement on: WAYS OF DEALING WITH PARENTS OR IN-LAWS
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse .
1 - Always Disagree
2 - Almost Always Disagree
3 - Frequently Disagree
4 - Occasionally Disagree
5 - Almost Always Agree
6 - Always Agree
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
MAT 12In leisure time, do you (and does your mate) prefer to be “on the go” or to stay at home?
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Pro
babilit
y o
f each r
esponse . 1 - Mismatch
2 - Both on-the-go
3 - Both stay-at-home
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Info
rmati
on (th
eta
) .
From Items to Scales
A scale’s information
= sum of information from each item
How informative
Across different levels of happiness
Scale Information
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction
Sc
ale
In
form
ati
on
DAS (32)
QMI (6)
RAS (7)
MAT (16)
DAS-4 (4)
Summary
MAT and DAS have poor items
Increases NOISE
MAT-15 no better than 4-item scale
DAS-32 little better than 6-item scale
Assess satisfaction, but not very efficiently
Poor thermometers
Creating the CSI
141 item pool
Screen for contaminating items
Screen for redundant items
IRT on remaining 66 items
Select 32 most effective
Parameter Invariance
RANDOM SAMPLE HALVES
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
b's est in even-row subjects
b's
est
in o
dd-r
ow
subje
cts
.
r = 0.998
MALE vs. FEMALE
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b's est in MALE respondents
b's
est
in F
EM
ALE r
espondents
.
r = .991
Basic Psychometrics
AlphaDistress
Cut Score
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. DAS .94 97.5 -- -- -- -- -- --
2. MAT .84 95.5 .90 -- -- -- -- --
3. QMI .96 24.5 .85 .87 -- -- -- --
4. RAS .92 23.5 .86 .87 .91 -- -- --
5. CSI-32 .98 104.5 .91 .91 .94 .96 -- --
6. CSI-16 .98 51.5 .89 .90 .96 .95 .98 --
7. CSI-4 .94 13.5 .87 .88 .93 .94 .97 .97
Correlations with Anchors
Thoughts of Breakup
Positive Communication
StressHostile Conflict
Sexual Chemistry
Neuroticism
DAS -.74 .73 -.53 -.54 .42 -.40
MAT -.74 .69 -.49 -.49 .41 -.38
CSI-32 -.78 .71 -.52 -.48 .45 -.38
CSI-16 -.78 .71 -.53 -.49 .43 -.38
CSI-4 -.75 .69 -.52 -.47 .41 -.36
Criterion Validity
DAS Distress groups Current gold-standard
DAS score < 97.5 1027 DAS distressed P’s
ROC’s to identify CSI cut scores Identified CSI distressed P’s
91% agreement w/ DAS
Summary
Operate similar across Male vs. Female Older vs. Younger Married vs. Engaged vs. Dating
CSI measures same construct Nearly identical correlations Highly similar screen for distress
Evaluating Possible Improvement CSI-32 vs. DAS-32 CSI-16 vs. MAT-15 CSI-4 vs. DAS-4
More information? Less noise? Better thermometer?
Scale Information
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Satisfaction
Info
rma
tio
n
CSI-32
CSI-16
CSI-4
DAS-32
MAT-15
DAS-4
Relative Efficacies
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Satisfaction (SD's)
CSI-16 vs MAT
CSI-32 vs DAS
CSI-4 vs DAS-4
Eff
ecti
ve L
eng
th
Satisfaction Groups
IRT satisfaction estimates For each subject Based on MAT, DAS, & CSI items
(equivalent of SAT scores)
Created satisfaction groups N = 265 in each group Levels of sat. HIGHLY similar within each group
MAT, DAS & CSI scores also similar?
Precision: CSI-32 vs. DAS
Precision: CSI-16 vs. MAT
Effect Size
Ability to detect difference Between groups Pre – Post
Effect Size = M1 – M2 . pooled SD
Difference in SD units
Power for detecting ’s in SAT groups
Power: CSI-32 vs. DAS
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Effe
ct S
izes
(C
ohen
's d
)
.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Adjacent Satisfaction Group Contrasts
DAS
CSI(32)
Power: CSI-16 vs. MAT
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Effec
t S
izes
(C
ohen
's d
) .
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Adjacent Satisfaction Group Contrasts
MAT
CSI(16)
Conclusions
CSI scales More information Less noise More power
Better thermometers
NEXT STEP True over time? Better at detecting change?
Studies 2, 3, 4: Method
Study 2 596 online respondents 1 and 2 week follow ups (n = 267) CSI, MAT, DAS
Study 3 398 online respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 mo follow ups (n = 156) CSI, MAT, DAS
Study 4 1,062 online respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 mo follow ups (n = 545) CSI, MAT
Studies 2-4: Demographics
SAMPLE N = 2,056 initial respondents N = 968 (47%) respondents with longitudinal data
AGE M = 27.7yo (9.3yrs)
GENDER 71% Female 29% Male
RACE 83% Caucasian 5% Asian 4% African American 4% Latino
SES 10% High school diploma or less 25K avg yearly income
Studies 2-4: Relationships
Relationship Types 37% Married: 7.9 yrs (7.9 yrs) 13% Engaged: 3.2 yrs (2.4 yrs) 50% Dating: 1.8 yrs (1.9 yrs)
Relationship Satisfaction (MAT) Married: 108 (32) Engaged: 122 (24) Dating: 116 (24)
Dissatisfied Respondents 24% (n = 487)
Change Criterion
How much has each of these changed? Overall happiness in the relationship Feeling close and connected Stability of the relationship
Averaged responses Alpha = .92
Agree with MAT, DAS, & CSI scores?
MuchWORSE
SomewhatWORSE
A littleWORSE
Stayed the SAME
A little BETTER
Somewhat BETTER
Much BETTER
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Noise over time (SERM)
Score scatter in “no change” group
238 “no change” at 1st assessment
Repeated Measures MANOVA
Scatter (noise) in scale scores across time
SERM = 2*MSE
MuchWORSE
SomewhatWORSE
A littleWORSE
Stayed the SAME
A little BETTER
Somewhat BETTER
Much BETTER
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Detecting Individual Change
Can we detect individual change? Minimal Detectible Change (MDC95)
• RCI: Jacobson & Truax (1991)
• MDC95: Stratford et al. (1996)
Pre-Post score change• In one individual• Necessary to exceed noise
MDC95 (SD units) = 1.96*SERM .
SD
Minimum Detectible Change
How much must an individual’s score shift to show significant change?
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8
MD
C's
in
SD
Un
its
CSI-32 CSI-16 CSI-4 DAS MAT
AB
C*C
C*
Detecting Individual Change
CSI scales more sensitiveRequired smaller pre-post score shifts
Longer scales more sensitiveCSI-32 > CSI-16 > CSI-4
MAT & DAS not as sensitiveOperated no better than CSI-4
Detecting Group Differences
Can we detect clinically distinct groups? Improved vs. No-change Deteriorated vs. No-change
Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID)• Guyatt, Walter & Norman (1987)
MCID Effect Size = M(improved) – M(no change)
Noise over time (SERM)
HLM framework• Global change predicting scores on scales• 2,475 points of change from 968 respondents
• Improved vs. Deteriorated• Satisfied vs. Dissatisfied• Gender effects
MCID Effect Sizes
How well can we detect naturally occurring change?
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Eff
ec
t S
ize
to
De
tec
t 1
Po
int
of
Glo
ba
l C
ha
ng
e
Deterioration Improvement Deterioration Improvement
CSI-32
CSI-16
CSI-4
DAS
MAT
Dissatisfied Respondents Satisfied Respondents
A A
B
CD
A B
C C C
A B
C
D
E
A A B B B
Differences by Gender
Scales showed slightly smaller effect sizes in men
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
Re
du
ctio
n in
Effe
ct S
ize
s
CSI-32 CSI-16 CSI-4 DAS MAT
* *
**
Detecting Group Differences
CSI-32 & CSI-16 Out performed DAS & MAT
• Improvement / Deterioration• Satisfied / Dissatisfied
CSI-4 Deterioration: Out performed DAS & MAT Improvement: Equivalent to DAS & MAT
Weak gender effect All scales slightly less responsive in males
Summary of Development
CSI scales represent improved thermometers
Developed with IRT / FA No contaminating items Non-redundant items Most informative items
Still measure satisfaction Consistent with MAT / DAS
Offer greater power More information Less noise
More sensitive cross-sectionally Detecting group differences
More responsive over time Detecting change in a single individual Detecting differences between clinical groups
PART 2: Administration
See CSI handout
Spouses complete separately No discussion during administration Want unique perspectives
Inform of confidentiality limits Feedback given? Dyadic or individual feedback? Normative data
Should take 3-4 minutes
Scoring
See CSI scoring handout
Sum the item responses10 reverse scored items
• High sat options offered first (items 2-5)• Reversed wording (items 10, 15…)
Total scores Range from 0-161
Interpretation
Box Plots
Dissatisfaction Cut ScoreScores below 104.5
MedianLowest 25% of scores 2nd quartile
of scores3rd quartile of scores
Highest 25% of scores
Norms in Dating Individuals
N = 1477
N = 2191
N = 415
Norms in Engaged Individuals
N = 551
N = 141
Norms in Married Individuals
N = 1129
N = 735
Norms in Married Individuals
N = 271
N = 321