Factor Structure and Reliability of Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) in Russian Population



This study examines the psychometric properties of the Russian-version of G. Spanier’s Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). 302 subjects (84 couples) participated in this research and each partner responded individually to the PFB or to both scales. The results of the exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure of the scale, which was endorsed by the means of confirmatory factor analysis. Three subscales and total score revealed appropriate reliability — internal consistency and split reliability. The construct validity was confirmed by correlations between DAS subscales and other instruments testing theoretically close constructs. External validity was confirmed by correlations between DAS subscales and perfectionism which shows that mentally focusing on one’s imperfections and failures is negatively related to subjective well-being in a marriage.

General Information

Keywords: dyadic adjustment scale, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, reliability, construct validity

Journal rubric: Testing and Validating Instruments

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/cpp.2018260306

For citation: Poliakova J.M., Sorokova M.G., Garanyan N.G. Factor Structure and Reliability of Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) in Russian Population. Konsul'tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya = Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 2018. Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 105–126. DOI: 10.17759/cpp.2018260306. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Aivazova D.G. Metodicheskie vozmozhnosti issledovaniya udovletvorennosti brachnymi otnosheniyami [Methodological possibilities of the research of the satisfaction of conjugal relations]. Sibirskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Siberian psychological journal], 2014, no. 51, pp. 148—155.
  2. Aleshina Yu.E., Gozman L.Ya., Dubovskaya E.M. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskie metody issledovaniya supruzheskikh otnoshenii: Spetspraktikum po sotsial’noi psikhologii [Socio-psychological research methods of marital relations: Practicum in social psychology]. Moscow: Publ. of Moscow University, 1987. 120 p.
  3. Aleshina Yu.E. Udovletvorennost’ brakom i mezhlichnostnoe vospriyatie v supruzheskikh parakh s razlichnym stazhem sovmestnoi zhizni: diss. … kand. psikhol. nauk. [Satisfaction with marriage and interpersonal perception in married couples with different experiences of living together: PhD (Psychology) Thesis]. Moscow, 1985. 263 p.
  4. Andreeva T.V. Psikhologiya sovremennoĭ sem’i [Psychology of the modern family]. Saint Petersburg: Rech’, 2005. 436 p.
  5. Garanyan N.G., Klykova A.Yu., Polyakova Yu.M., Sorokova M.G. Interpersonal’nye aspekty perfektsionizma [Interpersonal aspects of perfectionism]. Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii “Metodologicheskie i prikladnye problemy meditsinskoi (klinicheskoi) psikhologii. Polyakovskie chteniya (k 90-letiyu Yu.F. Polyakova)” (g. Moskva, 15—16 marta 2018 g.). [Materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference “Methodological and applied problems of medical (clinical) psychology. Polyakov Readings (on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of Yu.F. Polyakov)”], 15—16 March 2018. Moscow: FGBOU VO MGPPU, 2018, pp. 115—117.
  6. Garanyan N.G., Kholmogorova A.B., Yudeeva T.Yu. Diagnostika perfektsionizma pri rasstroistvakh affektivnogo spektra. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii [Diagnostics of perfectionism in disorders of the affective spectrum. Methodical recommendations]. Moscow: FGBU «NMITsNP im. V.P. Serbskogo» Minzdrava Rossii, 2017. 20 p.
  7. Kline P. Spravochnoe rukovodstvo po konstruirovaniyu testov [Reference guide for the construction of tests]. Kiev: PAN Ltd, 1994. 283 p. (In Russ.).
  8. Liders A.G. Psikhologicheskoe obsledovanie sem’I [Psychological examination of the family]. Moscow: Akademiya, 2006. 432 p.
  9. Mitina O.V. Matematicheskie metody v psikhologii [Mathematical methods in psychology: Practical work]. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2009. 238 p.
  10. Nasledov A.D. IBM SPSS Statistics 20 i AMOS: professional’nyi statisticheskii analiz dannykh [IBM SPSS Statistics 20 and AMOS: professional statistical analysis of data]. Saint Petersburg: Piter, 2013. 416 p.
  11. Olifirovich N.I., Zinkevich-Kuzemkina T.A., Velenta T.F. Psikhologiya semeinykh krizisov [Psychology of family crises]. Saint Petersburg: Rech’, 2006, pp. 144—149.
  12. Sopun, S.M., Liders, A.G. Psihologicheskaya sovmestimost supruzheskoy paryi i udovletvorennost brakom [Psychological compatibility of a married couple and satisfaction with marriage]. Sibirskiy psihologicheskiy zhurnal [Siberian Psychological Journal], 2007, no. 25, pp. 156—162.
  13. Stolin V.V., Romanova T.A., Butenko G.P. Oprosnik udovletvorennosti brakom [The questionnaire of satisfaction with marriage]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin], 1984, no. 2, pp. 54—60.
  14. Ahmad M.M. Validation of the Cognitive Appraisal Health Scale with Jordanian patients. Nursing and Health Sciences, 2010. Vol. 12 (1), pp. 74—79. doi:10.1111/ j.1442-2018.2009.00492.x
  15. Christensen A., Atkins D.C., Berns S., Wheeler J., Baucom D.H., Simpson L.E. Traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy for significantly and chronically distressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2004. Vol. 72 (2), pp. 176—191. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.176
  16. Crane D.R., Busby D.M., Larson J.H. A factor analysis of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with distressed and nondistressed couples. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 1991. Vol. 19 (1), pp. 60—66. doi:10.1080/01926189108250835
  17. Fisilolu H., Demir A. Applicability of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for measurement of marital quality with Turkish couples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2000. Vol. 16 (3), pp. 214—218.
  18. Graham J.M., Liu Y.J., Jeziorski J.L. The dyadic adjustment scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2006. Vol. 68, pp. 701—717. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00284.x
  19. Habke M., Flynn C. Interpersonal aspects of trait perfectionism. In G. Flett, P. Hewitt (eds.). Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment. Washington: Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 2002, pp. 151—181.
  20. Lace J.W., Merz Z.C., Grant A.F., Emmert N.A., Zane K.L., Handan P.J. Validation of the K6 and its depression and anxiety subscales for detecting nonspecific psychological distress and need for treatment. Current Psychology, 2018. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-9846-2
  21. Lee M.-S., Kim Z.-S. A preliminary study on the standardization of the Korean Dyadic Adjustment Scale [Korean]. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1996. Vol. 15 (1), pp. 129—140.
  22. Robles Th., Slatcher R., Trombello J., McGinn M. Marital quality and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 2014. Vol. 140 (1), pp. 140—187. doi:10.1037/a0031859
  23. Shek D., Cheung C. Dimensionality of the Chinese dyadic adjustment scale based on confirmatory factor analyses. Social Indicators Research, 2008. Vol. 86 (2), pp. 201—212. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9108-4
  24. Spanier G.B. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976. Vol. 38 (1), pp. 15—38. doi:10.2307/350547
  25. Spanier G.B. Improve, refine, recast, expand, clarify: Don’t abandon. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1985. Vol. 47 (4), pp. 1073 —1074. doi:10.2307/352354
  26. Spanier G.B., Lewis R.A., Cole C.L. Marital Adjustment over the family life cycle: The Issue of Curvilinearity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 1975. Vol. 37 (2), pp. 263—275. doi:10.2307/350960
  27. Vandeleur C.L., Fenton B.T., Ferrero F., Preisig M. Construct validity of the French version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 2003. Vol. 62 (3), pp. 167—175. doi:10.1024//1421-0185.62.3.167
  28. Werner C., Schermelleh-Engel K. Deciding between competing models: Chi-square difference tests. Frankfurt: Goethe University, 2010. Available at: https://perma. cc/2RTR-8XPZ (Accessed: 08.08. 2018).

Information About the Authors

Julia M. Poliakova, Clinical Psychologist, Clinical and Family Counselor, Psychiatric Clinical Hospital № 4 named after P.B. Gannushkin, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: polyakovaju@gmail.com

Marina G. Sorokova, Doctor of Education, PhD in Physics and Matematics, docent, Head of Scientific and Practical Center for Comprehensive Support of Psychological Research "PsyDATA", Head of the Department of Digital Education, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1000-6487, e-mail: sorokovamg@mgppu.ru

Natalia G. Garanyan, Doctor of Psychology, Professor of the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Associate Professor, leading researcher at the Moscow Research Institute of Psychiatry of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, member of the editorial board of the journal "Consultative Psychology and Psychotherapy", Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1227-2682, e-mail: garanian@mail.ru



Total: 3519
Previous month: 15
Current month: 69


Total: 8562
Previous month: 41
Current month: 34