89 (SD = dos.27); 4.94 (SD = dos.97), one another communities varying between half a year and you can eleven many years of dating; seven.76 (SD = cuatro.01), anywhere between a few and you may 19 years; and (SD = 4.82), anywhere between lower than per year and you can 29 decades. 8%) and existed with family relations, while you are people coping with its couples had been mostly functioning some body (69.2%), of which 53% got college otherwise postgraduate degree. Of one’s formal partnership people, 67% got university or post-graduate level, where 89.8% was in fact operating, 2% retired and 8.2% unemployed. The working condition into married users was comparable: 89.5% had been working, dos.9% was indeed resigned and you will 6.3% were out of work, and you may step 1.3% introduced several other a job reputation. Within this group, 62.5% of your own professionals had college otherwise postgraduate degree.
Relationships Quality, chose to verify requirements authenticity, try measured to your Relationship Score Function–Revised (RRF-R; Davis, 1996, adapt
The content exhibited was accumulated for the framework from wider research tactics, and this contains reveal sociodemographic and you may relationships investigations, along with other balances inside extent of romantic matchmaking.
Private commitment are analyzed with respect to the Portuguese type (Table step one) of your own reduced style of the brand new Effort Measure (Stanley, 1986), which had been translated with respect to the following the translation and you may retroversion measures: immediately following permission obtained of the copywriter, the initial level is actually interpreted because of the a few specialists in the field, both these translations was confronted with retroversion of the a couple benefits, you to definitely bilingual and one experienced in the usage of the newest English language; in the end, for every version are compared to the brand new level, going for the usage of the new terms and conditions and you can activities with higher proximity to help you it. This new Portuguese version hence consisted of new fourteen brand spanking new situations and you will a similar answer scale and you may is entitled, just after deliberation because of the people, the private Connection Size (‘Escala de Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). With the final stage of the translation procedure, the tool are applied to 3 members for the goal of confirming the fresh adequateness of the words together with unambiguous comprehension of those things, which were talked about to the people shortly after applying of the latest questionnaire. Because there was in fact no comments claiming or even, those things remained an identical.
With regards to the overall time of the connection, the typical, in years, to your more statuses demonstrated 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 cuddli tips 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.