Validation of the family health scale among heterosexual couples: a dyadic analysis

Background The Family Health Scale (FHS) is a recently validated comprehensive measure of family health for use in survey research with the potential to also be used as a clinical measure. However, previous research has only validated the FHS among one member of the family rather than multiple family members. The objective of the study was to examine the psychometric properties of the FHS long- and short-form among married and cohabitating partners (dyads). Method The sample for this study was comprised of 482 married or cohabitating heterosexual couples (dyads) who were parents of a child between the ages of 3–13, heterosexual, and living in the United States. Each member of the dyad completed a survey about his or her perception of family health, personal health, childhood experiences, and demographic characteristics. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to examine the factor structure. Unidimensional, correlational, and second-order factor structures were examined using responses from both partners. The relationships between family health with individual health and demographic covariates were also examined. Results Women and men reported their family health similarly. The unidimensional factor structure had the best fit for the FHS short-form while either the unidimensional model or the second-order model would be appropriate for the FHS long-form. Household income, individual member mental health, and childhood experiences were associated with family health in the expected direction. Conclusion The results demonstrate that the FHS is a valid and reliable family measure when examining family health among dyads including married and cohabitating heterosexual couples who have children.

Influences of Adoptive Mother and Father’s Parenting and Child’s Temperament on Adoptees’ Social Skills: A Hybrid Dyadic Analysis

Adoption provides a unique opportunity to study the simultaneous effect on adoptees’ development of environmental influences related to adoptive parenting, and children’s biology-based characteristics. In this paper, two Hybrid Dyadic Models were tested to study the mediational role of the adoptees’ negative reactivity on the relationship between mothers and fathers’ supportive (Model A) and unsupportive (Model B) parenting, and adoptees’ social skills. In a sample of 102 couples, mothers and fathers’ reports on adoptees’ social skills, the adoptees’ negative reactivity, and supportive/unsupportive parenting were explored. Supportive/unsupportive parenting was assessed individually (mothers and fathers separately), whereas the adoptees’ negative reactivity and social skills were treated as common fate variables, with both parents’ scores as indicators of a latent construct. Results were non-significant for Model A. Regarding Model B, different relation patterns between unsupportive parenting and social skills were found, depending on whether it was the mother's or the father's parenting. The child's negative reactivity mediated the relationship between the father's (not the mother's) unsupportive parenting and the child's social skills. With information from both parents and considering simultaneously their unique and shared perspectives, this study advances adoption research and strengthens the relevance of dyadic analyses when studying the adoptive family dynamics.

The complicated connection between closeness and the quality of romantic relationships

Closeness is often considered synonymous with better quality romantic relationships. However, individual differences exist in the degree of closeness people desire in their relationships. This study examined the implications that discrepancies between actual and ideal closeness have for relationship quality in romantic couples. A questionnaire was administered to a sample of 103 cohabiting couples ( N = 206) in the United States, who were randomly selected from a nationally representative survey panel. Dyadic analysis using actor–partner interdependence models with latent outcomes revealed that internal discrepancies between actual and idealized closeness were associated with poorer relationship quality for both individuals and their partners. These associations persisted above and beyond the effects of actual closeness and dyad-level differences in actual and ideal closeness. The association between closeness and relationship quality may be more individual than dyadic in nature, warranting renewed attention to the idiographic experience of closeness and its association with relational well-being.

Mean Level and Variability in Affect and Perceived Regard: A Dyadic Daily Diary Study of African American Couples

High levels of positive affect and low levels of negative affect have been repeatedly tied to better individual and relational well-being. However, research has largely focused on mean levels of affect whereas the day-to-day unfolding of affect and its impact on romantic relationships remain unclear. Here, we examined the links between affect variability, mean levels of affect, and changes in perceptions of partner regard —the extent to which people believe that their partners value and accept them—. One hundred and eighty African American couples (N = 360) reported how positively they thought their partner viewed them in two sessions (T1 and T2), separated by a 21-day diary burst in which participants reported on their positive and negative affect. Using a dyadic analysis, we found that high levels of actor negative affect variability were associated with lower positive perceived regard at T2 controlling for perceived regard at T1. This finding did not hold when controlling for mean levels of actor and partner negative affect. There is no evidence of positive affect variability on perceived regard, but the mean level of actor positive affect was associated with more favorable perceived regard. These results highlight the importance of controlling for mean levels of affect when examining affect dynamics.