589343

research-article2015

ASMXXX10.1177/1073191115589343AssessmentLou et al.

Article

Assessing Intimate Relationships of Chinese Couples in Taiwan Using the Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised

Assessment 1­–12 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1073191115589343 asm.sagepub.com

Yu-Chiung Lou1, Chien-Han Lin1, Chien-Min Chen1, Christina Balderrama-Durbin2, and Douglas K. Snyder2

Abstract The current study examined the psychometric characteristics of the Chinese translation of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised (MSI-R) in a community sample of 117 couples from Taiwan. The Chinese MSI-R demonstrated moderate to strong internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed similar scale factor structures in the Taiwanese and U.S. standardization samples. Mean profile comparisons between the current Taiwanese sample and the original MSI-R standardization sample revealed statistically significant but small differences on several subscales. Overall, the psychometric characteristics of the Chinese MSI-R lend support to its use with couples from diverse cultural backgrounds whose sole or preferred language is Chinese. It may also be appropriate to use the MSI-R in clinical settings for prevention or intervention efforts directed at Chinese-speaking couples. The implications of these findings for clinical and research purposes are discussed. Keywords marriage, couples, assessment, translation, Chinese, cross-cultural Marital and other intimate relationships profoundly affect the lives of individuals across cultures and nationalities (Buss, 1995). Considerable empirical evidence documents the strong association between health and intimate relationships (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000; Snyder, Castellani, & Whisman, 2006; Whisman, 2006). Distress related to the interactions between intimate partners has a direct negative effect on cardiovascular, endocrine, immune, neurosensory, and other physiological systems (KiecoltGlaser & Newton, 2001; Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003). Moreover, intimate relationship conflict affects the emotional well-being of adult partners and their offspring (Erel & Burman, 1995; Laumakis, Margolin, & John, 1998; Snyder, Heyman, & Haynes, 2005). Given this context, psychometrically appropriate assessment tools for evaluating adult intimate relationships are needed as a foundation for research and clinical interventions focused on intimate relationships. However, most assessment tools have been developed in the context of Western culture (Snyder, Heyman, & Haynes, 2008) and have not been examined for their psychometric properties when adapted for use with non-Western populations. The Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised (MSI-R; Snyder, 1997) is a 150-item, true–false self-report measure of relationship functioning designed to evaluate both the nature and the intensity of marital distress in distinct domains

of interpersonal interaction. Previous research has supported the internal consistency, discriminative validity, and structural equivalence of the MSI-R in German, Spanish, and Korean samples (Gasbarrini, Snyder, Willson, & Newman, 2010; Snyder et al., 2004). Previous studies have supported the internal consistency of these MSI-R subscales as well as their convergent and discriminant validity (Snyder & Aikman, 1999). Actuarial tables linking scale scores to descriptors of the relationship provided by clinicians and both spouses have shown the MSI-R scales to relate to a broad range of external criteria consistent with their interpretive intent (Snyder, 1997). Chinese is the most widely spoken language in the world, with 1.2 billion people speaking Chinese as their first language (International Languages, 2013). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (Hoeffel, Rastogi, Kim, & Shahid, 2012) and Pew Research Center (2012), Chinese has become the largest Asian group (4 million) in the United States, followed by Filipinos (3.4 million), and Asian 1

Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

2

Corresponding Author: Douglas K. Snyder, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4235, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

2

Assessment 

Indians (3.2 million). Clinicians need appropriate tools to evaluate the problems of Chinese couples and to assess their progress when individuals having Chinese as their preferred language need couple counseling. The population of Taiwan is 23 million. A rapidly growing economy and changing gender roles in the past four decades have been accompanied by a dramatic increase in crude divorce rate in Taiwan—from 0.4 divorces per 1,000 population in the late 1970s to a peak of 2.9 in 2003, and declining modestly to 2.3 in 2013 (Ministry of the Interior Department of Taiwan, 2012). Although lower than the rate of divorce in Russia (4.8) or the United States (3.6), the velocity of increase in divorce rate during this period was higher for Taiwan than for most other countries in Asia (e.g., Japan, South Korea, mainland China, and Singapore), and slightly exceeded the divorce rates of most European countries as well as Canada and Australia (DirectorateGeneral of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, 2013). During this same time period, the divorce rate in mainland China also increased from 0.3 in 1979 to 2.0 in 2010 (Wang & Zhou, 2010). Confucianism has strongly influenced marital and family dynamics in the Chinese culture. Achieving and maintaining collective and harmonious family functioning and relationships are important family values that are strongly emphasized (X. Chen & He, 2005; Ni, 2002). This emphasis on harmonious interpersonal relationships may lead to avoidance of direct communication and confrontation in marital relationships (Lewinsohn & Werner, 1997). Under the influence of Confucian family values, families tend to be dominated by males and to be patriarchal in nature. This is reflected in certain family practices such as patrilocal residence (Ferguson, 1995). Indeed, it is common for a woman to live with her husband’s nuclear family after marriage. Taiwan has strong ties to the traditional Chinese culture. Traditional Confucian beliefs, brought to Taiwan from China by the ancestors of the majority of current residents (Tourism Bureau, Taiwan, 2013a), are the main elements of Taiwanese culture. Indeed, about 98% of the population are ethnic Han Chinese. Moreover, 86% of this group have ancestors who migrated from the southeast region of mainland China starting in the 17th century, and 12% have ancestors who emigrated from mainland China after 1945. Therefore, most inhabitants of Taiwan are descendants of immigrants from various provinces of mainland China (Tourism Bureau, Taiwan, 2013a). Although some aspects of Taiwanese culture have been influenced by Western values, Taiwan preserves most of the Han Chinese culture (Tourism Bureau, Taiwan, 2013b). Taiwanese culture differs in this respect from that in Hong Kong, where the Chinese were substantially influenced by the British (and Western culture generally), as well as from that in mainland China, where some traditional Chinese customs and practices were attacked and destroyed during the Cultural Revolution (Xu & Lai, 2004).

Both Taiwan and China have experienced significant cultural changes in recent decades. For example, Mao’s slogan, “Women hold up half of the sky,” energized millions of women to work alongside men in China (Zuo, 2003). These phenomena have supported a transition in Chinese society from a culture that follows Confucian patriarchal social norms to one that is more egalitarian in terms of gender roles (Chia, Allred, & Jerzak, 1997; Farris, 1994; Tsai & Yi, 1997; Zuo, 2003). Thus, although women in Taiwan and China are still responsible for the vast amount of household labor, husbands now assume more household chores than they did historically if their wives are employed outside the home (S. Lai, 2000; E. Lai & Huang, 1995). Therefore, marital power has increasingly become the focus of negotiation, and the dynamics between husbands and wives have gradually shifted toward egalitarianism (Yi & Yang, 1995). However, compared with their counterparts in mainland China, women in Taiwan are more educated and more likely to participate in the labor force (Chou, 1994; E. Lai & Huang, 1995; Lu, 1984; Tsai & Yi, 1997). Taiwan and China also share a common language, with subtle differences. Although indigenous groups in Taiwan have preserved their own languages and many Taiwanese speak the Southern Min or Hakka Chinese dialect, Mandarin is the primary language of instruction in schools and is used as a common language in intergroup interactions (Young, 1988). The grammar and original Mandarin characters are the same in both Taiwan and China, although Taiwan still uses traditional Chinese, whereas China uses simplified Chinese. Because software that easily converts traditional Chinese notation into simplified Chinese and vice versa is now available, an assessment tool that is translated into Chinese could be used in both Taiwan and China. The present study evaluated the psychometric characteristics of a recent Chinese adaptation of the MSI-R in a community sample of 117 couples from Taiwan. Initial analyses examined scales’ internal consistency and intercorrelations, as well as measurement invariance across Chinese and U.S. community samples. Additional analyses examined differences in MSI-R profiles across Chinese men and women. Implications of findings for clinical practice and research are discussed.

Method Participants The Chinese community sample consisted of 117 heterosexual married couples from Taiwan. The Chinese participants ranged in age from 22 to 75 years (M = 43.8, SD = 11.0); husbands were slightly older (M = 45.0, SD = 11.6) than wives (M = 42.7, SD = 10.7). The couples had been married an average of 15.7 years (SD = 11.5), and approximately 90% of the couples (n = 106) had one or more

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

3

Lou et al. children (M = 1.81, SD = 0.96). Husbands and wives had similar levels of education, with about 60% of both men and women having completed at least a 12-year education. Men were more likely than women to work outside the home (93% vs. 61%). About 7% of both husbands and wives had been married previously. The U.S. community sample consisted of 1,020 heterosexual couples from 53 different sites in the United States comprising the original standardization sample for the MSI-R (Snyder, 1997). The sample approximated 1994 U.S. Census data across educational and racial/ethnic criteria. Participants in this sample ranged in age from 16 to 92 years (M = 39.8, SD = 13.7). Husbands averaged 40.7 years in age (SD = 14.0) with a mean level of education of 14.0 years (SD = 3.4); corresponding figures for wives regarding age and education were 38.8 (SD = 13.4) and 13.7 (SD = 3.2), respectively. The racial/ethnic distribution of respondents was 76.3% non-Hispanic White, 12.9% Black, 8.6% Hispanic, 1.4% Asian, and 0.8% other. Couples had been married an average of 14.8 years (SD = 13.2), and 78.1% of the couples had one or more children (M = 1.9, SD = 1.5).

Measures The MSI-R1 (Snyder, 1997) is composed of 13 profile scales: 2 validity scales, 1 global distress scale, and 10 additional scales assessing specific dimensions of the relationship (see Table 1). The inventory is administered to both partners separately and requires approximately 25 minutes to complete. Individuals’ responses to each item are scored along these scales and are plotted on a standard profile sheet based on gender-specific norms using normalized T-scores. Internal consistency for the MSI-R scales derived from a combined sample of 100 individuals in couple therapy and 2,040 individuals from the community ranges from 0.70 to 0.93 (M = 0.82); 6-week temporal stability coefficients for a sample of 210 individuals from the general community range from 0.74 to 0.88 (M = 0.79; Snyder, 1997). A comparison of 50 clinic couples and 77 community couples matched on demographic indices demonstrated that each of the MSI-R scales discriminated between the community and clinic couples, with moderate to large effect sizes (Cohen’s d) ranging from 0.43 to 2.35 (M = 1.07; Snyder, 1997). The Chinese MSI-R was developed through an iterative process of back-translation by a team of bilingual psychologists in Taiwan with expertise in both relationship functioning and test translation. Back-translations and further revisions were conducted until consensus was reached on the linguistic equivalence of items. In addition to the MSIR’s 13 standard profile scales, the present study also included a 10-item scale assessing respondents’ dissatisfaction with their partner concerning conflicts regarding inlaws. This 10-item Conflict With In-Laws (CIL) scale was

developed by Kwon and Choi (1999) during a previous adaptation of the MSI-R for use in South Korea. Evidence of the internal consistency, temporal stability, and construct validity of the new CIL scale suggests the potential utility of this measure in other similar cultures.

Procedures In recruiting the U.S. standardization sample, experienced testing professionals managed 53 sites distributed throughout the U.S. Site directors approached local school systems, churches, and other community groups with the goal of collecting a cross-section of couples in their community to avoid oversampling from any one source. Participants were informed they were contributing to a national study investigating community couples’ relationships, that their responses would be anonymous, and that they would not receive feedback regarding their test results or other compensation. Partners were instructed to complete the MSI-R separately and without collaboration, although no oversight was conducted to ensure adherence to this instruction. Procedures for recruiting the Chinese community sample were similar to those used in previous studies of the MSI-R across culturally and linguistically diverse samples. Specifically, undergraduate students in social work recruited married couples from the community. Students were instructed not to recruit members of their own family but were otherwise allowed to draw from their own personal contacts within the community (i.e., neighbors, relatives, or other acquaintances). This sampling procedure helps reduce possible barriers of mistrust among potential participants. The MSI-R was administered to Chinese respondents in paper-and-pencil format, and the sample recruiters implementing the measure remained present to ensure that partners completed the measure separately and without discussion. Participants were also provided with the rationale for the study and informed it would take 20 to 30 minutes to complete the inventory. Each participant also received a modest gift certificate to a local convenience store (equivalent to approximately 100 New Taiwanese dollars or US$3.40, which can buy a lunch meal in Taiwan) as compensation.

Results Internal Consistency Results of internal consistency analyses for the MSI-R scales are presented in Table 2 for Chinese men and women, separately, along with comparative findings for the U.S. standardization sample. For the Chinese sample, the alpha coefficients for men ranged from .57 to .87 (M = .73), and for women ranged from .62 to .89 (M = .76). Mean interitem correlations for men ranged from .12 to .35 (M = .20),

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

4

Assessment 

Table 1.  Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised (MSI-R) Scale Names, Abbreviations, Descriptions, and Sample Items. Scale name, abbreviation, and number of items Inconsistency (INC)—20 item pairs Conventionalization (CNV)—10 items Global Distress (GDS)—22 items Affective Communication (AFC)— 13 items Problem-Solving Communication (PSC)—19 items Aggression (AGG)—10 items Time Together (TTO)—10 items Disagreement About Finances (FIN)—11 items Sexual Dissatisfaction (SEX)—13 items Role Orientation (ROR)—12 items

Family History of Distress (FAM)— 9 items Dissatisfaction With Children (DSC)—11 items Conflict Over Child Rearing (CCR)—10 items Conflict With In-Laws (CIL)—10 items (Chinese MSI-R, only)

Scale description and sample items The individual’s consistency in responding to item content (20 item pairs with high scores reflecting greater inconsistency). The tendency to distort the appraisal of the relationship in a socially desirable direction. Examples: “I have never regretted our relationship even for a moment.” “My partner and I understand each other completely.” Overall dissatisfaction with the relationship. Examples: “Our relationship has been disappointing in several ways.” “At times I have very much wanted to leave my partner.” Dissatisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by the partner. Examples: “My partner doesn’t take me seriously enough sometimes.” “Sometimes I wonder just how much my partner really does love me.” Reports of the couple’s general ineffectiveness in resolving differences. Examples: “Minor disagreements with my partner often end up in big arguments.” “My partner and I seem able to go for days sometimes without settling our differences.” The level of intimidation and physical aggression experienced by the respondent from his or her partner. Examples: “My partner sometimes screams or yells at me when he or she is angry.” “My partner has left bruises or welts on my body.” Dissatisfaction with the couple’s companionship as expressed in time shared in leisure activity. Examples: “My partner and I don’t have much in common to talk about.” “It seems that we used to have more fun than we do now.” Discord regarding the management of finances. Examples: “My partner buys too many things without consulting with me first.” “It is often hard for us to discuss our finances without getting upset with each other.” Dissatisfaction with the frequency and quality of intercourse and other sexual activity. Examples: “My partner sometimes shows too little enthusiasm for sex.” “My partner has too little regard sometimes for my sexual satisfaction.” Advocacy for a traditional versus nontraditional orientation toward marital and parental gender roles (with high scores reflecting a nontraditional, more egalitarian orientation). Examples: “There should be more daycare centers and nursery schools so that more mothers of young children could work.” “In a relationship the woman’s career is of equal importance to the man’s.” Disruption of relationships within the respondent’s family of origin. Examples: “I was very anxious as a young person to get away from my family.” “My parents didn’t communicate with each other as well as they should have.” Dissatisfaction with the relationship quality between the respondent and his or her children, as well as parental concern regarding the emotional and behavioral well-being of the child(ren). Examples: “Having children has not brought all of the satisfactions I had hoped it would.” “I wish my children would show a little more concern for me.” Conflict between partners regarding child-rearing practices. Examples: “My partner doesn’t spend enough time with the children.” “My partner doesn’t assume his or her fair share of taking care of the children.” Conflict with the partner regarding in-laws. Examples: “We often have fights in handling issues related to our in-laws.” “My partner stays silent even when his or her family speaks ill of me.”

and for women ranged from .13 to .33 (M = .23). With the modest exception of the Conflict Over Child Rearing (CCR) scale for husbands (with α = .57), all scales in the Chinese sample retained moderate to strong internal consistency (α ≥ .62; mean interitem r ≥ .13) for both genders. These values are modestly lower than comparison alpha coefficients for the U.S. standardization sample (M = .79 and .82 for men and women, respectively), as well as mean interitem correlations (M = .27 and .29 for U.S. men and women,

respectively). In general, the rank order of magnitude of alpha and r coefficients across scales for the two nationalities was highly similar.

Correlational Analyses Scale intercorrelations were examined separately for Chinese men and women (see Table 3). In general, the pattern of these correlations for both Chinese genders closely

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

5

Lou et al. Table 2.  Internal Consistency and Mean Interitem Correlation Coefficients for Chinese Versus United States Men and Women. Chinesea

United Statesb

Men Scales Cronbach’s α INC CNV GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DSC CCR CIL

n/a .75 .87 .74 .85 .83 .68 .62 .83 .66 .67 .65 .57 .73

Women

Men

Women

Mean interitem Mean interitem Mean interitem Mean interitem correlation Cronbach’s α correlation Cronbach’s α correlation Cronbach’s α correlation n/a .23 .23 .18 .22 .35 .19 .14 .27 .13 .19 .15 .12 .22

n/a .82 .89 .84 .82 .74 .68 .75 .83 .65 .73 .62 .63 .83

n/a .32 .28 .29 .19 .24 .18 .22 .27 .13 .23 .14 .14 .33

n/a .81 .90 .82 .88 .78 .77 .76 .86 .82 .77 .64 .70 n/a

n/a .30 .30 .27 .37 .27 .26 .22 .31 .27 .27 .15 .19 n/a

n/a .83 .94 .85 .89 .81 .81 .80 .81 .85 .80 .63 .77 n/a

n/a .32 .41 .31 .30 .31 .30 .27 .25 .32 .30 .15 .25 n/a

Note. INC = Inconsistency; CNV = Conventionalization; GDS = Global Distress; AFC = Affective Communication; PSC = Problem-Solving Communication; AGG = Aggression; TTO = Time Together; FIN = Disagreement About Finances; SEX = Sexual Dissatisfaction; ROR = Role Orientation; FAM = Family History of Distress; DSC = Dissatisfaction With Children; CCR = Conflict Over Child Rearing; CIL = Conflict With InLaws; n/a = not applicable. a N = 117 (104 for DSC and CCR). bN = 1,020 (705 for DSC and CCR).

Table 3.  Intercorrelations Among MSI-R Scales Separately for Chinese Men and Women. Scale

INC

CNV

GDS

AFC

PSC

AGG

TTO

FIN

SEX

ROR

FAM

DSC

CCR

CIL

INC CNV GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DSC CCR CIL

― −.38 .52 .37 .43 .29 .35 .36 .33 −.26 .23 .24 .44 .27

−.54 ― −.75 −.73 −.72 −.47 −.58 −.58 −.50 −.16 −.26 −.26 −.55 −.34

.62 −.77 ― .72 .72 .46 .65 .58 .56 −.08 .40 .29 .58 .47

.49 −.68 .75 ― .76 .38 .73 .59 .51 −.07 .21 .34 .54 .54

.43 −.74 .75 .67 ― .58 .63 .60 .57 −.13 .26 .37 .66 .49

.52 −.61 .67 .53 .71 ― .29 .31 .29 −.09 .10* .23 .48 .35

.24 −.48 .55 .53 .61 .38 ― .58* .39 −.05 .38 .18 .49 .46

.36 −.56 .60 .54 .55 .51 .30* ― .39 −.07 .32 .25 .45 .42

.30 −.42 .47 .45 .49 .30 .36 .16 ― −.06 .28 .44 .56* .35

.04 .03 −.09 −.03 −.17 −.07 −.30 −.14 −.13 ― .07 −.15 −.05 −.26

.43 −.45 .41 .48 .40 .42* .29 .39 .34 −.14 ― .13 .34 .19

.34 −.54 .54 .49 .61 .47 .48 .47 .40 −.21 .43 ― .57 .34

.32 −.43 .48 .44 .53 .41 .42 .42 .20* −.07 .41 .55 ― .41

.28 −.39 .48 .46 .53 .43 .35 .51 .27 −.31 .25 .41 .33 ―

Note. MSI-R = Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised; INC = Inconsistency; CNV = Conventionalization; GDS = Global Distress; AFC = Affective Communication; PSC = Problem-Solving Communication; AGG = Aggression; TTO = Time Together; FIN = Disagreement About Finances; SEX = Sexual Dissatisfaction; ROR = Role Orientation; FAM = Family History of Distress; DSC = Dissatisfaction With Children; CCR = Conflict Over Child Rearing; CIL = Conflict With In-Laws. Intercorrelations for men appear above the diagonal and for women appear below the diagonal. N = 117 (104 for DSC and CCR). Correlations ≥ |.25| are significant at p < .01. *Indicates corresponding correlations (in bold) across men versus women significantly different from one another at p < .01.

paralleled previous findings for the U.S. standardization sample (Snyder, 1997), with global relationship distress (GDS) being most strongly linked to communication deficits in both problem solving (PSC) and affective expression

(AFC; rs from .72 to .75), followed by linkages to difficulties in specific relationship domains including leisure time together (TTO), finances (FIN), sexuality (SEX), child rearing (CCR), and physical aggression (AGG; rs from .47 to

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

6

Assessment 

.67). Corresponding bivariate correlations across men and women were also examined, using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation and adopting a conservative threshold of p < .01. Only three comparisons reached statistical significance at this level: Chinese men had significantly higher correlations than women between family history of distress (FAM) and aggression experienced from their partner (AGG); and Chinese women had significantly higher correlations than men between (a) distress over time together (TTO) and disagreement about finances (FIN) and (b) conflict over child rearing (CCR) and sexual dissatisfaction (SEX).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Measurement Invariance Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine factor invariance of the MSI-R across translations by comparing the Chinese community sample to the U.S. standardization sample (Snyder, 1997). The analyses were conducted at the scale level because of an inadequate sample size necessary for item-level analyses with the Chinese respondents. The MSI-R comprises 150 items, whereas the Chinese community sample consisted of 117 heterosexual married couples. Thus, there were more items than participants in the Chinese sample, precluding the examination of both gender and cross-national differences at the item level. This study tested a one-factor structure including eight scales both theoretically and empirically linked to a hypothesized latent factor of general couple relationship distress (Global Distress—GDS; Affective Communication—AFC; Problem-Solving Communication—PSC; Aggression— AGG; Time Together—TTO; Disagreement About Finances—FIN; Sexual Dissatisfaction—SEX; and Conflict Over Child Rearing—CCR). The remaining five MSI-R scales including the two validity scales (Inconsistency— INC and Conventionalization—CNV), scales assessing distress in the parent–child relationship (Dissatisfaction With Children—DSC) or family of origin (Family History of Distress—FAM) as well as attitudes toward marital and parental roles (Role Orientation—ROR) were excluded from this one-factor model. Previous empirical support for a one-factor model linking the identified eight MSI-R scales (GDS, AFC, PSC, AGG, TTO, FIN, SEX, and CCR) to a latent factor of general couple distress comes both from exploratory factor analysis with the original U.S. standardization sample as well as CFA testing measurement invariance across the U.S. and German, Spanish, and South Korean samples (Gasbarrini et al., 2010) and Middle Eastern (Arabicspeaking) samples (Balderrama-Durbin, Snyder, & Semmar, 2011). Exploratory factor analysis with the current Taiwanese sample also provided support for a predominant single latent factor reflecting general couple distress. In the present study, factor invariance was examined across four groups (Chinese men, Chinese women, U.S.

men, and U.S. women) to test for invariance across five levels. These five levels test progressively more restrictive assumptions of (a) configural invariance in the pattern of factor loadings across groups, (b) metric invariance in the magnitude of these factor loadings across groups, (c) scalar invariance in the intercepts on the latent variable across groups, (d) invariance in items’ unique variances across groups, and (e) invariance in factor variances across groups (Vanderberg & Lance, 2000).2 The first four of these tests reflect aspects of measurement invariance (as they concern tests of relationships between measured variables and latent constructs), whereas the last reflects aspects of structural invariance (as it refers to tests concerning the latent variables themselves; Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989). CFA was conducted using LISREL 8.51 with maximum likelihood method. Four model goodness-of-fit indices (GFIs) were used to evaluate fit of the data, including the GFI (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Finch & West, 1997), and the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990; χ2 values are also reported in Table 4, but are known often to be inflated by large sample sizes.) Values of the GFI, NNFI, and CFI can range from 0 to 1.00, with a value close to 1.00 indicating a better fit (Mulaik et al., 1989). For the RMSEA, values of less than .05 are considered a close fit and less than .08 an adequate fit; values of greater than .10 suggest room for improvement in the model (Finch & West, 1997). The results of fit indices for the CFA one-factor model demonstrated good model fit (relative invariance) across the four groups of Chinese and U.S. men and women (see Table 4). The obtained NNFI and CFI values reached or exceeded .95 for each of the five tests of invariance; and the GFI values reached or exceeded .93; the RMSEA values ranged from .09 to .10, indicating marginal but acceptable fit. Overall, results of these analyses confirmed that the eight MSI-R scales assessing various components of couple relationship discord on both the original English version and Chinese translation of the MSI-R load predominantly on one underlying factor of general distress. However, the increase in CFI (ΔCFI > .01) in testing for scalar invariance, despite otherwise generally acceptable fit indices at this level, suggest at least modest variance in the intercepts on the latent variable of relationship distress across groups and the benefit of examining group mean profile differences further.

Mean Comparisons Across Gender and Nationality Additional analyses examined the equivalence of mean scores for the MSI-R profile scales across men and women in the Chinese sample, and then across Chinese and U.S. respondents, pooled across gender (in the U.S. community sample, MSI-R scales are standardized separately for men

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

7

Lou et al. Table 4.  Tests of Invariance Across Chinese and U.S. Community Couples by Gender and Nationality. Invariance test Configural invariance Metric invariance Scalar invariance Uniqueness invariance Invariant factor variances

χ2

df

GFI

NNFI

RMSEA

CFI

ΔCFI

344.852 425.123 676.700 802.241 808.220

 80 101 125 146 149

.949 .937 .938 .929 .931

.971 .972 .962 .961 .962

.093 .092 .104 .101 .100

.979 .975 .957 .949 .949

― .004 .018 .008 .000

Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index. For U.S. men, N = 705; for U.S. women, N = 711; for Chinese men and women, Ns = 104.

and women using normalized T-scores, leading to Ms and SDs of approximately 50 and 10, respectively, on each scale for both genders). Results of these analyses are presented in Table 5. In the Chinese community sample, multivariate analyses indicated that husbands and wives did not differ significantly in their MSI-R scale scores. This absence of significant gender difference held whether testing across all 14 scales for the 104 couples with children, Wilk’s Λ = .937, F(14, 193) = 0.935, p > .50, or when testing across the 12 scales excluding child-related measures (DSC and CCR) completed by all 117 couples, Wilk’s Λ = .955, F(12, 221) = 0.573, p > .50. Post hoc univariate comparisons across gender within the Chinese sample also indicated no significant differences between husbands and wives on any scale. By comparison, multivariate analyses indicated a significant overall difference between Chinese and U.S. community respondents in MSI-R profiles—whether testing across all 13 scales for couples with children, Wilk’s Λ = .885, F(13, 1610) = 16.04, p < .001, or when testing across the 11 scales excluding child-related measures for all couples, Wilk’s Λ = .909, F(11, 2261) = 20.462, p < .001. However, follow-up univariate comparisons revealed that differences across nationality were restricted to a small subset of scales on the MSI-R. Only one scale assessing a component of relationship distress—Problem-Solving Communication (PSC)—differed significantly (p < .01) across Chinese and U.S. respondents, and the size of this effect was small (Cohen’s d = .20), with mean PSC scores differing across the two countries by less than 2 T-score points. Two other MSI-R scales showed significant mean differences across Chinese and U.S. respondents, but neither of these reflects a component of couple relationship distress. Specifically, Chinese respondents scored significantly higher (p < .001) than the U.S. standardization sample on the Inconsistency (INC) validity scale (Ms of 56.4 vs. 50.4, respectively), with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d) of .62; and Chinese respondents scored significantly lower (p < .001) than the U.S. standardization sample on the Family History of Distress (FAM) scale (Ms of 45.5 and 50.1, respectively), with a medium effect size of .49. Overall, these results indicate no significant differences across gender within the Chinese community sample, and

only one difference of small effect size across nationality on MSI-R scales reflecting various facets of relationship distress.

Discussion Although previous research has supported the use of the MSI-R with Asian populations, including populations from South Korea, this study is the first to examine the psychometric characteristics of the Chinese version of the MSI-R. Overall, the current results lend initial support to using the Chinese version of the MSI-R for research and clinical purposes with Chinese-speaking respondents, as the psychometric characteristics of the MSI-R demonstrated moderate to strong convergence across Taiwanese and U.S. samples. With few exceptions, the Chinese MSI-R demonstrated moderate to strong internal consistency across individual scales and compared favorably with findings for the U.S. standardization sample. The Conflict Over Child Rearing (CCR) scale was an exception to this finding, with husbands’ internal consistency on this scale (α = .57) falling just below guidelines suggested in the literature (Clark & Watson, 1995). This suggests a need for caution when interpreting scores on this scale in culturally or linguistically diverse settings until further research yields a better understanding of the sources of variance. CFA supported a one-factor model in four subgroups of U.S. and Chinese men and women. The evidence for both structural and measurement invariance suggests that the MSI-R shows good cross-national and cross-cultural equivalence in this study. Specifically, findings indicated that the associations among various components of relationship functioning including emotional expressiveness, conflict resolution, interactions regarding finances, sharing of leisure time, and quality of the sexual relationship were similar in U.S. and Chinese samples. Multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in the mean profiles of husbands and wives in the Chinese sample. By comparison, multivariate analyses indicated a significant overall difference between mean MSI-R profiles for Chinese and U.S. community samples, with post hoc univariate analyses revealing modest but statistically

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

8

Assessment 

Table 5.  Mean Scale Comparisons Across Gender and Nationality. Chinese respondents Mena

Womena

Effect sizes for gender (Chinese couples, only)

U.S. respondentsb

Chinese respondentsc

Effect sizes for nationality

Scales

M

SD

M

SD

F

Effect size

M

SD

M

SD

F

Effect size

INC CNV GDS AFC PSC AGG TTO FIN SEX ROR FAM DSC CCR CIL

56.5 50.9 52.2 51.9 52.4 50.1 52.0 50.2 48.9 49.6 45.3 51.2 50.3 49.4

8.6 8.3 8.8 7.9 7.9 9.6 7.7 7.9 8.6 6.7 8.0 9.0 7.8 8.9

56.3 50.9 51.4 50.6 51.4 49.1 50.8 50.4 48.3 50.2 45.8 50.6 50.6 50.6

8.6 9.2 7.9 8.8 7.2 8.0 6.8 8.8 9.4 6.2 7.9 8.6 7.3 11.0

0.02 0.00 0.55 1.46 0.96 0.72 1.66 0.02 0.30 0.51 0.24 0.26 0.08 0.97

.02 .00 .10 .16 .13 .11 .17 .02 .07 .09 .06 .07 .04 .13

50.4 50.1 50.2 50.3 50.0 50.3 50.1 50.3 50.1 50.0 50.1 50.3 50.5 ―

9.8 9.6 9.2 9.3 9.7 9.1 9.5 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.4 8.9 ―

56.4 50.9 51.8 51.3 51.9 49.6 51.4 50.3 48.6 49.9 45.5 50.9 50.4 ―

8.6 8.7 8.3 8.3 7.5 8.8 7.3 8.4 9.0 6.4 7.9 8.8 7.5 ―

81.15** 1.26 6.42 2.22 7.97* 1.15 3.85 0.00 5.50 0.01 49.43** 0.64 0.01 ―

.62 .08 .18 .10 .20 .07 .14 .00 .16 .01 .49 .06 .01 ―

Note. INC = Inconsistency; CNV = Conventionalization; GDS = Global Distress; AFC = Affective Communication; PSC = Problem-Solving Communication; AGG = Aggression; TTO = Time Together; FIN = Disagreement About Finances; SEX = Sexual Dissatisfaction; ROR = Role Orientation; FAM = Family History of Distress; DSC = Dissatisfaction With Children; CCR = Conflict Over Child Rearing; CIL = Conflict With InLaws. a N = 117 (104 for DSC and CCR). bN = 2,039 individuals (1,416 for DSC and CCR). cN = 234 individuals (208 for DSC and CCR). *p < .01. **p < .001.

significant differences on three subscales. First, Chinese couples scored significantly higher than their U.S. counterparts on the INC subscale, indicating less consistency in their responses. Inconsistency has been shown sometimes to arise in response to questions on self-report questionnaires that address sensitive content (Siddiqui, Mott, Anderson, & Flay, 1999). One hypothesis for the higher INC scores in the Taiwanese sample is that Chinese respondents may be less accustomed to, or less comfortable with, reporting on some domains of relationship functioning (e.g., specific facets of their sexual relationship). The absence of gender differences in this Taiwanese community sample indicates that Chinese men and women are not significantly different, after controlling for gender raw score differences already accounted for in the normalized T-scores based on the U.S. standardization sample. Or stated another way, the Taiwanese men and women are not any more different from each other (neither overall nor on any specific scale) than are their U.S. counterparts. These findings differ from those reported by Shen (2001) in a study of 100 Chinese couples, in which husbands scored slightly higher (0.3 points on average) than women on a 5-point Likert-type scale of marital satisfaction. Moreover, in their cross-national study including South Korean couples, Gasbarrini et al. (2010) found that Korean women (a) were more likely than men to express discontent on four scales (GDS, PSC, AGG, and SEX); (b) endorsed a less

traditional role orientation (ROR); and (c) were less likely than men to express discontent regarding child rearing (CCR). However, in all cases, the absolute difference in mean scale scores was modest (2 T-score points or less)— and less than the standard error of difference on these scales (approximately 5-6 T-score points; Snyder, 1997). Moreover, in contrast to the U.S. and Taiwanese samples, in South Korean sampling, men and women were sampled separately (rather than as couples as in the U.S. and Taiwanese samples), rendering gender differences difficult to interpret (because men and women may have been sampled in different ways, accounting for these mean scale differences). Respondents from this Taiwanese community sample also scored significantly lower (reflecting less distress) on the MSI-R subscale assessing quality of relationships in the family of origin (FAM). Differences in this regard likely reflect the importance in Chinese culture placed on maintaining harmonious relationships among family members. In the Chinese culture, the needs of individuals are usually considered subordinate to those of the family, and the spousal relationship is usually considered secondary to that between the parent and the child (Li & Chen, 2002; J. Y. Tang, 1991). Chinese respondents may also be less willing to disclose strains or conflicts within the family of origin, particularly given the complicated role that extended family relationships play in this culture. For example, traditional

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

9

Lou et al. Chinese society is patriarchal and patrilocal, meaning that a woman usually lives with her husband’s nuclear family after marriage. This situation frequently fosters tensions between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law, as they came from different families and have different expectations or values regarding the operations of a family. In the context of the triangular relationship among the daughter-in-law, the son, and the mother-in-law in a traditional family, harmony can depend on the son/husband’s ability to resolve conflicts (Song & Zhang, 2012). Only one subscale on the MSI-R related to couple relationship functioning showed differences across U.S. and Chinese respondents. Specifically, Taiwanese community couples scored slightly higher on average (2 T-score points) on the Problem-Solving (PSC) scale compared with their U.S. counterparts, with just a modest effect size (.20) associated with this difference. According to Huang (1999) and Ying (1991), harmony and collectivity are emphasized in Chinese culture, and these values may lead Chinese individuals to avoid direct communication and confrontation in interpersonal relationships—including marriage. However, this cultural difference may be waning, in that some research (e.g., Lewinsohn & Werner, 1997) suggests that Chinese marriages are shifting from an institutional model to a companionate one, perhaps due to the modernization of Taiwan. In a companionate marriage, women have increasing influence over decision making and wield more power than in the traditional institutional model. Increased understanding of this societal shift might be gained from future research that contrasts styles of relationship functioning among Taiwanese couples as a function of levels of exposure and acculturation to Western values and ideals—particularly as these relate to expectations for intimate relationships. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between Taiwanese and U.S. community samples in terms of their overall levels of relationship satisfaction. Although Chinese society has traditionally valued marital harmony (Shen, 2005), indicators of marital distress have increased in Taiwan, including the fact that Taiwan now has the highest divorce rate in Asia. Again, it would be useful to examine shifts in spousal interaction patterns across specific marital domains as a function of acculturation of Chinese partners to Western values and intimate relationship roles. For example, historically, Chinese society has not emphasized intimacy as an important component of marriage (Li, 1997; S. M. Tang, 1999). Members of Chinese couples can still have stable marital relationships because they feel indebted to and appreciative of the contributions made by their partner (e.g., economic contributions, fulfillment of family chores, etc.). This kind of affection, known as enqing (F. Chen & Li, 2007), can maintain and enhance the relationship between the members of Chinese couples. Similar to the U.S. standardization sample, the current Taiwanese sample ranged broadly in age from 22 to 75

years. One might anticipate both cohort as well as developmental (family life stage) effects on the MSI-R scales. For example, in the U.S. standardization sample, young couples were less conventional in their role attitudes and struggled more with demands of establishing financial independence and caring for young children; couples in their 40s were more likely to experience struggles in their relationships with their adolescent children (Snyder, 1997). Similarly, in the present Taiwanese sample (a) the youngest couples (those of age 39 years or younger) reported less traditional gender roles than the two older groups, (b) couples age of 40 to 49 years (parents of adolescents) reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with children, and (c) the oldest couples (those of age 50 years or older) reported less disagreement about finances than younger couples. Other factors potentially tempering comparisons between the U.S. standardization sample and present Taiwanese sample include considerations of sample size and sampling methodology. Resources did not permit as rigorous an approach to ensuring national representativeness of the Taiwanese community sample as in the original U.S. standardization. However, compared with the few other studies of Chinese community samples—most of which have relied on nonprobability sampling (e.g., Shen, 2001)—the sample of Taiwanese couples in the current study provided greater representation across the age range of couples with adolescents or adult children. Comparisons of the U.S. and Taiwanese samples should also be interpreted in light of 20 years separating their respective collection. Compared with the 2010 census, the original standardization sample contains a smaller percentage of Hispanic participants (8.6% compared with 14.8%; Kreider & Ellis, 2011); however, cross-cultural studies using the MSI-R have demonstrated its structural equivalence across many cultures including Spanish (Reig-Ferrer, Cepeda-Benito, & Snyder, 2004) and Mexican American (Negy, Snyder, & Diáz-Loving, 2004) groups. Further consideration suggests only modest historical influences on MSI-R response patterns over the past 20 years, in that demographic trends in marriage and divorce rates, as well as percentage of married women with children in the U.S. workforce, have substantially stabilized since 1990 compared with the several decades prior to 1990. The restricted sample size in the Chinese sample precluded the opportunity to evaluate cross-national equivalence on the item level. Hence, findings represent similarities and differences on the scale level. It is possible that items within the Chinese MSI-R scales perform differently compared with the U.S. sample. In addition, although CFA supported measurement invariance across eight scales of the MSI-R assessing a latent factor of general couple distress, further study with a larger sample would facilitate more detailed exploration of item functioning on other scales of the MSI-R not assessing this latent factor—including measures of the

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

10

Assessment 

parent–child relationship, the family-of-origin, and gender role attitudes. The small sample also potentially limited power to discern gender differences in the Taiwanese sample, or additional differences across nationality beyond those identified in this study. Overall, this study found similarities in the marital experiences of adults across cultures, which suggests the usefulness of the Chinese MSI-R with individuals whose sole or preferred language is Chinese. When only a screener scale of general relationship distress is needed, a 10-item Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Brief form developed specifically for this purpose (Whisman, Snyder, & Beach, 2009) may be used. However, in either clinical or research applications, in which differential assessment of multiple specific dimensions of couple interaction is the goal, the MSI-R is ideally suited to this purpose and is one of the very few measures of marital interaction for which scale scores have been linked specifically to nontest indicators of couple interaction (i.e., both observational data and clinician ratings of partner interaction) on an actuarial basis. Additional research with clinical and community Chinese samples is needed to extend the current findings with respect to convergent and discriminant validity. Future research should examine cultural differences in problem solving, sexual relationships, and the impact of the extended family on the marital relationship of Chinese couples. Finally, future investigations should also examine the extent to which the relationships between the Chinese MSI-R subscales and external criteria are similar to those found in other countries to ensure the utility of the Chinese version of the MSI-R in the United States and elsewhere. Authors’ Note The authors would also like to express appreciation to Xiaoxia Su for technical assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by research grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (102-2918-I-468-001) and from Asia University to Yu-Chiung Lou.

Notes 1. The complete 150-item MSI-R can be obtained in either English or Chinese versions from the publisher: Western Psychological Services, 625 Alaska Avenue, Torrance, CA 90503, USA or at www.wpspublish.com

2.

A sixth test examining invariance in factor covariances across groups, applicable only to models with two or more factors, was not relevant to the evaluation of this one-factor model and, hence, was omitted.

References Balderrama-Durbin, C., Snyder, D. K., & Semmar, Y. (2011). Assessing Arabic couples: An evidence-based approach. Family Science, 2, 24-33. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 591-606. Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964-980. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buss, D. H. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164-168. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466. Chen, F., & Li, T. (2007). Marital enqing: An examination of its relationship to spousal contributions, sacrifices, and family stress in Chinese marriages. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 393-412. Chen, X., & He, Y. (2005). The family in mainland China: Structure, organization and significance for child development. In J. L. Roopinarine & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Families in global perspective (pp. 51-62). Boston, MA: Pearson. Chia, R. C., Allred, L. J., & Jerzak, P. A. (1997). Attitudes toward women in Taiwan and China. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 137-150. Chou, B. (1994). Changing pattern of women’s employment in Taiwan, 1966-1986. In M. A. Rubinstein (Ed.), The other Taiwan: 1945 to the present (pp. 330-354). Armonk, NY: East Gate. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan. (2013). National Statistics General Reports (No. 248): Divorce rate of Taiwan from Jan. through Nov. in 2013 is 2.3%. (In Chinese). Retrieved from http://www. dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/31230162436198HDYFK.pdf Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelations of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 188, 108-132. Farris, C. S. (1994). The social discourse on women’s roles in Taiwan: A textual analysis. In M. A. Rubinstein (Ed.), The other Taiwan: 1945 to the present (pp. 305-329). Armonk, NY: East Gate.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

11

Lou et al. Ferguson, S. J. (1995). Marriage timing of Chinese American and Japanese American women. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 314-343. Finch, J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 439-485. Gasbarrini, M. F., Snyder, D. K., Willson, V., & Newman, D. (2010). Adaptation of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory– Revised (MSI-R) in Germany, Spain, and Korea: An empirical analysis of structural invariance. In D. K. Snyder & C. Balderrama-Durbin (Co-chairs), Cross national approaches to evidence-based couple assessment. Symposium presented at the meeting of the World Congress of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, Boston, MA. Hoeffel, E. M., Rastogi, S., Kim, M. O., & Shahid, H. (2012). The Asian population: 2010 Census brief. Retrieved from http:// www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf Huang, L. L. (1999). Interpersonal harmony and conflict. Taipei, Taiwan: Gui Guan. International Languages. (2013). Retrieved from http://www. nationsonline.org/oneworld/languages.htm Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472-503. Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2009 (Current Population Reports, P70-125). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf Kwon, J. H., & Choi, K. M. (1999). A validation study of the Korean Marital Satisfaction Inventory. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 123-139. Lai, E., & Huang, H. (1995). Yi hun a xing can yu jia wu fen gong qhi yan jiu [Research on married men’s participation in domestic labor] (Conference paper). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. Lai, S. (2000, November). Marital dynamics and the division of domestic labor in contemporary Taiwan. Paper presented at the 2000 National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN. Laumakis, M., Margolin, G., & John, R. (1998). The emotional, cognitive, and coping responses of preadolescent children to different dimensions of marital conflict. In G. Holden, B. Geffner & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Children and family violence (pp. 257-288). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lewinsohn, M. A., & Werner, P. D. (1997). Factors in Chinese marital process: Relationship to marital adjustment. Family Process, 36, 43-61. Li, T. S. (1997). The formation and development of marital intimacy. Formosa Journal of Mental Health, 10, 101-128. [In Chinese] Li, T. S., & Chen, F. M. (2002). Affection in marriage: A study of marital enqing and intimacy in Taiwan. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Society, 3, 37-59. Lu, Y. (1984). Women, work and the family in a developing society: Taiwan. In G. W. Jones (Ed.), Women in the urban and industrial work force: Southeast and East Asia (pp. 339-367). Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.

Ministry of the Interior Department of Taiwan. (2012). Divorced couple numbers and crude divorce rate. Retrieved from http:// statis.moi.gov.tw/micst/stmain.jsp?sys=220&ym=10108& ymt=10208&kind=21&type=1&funid=c0140201&cycle=41 &outmode=0&compmode=0&outkind=1&fldlst=11&codsp Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445. Negy, C., Snyder, D. K., & Diáz-Loving, R. (2004). A crossnational comparison of Mexican and Mexican American couples using the Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised (Spanish). Assessment, 11, 49-56. Ni, P. (2002). On Confucius. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth Thomson. Pew Research Center. (2012). The rise of Asian Americans. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/ the-rise-of-asian-americans/ Reig-Ferrer, A., Cepeda-Benito, A., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). Utility of the Spanish translation of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised in Spain. Assessment, 11, 17-26. Robles, T. F., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of marriage: Pathways to health. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 409-416. Shen, A. C. T. (2001). The applicability of Western marital satisfaction measures for couples in Taiwan based on ENRICH. Psychological Testing, 48, 131-151. Shen, A. C. T. (2005). Factors in the marital relationship in a changing society. International Social Work, 48, 321-336. Siddiqui, O., Mott, J. A., Anderson, T. L., & Flay, B. R. (1999). Characteristics of inconsistent respondents who have “ever used” drugs in a school-based sample. Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 269-295. Snyder, D. K. (1997). Manual for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory, Revised. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Snyder, D. K., & Aikman, G. G. (1999). Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed., pp. 1173-1210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Snyder, D. K., Castellani, A. M., & Whisman, M. A. (2006). Current status and future directions in couple therapy. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 317-344. Snyder, D. K., Cepeda-Benito, A., Abbott, B. V., Gleaves, D. H., Negy, C., Hahlweg, H., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2004). Crosscultural applications of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory– Revised (MSI-R). In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (3rd ed., pp. 603-623). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Snyder, D. K., Heyman, R. E., & Haynes, S. N. (2005). Evidencebased approaches to assessing couple distress. Psychological Assessment, 17, 288-307. Snyder, D. K., Heyman, R. E., & Haynes, S. N. (2008). Assessing couple distress. In J. Hunsley & E. Mash (Eds.), A guide to assessments that work (pp. 439-463). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Song, Y., & Zhang, Y. B. (2012). Husbands’ conflict styles in Chinese mother/daughter-in-law conflicts: Daughters-inlaw’s perspectives. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 57-74.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015

12

Assessment 

Tang, J. Y. (1991). Enqing in Chinese humanity. Collections of Tang, Jun-Yi’s Work, 3, 87-97. Taipei, Taiwan: Taiwan Student Publishing. (In Chinese) Tang, S. M. (1999). Division of domestic labor in dual-earner families: A perspective of the nature of housework. Research in Applied Psychology, 4, 131-173. (In Chinese) Tourism Bureau, Taiwan. (2013a). Culture & heritage. Retrieved from http://eng.taiwan.net.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0002034 Tourism Bureau, Taiwan. (2013b). People and language. Retrieved from http://eng.taiwan.net.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0002010 Tsai, Y., & Yi, C. (1997). Persistence and changes in Chinese family values: The Taiwanese case. In L. Chang, Y. Lu & F. Wang (Eds.), Taiwanese society in the 1990s: Taiwan social change survey symposium series II (pp. 125-169). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica. Vanderberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70. Wang, Q., & Zhou, Q. (2010). China’s divorce and remarriage rates: Trends and regional disparities. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 51, 257-267. Whisman, M. A. (2006). Role of couple relationships in understanding and treating mental disorders. In S. R. H. Beach, M. Z. Wamboldt, N. J. Kaslow, R. E. Heyman, M. B. First, L.

G. Underwood & D. Reiss (Eds.), Relational processes and DSM-V: Neuroscience, assessment, prevention, and treatment (pp. 225-238). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Whisman, M. A., Snyder, D. K., & Beach, S. R. H. (2009). Screening for marital and relationship discord. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 247-254. Xu, X., & Lai, S. (2004). Gender ideologies, marital roles, and marital quality in Taiwan. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 318-355. Yi, C., & Yang, W. (1995). The perceived conflict and decision-making patterns among husbands and wives in Taiwan. In C. Yi (Ed.), Family formation and dissolution: Perspectives from East and West (pp. 129-168). Taipei: Academia Sinica, Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Science and Philosophy. Ying, Y. W. (1991). Marital satisfaction among San Francisco Chinese-Americans. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 37, 201-213. Young, R. L. (1988). Language maintenance and language shift in Taiwan. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 9, 323-338. Zuo, J. (2003). From revolutionary comrades to gendered partners: Marital construction of bread winning in post-Mao urban China. Journal of Family Relations, 24, 314-337.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 23, 2015