








































Graduate Student Journal of Psychology                                                                             Copyright 2


Graduate Student Journal of Psychology                                                                             Copyright 2007 by the Department of Counseling & Clinical Psychology 
2007, Vol. 9                                                                                Teachers College, Columbia University                         ISSN 1088-4661
 
 
 
 

Critical Evaluation and Conceptual Organization of  
Marital Functioning Measures 

 
Bonita Schneider 

Teachers College, Columbia University 
 

The sheer quantity and diversity of measures of marital functioning reflect the complexity of mari-
tal relationships. This paper presents a conceptual/theoretical framework for organizing these 
measures according to the five core domains of marital functioning (marital quality, marital ad-
justment, marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction and intimacy) and those factors that influence 
these domains (relational, individual and external). The paper defines each of these core domains 
and influencing factors and discusses their complex interrelationship. For each domain and influ-
encing factor, examples of popular measures that tap the construct or variable are highlighted and 
critically evaluated. The researcher, clinician, and student should find the framework presented in 
the paper helpful in terms of making sense of and selecting from the current proliferation of meas-
ures. 

 
 

Fifty-four percent of the American population (15 
years and older) is currently married (U.S. Bureau of the 
Census, 2000). However, despite the popularity of this in-
stitution, marriage ultimately proves a source of disap-
pointment for many individuals. Social statistics indicate 
that: a) couple problems are one of the chief complaints 
from those presenting for individual psychotherapy (Ma-
ling, Gurtman & Howard, 1995), b) union dissolution rates 
are high, ranging from 50% for first marriages to 70% for 
those who have remarried (Statistics Canada, 2002; US 
Bureau of the Census, 1999) and c) the rates of coercive 
behaviors indicating the presence of physical, sexual and 
psychological violence in close relationships range from 
10% to 25% for both physical and sexual violence and up to 
75% for psychological violence (Archer, 2000).  

Clearly, the need for clinicians and researchers to as-
sess, study and understand close relationships is of para-
mount importance. Indeed, researchers have devoted con-
siderable attention to factors that make marriages fulfilling 
and likely to continue (e.g. Gottman, 1994a; Gottman, 
1994b). However, given the complex nature of marital rela-
tionships, over the years a vast number of variables or con-
structs concerning them have been identified. This in turn 
has resulted in an extensive range of measures designed to 
assess these variables or constructs (Bradbury, 1995). In 
fact, the number of instruments and procedures that cur-
rently exist is so great that they have been chronicled and 
analyzed in a number of books (e.g. Fredman & Sherman, 
 
Dr. Roni B. Tower is gratefully acknowledged and thanked for her 
input throughout the writing of this article and her helpful com-
ments on the various drafts.  

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed 
to Bonita Schneider; e-mail: bs2257@columbia.edu. 
 

1987; Grotevant & Carlson, 1989; Jacob & Tennenbaum, 
1988; O’Leary, 1987; Touliatos, Permutter & Strauss, 
1990). Furthermore, according to Bradbury (1995), “…the 
marital and family assessment literature has become a vic-
tim of its own success. The number and range of instru-
ments has proliferated to such a degree that practitioners 
cannot afford to evaluate and select them properly,” (p. 
459).  

The purpose of this paper is to provide clinicians and 
researchers with a simple framework for “organizing” the 
various relationship measures that reflect the five core do-
mains of marital functioning inspiring their creation: (a) 
marital quality, (b) satisfaction, (c) adjustment, (d) intimacy 
and (e) sexual satisfaction. In addition, there are a number 
of factors (e.g. commitment, dependence, dissolution, indi-
vidual characteristics and life events) that influence these 
five domains; and use of their associated measures can fa-
cilitate a greater understanding of marital functioning. The 
remainder of this paper will define each of these domains 
and discuss their interrelatedness. According to Sabatelli 
(1988), any attempt to evaluate a measure requires an 
elaboration and understanding of the domain on which it is 
based. However, in the case of marital measures this is par-
ticularly complicated as there is a great deal of heterogene-
ity within them. Thus, the conceptual distinctions between 
domains have become blurred. The latter is particularly true 
of marital adjustment, satisfaction and quality. Conse-
quently, domains are likely to be interrelated in complex 
ways (Bradbury, 1995; Sabatelli, 1988).  

Following a discussion of the conceptualization of each 
of the domains, examples of the more widely used self re-
port measures associated with each one will be presented 
and critically evaluated. Particular attention will be given to 
measures that have a solid empirical foundation. While the 

38 



EVALUATION AND ORGANIZATION OF MARITAL FUNCTIONING MEASURES 
 

39 

nature of marital assessment can vary dramatically depend-
ing upon the population being served (Bradbury, 1995), this 
paper focuses on measures that are broadly applicable to a 
number of research and clinical needs rather than those that 
have been developed for highly specific populations or 
problems. Finally, an effort has been made to cover a rela-
tively broad array of measures at the expense of providing a 
great deal of information on each of them. These parame-
ters are in keeping with those employed by Bradbury 
(1995) in his discussion of a model of marital functioning 
and associated measures.  

While reviewing this paper the reader may find it help-
ful to refer to Figure 1 for a graphic representation of the 
relationship domains and their associated measures, the 
interaction between the domains, and the factors influenc-
ing them.  

 
Domains of Marital Functioning 

 
Marital Satisfaction 
 

Definitions of marital satisfaction are theoretically 
grounded in social exchange and equity theories (Vaughn & 
Matyastik Baier, 1999). According to Walster, Walster and 
Berscheild (1978), inequitable exchanges cause distress and 
detract from satisfaction with one’s relationships. Giving 
more to a relationship than one receives leads to feelings of 
unfairness and resentment, whereas receiving more then 
one gives leads to feelings of guilt and shame. Conse-
quently, an imbalance of either type leads to dissatisfaction. 
Indeed, Kamo (1993) found that relationship satisfaction 
increases when the relationship is perceived as fair. Satis-
faction measures typically tap an individual’s attitudes to-
ward his or her partner and the relationship (Roach, Frazier 
& Bowden, 1981). The unit of analysis is the individual 
(i.e., the individual’s attitudes or feelings), and the object of 
analysis is the individual’s subjective impression rather 
than objective accounts of the relationship (Vaughn & Mat-
yastik Baier, 1999).  

 
Measures of Marital Satisfaction  
 
 The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS). 

 
The RAS (Hendrick, 1988) is a unifactorial measure of 

global relationship satisfaction and focuses on: how well 
the partner meets the other’s needs, how well the relation-
ship compares to others, regrets about the relationship, how 
well the individual’s expectations have been met, love for 
partner, and problems in the relationship (Hendrick, Dicke 
& Hendrick, 1998). Using the RAS is advantageous due to 
its brevity and the fact that it does not confound attitudes 
and behaviors. Also, the seven-point scale permits evalua-
tion of subtle variations in satisfaction across a wide spec-
trum. In terms of shortcomings, the RAS is unable to un-
earth specific areas of distress and cannot clearly distiguis-

between satisfied and dissatisfied individuals due to the 
absence of cut-off scores.  

 
Marital Satisfaction Scale (MSS). 
 
The MSS (Roach et al., 1981) was designed specifi-

cally to measure satisfaction. Roach et al. (1981) wanted to 
develop a uni-dimensional measure of an individual’s sub-
jective attitude toward the marriage relationship. Initially, a 
73-item Likert-type scale was developed; content was de-
rived from the marital literature and the author’s experi-
ences as a therapist. Several evaluative studies allowed the 
measure to be refined and reduced to a final 48-item ver-
sion.  

The authors of the MSS have been praised for develop-
ing a unidimensional assessment tool that captures an indi-
vidual’s subjective evaluation of their relationship. How-
ever, the content of the scale has been criticized. Not all 
items evoke affect or opinion related to satisfaction with the 
marriage for example “I’m afraid of losing my spouse to 
divorce,” “I feel competent and fully able to handle my 
marriage,” “My spouse and I agree on what is right and 
proper conduct” (Sabatelli, 1988).  

 
KANSAS Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS). 

 
The KMSS (Schumm et al., 1986) consists of three 

items and was designed as a short and direct assessment of 
marital satisfaction, including both satisfaction with spouse 
and the marriage relationship. The scale is praised for its 
direct focus on relationships as a whole and its validity (Sa-
batelli, 1988). It also appears able to accurately assess mari-
tal satisfaction while maintaining brevity (Schumm et al., 
1986). The authors of the test acknowledge its fallibility 
due to socially desirable responding and the tendency for 
distribution of responses to the scale to depart significantly 
from what is normal in terms of skewness and kurtosis.  

 
 ENRICH Inventory. 
  

The ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMS) is 
made up of two of the subscales of the ENRICH (Evalua-
tion and Nurturing Relationship Issues Communication and 
Happiness) Inventory, which is a multidimensional measure 
of marital satisfaction (Fowers & Olson, 1993). The EMS 
Scale is a 15-item measure that includes the Idealistic Dis-
tortion (5 items) and Marital Satisfaction (10 items) sub-
scales from the original ENRICH Inventory. Each of the 10 
Marital Satisfaction items represents a marital relationship 
area that Fournier et al. (1983) deemed important and that 
was assessed by the full ENRICH Inventory. The Idealistic 
Distortion scale serves as a marital conventionalization 
scale, correcting the Marital Satisfaction scale score by cap-
turing the extent to which the respondent portrays the mar-
riage in an unrealistically positive light. The EMS Scale 
provides a score for each individual as well as a couple 



SCHNEIDER 
 

40 

score. The EMS Scale provides a broad sampling of the 
important domains of marital satisfaction and appears to 
provide a psychometrically sound means of measuring 
marital satisfaction (Fournier et al., 1983). It also includes 
an assessment of marital conventionalization, which can aid 
in the recognition of overly positive evaluations of marriage 
and/or denial of problems. Lastly, there is a readily avail-
able couple consensus score. In short, the EMS Scale is a 
brief measure that reflects many of the strengths of the full 
length ENRICH Inventory.  

 
Marital Adjustment 

 
Marital Adjustment measures were developed to pro-

vide a richer view of marriage than that which is provided 
by simple satisfaction measures (Spanier, 1976). Marital 
adjustment typically refers to those processes that are pre-
sumed necessary to achieve a harmonious and functional 
marital relationship (Sabatelli, 1988). Bradbury (1995) de-
scribes it as the ways in which individuals and couples deal 
with their differences of opinion and individual or marital 
difficulties and transitions. A well-adjusted relationship is 
typically described as involving frequent interaction be-
tween partners, open communication, infrequent disagree-
ment on important marital issues, and the ability to resolve 
disagreement when they do occur (Spanier, 1976). For ad-
justment measures, the unit of focus is the dyad. Measures 
of marital adjustment target the individual’s account of the 
relationship in an effort to gain insight into marital func-
tioning. Unlike satisfaction measures, which are designed to 
illicit the individual’s subjective perspective, adjustment 
measures attempt to gain a more objective perspective. It is 
assumed that respondents, completing adjustment measures, 
are reporting on the types of behaviors that characterize 
their marital interactions without presumably passing judg-
ment on them (Sabatelli, 1988). However, it has been noted 
that the conceptualization and operationalization of marital 
adjustment is confounded by the fact that satisfaction with 
the relationship and/or partner can also be included as a 
component of marital adjustment (Locke & Wallace, 1959; 
Spanier 1976; Spanier & Cole 1976). Hence, when satisfac-
tion is conceived of as a component of adjustment, the 
measure’s focus is on both the dyad and the individual, and 
the measure’s object of analysis becomes both the objective 
aspects of dyadic interaction and the subjective impressions 
of the relationship (Sabatelli, 1988).  

 
Measures of Marital Adjustment 
 

The Locke-Wallace Short Marital Adjustment Test 
(LWMAT). 

 
The LWMAT (Locke & Wallace, 1959) has been in 

use since 1959. It assesses marital adjustment, which Locke 
(1951) defined as a couple’s ability to avoid and/or resolve 
conflict so that both partners feel satisfied with the marriage 

and each other. This 15-item measure assesses the spouses’ 
happiness with each other and marriage, the degree of 
agreement on marital issues (i.e., sex, affection, philosophy 
of life), the experience of companionship, and the ability to 
constructively resolve conflicts. (Locke & Wallace, 1959). 
Despite being in use for several decades, however, the 
measure has limitations. First, there is a tendency for indi-
viduals’ to respond in socially desirable ways. Second, the 
LWMAT was calculated on the basis of a sample made up 
only of well or poorly adjusted couples, compromising its 
reliability. Finally, the conceptualization of adjustment may 
be outdated, for example, in response to the item dealing 
with companionship and recreation, the highest level of 
adjustment is assigned to those individuals who report that 
both spouses generally prefer to “stay at home” rather then 
be “on the go. ”  

 
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). 

 
The DAS was developed by Spanier (1976) for use 

with married and cohabiting couples. Spanier (1976) de-
fined adjustment as a process, the outcome of which is re-
flected by problematic differences and tensions between the 
couple, as well as dyadic satisfaction, cohesion and consen-
sus on important matters. The DAS measure consists of 32 
items derived from an original pool of 200 items. Arriving 
at the final version of the scale involved a content review 
by a panel of judges, an item analysis, and factor analysis. 
The DAS yields a total score and four sub-scores each re-
flecting a dimension of adjustment, namely, dyadic satisfac-
tion, dyadic consensus, dyadic cohesion and affectional 
expression.  

The validity of the DAS has been questioned as it in-
volved discriminating between couples in therapy and nor-
mal controls. The overall dyadic adjustment score might 
also be biased as the measure includes subscales of differ-
ing lengths and items of different response categories. Fi-
nally, there is a tendency to elicit subjective and global im-
pressions due to the inclusion of both evaluative and de-
scriptive items (Sabatelli, 1988). 

 However, there are several factors that support the on-
going use of the DAS. First, the DAS has a massive data-
base collected on it and has proved to be a useful, reliable 
and valid measure in a number of studies (Heyman, Sayers 
& Bellack, 1994). Second, because the DAS asks about 
specific content areas, it provides a useful indicator of areas 
that are causing particular difficulty (Heyman et al., 1994). 
Finally, Sabourin and colleagues (2005) have recently de-
veloped an abbreviated form of the DAS called the DAS-4. 
This was psychometrically sound, as effective as the origi-
nal DAS, less contaminated by socially desirable respond-
ing and less time-consuming to administer.  

 
Marital Satisfaction Inventory.  

 



EVALUATION AND ORGANIZATION OF MARITAL FUNCTIONING MEASURES 
 

41 

The Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI) was devel-
oped by Snyder (1979). It is an objective self-report meas-
ure designed to assess an individual’s attitudes and beliefs 
regarding specific areas of his or her marriage. Although 
the measure’s name implies that it taps satisfaction, it aims 
to provide insight into the adjustment quality of a relation-
ship. The MSI consists of 280 true/false items that fall into 
one of 11 subscales covering 10 different dimensions of 
marital and family life including: global distress, affective 
communication, problem solving communication, time to-
gether, disagreement about finances, sexual dissatisfaction, 
role orientation, family history of distress, dissatisfaction 
with children, and conflict over child rearing. The MSI also 
contains a conventionalization scale. The items comprising 
this validity scale reflect the tendency of subjects to distort 
their appraisals of their marriages in socially desirable di-
rection. No composite or total satisfaction score is derived. 
The test was designed so that nine of the scales can be 
given to couples who have no children. Snyder (1979) cre-
ated the measure by combining test items on an intuitive 
basis and refining them through deriving the scales’ internal 
consistencies, item-to-total scale correlations, and correla-
tions of each subscale with the global measure of satisfac-
tion. Because Snyder (1979) was concerned with creating 
an inventory useful for clinicians, the MSI can provide 
therapists with a comprehensive picture of the problem ar-
eas experienced by the couple. However, Sabatelli (1988) 
raises concerns about the content validity of the inventory. 
There is a tendency for some scales to correlate highly with 
the global distress measure and there is an absence of data 
on scale inter-correlations.  
 
Marital Quality 

 
There are two distinct approaches to the conceptualiza-

tion and operationalization of marital quality (Sabatelli, 
1988). The first is to treat marital quality as a hybrid con-
cept reflecting both marital adjustment (i.e., good commu-
nication and the absence of conflict) and marital satisfaction 
(i.e., a high degree of satisfaction with the relationship and 
the spouse) (Lewis & Spanier, 1979). This blends adjust-
ment and satisfaction into a broader and more inclusive 
construct. When marital quality is conceived of in this way, 
measures assess both objective and subjective aspects of the 
relationship, and both the dyad and the individual are the 
foci of analysis. The above results in a measure of marital 
quality closely resembling what has historically been pre-
sented as a measure of adjustment (Sabatelli, 1988). The 
second way in which marital quality is conceptualized and 
operationalized is as reflecting an individual’s global 
evaluation of the marriage relationship (Fincham and 
Bradbury, 1987; Norton, 1983). This allows inferences to 
be drawn about how respondents view their relationships. 
However, this formulation of marital quality is highly simi-
lar to conceptualizations of marital satisfaction. According 
to Sabatelli (1988), when some researchers refer to an indi-
vidual’s global evaluations or attitudes toward their partner 

or relationship they mean marital satisfaction while others 
are describing marital quality.  

 
Measures of Marital Quality  
 

The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI). 
 

The QMI (Norton, 1983) is a six item measure of mari-
tal quality defined as a person’s subjective evaluation of the 
relationship as a whole, specifically how good it is. The six 
items that comprise the scale were derived from a 20-item 
pilot questionnaire that was administered to 430 married 
couples and then subjected to item and factor analyses. One 
of the measure’s strengths is that it provides a direct way of 
evaluating an individual’s global assessment of their marital 
relationship. However, there is a lack of extensive data sup-
porting the measure’s validity.  

 
Marital Intimacy  

 
Gilbert (1976) defined intimacy as a deep verbal and 

nonverbal exchange between two individuals, which con-
veys both acceptance and commitment to the relationship. 
According to Van den Broucke and colleagues (1995), in-
timacy is a dyadic phenomenon and defines the degree of 
connectedness between two partners. Intimacy includes 
affective, cognitive and behavioral aspects (Van den 
Broucke, Vandereycken & Vertommenand, 1995) and con-
sequently, measures of intimacy can be grouped according 
to which concept they primarily reflect (Prager, 2000). 
Marital intimacy can be conceived of as a process (i.e., a 
characteristic way of relating between two partners that 
develops over time), and it can also refer to the relatively 
stable higher-order relationship qualities that emerge from 
this process (Van den Broucke et al., 1995). Intimacy can 
be regarded as an important domain of marital functioning, 
has been cited as an important component in marital rela-
tionships (Berman & Lief, 1975), and is considered one of 
several interpersonal dimensions of close and prolonged 
relationships (Waring, Tillman, Frelick, Russel & Weiz, 
1980). Furthermore, intimacy is dynamically related to the 
other four core domains of marital functioning (i.e., marital 
satisfaction, marital quality, marital adjustment and sexual 
satisfaction). Research has found intimacy to be positively 
related to satisfaction and commitment in close relation-
ships (Prager, 1995). There is also evidence that intimacy is 
the primary dimension that determines marital adjustment 
(Waring, McElrath, Mitchell & Derry, 1981). In terms of 
sexual satisfaction, Lawrence and Beyers (1995) and Og-
gins and colleagues (1993) found that relationship charac-
teristics such as intimacy are related to level of sexual satis-
faction. Sexuality is regarded as a core composite of inti-
macy (Hames & Waring, 1980; Waring, McElrath, Mitchell 
& Deary, 1981).  

 
Measures of Marital Intimacy  



SCHNEIDER 
 

42 

 
Marital Intimacy Questionnaire (MIQ). 

 
The MIQ (Van de Broucke et al., 1995) is a 56-item 

self-report questionnaire that measures five factor-
analytically derived dimensions: intimacy problems, con-
sensus (generally exemplifying cognitive and behavioral 
aspects of intimacy), openness (including authenticity), 
affection, and commitment. Its strengths include a strong 
conceptual link with a marital intimacy theoretical model, 
high face validity, reasonable length, and the fact that it is 
easy to administer and score by hand. It also allows for 
identification of the current strengths and weaknesses with 
regard to the couple’s intimacy. However, the test authors 
acknowledge the need for additional validation studies as 
well as an assessment of the scales’ predictive validity (Van 
de Broucke, et al., 1995). 

 
Miller Social Intimacy Scale.  

 
The Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS) aims to as-

sess the level of social intimacy currently experienced in a 
marriage, dating relationship, or friendship (Miller & Lef-
court, 1982). Despite the fact that intimacy is not operation-
ally defined, item analysis indicates that intimacy is con-
ceptualized as involving frequent self-disclosures and con-
fiding, intense feelings of affection, closeness, and empathy 
(Sabatelli, 1988). The 17 items that make up this self-report 
inventory were selected from an initial pool of 30 items that 
were subjected to inter-item and item-to-total correlations. 
Sabatelli (1988) praises the measure for its thoughtful con-
struction and the efforts made to demonstrate its validity. 
However, since items were derived from content analysis of 
interviews with students about intimate relationships the 
content validity of the scale may be compromised.  

 
Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships.  

 
The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships 

(PAIR; Schaefer & Olson, 1981) distinguishes between 
intimate experiences and intimate relationships, and as-
sesses the degree to which each partner experiences inti-
macy in five different relationship areas: emotional inti-
macy, social intimacy, sexual intimacy, intellectual inti-
macy, and recreational intimacy. Individuals are asked to 
respond to a 5-point Likert scale regarding how they cur-
rently experience the relationship and how they would like 
to experience the relationship. This is particularly helpful 
clinically as it highlights the gap between the current reality 
of the relationship and expectations, which may themselves 
be unrealistic. The scale was created through the item and 
factor analysis of a large pool of items reflecting various 
types of intimacy. This process resulted in six items for 
each of the five intimacy dimensions, as well as a conven-
tionality subscale. The PAIR provides valuable information 
on how intimacy experiences differ from expectations. 

Weaknesses of the measure include that there is a concep-
tual difference between expectations and ideals that the 
PAIR neglects to clarify. Also, although the measure could 
be used for research purposes by computing total scores 
from the subscale scores, Schaefer and Olson (1981) do not 
advocate this. They regard the measure’s strength as its 
ability to provide a profile of intimacy experienced across 
various dimensions. It is therefore their contention that a 
total score would be meaningless.  

 
Sexual Satisfaction 

 
According to Schwartz and Rutter (1998), sex is one of 

the most intimate behaviors in which couples engage and 
one that can serve as a barometer for the entire relationship. 
Sexual satisfaction impacts marital functioning because it is 
related to marital satisfaction. Frequency, quality of sex, 
and sexual satisfaction have been found to be associated 
with general relationship satisfaction (Blumstein & 
Schwartz, 1977; Call, Sprecher & Schwartz, 1995; Don-
nelly, 1993; Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Edwards and 
Booth, 1976; Greeley, 1991; Lawrence & Byers, 1995; Og-
gins, Leber & Veroff, 1993). Prospective studies reveal that 
sexual problems and/or sexual dissatisfaction predicts later 
relationship dissolution (Edwards & Booth, 1994; Oggins et 
al., 1993; Veroff, Douvan & Hatchett, 1995; White & 
Keith, 1991). Consequently, understanding and assessing a 
couple’s functioning may necessitate the use of one of the 
many measures of relationship and/or individuals’ sexual 
functioning. One of the challenges faced by measures of 
sexual satisfaction is how to tap both the psychological and 
physiological elements of sexuality (Young, Denny, Luquis 
& Young, 1998).  

 
Measures of Sexual Satisfaction  
 

Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction. 
 

The Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction, 
also know as GRISS (Rust & Golombok, 1985, is a short 
measure of sexual dysfunction for heterosexual couples. It 
contains 28 items covering seven major areas: frequency, 
satisfaction, interest, dysfunctions, anxiety, communication 
and touching. There are two subscales for males (Impotence 
and Premature Ejaculation) and two subscales for females 
(Anorgasmia and Vaginismus). It provides overall scores 
for the quality of sexual functioning within a relationship 
for men and women separately. The initial test items were 
generated by sex therapists at the Maudsley Hospital Sexual 
Dysfunction Clinic. The final test items were selected fol-
lowing several statistical analyses. The GRISS is a highly 
reliable measure of sexual dysfunction, discriminates well 
between those with and without sexual problems and ap-
pears sensitive to changes that result from planned interven-
tions.  

 



EVALUATION AND ORGANIZATION OF MARITAL FUNCTIONING MEASURES 
 

43 

Factors Influencing Marital Functioning 
 

From the proceeding discussion it is clear that there is 
considerable overlap in the conceptualization and opera-
tionalization of the domains of marital functioning, particu-
larly marital satisfaction, adjustment and quality. Clinicians 
and researchers who wish to gain an even greater under-
standing as to the exact causes underlying poor marital 
functioning can turn to one of the various measures of mari-
tal complaints that have been developed, such as the Areas 
of Change Questionnaire (Birchler & Webb, 1977), the 
Lovesickness Scale (Ryder, 1973), or the Marital Compari-
son Level Index (Sabatelli, 1984). They could also consider 
employing marital measures related to those factors that 
influence marital functioning (i.e., commitment, depend-
ence, dissolution potential, individual characteristics, and 
life events). The remainder of this paper mentions briefly 
each of these factors and their associated measures.  

 
Relational Influencing Factor – Commitment 

 
Commitment has not typically been included as a vari-

able in the research examining marital functioning (Dean & 
Spanier, 1974), however, several studies have highlighted 
its association with pro-relationship maintenance acts. 
These include the tendency to accommodate rather then 
retaliate when a partner behaves badly (Rusbult, Verette, 
Whitney, Slovik & Lipkus, 1991), willingness to sacrifice 
desirable activities when conflicting with a partner’s prefer-
ences (e.g., Van Lange et al., 1997), and tendencies toward 
relationship-enhancing illusions (e.g., Martz et al., 1998). In 
addition, Rusbult, Martz and Agnew (1999) found that both 
commitment and commitment-inspired maintenance behav-
iors have been shown to be associated with couple wellbe-
ing (i.e., tendency to persist in the relationship and marital 
adjustment). Given the above, level of commitment appears 
to be associated with healthy functioning in ongoing rela-
tionships.  

 
Measures of Marital Commitment  
 

Lund Commitment Scale.  
 

The Lund Commitment Scale (1985) assesses respon-
dents’ thoughts about the likelihood of their relationship 
continuing, the degree to which respondents pursue alterna-
tive relationships, respondents’ perceptions of the costs 
involved in terminating their relationship, and respondents’ 
feelings of desire and obligation for continuing the relation-
ship. Respondents are also asked how committed their part-
ner is to the relationship and how likely their partner is to 
continue in it. The nine items in the scale were derived from 
item, factor and reliability analyses. The scale is unidimen-
sional (item loadings range from .29 to .81). Criticisms of 
the measure include the fact that items within the scale were 
derived from students’ responses to open-ended questions 

about commitment rather then being based on conceptuali-
zations of commitment. Indeed, the current conceptualiza-
tion of commitment underlying the Lund Commitment 
Scale confounds personal commitment with perceptions of 
partner commitment; the latter is not a reflection of an indi-
vidual’s interest in maintaining the relationship despite be-
ing statistically related.  

 
Broderick Commitment Scale.  

 
Beach and Broderick (1983) created a single item 

measure of commitment that involves the individual being 
read a definition of commitment and then rating his or her 
level of commitment on a scale from 0 to 100. The primary 
criticism of the BCS is that it is a single item measure and 
therefore cannot fully represent the theoretical concept of 
commitment or discriminate among its nuances. Also, it is 
harder to deduce the measurement properties of a single 
item measure.  

 
Relational Influencing Factor - Marital Dependence 
 

The investment model suggests that dependence pro-
duces the psychological experience of commitment (Rus-
bult, 1980; 1983). According to Drigotas and colleagues 
(1999) dependence is a structural property and describes the 
extent to which an individual needs a relationship, whereas 
commitment is a subjective experience occurring on a daily 
basis. The degree to which a person is dependent on a rela-
tionship typically follows from the presence of distinct ob-
stacles that increase the cost of terminating the relationship. 
Examples include the quality of alternative relationships, 
the experienced degree of indebtedness to the partner, per-
sonal belief systems about divorce, and structural features 
(i.e., community pressures, economic considerations) (Sa-
batelli, 1988).  

 
Measure of Marital Dependence 
 

Marital Alternatives Scale (MAS). 
 

The MAS (Udry, 1981, 1983) assesses two factors con-
tributing to dependence: respondents’ perceptions of how 
much better or worse off they would be without their pre-
sent spouse and how easily the spouse could be replaced 
with one of comparable quality. The MAS consists of 11 
items focusing on individuals’ perceptions of their alterna-
tive relationships and their expectation about the quality of 
their general situation following dissolution. Respondents 
are instructed to suppose that their spouse were to leave this 
year. With this in mind, they are to decide whether they 
think it would be impossible, possible, probable, or certain, 
to find another spouse as good as the existing one, to be 
able to take care of themselves, and to be better off eco-
nomically. The measure may be confounded with a more 
global perception of the quality of the marital relationship.  



SCHNEIDER 
 

44 

 
Relational Influencing Factor - Dissolution Potential 

 
Measures of dissolution potential address the degree to 

which people are thinking about separation and are plan-
ning or acting on these thoughts. These measures can be 
thought of as providing insight into how uncommitted indi-
viduals are in their marriage and allow researchers to make 
inferences about the potential instability of a relationship 
(Sabatelli, 1988).  

 
Measures of Dissolution Potential 
 

Marital Status Inventory (MSI). 
 

The MSI (Weiss & Cerreto, 1980) is based on the as-
sumption that the termination of a marriage unfolds as a 
series of discrete acts. Given its theoretical orientation, the 
MSI employs a Guttman scale, with the scale’s items re-
flecting a progression from simply thinking about separa-
tion or divorce to actively preparing by establishing finan-
cial independence from spouse. Weiss and Cerreto (1980) 
acknowledge that the measure does not address the dissolu-
tion potential of a relationship directly, since there could be 
discrepancies in spouses’ scores. What the measure does 
provide is an assessment of the degree to which an individ-
ual has thought about or acted on terminating his or her 
relationship. A limitation of the MSI lies in its failure to 
take into account when and how often the divorce thoughts 
and behaviors occur. The outcome of this is that judgment 
about dissolution potential of an individual may be based 
upon thoughts or behaviors that have occurred several years 
in the past (Sabatelli, 1988). The measure may be best 
suited to those research situations in which changes in rela-
tionships over time are being investigated.  

 
Marital Instability Index (MII). 

 
The Marital Instability Index (MII: Booth, Johnson and 

Edwards, 1983; Booth, Johnson, White and Edwards, 1985) 
is designed to assess a couple’s predisposition to dissolve 
an existing marriage. Specifically, it measures the degree to 
which divorce is being contemplated and uncovers evidence 
of behavior that indicates a high probability of marital ter-
mination. Initially constructed and refined via item and fac-
tor analyses, the measure consists of 14 items. Individuals 
are asked questions about their own as well as their 
spouses’ thoughts and feelings. The MII is a carefully con-
structed measure based upon a firm conceptual and meth-
odological foundation. Rather then being a measure of an 
individual’s likelihood to terminate the marriage, the MII is 
clearly designed to assess the dissolution potential of a rela-
tionship. In terms of criticism, asking an individuals to re-
port on one’s spouse’s thoughts and behaviors is problem-
atic, as one may not know if one’s spouse thinks that the 
relationship is in trouble. 

 
Individual Influencing Factors - Individual  
Characteristics  

 
Many longitudinal studies of marriage have examined 

the stable demographic, historical, personality and experi-
ential factors that individuals bring to marriage and how 
these factors influence marital outcome. Such characteris-
tics include educational experiences and attainment, peer 
interactions, dating history, sexual development, medical 
history and experiences in the family of origin (e.g. parental 
separation and divorce, family conflict, sibling relationships 
and financial hardships). When assessing/investigating a 
marital dyad, the clinician and researcher should remain 
conscious of these factors and their associated measures. 
One of these is the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholo-
mew & Horowitz, 1991), which is based on Bowlby’s the-
ory of attachment and assumes that individuals’ very early 
experiences in close relationships will shape the nature and 
development of subsequent relationships in adulthood. An-
other is the Five-Factor Model of Personality which can be 
helpful in assessing and understanding relationships since 
personality factors such as neuroticism, extraversion, open-
ness to expression, agreeableness, and conscientiousness 
influence relationship satisfaction and intimacy (White, 
Hendrick and Hendrick, 2004).  

 
External Influencing Factors - Life Events and  
Circumstances 
 

Stressful events, developmental transitions, and chronic 
or acute circumstances that couples encounter can impact 
on marital wellbeing. Indeed, studies focusing on these 
variables highlight how the events and environmental con-
ditions to which couples are exposed can affect the quality 
and stability of marriage (Bradbury, 1995). The Social Re-
adjustment Rating Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) is an ex-
ample of a measure that can be used to assess this.  

 
Conclusion 

 
Marriage remains a popular institution despite the like-

lihood of divorce and high rates of dissatisfaction among 
married individuals. Consequently, there is a great need for 
clinicians and researchers to assess, study, and understand 
close relationships. However, due to the complex nature of 
marriage there are a vast and diverse number of measures of 
marital functioning. This paper has attempted to provide the 
researcher, clinician and student with a simple framework 
for conceptually organizing these measures and understand-
ing their complex interconnectedness. Five core domains of 
marital functioning were presented, namely; marital quality, 
satisfaction, adjustment, intimacy, and sexual satisfaction. 
In addition, a number of individual, relational, and external 
factors (i.e., commitment, dependence, dissolution, individ-
ual characteristics, and life events) that influence these five 



EVALUATION AND ORGANIZATION OF MARITAL FUNCTIONING MEASURES 
 

45 

domains were considered. Finally, a number of measures 
relating to the core domains and factors were presented and 
critically evaluated. This theoretical paper should prove a 
point of departure for those seeking to select a measure of 
marital functioning for research or clinical use.  

 
References 

 
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between 

heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 126, 651–680.  

Batholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles 
among young adults: A test of a four-category model. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 
226-244.  

Beach, S. R. H., & Broderick, J. E. (1983). Commitment: A 
variable in women’s response to marital therapy. Ameri-
can Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 16-24. 

Berman, E. M., & Lief, H. I. (1975). Marital intimacy from 
a psychiatric perspective: An overview. American Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, 132, 583-592.  

Birchler, G. R. & Webb, L. J. (1977). Discriminating inter-
action behaviors in happy and unhappy marriages. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 494-495.  

Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Bisexuality: Some 
social psychological issues. Journal of Social Issues, 
33(2), 30-45.  

Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measur-
ing marital instability. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 45, 387-393.  

Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., White, L. K., & Edwards, J. N. 
(1985). Predicting divorce and permanent separation. 
Journal of Family Issues, 6, 331-346.  

Bradbury, T. N. (1995). Assessing the four fundamental 
domains of marriage. Family Relations, 44 (4), 459-468.  

Call, V., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The incidence 
and frequency of marital sex in a national sample. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 639-650.  

Cupach, W. R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with 
communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction 
and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal 
Relationships, 7, 179-186.  

Dean, D. G. & Spanier, G. B. (1974). Commitment: An 
overlooked variable in marital adjustment? Sociological 
Focus, 7, 113-118.  

Donnelly, D. A. (1993). Sexuality inactive marriages. Jour-
nal of Sex Research, 30, 171-179.  

Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Verette, J. (1999). Level 
of commitment, mutuality of commitment and couple 
well-being. Personal Relationships, 6, 389-409.  

Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1976). Sexual behavior in and 
out of marriage: An assessment of correlates. Journal of 
Marriage and the Family, 38, 73-81.  

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment 
of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage 
and the Family, 49, 797-810.  

Fowers, B. J. & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH marital sat-
isfaction scale: A brief research and clinical tool. Journal 
of Family Psychology, 7(2), 176-185.  

Fredman, N., & Sherman, R. (1987). Handbook of meas-
urement for marriage and family therapy. New York: 
Brunner/Mazel.  

Gilbert, S. J. (1976). Self disclosure, intimacy and commu-
nication in families. Family Coordinator, 25(3), 221-231. 

Gottman, J. M. (1994a). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, 
NJ: Erlbaum.  

Gottman, J. M. (1994b). Why marriages succeed or fail. 
New York: Simon & Schuster. 

Greeley, A. M. (1991). Faithful attraction: Discovering 
intimacy, love and fidelity in American marriage. New 
York: St Martin’s.  

Grotevant, H. D., & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family assess-
ment: A guide to methods and measures. New York: 
Guilford.  

Hames, J., & Waring, E.M. (1980). Marital intimacy and 
non-psychotic emotional illness. Psychiatric Forum, 9, 
13-19.  

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship 
satisfaction. Journal of marriage and the family, 50(1), 
93-98.  

Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The 
relationship assessment scale. Journal of social and per-
sonal relationships, 15(1), 137-142.  

Heyman, R. E.. Sayers, S. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1994). 
Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: an 
empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology, 8(4), 432-446.  

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Read-
justment Rating Scale. Journal of Psycholosomatic Re-
search, 11, 213-218.  

Jacob, T., & Tennenbaum, D. L. (1988). Family assess-
ment: rationale, methods, and future directions. New 
York: Plenum.  

Kamo, Y. (1993). Determinants of marital satisfaction: A 
comparison of the United States and Japan. Journal of 
Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 551-568.  

Lawrence, K., & Beyers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in 
long term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal 
exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Rela-
tionships, 2, 267-285.  

Lewis, R. A. & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the 
quality and stability of marriage. In R. B. Wesley., R. 
Hill., F. I. Nyle & I. L. Reiss (Eds.). Contemporary theo-
ries about the family (Vol. 1) (pp. 268-294). New York: 
Free Press.  

Locke, H. J. (1951). Predicting adjustment in marriage: A 
comparison of a divorced and happily married group. 
New York: Holt.  

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. L. (1959). Short marital ad-
justment and prediction tests: Their reliability and valid-
ity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.  

Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and com-
mitment scales for predicting continuity of personal rela-



SCHNEIDER 
 

46 

tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 
2, 3-23.  

Maling, M. S., Gurtman, M. B., & Howard, K. (1995). The 
response of interpersonal problems to varying doses of 
psychotherapy, Psychotherapy Research, 5, 63-75.  

Martz, J. M., Verette, J., Arriaga, X. B., Slovik, L. F., Cox, 
C. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Positive illusion in close 
relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 159.181.  

Miller, P. C., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The assessment of 
social intimacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 
514-518.  

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical 
look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and 
the Family, 45, 141-151.  

O’Leary, K. D. (Ed). (1987). Assessment of marital discord. 
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.  

Oggins, J., Leber, D., & Veroff, J. (1993). Race and gender 
differences in black and white newlywed perceptions of 
sexual and marital relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 
30, 152-160.  

Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New 
York: Guilford.  

Prager, K. J. (2000). In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick 
(Eds.), Close relationships: a sourcebook. California: 
Sage Publications.. 

Roach, A. J., Frazier, L. P., & Bowden, S. R. (1981). The 
marital satisfaction scale: Development of a measure for 
intervention research. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 43, 537-546. 

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in ro-
mantic associations: A test of the investment model. 
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. 

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment 
model, the development (and deterioration) of satisfac-
tion and commitment in heterosexual involvements. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-
117.  

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & 
Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close re-
lationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78. 

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). The 
investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, 
satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment 
size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-392.  

Rust, J., & Golombok, S. (1985). The Golombok-Rust In-
ventory of Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS). British Journal 
of Clinical Psychology, 24, 63-64 

Ryder, R. G. (1973). Longitudinal data relating marriage 
satisfaction and having a child. Journal of Marriage and 
the Family, 35, 604-606.  

Sabatelli, R. M. (1984). The marital comparison level in-
dex: A measure for assessing outcomes relative to expec-
tations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 651-
662. 

Sabatelli, R. M. (1988). Measurement issues in marital re-
search: A review and critique of contemporary survey in-

struments. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(4), 
891-915.  

Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development 
and validation of a brief version of the dyadic adjustment 
scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 17(1), 15-27.  

Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing inti-
macy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of Marital and Fam-
ily Therapy, 7, 47-60.  

Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, 
F. C, Copeland, J. M., Meens, D., et al. (1986). Concur-
rent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satis-
faction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 
381-387.  

Schwarz, P., & Rutter, V. (1998). The gender of sexuality. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.  

Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of 
marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family 
41, 813-823.  

Snyder, D. K., Wills, R. M., & Keiser, T. W. (1981). Em-
pirical validation of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory: 
An actuarial approach. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology, 49, 262-268.  

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New 
scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar 
dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-38.  

Spanier, G. B., & Cole, C. L. (1976). Toward clarification 
and investigation of marital adjustment. International 
Journal of Sociology of the Family, 6, 121-146.  

Statistics Canada. (2002). Changing couple life in Canada. 
(General social survey-cycle 15, catalogue No. 85-576- 
XIE). Ottawa, Ontario: Canada. 

Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (Eds.) 
(1990). Handbook of family measurement techniques. 
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.  

Udry, J. R. (1981). Marital alternatives and marital disrup-
tion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 889-897.  

Udry, J. R. (1983). The marital happiness/disruption rela-
tionships by level of marital alternatives. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 45, 221-222.  

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). Unmarried-couples 
households, by presence of children: 1960 to present. Re-
trieved April 20, 2006, from 
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ms-la/tabad-
2.txt.  

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Married couples and 
unmarried partner households. Retrieved April 20, 2006, 
from http://www.census.gov/population/soc demo. 

Van den Broucke, S., Vandereycken, W., & Vertommen, H. 
(1995). Marital intimacy: Conceptualization and assess-
ment. Clinical Psychology Review, 15(3), 217-233.  

Van den Broucke, S., Vertommen, H., & Vandereycken, W. 
(1995). Construction and validation of a maritial intimacy 
questionnaire. Family Relations, 44(3), 285-290.  

Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, 
X. B.,Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to 



EVALUATION AND ORGANIZATION OF MARITAL FUNCTIONING MEASURES 
 

47 

sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 72, 1373-1395. 

Vaughn, M. J., & Matyastik Baier, M. E. (1999). Reliability 
and validity of the relationship assessment scale. The 
American Journal of Family Therapy, 27 (2), 137-147.  

Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Hatchett, S. J. (1995). Marital 
instability: A social and behavioral study of the early 
years. New York: Praeger.  

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Eq-
uity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.  

Waring, E. M., McElrath, D., Mitchell, P., & Derry, M. E. 
(1981). Intimacy and emotional illness in the general 
population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 167-
172.  

Waring, E. M., Tillman, M. P., Frelick, L., & Weisz, G. 
(1980). Concepts of intimacy in the general population. 
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 471-474.  

Weiss, R. L. & Cerreto, M. C. (1980). The marital status 
inventory: Development of a measure of dissolution po-
tential. American Journal of Family Therapy, 8, 80-86.  

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big 
five personality variables and relationship constructs. 
Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519-1530. 

White, L., & Keith, B. (1991). The effect of shift work on 
the quality and stability of marital relations. Journal of 
Marriage and the Family, 52, 453-462.  

Young, M., Denny, G., Luquis, R., & Young, T. (1998). 
Correlates of sexual satisfaction in marriage. The Cana-
dian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7(2), 115-127.  



SCHNEIDER 
 

48 

Figure 1 
Domains of Marital Function and Influencing Factors – Interrelationship and Associated Measures  

 

Marital 
Adjust- 
ment 

LWMAT 
DAS 
MSI 

Intimacy 
MIQ 
MSIS 
PAIR 
 

Marital 
Satisfact- 
ion 
RAS 
MSS 
KMSS 
ENRICH 

Sexual  
Satisfaction 
G-RISS 
 

Marital Quality 
QMI

CORE 
DOMAINS OF 

MARITAL 
FUNCTIONING 

 

Commitment 
LCS 
BCS 
Marital Dependence 
MAS 
Dissolution Potential 
MSI 
MII 
 

Individual Char-
acteristics 

RQ 
5 Factor Model  

Relational 
Influencing 

Factors           

External 
Influencing 

Factor 

Individual 
Influencing Factor

Life Events & Cir-
cumstances 

SRRS 

�  
Relationship domains and associated measures (in rectangles), the interaction between them (hard and dotted lines), and factors influencing 
them (arrows).  
 
RAS – Relationship Assessment Scale  
MSS – Marital Satisfaction Scale  
KMSS – KANSAS Marital Satisfaction Scale  
ENRICH – Evaluation and Nurturing Relationship Issues 
Communication and Happiness  
LWMAT – The Lock-Wallace Short Marital Adjustment 
Test  
DAS – Dyadic Adjustment Scale  
MSI – Marital Satisfaction Inventory  
QMI – Quality of Marriage Index  
MIQ – Marital Intimacy Questionnaire 

 
MSIS – Miller Social Intimacy Scale  
PAIR – Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships  
GRISS – Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction  
LCS – Lund Commitment Scale  
BCS - Broderick Commitment Scale  
MAS – Marital Alternatives Scale  
MSI – Marital Status Inventory  
MII – Marital Instability Index  
RQ – Relationship Questionnaire  
SRRS – Social Readjustment Rating Scale 

 


	Relational Influencing Factor - Marital Dependence
	Individual Influencing Factors - Individual 


