Amongst the people for the a dating dating, very was basically students (77
89 (SD = dos cuddli.27); cuatro.94 (SD = 2.97), one another communities different between six months and 11 years of dating; seven.76 (SD = cuatro.01), between several and 19 many years; and you will (SD = cuatro.82), ranging from less than a-year and you may 29 years. 8%) and you will lived that have friends, when you’re men and women living with the partners were generally functioning somebody (69.2%), of which 53% got university or postgraduate values. Of your authoritative partnership members, 67% had school or blog post-scholar degrees, where 89.8% had been operating, 2% resigned and 8.2% underemployed. The working state to the hitched people is comparable: 89.5% were functioning, dos.9% was indeed retired and you can six.3% was basically underemployed, and step 1.3% called another work reputation. Within this classification, 62.5% of one’s people had university otherwise postgraduate degree.
Dating Quality, chose to verify requirements authenticity, was counted on the Dating Score Function–Revised (RRF-R; Davis, 1996, adapt
The content displayed are accumulated for the framework out of wide look strategies, which contains a detailed sociodemographic and you will dating analysis, as well as other balances in range out of romantic dating.
Private connection is evaluated according to Portuguese type (Desk step 1) of one’s quicker form of the Effort Level (Stanley, 1986), which had been interpreted according to after the interpretation and you may retroversion procedures: after permission got from the copywriter, the original level was translated by several specialists in industry, both these translations was indeed subjected to retroversion by a couple professionals, that bilingual and another proficient in the use of new English language; in the end, each version is actually as compared to amazing scale, going for the usage of the terminology and you will factors which have deeper distance in order to it. This new Portuguese type therefore contained the brand new fourteen original affairs and you will a similar respond to size and was named, immediately following deliberation of the group, the personal Partnership Scale (‘Escala de Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). Into latest stage of your translation techniques, the new tool is actually applied to three people towards goal of guaranteeing this new adequateness of your own vocabulary and unambiguous understanding of what exactly, that happen to be talked about towards players shortly after application of the latest survey. Since there have been no comments claiming if not, those things remained a similar.
With regards to the overall time of the relationship, an average, in many years, towards some other statuses discussed are, respectively: dos
by Lind, 2008). Resulting from a revision of the original Davis (1996, cited in Lind, 2008) scale, this instrument is intended to measure relationship quality perception, with the expectation that, according to the theoretical assumptions, both scales will positively correlate. The items are presented in the form of questions that the subjects will answer according to a rating scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (completely or extremely). The Portuguese version consists of a total of 46 items grouped in four dimensions: Passion, Confidence, Conflict and Intimacy. The RRF-R revealed psychometric properties ranging from good to excellent, obtaining an excellent internal consistency at the total scale level, with Cronbach’s alpha values between .97 and .98, for women and men respectively, and .81 and .97 at subscale level, a good temporal stability (significant correlations ranging between .70 and .87; p < .01) and high concurrent validity with a marital satisfaction scale (significant global score correlations between .88 and .85, for women and men respectively; p < .01). In the current sample, the RRF-R presented for the total scale, an excellent Cronbach's alpha of .96; .94 for the Passion subscale, .93 for Confidence, .77 for Conflict and .83 for Intimacy. The internal consistency of the total scale remained excellent for the four subsamples: .95 for participants in a dating relationship, .94 for those in a dating relationship with cohabitation and .97 for participants in both formal unions and married relationships.