HTHS

AN ENVESTIGATmfi GE THE CONSTRUCT VALSDETY
0F MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AND THE SiMlLARITY
BETWEEN MARS‘IAL ADJUST: EN? OF SPOUSES

Thesis for the Degree a. M. ii.
MECHSGAN STATE UN!‘~1’L'1$3TY
Kees C. Human

39.6.6

.‘-.'—0_

—--_.-.—.-‘

 

 

  
 
   

LIBRA R Y 1‘"
Michigan State
University

P u

(tmsrmazkwmrxrfléah A,”

{"5
f: H 0 T5"?
{3}” 1 :‘als’.’ (fie
‘ ., .

‘ $2? “‘3

_.l'

.940?
M

PM?!

 

 

away.

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF MARITAL
ADJUSTMENT AND THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN MARITAL
ADJUSTMENT OF SPOUSES

by Kees C. Hofman

Several instruments purported to measure marital
adjustment are described in recent literature. High
correlations among the independent instruments, to be
expected if marital adjustment is a valid construct, are
not consistently reported. Similar ambiguity of evidence
is found regarding the degree of similarity of marital ad-
Justment between spouses. The Marital Adjustment Test
(MAT), the Marital Roles Inventory (MRI), the Family Con-
cept Q Sort (FCQ) and a provisional, time saving variation
of the FCQ, the Family Concept Scale (FCT-F), were admin-
istered to twenty-five married couples under testing
conditions which prevented cooperation. MAT and FCQ scores

were correlated to a high degree, while MRI scores were

Kees C. Hofman

independent of MAT and FCQ scores, thus supporting the
construct validity of marital adjustment and casting
doubt on the utility of the MRI as a measure of marital
adjustment. Interspouse correlations were substantially
lower than those most frequently reported, suggesting
the failure of previous research to control the testing
conditions adequately, and that marital adjustment of
spouses is relatively independent. The FCT-F was found
to be internally reliable and yielded scores correlating

to a high degree with FCQ and MAT scores.

/
Approved/ ,44ég€;(;4/Z:~7

,7Chairman,Thef 5 Committee

.1

Dat e ’l; AM [0-4223
Thesis Committee:
JOhn R. Hurley, Chairman

Lucy R. Ferguson
Dozier W. Thornton

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF MARITAL
ADJUSTMENT AND THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN MARITAL
' ADJUSTMENT OF SPOUSES

By

Kees C. Hofman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology
May, 1966

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Acknowledgment is gratefully extended to
Dr. John R. Hurley, chairman of my committee. His guid-
ance and assistance in the delineation of the problem,
the execution of the investigation and the preparation
of this manuscript is deeply appreciated.

I also wish to thank Dr. D. Thornton and
Dr. L. Ferguson for their advice and their willingness

to serve on my committee.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHOD , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Marital Adjustment Tests
Selection of Subjects . .

Testing Procedure . . . . :
Statistical Analysis . . .

RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Biographical Data Sheet . . . . . . . .
Marital Adjustment Scores .

Correlations among Marital Adjustment Scores

Interspouse Correlations . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Sampling Procedure . . .

Relationships among the Family Concept QLSOrt,
the Family Concept Scale and the Marital Ad-

justment Test . . . . . . . .
Interspouse Correlations . . . . . .
The Family Concept Scale . . . . . . .
The Marital Roles Inventory . . . .

Differences between Husband and Wife Score

Implications for further Research . . .
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

8

O O O O O

Page
ii

i?

TABLE
1.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Sample Attribute Means, Standard Deviations, and
Ranges compared with Characteristics of Locke
and Wallace' and Hurvitz' Samples . . . . . . . IA

Mean.Marital Adjustment Scores and Standard De-
viations Compared with those Obtained by Locke
and Wallace, Hurvitz, and van der Veen, 33 al,. 15

Coorelations among Couples' Scores and Correla-
tions among Individuals' Scores for the
Separate Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Correlations among HusbandS' Scores and among
Wives' Scores for the Separate Tests . . . . . 16

Comparison of Correlations among Individuals'
Scores and those Obtained by van der Veen, £2
£0 ’ and HurVitz O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 l7

Interspouse Correlations for the Marital Ad-
justment Tests and those Reported by others . . 18

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX Page
A. Marital Adjustment Tests and Biographical
Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-l
B. Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
C. Raw Scores on Marital Adjustment Tests for

Entire Sample a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o A‘lo

INTRODUCTION

Attempts to assess the quality of the marital re-
lationship have been made by many researchers since the
late 1920's. An early impressive, and ambitious study
was made by the psychiatrist Hamilton in 1929. The same
year saw the publication of a book by Davis entitled:
Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two_Hundred Women.
Marital happiness was evaluated inthis study by asking
the subject: "Is your marriage happy or unhappy?"

A recent rise in attempts at family-unit therapy,
and a heightened awareness that the Origin and consequent
development ofmaladaptive behavior of children may large-
ly be determined by the family relationships, has resulted
in renewed attention paid to family evaluation. Since the
marital relationship appears to be of central significance
it seems timely that some of the basic assumptions made
regarding its measurement be re-evaluated. The earliest
as well as subsequent attempts at marital evaluation were
made with the assumption that the relationship between two
married people has a particular quality; moreover, this
quality can be measured in terms of a happy - unhappy,
satisfactory - unsatisfactory, or well-adjusted - poorly-

l

adjusted continuum. Another assumption frequently made
regarding the construct of marital happiness is that the
effects of a marital relationship are present in both
partners to a nearly equal degree. It is therefore ex-
pected that both partners of most marriages will be very-,
moderately-, or dis-satisfied with their marriage, with
relatively few instances where one partner is well-satis-
fied while the other is dis-satisfied or vice versa. It
is the purpose of this study to investigate the tenability
of these hypotheses.

Since the late 1920's many attempts at marital
assessment have appeared. Most of the authors of these
have entertained different theories regarding the most
promising way in which to measure this construct. Kirk-
patrick (1937) identified marital adjustment with the
social stimulus value of a marriage. Terman (1938), how-
ever, contended that marital happiness is a subjective
phenomena which can therefore be measured only by evaluating
the experience of the marital partners. In recent years
new approaches have appeared. Examples are the Marital
Roles Inventory (MRI) deve10ped by Hurvitz (1959) and the
Family Concept Q Sort (FCQ) introduced by van der Veen,
gt_gl. (I964). The Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) developed
by Locke and Wallace (1959) is an instrument which is based
on several earlier ones. The authors of the three last
mentioned tests all approached the problem of evaluating

marital adjustment differently.

Hurvitz (1959) approached marital adjustment within
the framework of role theory. Marital adjustment is assumed
to exist when the partners carry out their roles in the way
their spouses want or prefer them to carry out their roles.
Marital strain or unhappiness is assumed, for example, when
there is a discrepancy between the roles the wife would like
her husband to see as important, and the roles which the
husband actually considers important. Locke and wallace
(1959) approach the evaluation of a marital relationship by
questioning the marriage partners directly concerning their
experienced satisfaction with the marriage and the degree
of cooperation and similarity of attitudes between them.

Van der Veen, gt 3;, (1964) used a Q-sort of statements de-
Scriptive of the family relationships. Marital adjustment
is postulated when a member of a family describes the family
similar to an ideal family as defined by the description

in terms of the same Q-sort by a group of judges.

Information regarding the validity and reliability
of these tests is available in the literature. Hurvitz
(1959) argues, §_priori, that the MRI is a measure of mari-
tal adjustment. He backs up the argument with small but
significant correlations between the husband's MRI score
and the marital adjustment of both the husband (a: -.22,
§_= 10A) and wife (§_= -.23, N.= 104). Locke and Wallace
(1959) report a split-half reliability of .90 (N_= 236),

and a significant difference between the MAT scores of a

high and low adjustment group as measured by an independent
process. Van der Veen, 33 31. (196A) report that the FCQ
scores of a high adjustment group were significantly higher
than the scores of a low adjustment group (N.= 20), and
that the test-retest reliability was found to be .71.

Since all three tests attempt to measure the same
construct, viz. marital adjustment, and if it is assumed
that the tests are independent instruments, the validity of
this construct would be supported by a high degree of agree-
ment of the separate tests concerning the marital adjustment
of individuals. The evidence available is ambiguous on
this point. Van der Veen, £3 31., for example, report
(196A) that the FCQ scores of a sample of 20 married couples
correlated .67 with their MAT scores. Hurvitz (1959) also
correlated the MRI scores of 10A couples with their MAT
scores. He reports that the correlations between husband's
MRI scores and the husband's and wife's MAT scores were
-.22 and —.23 respectively. No significant relationships
were found between wives' MRI scores and the MAT scores of
either husbands or wives. '

Similar ambiguity exists concerning the equality
of two partners' marital adjustment. If this relationship
does exist one would expect high correlations between the
marital adjustment scores of two married partners. The
interspouse correlations reported differ considerably.

Burgess and Cottrell (1936), Hurvitz (1959) and van der Veen,

gt 3;, (196A) have reported high interspouse correlations.
Terman (1938) concluded that the high interspouse correla-
tions obtained by Burgess and Cottrell were due to cooperation
between Spouses, but that there is a correlation between
spouses' scores nonetheless (p. 81 and 82). Powell (1965)
reports an interspouse correlation which is sufficiently .
low (£_= .12, fl;= A7) to lead her to suggest also that the
interspouse correlations reported by some researchers may
have been produced by their failure to minimize communica-
tion between Spouses, with the resulting performance often
being a joint effort, thus creating a misleadingly high
interspouse correlation.

It is plain that the available evidence falls
short of supporting clearly either the construct validity
of marital adjustment or the hypothesis that spouses will
tend to evaluate their marriage similarly. The present
study was designed to yield more definitive evidence on
these problems by administering a number of marital adjust-
ment tests to a sample of married couples under controlled
testing conditions.

A secondary function of this investigation was to
gain initial information regarding a possible substitute
instrument for the FCQ. A substitute is desirable since
the FCQ is a relatively time-consuming instrument, as the
average subject needs approximately 25-35 minutes to com-

plete the task. Another drawback of the FCQ is that if a

permanent record of a performance is needed it must be
made separately by the tester. A more efficient instru-
ment suggested is a true-false checklist (FCT-F) containing
the same descriptive items as the FCQ.

To sum up, the aims of this study were: 1. to
verify the construct validity of marital adjustment by
investigating the relationships among the performances of
a group of married couples on three independent tests of
marital adjustment; 2. to verify the interspouse correla-
tions of marital adjustment scores under controlled testing
conditions; 3. to determine the correlation between the

performances on the FCQ and the FCT-F.

METHOD

Marital Adjustment Tests

Family Concept Q‘Sort (FCQ): The FCQ consists of 80 items
which are descriptive Of a family. The subject is instructed
to place these statements, which are presented to him in
random order on cards, on a nine point scale on which the
extremes are defined as "most like my family" and "least
like my family", and to place only a predetermined number
of cards in eaCh category. A list of the statements ap-
pears in Appendix A. The Family Adjustment Score is
determined from the A7 items which are marked. A group of
judges were in high agreement thatthe items marked +

should appear on the "like" side, and those marked - should
appear on the "unlikefi side of the ideal family. A high

score indicates high marital adjustment.

Family Concept Scale (PCT-F): The PCT-F uses the same
Statements as those of theFCQ.‘ However, the subject must
now judge each statement as true Or false as applied to
his or her family. The subject records the answers on a
form.which can be maChine scored. The score is determined
by summing the judgments made in agreement with those in-
dicative of the ideal family. The list of items is the
same as those of the FCQ in Appendix A.

7

Marital Roles Inventory (MRI): The MRI consists of two
sets of roles: a set for both the husband and the wife.
The husband's set is made up of ten roles and the wife's
set of eight roles. The husband ranks his roles in the
order of importance in which he actually carries out his
roles at the present time. He then ranks his wife's roles
in the order of importance in which he prefers his wife to
carry out her roles. Similarly, the wife ranks her roles
in the order of importance in which she actually carries
them out, and then her husband's roles in the order of im-
portance in which she would prefer him to carry out his
roles. Thus each set of roles is ranked twice: once by
the partner to which they apply and once by his or her
spouse. The numerical difference in the rank order assigned
to each role is cubed and summed for all roles in each set.
The cube root taken from this sum of the cubed differences
for the husband's role set is the husband's Index of
Strain. The wife's Index of Strain is computed in an
identical manner for her role set. A low score indicates
high marital adjustment. The role sets appear in Appendix

A.

Marital Adjustment Test (MAT): The MAT is reproduced in

Appendix A. It consists of Sixteen questions with multiple-
option answers. The answers to these questions had differ-
entiated between high and low adjustment groups in previous

research. Each Option has been assigned a weight by the

authors. The sum of the weights of the answers is the
Marital Adjustment Score. A high score indicates high

marital adjustment.

Biographical Data Sheet (EDS): All subjects completed the
BDS to produce information considered.pertinent for com-
parison of the results from the present study with other
studies performed in the same area. The BDS is reproduced

in Appendix A.
Selection of Subjects

All 25 participating couples, except two, were
associated with Michigan State University. Letters asking
for the cooperation of both husband and wife were mailed
to the occupants of three married housing apartment units
at the university. A COpy of the letter is in Appendix B.
The letters were followed by a telephone call a few days
after the letters could have been expected to arrive. Of
the 33 couples contacted in thhimanner, all except one
indicated a willingness to participate in the study. How-
ever only seventeen couples ultimately completed the
instruments. A lack of free time was indicated in all
instances as the reason for being unable to complete the
instruments. Six couples were volunteers from the intro-
ductory course in psychology at the university. The
remaining two couples were part of a group therapy project

for the parents of patients in a psychiatric day hospital.

10

Testing Procedure

All couples completed the instruments either at
their home in the examiner's presence or at a group re-
search room on the campus. The couples tested at their
homes completed the tests at different tables in all
instances, and there was no verbal communication between
partners. At the group research room the partners com-
pleted the tests in different rooms so that communication
was impossible. The BDS was completed first. After the
BDS the subjects completed either the FCQ or the FCT-F.
The second test was either the MAT or the MRI. The third
test was again either the MAT or MRI depending on which
one had been completed as the second test. The last test
was Similarly either the FCQ or the FCT-F. To sum up:
the FCQ, the FCT-F, the MAT and the MRI were completed in
a random order after all subjects had completed the BDS,
except that the FCQ and the FCT-F were completed either
first or last. The reason for this stipulation was to
minimize the reciprocal influence of these two tests which

was assumed to exist since both contain the same Statements.
Statistical Analysis

Means were computed for the variables for which
information was gained from the BDS. Simple product-

moment correlations were computed for all pairs of scores

11

on the separate tests. A score for each test was assigned
to each couple by adding the raw scores of the partners.
Simple product-moment correlations were computed between
all pairs of couples' scores. An interspouse correlation
was computed for each test by correlating the scores of

husband and wife for that test.

RESULTS

Biographical Data Sheet

Table 1 lists the descriptive means, standard
deviations and ranges of the present sample as well as
those reported by Locke and Wallace (1959) and Hurvitz
(1959). Van der Veen, £2.2i' (196A) did not describe
their-sample in detail. Sixty percent of the couples
were married less than three years, none were married
less than Six months. Forty-eight percent of the couples
had children, of these 75 percent had one child. The
annual income was reported only to the nearest $1,000.
The large majority of the sample were of the caucasian
race and of middle class background. Four percent of the
couples were Jewish. 0f the couples reporting religious
affiliation 68 percent were Protestant, 12 percent Catho—

lic, and A percent Jewish.
Marital Adjustment Scores

The mean scores for the separate tests and their
standard deviations obtained for the individuals and the

couples are shown in Table 2.

12

13

Correlations amonggMarital Adjustment Scores

Table 3 presents the simple correlations among
couples' and individuals' scores on the different tests.
Table A Shows the correlations among the husband's and
wives' scores. From these tables it is clear that the
marital adjustment scores of an individual or a couple
as measured by the FCQ, the MAT, and the FCT-F are highly
related. The correlations between these scores are all
Significantly different from zero at beyond the .005 level.
It is also plain from tables 3 and A that an individual's
Or couple's MRI score is independent of his or their
score on any of the other tests. The correlations obtained
in the present study are compared with those obtained

elsewhere in Table 5.
Interspouse Correlations

The interSpouse correlations obtained are presented
in Table 6. All, except the MRI interspouse correlation,
do not differ Significantly from zero at the .05 level.
Since the MRI does not seem to measure marital satisfaction,
the present data do not support the hypothesis that the
marital satisfaction of husband and wife tend to be nearly
equal. Interspouse correlations obtained by others are

also presented in Table 6.

14

 

mm mm em soweefiafieea usoflmflaem
weapaomom owmpceonom

 

 

$0m Rom Row macho
amazow cmwmwosmo mmwmmosmo ammomm pcmcwaoemnm
ammowmmemohm
name use seaaoo these oooe . coon awe ooom easesH assess
eeueafieU m eaaso the Sam
"use: seeeaaso oz use a u a oa.a he. seaeaflsp es henssz
«.ma m.m n.0H . m. oo.s o.m smashes: no
nude» mo nopasz
haemateto gem SH as . oa mm.a ea heaters
emeaaoo See me we . Na me.a m.ma meats
nowpmosum mo
whee» no nonasz
mm cm mm . ma ma.m mm ueHSSem
os em os . om mm.s SN meat:
ow<
mom a 2 0mm u 2 cm «.2
meme: memos owdmm am. memo:
lemma. sesshse leeway taasem sauteed paneepss

oomHHmziwcm oxooq

moadfidm .npaensm use .oomaamz use oxooq mo moanmfinopomnmso
apas_venmaaoo momnmm use .MSOHumaeon unevempm .memoz epsnanpp< oamsmm .H edema

15

.OonSom Hmcwwflno SH vopnogos poz I he.

 

 

 

.2 one mopSOHUSH mpoxomnn SH eomoaone hopes: one “6902
as e.ooa as e.em Aoav eases .hua Sea
a: N.H~H as «.mm . Aoav awmtm1.hea em“:
“dead. .Hm no .Soo> new cm>
n: m.m . Reedy mo>a3
a: H.o Asoav.mecmnmsm
. Ammmav upw>asm
ts e.ae less haste .nea See
.us m.mma “Sea duets .nea swam
“ommav oomaamz use oxooq
m.e e.om m.m o.oa o.am s.mm~ m.m m.os Ammv usagdoo
m.¢ «.me o.~ 0.: ¢.oa S.SHH H.m H.mm “Omv mamseH>HUSH
m.s m.m¢ S.H ~.s m.ma m.maa S.m s.mm a 5mm. mo>H3
m.m o.m¢ ¢.N 0.0 b.m~ ¢.maa H.© o.mm “may meemnms:
oaaamm anemone
mm. msmmfi mm mcmoz om names pm meets
sawem knopno>eH pmoe aces pnomld. wanedm

paoocoo hHaamm moamm Hmpfinmzupmsnn< Havana: paeoSMDTAHHamm

 

awm.mm .Soo> new no» one .upfi>nsm .eoeaamz use oxooq he eoqawppo

omonp and: uenmaaoo mzoapmueon vamvampm use menoom pcoapmsfic< Hmpwnmz new:

.N magma

16

Table 3. Correlations among Couples' Scores and correlations
among Individuals' Scores for the Separate Tests

 

 

 

FCQ MAT FCT-F MRI
Family Concept A
Q Sort .68 .78 .09
Marital Adjustment
Test .66 .76 .03
Family Concept
Scale .72 .77 -.02
Marital Roles

Inventory .03 -.06 .01

 

Note: The correlations above the diagonal indicate correla-
tions among couples' scores, those below indicate
correlations among individuals' scores.

Table A. Correlations among Husbands' Scores and among Wives'
Scores for the Separate Tests

 

 

 

FCQ MAT FCT-F MRI
Family Concept
Marital Adjustment
Test .51 .7A -.10
Family Concept
Marital Roles
Inventory .22 .17 .09

 

Note: The correlations above the diagonal indicate correla-
tions among husbands' scores, those below indicate
correlations among wives' scores.

17

Table 5. Comparison of Correlations among Individuals'
Scores and those Obtained by van der Veen, et
a1. and Hurvitz

 

 

Correlated Present
Author Scores Sample

 

Van der Veen, et a1. (All N's =10)
Family Adjustment Scores and .
Marital Adjustment Scores

of:

High Adjustment Group .AA

Low Adjustment Group .65 .
Combined Sample (N = 20) .67 .66

Hurvitz (All N's = 10A)
HusbandsT Index of Strain and
Marital Adjustment Score

of:
Husbands -.22 -.10
Wives -.23 -.29

Wives' Index of Strain and
Marital Adjustment Scores
of:
Husbands -.O8 .38
Wives -.O7 .18

 

l8

0

a ma mo. sehaaseseta e

empaoetm p02 a

 

 

eoa u.m Remedy uufieusm

mm u.m Ameoav .HHoSOS

mamamm uosfinaoo

OH TLW anono pcoapmsfiv< 304

as u z eases emwewmsfie< swam
Aeomav .Hm no .Soo> new sm>

Antsy oamom pmoosoo hawamm
anoSSO>SH moaom Humane:

Shea peeepmene< Hepfitez

whom a paeonoo mawamm

 

Ed.

was. om.

mm. m2

0m. NH.

om. amz
we.
ob.

mm u_m

paemonm whonuo
mqofiumHOMLoo

nopsoawnoaxm

Shae untapuSnea amused:

 

 

mnonpo he

voppoaom chomp use memos pmeapmanvd Havana: one pom mmoaumaonnou ammoamnech .o oases

DISCUSSION

SamplingiProcedure

The response rate from the couples contacted by
mail was 52 percent. The remainder of the sample con-
sisted of six volunteers from an introductory class in
psychology and two couples drawn from a group therapy
project for parents of patients at a psychiatric day
hospital. Even though all couples, except one, who were
contacted and did not complete the instruments indicated
a lack of free time as the reason for their non-partici-
pation, it is probable that other selective factors
resulted in a sample biased toward being well-adjusted.

When considering the magnitude of the correlations
among the scores on the separate tests, it seems quite
clear that the most probable effect of the non-randomness
of the sample is a restriction of the scores to the more
highly adjusted range, and an associated attenuation of the
correlations. Had the sample been more representative;
i.e. if it had also included couples with low marital ad-
justment, the correlation coefficients obtained might have

been higher. A similar consideration is appropriate for

19

20

the impact of the non-randomness of the sample on the
correlation between the FCQ and the FCT-F scores.

A different picture emerges when considering the
impact of the non-randomness with regard to the compara-
bility of the present results with those obtained by other
researchers. Here a difference in degree of representa-
tiveness would certainly have a detrimental effect on the
value of any conclusion drawn. Review of the sampling
procedures used by Locke and wallace (1959), Hurvitz (1959),
and van der Veen, gt Elm (196A) makes it plain that their
samples are also far from truly randomly selected Samples.
The best evidence for the comparability of results is the
distribution of marital adjustment scores obtained by the
separate researchers as well as the distributions of bio-
graphical data. A comparison of the sample characteristics
and marital adjustment scores is presented in Tables 1 and
2. Table 1 Shows that the average subject of the present
sample was considerably younger, and had been married for
a shorter period of time than that of the other studies.
The subjects of the Hurvitz sample were considerably older,
had been married longer, and had a greater number of children
per family. The samples seem to be very similar interms
of education, religious affiliation and racial predominance
with the notableexception that 50 percent of the Hurvitz

sample was Jewish. The average annual income of the present

21

sample was considerably lower than that of the other samples
but it must be remembered that at least one, and often two
of the Spouses of twenty-three of the twenty-five couples
were students. Van der Veen, 32.31, (196A) do not report
any of the sample characteristics in detail. Review of the
selection procedure used suggests that their sample is com-
parable to that used by Hurvitz.

The present scores are also quite similar to those
reported of the other samples. From Table 2 it can be seen
that the mean scores for the present sample of the FCQ and
MAT are slightly below those reported for high-adjustment
sub-groups of van der Veen, gt_§l, (196A) and Locke and
Wallace (1959), while the current scores are well above those
reported for their low-adjustment sub-groups. Trends in the
mean Index of strain for husbands and wives are not as clear.
The mean Index of Strain of the husbands is higher than
that reported by Hurvitz (1959) while the reverse is true
for the Index of Strain of the wives.

These comparisons suggest that the non-random
selection procedure of the present sample does not produce
any gross non-comparability between the present findings and

the results of the pertinent prior studies.
Relationships among the FCQ, the FCT-F, and the MAT

The correlations presented in Tables 3 and A indi-

cate clearly that the construct of marital adjustment has

22

some validity as indicated by the high correlations be-
tween the FCQ and the MAT scores across these independent
instruments. The correlations obtained were likely limited
by the non-random selection procedure as discussed above,
but they were also attenuated by the limited reliability

of the separate tests. Van der Veen, gt_§l. (196A), for
example, report a test-retest reliability coefficient of
.71 for the FCQ. If it is assumed that the FCQ is a per-
fectly valid instrument, the maximum possible correlation
between the FCT-F and the FCQ as well as between the MAT and
the FCQ is .8A instead of 1.00. No test-retest reliability

coefficients are available for the MAT and FCT-F.
Interspouse Correlations

From Table 6 it is apparent that the interspouse
correlation under the controlled test situation which mini-
mized communication between the spouses is considerably
lower than that reported by most other researchers. The
conclusion drawn is that the marriage relationship is not
one which is evaluated by the partners in an identical
manner. It is rather common for one partner to describe
the marriage as a happy or well-adjusted one while the other
considers it to be an unhappy and unsatisfactory relation-
ship. This finding underlines the need to view the marriage

relationship not as an entity in itself, but rather as two

23

attitudes or evaluations from two different people which
tend to be related only in the sense that it is their

interaction which is evaluated.
The Family Concept Scale

In view of the high correlation obtained between
the FCT-F and the FCQ, and the greater efficiency of the
former, it is suggested that the FCT-F be considered as
a sbustitute or improved version of the FCQ. Initial re-
sults indicate that the FCT-F is internally reliable.

(g = .8h, estimated by Kuder Richardson formula.)

0n the basis of feedback to the experimenter re-
ceived from the subjects it is also suggested that a further
improvement of the FCT-F might be the inclusion of a third,
"does not apply" category in addition to the "true“ and
“false" choices. This would make the alternatives more
similar to those made in the FCQ and might also increase
the score variance, thus increasing the correlation between

the FCQ and the FCT-F.
The Marital Roles Inventory

The MRI used in this study is now an outdated form.
The experimenter became aware, after most of the data had
been collected, that the MRI had been expanded to include

eleven roles for both the husband's and wife's set of roles

 

24

(Hurvitz, 1960). This test has been published and is
available from the publisher with a manual. The empirical
evidence cited in support of the expanded version is based
on correlations with the original test scores. Consequently,
the validity of the expanded version stands or falls with
the original version used in this study.

Even though the present sample differed substan-
tially in several respects from that used by Hurvitz, it
is concluded that the MRI does not measure the quality of
a marital relationship as perceived by the partners. The
only empirical evidence cited by Hurvitz in support of the
validity of the instrument is the correlation between the
husband's Index of Strain and the husband's and wife's MAT

score. This correlation was not replicated.
Differences between Husband and Wife Scores

From the standard deviations in Table 2 it can be
concluded that the wives are a more homogeneous group in
terms of marital adjustment scores than the husbands. The
average marital adjustment scores for the wives seem to in-
dicate a greater marital adjustment for all tests. This
may however be due to a greater conformity to social desir-
ability on the part of the wives, or it may be that the
tests are more insensitive to the important factors in the

wife's evaluation of a marriage relationship.

25

Hurvitz' conclusion (1959) that wives are better
adjusted than husbands seems puzzling. He based his con-
clusion on the fact that the mean Index of Strain for the
wives was 5.26 and that of the husbands 6.09. Although
this is a highly statistically significant difference, it
can be accounted for without inferring any variation in
marital adjustment by the fact that the wife's Index of
Strain is based on the cube root of the cubed differences
in rank order for a set of eight roles, while the husband's
Index of Strain is based on a set of ten roles. To illus-
trate this, random samples of 25 paired role rankings for
eight and ten role sets were drawn from a random digit
table. Indices of Strain were computed for both of these
samples. The average Index of Strain for the eight randomly
matched roles for a sample of 25 was 7.17. This average
score was 9.9h for the sets of ten roles. This difference
is also highly statistically significant. Thus, the differ-
ence in Indices of Strain obtained by Hurvitz can be
anticipated solely on the basis of the different number of

roles included in each set.
Implications for Further Research

While the results supported the marital adjustment
construct's validity, Hurvitz' claim that the MRI measures

marital adjustment (1959) was not supported. It does not

26

necessarily follow that the MRI does not evaluate a useful
and valid attribute of a marriage. Whether it does or not
is beyond the scope of this study, but should be investi-
gated. Similarly, other constructs may prove useful for a
better understanding of a marriage. Particularly when pre-
diction of marital relation effects on children is of
interest more information is needed than the marital adjust-
ment scores of the parents.

Further research should take into consideration
that evaluation of a marital relationship may be independent
across Spouses.

Further investigation of the reliability and validity
of the FCT-F is necessary before it can be recommended as

a substitute of the FCQ.

SUMMARY

Several instruments purported to measure marital
adjustment are described in recent literature. High
correlations among the independent instruments, to be
expected if marital adjustment is a valid construct, are
not consistently reported. Similar ambiguity of evidence
is found regarding the degree of similarity of marital ad-
justment between spouses. The Marital Adjustment Test
(MAT), the Marital Roles Inventory (MRI), the Family Con-
cept Q Sort (FCQ) and a provisional, time saving variation
of the FCQ, the Family Concept Scale (FCT-F), were admin-
istered to twenty-five married couples under testing
conditions which prevented cooperation. MAT and FCQ scores
were correlated to a high degree, while MRI scores were
independent of MAT and FCQ scores, thus supporting the
construct validity of marital adjustment and casting
doubt on the utility of the MRI as a measure of marital
adjustment. Interspouse correlations were substantially
lower than those most frequently reported, suggesting

the failure of previous research to control the testing

27

28

conditions adequately, and that marital adjustment of
spouses is relatively independent. The FCT-F was found
to be internally reliable and yielded scores correlating

to a high degree with FCQ and MAT scores.

REFERENCES

Burgess, E. W. and Cottrell, L. S. The prediction of ad-
justment in marriage. Amer. Soc. Rev. 1936, 1,

737-751.

Davis, Katharine B. Factors in the sex life of twentyrtwo
hundred women. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1929.

Hamilton, C. V. A research in marriage. New York: A & C
Boni, Inc., 1929i7

Hurvitz,N. The index of strain as a measure of marital
. sagisfaction. Sociol. & Social Res. 1959, pg,

Hurvitz, N. The marital roles inventory and the measure-
. ment of marital adjustment. J. Clin. Psychol.
1960,16, 377-380. .

Kirkpatrick, C. Community of interest and the measurement
of marriage adjustment. The Family, 1937, l§J

133- 137.

Locke, H. J., and wallace, K. M. Short marital-adjustment
and prediction tests: their reliability and vali-
dity. Marriage fam. Liv., 1959. 21, 251-255.

Powell, Diane, M. A personality inventory approach to the
study of marital adjustment. Michigan State Uni-
versity. East Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Unpublished
Master's Thesis.

Terman, L. M. Psychological factors in marital happiness.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938.

Thorndike,6R. L. Personnel Selection. New York: John Wiley,
19 2.

van der Veen, F., Huebner, B., and Neja, P. Relationships
between the parents' concept of the family and family
adjustment. Amer. J. of 0rthopsychiat_y, 196A, 2&
4'5-550 .

29

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TESTS

Marital Roles Inventory:

Instructions: Number the following statements
in the order of importance in which you actually carry
out your roles or functions in your family at the pre-
sent time. (1 being most im ortant; 10, the least
important. No ties allowed.

....... I do my (He does his) jobs around the house.

....... I am (He is) a companion to my (his) wife.

....... I help (He helps) the children grow by being their
friend, teacher and guide.

....... I earn (He earns) the living and support (supports)
the family.

....... I do my (He does his) wife's work around the house
if my (his) help is needed.

....... I practice (He practices) the family religion or
philosophy... ,

....... I am (He is) a sexual partner to my (his) wife.

....... I decide (He decides) when the family is still
divided after discussing something.

....... I serve (He serves) as the model of men for my (his)
children. -

....... I represent and advance (He represents and advances)
my (his) family in the community.

....... I help (She helps) earn the living when my (her)
husband needs my (her) help or when the family
needs more money.

....... I practice (She practices) the family religion or
philoso hy. .

....... I care (She cares) for the children's everyday needs.

....... I am (She is) a companion to my (her) husband.

....... I am (She is) the homemaker. .

....... I am (She is) a sexual partner to my (her) husband.

A-l

517

.0“ v.1“
P -.

.9
A

‘. .
I 7
«0'7;

 

....... I represent and advance (She represents and ad-
vances) my (her) family socially and in the
community. .

....... I help (She helps) the children grow by being
their friend, teacher and guide.

A-3

MARITAL ADJUSTMENT TEST
Instructions:

Encircle the dot on the scale below which best
describes the degree of happiness, everything considered,
of your present marriage. The middle point, "happy" re-
presents the degree of happiness which most people get
from marriage, and the scale gradually ranges on one side
to those few who are very unhappy in marriage, and on the
other, to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity
in marriage.

0 2 7 15 20 25 35
Very Happy Perfectly
Unhappy - Happy

State the approximate extent of agreement between you and
your mate on the following items. Please encircle the ap-
propriate dots.
Almost
Almost Occa- Fre- Always Always
Always Always sionally quently Dis- Dis-
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree agree agree

Handling family

finances: 5 4 3 2 1 0
Matters of Recrea-

tion: 5 4 3 2 l 0
Demonstrations of

affection: 8 6 A 2 1 0
Friends: 5 4 3 2 1 0
Sex Relations: 15 12 9 4 l 0
Conventionality

(right, good or

proper conduct): 5 4 3 2 l 0
Philosophy of life: 5 A 3 2 1 0

ways of dealing ‘
with in-laws: 5 4 3 2 l 0

When disagreements arise, they usually result in: hus-
band's giving in 0 , wife giving in 2 , agreement by mutual
give and take 10 .

A-#

Do you and your mate engage in outside interests to-
gether? All of them 10 , some of them 8 , very few of
them 3', none of them 0 ?

In leisure time do you generally prefer: to be "on
the go" - , to stay at home + ?*

Does your mate generalIy prefer: to be "on the go"
- , to stay at home + ?*

Do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently 0 ,
occasionally 3 , rarely 8 , never 15 ,

If you had your life to live over, do you think you
would: marry the same person-l§ , marry a different person
0 , not marry at all 1 ?

Do you confide in your mate: almost never 0 , rarely
2 , in most things 10 , in everything 10 ?

*+-=2;++=10;--=3

(Locke and Wallace, 1959. p. 252)

A-s

Family Concept Q-Sort:

Instructions:

Here is a set of cards, with a statement on each
card. Please put each card on one of the spaces of this
card, according to how much it is like your family. Zero
means most unlike and eight means most like, and the points
between are varying degrees of these. By family we mean
the persons who live at your home and whom you consider to
be part of your family group. We want you to describe
this family group as honestly and accurately as you can.
Put each card on the pile that indicates how much this
statement is true for your family as it really is. It is
important that you be completely accurate in describing
your family. You can take as much time as you wish. It
seems to go best when you work rapidly and arrange all the
items and then go over the items again to arrange them
more exactly. Only a certain number of items should go in
each pile as is marked on the card. Please proceed care-
fully, and ask me if you have any questions, or if there
is anything you are not sure of.

1. We like to do new and different things.

* 2. We usually can depend on each other.
* 3. We have a number of close friends.
A. We often do not agree on important matters.
5. Each of us tries to be the kind of person the
others will like.
6. Good manners and proper behavior are very im-
portant to us.
* 7. We feel secure when we are with each other.
- 8. we want help with our problems.
* 9. We do many things together.
- 10. Each of us wants to tell the others what to do.
- 11. There are serious differences in our standards and
values.
* 12. We feel free to express any thought or feeling to

each other.

13. Our home is the center of our activities.

14. We are an affectionate family.

15. It is not our fault that we are having difficulties.
16. Little problems often become big ones for us.

We do not understand each other.

18. We get along very well in the community.

19. We often praise or compliment each other.

20. We do not talk about sex.

21. We get along much better with persons outside the
family than with each other.

Ilfl'fl’lllfl’fl'v
g...»
\1

*Il-n'

«fl» .

22.

23.
21*.
250
26.

28.
29.

30.
31.
320
33.
3h.

35.
36.
37-
38.
39.

i to.

Al.
A2.
43.
Ah.

' #5.

*fi-I *-

#6.
47.

A8.
A9.
500
51.

. 520

530
54.

. 55

56:
57.

58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

63.

A-6

If we had more money most of our present problems
would be gone.

We are proud of our family.

We do not like each other's friends.

There are many conflicts in our family.

We are usually calm and relaxed when we are together.
We are not a talkative family.

We respect each other's privacy.

Accomplishing what we want to do seems to be diffi-
cult for us.

We tend to worry about many things.

Weoften upset each other without intending it.
Nothing exciting ever seems to happen to us.

We are a deeply religious family.

We are continually getting to know each other
better.

We need each other.

We do not spend enough time together.

We do not understand what is causing our difficulties.
Success and prestige are very important to us.

We encourage each other to develop in his or her
own individual way.

We are ashamed of some things about our family.

We have warm, close relationships with each other.
There are some topics which we avoid talking about.
Together we can overcome almost any difficulty.

We really do trust and confide in each other.

We make many demands on each other.

We take care of each other.

Our activities together are usually planned and
organized.

The family has always been very important to us.

We get more than our share of illness.

We are considerate of each other.

We can stand up for our rights if necessary.

We are all responsible for our family problems.
There is not enough discipline in our family.

We have very good times together.

We depend on each other too much.

We often become angry at each other.

We live largely by other people's standards and
values.

We are not as happy as we might be.

We are critical of each other.

We are satisfied with the way in which we now live.
Usually each of us goes his own separate way.

We resent each other's outside activities.

We have respect for each other's feelings and
opinions even when we differ strongly.

* 650
- 66.
67.

69.
70.
71.
720

730
- 71+.
75.
76.
* 77.

r 78.
. 79.
so.

'0')?!

fl-

A-7

We sometimes wish we could be an entirely differ-
ent family.

We are sociable and really enjoy being with people.
We are a disorganized family.

It is important to us to know how we appear to
others.

Our decisions are not our own, but are forced upon
us by circumstances.

We are not really fond of one another.

We are a strong, competent family.

We just cannot tell each other our real feelings.
We are not satisfied with anything short of per-
fection.

We forgive each other easily.

We are usually somewhat reserved with each other.
We rarely hurt each other's feelings.

We like the same things.

We usually reach decisions by discussions and com-
promise.

We can adjust well to new situations.

We are liked by most people who know us.

We are full of life and good spirits.

(van der Veen, gt al., 196A)

 

* indicates items indicative of the perfectly adjusted
family.
- indicates items indicative of the poorly adjusted family.

A-8

Family Concept Scale:
Instructions:

Indicate whether each of the following items is
mostly true or mostly false as it applies to your immed-
iate family, (Husband or wife and children) and fill in
the appropriate response on the accompanying answer form.
First impressions are satisfactory, and most people are
able to complete the scale in less than 15 minutes. It
is quite important that you give a reSponse to each item,
even though it may sometimes be difficult to make a de-
cision.

The rest of the instrument consists of the same
items as those of Family Concept Q-Sort.

Biographical Data Sheet:

Date: Number

Age:

 

 

Date of Marriage:
. month year

Occupation

List the age and sex of your children, oldest first.

 

 

 

 

Is this your first marriage?

 

Highest grade attained in school
Your approximate income annually

Your religious affiliation if any

Couple

OQ\I (TWA-PW» NH

FHJFJ
IOFJCNO
O O O O

H
\n

NNNNNNHHI—JH PH
\np-wmwoxoooxim kw

APPENDIX C

A-lO

RAW MARITAL ADJUSTMENT SCORES FOR ALL COUPLES

FCQ

13
31
31
32
29
35
30
38
34
37
41
30
31
38
A0
35
36
29
21
38
29

MAT

AA
118
1A0
124
104
151
KB
107
151
100
132
108
117

111
lfi
117
112

77
127

n6
n8
115
125

MRI

{>me ownoct\.r1\1~c0to:—-Imom-4w;~

mmorNHngomqrrmwmommwupqw-

4‘0 N00 010% NF‘W our O\\O OV‘: O\\}\J\O\n\1\»\n
\} C‘OQQ O OM)

 

N5te:

Columns headed by capital letters indicate male

FCT-F fcq
21 37
A6 35
46 30
46 34
AA 3h
47 37
43 32
A7 31
44 36
45 3h
43 39
4h 36
Al 29
Al 32
A6 38
A6 37
48 36
Al 31
37 23
48 37
38 31
A5 33
#0 27
#3 32
A6 34

mat

132
129
127
121

77
122
123
125
141
Kb
123
130
111
121
118
119
1U
112

93
D8
110
111

96
1%
UA

000.005

HH-PHOO‘QOQUINmWOmw
\nHHGNmew-PHWQHCD

mmqmomrwrwarrqrw

.52

scores, columns headed by lower case letters indi-

cate female scores.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERS TY Ll

l
0

3 1293 3015 405

BRARIES
7