You are on page 1of 17

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231026047

DEVELOPMENT OF MARITAL SATISFACTION SCALE

Article  in  Journal of Clinical Psychology · January 2010

CITATIONS READS
4 5,186

1 author:

Nadia Ayub
Institute of Business Management
24 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of Identity among Adolsecents View project

Social Psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nadia Ayub on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Pakistan Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2010, 9, 1, 19-34 PJCP
©Institute of Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi

DEVELOPMENT OF MARITAL SATISFACTION SCALE

Nadia Ayub*
* Department of Social Sciences, College of Business Management, Institute of
Business Management, Karachi, Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study reviewed the development of the indigenous Marital


Satisfaction Scale (MSS): a self-report method of identifying variables of
marital satisfaction for married couples.
Research Design: Scale development
Place and Duration: This study was (a part of Ph. D dissertation)
conducted in Karachi from 2005 to 2008
Sample and Method: The forty- item scale, which includes twelve
subscales, was administered to 600 married couples. Two studies had
been undertaken to achieve research objectives. Study 1, described the
methods used for item generation for Marital Satisfaction Scale. Study 2
presented the further psychometric development of the Marital
Satisfaction Scale (MSS), including construct validation of its internal,
external structure and reliability.
Results: An item-total correlation for all the items was calculated by using
Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation. The internal
consistency of Marital Satisfaction Scale was 0.696 cronbach alpha level.
The results indicate that the scale had significant positive test-retest
reliability (r = 0.852). For convergent validity of Marital Satisfaction
Scale, two scales were administered. The result depicted that there is a
significantly positive relationship between Marital Satisfaction Scale and
measures of Adult Self-Perception Profile (r = 0.611, p < 0.01, n = 100),
and Spouse Rating Scale (r = .569, p < .01, n = 100) respectively.

19
20 Ayub

Conclusion: The Marital Satisfaction Scale (MSS) can be used to


supplement research that examines how marital satisfaction effects
married couples well-being.

KEY WORDS: Marital Satisfaction, Reliability, Validity

INTRODUCTION

The institution of marriage has historically been seen as life-long


commitment, between two partners, for better or for worse. Socially speaking,
marriage is the only way to bring families into existence. All religions of the
world strongly believe in the sanctity of the institution of marriage and affirm it
for promulgation of human life. Therefore, it can be easily stated that marriage is
a moral safeguard, a social necessity and a savior of family as the fundamental
unit of our society. All societies try to condemn and control the elements that
downplay the importance of this sacred institution. For this, divorce, single
parenthood and cohabitation are taboos for many conventional societies and
marriage the safest channel for social acceptance and upward mobility.

Marital satisfaction can be defined as the process of adaptation of the


both partners in such a way as to avoid or resolve conflicts sufficiently so that the
mates feel satisfied with the marriage and each other1. Moreover, factors related
to marital satisfaction have aroused special interests for psychologists, family
researchers and sociologists during the past few decades. Existing literature has
posed various factors as potential influences on marital satisfaction. Such factors
include in-laws relationship, communication, understanding, compromise, mutual
understanding, gender difference, spouse education, dual earning, husband
financial status, sexual relationship, self-perception, division of household tasks,
spending time together and spousal support.

The literature on marital satisfaction indicates that in-laws relationship


has received the primary emphasis. The studies have investigated that in-law
relationships are important to societies, both past and present, because they

1
Locke, H.J. (1968). Predicting Adjustment in Marriage: A Comparison of Divorced and
Happily Married Groups. New York: Greenwood.
Development of Marital satisfaction Scale 21

represent an alliance between two groups of blood relations2. In a marriage, the


role of in-laws plays a vital part in the marital success and the breakdown of the
couple. The quality of the in- laws relationship can predict the stability,
satisfaction, and commitment expressed by the spouses.

Communication in marriage is the primary vehicle through which


couples relate to and manage each other; their social, and cognitive processes
underlying their communication assume a leading role in their ability to adapt to
ongoing relational developments and satisfaction. A number of studies have
compared communication pattern in happy and unhappy marriages. One of the
research indicates that “unhappily married spouses: i) find it difficult to convey
positive messages, ii) misunderstand each other more often, iii) are less likely to
recognize that they have been misunderstood, iv) use more frequent, and more
intense, negative messages, and v) often differ in self distancing preferable in the
relationship”3. Findings also supports that couples with better problem solving
communication were less likely to report distress and dissatisfaction later in their
marriages than with poorer problem solving communication.3

In terms of gender difference, “husband reported greater satisfaction than


wives do”4. This discrepancy in satisfaction has been explained in a number of
ways. The findings suggest that women are more concerned about affection,
companionship, expecting emotional support, and hold greater expectations from
marriage than men do. In contrast, “women are more realistic while men are
more idealistic or tend to deny problems when asked about their marriage, which
accounts for the gender difference in marital satisfaction”5.

2
Wolfram, S. (1987). In-Laws and Out-Laws: Kinship and Marriage in England.
London: Croom Helm.
3
Sher, T. G., & Baucom, G. H. (1993) Marital communication: Differences among
martially distressed, depressed, and non-distressed couples. Journal of Family
Psychology, 7, 148-153.
4
Gokmen, A. (2001). Evli eşlerin birbirlerine yönelik kontrolcülük ve bağımlılık
algılarının evlilik doyumu üzerindeki etkisi. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Hacettepe University, Ankara. In B. Cogla (2004). An exploration of marital
satisfaction, locus of control, and self-esteem as predictors of sexual satisfaction,
Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University.
5
Weishaus, S., & Field, D. (1988). A half century of marriage: Continuity or change?
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 763-774.
22 Ayub

The other contributing factor influencing marital satisfaction is the dual


earner. If both husband and wife work, they become financially stable and this
would allow the family to enjoy a higher standard of living. A growing body of
literature on dual earner suggests that marital satisfaction markedly higher for
wives when both spouses employed. Employed women tend to obtain more help
with housework from their husbands, experience higher levels of marital
satisfaction contingent upon receiving help from their husbands, and report
higher level of psychological well-being. As well as, some researchers suggest
that husbands and wives in dual-earner marriages are most satisfied with their
relationships if they perceive that their spouse does more than his or her fair
share of work6.

The education of partner is an additional aspect that influences marital


satisfaction. The literature on both partner’s education indicates that highly
educated person is more likely to express himself freely, as they are more likely
to behave in a more assertive way. If both spouses are more educated, they share
more authority that is egalitarian; this means that both through education are
freeing themselves of the traditional concepts of the husband’s domination over
the wife. Literature suggests that, “there is a positive relationship between marital
satisfaction and level of education both; couples with university degree reported
higher marital satisfaction when they are compared to their counterparts with
high-school degree7.

The presence of children emerged as a significant factor associated with


marital satisfaction. Children can enhance marital satisfaction, as long as the
number does not exceed three8. The existing literature shows that parents
generally see children as positive influence in their life9. Furthermore, children

6
Kluwer, E. S., Heesink, J. A. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1996). Marital conflict about the
division of household labor and paid work. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
58, 958-969.
7
Dokmen, Z.Y. & Tokgoz, O. (2002). Cinsiyet, eğitim, cinsiyet rolü ile evlilik doyumu,
eşle algılanan benzerlik arasındaki ilişkiler. XII. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi.
Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları. In B. Cogla,(2004). An exploration
of marital satisfaction, locus of control, and self-esteem as predictors of sexual
satisfaction, Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University,
8
Robert, B.& Wolfe,D.M. (1960). Husband and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living
New York: Free Press.
9
Chilman, Catherine S. (1980). Parent Satisfaction, Concerns, and Goals for their
Children. Family Relations 29 (July), 339-345.
Development of Marital satisfaction Scale 23

have a positive effect on marriage, “couples with children had significantly less
verbal communication and that their interaction rates were lower and involved
talking more about their children and less about themselves and their
relationship. They felt less close to each other than childless couples, who were
more responsive to conflict, and experienced lower marital satisfaction”10.

A longstanding finding in the marital satisfaction literature is


compromise in the relationship. According to literature, to make a successful
marriage, the common factor that required is compromise. As relationship
develops, partners establish understanding between them, about issues such as
money, recreation, home environment, parenting and relationship with others in
their lives, while it may not be necessary that to agree in all matters of life, it is
tiring. A certain level of agreement is necessary for partnerships to function
well, and this usually requires willingness to compromise.

A spouse support is a recurring theme in the construct of marital


satisfaction. Evidence suggests that support from other relatives and friends
cannot compensate for lack of support from one’s spouse11.These results reveal
that support from spouse gives more satisfaction then other members in social
network. Spouse’s unsupportive behavior affects the well-being of the partner.
Researchers report that spouses who are engaged in more unsupportive
behaviors, in different chores of life report higher levels of anxiety, depression,
and hostility. This results in dissatisfaction in their relationship and marriage.

The sexual satisfaction has emerged as another significant factor


associated with marital satisfaction. According to literature, “sexual satisfaction,
frequency of sex and sexual activities, sexual interest and satisfaction of one’s
spouse has a great deal to do with marital satisfaction. Indeed, sex is so important
to marital satisfaction that sexual inactivity may be a sign that there are other
problems within the marriage”12.

10
Harold,F. (1971). The effects of Children on the Family. Pp. 107-125 in Family Issues
of Employed Women in Europe and America edited by A. Michel Leiden: E.G.
Brill.
11
Coyne, J. C., & Anderson, K. K. (1999). Marital status, marital satisfaction, and
support processes among women at high risk for breast cancer. Journal of
Family Psychology, 13, 629-641.
12
Donnelly, D.A. (1993). Sexually inactive marriages. The Journal of Sex Research, 30
(2),171-179.
24 Ayub

According to the literature on marriage it is found that to predict marital


satisfaction there is need to understands the level of couples. It includes the
perceived sharing of values13, sharing of leisure time14; agreement on various
issues and the ability to resolve differences15. There is evidence that
understanding is associated with relationship satisfaction in married couples for
conflict, attachment, and self-attributes16.

Another important factor leading to marital satisfaction is self-


perception. According to a research, “the self perception is special frame work
that influence how we process information about the social world around us
along with information about ourselves”17. There are individual differences in
people’s views of themselves. People with positive self-view, experience
satisfaction in their marriage as compared to people with negative self-views will
find less satisfaction. According to the previous researches, “individual who view
their partners positively; the relationship satisfaction is higher”18.

The aim of the study is to explore the variables, which affects, the
psychological health status of couples in context of Pakistani culture. This issue
is addresses because of its psychological consequences such as depression, self-
esteem, and self-perception as they are more severe and rigorous as compared to
the physical effects. Researches that have been carried out in West, have proved
that the experience of marital dissatisfaction erodes couple’s self- esteem and put
them at a greater risk in an innumerable kind of mental disorders like depression.
Although, different scales have been developed to measure marital satisfaction

13
Tharp, G.P. (1963) Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, 60,
97-117.RP, G.P. (1963) Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological
Bulletin, 60, 97-117.
14
Hill, M. S. (1988). Marital stability and spouses’ shared leisure time: A
multidisciplinary Hypothesis. Journal of Family Issues. (9), 427-451.
15
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
16
De La Ronde, C., & Swann, W. B. (1998). Partner verification: Restoring shattered
images of our intimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 374–
382.
17
Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Burton, H. A. (1989). Two self-reference effects: The
importance of distinguishing between self-descriptiveness judgments and
autobiographical retrieval in self-referent encoding. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 56(6), 853-865.
18
Cobb, R. J., Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Attachment security and marital
satisfaction: 138. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(1) 115-138.
Development of Marital satisfaction Scale 25

(e.g. The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale, 198619; Comprehensive Marital


Satisfaction Scale, 200520; ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale, 199321). These
questionnaires were developed according to the norms and culture of western
society. However, the married couple’s life styles, cognition, literacy and many
other aspects especially prevailing in Western society are different from the
Pakistani culture therefore; research in this area will be helpful to address the
psychological issues of couples in this part of the world.

In the light of above literature reviews, the current study sought to


construct and validate a new self-report instrument for the measurement of
marital satisfaction of married couples. The construction and validation of the
Marital Satisfaction (MSS) Scale is based on two studies. Study 1 describes the
process of item generation; and Study 2 deals with the development and
validation of the Marital Satisfaction Scale.

METHOD

Study 1: Item generation for Marital Satisfaction Scale

The purpose of this phase was to create a pool of items relating to marital
satisfaction. A pool of 58-items was generated based on pilot study, theoretically
driven logic, and past literature. In addition, available scales including- Spouse
Rating Scale22 and Quality Marriage Index23 were examined. This extensive
process resulted in a measure consisting of 58-items that describe variables of
marital satisfaction. Based on above criteria, items were generated to measure the
following variables: In- laws relationship, Communication, Husband financial
status, Compromise, Spouse Support, Self-Perception, Dual Earning, Mutual
Understanding, Presence of Children, Understanding, Education of Partner,

19
Meens, L. D. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital
Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387.
20
Mehrabian, A. (2005). Manual for the Comprehensive Marital Satisfaction Scale
(CMSS). Monterey, CA: Author.
21
Fowers, B.J. & Olson, D.H. (1993) ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of
Family Psychology 7, (2) 176-185
22
Sacco, W.P., Dumont, C.P., & Dow, M.G. (1993) Attribution, perceptual, and affective
responses to depresses and non-depressed marital partners. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1076 – 1082.
23
Norton, R. (1983) Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141-151.
26 Ayub

Sexual Satisfaction, and Gender Difference. For items, evaluation participants


were asked to indicate any indistinctness, and haziness in the scale.

For item selection, pilot version of the Marital Satisfaction Scale


consisted of 58-items was administered. This scale assessed broad range of
variables contributing to Marital Satisfaction and was rated on a 4-point scale,
ranging from “never” to “always,” indicating frequency of use. This was done in
order to find out the vagueness and ambiguity of items, the final administration
of item pool has done for item analysis. In item analysis, items were reviewed
and carefully edited which are valid and suited to the purpose were included and
rests are eliminated.

Sample

The subject were 600 (300 men, mean age = 37.0 years; 300 women,
mean age = 32.0 years) from different areas of the Karachi city. The average
length of marriage was 11.58 years. The education levels ranged from
Matriculation/O levels (20%), Intermediate/ A levels (40.2%), Bachelors (17.3%)
up to Masters (20.5%). The average number of children was 03. All participants
resided in Pakistan and volunteered to take part in this study. Couples had been
married from one to thirty years, marriage and the average length of their
marriage was 9.78 years. All of the respondents belong to different socio-
economic background.

Procedure

The questionnaires were distributed to couples they completed the


questionnaire manually. The data collected individually and at the beginning of
each questionnaire, an overview was provided. All respondents filled
demographic form and Marital Satisfaction Scale. Participation was voluntary
and responses were anonymous. The respondents were informed about the
purpose of the research. As with study, participants were assured that all
information would be kept confidential.

Data Analysis

Each items of the scale is followed by four options: Always = 3, Often =


2, Sometimes = 1, Never =0. The scoring of items and the tabulation of data was
done according to the values given above. In item selection, the criterion was
Development of Marital satisfaction Scale 27

0.05 alpha levels. For Item total correlation of 58-items Pearson Product-Moment
Coefficient of Correlations was calculated on SPSS.

Study 2: Reliability and Validation of Marital Satisfaction Scale

The purpose of study 2 was to assess the initial psychometric properties


of the MSS, including internal consistency, and convergent validity.

Reliability of Marital Satisfaction Scale

Sample

Marital satisfaction scale was administered on a sample of 100 (50 men,


50 women) married couples from different socio-economic background and
period of marriage is from one to thirty years.

Procedure

Two administrations of Marital Satisfaction Scale have been carried out.


The time interval between test and retest was 15 days. For statistical analysis of
test retest reliability Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient of Correlation was
computed to determine relationship between scores obtained in test and retest.
The internal consistency of the scale was measured by using cronbach alpha.

Convergent Validity of Marital Satisfaction Scale

Sample

The three scale were administered on a sample of 100 (50 men, 50


women) married couples from different socio-economic background and years of
marriage is from one to thirty years.

Measure

To help test the validity of the Marital Satisfaction Scale, two additional
instruments are contained in the study.

Indigenous Marital Satisfaction Scale (MSS) This scale was developed


in present study, it consisted of 58-items each followed by four response
28 Ayub

categories according to the following values of scoring: Always = 4, Often = 3,


Sometimes = 2, Never =0.

The Adult Self-Perception Profile (ASPP)24, consisted of a 50-items and


4 response categories according to the following: Really true for me=1, Sort of
true for me=2, sort of true for me=3, and really true for me=4. Items
1,2,4,6,8,9,11,13,15,18, 20,22,24, 27,29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40,41, 43, 45, 47, and 49
were to be reversely scored. Each item scores on a scale from 1 to 4, where score
of 1 indicates low perceived competence/ adequacy and a score of 4 reflects high
perceived competence/adequacy. ASPP has been found to have good
psychometric properties. The present study, ASPP found to be internally
consistent at the level of = .881

The Spouse Rating Scale (SRS)25 consisted of a 44-items and 7 response


categories according to the following: Strongly disagree = 1, Mostly disagree =
2, Somewhat disagree =3, Neither agree or disagree = 4, Somewhat agree =5,
Mostly agree =6, Strongly agree = 7. The SRS consists of a (23 negative, 21
positive) personality traits. The index has good internal consistency, with a
Cronbach’s alpha of = .587.

Procedure

The subjects completed the scales manually. In order to find out


the convergent validity of Marital Satisfaction Scale Pearson product
moment coefficient of correlation was used between the marital
satisfaction scale and above other measures

24
Messer, B., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the Adult Self Perception Profile. Denver,
CO: University of Denver.
25
Sacco, W.P., Dumont, C.P., & Dow, M.G. (1993) Attribution, perceptual, and affective
responses to depresses and non-depressed marital partners. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1076 – 1082.
Development of Marital satisfaction Scale 29

RESULTS
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of Sub-Scales of Marital Satisfaction Scale

Variables M Mdn SD Varianc Mini Max


e
In laws Relation 10.81 11.00 1.087 1.183 7 12
Husband Financial 5.12 5.00 .880 .775 3 6
Status
Compromise 2.64 3.00 .626 .392 1 3
Self-Perception 13.10 13.00 1.527 2.331 8 15
Spouse Support 8.19 8.00 .943 .889 4 9
Dual Earning 5.54 6.00 .599 .359 4 6
Mutual 5.34 6.00 .889 .790 1 6
Understanding
Communication 7.56 8.00 1.453 2.110 2 9
Sexual Satisfaction 7.83 8.00 1.182 1.398 4 9
Gender Difference 5.25 5.00 .793 .629 2 6
Education of Partner 8.02 8.00 1.016 1.031 4 9
Understanding 26.02 26.00 2.517 6.333 19 30

Table 1 Shows descriptive statistics (mean, median, SD, Variance, maximum,


minimum) of subscales of Marital Satisfaction Scale

Table 2
Reliability Analyses- Scale (Alpha) for Marital Satisfaction Scale

Cases(N) Items(N) Cronbach Alpha


Α

600 40 .696

Table 2 Shows reliability analysis of Marital Satisfaction Scale


30 Ayub

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Item total Correlations of 40 –items on Marital
Satisfaction Scale

Item M SD Item total Sig Item M SD Item total Sig


No. r No. r

Item 1 .000 Item 0.76 .000


2.54 0.634 .463** 2.31 .368**
21 5
Item 2 .000 Item 0.79 .000
2.77 0.433 .279** 2.37 .509**
22 1
Item3 .000 Item 0.47 .000
2.74 0.495 .317** 2.79 .270**
23 8
Item 4 .000 Item 0.63 .000
2.83 0.421 .286** 2.56 .270**
24 3
Item 5 .000 Item 0.48 .000
2.59 0.614 .340** 2.71 .405**
25 8
Item 6 .000 Item 0.41 .041
2.37 0.726 .471** 2.80 .083*
26 4
Item 7 .000 Item 0.42 .000
2.82 0.401 .299** 2.77 .203**
27 4
Item 8 .000 Item 0.66 .000
2.86 0.417 .237** 2.59 .447**
28 2
Item 9 .000 Item 0.45 .000
2.82 0.392 .213** 2.75 .283**
29 9
Item10 .000 Item 0.59 .000
2.76 0.440 .271** 2.68 .193**
30 1
Item 11 .000 Item 0.74 .000
2.64 0.626 .292** 2.35 .422**
31 8
Item 12 .000 Item 0.68 .000
2.67 0.582 .276** 2.56 .361**
32 6
Item 13 .000 Item 0.63 .000
2.70 0.478 .279** 2.49 .264**
33 0
Item 14 .000 Item 0.63 .000
2.46 0.704 .413** 2.51 .278**
34 3
Item 15 .000 Item 0.41 .040
2.59 0.668 .513** 2.75 .073*
35 0
Item 16 .000 Item 0.58 .000
2.55 0.655 .379** 2.68 .482**
36 4
Item 17 .000 Item 0.41 .000
2.73 0.451 .277** 2.79 .353**
37 7
Item 18 .000 Item 0.42 .000
2.73 0.452 .308** 2.77 .233**
38 4
Item 19 .000 Item 0.45 .000
2.49 0.710 .322** 2.71 .296**
39 5
Item 20 .000 Item 0.67 .000
2.47 0.764 .494** 2.50 .328**
40 4
Table 3 Shows the mean, SD, and item total correlation of total scores on each
item
Development of Marital satisfaction Scale 31

Table 4
Test-retest reliability of Marital Satisfaction Scale

Administration N Pearson r Alpha

1 versus 2 100 0.852** 0.01

Table 4 Demonstrates the correlation of two administration of the MSS


significant at*p=.01(2-tailed)

Table 5
Convergent validity of Marital Satisfaction Scale

Marital Satisfaction Scale

Adult Self-Perception Profile 0.611**

Spouse Rating Scale 0 .569**

P< .05

Table 5 Shows convergent validity of Marital Satisfaction Scale with Adult Self-
Perception Profile, and Spouses Rating Scale
32 Ayub

Table 6
Item Sub-Scale Correlation of Marital Satisfaction Scale

Variable Item no Pearson r Variable Item no Pearson r

1. Communication 01 0.648** 6. Education of Partner 02 0.323**


14 0.752** 38 0.521**
32 0.746** 40 0.749**
2. Spouse Support 04 0.563** 7. Sexual Satisfaction 12 0.621**
15 0.776** 22 0.787**
27 0.443** 37 0.458**
3. Mutual Understanding 08 0.620** 8. Gender Difference 10 0.610**
19 0.887** 33 0.833**
4. Husband Financial Status 02 0.529** 9. Dual Earning 09 0.659**
31 0.871** 17 0.757**
5. Understanding 06 0.536** 10. Compromise 11 1.000**
07 0.213** 11. Self-Perception 05 0.668**
18 0.255** 16 0.665**
20 0.592** 29 0.363**
21 0.476** 34 0.554**
23 0.319** 39 0.360**
24 0.353** 12. In-Laws 13 0.474**
Relationship
25 0.300** 26 0.412**
28 0.443** 30 0.577**
36 0.503** 35 0.596**
P< .05

Table 6 Shows item sub-scale correlation of Marital Satisfaction Scale.

DISCUSSION
This study sets out to develop an internally consistent, reliable and valid
indigenous measure of marital satisfaction. MSS developed, has been comprises
of 40-items, 4-point questionnaire, containing likert–type response format, self-
report measure for the married couples. It consisted of twelve subscales—in-laws
relationship, communication, understanding, compromise, education of spouse,
financial status of husband, sexual satisfaction, mutual understanding, self-
perception, gender difference, dual earning, and spouse support—derived
through item total correlation.
Development of Marital satisfaction Scale 33

The main purpose of study 1 was to generate items for Marital


Satisfaction Scale. The criterion for the selection of item for MSS was 0.05
levels, and 40-items were estimated significant at 0.01 levels. According to
Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation value the following items, was
not found to be significant i.e., item no1, 7, 15, 18, 23, 26, 32, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57. Overall, results reveal positive correlation of items
with the total scores, especially, item no 15 and 22 measured as the better items,
as it proves high significant correlation and shows positive correlation with the
total scores (See table III). Cronbach alpha for the total score (the sum of
respondents’ ratings across the forty items) have been reported at 0.696, shows
that Marital Satisfaction Scale was found to be internally consistent (See Table
II). Item–total correlation and internal consistency reliability measure of the scale
were significant. To sum up, the data indicates that the internal consistency of the
MSS meets acceptable levels for research purposes when used with married
couples.

The high inter correlations demonstrate that the forty items are probably
related to the same construct, measuring marital satisfaction. There are
consistently positive correlations between almost all the Marital Satisfaction
Scale subscales and the total score reflecting positive relationship towards overall
scale. Moreover, the final score reflect its proficiency in Marital Satisfaction
Scale is significant. Finally, results depict that twelve subscales directly and
effectively contributes in marital satisfaction in a Pakistani society.

The purpose of study 2 was to assessed reliability and validity of Marital


Satisfaction Scale. The Marital Satisfaction Scale exhibits good reliability and
internal consistency, which was assessed by alpha coefficient. A result of test-
retest reliability was also encouraging. The excellent Pearson product moment
coefficient correlation was found for test-retest reliability (r = 0.852, p < .01, n =
100) of marital satisfaction scale, which suggests that any replication of the scale
would provide the similar results (See Table IV). Overall, two tests were
performed to test convergent validity of the scale. In studying MSS scores for
convergent validity, we examined some of the hypothesized relationships
between MSS and other measures. The positive correlations between the Marital
Satisfaction Scale scores and the Spouse Rating Scale (SRS; r = .569, p < .01, n
= 100), and Adult Self- Perception Profile (ASPP; r = 0.611, p < .01, n = 100),
scores provide initial evidence of Marital Satisfaction Scale convergent validity.
(See Table V)
34 Ayub

The construct validity of the scale scores was well supported.


Specifically, there were strong positive relationships between scores on the
current Marital Satisfaction Scale and scores on the Adult Self Perception Profile,
and Spouse Rating Scale. These scores provide support for demonstrating
construct validity and indication of convergent validity. This finding is also
important because it suggests that the statistically significant correlations
between scores on the current scale and scores on the other scales were not due
primarily to common method variance.

There are some limitations of the present study. First limitation of the
study is that items such as, item number 26 and 35 showed weak correlation with
the total scores, future research should modify these items and measured the
validity. Second, the sample was drawn from the couples who currently live in a
big city like Karachi, Pakistan; so the research is not appropriate to apply its
results to people who live rural areas. Finally, the study depended on self-
reported data. There is always a risk of being biased and selective recall when
using such data26. Expansion on the present study would allow greater knowledge
into the predictors of marital satisfaction of couples.

Overall, research has largely achieved its objectives of constructing a


theoretically grounded and psychometrically robust measure of marital
satisfaction for couples. The preliminary evidence regarding the usefulness of the
MSS is encouraging. In addition, to contribute further evidence of the scale’s
validity with other sub-scales, such research could lead to a better understanding
of the marital satisfaction for marriage counselor in our country.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Marital Satisfaction Scale (MSS) will become a useful


tool for researchers especially those who are interested in understanding the
factors related to marital satisfaction among married couples. Marriage
counselors can also use this scale as a method of screening out the factors
associated with marital satisfaction in Pakistani culture.

26
Smith, M.L. & Glass, G.V. (1987) Research and Evaluation in Education and the
Social Sciences Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

View publication stats