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

net/publication/241843620

Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Three Language Groups

Article in Swiss Journal of Psychology · December 2010

DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000024

CITATIONS READS

133 5,810

8 authors, including:

Thomas Ledermann Guy Bodenmann

Florida State University University of Zurich
104 PUBLICATIONS 4,276 CITATIONS 453 PUBLICATIONS 13,966 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Simona Gagliardi Linda Charvoz

University of Zurich University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Lausanne
8 PUBLICATIONS 243 CITATIONS 50 PUBLICATIONS 757 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Guy Bodenmann on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69 (4), 2010, 201–212

T. ©
SwissJ. Psychol. 69 (4) Ledermann etHans
2010 Verlag al.: Dyadic
Huber, Coping
HogrefeInventory
AG, Bern

Original Communication

Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping

Inventory in Three Language Groups
Thomas Ledermann1, Guy Bodenmann2, Simona Gagliardi2, Linda Charvoz3,
Sabrina Verardi3, Jérôme Rossier3, Anna Bertoni4, and Raffaella Iafrate4
1
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA, 2University of Zurich, Switzerland,
3
University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 4Catholic University of Milan, Italy

Abstract. This article introduces the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008) and aims (1) to investigate the reliability and
aspects of the validity of the Italian and French versions of the DCI, and (2) to replicate its factor structure and reliabilities using a new
Swiss German sample. Based on 216 German-, 378 Italian-, and 198 French-speaking participants, the factor structure of the original
German inventory was able to be replicated by using principal components analysis in all three groups after excluding two items in the
Italian and French versions. The latter were shown to be as reliable as the German version with the exception of the low reliabilities of
negative dyadic coping in the French group. Confirmatory factor analyses provided additional support for delegated dyadic coping and
evaluation of dyadic coping. Intercorrelations among scales were similar across all three languages groups with a few exceptions. Previous
findings could be replicated in all three groups, showing that aspects of dyadic coping were more strongly related to marital quality than
to dyadic communication. The use of the dyadic coping scales in the actor-partner interdependence model, the common fate model, and
the mutual influence model is discussed.

Keywords: dyadic coping, validation, questionnaire, dyadic research

In the 1960s and 1970s, when scientists began to study coping
with stress, coping was considered an individual phenome-
non (e.g., Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pearlin
& Schooler, 1978). Since the early 1990s, however, authors
have begun to emphasize the significance of the social con-
text and the role of significant others in managing stressful
encounters. In addition to the research focusing on the expo-
sure to stress of groups involving more than two people (e.g.,
Buchwald, Schwarzer, & Hobfoll, 2004; Hobfoll, 1998; Ly-
ons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998) and the investiga-
tion of the role of the partner with respect to social support
(e.g., Barbee, 1990; Williamson & Clark, 1992; Winkeler &
Klauer, 2003), there is a growing literature on coping with
stress in intimate relationships (e.g., Berg, Meegan, &
Deviney, 1998; Bodenmann, 1997, 2005; Bodenmann & Per-
rez, 1991; Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006; Coyne &
Smith, 1991, 1994; Cutrona, 1996; DeLongis & O’Brien,
1990; Kayser, Sormanti, & Strainchamps, 1999). This article
introduces the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) developed by
Bodenmann to measure coping with daily stress in intimate
relationships; it demonstrate the reliability of the Italian and
French versions and replicates results obtained in previous
studies of the German version of the DCI.
In the early 1990s, Coyne and colleagues and Boden-
mann – independently of each other – developed a dyadic
stress-coping approach on the basis of Lazarus and Folk-
man’s (1984) transactional stress model. Coyne, Ellard,
and Smith (1990) posited the notion of relationship-fo-
cused coping, in addition to problem- and emotion-focused
coping. This notion was further elaborated by Coyne and
Smith (1991), who postulated two forms of relationship-fo-
cused coping: active engagement (e.g., discussing the
stressful situation with the partner, constructive interper-
sonal problem solving) and protective buffering (e.g., at-
tempts to hide concerns and deny worries and to protect
one’s partner from upset and burden). Bodenmann, on the
other hand, developed a concept of dyadic coping in close
relationships, proposing a systemic-transactional perspec-
tive of coping that has its origin in the systematic observa-
tion of interactions between spouses under stress (Boden-
mann, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005). His theoretical framework
is based on two key assumptions: First, stress and coping
represent a dyadic (systemic) phenomenon. Second, dyadic
coping with stress includes both stress expression and dy-
adic support (Bodenmann, 2000). There are two types of
stress: relationship stress and external stress (Bodenmann,
Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007; Randall & Bodenmann,
2009). The former originates inside the relationship due to
differing goals, attitudes, or desires, whereas the latter orig-
inates outside the relationship in the form of work strains,
social obligations, or conflicts with personal friends not
shared with the partner.

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185/a000024 Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
202 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory
Within this perspective, dyadic coping is considered (1)
one partner’s attempt to help reduce the external stress per-
ceived by his or her partner and (2) a common endeavor to
cope with stress that originates inside the relationship. The
stress-coping process is regarded as a sequence consisting
of stress expression by the stressed person, the perception
of stress by the partner, and the partner’s coping reaction
to the stressed person’s behavior (see Bodenmann, 2008).
Dyadic coping is conceptualized as a multidimensional
construct composed of four components: supportive, delegat-
ed, negative, and joint (common) dyadic coping. Supportive
dyadic coping occurs when one partner assists the other in his
or her coping efforts through problem- and emotion-focused
support (e.g., providing practical advice, helping the partner
accomplish daily tasks and reframe the situation, communi-
cating a belief in the partner’s capabilities or expressing sol-
idarity with the partner). It is not simply altruistic behavior,
but involves efforts to support the partner with the secondary
goal of reducing one’s own stress as well (Bodenmann,
1995). Delegated dyadic coping occurs when one partner
takes over responsibilities in order to reduce the partner’s
stress. As opposed to supportive dyadic coping, delegated
dyadic coping is characterized by the expression of support
by the stressed person and a new division of contributions to
the coping process. This form of dyadic coping is most com-
monly used in response to problem-oriented stressors. For
example, the partner who does not usually go grocery shop-
ping does the shopping in order to reduce the partner’s stress.
Negative dyadic coping includes three subforms: hostile dy-
adic coping (i.e., support behaviors that are accompanied by
disparagement, mocking, or sarcasm), ambivalent dyadic
coping (i.e., reluctant insufficient, or inefficient support), and
superficial dyadic coping (i.e., insincere or undedicated sup-
port). Joint dyadic coping refers to processes in which both
partners participate more or less symmetrically in order to
handle stressful encounters relevant to the couple. Couples
may use strategies such as joint problem solving, joint infor-
mation seeking, sharing of feelings, mutual commitment, or
relaxing together. Whereas supportive dyadic coping means
that one partner helps the other to deal with stress, joint dyadic
coping implies that both partners are experiencing stress (of-
ten because of the same stressor) and try to manage the situ-
ation by coping together. They apply strategies focusing on
resolving the problem together or helping each other reduce
emotional arousal.
Based on the systemic-transactional perspective of dy-
adic coping, Bodenmann developed a self-report question-
naire for assessing dyadic coping in close relationships
consisting of four factors: stress communication, support-
ive, negative, and joint dyadic coping. In addition, two
items were designed to reflect the quality of the self-per-
ceived dyadic coping. The questionnaire, called the Dyadic
Coping Inventory (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008), measures
one’s own as well as one’s perception of one’s partner’s
stress communication as well as supportive and negative
dyadic coping in close relationships when one or both part-
ners are stressed. A number of studies using a former ver-
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
sion of this scale, called the Questionnaire to Assess Dy-
adic Coping as a Tendency (FDCT-N), have supported the
utility of the questionnaire in predicting marital functioning
(Bodenmann, 2005, 2008). Specifically, evidence has been
found that low scores in positive dyadic coping and high
scores in negative dyadic coping are significantly associat-
ed with low relationship quality. The finding that low com-
munication competence coincides with low quality of dy-
adic coping supports the notion that communication is key
to dyadic coping. The results of a meta-analysis revealed
that the total composite index of the dyadic coping scale
accounted for 30% to 40% of the variance in marital satis-
faction (Bodenmann, 2005). Predictive studies showed that
dyadic coping is associated with future relationship quality
and stability (e.g., Bodenmann & Cina, 2006). Evidence
has also been found that couples with a partner suffering
from a psychiatric disorder (depression, anxiety disorder,
sexual dysfunction) reported significantly higher scores on
negative dyadic coping relative to couples where both part-
ners were healthy (Bodenmann, 2000). Studies evaluating
gender differences in dyadic coping showed that there were
nearly no significant differences in self-perceived dyadic
coping, with the exception of stress communication, which
was more often practiced by women than men (Widmer &
Bodenmann, 2000). Because of its capability to assess
changes over time, the DCI is also appropriate for use in
treatment designs, including therapy evaluation (see, e.g.,
Bodenmann et al., 2006; Ledermann, Bodenmann, & Cina,
2007). These findings stimulated research on dyadic cop-
ing in the French-speaking part of Switzerland and Italy
using the DCI translated into French and Italian.
In addition to the introduction of the DCI and its back-
ground, the purpose of the current article is (1) to demonstrate
the reliability and aspects of the construct validity of the Ital-
ian and French versions of the DCI in predicting marital func-
tioning, including marital quality and communication behav-
iors in conflict situations, and (2) to replicate previous results
on the factor structure and reliabilities of the German version
of the inventory using a new Swiss sample. In all three lan-
guage groups, we expect to find that communication of stress,
the quality of one’s own and the partner’s as well as the joint
dyadic coping are positively related to marital quality and
communication behaviors. In this article, we report and dis-
cuss the results without distinguishing between men and
women since previous studies using the current German ver-
sion of the DCI reported only a few gender differences
(Bodenmann, 2008; Gmelch et al., 2008).
Method
Construction of the DCI
The Dyadic Coping Inventory emerged from the Question-
naire to Assess Dyadic Coping as a Tendency (FDCT-N)
developed by Bodenmann (e.g., 2000). On the basis of ration-
 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory
al grounds and statistical analyses, 37 out of 68 items were
selected. The Italian and French versions of the DCI are a
literal translation of the original German DCI. The transla-
tions were carried out by native French and Italian speakers.
A backtranslation was undertaken by two native German
speakers (one with a good knowledge of French, the other
with a good knowledge of Italian) and compared to the orig-
inal version. In addition, an English version was derived by
using the same translation process as for the Italian and
French versions. In all language versions of the DCI, the
items are to be rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very rarely, 2 =
rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 often, 5 = very often). The DCI scales
and subscales along with their construction are listed in the
Appendix (Table 1A). The inventory takes about 15 minutes
to complete.
Samples
Participants in this study were 792 individuals (not couples)
belonging to three language groups. The Swiss German
group consisted of 216 participants (50.9% women), the Ital-
ian group of 378 (50.3% women), and the French group of
198 (48.5% women). The mean ages were 28.7 (SD = 11.6)
years for the German group, 36.8 (SD = 13.3) for the Italian
group, and 33.7 (SD = 14.4) for the French group. Individuals
reported a mean relationship duration of 6.32 (SD = 8.4)
years, 14.6 (SD = 12.3), and 11.8 (SD = 11.9). On average,
they had 2.73 (SD = 1.36), 1.01 (SD = 1.22), and 0.93 (SD =
1.22) children. 19% of the German group, 61% of the Italian
group, and 43% of the French group were married. The ma-
jority were living with their partners: 88%, 97%, and 89%,
respectively. With regard to their level of education, 68% of
the German group, 28% of the Italian group, and 73% of the
French group had earned a university degree.
Procedure
Participants were recruited both by newspaper advertise-
ments and by posters at universities in Switzerland and It-
aly. Individuals interested in the study were mailed a packet
of questionnaires together with instructions to complete the
forms and return the packet to the institute within 2 weeks.
In addition to providing demographic information, such as
age, gender, education, marital status, relationship dura-
tion, and number of children, participants completed the
measures described in the following.
Measures
Partnership Questionnaire
(Partnerschaftsfragebogen; Hahlweg, 1996)
This is a 30-item questionnaire consisting of the three sub-
scales Quarreling (e.g., “My partner criticizes me in a sar-
203
castic way”), Tenderness (e.g., “My partner is affectionate
toward me”), and Togetherness/Communication (e.g., “My
partner shares his/her thoughts and feelings with me”). The
rating scale ranges from never (0) to very often (3). These
subscales can be combined to create a total score with high
scores indicating high marital quality. The internal consis-
tencies as measured by Cronbach’s α were .90, .88, and .91
for the German, the Italian, and the French group.
Communication Patterns Questionnaire (CPQ)
The CPQ (Christensen & Sullaway, 1984; see also Chris-
tensen, 1988) is a 35-item questionnaire assessing commu-
nication behaviors at the beginning, during, and following
discussion of relationship problems. The patterns are mu-
tual avoidance (3 items), mutual constructive communica-
tion (4 items), and demand-withdraw, that is, one partner
attempts to engage in discussion, while the other attempts
to avoid discussion (6 items). The likelihood of these be-
haviors being exhibited was rated on a 9-point scale (1 =
very unlikely, 9 = very likely). The internal consistencies
(Cronbach’s α) for the German, Italian, and French groups
were .82, .84, and .79 for mutual constructive pattern, .69,
.72, and .64 for the mutual avoidance pattern, and .73, .72,
and .76 for the demand-withdraw pattern.
Results
Factor Structure
The theoretical structure proposed by Bodenmann was test-
ed by means of factor analyses with varimax rotation. Fac-
tors were extracted using principal components analysis
(PCA) and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Separate analyses
were conducted for the items measuring one’s own coping
behavior, the partner’s coping behavior, and joint coping.
The reason for conducting separate analyses is the perspec-
tive of the rater, which is different for one’s own, the part-
ner’s, and the joint dyadic coping. Table 1 presents the item
loadings for the postulated factors of one’s own and the
partner’s dyadic coping. As can be seen, the German
group’s data provide evidence for the postulated structure
with the factors stress communication, supportive dyadic
coping, negative dyadic coping, and delegated dyadic cop-
ing for both one’s own and the partner’s dyadic coping. For
the Italian and the French group, the proposed factors for
one’s own and the partner’s coping were able to be repli-
cated only after items 2 and 17 of the stress communication
scales were excluded. The items are: “I ask my partner to
do things for me when I have too much to do” and “My
partner asks me to do things for him/her when he has too
much to do,” respectively. This indicates that these two
items do not represent a distinct indicator of one’s own and
the partner’s stress communication in the Italian or French
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
204 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory

Table 1
Item loadings for subscales of the German, Italian, and French versions of the DCI
Stress communication Supportive DC Negative DC Delegated DC
Item German Italian French German Italian French German Italian French German Italian French
One’s own dyadic coping
1 .76 .76 .54 .24 .22 .34 –.14 –.10 –.17 .08 .04 .10
2 .76 – – .06 – – –.03 – – .04 – –
3 .81 .81 .69 .04 .12 .14 .00 .01 .12 –.01 .02 .13
4 .82 .86 .79 .15 .18 .11 –.11 .00 –.13 .06 .01 .03
20 .29 .27 .41 .54 .75 .72 –.46 –.21 –.13 .23 .15 .00
21 .34 .25 .47 .56 .71 .67 –.36 –.21 –.15 .19 .13 .04
23 –.04 –.01 –.14 .76 .78 .77 .16 .13 .04 .02 .02 .00
24 .24 .16 .10 .65 .79 .79 –.26 –.21 –.11 .26 .16 .02
29 .16 .25 .30 .72 .75 .69 –.07 –.01 .05 .19 .23 .27
22 –.07 –.03 –.30 .06 –.06 .13 .54 .62 .35 .02 .00 .25
25 –.03 .06 .19 .02 .13 –.02 .74 .67 .70 –.09 –.13 .05
26 –.01 .04 –.06 –.16 –.31 –.13 .65 .64 .73 .00 .04 .10
27 –.08 –.20 –.29 –.18 –.12 –.07 .74 .74 .70 –.09 .07 –.04
28 .04 –.03 .14 .15 .12 .12 –.04 .03 .08 .90 .90 .92
30 .08 .10 .07 .25 .34 .01 –.08 –.07 .07 .86 .79 .94
Partner’s dyadic coping
16 .77 .74 .73 .27 .24 .18 –.15 –.27 –.02 .14 .14 .17
17 .71 – – .07 – – .08 – – .00 – –
18 .83 .80 .84 –.02 .10 .08 –.02 .06 .04 .00 –.07 –.06
19 .84 .80 .86 .19 .23 .15 –.18 –.05 –.03 .10 .03 –.05
5 .23 .24 .30 .53 .77 .54 –.47 –.23 –.47 .38 .15 .22
6 .35 .34 .40 .54 .72 .52 –.37 –.15 –.32 .30 .09 .19
8 .05 .07 .03 .87 .83 .86 –.15 –.02 .02 .11 .13 –.06
9 .23 .15 .29 .67 .84 .71 –.37 –.19 –.26 .29 .09 .18
13 .15 .11 .12 .79 .79 .81 –.14 –.01 –.05 .20 .23 .20
7 .01 –.09 .01 .01 .00 .00 .71 .69 .64 –.06 .01 .06
10 –.01 –.10 .04 –.25 .06 .01 .77 .76 .67 –.12 –.13 –.05
11 –.03 .09 –.04 –.34 –.26 –.33 .63 .63 .58 –.15 –.03 –.08
15 –.15 –.11 –.03 –.20 –.36 –.10 .67 .68 .51 –.17 .10 .04
12 .02 .04 .05 .22 .13 .06 –.18 .04 .03 .87 .90 .91
14 .11 .00 .00 .26 .37 .23 –.21 –.12 –.02 .84 .80 .88
Note. DC = dyadic coping. Items 2 and 17 were excluded from the Italian and French versions of the DCI. The shaded areas denote the expected
factor structure.

group. In all three language groups, the loadings of the
items on the designated factors were all above .50 with the
exception of item 22 (i.e., “I blame my partner for not cop-
ing well enough with stress”), whose loading was .35 in the
French group. The cross-loadings were all below .40. The
explained variances for the German, Italian, and French
groups were 62.1%, 64.3%, and 61.8% for one’s own cop-
ing and 65.1%, 67.4%, and 62.1% for the partner’s coping,
respectively. The eigenvalues were 1.23, 1.08, and 1.13 for
one’s own coping and 1.14, 1.12, and 1.09 for the partner’s
coping. The results of the principal components analyses
also provided evidence for the factor joint dyadic coping.
The loadings of the items measuring this type of coping
(items 31 to 35) were .87, .87, .84, .49, and .35 for the
German, .85, .87, 85, .38, and .41 for the Italian, and .79,
.83, .80, .66, and .57 for the French group. The explained
variances were 51.5%, 50.2%, and 54.2%, respectively.
The eigenvalues for the joint dyadic coping factor were
2.57, 2.51, and 2.71. These findings provide evidence for
configural (form) invariance (Horn, McArdle, & Mason,
1983; see also Vandenberg & Lance, 2000) of the dyadic
coping scales across all three language groups. The stress
communication scales exhibit configural invariance only
across the Italian and the French groups, however.
On the basis of the PCA result, we conducted confirma-
tory factor analyses (CFA) using structural equation mod-

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 205

Table 2
Model fit and range of standardized factor loadings of the DCI subscales and the evaluation scales
Version χ² df p RMSEA CFI Range of
stand. loadings
Subscales scales
Stress communication by oneself G 15.50 2 .002 .156 .960 .56–.76
I – 0 – – – .65–.90
F – 0 – – – .51–.76
Stress communication by the partner G 27.35 2 < .001 .243 .929 .52–.90
I – 0 – – – .59–.79
F – 0 – – – .61–.91
Supportive DC by oneself G 42.40 5 < .001 .187 .864 .49–.80
I 12.87 5 .025 .065 .990 .58–.82
F 19.02 5 .002 .119 .960 .47–.84
Supportive DC by the partner G 33.94 5 < .001 .164 .923 .60–.82
I 91.20 5 < .001 .214 .992 .74–.86
F 50.08 5 < .001 .214 .889 .58–.83
Negative DC by oneself G 0.20 2 .905 < .001 1.00 .28–.71
I 0.01 2 .997 < .001 1.00 .45–.69
F 4.92 2 .085 .086 .946 .25–.57
Negative DC by the partner G 1.13 2 .569 < .001 1.00 .45–.75
I 9.48 2 .009 .100 .965 .51–.70
F 0.06 2 .970 < .001 1.00 .31–.43
Delegated DC by oneself G – 0 – – – .84–.89
I – 0 – – – .72–.80
F – 0 – – – .92–.87
Delegated DC by the partner G – 0 – – – .80–.85
I – 0 – – – .77–.79
F – 0 – – – .82–.84
Joint DC G 34.78 5 < .001 .166 .924 .16–.91
I 83.13 5 < .001 .204 .877 .17–.89
F 56.57 5 < .001 .229 .847 .35–.86
Evaluation of DC G – 0 – – – .85–.84
I – 0 – – – .89–.92
F – 0 – – – .90–.95
Note. df = degrees of freedom; stand = standardized. Factor loadings of models with a bad model fit are likely to be biased.

eling (SEM) techniques. In models with three or more in-
dicator variables, the loading of one indicator was set to
one, in models with two indicator variables, the loading of
both indicators were constrained to one. Models with three
or fewer indicators are saturated (i.e., just identified) and,
consequently, have zero degrees of freedom (df). The mod-
el fit and the range of the standardized factor loadings of
the dyadic coping subscales and the scales measuring eval-
uation of dyadic coping are presented in Table 2. In terms
of model fit and the convention that the indicators should
have standardized loadings of .70 or higher (e.g., Schu-
macker & Lomax, 2004), delegated dyadic coping by one-
self and the partner and evaluation of dyadic coping were
reasonable and reliable. All other scales were either incon-
sistent with the data or showed low loadings or both.
Reliabilities and Item Correlations
The reliabilities measured by Cronbach’s α and the correct-
ed item-total correlations of the subscales, the composite
scales, and the evaluation of dyadic coping are shown in
Table 3. The reliabilities of the subscales ranged for the
German, Italian, and the French groups from .61 to .86,
from .62 to .89, and from .50 to .89, respectively. Using the
conventional standard of .70 as the minimal acceptable lev-
el of reliability, we found reasonable reliabilities in the Ger-
man and Italian groups for all subscales with two excep-
tions: The negative dyadic coping scales in both language
groups and joint dyadic coping in the Italian group showed
borderline reliabilities ranging from .61 to .67. In the
French group, all subscales were reliable with the excep-

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
206 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory

Table 3
Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) and range of corrected item-total correlations for the German, Italian, and French groups
German Italian French
N = 216 N = 378 N = 198
Variable Rel. Item corr. Rel. Item corr. Rel. Item corr.
Subscales
Stress communication by oneself .80 .50–.68 .78 .57–.70 .64 .40–.51
Stress communication by the partner .82 .51–.73 .75 .51–.62 .78 .55–.71
Supportive DC by oneself .76 .46–.64 .86 .55–.74 .82 .46–71
Supportive DC by the partner .82 .55–.71 .89 .70–.79 .84 .55–.74
Negative DC by oneself .61 .23–.51 .62 .35–.49 .53 .20–.46
Negative DC by the partner .66 .38–.55 .67 .42–.53 .50 .23–.39
Delegated DC by oneself .86 .75 .73 .57 .89 .80
Delegated DC by the partner .81 .68 .76 .61 .81 .69
Joint DC .70 .27–.63 .68 31–.61 .76 .46–.60
Composite scales
DC total by oneself .77 .09–.60 .78 .14–.69 .69 .03–.62
DC total by the partner .83 .31–.75 .83 .25–.75 .78 .19–.68
DC total .91 .08–.69 .90 .08–.72 .90 .07–.70
Evaluation of DC .84 .72 .90 .82 .92 .86
Note. DC = dyadic coping; Rel. = reliability (Cronbach’s α); Item corr. = corrected item-total correlation.

Table 4
Means and standard deviations and results of the analysis of variance for the German, Italian, and French groups
German Italian French
Variable M SD M SD M SD F η2
Subscales
Stress communication by oneself 3.43 0.77 3.44 0.84 3.48 0.73 – –
Stress communication by the partner 3.44 0.79 3.59 0.77 3.27 0.86 –* –
Supportive DC by oneself 3.98 0.54 3.90 0.60 3.91 0.57 1.44 .003
Supportive DC by the partner 3.88 0.67 3.76 0.76 3.81 0.68 1.12 .005
Negative DC by oneself 1.49 0.50 1.35 0.48 1.36 0.42 8.19** .018
Negative DC by the partner 1.42 0.50 1.30 0.49 1.42 0.45 0.00 .015
Delegated DC by oneself 3.35 0.87 3.16 0.80 3.10 0.89 9.09** .013
Delegated DC by the partner 3.20 0.89 3.03 0.93 3.08 0.91 1.80 .006
Joint DC 3.46 0.64 3.28 0.63 3.58 0.70 3.17 .035
Composite scales
DC total by oneself 4.06 0.43 4.04 0.44 4.03 0.37 0.42 .001
DC total by the partner 4.01 0.51 3.97 0.53 3.96 0.48 1.21 .002
DC total 133.50 15.14 125.57 14.29 126.00 13.66 – –
Evaluation of DC 4.15 0.70 3.82 0.83 3.87 0.84 12.92*** .030
Note. DC = dyadic coping. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

tion of stress communication by oneself, which yielded a

borderline reliability of .64, and negative dyadic coping,
whose reliability was very low. The reliabilities for the
three composite scales were reasonable with the exception
of the borderline reliability for dyadic coping by oneself
total in the French group. There were reasonable reliabili-
ties for evaluation of dyadic coping across all three lan-
guage groups that ranged from .84 to .92.
Means and Standard Deviations and
Intercorrelations Among Subscales
Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for all
three language groups. Substantial group differences were
revealed for negative dyadic coping by oneself, delegated
dyadic coping by oneself, and evaluation of dyadic coping.

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 207

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
208 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory

In all three cases, the means were somewhat higher in the

Swiss German group. Furthermore, the means of the sub-
scales measuring negative dyadic coping were somewhat
lower than for the other subscales (Table 4).
Intercorrelations among the scales and subscales are giv-
en in Table 5. The direction and magnitude of the correla-
tions were largely as expected. Strong effects (≥ .50) across
all three language groups were found for the correlations
between dyadic coping by oneself and by the partner, be-
tween dyadic coping by the partner and joint dyadic cop-
ing, between dyadic coping by the partner and evaluation,
between supportive dyadic coping by oneself and the part-
ner, between negative dyadic coping by oneself and the
partner, between joint dyadic coping and supportive dyadic
coping by oneself and the partner, between evaluation and
supportive dyadic coping by the partner, and between eval-
uation and joint dyadic coping.
To examine differences in the correlations between
groups, we consider a difference of .20 (i.e., between a
small and a medium effect) or higher as substantial. Using
this criterion, which allows a sample size independent com-
parison, three substantial differences were revealed. First,
the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by oneself
and supportive dyadic coping by oneself was substantially
lower for the Italian group relative to the other two groups.
Second, the association between delegated dyadic coping
by the partner and supportive dyadic coping by oneself was
much stronger for the German group than for both the Ital-
ian and the French groups. Finally, the correlation between
delegated dyadic coping by the partner and supportive dy-
adic coping by the partner was substantially stronger for
the German group than for the other two groups. All other
group differences were smaller than .20.

Correlations with Other Constructs

In order to test aspects of construct validity, the dyadic cop-
ing scales were correlated with marital quality, measured
by the relationship questionnaire, and communication be-
haviors, assessed by the Communication Patterns Ques-
tionnaire (CPQ). The intercorrelations are depicted in Ta-
ble 6. As can be seen, stress communication by oneself and
by the partner were most strongly related to marital quality
and most weakly with CPQ demand-withdraw across all
three language samples. In the German and French group,
one’s own stress communication was a better predictor for
marital quality than the partner’s stress communication.
Among the dyadic coping subscales, the strongest correla-
tions with marital quality and CPQ avoidance and CPQ
constructive communication were found for both forms of
supportive and negative dyadic coping and joint dyadic
coping. Among them, supportive dyadic coping by oneself
was less correlated with CPQ demand-withdraw than the
other subscales. Delegated dyadic coping was generally
less associated with marital communication and CPQ com-
munication than stress communication and the other dyadic

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory 209

Table 6
Correlations of the dyadic coping scales with marital quality and marital communication patterns (CPQ)
Variable Version Marital quality CPQ avoidance CPQ constructive CPQ demand-withdraw
Subscales
Stress communication by oneself G 0.41*** –0.26*** 0.31*** –0.03
I 0.36*** –0.31*** 0.21*** –0.17**
F 0.50*** –0.33*** 0.23** –0.07
Stress communication by the partner G 0.31*** –0.31*** 0.27*** –0.15*
I 0.37*** –0.35*** 0.23*** –0.14**
F 0.26*** –0.15* 0.25*** –0.07
Supportive DC by oneself G 0.45*** –0.33*** 0.35*** –0.15*
I 0.46*** –0.38*** 0.27*** –0.24***
F 0.47*** –0.35*** 0.26*** –0.11
Supportive DC by the partner G 0.68*** –0.46*** 0.55*** –0.29***
I 0.64*** –0.48*** 0.40*** –0.30***
F 0.62*** –0.50*** 0.40*** –0.34***
Negative DC by oneself G –0.51*** 0.35*** –0.47*** 0.30***
I –0.38*** 0.34*** –0.26*** 0.27***
F –0.36*** 0.31*** –0.22** 0.30***
Negative DC by the partner G –0.60*** 0.48*** –0.47*** 0.38***
I –0.48*** 0.40*** –0.32*** 0.26***
F –0.35*** 0.35*** –0.30*** 0.32***
Delegated DC by oneself G 0.27*** –0.23*** 0.21** –0.13
I 0.13* –0.12* 0.06 –0.11*
F 0.08 –0.08 0.21** –0.05
Delegated DC by the partner G 0.36*** –0.19** 0.24*** –0.19**
I 0.31*** –0.19*** 0.15** –0.12*
F 0.33*** –0.26*** 0.29*** –0.19**
Joint DC G 0.54*** –0.52*** 0.56*** –0.34***
I 0.51*** –0.39*** 0.43*** –0.21***
F 0.67*** –0.56*** 0.52*** –0.41***
Composite scales
DC total by oneself G 0.57*** –0.42*** 0.48*** –0.26***
I 0.48*** –0.41*** 0.29*** –0.30***
F 0.51*** –0.41*** 0.36*** –0.22**
DC total by the partner G 0.74*** –0.51*** 0.58*** –0.37***
I 0.68*** –0.51*** 0.42*** –0.32***
F 0.64*** –0.53*** 0.46*** –0.40***
DC total G 0.71*** –0.55*** 0.60*** –0.32***
I 0.68*** –0.55*** 0.43*** –0.33***
F 0.70*** –0.55*** 0.50*** –0.35***
Evaluation of DC G 0.63*** –0.49*** 0.61*** –0.41***
I 0.63*** –0.51*** 0.42*** –0.32***
F 0.64*** –0.60*** 0.55*** –0.44***
Note. DC = dyadic coping; G = German, I = Italian, F = French. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
210 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory
coping measures. The three composite scales and evalua-
tion of dyadic coping were similarly correlated with martial
quality and the three CPQ scales.
Discussion
Along with introducing the Dyadic Coping Inventory
(DCI) and its theoretical background, the goals of this ar-
ticle were (1) to investigate the reliability and aspects of
the validity of the Italian and French versions of the DCI
and (2) to replicate previous results on the factor structure
and internal consistency of the German DCI using a new
Swiss sample. The results of the principal component anal-
yses based on 216 German-, 378 Italian-, and 198 French-
speaking participants support the proposed factor structure
of the inventory after excluding two items from the stress
communication scales in the Italian and French versions.
Confirmatory factor analyses showed that delegated dyadic
coping by oneself and the partner and evaluation of dyadic
coping were reasonable and reliable in terms of model fit
and factor loadings. With the exception of the subscales
measuring negative dyadic coping, the internal consisten-
cies of all scales and subscales were good and comparable
with previously reported results (Bodenmann, 2008;
Gmelch et al., 2008). The low reliabilities of the negative
dyadic coping scales may be due mainly to the fact that, in
all three samples, the means for negative dyadic coping
were low and that high scores (i.e., four or five) were rarely
reported by the participants. This is in accordance with ob-
servations made by Bodenmann (2000), who found that a
high score on negative dyadic coping is a good indicator of
low relationship quality. Moreover, in couples in stable re-
lationships, it is unlikely to observe a high mean on nega-
tive dyadic coping. In more diverse samples, both higher
means and internal consistencies have been found (Boden-
mann, 2008).
Intercorrelations among the DCI scales and subscales
were similar across all three languages groups with three
exceptions. The first exception was the correlation between
delegated dyadic coping by oneself and supportive dyadic
coping by oneself. The second exception was the associa-
tion between delegated dyadic coping by the partner and
supportive dyadic coping by oneself. The third exception
was the correlation between delegated dyadic coping by the
partner and supportive dyadic coping by the partner.
With regard to the association between the dyadic cop-
ing scales and marital functioning in the form of marital
quality and dyadic communication, the results were in line
with previous findings (e.g., Bodenmann, 2005, 2008) and
support the predictive validity of the DCI. Among the DCI
scales, associations between delegated dyadic coping and
marital communication were generally somewhat lower. In
sum, the findings provide evidence for the reliability and
aspects of validity of the DCI as well as for the consistent
factor structure of the DCI across the three language ver-
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
sions. Exceptions are French negative dyadic coping,
whose reliability was low, and stress communication,
whose factor structure is not configural invariant across the
three groups.
In contrast to instruments measuring social support (e.g.,
Winkeler & Klauer, 2003), the DCI focuses explicitly on
the support provided by the partner when a person feels
stressed. The instrument, which allows an assessment of
one’s own as well as the partner’s rating, can be employed
in psychological research, especially in the field of couples
and family research but also in social, personality, and clin-
ical psychology. Moreover, it can be used to assess the
quality of dyadic coping in a person or a couple by com-
puting an idiographic profile for each person (see Boden-
mann, 2008). When collecting data from dyads, there are
three generic data-analytic models that take into account
the nonindependence of such data (see, e.g., Kenny, 1996).
The models are called the actor-partner interdependence
model (APIM), the common fate model (CFM), and the
mutual influence model (MIM). All dyadic coping scales
are suitable for use in an APIM or a MIM. For example, a
researcher may employ the APIM to test the influence of a
wife’s stress communication on her own positive dyadic
coping (actor effect) and on her partner’s positive dyadic
coping (partner effect). Using the MIM, the wife’s and hus-
band’s stress communication could be implemented as in-
dependent variables, with delegated coping as a dependent
variable to assess the reciprocal effects between wife’s and
husband’s delegated coping. The CFM (e.g., Griffin &
Gonzalez, 1995; Kenny, 1996) is theoretically limited to
variables representing dyadic constructs whose focus is on
the dyad rather than the individual (see Ledermann & Ma-
cho, 2009). Among the dyadic coping scales, the variable
joint dyadic coping is particularly suitable for being mod-
eled as a common fate factor with wife’s and husband’s
self-rated joint dyadic coping as indicator variables (con-
sidering that joint dyadic coping as a person’s individual
attitude toward the dyadic construct joint dyadic coping
can also be used in an APIM). The selection of the scales
and the data-analytic model along with the setup of the
model should be guided by the hypotheses to be tested.
The generalizability of the presented results, however,
must be qualified by several limitations. A first limitation
is that the samples were not representative, so that the re-
ported means should not have been used as norm values to
compare the means of other studies with the sample means
of this study. A second limitation is that only individual
data were gathered, which do not allow us to analyze cor-
relations between partners. A third limitation concerns the
use of self-report data in testing aspects of validity. It is
possible, however, that data may be biased by self-evalua-
tion of dyadic coping and marital quality or communica-
tion. Thus, observational data would be needed to control
for this effect. Finally, we are also aware that further re-
search is needed in Italian and French samples to yield in-
formation about different types of validity (convergent, di-
vergent, criterion, and prognostic validity). These types of
 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory
validity were deemed adequate for the German version of
the DCI (Bodenmann, 2008). As mentioned above, in order
to reduce complexity, we did not conduct separate factor
analyses separately for men and women in this paper as
three language groups were examined. However, it is evi-
dent that such analyses should be done before the DCI is
published in the form of a test manual in French or Italian.
Such data are available for the German version of the DCI
(Bodenmann, 2008).
Despite these limitations, we believe that the Dyadic
Coping Inventory (DCI) could be a valuable instrument for
couples’ research and clinical practice. Along with the Re-
lationship-Focused Coping Scale (RFCS) by Coyne and
Smith (1991), the DCI is one of the only scales that mea-
sures dyadic coping in couples. The DCI might be especial-
ly useful for gaining a better understanding of couples’ cop-
ing behaviors in relationship research.
Authors’ Note
The items along with the instructions for the Dyadic Cop-
ing Inventory in English, Italian, and French can be ordered
from Guy Bodenmann (guy.bodenmann@psycholo-
gie.uzh.ch). The German version is available from Verlag
Hans Huber.
References
Barbee, A. P. (1990). Interactive coping: The cheering-up process
in close relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships
and social support (pp. 46–65). London, UK: Sage.
Berg, C. A., Meegan, S. P., & Deviney, F. P. (1998). A social contex-
tual model of coping with everyday problems across the life span.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 239–261.
Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional view of stress and
coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 34–49.
Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping – a systemic-transactional
view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empir-
ical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47,
137–140.
Bodenmann, G. (2000). Stress und Coping bei Paaren [Stress and
coping in couples]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for
marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Boden-
mann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspec-
tives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual
[Dyadic Coping Inventory: Test manual]. Bern, Switzerland:
Huber.
Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping among
stable-satisfied, stable-distressed and separated/divorced
Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Jour-
nal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 71–89.
Bodenmann, G., & Perrez, M. (1991). Dyadisches Coping: Eine
systemische Betrachtungsweise der Belastungsbewältigung in
211
Partnerschaften [Dyadic coping: A systemic perspective on
coping in couples]. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 3, 4–25.
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress,
sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14,
551–569.
Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship
between dyadic coping, marital quality, and well-being: A two
year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20,
485–493.
Buchwald, P., Schwarzer, C., & Hobfoll, S. E. (Eds.). (2004).
Stress gemeinsam bewältigen: Ressourcenmanagement und
multiaxiales Coping [Coping with stress together: Resource
management and multiaxial coping]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in cou-
ples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on
marital interaction (pp. 31–52). Philadelphia, PA: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication patterns
questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles, CA:
University of California.
Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1991). Couples coping with a myo-
cardial infarction: A contextual perspective on wives’ distress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 404–412.
Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1994). Couples coping with myo-
cardial infarction: Contextual perspective on patient self-effi-
cacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 1–13.
Coyne, J. C., Ellard, J. H., & Smith, D. A. (1990). Unsupportive
relationships, interdependence, and unhelpful exchanges. In
I. G. Sarason, B. R. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.), Social sup-
port: An interactional view (pp. 129–149). New York: Wiley.
Cutrona, C. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a re-
source in times of stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeLongis, A., & O’Brien, T. (1990). An interpersonal framework
for stress and coping: An application to the families of Alz-
heimer’s patients. In M. A. P. Stephens, J. H. Crowther, S. E.
Hobfoll, & D. L. Tennenbaum (Eds.), Stress and coping in la-
ter-life families (pp. 221–240). New York: Hemisphere.
Gmelch, S., Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Ledermann, T., Stef-
fen-Sozinova, O., & Striegl, K. (2008). Dyadisches Coping
Inventar (DCI): Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung des partner-
schaftlichen Umgangs mit Stress [Dyadic Coping Inventory
(DCI): A questionnaire assessing dyadic coping in couples].
Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 20, 185–203.
Griffin, D. W., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of
dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bul-
letin, 118, 430–445.
Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik
(FPD) [Partnership questionnaire]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community. New York:
Plenum.
Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., & Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance
not invariant: A practical scientist’s look at the ethereal concept
of factor invariance. Southern Psychologist, 4, 179–188.
Kayser, K., Sormanti, M., & Strainchamps, E. (1999). Women
coping with cancer: The influence of relationship factors on
psychosocial adjustment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23,
725–739.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic
research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13,
279–294.
Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
 212 T. Ledermann et al.: Dyadic Coping Inventory

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping pro-
cess. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and cop-
ing. New York: Springer.
Ledermann, T., & Macho, S. (2009). Mediation in dyadic data at
the level of the dyads: A structural equation modeling ap-
proach. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 661–670.
Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2007). The efficacy
of the Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) in im-
proving relationship quality. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 26, 940–959.
Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C.
(1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 15, 579–605.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.
Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on
close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychol-
ogy Review, 29, 105–115.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to
structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis
of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practic-
es, and recommendations for organizational research. Organi-
zational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
Widmer, K., & Bodenmann, G. (2000). Alltagsstress, Coping und
Befindlichkeit: Paare im Geschlechtervergleich [Everyday
stress, coping and well-being in couples: An analysis of gender
differences]. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, 9,
17–26.
Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1992). Impact of desired re-
lationship type on affective reactions to choosing and being
required to help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
18, 10–18.
Winkeler, M., & Klauer, T. (2003). Inventar zur sozialen Unter-
stützung in Dyaden (ISU-DYA): Konstruktionshintergrund
und erste Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Validität [Inventory
of social support in dyads: Construction and initial results on
reliability and validity]. Diagnostica, 49, 12–23.
Thomas Ledermann
Department of Psychology
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269-1020
USA
thomas.ledermann@uconn.edu

Appendix A

Table 1A
The DCI scales and subscales and their construction
Scale No. of items Items
Stress communication by oneselfa 4/3 1, (2), 3, 4
Stress communication by the partnera 4/3 16, (17), 18, 19
Supportive DC by oneself 4 20, 21, 23, 24, 29
Supportive DC by the partner 4 5, 6, 8, 9, 13
Delegated DC by oneself 2 28, 30
Delegated DC by the partner 2 12, 14
Negative DC by oneself 4 22, 25 to 27
Negative DC by the partner 4 7, 10, 11, 15
Joint DC 5 31 to 35
Evaluation of the quality of DC 2 36, 37
DC total by oneself 11 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 22r, 25r, 26r, 27r, 28, 30
DC total by the partnera 11 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 7r, 10r, 11r, 15r, 12, 14
DC total 35/33 1, (2), 3, 4, 16, (17), 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29,
22r, 25r, 26r, 27r, 28, 30, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 7r, 10r,
11r, 15r, 12, 14, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Note. DC = dyadic coping. aItalian and French versions without Item 2 and 17. r = reverse-scored (i.e., 1 = 5; 2 = 4; 4 = 2; 5 = 1).

Swiss J. Psychol. 69 (4) © 2010 Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

View publication stats