This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The GRIMS.A psychometric instrument for the assessment of marital discord
John Rust," Ian Bennun,? Michael Crowe: and S u s a n Golombokg
Research in marital therapy has been disadvantaged lackof a good, by the short and recent psychometric questionnaire to objectivelythe state assess of a marriage for research, demographic and clinical purposes. The Golombok Rust Inventory ofMarital State (GRIMS) companion questionnaire to is a the Golombok Rust Inventory ofsexual Satisfaction (GRISS), and concentrates on aspects other than the sexualdyadic relationship between two a in d u l t s living together. It isaitem psychometrically constructed inventory 28 designed to produce a single scale along which changes in a marriage may develop as marital therapy progresses. It has been shown to be valid for this purpose, and to have a good reliability.
Many existing marital or relationship questionnaires tend to be rather long and depend on particular theoretical perspectives. However within marriage guidance as a wider community there is a mine of practical experience which has generated its own values and expectations about treatment and outcome, to some extent independently of any specific theoretical stance. T h e Golombok Rust Inventory of Marital State ( G R I M S ) has been constructed to give a short and easy to administer questionnaire to assess the stateof a marriage and to identify the extent of any discord. It may be used for research purposes in any marital or relationship clinic. It is hoped that it will enable even small establishments to develop research on thebasis of their clinical activity. Of the existing marital relationship and questionnaires, the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (Locke and Wallace, 1957) was one ofthe earliest instruments developedisand somewhat dated now in conceptualization. The Spouse Observation Check List (Weiss and Margolin, 1977) comprises four hundred items and is therefore tedious to complete. Other scales used in the assessment of marital satisfaction
_ _ _ _ __
~ ~~ ~
Accepted version received December 1988. * Department of Psychology,University of London,Institute Woburn Square, London WClH OAA, U.K. t Department of Psychology, Exeter University, U.K. Department of Psychiatry, Maudley Hospital, London, U.K. 8 Department of Psychology, City University, London, U.K.
of Education, 25
0163-4445/90/010045+ 13 $03.00/0
1982). 1983) and the Marital Pre-Counselling Inventory (Stuart and Stuart. Arrindell and Schaap. ‘The test specification ofthe GRIMS is based on the common aspectsof the expertise of practitioners.bothmaritaltherapistsandtheir clients werr used in clarifying spccific areas ofdistrcss. bt’idesprrad consultations among a range of practising counsellors. T h e GRIMS is a questionnaire the assessment ofthe overall quality for of a couple’s relationship. large number ofitems under A this specification have been reduced. the Areas of Change Questionnaire (Weiss. Construction Test specijication T o generatethe test specification. have their own ideas and theories. However. of course. conceptually and thenpsychofirst metrically. and Holland has been the Maudsley Marital Questionnaire (Crowe. There are many differrnt ideas andtheories about the ideal marriage. Many of these people will. Rust et al. The domain of itcmsinthe GRIMS particularly addresses those areas in which a marital therapist would hopeto see change during therapy.theMaritalSatisfaction Inventory (Snyder. 1985) it still raises doubts concerning the comprehensiveness and specificity of its original development.1976). Yet while this scale hassuccessful in both nine been and 20itemversions at demonstrating reliability and Lralidity (‘4rrinde11. while receiving some subsequent validity and reliability estimations. 1978). include the Marital Communication Inventory (Bienvenu.46 3. andclientshaveprovidedthe test specification. 1978). Somethese instruments were developedto of be consistent with a theoretical perspective ofmarital satisfaction andas suchhave a restricteddefinition of marital adjustment/satisfaction. Hops and Patterson.scale a A used in the U. to yield a short efficient scale. counsellors and clients in thefield. have not generally been psychometrically constructed and consequently tend to contain large number ofredundant items. 1983. While in the construction of the GRIMS a deliberate attempt has been made to avoid any of these thcoretical preconceptions.which reflects the practical situations encountrred by them. ideas about good or bad relationship cannot a exist in an ideological vacuum. Fifteen therapists . The DyadicAdjustmentScale(Spanier.K. in spite this many ideas and treatment of procedures appear again and again under different labels and theories. These scales. 1972). The test specification of the GRIlMS is therefore a functionalone. but taken as a whole they will also have common observations and priorities based on their often considerable experience. and represent a folk psychological underpinning of marital treatment.
cleanliness. 1985)where 57 couples werespecifically requested to identify their targets change. friends etc. (v) roles expectations and goals. nagging. These includedissues related to ( punctuality and reliability. Communication problems included not just a lack of communication but also what was said and how it was expressed. politics. insight into. (iv) trust and respect. Household/domestic problems generally concerned the family home.go/. responsibility financial matters and sharing for tasks.(iii) warmth.Moving from a life as a single person into a twoperson and later three person-relationship requires that each individual maintain a boundary to some degree that enables them to have some autonomy and a continuing capacity individuation. and (vii) coping with problems and crises. Targets reported included for the request that their partner alter specific behaviours or habits that were felt to be irritating or unpleasant19% :I. Other problems for that were raised included sexual problems. love and hostility. and understanding ofthe nature of dyadic relationships. especially among young couples.These two latter areas of conflict show that often marital/relationship problems arise when a third person influences the stability of the dyad. problems related to child care (7.(ii)communication. Couples who described communication difficulties often experienced problems in communicating about specific topics (e.was related to dependence-independence conflicts (5. Axis onespecified areas of (i) interests shared (work. (i) beliefs about. Another problem area that was apparent. one and partner presenting with a psychological disorder that adversely affected the marriage.0Y0). jealousy. Information from clients was obtained in the context of a marital therapy study (Bennun. (vi) decision-making. reviewed and structured to produce a two dimensional test specification. violence. finance). Axis two specified areas in which the content of axis one may become manifest.)and household/domestic problems ( 1 1. decision-making ( 1 1 . attitudes (iii) and feelings about relationships.7%) and relationships with extended family members (6. financial and work related problems.g. and .) and degree ofdependence andindependence. behaviour (ii) within actual the relationship. feeling excluded (by the other’s interests). (iv) motivation for change. understanding the possibility of change. sex. T h e three next most frequent problems included difficulties caring for eachotherandshowing affection inanon-sexualway (8. Three separate areas often raisedincludedcommunicationproblems ( 1 1.2%).T h e GRIMS: the assessment o f marital discord 47 were asked to identify (1) areas which they believed to be important in marital harmony and ( 2 ) theareastheywould assess during initial interviews. tidiness and the like.verbalandnon-verbal. g % ) .0%). The views of the clients and therapists were collated.1Yo).
T h a t is. Item analysis Preliminary item screening the data eliminated all items which had a of difficulty value of greater than 0.but also allowed for strength of feeling to affect scores where views were strongly held. disagree or strongly disagree. it would be possible to extract a main scale and a series of sub-scales .20 for either men or women. givinga total numberof 358 and (e) the superiority techof the nique over other item analysis procedures.It had been hoped that. (c) the of parallel selection techniques.Furtheritems were excludedwherethenumber ofnon-responsesexceeded 1%. ( d ) confirmatory replication subsequent on samples. The pilotversion Between three and six items were constructed for each cell of the test specification. The items were thus forced choice(there was no‘don’tknow’category). thereare invariably some items within a pilot version which they find impossible to answer due to non-applicability or other special reasons.48 3. items to whichless than 20% either agreed or disagreed (whetherstronglyorotherwise)wereexcluded. use items only being selected when they behaved in the same way in two separate samples (this aspect in fact making the technique much more powerful than that which would be obtained through merely increasing the sample size itself). T h e pilot factor analysis was carried out for the men ( n = 60) and women ( n = 6 0 ) separately. Items were prepared as statements to which the respondent was asked to strongly agree. generating 183 items which were reduced to 100 when overlap was eliminated. (v) extent couple. Six lie items were also included. The remaining 58 item were factor analysed using principal factoring.80 or less than 0.e use offactor analytic Th techniques on relatively small samples was justified on the grounds ) of ( a the difficultyof obtaining subjects of this type. While clients were strongly urged to answer all the items. as with the GRISS. of agreement within the commitment to a future together. T h e pilot versionof the test was administered to both partners 60 client in couples (representing 120 individuals) marital from therapy and marriage guidance clinics in the United Kingdom. (b) the replication the of analysis on different samples. Items were sought which could meaningfully be answered by either sex. agree. Rust et al. Apart from some differentiating items the overall results were similar.
Criteria ( a ) (9 ensured content validity and eliminated duplication. motivations and coping strategies. etc. ( d ) similarity of item behaviour in men and women. The resultant scale 28 items and is scored has it in such a way that a high score represents a problematic relationship. the traditional marriage.2%. (c) balance ofitems to which more than agreed. did occasionally emerge. for For men. These were further reduced to six major criteria balance (a) across the original test specification. violence.<L1e structure. outside relationships. five. and low correlation with ‘lie’ items. Re-analyses the first four. six and seven of factor solutions with oblique rotations were carried out to identifysigns of stability. seemed that. althoughthese various elements It are important to the quality of a marriage. feelings.g.1 YOand for 2. Criteriaenabled (d) thedevelopment of an identical scale for menandwomenwhich simplifies administration. 3. (e)size of loading on the general factor. T h e low communality of subsequent factors at this stage was an indicationof a unidimensional scale. Directions of causality can point in either direction. combined and separately. may I n spite of this. the large general factor indicates that from this pool of interacting situations. T h e factor structure of this scale was replicated on subsequent samples . four subsequent factors accounted 7. there does arise a strong and measureable single scale of marital quality. Factor identification by inspection of both the male and female items identifiedfactoroneasageneralmaritaldiscordfactorwithsome relation to a second factor which had an increased emphasis on sexuality and lie items. Elimination of items with low communalities on first a five and then a three factor solution reduced the 58 items to 42. These analyses looked a t men and women.6% of the variance respectively. (c) and (Qreduced bias. 4. (b)balance of positive and negative items avoid to acquiescence. Factors other than the proved to be unstable under first these conditions. while criterion (e) achieved the aim ofclassical item analysis in selecting items with good discrimination. criteria (b).sex problems. O n this basis a unidimensional scale for marital discord was targeted and no attempt was made to build any sub-sc. to reduce social desirability bias. with a similar pattern for women. the interactions across and between possible sub-categorizations are so strong that they cannot on their own generate unidimensional scales. with 50% items to which less than 50% agreed. however steps were taken to at least attempt to identify a sub-scale structure as this can be informative in certain circumstances. although factors which could be named e.6%. jealousy.T h e GRIMS: the assessment o marital discord f 49 whichcouldprovide a profile analysis. and non-linear relationships well abound. T h e factorstructureclearly suggested a main factor which accounted about 20%of the variance.
. and that they were attending the clinic to . and the female GRIMS mean 35.02). Rust and Pickard. and for the female scale 29%. sexual and marital counselling clinics throughout England. 42 of themenintheclinicalgroup(51 % ) were dissatisfied with their relationship. Standardization T h e 28-item G R I M S was standardized using two groups: (i) a sample of attenders at a General Practitioners clinic in central London [30 men and 48 women (Rust. 1984). itself However only eight the clinical women considered that they very of were satisfied with relationship. their A further explanation for this discrepancy may be that these men considered that it was only their partner who had a problem. In the pilot study the majority of the subjectscamefrommarriageguidancecouncilandmaritaltherapy referrals. It may be that some of these men were presenting primarily with sexual problems and were making the point that the relationship (sex apart) was satisfactory.37 (s.= 10. including sexual problems.03) and the mean female GRIMS = score was 27.26 (Rust et al. A closer investigation of particularitemscontainingsubstantive information showed that (31 %) ofthe clinical couples considered they 19 were on the vergeof separation. Further.= 10. These are both significantly lower than for the those pilot clinical sample.99).03).37). and found to be stable.d.21 (s. Golombok and Pickard. The itemscale correlations (with the scale adjusted for each item) for both the pilot and the standardization studies are given in Table1. However there were somedifferences in sampling between the two populations.d. For the standardization clinical sample the male GRIMS mean was 30.50 J . The general practitioner group was used as an approximation to general population data (Golombok. Rust et al.d.d. The apparently anomalous groupof 27 clinical men who were very satisfied with their relationship (33%) accounted for the relatively low GRIMS mean of the clinical group. and (ii) 80 couples presented as clients at marriage guidance clinics.51 (s. For the male scale the factor accounted for first 33% of the variance. while in the standardization group there was a much larger number of couples referred for general relationship therapy. For the general practitioner group (GP) the mean GRIMS male score was 28. while only two (7%) of the GP group. For the 60 couples (120 subjects) in the pilot sample the mean R I M S G scoreformenwas37. while only two of the GP men were dissatisfied ( 7 % ) .= 13.d.andforwomen41. did so.76 (s.54[s.d. 1987)]. 1986)l. 9.12 (s.= 11.= 10.
53 M 30 F 0.63 0.60 0.5 1 0.28 0.17 0.67 0.57 0.15 0.13 0.44 0.46 0.50 0.56 0.39 0.48 0. The correlations between each item and the 1.58 0.56 0.35 0.45 0.44 0.5 1 0.19 0.45 0.14 0.34 0.33 0.74 0.35 0.44 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0.45 0.40 0.53 0.61 0.43 0.58 0.38 0.00 0.35 0.42 0.48 0.6 I 0.58 0.64 0.74 0.52 0.47 0.24 0.63 0.6 1 0.58 0.14 0.64 0.54 0.70 0.25 0.41 0.49 0.56 0.61 0.44 0.44 0.57 0.64 0.36 0.32 0.45 M 82 F 48 0. f total G R I M S scale adjustedf o r that itemf o r men and women in the pilot and standardization clinical groups and in the General Practitioner (GP) group Pilot group Sample Sex Standardization group Clinical F Clinical M 60 GP 60 n Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80 0.60 0.60 0.54 0.43 0.53 0.60 0.06 0.32 0.39 0.55 0.13 0.60 0.68 0.57 0.52 0.52 0.63 0.37 0.45 0.54 0.66 0.43 0.41 0.54 0.31 0.28 0.51 0.64 0.45 0.65 0.5 1 0.68 0.52 0.17 0.06 0.42 0.51 0.67 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.37 0.56 0.54 0.29 0.44 0.60 0.57 0.47 0.67 0.39 0.50 0.26 0.64 0.26 0.66 0.41 0.42 0.56 0.52 0.53 0.39 0.34 0.74 0.23 0.62 0.33 0.46 0.35 0.42 0.44 0.2 1 0.42 0.48 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.58 0.57 0.20 0.3 1 0.53 0.72 0.73 0.39 0.57 0.38 0.3 1 0.46 0.65 .43 0.52 0.44 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.7 1 0.30 0.67 0.T h e GRIMS: the assessment o f marital discord 51 TABLE Item analysis o the GRIMS.35 0.59 0.27 0.
and 0. Thus. Transformation of scores indicating a was to pseudo-stanine scores (from 1 to 9 with higher worse relationship) and the transformation table given in the GRIMS is Handbook (Rust et al.91 ( n = 132) for men. 1988). Reliability Split-halfreliabilities and Cronbach alpha coefficients were obtained for men and women separately for the construction group and for both standardization groups (see Table 2). Scale points 7 (bad) and(poor) 6 represent and mild moderate relationship problems respectively. These are therefore the same for men and women. Rust et al. Differences between male and female rawscores were not sufficiently large to justify separate transformations. While factors mitigated these have against a significant mean difference between and clinical groups the men. T h e figures for the construction group will however be upwardly biased as they are not independent of sclection criteria.87 ( n = 128) for women. . and reduced it GP for for women. For women. 1986). provide support and to aid the therapist.52 J .. GP A combination of norm referencing and criterion referencing yielded a transformed GRILMS scale which was able to give a good indication of the existence and severity any relationship problem. This interpretation receives support from the literature (Lamb. Scores of 4 (above average). Scores of 9 (very severe problems) and 8 (severe problems) will only be found where a relationship is in serious difficulty. through 3 (good) to 2 (very good) represent varying degrees of above average relationships. transformed score of5 (average) A represents a normal relationship just slightlyworse than average in the population at large. compared with one (3%) in the GP group. and one (4%) in the group. Transformed GRIMS scores of 1 should be treatedcautiously. men in the clinical group 23 (2 1 %) have aG R I M S score ofgreater than 40. T h e respondents are either being untruthful or are such a tender stageof at the relationship that predictionof its future course would be invalid on the basis of their responses alone. the raw GRIMS scores show much larger proportions ofpersons with high scores in the clinical group. I n both standardization groups taken together the split-halfreliability was 0. the comparative figures were 26 (23%) in the clinical group.
39. = 10.86 0.87 GP M 30 M 60 F 48 0.40. and its high face validity has been incorporated into the item selection. = 12. nine were diagnosed having a sexual rather than a marital as problem. and another 15 as having a strong sexual element to their marital problem.01.37.89 0.0003). n = 24.d.37.13.86 0. I n the standardization study there no significant was difference in ages between theGP group (mean age34.d.97 years.0028 for the difference between these means. As expec’ted.d.The GRIMS: the assessment o marital discord f TABLE Split-half reliabilities and Cronbach alpha f o r the subject groups 2. s. = 10. those with problems which were predominantly sexual in nature had significantly lower scores on the GRIMS.85 0.5 1 (s. Therapists were asked to make this diagnosis for the sample on the basis of their clinical interviews.d. s.and27.23 and 30.93 0. and 35. For men these three groups had GRIMS means of 40. 13. Initial evidence of diagnostic validity was obtained within the pilot group. n = 80) in the clinical group.94 reliability Cronbach’s Pilot Clinical Standardization Clinical F M F 80 0. n = 48) in theGP group. Forwomeninthe standardization groups.1 1 respectively ( P < 0.81 0. 53 Sample Nature Sex n60 Split-half 0. where use was made of the fact that many couples at marital clinics were present primarily with sexual problems and with marriages which were otherwise satisfactory.89 0.87 for the marital problems group. with somemissing age data).mean the GRIMS scores were 27. n = 29) and = = the clinical group (mean age= 36.02.21 (s.89 for thesexualproblemsonlygroup. For women the GRIMS means were 45. 32. The for the difference between womens’ I M S t-test GR .92 0.91 Validity Content validity of the scale is high with respect to specification. Analysisof variance gave a significance of 0.54 the sexual complications for group. the t-valuebeing 0. Of the 60 couples.33 years.89 0.
000 1 ) .0001level. Cochran’s C test for non-homogeneity of variance was significant at the 0.=13.03. scores in these groups was significant at the 0. group means GRIMS for the were 28. 19 men in the clinical group (32%) agree to this item.93).48) before therapy to 36. This improvement was also statistically significant at the 0.=9. = 10. Thus the for item 26: ‘I suspect we are on the brinkof separation’. = 16. This demonstrated quite clearly when the men in the is marital therapy group are subdivided on basis of critical items. n = 84) in the clinical group. The GRIMS scores for the male and female partner were averaged for eachcouple.10). ‘ S h o t improvedatall’ to ‘4-got worse’.= 14.44).d. = 12.d. were asked to rate the couple on a five-point scale ranging from ‘O-improved a great through deal’ ‘l-improved moderately’. who were blind to the G R I M S results. Rust et al.52 (s. givinga correlation coefficient of 0.67 (s.d. This . ‘Ihis a G R I M S change score was correlatedwiththetherapist’sratings of change.29 (s.03. to give aG R I M S score for change during therapy (a large negative score representing large improvement). but a group ofcouples a who are sufficiently concerned about specific factors in their relationships toseek help.54 J .77 ( n = 24. For the women the initial G R I M S score was 52. and 30.60) after therapy. The average overall change resulting from therapy for men and women together was 13.d.00001level ( t = 4. The therapists. n = 3 0 ) inthe GP group. difference between these means was not The significant ( t = 0. Evidenceofthevalidity of the GRIMS in assessing change was obtained.d.Itmustberememberedthat these couples are not random sample ofbad marriages.001 level ( t = 4.ThisaverageGRIMS score from before therapy was subtractedfromtheaverageGRIMS score following therapy. orat the fifth session. For the men.001 level ( t = 5. P< 0. However this result considerable needs qualification. For the men in the standardization study.93(s.23 GRIMS raw scale points. while in the GP grouponly two ( 7 % ) of the men agree. The explanationalmostcertainly lies inthediversenature of couples presenting for maritaltherapy.d.24) and following therapy it was39. ‘2-slightly improved’. A rating of the validityof the GRIMSas a n estimator of change was obtained from 24 clinical couples who received marital therapy and completed the GRIMS before therapy began and again after the fifth session (or the final session if earlier).01 level.64). and a Multivariate t-test between the 28 G R I M S items in the two groups was significant a t the 0. the GRIMS score changed from 50.76(s.37 (s.09). The improvement was statistically significant at the 0.
The extent ofthe communality is indicated by the correlation between the partners scores which. n = 73). Golombok and Rust. 1986)] which is in use in sex therapy and research. differences between them would be expected. although it does include expression ofwarmth and affection.000 1. The ofthis correlationis a good indicasize tion ofthe power ofthe test.53( P <0. The GRIMS can provide framework a useful for this venture by giving an objective and standardized view of the severity of the couple’s problem. This makes it quick and uncomplicated for the client. T h e G R I M Sis a companion test to the Golombok Rust Inventoryof Sexual Satisfaction [GRISS (Rust and Golombok. of course. Discussion Oneadvantage of theGRIMSoverothermaritalorrelationship questionnaires is its simplicity ofadministration. The scores of both partners can be seen as representing some common and some specific variance. 1985a and 6. or of the effectiveness of therapy. h e client has to answer T 28 questions on one side of paper within a standardized format. This lack of overlap means that with the GRISS and GRIMS together possible is it to pinpoint a relationship problem as either marital or sexual and to adjusttherapyaccordingly(Rust et al. while a quick previewthe therapist by of the client’s respone to the individual G R I M S questions can identify useful avenues to explore and save valuable clinical time.T h e GRIMS: the assessment o marital discord f 55 provides firm evidencefor the validityof change in the GRIMS score as an estimate of change in the quality of the relationship.. Within the standardization study the correlation between male and female partner’s scores was 0. so that the therapist whenfirst seeing the clients need to probe particular will issues and underlying dilemmas. always particularly complex and each couple’sproblems will have a uniqueaspect. The marital relationship itself is. 1988. While the scores of both the male and female partners are indicators of the state of the relationship itself. The carbonized selfscoring sheet enables the therapist to obtain the result within 2 minutes.73 (representing a common variance of 50%). 1988). for the pilot study was 0.particularlywhenone of thepartners is doubtful of the viability of relationship while the otheris keen on its continuation. and is ofsuch a size as to give some confidence in predicting the stateof a relationship from one of the partners alone. T h e G R I M S primarily applicable to married or unmarried heterois . For reason the GRIMS this asks no questions directly about the sexual side of the relationship.
M .56 J . A .3( l ) : 25-31. (1986) The Go[ombok Ru. CROIVF.J.. (1988) S. NFER-Nelson. BIENVENL. H. . P. J. M S.1(1):34-40.I. and S(:HAAIJ. . NFER-Nelson. Family Life. and PI(:KARD. \Viley. RUST. (1978) Conjoint marital therapy:a controlled outcome study. J between DSM-III(R) and the GRISS. G .British Journal OfClinical I'. New York. o Marital State ( C R I M S ) (Te. (1985) l h e MaudsleyMaritalQuestionnaire W . RL'ST.ycholoLU. ( 1986) The Father's Rok: ilpplied Per-spertiuu. BENNUN. A. C. J . (1978) A Councellor's Guide to Accompany a Marital Communication Inzrenlory. O l l B O K .AC:E. M.. H. S. GOLOXIBOK..AXII'. References ARRINUELI. ( 1 987) Llarital problems General Practice. GOLO~IBOK.. Sexual andMarita1 Therapy.. 8 623-636. Rr-Sl. BENNUN. GOLOMBOK. K. and \VAI. (1985. .mnali[y and Questionnaire(MMQ):afurther step towards validation. to couples who are temporarily separated for other reasons so long as either one identifies the other as a primary partner.and C. . It is further applicable to such couples who are separated work or similar reasons on a temporary and for basis. (1985) Prediction and responsiveness in behavioural marital therapy. (1988) The Golornbok Rust Inoentorq' RUST.S.tl and Handbook). A . and L m w R r . S. Xlarital problems sexual and dysfunction: how are they related? British Journal o f P y c h i n t v . CKO\\. although no standardization data is available yet for these groups. (19856) l h e GRISS: A psychometric instrument for the S. O M B O K . It may be used to some degree within multiple relationships or homosexual relationships. Marriage and Family Lioing. and GOLOMBOK. S. Sexual and Marilal Therapy.ychiatv. British Journal qf'Sexua1 Medicine. (1988)Diagnosis of sexualdysfunction:Relationships S. f Rusl'. 147: 295-299. (1984)Sexualproblemsencountered C. ARRINDEIL. Behaoiourial Pvchotherapy. Windsor. psychometric ("Q: evaluations ofself properties of the Maudsley Marital Questionnaire ratings in distressed and 'normal' volunteer couples based on the Dutch version. L O C K E . PICKARI). I. Personality and I n d i r i d u a l U z f f e n c e s4: 293-306. RUST. (1957) Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: their reliability and validity.J . BOEIXNS. 13: 186-20 1. and BAsr. and G O L O X I R ~ E . . and COLLIER. M Saluda. J. 21: 251 255. ( M M Q : an extension of its construct validity.. I. t2:indsor. S.. of Sexual Satisfaction.) The validation of the Colombok Rust Inventory J. . 152: 629-63 1. 31.J. in Sexual and Marital Therapy. P. LAMB. in general practice. sexual couples wholive together. (1986) The construction and J. f RusI. l ARKINIIELI.. Rust et al.. (1983) TheMaudsley Marital W Per..E. British Journal oJP.S. and ~ O I . BENNLIN. 24: 63-64. 11: 1 7 1-1 75.and RUST..J. M validation of the Golombok Rust Inventory of Marital State. J .Archioec o Sexual BeharGmr.J .ti.ychological M Medicine. CROIVI:. and GOLOMBOK. (1983) O n the M'. its l n d i ~ i d u aLhfferences. .~faclion.I . . . EhluEI. LV. G O l .. and G O L O h l B U t i . . 2(2): 127-1 30. 15(2): 153-161. assessment ofsexual dysfunction.tt Znr'entorq' ofSexual Sati. RuSI. 4: 457--464.
: S I L T A R T . and STU. [ Research Press. B.R. Speilberger and J. . Handbook o Behavioural Assessment. H. (1983) A framework for conceptualizing G. Hors. F. marital conflict: A technology for altering it. (1982) Advances in marital assessment: behavioural. Hardy andE. SPANIER. R. and psychometricapproaches. Journal o Sex and Marital G. (1977) Marital conflict and accord. some data for evaluating it. Lawrence Erlbaum. communications D. NJ. N. Hammerlynrk. f Therapy. Champaign. Wiley. f W E I S S . and PATTERSON. Volume I .The GRIMS: the assessment o f marital discord 57 SNYDER. Advances in Personality Assessment. Ill. Research Press. . In: A. 1972) T h e M a r i t a lPre-Counselling Inventroy.. 5 288-300. March (Eds). K. Behaoiour Change: ConceplsandPractice. W ~ r s sR. Butcher (Eds). lVew York. Hillsdale. Champaign. and MARCOLIN. Ciminero. Adams (Eds). Ill. K .~RT. In: L. In: C. (1976) The measurement of marital quality. L. G. D. Calhoun andH.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.