This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]On: 22 July 2013, At: 07:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Anxiety, Stress & Coping: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gasc20

Dyadic coping in Latino couples:validity of the Spanish version of theDyadic Coping InventoryMariana Karin Falconier a , Fridtjof Nussbeck b & Guy Bodenmannb

a Virginia Polytechnic Institute, State University , Falls Church ,VA , USAb Department of Psychology , University of Zürich , Zürich ,SwitzerlandAccepted author version posted online: 01 Jun 2012.Publishedonline: 10 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Mariana Karin Falconier , Fridtjof Nussbeck & Guy Bodenmann (2013) Dyadiccoping in Latino couples: validity of the Spanish version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory, Anxiety,Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 26:4, 447-466, DOI: 10.1080/10615806.2012.699045

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.699045

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Dyadic coping in Latino couples: validity of the Spanish versionof the Dyadic Coping Inventory

Mariana Karin Falconiera*, Fridtjof Nussbeckb and Guy Bodenmannb

aVirginia Polytechnic Institute, State University, Falls Church, VA, USA; bDepartment ofPsychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

(Received 14 December 2011; final version received 29 May 2012)

This study seeks to validate the Spanish version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory(DCI) in a Latino population with data from 113 heterosexual couples. Resultsfor both partners confirm the factorial structure for the Spanish version(Subscales: Stress Communication, Emotion- and Problem-Focused Supportive,Delegated, and Negative Dyadic Coping, Emotion- and Problem-FocusedCommon Dyadic Coping, and Evaluation of Dyadic Coping; Aggregated Scales:Dyadic Coping by Oneself and by Partner) and support the discriminant validityof its subscales and the concurrent, and criterion validity of the subscales andaggregated scales. These results do not only indicate that the Spanish version ofthe DCI can be used reliably as a measure of coping in Spanish-speaking Latinocouples, but they also suggest that this group relies on dyadic coping frequentlyand that this type of coping is associated with positive relationship functioningand individual coping. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Keywords: dyadic coping; couples; validation; Spanish; stress

The last two decades have witnessed an increased research interest in stress andcoping processes within the context of couple’s relationships. Studies during thisperiod have consistently indicated that stress is a risk factor for couples as it predictspoor relationship functioning and divorce (e.g., Bodenmann, Ledermann, &Bradbury, 2007; for a review see Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). Within this research,dyadic coping has emerged as a protective factor for its association with increasedrelationship quality and well-being (Badr, Carmack, Kashy, Cristofanilli, &Revenson, 2010; Bodenmann, Pihet, & Kayser, 2006; O’Brien, DeLongis, Pomaki,Puterman, & Zwicker, 2009), even above and beyond the effects of individual copingstrategies (Papp &Witt, 2010). Moreover, dyadic coping has been found to buffer thenegative effects of stress on psychological aggression in couples (Bodenmann,Meuwly, Bradbury, Gmelch, & Ledermann, 2010).

Various conceptualizations have been proposed to understand the nature ofdyadic coping. The coping-congruence approach (Revenson, Abraıdo-Lanza,Majerovitz, & Jordan, 2005) focuses on partners’ individual coping patterns on adyadic level, the empathic coping perspective (O’Brien et al., 2009) and therelationship-focused coping (Coyne & Smith, 1991) look at partners’ efforts tosupport each other and to maintain their relationship during stressful times. The

*Corresponding author. Email: marianak@vt.edu

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 2013Vol. 26, No. 4, 447!466, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.699045

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

systemic-transactional model (STM) of dyadic coping focuses on partners’ indivi-dual and conjoint efforts to support each other when coping with stress(Bodenmann, 1997). All of these approaches view stress and coping as aninterdependent and relational process within the couple. However, among all theseperspectives, Bodenmann’s STM has the advantage of including not only what eachpartner does to assist the other in coping with stress (social support by the partner),but also what partners do jointly to cope when they are both experiencing stress.

Consistent with STM, a specific instrument was developed to measure variousaspects of dyadic coping: The Dyadic Coping Inventory1 (DCI; Bodenmann, 2008).The DCI, originally developed in German, has been translated into several languagesand has been used in several studies across the world (for a review, see Bodenmann,2008). The DCI validity of the German, French, and Italian versions has alreadybeen examined (Donato, Barni, Bertoni, Bodenmann, & Gagliardi, 2009; Gmelchet al., 2008; Ledermann et al., 2010). In this study, we seek to validate the Spanishversion of the DCI by examining its psychometric properties within a sample ofLatino heterosexual couples residing in the USA. This study analyzes the factorialstructure of the instrument as well as its criterion validity by examining itsassociation with measures of individual coping and relationship functioning(relationship satisfaction and constructive conflict resolution) and its concurrentvalidity by analyzing the association between partners’ reports. Findings from thisstudy may not only provide researchers and clinicians with an instrument to assessdyadic coping in Spanish-speaking populations but also understand dyadic copingprocesses in Latino couples.

The need for a Dyadic Coping Instrument in Spanish

Around 329 million people speak Spanish in the world, making it the second largestspoken language as a first language after Mandarin (Lewis, 2009). However, there arestill no available instruments in Spanish to assess how partners cope with stress in thecontext of their couple’s relationship. As noted earlier, the existence of such aninstrument might advance our understanding of coping processes in Latino couples,particularly of those experiencing high levels of stress. Such an understanding mayassist clinicians in their prevention and therapy efforts when working with thatpopulation.

Research in non-Latino populations has already indicated that dyadic copingprotects couples from the negative effects of stress (Bodenmann et al., 2010).However, given Latinos’ strong family and collectivistic orientation, the study of therole of dyadic coping processes may be particularly relevant in this population.Familismo has been described as the Latino culture’s identification and loyalty to thenuclear and extended family (Lugo Steidel & Contreras, 2003). It emphasizes theinterdependence and connectedness among its members through their obligation toprotect, honor, respect, and support the family and prioritizes the familyresponsibilities over the individual needs. Emotional and practical support to otherfamily members is particularly emphasized. Dyadic coping, which involves stresscommunication, a partner’s response to such stress, and the couple’s conjoint effortsto cope with common stressors seems to be congruent with the cultural orientationof familismo that expects family members to be a source of support. Given thatfamily support has already been associated with individual psychological well-being

448 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

in Latinos (e.g., Rivera, 2007), assessing and understanding dyadic coping processesamong Latino couples may be especially useful as this type of coping may be aprotective factor for couple’s functioning in this population.

The STM of dyadic coping

Systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 1997, 2005) views partners as living in ashared social context and, therefore, as sharing concerns and goals and experiencinginterdependent processes. Thus, the model holds two fundamental assumptions: (1)stress and coping always have to be considered as an interpersonal, dyadic (systemic)phenomenon and (2) dyadic coping involves both the expression of stress (stresscommunication) and the reactions to such stress expressions (support or jointcoping). Responses involve individual attempts to help the partner under stress andpartners’ common endeavors to cope with stress that affects both of them. The stress-coping process is viewed as a sequence in which first partner A expresses his or herstress verbally or nonverbally and then partner B perceives this stress and providesdyadic coping in response to his or her partner’s stress. In situations where bothpartners are facing a common stressor their joint efforts to deal with this stressfulencounter represents another key aspect of dyadic coping.

Dyadic coping is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional concept, composed ofstress communication and four components of dyadic coping: supportive, delegated,negative, and common. Supportive Dyadic Coping (SDC) occurs when one partnerassists the other in his or her coping efforts through two sub-facets: problem- andemotion-focused support such as providing practical advice or empathic under-standing. Delegated Dyadic Coping (DDC) involves one partner explicitly taking overcertain tasks and duties of the other partner in an effort to reduce the partner’s stress.Negative Dyadic Coping (NDC) includes hostile dyadic coping (i.e., supportbehaviors that are accompanied by disparagement, mocking, sarcasm, opendisinterest), ambivalent dyadic coping (i.e., reluctant or insufficient support), andsuperficial dyadic coping (i.e., insincere or undedicated support). Common DyadicCoping (CDC) refers to processes in which both partners engage together inproblem- and/or emotion-focused strategies when coping with common stressors(e.g., joint problem-solving, sharing of feelings).

The DCI

On the basis of STM perspective on dyadic coping, Bodenmann (2008) developed a37 items self-report questionnaire for assessing dyadic coping in close relationships.Individuals are asked to assess stress communication and dyadic coping on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often). In addition to CDC (fiveitems), the questionnaire assesses the individual’s perception of (1) Dyadic Coping byOneself (what I do when my partner is stressed) and (2) dyadic coping by partner(what my partner does when I am stressed) on each of the following subscales: StressCommunication (four items), SDC (five items, with problem and emotion-orientedcoping), DDC (two items), and NDC (four items), making a total of nine subscales.Excluding CDC, these subscales can be grouped into two aggregated scales: DyadicCoping by Oneself and by Partner (15 items each). There is an additional two-itemsubscale measuring only the respondent’s evaluation of the overall satisfaction with

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 449

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

dyadic coping. The DCI also yields a total score of dyadic coping by adding theresponse values (after reversing the values of the NDC items) of all 37 items.

The DCI collects information about individuals’ perception on their own andtheir partner’s dyadic coping as well as their partners’ evaluation of their own andtheir partner’s dyadic coping, yielding four different views of dyadic copingprocesses. The instrument can be used to analyze dyadic coping by collecting datafrom just one partner or from both. Previous validation studies have been conductedrelying on respondent’s answers independently from the partner’s reports (Donatoet al., 2009; Gmelch et al., 2008; Ledermann et al., 2010).

Validation studies of the DCI

Gmelch et al. (2008) used the 37-item version of the DCI and could confirm the four-factor structure (Stress Communication, SDC, DDC, and NDC) for the DyadicCoping by Oneself and by Partner aggregated scales in a German speaking Swisssample (N"2.399). For the CDC subscale a two-factor solution emerged (Emotion-Focused and Problem-Focused CDC). In a different study that validated an Italianversion of the DCI with 778 participants (Donato et al., 2009) the CDC fell intothree subscales instead of two: problem-focused, seeking closeness, and relaxation.The additional subscale within the CDC scale was the result of the use of the 41-items version of the DCI, representing a precursor version of the current DCI. Inaddition, in this study the SDC subscales split into Emotion-Focused and Problem-Focused factors. The third validation study (Ledermann et al., 2010), which used the37-item version of the DCI, was able to confirm the original proposed factorstructure in three language versions (German, Italian, and French) when eachsubscale was analyzed separately.

Regarding the criterion validity of the DCI, findings have been highly consistent.Conceptually, relationship satisfaction should be associated positively with positivedyadic coping and negatively with negative forms of dyadic coping. A meta-analysisof 13 studies using different versions of the DCI (Bodenmann, 2005) has providedempirical support for these conceptual associations and consequently, for thecriterion validity of the DCI (subscales). In a more recent study, where the predictivepower of the STM was compared to the coping-congruence approach, the DCIsubscales explained 58% (in women) and 54% (in men) of the variance in relationshipquality and outperformed the coping-congruence measure in predicting relationshipquality (Bodenmann, Meuwly, & Kayser, 2011). Similarly, evidence of the DCIpredictive validity has been confirmed in studies in which dyadic coping was able topredict relationship quality and stability over a 2- to 5-year period (Bodenmann &Cina, 2006; Bodenmann et al., 2006). In addition, positive forms of dyadic copinghave been found to be associated with constructive communication in couples.Bodenmann (2008) reported moderate correlations between the different subscales ofthe DCI and communication, as measured by the Relationship Questionnaire(Hahlweg, 1996), the Communication Pattern Questionnaire (CPQ; Christensen &Sullaway,1984), the Marital Communication Inventory (Bienvenu, 1971), and theconstructive conflict resolution from the Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised (CTS-R;Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Ledermann et al.’s validationstudy (2010) found that in all of the samples (Swiss, Italian, and French) for both byOneself and by Partner subscales, Stress Communication, SDC were positively

450 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

correlated with couple’s constructive communication as measured by the CPQwhereas the NDC subscale was negatively associated with constructive communica-tion. Even though dyadic coping has been found to be different from individualcoping (Bodenmann, 2008), it has been associated with general cognitive andbehavioral individual coping strategies that help reduce negative moods. Papp andWitt (2010) found such individual coping to be positively associated with the DCIpositive forms of dyadic coping and negatively related to the DCI NDC.

Purpose

The main goal of the present study was to validate the Spanish1 version of the DCIby examining its psychometric properties with a sample of Latino heterosexualcouples residing in the USA. Following the logic of the construct and the strategy ofprevious validations of the DCI (Donato et al., 2009; Gmelch et al., 2008;Ledermann et al., 2010), the study seeks to confirm the factor structure of theDCI separately for each partner. Considering the results of previous validationstudies and the theoretical background for the development of the DCI that includedboth Emotion- and Problem-Focused SDC and CDC strategies, the Spanish DCIwas expected to consist of the following subscales: Stress Communication, SDC(with problem-focused and emotion-focused facets), DDC, and NDC by Oneself andby Partner, CDC (with emotion-focused and problem-focused facets) and theEvaluation of Dyadic Coping. This version of the DCI was also expected to havetwo aggregated subscales Dyadic Coping by Oneself and by Partner consisting of theStress Communication, SDC (with problem-focused and emotion-focused facets),DDC, and NDC by Oneself or by Partner subscales, respectively.

In addition, the present study aims to confirm the criterion validity of the DCI.Positive associations were expected between the subscales, aggregated scales (copingby oneself and by partner), and total scale of the DCI (negative association for theNDC subscales) and relationship satisfaction. Each partner’s constructive conflictresolution style was also expected to be associated positively with their own positivedyadic coping and negatively with their own NDC. The criterion validity of the DCIwas analyzed by examining its association with positive individual coping strategies.Each partner’s positive individual coping strategies were expected to be positivelyassociated with positive forms of dyadic coping (Stress Communication, Supportive(with emotion- and problem-focused facets), and DDC) and negatively with NDC.The concurrent validity of the DCI was expected to be supported by finding onepartner’s reports to be significantly and positively associated with the other partner’sreports on the same behavior.

Method

Sample

In this study, we examined a community sample of 113 Latino heterosexual couplesliving in the Washington, DC area. Couples were recruited in 2009 through flyers inSpanish posted in churches, social services agencies, clinics, schools, and medical anddental offices serving the Latino community. These flyers advertised a general studyon the impact of stress on Latino couples’ functioning. In order to participate in the

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

study both partners had to identify themselves as Latino/a, be 18 years or older, andbe living together for at least a year.

Women’s mean age was 38.91 (SD"8.11) and men’s mean age was 39.81(SD"8.96). The majority of men (97.4%) and women (96.5%) were Latin Americanimmigrants and only 4.4% of the men and 3.5% of the women had been born in theUSA. Participants had been born either in El Salvador (M: 31%; F: 31.9%),Guatemala (M: 12.4%; F: 10.6%), Mexico (M: 12.4%, F: 10.6%), Peru (M: 11.5%; F:15%), or other Latin American countries (M: 26.6%, F: 30.1%). Eighty-four couples(74.3%) were married and 28 (23%) couples were cohabiting. On average couples hadbeen living together for 11.55 years (SD"7.63) and had 1.93 children (Med-ian"2.00; SD"1.25) 21 years old or younger living in the household. Allparticipants completed the questionnaires in Spanish. Regarding education 19.5%of women and 24.9% of men held at least a bachelor’s degree but 10.6 and 6.6% hadnot completed elementary school. The majority of men (56.3%) and women (67.2%)held at least a high school diploma. The majority of men (85%) and women (61.9%)were employed. The combined income for the couple was at least $50,000 for 47.7%of the sample, between $20,000 and $49,999 for 32.7%, and below $20,000 for 13.2%.However, these figures should be considered with caution as many of the participantsmay have underreported the income derived from informal jobs and the fact that28.7% of couples had at least one partner reporting the presence of other individualsin the household contributing to the household income. Regarding religion, 69% ofmen were Catholic, 16% of other Christian religions, 1.8% Jewish, and 9.7% had noreligious affiliation. Among women 77% were Catholic, 17.9% of other Christianreligions, 0.9% Jewish, 0.9% Buddhist, and 3.5% reported no religious affiliation.

Measures

Demographic form

Each partner completed a form in Spanish requesting information on demographicssuch as gender, year of birth, ethnic identity, country of origin, family composition,education level, employment, income, and religion.

Dyadic Coping Inventory

An English version of the 37-item DCI, which had been used in previous studies (e.g.,Papp & Witt, 2010) and was a translation of the original German version, wastranslated into Spanish by a native speaker and then back translated into English bya professional translator. Both versions were compared to ensure the accuracy of thetranslation and this final revised version was used in the present study.

The Coping Strategies Inventory (CSI)

Positive forms of individual coping were assessed with the Engagement aggregatedscale from the Spanish version of the CSI (Cano Garcıa, Rodrıguez Franco, &Garcıa Martınez, 2007). This is a short version of the CSI (Tobin, Holroyd,Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989), a 72-item self-report assessment used in numerous studies(for a review see Cano Garcıa et al., 2006). Engagement coping strategies refers to

452 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

the individual’s proactive efforts to reduce the impact of a stressor. The Engagementaggregated scale is made up of the following four-item subscales: Problem-Solving,Cognitive Restructuring, Express Emotions, and Social Support. Respondentshave to rate the frequency with which they use each coping strategy on a 5-pointLikert-type scale. In this study the value responses were identical to the onesprovided for the DCI ranging from 1"very rarely to 5"very often. The internalconsistency in this study was a".88 for women and a".87 for men.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)

The DAS (Spanier, 1976) was used to measure relationship satisfaction. For thisstudy only the Dyadic Satisfaction subscale was used as the Cohesion, Consensus,and Affectional Expression subscales could confound the assessment of relationshipsatisfaction with that of dyadic coping (Kurdek, 1992). The Dyadic Satisfactionsubscale includes 10 Likert-type items that measure the degree to which partners aresatisfied with their relationship (e.g., ‘‘How often do you think that things betweenyou and your partner are going well?’’). Higher total scores indicate higherrelationship satisfaction. In this sample the internal consistency of the DyadicSatisfaction subscale was a".86 for women and a".84 for men. This study used aSpanish version of the DAS that was previously used in other studies (e.g., Falconier& Epstein, 2010).

Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised

The Negotiation subscale from the CTS-R (Straus et al., 1996) was used to measureeach partner’s constructive conflict resolution. The Spanish version used in this studywas provided by Western Psychological Services. The subscale includes eight items,each of which inquires about the respondent’s as well as the partner’s frequency ofuse of negotiation for resolving conflict. Answer options include (0) this has neverhappened, (1) not in the past year but it did happen, (2) once in the past year, (3) twicein the past year, (4) 3!5 times in the past year, (5) 6!10 times in the past year, (6) 11!20times in the past year, and (7) more than 20 times in the past year. The internalconsistency of the individual’s report of his or her own tendency to negotiate wasa".81 for men and a".88 for women whereas the internal consistency for therespondent’s report about his or her partner’s negotiation was a".88 for both menand women.

Procedure

Couples interested in participating in the study contacted the research team by phoneor email. If the inclusion criteria were met, the couple was mailed a package withconsent forms, a set of self-report questionnaires (including the demographic form)for each partner, and specific instructions on how to proceed. Partners were directedto sign the consent form if they wanted to participate in the study and to completethe corresponding questionnaires separately and without consulting with each other.Once the signed consent forms and the completed questionnaires were returned, a$25 gift card was mailed to each partner.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 453

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Analytic strategy

First, Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimationwith the EQS 6.1 statistical software package was used to confirm: (1) thehypothesized five-factorial structure (Stress Communication, Emotional-Focused,Supportive Problem-Focused SDC, DDC, and NDC) of the Dyadic Coping byOneself and Dyadic Coping by Partner aggregated subscales, (2) the hypothesizedone-factor dimension of the CDC subscale, and (3) the complex factor structure ofthe total DCI. Men’s and women’s reports of dyadic coping were analyzed indifferent CFAs since we are interested in the factor structure of one partner’sperception about the couple’s coping. Once the final factorial structure wasdetermined, the discriminant validity among factors within the scale was assessedby examining their interrcorrelations. The internal consistency of each subscale,aggregated scale, and total scale were assessed by computing the Cronbach’s alpha.

At the multivariate level the datawere not normally distributed as indicated by theYuan, Lambert, and Fouladi’s (2004) normalized coefficient, which ranged from 7.37to 14.11 for each aggregated scale. In addition, 3.24% of theDCI datawasmissing, andtherefore, model fit in all CFAswas assessed using the robust Yuan!Bentler scaled chi-square (xYB

2 ), an adjusted chi-square statistic used for non-normal and incompletedata (Yuan & Bentler, 2000). A statistically significant chi-square (xYB

2 ) value meansthat the sample distribution differs significantly from the distribution expected fromthe proposed model and therefore, the model should be rejected. Given the chi-squared-test’s sensitivity to sample size the recommended ratio of nomore than 3:1 forthe xYB

2 /df ratio was used to evaluate model fit (Kline, 1998). Model fit was alsoassessed through the three fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999): therobust Bentler’s comparative fit index (CFI), the standardized root mean squareresidual (SRMR), and the robust root mean square residual of approximation(RMSEA). CFI!.95; SRMRB.08, RMSEAB.06 indicate good model fit. Modelswere not rejected on the sole basis of a RMSEAvalue slightly higher than .06 given itslikelihood of Type II error with small sample sizes (Chen, Curran, Bollen, Kirby, &Paxton, 2008). Model respecifications were based on theoretical reasoning(Bodenmann’s STM), statistical results (inspecting the Langrage Multiplier testresults), findings from past validation studies, and cultural considerations.

Given that the data are not multivariately normally distributed, gender differencesbetween partners were examined relying on the Wilcoxon signed rank test for pairedsamples for each subscale, aggregated scale and the total DCI scale. Bivariatecorrelations among factors were used to examine the discriminant validity of eachsubscale. The criterion validity of the Dyadic Coping by Oneself and by Partneraggregated scales and each of their subscaleswere analyzed by examining the Spearmanbivariate correlations with the DASDyadic Satisfaction subscale, the CSI Engagementaggregated scale and the CTS-R Negotiation subscale. The concurrent validity wasassessed though Spearman correlations between partners’reports on the same behavior.

Results

CFAs for the Dyadic Coping by Oneself and by Partner Aggregated Scales

Fit indices did not show a good fit of the data for the five-factor model (StressCommunication, Emotion-Focused and Problem-Focused SDC, DDC, andNDC) for

454 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

neither men or women for either aggregated scale, by oneself or by partner (see Table 1).The misfit of this Model 1 was due to two stress-communication items (Item 2: ‘‘I askmy partner to do things for me when I have too much to do’’; Item 3: ‘‘I show mypartner through my behavior when I am not doing well or when I have problems’’)showing low factor loadings and residual correlations with indicators of other facets.Residual correlationswere inconsistent across gender and self- vs. partner reports. Thiscould be explained by the fact that Item 2 refers conceptually more to DDC and bothItems 2 and 3 aremore behaviorallyoriented compared to the remaining two items thatonly refer to verbal communication of stress (Item 1: ‘‘I let my partner know that Iappreciate his/her practical support, advice help’’; Item 4: ‘‘I tell my partner openlyhow I feel and that I would appreciate his/her support’’). Consequently, similar toprevious studies in which at least one of these items was dropped (Ledermann et al.,2010), these two items were excluded from the Stress Communication by Oneself andby Partner scales. The test of this secondmodel (Model 2) resulted in an improved fit tothe data for the men’s coping by oneself and men’s andwomen’s coping by partner (seeTable 1). Only two fit indices showed improvement for the women’s coping by oneselfmodel. Further inspection of the results indicated that the item: ‘‘When I am stressed,my partner tends towithdraw’’ of theNDC subscale showed rather low factor loadingsand was related to factors and items not only of negative forms of coping but also ofpositive ones. It is possible to imagine that in some situations withdrawing (leaving thepartner alone) might be perceived as a way of helping the partner deal with his or herstress. Therefore, a third model (Model 3) without this item was tested and showed agood fit to the data for all scales (see Table 1). Out of the 48 standardized factorloadings 39 were between .60 and .95, eight between .53 and .59, and onewas .43.Mostof the lowest factor loadings belonged to the NDC (Figure 1).

CFA for the CDC Subscale

The CFA for the CDC revealed that the conceptual distinction between emotion-focused and problem-focused strategies for the couple’s conjoint coping can also befound in Latinos like in other samples (e.g., Donato et al., 2009; Gmelch et al., 2008).Results indicated a good fit of this two-facet model to the data for men’s reports[xAB

2 (4)"6.650, p ".156; robust CFI".99; SRMR".020; robust RMSEA".077(.000, .177)] and an adequate fit for women’s reports [xAB

2 (4)"11.089, p".026;robust CFI".973; SRMR ".032; robust RMSEA: .121 (.030, .213)]. The chi-squaredifference tests showed that for both sexes the two-factor solutions fit better than theone-factor solution (men: Dx2"12.704, pB.001; women: Dx2"43.984, pB.001).The comparably large RMSEAvalue for the women’s reports could be a result of therelatively small sample size (Chen et al., 2008). Factor loadings ranged from .81 to.98 for men and from .89 and .95 for women (see Figure 1).

CFA for total DCI

In the most rigorous analysis of the DCI factor structure, all aforementionedsubscales were included simultaneously. The resulting 13-factor model fit the datawell for men [xAB

2 (356)"443.70, p".001, robust CFI".956, SRMR".065, robustRMSEA".040 (.021, .055)] and acceptably for women [xAB

2 (356)"492.924,pB.001, robust CFI".930, SRMR".069, robust RMSEA".052 (.037, .065)].

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Table 1. Goodness of fit coefficients for the confirmatory factor analysis of Dyadic Coping by Oneself and by Partner for men’s and women’s reports.

Men’s reports Women’s reports

xYB2 df P CFIa SRMR RMSEAa xYB

2 df P CFIa SRMR RMSEAa

Model 1

O 141.13 80 B.001 .901 .095 .076 (.051, .098) 101.96 80 .050 .959 .084 .042 (.000, .070)P 127.77 80 B.001 .901 .102 .071 (.046, .094) 121.52 80 .002 .932 .083 .064 (.036, .088)

Model 2

O 89.15 55 .002 .942 .084 .068 (.035, .097) 79.04 55 .019 .946 .082 .053 (.000, .084)P 66.57 55 .14 .974 .067 .040 (.000, .074) 79.56 55 .017 .963 .071 .057 (.015, .087)

Model 3

O 58.93 44 .066 .975 .064 .047 (.000,.083) 58.86 44 .066 .968 .061 .043 (.000, .080)P 58.82 44 .067 .960 .063 .051 (.000, .087) 61.00 44 .046 .970 .061 .055 (.000, .089)

Note: O"by Oneself; P"by Partner.aRobust indices.

456M.K.Falconier

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

For the men’s total dyadic coping only four-factor loadings were between .43 and .61and the rest of the 27 factor loadings were between .65 and .98. For the women 26loadings were between .60 and .95 and five between .42 and .58.

Correlations among subscales and internal consistency

Correlations between subscales of the DCI are presented in Table 2. Almost allfactors were correlated with each other in the expected direction for women and men.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

StressCommunication

Emotion-Focused Supportive DC

Problem-Focused Supportive DC

Negative DC

Problem-Focused Common Dyadic Coping

Emotion-Focused Common Dyadic Coping

Items 1/16

Items 4/19

Items 24/9

Items 23/8

Items 29/13

Items 22/7

Items 28/12

Items 25/10

Items 27/11

Item 31

Item32

Item 33

Items 34

Items 35

Delegated DC

Items 30/14

.69 .56

.73 .58

.43 .70

.56 .58

.95 .89

.84 .83

.88 .70

.94 .82

.83 .70

.56 .72

Items 20/5

Items 21/6

.72 .66

.70 .91

.88 .85

.80 .89

.74 .71

.82 .81

.61 .59

.66 .60

.91 .65

.92 .93

.83 .81

.65 .83

.91

.89

.98

.95 .

.90

.84

.86

.91

.81

.90

.48 .71

.35 .57

.56 .72

.82 .,67

.69 .75

.72 .43

.47 .56

.60 .47

.67 .70

.57 .59

.79 .81

.75 .69

.42 .76

.40 .38

.56 .59

.76 .57

.30 .46

.55 .55

. 90 .72

.83 .82

. 67 .85

.62 .82

.72 .83

.68 .81

.41

.45

.21

.33

.44

.54

.51

.41

.59

.43

.74 .53

.78 .58

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

ee

Men by Oneself Women by OneselfMen by Partner Women by Partner

Men’s ReportsWomen’s Reports

Item by Oneself/ Item by Partner

Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analyses for Dyadic Coping by Oneself and by Partner andcommon dyadic coping: standardized results. All error and factor loadings are statisticallysignificant at .05 level. Correlations among factors were also estimated but not depicted.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 457

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Table 2. Correlations among factors in total coping ! men’s and women’s reports.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Stress Communication (O) .81* .71* .90* .82* .71* .74* .83* #.28* #.27* .67* .76* .85*Stress Communication (P) .63* .65* .71* .54* .67* .42* .65* #.27* #.40* .54* .60* .75*Emotion-Focused SDC (O) .71* .67* .63* .88* .51* .70* .52* #.29* #.07 .55* .54* .62*Emotion-Focused SDC (P) .52* .82* .57* .58* .82* .63* .80* #44* #.23 .58* .60* .76*Problem-Focused SDC (O) .60* .72* .76* .45* .63* .97* .63* .17 #.18 .46* .62* .51*Problem-Focused SDC (P) .36* .84* .36* .94* .49* .58* .78* #.30* #.19 .44* .51* .68*Delegated DC (O) .37* .63* .59* .43* .94* .43* .63* #.11 #.23 .30* .37* .37*Delegated DC (P) .38* .87* .38* .91* .49* .92* .49* #15 #.20 .57* .58* .73*Negative DC (O) #.19 #.23 #.25* #.31* #.02 #.17 #.04 #.11 .54* #.23 #.17 #.34*Negative DC (P) #.27* #.21 #.35* #.31* #.25* #.19 #.17 #.00 .73* .34* #.31* #.56*Emotion-Focused CDC .61* .46* .77* .61* .61* .47* .57* .47* #.15 #.33* .75* .75*Problem-Focused CDC .63* .62* .83* .59* .78* .56* .64* .52* #.19* #.42* .84* .84*Evaluation DC .57* .54* .81* .61* .63* .52* .51* .53* #.15 #.37* .80* .82*

Note: CDC, common dyadic coping; DC, dyadic coping; O, by Oneself; P, by Partner; SDC, supportive dyadic coping.*pB.05.

Male reports Female reports

458M.K.Falconier

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Overall, 130 correlation coefficients were in the range of r".30 to .87 indicating(highly) related yet distinct aspects of dyadic coping. Only factors representing NDCwere not significantly correlated with the Emotion-Focused and Problem-FocusedSDC, and DDC factors. Five correlation coefficients reached values above r".90.These involved correlations of Emotion-Focused and Problem-Focused SDC andDDC factors.

The internal consistency for each of the DCI subscales and aggregated scales wereacceptable as Cronbach’s alphas ranged from a".64 to a".92 (see Table 3). Theonly exceptions were found in the women’s Problem-Focused SDC (a".55) and thewomen’s NDC by Oneself (a".60) and by Partner (a".59). The internal consistencyfor the total DCI was a".94 for both men and women.

Means and gender differences

Table 3 presents the means for each of the positive forms of dyadic coping subscales,aggregated scale ranging from 3.14 to 3.85 (between sometimes to frequently). Themeans for the NDC subscales were lower, ranging from 2.28 to 2.44 (between rarelyto sometimes). Using a Bonferroni corrected type I error (".003), results from theWilcoxon signed rank test for paired samples revealed almost no significantdifference between both partners with respect to their dyadic coping scores. Theonly statistically significant differences are found in men reporting higher total scoresof their partner’s dyadic coping and higher Emotion-Focused SDC by their partnersthan women do. Results from the Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired samples did

Table 3. DCI subscales’ means, standard deviations, internal consistency and probability forWilcoxon Signed Rank Test for paired samples.

Men Women Wilcoxon Sig.Rank Test

Subscales and aggregated scales Mean SD a Mean SD a p

Stress communication O 3.35 1.11 .84 3.48 .97 .64 .24P 3.44 1.08 .69 3.22 1.05 .72 .05

Emotion-Focused SDC O 3.68 .87 .80 3.85 .73 .78 .11P 3.75 .96 .82 3.37 1.27 .90 .004

Problem-Focused SDC O 3.48 .96 .70 3.64 .82 .55 .09P 3.46 1.03 .76 3.14 1.15 .75 .01

Delegated DC O 3.33 1.07 .88 3.51 .94 .82 .12P 3.46 .91 .68 3.19 1.08 .81 .07

Negative DC O 2.28 .86 .64 2.29 .82 .60 .94P 2.44 .93 .71 2.40 .88 .59 .75

DC total by Oneself 3.56 .65 .77 3.72 .54 .75 .02DC total by Partner 3.59 .74 .77 3.29 .80 .79 .002Emotion-Focused CDC 3.36 1.19 .82 3.27 1.21 .91 .37Problem-Focused CDC 3.57 1.13 .95 3.78 .97 .92 .07Evaluation of DC 3.74 1.13 .94 3.51 1.17 .94 .03Total DC 110.65 20.81 .94 106.91 20.87 .94 .24

Note: CDC, common dyadic coping; DC, dyadic coping; O, Oneself; P, Partner; SDC, supportive dyadiccoping.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 459

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

not indicate significant differences between partners’ reports on the same dyadiccoping behavior or evaluation (e.g., men’s DDC reported by themselves and by theirpartners).

Criterion and concurrent validity of the DCI

As hypothesized, most of the DCI subscales and aggregated scales were significantlycorrelated with the scores of the DAS Dyadic Satisfaction subscale (Table 4). Positiveforms of coping and the overall evaluation of coping were positively correlated withthe DAS and NDC was negatively associated with the DAS (.295r5.73). Eventhough the women’s relationship satisfaction did not correlate significantly herProblem-Focused SDC by Oneself, there was a trend toward the hypothesizedpositive association. The total DCI score was significantly correlated with bothpartners’ DAS scores.

As hypothesized positive correlations were found for both men’s and women’sreports between the DCI by Oneself and by Partner aggregated scales and theirsubscales and the corresponding CSI Negotiation subscales by oneself and bypartner (see Table 4). Spearman correlations ranged from .19 to .41. When theSpearman correlation did not reach statistical significance, there was a trend in thehypothesized positive direction. This was the case for the Emotion-Focused SDC byOneself for both men (.12) and women (.13), the women’s Problem-Focused (.16) andDDC (.19) by Oneself, the men’s Emotion-Focused SDC (.09) and DDC (.09) byPartner. The NDC subscale for either men or women did not show a significantnegative association with the CTS-R Negotiation subscale (see Table 4).

Men’s and women’s Dyadic Coping by Oneself scale and their subscales werepositively correlated with the CSI Engagement subscale, with Spearman correlationsranging from .32 to .48. Similar to the relationship with the CTS-R Negotiationsubscale, neither the men’s nor the women’s NDC by Oneself subscale wassignificantly associated with the CSI Engagement subscale. Regarding concurrentvalidity, both partners’ reports were significantly and positively correlated for thesame behavior (e.g., Female report and male report of stress communication bymales): Stress Communication (M: .66; Fs: .56), Emotion-Focused (M: .39; F: .43)and Problem-Focused (M: .40; F: .38) SDC, DDC (M: .51; F: .28), and NDC(M: .21; F: .49) Dyadic Coping. Males’ and females’ reports were also significantlyand positively correlated for Emotion-Focused (.56) and Problem-Focused (.58)CDC, Evaluation of Dyadic Coping (.56), and for the aggregated subscales ofDyadic Coping by Oneself by men (.59) and by women (.49).

Discussion

One of the main goals of this study was to validate a Spanish version of the 37-itemDCI in a Latino population by seeking to confirm the factorial structure of itsaggregated and total scales and its criterion, discriminant, and convergent validities.Another goal was to deepen our knowledge about dyadic coping in the Latinopopulation. Below is a discussion of the results as well as of the limitations andimplications of the study.

460 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Factor structure

As hypothesized, results from the present study suggest that the DCI factorialstructure found in previous studies (Donato et al., 2009; Gmelch et al., 2008;Ledermann et al., 2010) is also valid for the Spanish version of the DCI for bothLatino men and women. With the exclusion of three items (three by oneself and threeby partner), one of which had also been excluded in Donato et al.’s validation study,the results support a 31-item version with the following subscales: Stress Commu-nication by Oneself and by Partner, SDC by Oneself and by Partner (with theemotion- and problem-focused facets), DDC by Oneself and by Partner, NDC byOneself and by Partner, CDC (with the emotion- and problem-focused facets), andEvaluation of Dyadic Coping. Results also support the hypothesized structure of theDyadic Coping by Oneself and by Partner as consisting of the Stress Communica-tion, SDC (emotion-focused and problem-focused), DDC, and NDC subscales.

Table 4. Spearman correlations of DCI Subscales and Aggregated Scales with the DAS dyadicsatisfaction, the CTS-R Negotiation, and the CSI Engagement Coping Subscales.

DCI Subscales and AggregatedScales

DAS ! dyadicsatisfaction

CTS-Rnegotiation

CSI engagementcoping

Men Women Men Women Men Women

Stress CommunicationBy Oneself .56** .66** .19* .28** .43** .33**By Partner .38** .55** 29* .34** ! !

Emotion-Focused SDCBy Oneself .49** .44** .12 .13 .37** .32*By Partner .34** .71** .09 .40** ! !

Problem-Focused SDCBy Oneself .41** .14 .41** .16 .49** .48*By Partner .28** .51** .23* .41** ! !

Delegated Dyadic CopingBy Oneself .46** .29** .29** .19 .33** .41**By Partner .29** .57** .09 .33** ! !

Negative Dyadic CopingBy Oneself #.35** #.39** #.04 #.06 #.04 .02By Partner #.41** #.44** .02 .08 ! !

Dyadic Coping (aggregated scale)By Oneself .59** .51** .35** .25* .45** .42**By Partner .49** .73** .19* .42** ! !

Emotion-Focused CDC .38** .53** ! ! ! !Problem-Focused CDC .56** .55** ! ! ! !Evaluation of dyadic coping .58** .70** ! ! ! !Total dyadic coping .65** .70** ! ! ! !

Note: Correlations between CTSS-R Negotiation and CSI Engagement Coping subscales with CDC,Evaluation of Dyadic Coping and total Dyadic Coping are not considered as these DCI subscales involveassessments of the couple’s coping not individual efforts to assist the partner cope.CDC, common dyadic coping; SDC, supportive dyadic coping.*pB.05; **pB.01.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 461

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Factor loadings and internal consistencies of the subscales, aggregated scales and thetotal scale were acceptable and comparable to results from past validation studies(Donato et al., 2009; Gmelch et al., 2008; Ledermann et al., 2010), all of whichprovide additional support for the validity of the hypothesized factorial structure ofthis Spanish version of the DCI.

Compared to the rest of the subscales, the NDC subscales (by Oneself and byPartner) were the ones that yielded the lowest factor loadings and internalconsistencies. These results parallel findings from previous validation studies ofthe DCI (Gmelch et al., 2008; Ledermann et al., 2010) and therefore, they raise someconcerns about the extent to which the items of the NDC subscale are indicators ofthe same underlying construct.

Discriminant validity

Results from the correlational analysis suggest that overall the DCI subscales havegood discriminant validity as each of them seems to be measuring related yet distinctaspects of the same underlying construct of dyadic coping. One exception to thispattern was the high correlations found among some of the Emotion- and Problem-Focused SDC and DDC factors, which seems in line with the fact that all of thesefactors represent positive ways in which one partner tries to help the other cope withstress. The NDC by Oneself and by Partner were again the only factors that were notfound to be significantly related to all SDC and DDC factors in the scale, whichcould be a result of the low internal consistency of the NDC subscales. However,given that this result is also consistent with findings from previous validation studies(Bodenmann, 2008, Ledermann et al., 2006) it could be suggesting that even thoughNDC might constitute some form of dyadic coping as it relates to many of the dyadiccoping factors, it does not necessarily work in the opposite direction of SDC andDDC.

Criterion and concurrent validity

Overall and as expected, the total DCI score and each of its subscales and aggregatedscales was positively (negatively for the NDC by Oneself and by Partner) associatedwith both partners’ evaluation of their relationship satisfaction. Similarly, the DCIby Oneself and by Partner aggregated scales and their positive forms of dyadiccoping subscales were positively related to each partner’s report of constructiveconflict resolution by oneself and by their partner and their individual engagementcoping strategies. Results did not support any association of the NDC subscale witheither constructive conflict resolution or individual coping. By linking positiverelationship functioning (constructive conflict resolution and relationship satisfac-tion) and effective individual coping (engagement coping strategies) to positive formsof dyadic coping and relating negatively or failing to associate such positiverelationship functioning and individual coping with NDC, these findings supportthe criterion validity of the total DCI and its subscales and aggregated scales. Inaddition, one partner’s report was significantly and positively associated with theother partner’s report regarding the same behavior (e.g., stress communication by themale partner), which provides support for the concurrent validity of this Spanishversion of the DCI.

462 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Although, the present study did not focus on evaluating the various possiblestrategies to handle data collected from both partners, the absence of a significantdifference between partners’ reports on the same behavior suggest that any of thesubscales, aggregated scales, and total DCI scale may be used successfully inmeasuring different dimensions of dyadic coping in the Latino Spanish-speakingpopulation, even when the instrument is administered to one partner.

Dyadic coping and gender differences in Latino couples

Results from the present study indicate that both partners in Latino couples doengage in dyadic coping. On average both men and women in this samplecommunicated stress to their partners and engaged in Emotion- and Problem-Focused SDC, DDC, and CDC from sometimes to frequently and only engaged innegative forms of dyadic coping from rarely to sometimes. The difference infrequency between positive and negative forms of dyadic coping as well as theaverage frequency for each type of dyadic coping are comparable to what has beenreported in previous validation studies with Swiss, Italian, French populations(Bodenmann, 2008; Gmelch et al., 2008; Ledermann et al., 2010). Even though theseapparent similar levels in dyadic coping deserve further exploration in research witha cross-cultural design, they seem to be contradicting the expectation of increasedlevels of dyadic coping resulting from Latinos’ strong family orientation andexpectation of emotional and practical support from another family member, inthis case the partner. However, Latino couples have been characterized as moretraditionally gender-role oriented (Falicov, 1998), with hierarchical arrangements inwhich the male is not only the main breadwinner but also the final decision maker.This traditional couples’ structure may not be encouraging dyadic coping strategiesas much as equal partnership arrangements may in Swiss, Italian, and Frenchpopulations. Therefore, it might be that in Latino couples it is their family andcollectivistic orientation that might explain their reliance on dyadic coping.

Also consistent with Latinos’ more traditional gender-role orientation, in thissample both partners reported that women tended to provide more dyadic coping totheir partners than men did, particularly Emotion-Focused SDC. In Latino families,men have had more instrumental roles whereas women have been described asprotecting family interactions and taking care of the emotional needs of theirchildren, spouse, and extended family (Falicov, 1998). As a result, in Latino couplesone would expect women to be more likely than men to help their partners cope withtheir stress. This gender difference has not been reported in previous studies withother populations. Moreover, a study with an Italian sample of couples reported nodifferences in dyadic coping between the partners (Donato, Iafrate, Bradbury, &Scabini, 2011).

In short, the set of findings from the present study suggest that Latino couplesengage in dyadic coping as frequently as Italian, Swiss, and French couples do andthat Latino women may be more likely to provide emotional and practical support totheir partners than Latino men do. Most importantly and similar to findings withSwiss, French, and Italian populations (Bodenmann, 2008; Gmelch et al., 2008;Ledermann et al., 2010), the association between dyadic coping with relationshipsatisfaction, constructive conflict resolution and effective engagement individual

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 463

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

coping found in the present study also suggest that dyadic coping may protect Latinocouples from the relational and individual negative effects of stress.

Limitations and implications

The cross-sectional nature of the data used in this study limited the psychometricexamination of the DCI. Further studies should assess the predictive validity andtest!retest reliability of the Spanish version of the DCI by collecting datalongitudinally. In addition, the psychometric properties of the current version ofthe DCI should also be examined with Latino Spanish-speaking populations thatwere underrepresented in the current sample (e.g., Chilean, Uruguayan) as well non-immigrant Latino couples living in their countries of origin. It is possible that giventhe distance from the extended family and friends, immigrant Latino couples mightresort to dyadic coping more often than Latino couples living in their own countrieswhere social support beyond the one provided by their partners is more available.

It is also important that the factorial structure of the NDC and its relation withother dimensions of dyadic coping can be examined further not only in the Spanish-speaking Latino population but also in other ethnic and linguistic groups. Morestudies that examine and compare data from both partners are needed so thatguidelines for using DCI dyadic data can be established and the criterion validity ofthe measure can be further strengthened. In the meantime, this Spanish version ofthe DCI with the modifications suggested in the present study may be used to assessLatino couples’ dyadic coping for clinical and research purposes.

Findings from the present study also suggest that Latino couples rely frequentlyon dyadic coping and those coping strategies are associated with positive relationshipfunctioning and individual coping. These findings add to the cross-cultural validityof the concept of dyadic coping and the need to further examine its role in Latinocouples.

Conclusion

Findings from the present study expand the cross-cultural validity of the concept ofdyadic coping to Latino couples and support the use of this Spanish version of theDCI to measure reliably various dimensions of dyadic coping as well as overalldyadic coping in these couples, regardless of whether the instrument is administeredto only one partner or to both. The availability of this instrument will facilitate theassessment and research on dyadic coping processes in Latino couples. This researchseems promising in a population that seems to use dyadic coping frequently and inwhich such dyadic coping strategies are associated with positive relationshipfunctioning and individual coping. Findings from such research may inform therapyand prevention programs that work with this population, particularly with thosecouples experiencing significant levels of stress.

Note

1. The DCI in Spanish and English and its structure is available as supplementary material athttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2012.699045

464 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

References

Badr, H., Carmack C.L., Kashy, D.A., Cristofanilli, M., & Revenson, T.A. (2010). Dyadiccoping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychology, 29, 169!180. doi: 10.1037/a0018165

Bienvenu, M.J. (1971). An Interpersonal Communication Inventory. The Journal ofCommunication, 21, 381!388. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1971.tb02937.x

Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping: A systemic-transactional view of stress and copingamong couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47,137!140.

Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. InT.A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress. Emergingperspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33!50). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation. doi: 10.1037/11031-002

Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Testmanual [Dyadic CopingInventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern, Gottingen: Huber & Hogrefe.

Bodenmann, G., & Cina, A. (2006). Stress and coping among stable-satisfied, stable-distressedand separated/divorced Swiss couples: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study. Journal ofDivorce and Remarriage, 44, 71!89. doi: 10.1300/J087v44n01_04

Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T.N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction inmarriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551!569. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., Bradbury, T., Gmelch, S., & Lederman, T. (2010). Stress,anger, and verbal aggression in intimate relationships: Moderating effects of individual anddyadic coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 408!424. doi:10.1177/0265407510361616

Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). A comparison of two conceptualizations ofdyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well-being. European Psychologist, 16, 255!266. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000068

Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping andmarital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485!449. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485

Cano Garcıa, F., Rodrıguez Franco, L., & Garcıa Martınez, J. (2007). Spanish version of theCoping Strategies Inventory. Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatrıa, 35(1), 29!39.

Chen, F., Curran, P.J., Bollen, K.A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation ofthe use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models.Sociological Methods Research, 36, 462!494: doi: 10.1177/0049124108314720

Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication Patterns Questionnaire (Unpublishedmanuscript). Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Coyne, J.C., & Smith, D.A.F. (1991). Couples coping with myocardial infarction: A contextualperspective on wives’ distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 404!412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.404

Donato, S., Iafrate, R., Barni, D., Bertoni, A., Bodenmann, G., & Gagliardi, S (2009).Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of Bodenmann’s Dyadic CopingQuestionnaire in an Italian sample. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in AppliedPsychology, 16, 25!47.

Donato, S., Iafrate, R., Bradbury, T., & Scabini, E. (2011). Acquiring dyadic coping:Parents and partners as models. Personal Relationships. doi: 10.1111/j.14756811.2011.01368.x

Falconier, M.K., & Epstein, N.B. (2010). Relationship satisfaction in Argentinean couplesunder economic strain: Gender differences in a dyadic stress model. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 27, 781!799. doi: 10.1177/0265407510373260

Falicov, C. (1998). Latinos in family therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York, NY:Guilford.

Gmelch, S., Bodenmann, G., Mewly, N., Lederman, T., Steffen-Sozinova, O., & Stiregl, K.(2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI): Ein fragebogen zur erfassung des partnerschaf-tlichen umgangs mit stress [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI): A questionnaire assessingdyadic coping in couples]. Journal of Family Research, 20, 185!202.

Hahlweg, K. (1996). Fragebogen zur Partnerschaftsdiagnostik (FPD) [Intimate RelationshipQuestionnaire]. Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 465

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3

Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1!55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Kline, R.B. (1998). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:Guilford.

Kurdek, L.A. (1992). Dimensionality of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Evidence fromheterosexual and homosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 22!35. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.6.1.22

Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S., Rossier, J., . . .Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics oft he Dyadic Coping Inventory in three language groups.Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 201!212. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000024

Lewis, M.P. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas, TX: SILInternational Publications. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com/

Lugo Steidel, A.G., & Contreras, J.M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latinopopulations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312!330.

O’Brien, T.B., DeLongis, A., Pomaki, G., Puterman, E., & Zwicker, A. (2009). Couples copingwith stress. The role of empathic responding. European Psychologist, 14, 18!28. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.18

Papp, L.M., & Witt, N.L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadiccoping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551!559. doi: 10.1037/a0020836

Randall, A.K. & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and maritalsatisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29 (2), 105!115. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004

Revenson, T., Abraıdo-Lanza, A., Majerovitz, S., & Jordan, C. (2005). Couples coping withchronic illness: What’s gender got to do with it? In T.A. Revenson, K. Kayser, &G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping(pp. 137!156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rivera, F.I. (2007). Contextualizing the experience of young Latino adults: Acculturation,social support, and depression. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 9, 237!244. doi:10.1007/s10903-006-9034-6

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality ofmarriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15!28.

Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B. (1996). The Revised ConflictTactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of FamilyIssues, 17, 283!316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001

Tobin, D.L., Holroyd, K.A., Reynolds, R.V., & Wigal, J.K. (1989). The hierarchical factorstructure of the coping strategies inventory. Coping Theory & Research, 13, 343!361. doi:10.1007/BF01173478

Yuan, K.H., & Bentler, P.M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariancestructure analysis with non normal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30, 167!202.

Yuan, K.-H., Lambert, P.L., & Fouladi, R.T. (2004). Mardia’s multivariate kurtosis withmissing data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 413!437. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_2

466 M.K. Falconier et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

ZH H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zent

ralb

iblio

thek

Zür

ich]

at 0

7:29

22

July

201

3