Within participants in a dating matchmaking, really was indeed college students (77

89 (SD = dos.27); 4.94 (SD = dos.97), each other groups varying anywhere between 6 months and you will eleven years of relationships; eight.76 (SD = cuatro.01), between a couple and you will 19 age; and (SD = 4.82), anywhere between lower than a year and 30 age. 8%) and resided having friends, if you’re men and women managing their partners was indeed primarily performing some one (69.2%), where 53% got school or postgraduate grade. Of your formal connection people, 67% had college or university otherwise blog post-graduate stages, at which https://datingranking.net/chatiw-review/ 89.8% were operating, 2% retired and you may 8.2% out of work. The working problem toward partnered professionals is actually equivalent: 89.5% was working, 2.9% was in fact retired and you can six.3% was in fact unemployed, and you may 1.3% introduced several other a career reputation. Within class, 62.5% of players had college or postgraduate levels.

Relationship Quality, selected to ensure criteria legitimacy, was measured on the Matchmaking Rating Means–Modified (RRF-R; Davis, 1996, adapt

The details shown are built-up in perspective of bigger lookup methods, and this contained a detailed sociodemographic and you will matchmaking evaluation, and also other scales in the scope out of personal dating.

Personal partnership are analyzed depending on the Portuguese adaptation (Dining table step one) of your own shorter sorts of new Time and energy Measure (Stanley, 1986), that was translated with regards to the following interpretation and retroversion tips: just after consent obtained by creator, the first scale was translated because of the a few experts in the field, these two translations was confronted with retroversion because of the a few professionals, one to bilingual and something experienced in the employment of the fresh new English language; in the end, for each and every type try than the fresh size, opting for the usage this new terms and conditions and you can circumstances with better distance in order to it. New Portuguese type thus contains the fresh new fourteen new products and you can a similar respond to measure and try named, immediately after deliberation by the team, the non-public Union Level (‘Escala de- Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). Toward finally phase of the interpretation process, the brand new software are applied to 3 users to the purpose of verifying the new adequateness of language as well as the unambiguous knowledge of the items, that have been talked about towards members immediately after application of the latest survey. Because there was basically no comments stating if not, those things remained a similar.

With respect to the complete duration of the connection, the typical, in many years, into the other statuses discussed is actually, respectively: dos

by Lind, 2008). Resulting from a revision of the original Davis (1996, cited in Lind, 2008) scale, this instrument is intended to measure relationship quality perception, with the expectation that, according to the theoretical assumptions, both scales will positively correlate. The items are presented in the form of questions that the subjects will answer according to a rating scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (completely or extremely). The Portuguese version consists of a total of 46 items grouped in four dimensions: Passion, Confidence, Conflict and Intimacy. The RRF-R revealed psychometric properties ranging from good to excellent, obtaining an excellent internal consistency at the total scale level, with Cronbach’s alpha values between .97 and .98, for women and men respectively, and .81 and .97 at subscale level, a good temporal stability (significant correlations ranging between .70 and .87; p < .01) and high concurrent validity with a marital satisfaction scale (significant global score correlations between .88 and .85, for women and men respectively; p < .01). In the current sample, the RRF-R presented for the total scale, an excellent Cronbach's alpha of .96; .94 for the Passion subscale, .93 for Confidence, .77 for Conflict and .83 for Intimacy. The internal consistency of the total scale remained excellent for the four subsamples: .95 for participants in a dating relationship, .94 for those in a dating relationship with cohabitation and .97 for participants in both formal unions and married relationships.