Initial validation of the dyadic coping inventory for financial stress

Abstract

Financial stress can have a detrimental impact on a couple's relationship but there is no validated instrument to assess the way couples cope with financial stress. This study sought to validate the Dyadic Coping Inventory for Financial Strain (DCIFS), an adaptation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory to financial stressors, with self-report data collected from 132 heterosexual couples seeking couple and/or family therapy services. Confirmatory Factor Analysis results supported a 23-item version consisting of the following subscales for both men and women: Stress (Chi-square test: Men: χ 2 (175) = 310.11, p = 0.00; Women: χ 2 (175) = 242.88, p = 0.00. Results also supported the hypothesized factorial structure for the aggregated subscales of DC by Oneself and by Partner as well as the discriminant, predictive, and convergent validity of the DCIFS. Findings associated with the Stress Communication subscales suggest that this DC dimension may behave differently depending on the type of stressor. Further studies should be conducted to replicate the DCIFS factorial structure with longitudinal data from couples not seeking couple or family therapy.

Dyadic Coping Inventory—Sexual Minority Stress: A scale validation with lesbian, gay, and bi+ men and women in same- and different-gender couples.

“…Of the 66 possible correlations among subscales in participants in same-gender couples, 61 were statistically significant in a direction consistent with past versions of the DCI (Falconier et al, 2019; Randall et al, 2016) (see Table 4). In participants in different-gender couples, 65 of the 66 possible correlations among subscales were statistically significant in a direction consistent with expectations.…”

“…Lastly, a model was fit to confirm the overall 11-factor structure for the DCI-SMS: (a) stress communication in self and (b) partner, (c) emotion-focused supportive DC in self and (d) partner, (e) problem-focused supportive DC in self and (f) partner, (g) negative DC in self and (h) partner, (i) emotion-focused common DC, (j) problem-focused DC, and (k) evaluation of DC. For each model, latent factors were allowed to freely covary given other studies which found strong covariation among DCI latent factors (Falconier et al, 2019; Randall et al, 2016). All analyses were conducted in RStudio Version 1.3.959 (RStudio Team, 2020) with R version 4.1.3 (R Core Team, 2022) using the cfa function from the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012).…”

“…Despite the wide utility of the DCI (Bodenmann, 2008) to examine dyadic coping behaviors across nations, as noted above, the instructions ask participants to reflect on how they and their partner cope with stress. Said differently, the DCI was designed to measure “stress in general and not a specific set of stressors” (Falconier et al, 2019, p. 370), which limits the understanding of how partners may cope with specific stressors in the context of their relationship (here, sexual minority stressors). This limitation was acknowledged by Falconier et al (2019) who recently adapted and validated the DCI for Financial Strain using data from 132 heterosexual couples living in the United States.…”

“…To adapt the DCI for use with LGB+ individuals, we started with the validated 31-item English version of the DCI (Randall et al, 2016). Instructions and items were edited to be specific to sexual minority stress following similar practices as Falconier et al (2019). First, we modified the instructions.…”

“…We then adapted the DCI items to make them specific to situations of sexual minority stress (e.g., “I let my partner know that I appreciate their practical support, advice, or help when I am experiencing sexual minority stress” and “My partner expresses that the sexual minority stress I am experiencing is not just my problem but our problem”). Akin to Falconier et al (2019), we also removed four items assessing delegated dyadic coping given they are specific to partners taking on extra things and helping when the other is busy (which is not applicable for experiences of sexual minority stress). The final revised 27-item scale focused on DCI-SMS was reviewed by the original developer of the STM and the DCI prior to proceeding with the empirical validation.…”