Validation of the Dyadic Coping Inventory with Chinese couples: Factorial structure, measurement invariance, and construct validity.

Abstract

The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI, Bodenmann, 2008) assesses how couples support each other when facing individual (e.g., workload) and common (e.g., parenting) stressors. Specifically, the DCI measures partners' perceptions of their own (Self) and their partners' behaviors (Partner) when facing individual stressors, and partners' common coping behaviors when facing common stressors (Common). To date, the DCI has been validated in 6 different languages from individualistic Western cultures; however, because culture can affect interpersonal interactions, it is unknown whether the DCI is a reliable measure of coping behaviors for couples living in collectivistic Eastern cultures. Based on data from 474 Chinese couples (N = 948 individuals), the current study examined the Chinese version of the DCI's factorial structure, measurement invariance (MI), and construct validity of test scores. Using 3 cultural groups (China, Switzerland, and the United States [U.S.]), confirmatory factor analysis revealed a 5-factor structure regarding Self and Partner and a 2-factor structure regarding Common dyadic coping (DC). Results from analyses of MI indicated that the DCI subscales met the criteria for configural, metric, and full/partial scalar invariance across cultures (Chinese-Swiss and Chinese-U.S.) and genders (Chinese men and women). Results further revealed good construct validity of the DCI test scores. In all, the Chinese version of the DCI can be used for measuring Chinese couples' coping behaviors, and is available for cross-cultural studies examining DC behaviors between Western and Eastern cultures. (PsycINFO Database Record

Initial validation of the dyadic coping inventory for financial stress

“…The findings of the present study indicated configural invariance (same items are associated with the same factors across gender), metric invariance (factor loadings for all the items are equivalent across gender), and scalar invariance (item intercepts are invariant for men and women). These results are consistent with the ones of previous DCI validation studies that have found MI across gender in samples from the United States, Romania, and China (Randall, Hilpert, Jimenez‐Arista, Walsh, & Bodenmann, ; Rusu et al, ; Xu et al, ). DCIFS assesses the same construct for men and women, and the gender differences found are determined by the real differences in DCIFS scales and not by the construct measurement differences.…”

“…Except for the validation of the 44‐item DCI in French and Italian (Ledermann et al, ), validation studies of the DCI in other languages used the 37‐item version. Validation studies were conducted in Chinese (Xu, Hilpert, Randall, Li, & Bodenmann, ), English (Levesque, Lafontaine, Caron, & Fitzpatrick, ; Randall, Hilpert, Jimenez‐Arista, Walsh, & Bodenmann, ), Greek (Roussi & Karademas, ), Japanese (Yokotani & Kurosawa, ), Portuguese (Vedes, Nussbeck, Bodenmann, Lind, & Ferreira, ), Romanian (Rusu, Hilpert, Turliuc, & Bodenmann, ), and Spanish (Falconier, Nussbeck, & Bodenmann, ). Some validation studies were conducted with couples (Falconier et al, ; Martos, Sallay, Nistor, & Józsa, ; Rusu et al, ; Xu et al, ; Yokotani & Kurosawa, ) whereas others have been conducted with individuals (Bodenmann, ; Ledermann et al, ; Levesque et al, ; Randall et al, ; Vedes et al, ).…”

Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Polish version of the dyadic coping inventory

“…The English validation of the DCI in the Canadian population (Levesque et al 2014) confirmed the five-factor structure of DC by Self and by Partner (SC, emotion-focused SDC, problem-focused SDC, DDC, and NDC) and the one-factor structure of CDC. Validation studies in Spanish, Persian, Romanian, Portuguese, and Chinese (Falconier et al 2013a;Fallahchai et al 2017;Rusu et al 2016;Vedes et al 2013;Xu et al 2016) showed the same five-factor solution for the DC by Self and Partner and a two-factor solution for CDC (problem-focused CDC and emotion-focused CDC). In all these studies the DCI comprised very good validity.…”

“…In all these studies the DCI comprised very good validity. Furthermore Xu et al (2016) compared 5 + 2-factor and 4 + 1-factor models within three cultural groups. The results confirmed that the five-factor solution for DC by Self and by Partner and the two-factor solution for CDC appeared to the most appropriate in terms of model fit and consistency across the analyses, hence Polish validation studies was decided to test 5-factor structure of DC by Self and by Partner and 2-factor solution for CDC.…”

“…The additional purpose of the study was to test measurement invariance (MI) across gender and culture, which is crucial to demonstrate that the items of the instrument measure the same construct (Vandenberg and Lance 2000). Thus far, MI across genders and cultures was tested in the English, Romanian and Chinese DCI validation studies Rusu et al 2016;Xu et al 2016) and also across genders only, in Portuguese DCI validation studies (Vedes et al 2013), for the five-and two-factor solution, which further substantiate the selection of the 5-+ 2-factor DCI model for Polish validation.…”