Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:52:48.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Validation of the Japanese Version of the Multidimensional Stress Questionnaire for Couples: Factor Structure, Validity and Reliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2018

Tai Kurosawa*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Welfare, Ibaraki Christian University, Ibaraki, Japan
Kenji Yokotani
Affiliation:
Niigata Seiryo University, Graduate School of Clinical Psychology, Niigata, Japan
*
Address for correspondence: Tai Kurosawa, Department of Psychology and Welfare, Ibaraki Christian University, Ohmika 6-11-1, Hitachi, Ibaraki 319-1295, Japan. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

We validated the Japanese version of the Multidimensional Stress Questionnaire for Couples (MSQ) and examined construct validity and reliability. We conducted an online longitudinal survey of 300 husbands and 300 wives. The Japanese version of the MSQ (MSQ-J) had a two-factor structure centred on internal and external stressors. The internal-stressor factor showed sufficient validity and reliability, indicating its suitability for measuring marital stressors. The external-stressors factor also showed acceptable validity for both husbands and wives. The findings indicate that the MSQ-J is suitable for both research and clinical practice.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Awata, S., Bech, P., Koizumi, Y., Seki, T., Kuriyama, S., Hozawa, A., … Tsuji, I. (2007). Validity and utility of the Japanese version of the WHO-Five Well-Being Index in the context of detecting suicidal ideation in elderly community residents. International Psychogeriatrics, 19, 7788. doi:10.1017/S1041610206004212Google Scholar
Bech, P. (1999). Health-related quality of life measurements in the assessment of pain clinic results. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 43, 893896. doi:10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.430906.xGoogle Scholar
Bodenmann, G. (2007). Multidimensionaler Stressfragebogen für Paare (MDSP). Unpublished scale, University of Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., Blattner, D., & Galluzzo, C. (2006). Associations among everyday stress, critical life events, and sexual problems. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 194, 494501. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000228504.15569.b6Google Scholar
Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551569. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.xGoogle Scholar
Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual well- being: A comparison. European Psychologist, 16, 255266. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000068Google Scholar
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A. & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Coyne, J.C., & Smith, D.A. (1991). Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: Contextual perspective on wives' distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 404412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.404Google Scholar
Dagan, M., & Hagedoorn, M. (2014). Response rates in studies of couples coping with cancer: A systematic review. Health Psychology, 33, 845852. doi:10.1037/hea0000013Google Scholar
Falconier, M.K., Nussbeck, F., Bodenmann, G., Schneider, H., & Bradbury, T. (2015). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intradyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well-being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41, 221235. doi:10.1111/jmft.12073Google Scholar
Geiss, S.K., & O'Leary, K.D. (1981). Therapist ratings of frequency and severity of marital problems: Implications for research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 515520. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01407.xGoogle Scholar
Gordon, A.M., & Chen, S. (2013). The role of sleep in interpersonal conflict: Do sleepless nights mean worse fights? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 168175. doi:10.1177/1948550613488952Google Scholar
Hinnen, C., Hagedoorn, M., Ranchor, A.V., & Sanderman, R. (2008). Relationship satisfaction in women: A longitudinal case-control study about the role of breast cancer, personal assertiveness, and partners' relationship-focused coping. British Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 737754.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis in R — A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicator. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(7), 112.Google Scholar
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 5360.Google Scholar
Imazu, Y., Murakami, M., Kobayashi, M., Matsuno, T., Shiihara, Y., Ishihara, K., … Kodama, M. (2006). The development of Public Health Research Foundation Stress Check List Short Form : Reliability and validity study. Japanese Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, 46, 301308. (In Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
Jackson, G.L., Trail, T.E., Kennedy, D.P., Williamson, H.C., Bradbury, T.N., & Karney, B.R. (2016). The salience and severity of relationship problems among low-income couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 211. doi:10.1037/fam0000158Google Scholar
Kramer, U., Ceschi, G., Van der Linden, M., & Bodenmann, G. (2005). Individual and dyadic coping strategies in the aftermath of a traumatic experience. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 241248. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.64.4.241Google Scholar
Kurosawa, T. (2018a, March). Development of the Japanese Version of the Multidimensional Stress Questionnaire for Couples: Internal stressors and external stressors. Poster presentation at the Annual Meeting for the Japan Society of Developmental Psychology, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.Google Scholar
Kurosawa, T. (2018b, August). What predicts the experience of unfaithfulness in Japanese couples? Poster presentation at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Kurosawa, T., Kato, M., & Kamiya, T. (2015). Relationship-focused coping patterns of Japanese child-rearing couples. Journal of Relationships Research, e6. doi:10.1017/jrr.2015.3Google Scholar
Merz, C.A., Meuwly, N., Randall, A.K., & Bodenmann, G. (2014). Engaging in dyadic coping: Buffering the impact of everyday stress on prospective relationship satisfaction. Family Science, 5, 3037. doi:10.1080/19424620.2014.927385Google Scholar
Namikawa, T., Tani, I., Wakita, T., Kumagai, R., Nakane, A., & Noguchi, H. (2012). Development of a short form of the Japanese Big-Five Scale, and a test of its reliability and validity. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 83, 9199. doi:10.4992/jjpsy.83.9 1. (In Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. (2018). Demographic yearbook. Marriage rate and Divorce rate in principal countries. Retrieved from http://www.ipss.go.jp/syoushika/tohkei/Popular/Popular2018.asp?chap=6&title1=%87Y%81D%8C%8B%8D%A5%81E%97%A3%8D%A5%81E%94z%8B%F4%8A%D6%8CW%95%CA%90l%8C%FB (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Neff, L.A., & Karney, B.R. (2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134148. doi:10.1177/0146167203255984Google Scholar
Randall, A.K., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 96106. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010Google Scholar
Schumm, W.R., Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R.C., Obiorah, F.C., Copeland, J.M., Meens, L.D., & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381387. doi:10.2307/352405Google Scholar
Shimizu, H. (2016). An introduction to the statistical free software HAD: Suggestions to improve teaching, learning and practice data analysis. Journal of Media, Information and Communication, 1, 5973. (In Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Randall, A.K., Groyecka, A., Frackowiak, T., Cantarero, K., Hilpert, P., … Sorokowska, A. (2017). Marital satisfaction, sex, age, marriage duration, religion, number of children, economic status, education, and collectivistic values: Data from 33 countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01199Google Scholar
Sugawara, M., & Takuma, N. (1997). Assessment of marital intimacy: A review of self- rating scales. Archives of Psychiatric Diagnostics and Clinical Evaluation, 8, 155166. (In Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
Talbot, J.A., & McHale, J.P. (2004). Individual parental adjustment moderates the relationship between marital and coparenting quality. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 191205. doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000035627.26870.f8Google Scholar
Tamura, T., & Lau, A. (1992). Connectedness versus separateness: Applicability of family therapy to Japanese families. Family Process, 31, 319340. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1992.00319.xGoogle Scholar
Topp, C.W., Ostergaard, S.D., Sondergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84, 167176. doi:10.1159/000376585Google Scholar
Totenhagen, C.J., Randall, A.K., Cooper, A.N., Tao, C., & Walsh, K.J. (2016). Stress spillover and crossover in same-sex couples: Concurrent and lagged daily effects. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 13, 236256. doi:10.1080/1550428x.2016.1203273Google Scholar
Whisman, M.A. (2001). Marital adjustment and outcome following treatments for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 125129. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.69.1.125Google Scholar
Xu, H., & Tracey, T.J.G. (2017). Use of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in examining measurement invariance in counseling psychology research. The European Journal of Counselling Psychology, 6, 7582. doi:10.5964/ejcop.v5i2.120Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kurosawa and Yokotani supplementary material

Kurosawa and Yokotani supplementary material 1

Download Kurosawa and Yokotani supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 232.1 KB