Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:45:45.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of the Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS) for a Brazilian Sample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

Roosevelt Vilar ,
Rafaella de C. R. Araujo ,
Gabriel Lins de H. Coelho ,
Alex S. M. Grangeiro  and
Valdiney V. Gouveia
Roosevelt Vilar*
Affiliation:
Massey University (New Zealand)
Rafaella de C. R. Araujo
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal da Paraíba (Brazil)
Gabriel Lins de H. Coelho
Affiliation:
Cardiff University (Wales)
Alex S. M. Grangeiro
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal da Paraíba (Brazil)
Valdiney V. Gouveia
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal da Paraíba (Brazil)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Roosevelt Vilar. Massey University. School of Psychology. Auckland (New Zealand). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present research brings psychometric evidences for the Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS), aiming at verifying its adequacy for use in the Brazilian context. Participants were 468 university students with mean age of 21.2 years. They completed a survey composed by the URCS, the Basic Values Survey (BSV), and demographic questions. Through Exploratory (Eigenvalue = 6.61) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFI = .937, TLI = .923), the results showed that the same one-factor structure from the original version of the scale was found. These results were also invariant across gender and relationship status (∆SRMR < .03), and presented evidences of internal consistence (α = .94), temporal stability (ICC = .903, p < .001), and convergent validity (rmale = .32, rfemale = .25, p < .001). In conclusion, this measure has shown to be psychometrically adequate for use in Brazil.

Keywords

attachmentclosenessrelationshiptest validity
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 20 , 2017 , E19
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2017 

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

Afifi, T. D., & Schrodt, P. (2003). “Feeling caught” as a mediator of adolescents’ and young adults’ avoidance and satisfaction with their parents in divorced and non-divorced households. Communication Monographs, 70, 142–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000133791 Google Scholar
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996). Self and self-expansion in relationships. In Fletcher, G. & Fitness, J. (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 325–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792 Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In Hoyle, R. H. (Orgs.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (361–379). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 Google Scholar
Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24, 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026265 Google Scholar
Gouveia, V. V. (2013). Funcional teoria dos valores humanos: Fundamentos, aplicações e perspectivas [Functional theory of human values: Fundaments, applications and perspectives]. São Paulo, Brazil: Casa do Psicólogo.Google Scholar
Gouveia, V. V., Milfont, T. L., & Guerra, V. M. (2014). Functional theory of human values: Testing its content and structure hypotheses. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.012 Google Scholar
Gouveia, V. V., Milfont, T. L., Vione, K. C., & Santos, W. S. (2015). Guiding actions and expressing needs: On the psychological functions of values. Psykhe, 24, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.24.2.884 Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications. London, UK: Guilford.Google Scholar
Hair, J. R., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Houke, J., & Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae, 30, 87–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1 Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., … Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 386–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236 Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). Factor 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT Models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 497–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621613487794 Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U., Timmerman, M. E., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2011). The hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 340–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527 Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. M. (1985). Behavior of lovers: Measuring the closeness of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407585022007 Google Scholar
Milfont, T. L., Gouveia, V. V., & Costa, J. B. (2006). Determinantes psicológicos da intenção de constituir família [Psychological determinants of the willingness to constitute family]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 19(1), 25–33.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, A., Assmar, E. M. L., & Jablonski, B. (2013). Psicologia Social [Social Psychology]. (29th Ed.). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitment. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (2009). Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Walker, A. J., & Thompson, L. (1983). Intimacy and intergenerational aid and contact among mothers and daughters. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 841–849. https://doi.org/10.2307/351796 Google Scholar