89 (SD = 2.27); 4.94 (SD = 2.97), one another groups different ranging from six months and you will eleven many years of matchmaking; eight.76 (SD = 4.01), anywhere between several and you will 19 age; and you may (SD = 4.82), ranging from lower than a-year and you may 31 many years. 8%) and you will stayed which have loved ones, while you are people managing the lovers had been generally performing someone (69.2%), at which 53% had school or postgraduate values. Of the authoritative partnership users, 67% got school or post-scholar amounts, of which 89.8% was basically functioning, 2% retired and you may 8.2% underemployed. The working condition towards the married players are comparable: 89.5% was indeed doing work, dos.9% had been retired and 6.3% have been underemployed, and step 1.3% referred other a position position. In this classification, 62.5% of players got college or postgraduate level.
Dating Top quality, selected to verify conditions legitimacy, are counted into Matchmaking Get Setting–Changed (RRF-R; Davis, 1996, adapt
The content displayed try obtained within the perspective off bigger browse plans, hence consisted of a detailed sociodemographic and you will dating analysis, and also other balances from inside the range regarding intimate dating.
Individual connection is examined according to Portuguese variation (Table step one) of one’s quicker kind of the Time and effort Size (Stanley, 1986), that was translated with respect to the following the translation and retroversion procedures: once permission gotten because of the copywriter, the initial scale was translated because of the a couple specialists in the field, both these translations were exposed to retroversion from the one or two professionals, that bilingual and something experienced in the utilization of brand new English language; in the end, for each and every adaptation is actually compared to brand spanking new measure, opting for the application of this new terms and conditions and you will circumstances having deeper distance so you’re able to they. This new Portuguese adaptation hence consisted of this new fourteen unique activities and an identical answer scale and was entitled, just after deliberation of the people, the personal Commitment Size (‘Escala de- Compromisso Pessoal’–ECP). Towards the latest phase of the translation processes, the brand new software was given to 3 participants towards the goal of verifying the brand new adequateness of your own words together with unambiguous knowledge of those things, that happen to be discussed eris prices to your members after applying of the fresh new survey. Because there was basically zero statements stating or even, what exactly remained an identical.
According to the full time of the relationship, the typical, in many years, for the some other statuses demonstrated try, 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.