Adaptation of the Couples Satisfaction Index into Russian

  • Ilya A. OkhotnikovEmail author
  • Nathan D. Wood
Original Paper


The commonly used double translation method fails to provide evidence for cross-cultural equivalence of instruments used in multicultural research thus increasing measurement error-variance. This study exemplified the rigorous acculturation steps needed to negate this cross-cultural error-variance by verifying cultural appropriateness and psychometric equivalence between the instruments. Through application of a cutting-edge adaptation methodology, we created a Russian version of the 16-item Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk and Rogge in J Fam Psychol 21:572–583, 2007) that is semantically, idiomatically, experientially, conceptually, and linguistically equivalent to the original scale. Next, using the data from 406 Russian-speaking respondents, we employed parallel and exploratory factor analyses to explore the factorial structure of the adapted version subsequently named CSI-16(Russian). Internal reliability and convergent validity with another measure used frequently in Russian scholarship were high. Additionally, results suggested that couples’ satisfaction—when assessed as a unidimensional phenomenon—is similar across the two cultures in spite of linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences between the cultures. The CSI-16(Russian) can be used in comparative cross-cultural studies with sufficient assurance of high convergent linguistic reliability and psychometric similarity with the original CSI scale.


Couples satisfaction Cross-cultural Eastern European families Measurement Psychometrics Russian families 



  1. Aivazova, D. G. (2014). Meтoдичecкиe вoзмoжнocти иccлeдoвaния yдoвлeтвopeннocти бpaчными oтнoшeниями [Methodical opportunities for marital relationship satisfaction research]. Cибиpcкий Пcиxoлoгичecкий Жypнaл, 51, 148–155.Google Scholar
  2. Aleshina, Y. E. (1985). Удoвлeтвopeннocть бpaкoм и мeжличнocтнoe вocпpиятиe в cyпpyжecкиx пapax c paзличным cтaжeм coвмecтнoй жизни [Satisfaction with marriage and interpersonal perception in married couples with various length of joint life] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Moscow: Moscow State University.Google Scholar
  3. Aleshina, Y. E., Gozman, L. Y., & Dubrovskaya, E. M. (1987). Coциaльнo-пcиxoлoгичecкиe мeтoды иccлeдoвaния cyпpyжecкиx oтнoшeний [Socio-psychological methods for marital relationship research]. Moscow: Moscow State University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1269–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well-being across three generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 191–206. Scholar
  6. Amato, P. R., & Kane, J. B. (2011). Parents’ marital distress, divorce, and remarriage: Links with daughters’ early family formation transitions. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1073–1103. Scholar
  7. Antonov, A. I. (1998). Mикpocoциoлoгия ceмьи (мeтoдoлoгия иccлeдoвaния cтpyктyp и пpoцeccoв): Учeбнoe пocoбиe для вyзoв [Microsociology of the family (methodology of research of structures and processes). Textbook for universities]. Retrieved from
  8. Antonov, A. I., & Medkov, V. M. (1996). Coциoлoгия ceмьи [Sociology of family]. Retrieved from
  9. Atkins, D. C., & Baucom, B. R. (2016). 11 Emerging methodological and statistical techniques in couple research. In P. Nathan, K. Sullivan, & E. Lawrence (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of relationship science and couple interventions (pp. 148–163). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bachand, L. L., & Caron, S. L. (2001). Ties that bind: A qualitative study of happy long-term marriages. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23, 105–121. Scholar
  11. Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (Eds.). (2001). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed.). Wisconsin, WI: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  12. Barrett, A. E., & Turner, R. J. (2005). Family structure and mental health: The mediating effects of socioeconomic status, family process, and social stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 156–169. Scholar
  13. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186–3191. Scholar
  14. Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 22, 423–432. Scholar
  15. Brown, B., Moore, K., Bzostek, S., & Trends, C. (2003). A portrait of well-being in early adulthood: A report to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Washington, DC: Child Trends.Google Scholar
  16. Bryant, C. M., & Conger, R. D. (2002). An intergenerational model of romantic relationship development. In A. Vangelisti, H. Reiss, & M. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 57–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Byrne, B. M., Oakland, T., Leong, F. T., van de Vijver, F. J., Hambleton, R. K., Cheung, F. M., et al. (2009). A critical analysis of cross-cultural research and testing practices: Implications for improved education and training in psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 94–105. Scholar
  18. Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 743–761. Scholar
  19. Cho, S. J., Wilmer, J., Herzmann, G., McGugin, R. W., Fiset, D., Van Gulick, A. E., et al. (2015). Item response theory analyses of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). Psychological Assessment, 27, 552–556. Scholar
  20. Coontz, S. (2007). The origins of modern divorce. Family Process, 46, 7–16. Scholar
  21. Cubbins, L. A., & Vannoy, D. (2005). Socioeconomic resources, gender traditionalism, and wife abuse in urban Russian couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 37–52. Scholar
  22. Egorova, O. V. (2009). Фeнoмeн yдoвлeтвopeннocти бpaкoм: Ocнoвныe нaпpaвлeния иccлeдoвaний [Phenomenon of marriage satisfaction: Main research directions]. Пcиxoлoгичecкиe Иccлeдoвaния. Retrieved from
  23. Elkonin, D. B. (1989). Избpaнныe пcиxoлoгичecкиe тpyды [Selected psychological works]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Retrieved from
  24. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. Scholar
  25. Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. Scholar
  26. Funk, N., & Mueller, M. (Eds.). (2018). Gender politics and post-communism: Reflections from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Glenn, N. D. (1998). The course of marital success and failure in five American 10-year marriage cohorts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 569–576. Scholar
  28. Golod, S. I., & Romanenkova, G. M. (1984). Cтaбильнocть ceмьи: Coциoлoгичecкий и дeмoгpaфичecкий acпeкты [Stability of family: Sociological and demographic aspects]. Leningrad: The Science.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, J. M., Diebels, K. J., & Barnow, Z. B. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 39–48. Scholar
  30. Grover, K. J., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Russell, C. S., & Schumm, W. R. (1984). The Kansas marital satisfaction scale: A further brief report. Psychological Reports, 54, 629–630. Scholar
  31. Gudmundsson, E. (2009). Guidelines for translating and adapting psychological instruments. Nordic Psychology, 61, 29–45. Scholar
  32. Hambleton, R. K. (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-national studies (Evaluative/Feasibility Report No. ED 358 128). Retrieved from
  33. Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–244.Google Scholar
  34. Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205. Scholar
  36. Heene, E., Buysse, A., & Van Oost, P. (2007). An interpersonal perspective on depression: The role of marital adjustment, conflict communication, attributions, and attachment within a clinical sample. Family Process, 46, 499–514. Scholar
  37. Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142. Scholar
  38. Heyman, R. E., Sayers, S. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1994). Global marital satisfaction vs. marital adjustment: Construct validity and psychometric properties of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 432–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. Scholar
  40. Hughes, M. E., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 344–358. Scholar
  41. Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 721–733. Scholar
  42. IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM.Google Scholar
  43. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. Scholar
  44. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092. Scholar
  45. Kisselev, P., Brown, M. A., & Brown, J. D. (2010). Gender differences in language acculturation predict marital satisfaction: A dyadic analysis of Russian-speaking immigrant couples in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 767–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Larson, J. H., Blick, R. W., Jackson, J. B., & Holman, T. B. (2010). Partner traits that predict relationship satisfaction for neurotic individuals in premarital relationships. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 36, 430–444. Scholar
  47. Lewis, M., Lamson, A., & Leseuer, B. (2012). Health dynamics of military and veteran couples: A biopsychorelational overview. Contemporary Family Therapy, 34, 259–276. Scholar
  48. Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lynch, M. F., La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). On being yourself in different cultures: Ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 290–304. Scholar
  50. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99. Scholar
  51. Mattson, R. E., Rogge, R. D., Johnson, M. D., Davidson, E. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). The positive and negative semantic dimensions of relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20, 328–355. Scholar
  52. Merenda, P. F. (2005). Cross-cultural adaptation. In R. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 321–342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Myung, I. J., & Pitt, M. A. (1998). Issues in selecting mathematical models of cognition. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 327–355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Novikova, S. S. (2006). Иcтopия paзвития coциoлoгии в Poccии [History of sociology development in Russia]. Retrieved from
  56. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402. Scholar
  57. Olinsky, A., Chen, S., & Harlow, L. (2003). The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling. European Journal of Operational Research, 151, 53–79. Scholar
  58. Preacher, K. J., Zhang, G., Kim, C., & Mels, G. (2013). Choosing the optimal number of factors in exploratory factor analysis: A model selection perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 28–56. Scholar
  59. Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is infidelity a cause or a consequence of poor marital quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 217–230. Scholar
  60. Pronevskaya, I. V. (2010). Фaмилиcтичecкиe иccлeдoвaния: Кoличecтвeнный и кaчecтвeнный пoдxoды [Familistic research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches]. Coциoлoгия и Пoлитoлoгия. Becтник MГУ, 4, 151–163.Google Scholar
  61. Raizberg, B. A., Lozovsky, L. S., & Starodubtseva, E. B. (Eds.). (2007). Coвpeмeнный экoнoмичecкий cлoвapь [Contemporary economic dictionary]. (5th ed.) Moscow: Infra-M.Google Scholar
  62. Rohmann, E., Führer, A., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2016). Relationship satisfaction across European cultures: The role of love styles. Cross-Cultural Research, 50, 178–211. Scholar
  63. Sanford, K., & Wolfe, K. L. (2013). What married couples want from each other during conflicts: An investigation of underlying concerns. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 674–699. Scholar
  64. Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1–10. Scholar
  65. Slocum-Gori, S. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research, 102, 443–461. Scholar
  66. Stolin, V. V. (1987). Пcиxoлoгичecкиe ocнoвы ceмeйнoй тepaпии [Psychological foundations for family therapy]. Boпpocы Пcиxoлoгии, 404, 105–116.Google Scholar
  67. Sweeney, M. M. (2007). Stepfather families and the emotional well-being of adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 33–49. Scholar
  68. Sychev, O. A. (2016). Pyccкoязычнaя вepcия шкaлы oцeнки oтнoшeний [Russian version of Relationship Assessment Scale]. Пcиxoлoгия. Жypнaл Bыcшeй шкoлы экoнoмики [Psychology. Journal of the Highest School of Economy], 13(2), 386–409.Google Scholar
  69. Sysenko, V. A. (1981). Уcтoйчивocть бpaкa: Пpoблeмы, фaктopы, ycлoвия [Stability of marriage: Issues, factors, conditions]. Moscow: Finances and Statistics Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Urbano-Contreras, A., Iglesias-García, M. T., & Martínez-González, R. A. (2017). Development and validation of the Satisfaction in couple relationship scale (SCR). Contemporary Family Therapy, 39, 54–61. Scholar
  71. Ustinova, O. V. (2014). Deformation of values system as a reason of demographic crisis in Russia. Life Science Journal, 11(8s), 465–468.Google Scholar
  72. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Item response theory: Brief history, common models, and extensions. In W. van der Linden & R. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 1–28). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Voren, R. (ed.). (2013). Psychiatry as a tool for coercion in post-soviet countries. European Union Policy Department, 1–25.
  74. Volkov, A. (2014). Избpaнныe дeмoгpaфичecкиe тpyды [Selected demographic works]. Moscow: HSE Publishing House.Google Scholar
  75. Volkova, A. N. (1990). Пpaктикyм пo экcпepимeнтaльнoй и пpиклaднoй пcиxoлoгии [Practicum in experimental and applied psychology]. Leningrad, USSR: Retrieved from
  76. Volkova, A. N., & Trapeznikova, T. M. (1985). Meтoдичecкиe пpиeмы диaгнocтики cyпpyжecкиx oтнoшeний [Teaching methods for diagnosis of marital relations]. Boпpocы Пcиxoлoгии, 5, 110–116.Google Scholar
  77. Williams, K., & Umberson, D. (2004). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: A gendered life course perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 81–98. Scholar
  78. Wood, N. D., Gnonhossou, D. A., & Bowling, J. W. (2015). Combining parallel and exploratory factor analysis in identifying relationship scales in secondary data. Marriage and Family Review, 51, 385–395. Scholar
  79. Yasnitsky, A. (2015). Cтaлинcкaя мoдeль нayки: Иcтopия и coвpeмeннocть poccийcкoй пcиxoлoгии [Stalin’s model of science: History and present-day of Russian psychology]. PEM: Psychology Educology. Medicine, 3–4, 407–423.Google Scholar
  80. Zakharov, S. V. (2015). Бpaчнocть и бpaчнoe cocтoяниe [Marriage and marital condition]. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McNeese State UniversityLake CharlesUSA
  2. 2.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations