Current Psychology

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 570–582 | Cite as

Dyadic Coping in the U.S.: Psychometric Properties and Validity for Use of the English Version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory

  • Ashley K. RandallEmail author
  • Peter Hilpert
  • Laura E. Jimenez-Arista
  • Kelsey J. Walsh
  • Guy Bodenmann


A majority of individuals living in the U.S. experience unhealthy levels of stress; however, romantic partners can help mitigate stress’ deleterious effects by coping together (dyadic coping). The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) measures coping behaviors when one or both partners experience stress. Specifically, the DCI measures a) partner’s self-report of his/her own (Self) and their partner’s (Partner) behavior, and b) Common DC during the experience of a common stressor. Despite its wide use, the DCI has not yet been validated for use in the United States (U.S.). The aim of this study was to address this gap in the literature. Using a sample of 938 individuals in the U.S. currently involved in a romantic relationship, we validated the English version of the DCI by analyzing its factorial structure and psychometric properties. Results supported the theoretically assumed factorial structure of the DCI. Convergent and discriminant validity, as well as measurement invariance across gender and culture using the original Swiss sample, was confirmed. The English version of the DCI is a valid self-report instrument for assessing couples' coping in the U.S.


Dyadic coping Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI) Psychometric properties Stress Couples 


  1. American Psychological Association (2013). Stress in America [Press release]. Retrieved from
  2. Austin, J. L., & Falconier, M. K. (2013). Spirituality and common dyadic coping: Protective factors from psychological aggression in Latino immigrant couples. Journal of Family Issues, 34(3), 323–345. doi: 10.1177/0192513X12452252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badr, H., Carmack, C. L., Kashy, D. A., Cristofanilli, M., & Revenson, T. A. (2010). Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychology, 29(2), 169–180. doi: 10.1037/a0018165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, C. A., & Upchurch, R. (2007). A developmental contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 920–954. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 34–49.Google Scholar
  6. Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping - a systemic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 137–140.Google Scholar
  7. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significant for marital functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–50). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches Coping Inventar (DCI). Test manual [Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI). Test manual]. Bern, Göttingen: Huber &Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  9. Bodenmann, G., & Randall, A. K. (2011). Common factors in the enhancement of dyadic coping. Behavior Therapy, 43, 88–98. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.04.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET): A new approach to prevention of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations, 53, 477–484. doi: 10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00056.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485–493. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 407–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bodenmann G., Plancherel B., Beach S. R., Widmer K., Gabriel, B., Meuwly, N., … & Schramm, E. (2008). Effects of coping-oriented couples therapy on depression: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 944–54. doi:  10.1037/a0013467.
  14. Bodenmann, G., Meuwly, N., & Kayser, K. (2011). Two conceptualizations of dyadic coping and their potential for predicting relationship quality and individual wellbeing. European Psychologist, 16, 255–266. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  16. Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, F. M., & Li, T. S. (2007). Marital enqing: An examination of its relationship to spousal contributions, sacrifices, and family stress in Chinese marriages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 393–412. doi: 10.3200/SOCP. 147.4.393-412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Coyne, J. C., & Downey, G. (1991). Social factors and psychopathology: Stress, social support, and coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 401–425. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.42.1.401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dohrenwend, S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1974). Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Donato, S., Iafrate, R. D., Bertoni, A., Bodenmann, G., & Gagliardi, S. (2009). Measuring dyadic coping: The factorial structure of Bodenmann’s “Dyadic Coping Questionnaire” in an Italian sample. TPM- Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16, 25–47. Retrieved from Scholar
  22. Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Dyadic coping in Latino couples: Validity of the Spanish version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(4), 447–466. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2012.699045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Falconier, M. K., Nussbeck, F., Bodenmann, G., Schneider, H., & Bradbury, T. N. (2014). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intra-dyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well-being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, advanced online publication.Google Scholar
  24. Heinrichs, N., Zimmerman, T., Huber, B., Herschbach, P., Russell, D. W., & Baucom, D. H. (2011). Cancer distress reduction with a couple-based skills training: a randomized controlled trial. Annual Behavioral Medicine, 43(2), 239–252. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9314-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142. doi: 10.1177/0265407598151009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herzberg, P. Y. (2013). Coping in relationships: The interplay between individual and dyadic coping and their effects on relationship satisfaction. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 26, 136–153. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2012.655726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). Gender and coping: The dual-axis model of coping. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 49–82. doi: 10.1007/BF02506817.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kayser, K., Watson, L. E., & Andrade, J. T. (2007). Cancer as a “we-disease”: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Families, Systems and Health, 25(4), 404–418. doi: 10.1037/1091-7527.25.4.404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Landis, M., Peter-Wight, M., Martin, M., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Dyadic coping and marital satisfaction of older spouses in long-term marriage. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(1), 39–47. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000077.Google Scholar
  32. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Gagliardi, S., Charvoz, L., Verardi, S., Rossier, J., … Iafrate, R. (2010). Psychometrics of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in three language groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology/SchweizerischeZeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 69(4), 201–212. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000024
  34. Levesque, C., Lafontaine, M. F., Caron, A., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2014). Validation of the English version of the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 215–225. doi: 10.1177/0748175614522272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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, 30–37. doi: 10.1080/19424620.2014.927385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meuwly, N., Bodenmann, G., Germann, J., Bradbury, T. N., Ditzen, B., & Heinrichs, M. (2012). Dyadic coping, insecure attachment, and cortisol stress recovery following experimentally induced stress. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 937–947. doi: 10.1037/a0030356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Meuwly, N., Feinstein, B. A., Davila, J., Nunenz, D. G., & Bodenmann, G. (2013). Relationship quality among Swiss women in opposite-sex versus same-sex romantic relationships. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72(4), 229–234. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (version 7.11) [Computer Software]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  39. Papp, L. M., & Witt, N. L. (2010). Romantic partners’ individual coping strategies and dyadic doping: Implications for relationship functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 551–559. doi: 10.1037/a0020836.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL
  41. Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 105–115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Randall, A. K., Bodenmann, G., Molgora, S., & Margola, D. (2010). The benefit of stress and coping research in couples for couple therapy. In F. Angeli (Ed.), Close relationships and community psychology: An international psychological perspective(p. 169–186). Milan: Catholic University.Google Scholar
  43. Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital interaction: The roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 651–659. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.57.4.651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Revenson, T., Kayser, K., & Bodenmann, G. (Eds.). (2005). Emerging perspectives on couples’ coping with stress. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  45. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Retrieved from Scholar
  46. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
  47. Schnider, K. R., Elhai, J. D., & Gray, M. J. (2007). Coping style use predicts posttraumatic stress and complicated grief symptom severity among college students reporting a traumatic loss. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 344–350. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz, S. J., Benet-Martinez, V., Knight, G. P., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., Des Rosiers, S. E., … & Szapocznik, J. (2014). Effects of language on assessment on the measurement of acculturation: Measurement equivalence and cultural frame switching. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 100–114. doi:  10.1037/a0034717
  49. Totenhagen, C. J., Serido, J., Curran, M. A., & Butler, E. A. (2012). Daily hassles and uplifts: A diary study on understanding relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 719–728. doi: 10.1037/a0029628.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vedes, A., Nussbeck, F. W., Bodenmann, G., Lind, W., & Ferreira, A. (2013). Psychometric properties and validity of the Dyadic Coping Inventory in Portuguese. Swiss Journal of Psychology/SchweizerischeZeitschriftfürPsychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 72(3), 149–157. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weaver, K. M. (2014). An investigation of gay male, lesbian, and transgender dyadic coping in romantic relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Spalding University).Google Scholar
  53. Zimmerman, T., Herschbach, P., Wessarges, M., & Heinrichs, N. (2011). Fear of progression in partners of chronically ill patients. Behavioral Medicine, 37(3), 95–104. doi: 10.1080/08964289.2011.605399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashley K. Randall
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Hilpert
    • 2
  • Laura E. Jimenez-Arista
    • 1
  • Kelsey J. Walsh
    • 1
  • Guy Bodenmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Counseling and Counseling PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral ScienceUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations